John McAdams

[Thomas Graves]

For example, he points out that there is no such thing as a "left-handed" scope for a rifle.

Comments?

This was only one example.

--Thomas

aka "Tommy O'Pepper"

Edited July 20, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Pat Speer]

Absolutely brilliant.

Or how about his saying that Markham really was not such a screwball since Tippit may have been moving his lips after he was shot.

When in fact, Tippit died instantly.

The thing about McAdams is that he actually uses stuff people post at alt.conspiracy as information. Which is crazy. Since that forum is peopled with the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers.

It would be a serious mistake to underestimate McAdams, or any other prominent LN, for that matter. Like the Warren Commission, they are right about an awful lot. There IS a lot of crud in CT-land.

Their flaw, to my observation, is that they refuse to recognize the crud in their own backyard.

From patspeer.com chapter 19:

The Re-invention of Lying

In September 2010, I gained further insight into Professor McAdams' mindset. I had noted on the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup the repeated claims of many LNTs that Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Oliver Stone are liars. I pointed out that I considered this a double-standard, as these same LNTs were not remotely interested in the evidence Dr. Lattimer, Gerald Posner, and Vincent Bugliosi are liars. McAdams then defended this particular LN obsession by insisting that Lane, Garrison, and Stone really were liars. He posted a link to his webpage, in which he discussed a number of inaccuracies in Jim Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins. He claimed that by making so many errors, which inevitably exaggerated either the case against Clay Shaw or Garrison's role in the investigation and trial of Shaw, Garrison had revealed himself to be a xxxx. I then pointed out that, by McAdams' own definition, Dr. Baden was also a xxxx, as his books and television appearances have included a number of errors, which inevitably exaggerate both the case against Oswald and his--Dr. Baden's--role in demonstrating Oswald's guilt.

But I couldn't get McAdams to agree with this. It was clear as day--what's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc. But McAdams wouldn't budge.

And then finally, on September 19, 2010, he explained why he felt Baden was not a xxxx, and confirmed my worst suspicions. He wrote

"If somebody misstates a strong case against Oswald, we would have to assume he's mistaken and/or confused. If you don't *need* to lie to find Oswald guilty, it's not plausible to believe somebody did."

He then further excused Baden's persistent mis-statements and exaggerations by repeating

"People don't lie when the truth serves their purposes just as well. He should have checked things out. The fact that he didn't actually shows he was not lying. People who are lying usually calculate carefully what lies they are going to tell (at least if not caught off guard). If he actually sat down to write thinking "I'm going to lie about this," he would check the HSCA material to see what lies he could tell and possibly get away with. But if he checked the HSCA, he would find he didn't need to lie."

Well, great googley moogley! Here was the author of a book entitled JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy telling me that, to his way of thinking, those who invent their own facts about the Kennedy assassination are not liars, as long as they claim Oswald acted alone...since those claiming Oswald acted alone do not "need" to lie!!!

What utter horsecrap!

And what a blatant double-standard! Does McAdams really believe Jim Garrison's lazy research and/or convenient memory proves him to be a xxxx, while, at the same time, Dr. Baden's lazy research and/or convenient memory proves him not to be a xxxx? I mean, to use McAdams' logic, if Garrison's lies had only been as SLOPPY as Baden's lies, we would have reason to believe he wasn't actually lying.

But wait, it gets worse. To a related question, as to whether people with bad memories who make things up can be called liars, or if those telling untruths have to KNOW what they say is untrue before they can be called a xxxx, McAdams later added:

"They have to *know* it's untrue before they can be called a xxxx."

He, of course, had never demonstrated that Garrison had "known" any of his inaccuracies were untrue! He had concluded that Garrison had misrepresented events and facts that he should have known were incorrect, and had concluded from this that Garrison had knowingly lied. And I had offered the same case against Baden. At which time, McAdams attempted to preserve the illusion of Baden's and the HSCA's integrity by claiming that someone with such disregard for the truth that they refuse to read or memorize their own reports before going on TV and babbling on about something for which they are supposedly an expert can not be considered a xxxx if they did not "need" to lie, i.e. if their original report was something he--McAdams-- had personally agreed with.

