Jump to content
The Education Forum
Greg Burnham

John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

Recommended Posts

James DiEugenio said:

[Regarding] DVP's latest carnival barking, please give us all a break[,] will you?

Reprise....

Wooooosh!!!

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will someone please tell the Carnival Barker that this thread is about John McAdams, his harassment of Cheryl Abbate, his dismissal at Marquette by two administrative hearings, and his recent court case which ruled against him

I would not want to comment on that either if I was him because it shows the kinds of people he cavorts with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Will someone please tell the Carnival Barker [DVP] that this thread is about John McAdams, his harassment of Cheryl Abbate, his dismissal at Marquette by two administrative hearings, and his recent court case which ruled against him[.]

I would not want to comment on that either if I was him because it shows the kinds of people he cavorts with.

I haven't closely followed any of the controversy surrounding John McAdams and his Marquette problems. I don't care about it at all.

As for my "cavorting" with Professor McAdams, you Jimmy don't have any idea what you're talking about. You think that just because I agree with McAdams about the JFK case, that must mean I know him very well and am "cavorting" with him on a regular basis. Is that it? Well, think again Jimbo. I've never met the man and I've never "cavorted" with him. And I rarely speak with him directly on the Internet either. I've had a few conversations with him over the years on his aaj forum, but nothing more than that. And, in fact, there was a little bit of friction between us a few months ago [see forum excerpt below]. So if you're under the impression that I'm buddy-buddy with Prof. McAdams, you're way off the beam (as usual).

From May 2017....

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other fifties liberals.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left" with you, John? It's ridiculous, IMO. And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?

I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!

I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.

-----------------------------------------------

Complete Discussion:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/cmr70eNfq9c/vPuuklIdAwAJ

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

So you, he, and Reitzes never talked about an appearance on Anton Batey's radio show for a debate?

Never.

Here's what I said in 2011....

Quote

"I'm guessing that Jim DiEugenio probably thinks that Anton Batey, John McAdams, and myself are long-time friends and buddies. And Jimbo likely also thinks that the three of us get together on a regular basis to "plot" against the conspiracy theorists of the world.

That is the same mindset that DiEugenio possesses with respect to any connection that I have to LNers like McAdams, Dave Reitzes, and Francois Carlier too. And nothing could be further from the truth. But I'll bet that DiEugenio would be more than willing to call me a [L-word] if I told him that my "connection" to Mr. Anton Batey is virtually non-existent.

I cannot speak for Professor McAdams and his contact with Mr. Batey, of course, but as far as myself personally, I have shared a very few e-mails with Mr. Batey (the last of which had nothing to do with the JFK assassination at all), and in 2009 I talked with him a few times at the IMDB JFK forum." -- DVP; February 2011

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Reitzes+McAdams+Anton+Batey+Debate

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI: This debate was at a time that preceded efficient web streaming. So this is the only portion that was able to be preserved as there were extremely long gaps in it due to buffering, etc. I wish I had the rest of it, but alas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ON AUGUST 21, 2009, TOM ROSSLEY ASKED:

Does anyone know where I can get an audio copy of the debate between Greg Burnham & John McAdams?

JOHN McADAMS REPLIED:

I'm afraid the buff who broadcast that edited it sharply before posting it. You probably will find it impossible to get the original, unedited version.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Xs7MI7e9rmk/XyowEI0xtAQJ

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

"Of course, all CTers enjoy trashing Dr. [Vincent] Guinn's analysis and his HSCA
testimony, as the conspiracists consider Guinn's 1978 analysis to be
completely outdated. But what I'd like to know is this:

Just exactly how likely (odds-wise) is it that Dr. Vincent P. Guinn
would testify to the effect that TWO specific bullets (that both very
likely came from the barrel of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, via
Guinn's NAA results) were the only two bullets that can be linked to
any of the ballistics samples in the John Kennedy murder case....and
yet still NOT have Oswald's Carcano doing all of the damage to the
victims on November 22nd, 1963?

Even via 1970s-era NAA technology, what are the odds that Guinn's data
would end up revealing the likelihood that ONLY BULLETS FROM OSWALD'S
RIFLE STRUCK ANY VICTIMS ON 11/22/63?

My guess is this -- The odds of that type of scientific evidence
favoring the likelihood that only Oswald's gun was involved in the
assassination, and somehow having that data being totally FALSE, must
be fairly low indeed.

In addition (and probably even more important on the "common sense"
and "sheer luck" scales):

What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took
place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from MORE THAN ONE GUN striking
the victims in JFK's limousine on Elm Street....and yet, after the
bullets stopped flying and the missiles and fragments were examined,
NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-C2766 gun turned out to
be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Lee
Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the source for ALL of the
bullets and fragments that hit any victims on Elm Street?

Would anybody be willing to take those incredibly low odds to Vegas?" -- DVP; Circa 2006

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html

 

David,

I think the same kind of logic can be applied to the Dictabelt evidence.

What are the odds that two groups of leading acoustics experts would find 3 shots from the Book Depository and one from the grassy knoll if what they were working with was really nothing but random noise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

What are the odds that two groups of leading acoustics experts would find 3 shots from the Book Depository and one from the grassy knoll if what they were working with was really nothing but random noise?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/jfk-acoustics-charles-rader-interview.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathias:

I appreciate you wanting to neutralize DVP's carnival barker act, but please pay attention to the title of the thread. 

The CB has a past history of doing this kind of thing, completely heisting a thread and then he says, well it wasn't all my fault.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was I the first person to write a post in this thread devoted to "NAA"?

Answer: No.

Who was?

Answer: Sandy Larsen.

And who was the first person to mention "NAA" in this thread?

Answer: Jimmy DiEugenio.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mathias:

I appreciate you wanting to neutralize DVP's carnival barker act, but please pay attention to the title of the thread. 

The CB has a past history of doing this kind of thing, completely heisting a thread and then he says, well it wasn't all my fault.

 

DVP says:

"Was I the first person to write a post in this thread devoted to "NAA"?

Answer: No.

Who was?

Answer: Sandy Larsen.

And who was the first person to mention "NAA" in this thread?

Answer: Jimmy DiEugenio."

-------------

LoL, boy did you get right Jim. DVP went and did exactly what you said he would do. That is perfect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Clark said:

LoL, boy did you get right Jim. DVP went and did exactly what you said he would do. That is perfect!

I merely stated the facts. What's wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Was I the first person to write a post in this thread devoted to "NAA"?

Answer: No.

Who was?

Answer: Sandy Larsen.


Hey David,

I was responding to Paul Baker's derogatory remark against Jim D. regarding NAA. Somebody has to respond to something like that. My response was 100% correct and truthful, so there was no need for you to respond to my post.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey David,

I was responding to Paul Baker's derogatory remark against Jim D. regarding NAA. Somebody has to respond to something like that. My response was 100% correct and truthful, so there was no need for you to respond to my post.

True. I guess there was technically no "need" to respond, but I felt the response was appropriate after your post, in order to provide the "common sense" aspect of the argument concerning the bullets and fragments that exist in the JFK case.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×