Jump to content
The Education Forum
Greg Burnham

John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

Recommended Posts

Look, isn't it a given that just about everyone in the JFK research community strongly suspects that McAdams is probably and simply a disinformation agent?

Many times over the past 5 years when I do web searches with the entry of JFK assassination key words, McAdams' site links pop up at the very top of the page!  That tells me that someone behind McAdams is manipulating the hit numbers to push his blogs and writings to the first ( and usually most read ) web listings.

Book sales are also an area of manipulation.  Some well financed groups or individuals buy up tens of thousands of copies themselves of books that promote their self-interested agendas.  I always suspected something like this with Bill O'Reilly's JFK tome.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you recall earlier, DVP did his usual puzzled expression about me accusing him of being in communication with McAdams, and Reitzes about who would debate Rossley on Anton Batey's radio show.  Which I figured he would do.

Let me explain how I come across such information.  Years ago, when I was naive enough to actually debate DVP on a regular basis, many lurkers used to enjoy watching DVP get clobbered on a regular basis.  They came to dislike DVP so much that I got a whole platoon of informants all over the web.  One of them witnessed the discussion mentioned above.  After DVP went into his automatic "denial mode"  I emailed this acquaintance.  I will list the brief discussion below, leaving his name out of course.

My email was headlined "DVP, Reitzes and McAdams".  I then asked the following.

"Do you recall sending me that conversation between them about who would debate Rossley on Batey's show?"

This was the reply.

"Sorry Jim.  It's long gone.  I've upgraded computer/hard drives twice since then."

But he recalled the conversation and sending it to me.  Which proves it happened.  In fact, he also named a fourth party to them that I forgot.

Now, as per the whole Carlier, Reitzes and DVP attempt to first, sign up, and then attack me on this forum many years ago, consider the following.

At the time I joined, neither Reitzes nor DVP was on, since Davey Boy had been kicked off for his usual belligerent comments.  (Which also got him kicked out of Lancer.)  When I noted that it was funny that they had signed on and joined with Francis Carlier, who was already on but not very active, in order to go after me, someone else wrote words to the effect:  I don't think that was  coincidence Jim.  They are afraid of you.

It later turned out that once i joined, DVP begged John SImkin to let him back on and had to agree to certain behavior modifications to be allowed back on.  But there was another problem to their  scheming.  Len Osanic had challenged them to debate me on BOR and they both, along with Gary Mack, had said no.  So they felt that they had to make up an excuse as to why they would confront me here, but not directly in open debate.  They came up with something really silly.  They both said they would debate me if  a contribution to a charitable cause of their was made.  And it was no small amount either.  It was in the four figures.

So when DVP writes that somehow what I said about this was nothing more than a fevered dream, that is more of his bunk.  He is, well, prevaricating.  He did both things and is now trying to hide his tracks about them.  Which tells us reams about the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James DiEugenio said:

It later turned out that once i joined, DVP begged John Simkin to let him back on and had to agree to certain behavior modifications to be allowed back on.  But there was another problem to their  scheming.  Len Osanic had challenged them to debate me on BOR and they both, along with Gary Mack, had said no.  So they felt that they had to make up an excuse as to why they would confront me here, but not directly in open debate.  They came up with something really silly.  They both said they would debate me if  a contribution to a charitable cause of their was made.  And it was no small amount either.  It was in the four figures.

Jim,

WTF??? Are you actually implying that I was part of that "charitable cause" business? From your post above, it sure sounds like you're saying you think I was involved in that "charity" stipulation. And if you are suggesting that, you are dead wrong. I never EVER said any such thing regarding any "charitable cause". Maybe some other LNer said that, but I certainly wasn't any part of it.

And regarding this comment from your "acquaintance"....

"Sorry Jim. It's long gone. I've upgraded computer/hard drives twice since then."

....It sounds as if you must be talking about some private conversation that I supposedly had with McAdams and Reitzes, which I certainly do not recall at all. Was it supposedly a 3-way e-mail discussion of some kind that your "acquaintance" got ahold of and then it was lost when he changed hard drives? Because if your source was talking about ANY conversation I have had with McAdams on the INTERNET, well, that type of discussion would never be "long gone" at all. It would still be there on the Web via McAdams' aaj forum (which is the only place I've ever talked with McAdams, except for a few brief e-mails). All aaj newsgroup posts are archived FOREVER. All it takes is a search of this aaj site and you'll find stuff going back to 1994. So if that's what your source means, then it's not long gone at all. It's still there.

I'll admit, my memory is not as good as it used to be, but I have absolutely NO memory at all of any of the conversations you are saying I engaged in. If you can dig up the Internet discussions to prove me wrong, please do. I'd love to see them. But I sure don't recall them. And you definitely have me confused with another LNer regarding that "charitable cause" thing, because that is something I would never have said or done in the first place.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get the thread back on topic, Pat Speer wrote an insightful article on McAdams.  I also vaguely recall somewhere (it may even be on Speer's website) where at one point on McAdams's site or whatever it is, some CIA recruitment ads would pop up on it. They weren't there because JM put them there but they were filtered onto it based on keywords and so forth.

http://www.patspeer.com/the-gospel-according-to-john-mcadams

As Bauer says above, that's always been my impression of JM - he has always existed to debunk CTers' claims, to push the official narrative front and center, all with a healthy dose of assholery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a good review of his book, if that is what you want to call it.

We had, I think, three others at Kennedysandking.com.

McAdams has always been nothing but an obstruction, with the manners of a wild rhino.  The worst was when he did that Paul Nolan impersonation in cahoots with a writer on the City Paper beat to discredit the JFK conference in Washington they just so happened to attend and meet up at.  Matt Labash was a veteran rightwing hatchet man who Gary Aguilar later cornered on the phone afterwards.

The problem was that there really was a Paul Nolan from McAdams' area, and he was pretty angry when he heard McAdams was using his name to disguise his acthal identity for the literary charade.

If you want to see how bad McAdams behavior was at Marquette, read the Dean's report, which detailed some of the stunts he pulled on students and faculty.  I spent thirty years in education, and I had never seen such a  record before.  This is why Abbate would have had such a strong case if the worst would have happened.  Because her attorney would have argued negligence on the matter of Marquette's administration i.e. McAdams should have been suspended with a future agreement on his behavior long before.  I do not know how Marquette attorneys could have gotten around that.  Since they detail it themselves in this paper.  That would have made for large punitive damages. 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested in the long version of this, here is an article I wrote before the court proceeding.

https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/john-mcadams-and-marquette-go-to-court

It has links to both the Dean's report and the faculty committee report.  Both, but especially the latter, list McAdams' prior jihad campaigns against students and faculty members.  At the end I describe the law tim that defended him , and who he had lined up  well before the interview with Dean Holz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/08/2017 at 6:00 PM, David Von Pein said:

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

On this forum, stating facts does go against the grain somewhat, and is bound to ruffle a few feathers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

The Nutter's are wearin' out, after all these years. Hang in there, Guys!

Another edifying post from David. That's 3,266 at this moment in time. I wonder how many words they could all be reduced to, without suffering any loss of information.

About five or six, I reckon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could be a lone nutter

My peace of mind would be utter

Devoid of conspiracy clutter

Worried only about bread and butter

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 1:17 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Many times over the past 5 years when I do web searches with the entry of JFK assassination key words, McAdams' site links pop up at the very top of the page!  That tells me that someone behind McAdams is manipulating the hit numbers to push his blogs and writings to the first ( and usually most read ) web listings.

Yes, it's called SEO. And his site has been on the Internet since the 90s, which makes a difference-more sites linking to his site.

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

×
×
  • Create New...