He had thereby re-defined the word "xxxx", which can be used to designate those who tell falsehoods whether they know them false or not, to suit his own needs. Garrison was a xxxx, whether or not he knew what he said was untrue, but Baden was not a xxxx, as he may not have known he was lying.

This erodes any claims McAdams may make to cognitive superiority, IMO. Rather than questioning Baden's and the HSCA panel's conclusions because Baden had revealed himself to be a lazy researcher who preferred to make stuff up, McAdams had insinuated that Baden's and the HSCA panel's conclusions were BEYOND DISPUTE, and that, therefore, Baden's subsequent failures as a researcher and story-teller were irrelevant.

[Don Jeffries]

It's amazing to me that, more than 40 years after the first critical works analyzing the official story were published, anyone continues to entertain the notion that Oswald may indeed have been the assassin of JFK. The lone nut thesis was demolished all those decades ago, by private citizens who took the time to sift through the morass of mostly meaningless exhibits and testimony. We know for a fact that:

- FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover orchestrated a huge coverup, perhaps best exemplified by Harold Weisberg's discovery that so many FBI documents had been purposefully mimeographed repeatedly, in order to diminish their clarity. Consider all that Weisberg and other researchers had to go through (and still have to go through) in order to unearth even a single document from our government. Innocent, honest government officials don't make access to information that difficult to obtain.

- The lone assassin thesis DOES rest on the SBT, and it is impossible. The condition of CE399 alone proves this. The Warren Commission published photos of identical test ammunition, fired into substances like cotton and a goat carcas. One can look at the bullets fired into anything other than cottom, and see how damaged they were, compared to the nearly pristine condition of CE399. When coupled with the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat, which match precisely the location "mistakenly" marked by Boswell on the original autopsy face sheet, and the location where Burkley placed it on the death certificate, not to mention Sibert & O'Neill's report, we can be certain that there is absolutely no question the back wound was far too low to have exited from the throat. Case closed.

- The majority of eyewitnesses, even those in the TSBD itself, described the shots as coming from the front (knoll/ railroad tracks). Photos immediately after the assassination reveal all attention was directed there, with spectators and police racing up the grassy knoll, while the TSBD was entirely ignored. Coupled with the testimony of all the doctors and nurses at Parkland, describing a massive hole in the back of JFK's head, the violent backward motion of JFK's head in the Zapruder film (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it's unaltered), and the initial reports that the throat wound was one of entrance, and we have pretty strong indications that shots were fired from the front, where Oswald never was.

- While attention has been drawn in recent years, from Gary Mack and numerous LNers and even some CTers, to the supposed mistakes and irresponsibility of various critics, the most irresponsible critic imaginable cannot touch the mistakes and distortions in the Warren Report. Consider:

- They printed up only a small number of the 26 volumes of Hearings & Exhibits, forced the public to buy all 26 together and priced them so exhorbitantly that very, very few Americans were able to afford them. They further limited the ability of researchers to study the record by arranging the data in such a haphazard way that it was, in the words of Sylvia Meagher, "tantamount to a search for information in the Encylopedia Britannica if the contents were untitled, unalphabetized, and in random sequence." As Mark Lane and others pointed out early on, many if not most of the "concusions" in the Warren Report are directly contradicted by, or entirely unrelated to, the evidence cited as evidence for them in the Hearings & Exhibits. An honest government wouldn't do that. A real investigation wouldn't do that.

- The WC failed to even identify crucial witnesses who were some of the closest eyewitnesses to the assassination. Two of them were of tremendous interest to critics- the Umbrella Man and the Babushka Lady. There is no indication that the astute investigators on the WC staff even attempted to locate and interview these witnesses, or obtain the obviously important Babushka Lady's film. They also failed to call extremely critical witnesses to testify, such as Admiral Burkley, who was in the motorcade, at Parkland, on Air Force One, at Bethesda, and was JFK's personal physician. Meanwhile, they did somehow locate and interview Viola Peterman, who had been the infant Lee Harvey Oswald's babysitter and hadn't seen the Oswalds for many years. Needless to say, innocent investigators don't do that. Honest government officials searching for the truth would want the most important witnesses, and wouldn't waste time on irrelevant people who were witnesses to nothing. They also wouldn't overtly pad the record, as can be seen by reading most any sample testimony in the Hearings & Exhibits, by asking pointless, rambling questions about the history and background of witnesses, yet also fail to ask pertinent ones.

I could go on and on, but I would expect any regular poster on this forum to know this stuff. It isn't incumbent upon us to identify individual assassins in order to point out the impossibility of the official story. Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963. We ought to be asking ourselves why nearly everyone in a position of authority, from all elected politicians to all mainstream journalists to all establishment historians, continue to chant the lone assassin mantra so passionately, nearly fifty years after the crime. Why is there such a complete consensus on this issue among those in authority, when the overwhelming number of average people reject it just as completely?

We ought to concentrate on the impossibility of the lone nut story, not be forced into constructing theories that we can't possibly prove. At least we can force history to acknowledge that there was a conspiracy.

[Glenn Viklund]

I will say this for all to hear:

Today, with what we have from the ARRB, to say that Oswald did it is to be the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier.

In my view, an absurd statement. The evidence of the Holocaust taking place are overwhelming and provable. Not a question of interpretation or lack of facts. The holocaust is, furthermore, zero-dependant of [non-provable] lies to be considered a well established fact among a vast majority of historians, researchers or the broader public. While there certainly are many questions about the WC and around what really happened to JFK, the facts are in no way comparable to those constituting evidence of the Holocaust.

Today, not only can we show just how bad the WC was, but we can show how the conspiracy actually worked.

To give you one example of how bad the WC was: in 19,000 pages and 26 volumes, where is the name of David Phillips?

Edited June 30, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[David G. Healy]

Absolutely brilliant.

Or how about his saying that Markham really was not such a screwball since Tippit may have been moving his lips after he was shot.

When in fact, Tippit died instantly.

The thing about McAdams is that he actually uses stuff people post at alt.conspiracy as information. Which is crazy. Since that forum is peopled with the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers.

mcadams board is alt.assassination.jfk (the lone nut bastion on the USENET), .john fled from alt.conspiracy.jfk in 1997 or 1998 -- Your info is a bit askew Jim, there are no holocaust deniers posting on ACJ. Least not to my knowledge, that's after 12 years of involvement...

[Thomas Graves]

It would be a serious mistake to underestimate McAdams, or any other prominent LN, for that matter. Like the Warren Commission, they are right about an awful lot. There IS a lot of crud in CT-land.

Couldn't agree withyou more, Pat. I think we need people like McAdams around to help us separate the wheat from the chaff.

--Thomas

Edited June 30, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Glenn Viklund]

Jim,

My, my, I really don't see any reason to go through the roof here.

Here's what you said:

"I will say this for all to hear:

"Today, with what we have from the ARRB, to say that Oswald did it is to be the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier."

So tell me Jim, where and when did the ARRB declare Oswald innocent? If that's so, then I'm wrong and you have my apologies.

Let's start with this, OK?

[David G. Healy]

It would be a serious mistake to underestimate McAdams, or any other prominent LN, for that matter. Like the Warren Commission, they are right about an awful lot. There IS a lot of crud in CT-land.

Couldn't agree withyou more, Pat. I think we need people like McAdams around to help us separate the wheat from the chaff.

--Thomas

unfortunately, for the WHO's and the WHY's of the case -- Well, .john types clutter up the place and leave much to be desired...

Edited June 30, 2011 by David G. Healy

[Glenn Viklund]

See my above Glenn.

Again, you do not know of what you speak.

The ARRB was not another HSCA or WC.

It was meant to declassify everything on this case. That is it.

Did it do that? No, as I mentioned above, not really.

But it declassified enough that we now know that both of the above were dog and pony shows.

I mean anyone who reads the declassified record would know that. Which you have not.

Now, how many of those sources I listed about the WC have you read?

Of course I know what the ARRB was set up to do. The point of my question, Jim, is that Oswalds innocence is a question of your conclusions of those documents released, (in whatever batch such documents were released).

What you are doing is

(1) Making Oswalds guilt a question of how much I or anyone else have read. If enough, then the only one conclusion is that he was innocent? Really?

(2) Which is what I'm primarily objecting to about your original statement - making all those who disagrees with your conclusions equals to a rather miníscule group of crackpots who denies that the Holocaust took place. That, Jim, is absurd.

I stand by what I first said, the evidence about the Holocaust are not comparable to those related to the JFK-assassination. They are far superior those available in the JFK case and leaves no room for interpretation.

Furthermore, please don't put words in my mouth - I've never defended the WC report, here or elsewhere. Period. You seem to take offence in the fact that I have a lot of questions about various conspiracy theories or factoids allegedly supporting bits and píeces of conspiracy theories. FYI, I have a lot of questions about the LN theory as well, but perhaps you are unaware of this as this forum almost exclusively consists of CT folks.

I'm also a member of McAdams forum and have no problems with that whatsoever. I follow those discussions just as I follow the discussions here on Edu.

And I'll certainly give you this - you have surely read much more than I have about the JFK-case. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of those who seem to have read just about everything there is, but still ended up at completely outlandish conclusions. Just have a look at the JVB discussions. So that, by itself, doesn't mean much. It's how the information is evaluated and interpreted which is important.

[Thomas Graves]

See my above Glenn.

Again, you do not know of what you speak.

The ARRB was not another HSCA or WC.

It was meant to declassify everything on this case. That is it.

Did it do that? No, as I mentioned above, not really.

But it declassified enough that we now know that both of the above were dog and pony shows.

I mean anyone who reads the declassified record would know that. Which you have not.

Now, how many of those sources I listed about the WC have you read?

Of course I know what the ARRB was set up to do. The point of my question, Jim, is that Oswalds innocence is a question of your conclusions of those documents released, (in whatever batch such documents were released).

What you are doing is

(1) Making Oswalds guilt a question of how much I or anyone else have read. If enough, then the only one conclusion is that he was innocent? Really?

(2) Which is what I'm primarily objecting to about your original statement - making all those who disagrees with your conclusions equals to a rather miníscule group of crackpots who denies that the Holocaust took place. That, Jim, is absurd.

I stand by what I first said, the evidence about the Holocaust are not comparable to those related to the JFK-assassination. They are far superior those available in the JFK case and leaves no room for interpretation.

Furthermore, please don't put words in my mouth - I've never defended the WC report, here or elsewhere. Period. You seem to take offence in the fact that I have a lot of questions about various conspiracy theories or factoids allegedly supporting bits and píeces of conspiracy theories. FYI, I have a lot of questions about the LN theory as well, but perhaps you are unaware of this as this forum almost exclusively consists of CT folks.

I'm also a member of McAdams forum and have no problems with that whatsoever. I follow those discussions just as I follow the discussions here on Edu.

And I'll certainly give you this - you have surely read much more than I have about the JFK-case. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of those who seem to have read just about everything there is, but still ended up at completely outlandish conclusions. Just have a look at the JVB discussions. So that, by itself, doesn't mean much. It's how the information is evaluated and interpreted which is important.

Jimbo keeps harping on how much he's read compared to those who disagree with him, but it seems to me that the problem with a lot of CTers and True Believers is that they believe everything they read...

--Thomas

[Thomas Graves]

See my above Glenn.

Again, you do not know of what you speak.

The ARRB was not another HSCA or WC.

It was meant to declassify everything on this case. That is it.

Did it do that? No, as I mentioned above, not really.

But it declassified enough that we now know that both of the above were dog and pony shows.

I mean anyone who reads the declassified record would know that. Which you have not.

Now, how many of those sources I listed about the WC have you read?

Of course I know what the ARRB was set up to do. The point of my question, Jim, is that Oswalds innocence is a question of your conclusions of those documents released, (in whatever batch such documents were released).

What you are doing is

(1) Making Oswalds guilt a question of how much I or anyone else have read. If enough, then the only one conclusion is that he was innocent? Really?

(2) Which is what I'm primarily objecting to about your original statement - making all those who disagrees with your conclusions equals to a rather miníscule group of crackpots who denies that the Holocaust took place. That, Jim, is absurd.

I stand by what I first said, the evidence about the Holocaust are not comparable to those related to the JFK-assassination. They are far superior those available in the JFK case and leaves no room for interpretation.

Furthermore, please don't put words in my mouth - I've never defended the WC report, here or elsewhere. Period. You seem to take offence in the fact that I have a lot of questions about various conspiracy theories or factoids allegedly supporting bits and píeces of conspiracy theories. FYI, I have a lot of questions about the LN theory as well, but perhaps you are unaware of this as this forum almost exclusively consists of CT folks.

I'm also a member of McAdams forum and have no problems with that whatsoever. I follow those discussions just as I follow the discussions here on Edu.

And I'll certainly give you this - you have surely read much more than I have about the JFK-case. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of those who seem to have read just about everything there is, but still ended up at completely outlandish conclusions. Just have a look at the JVB discussions. So that, by itself, doesn't mean much. It's how the information is evaluated and interpreted which is important.

Jimbo keeps harping on how much he's read compared to those who disagree with him, but it seems to me that the problem with a lot of CTers and True Believers is that they believe everything they read...

--Thomas

bump

[Glenn Viklund]

The above is just piffle.

When are you going to answer my question about how many of those WC documents and books you read?

Never?

No investigative panel led by a guy who was afraid of unleashing thermonuclear war was going to investigate the JFK case.

Especially since the guys who designed the plot planted that threat even weeks beforehand.

OK.

Now go hangout at McAdams' forum and argue the SBT.

Sorry to see you behave so ridiculous, Jim. I wonder why it is that almost all discussions on this forum tends to get personal?

But that's your choice.

[Glenn Viklund]

To Viklund's latest:

I am trying to have a fact based debate.

I asked you a question many posts ago.

You have yet to answer it.

Nothing personal.

PS: To Graves, no need to bump. I will bump all day. I have the facts on my side.

Being degraded from 'Glennie' to Viklund - now that's got to be personal?

[David G. Healy]

To Viklund's latest:

I am trying to have a fact based debate.

I asked you a question many posts ago.

You have yet to answer it.

Nothing personal.

PS: To Graves, no need to bump. I will bump all day. I have the facts on my side.

Being degraded from 'Glennie' to Viklund - now that's got to be personal?

better than head cheerleader for Judyth

[Kathleen Collins]

John McAdams takes an incident in or around John Kennedy's life and says it's true and expounds on it without true facts.

Greg Parker solved the Oxnard Call incident, which had Penn Jones saying that actress daughter of Irv Kupcinet, who was murdered, had foreknowledge of the Assassination. And that she made an hysterical call, person to person, that didn't go through right.

To this McAdams made up names to go with the story. The names of employees of the telephone company who heard the call, including the supervisor, are not the names uncovered later by Parker.

Karyn Kupcinet's murder has never been solved. Some even believe she wasn't murdered and possibly committed suicide. But it is odd for a female committing suicide in the nude, with her bathrobe thrown over a chair. A possible accidental overdose? No one knows. Except, of course, McAdams.

Kathy C

Edited July 1, 2011 by Kathleen Collins