The Disinformation of John Mcadams

[John Geraghty]

I find it quite shameful the work John Mcadams has done on his website, mis-quoting people, using credible researchers work to prove his theories and then criticising them on another page. It is all quite convenient that anytime a search is made for 'jfk' or 'assassination' the Mcadams site is one of the first to appear, it is sites like these that undo a lot of good work when people who have just heard rumours of a cover-up and want to do their own research into it and are thrown off the scent by a piece of garbage such as that site. I especially think that Mcadams is a hypocrite who laughs off the idea of conspiracy and calls everyone who believes in it 'buffs' while he accuses district attorney jim garrison of using mind control techniques, who is the real crackpot?

shame on you Mr. Mcadams

john

[Paul Kerrigan]

I wouldn't call John McAdams a crackpot. Although I don't agree with most of his claims, I am in agreement with him on Roscoe White affair, the claims of Robert Murrow, the D.C. phone blackout, and the claims of L. Fletcher Prouty. And he does have some interesting photographs that are assassination related. But I do think he does offer some mistaken and outdated information.

[Wim Dankbaar]

I would not be so sure about Roscoe White, untill the FBI produces the ORIGINAL diary they took.

Wim

[Wim Dankbaar]

I get emails like this all the time:

----- Original Message -----

From:

To: info@jfkmurdersolved.com

Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 6:43 AM

Subject: Crap!!

People like Gerald Posner and John Macadams belong in the trash with all the other idiots who are still trying to pass off this lone gunman crap!!

sincerely,

[Tony Frank]

I saw this McAdams guy's website yeaterday and he is a jerk. I think he's got an inferiority cpmplex (a need to feel superior to other people). He amplifies the people who really do sound like wackos and fabricates lies about legitimate people.

[Jack White]

I wouldn't call John McAdams a crackpot.  Although I don't agree with most of his claims, I am in agreement with him on Roscoe White affair, the claims of Robert Murrow, the D.C. phone blackout, and the claims of L. Fletcher Prouty.  And he does have some interesting photographs that are assassination related.  But I do think he does offer some mistaken and outdated information.

Mr. Thirdeye...you have revealed yourself as a Posnerite. Anybody who disagrees with Fletcher Prouty is uninformed, in my opinion. Defending McAdams is defending the CIA.

Roscoe White had SOME involvement in 11-22, we just don't know for sure what it was.

Robert Morrow books contain some good and some bad information. Whether or not he was a disinformation agent is not known, but if McAdams is against him, that gives him more credibility.

Jack White

[Dr. Gregg Wager]

Besides Posner and McAdams, there is a fellow named Dave Reitzes who has spent a lot of time debunking the Oliver Stone movie at http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html. I spent an afternoon going through his points and it's hard to imagine what his motives are.

[Tony Frank]

As for McAdams being against Robert Morrow, it should not give Morrow credibility in any way, especially if he was a disinformation agent. Maybe that's the main reason why McAdams is against him; to give him credibility.

[Paul Kerrigan]

I wouldn't call John McAdams a crackpot.  Although I don't agree with most of his claims, I am in agreement with him on Roscoe White affair, the claims of Robert Murrow, the D.C. phone blackout, and the claims of L. Fletcher Prouty.  And he does have some interesting photographs that are assassination related.  But I do think he does offer some mistaken and outdated information.

Mr. Thirdeye...you have revealed yourself as a Posnerite.

Anybody who disagrees with Fletcher Prouty is uninformed,

in my opinion. Defending McAdams is defending the CIA.

Roscoe White had SOME involvement in 11-22, we just

don't know for sure what it was.

Robert Morrow books contain some good and some bad

information. Whether or not he was a disinformation agent

is not known, but if McAdams is against him, that gives him

more credibility.

Jack White

Why? Because I disagree with some conspiracy arguments I am a defender of the lone-assasin viewpoint? You make it seem that McAdams is some disinformation agent for the CIA. He is not. Althought I disagree with the majority of his conclusions, I believe he has done away with many false conspiracy arguments that have been around for far too long.

[John Simkin]

Why?  Because I disagree with some conspiracy arguments I am a defender of the lone-assasin viewpoint?  You make it seem that McAdams is some disinformation agent for the CIA.  He is not.  Althought I disagree with the majority of his conclusions, I believe he has done away with many false conspiracy arguments that have been around for far too long.

There is no doubt that John McAdams plays a prominent role in the a search on the web for material on the assassination of John F. Kennedy you are likely to soon arrive on his website. True, he appears to believe in the lone-gunman theory. However, he mainly concentrates his attacks on the more outlandish theories concerning the JFK assassination. It could be argued that he is in fact doing serious researchers a favour by critically analysing these accounts. I have yet to see him try to this to people like Larry Hancock. Of course, he cannot, because Larry always provides evidence for his statements. My main criticism of McAdams is what he does not include on his website.

See also his links page. He is willing to publicize websites that take a pro-conspiracy view of the assassination.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bestof.htm

[Wim Dankbaar]

"See also his links page. He is willing to publicize websites that take a pro-conspiracy view of the assassination. "

Yeah, but that is standard procedure for disonformationalists to uphold the veil of of objectivity. That's how you get information too. David Atlee Philips was a master in this tactic. It's probably how he setup Oswald as the patsy.

Epstein, Mack, Mcadams, Perry, all these characters claim for the record they are are not anti-conspiracy, yet they never offer their opinions on who was involved in the conspiracy. Epstein is the most transparent of them all. He always comes back with a statement like: Yes the Warren Commission did a sloppy job, but in the end it does not really matter, they still came with the correct conclusion. He also says this in the documentary "The Warren Commission".

Yet some people still have it stuck in their mind that treacherous lying Epstein is a respectable researcher and author. His lies are so easy to expose that he is wise enough not to participate here or anywhere else.

Wim

Edited June 29, 2004 by dankbaar

[Jack White]

Why?  Because I disagree with some conspiracy arguments I am a defender of the lone-assasin viewpoint?  You make it seem that McAdams is some disinformation agent for the CIA.  He is not.  Althought I disagree with the majority of his conclusions, I believe he has done away with many false conspiracy arguments that have been around for far too long.

There is no doubt that John McAdams plays a prominent role in the a search on the web for material on the assassination of John F. Kennedy you are likely to soon arrive on his website. True, he appears to believe in the lone-gunman theory. However, he mainly concentrates his attacks on the more outlandish theories concerning the JFK assassination. It could be argued that he is in fact doing serious researchers a favour by critically analysing these accounts. I have yet to see him try to this to people like Larry Hancock. Of course, he cannot, because Larry always provides evidence for his statements. My main criticism of McAdams is what he does not include on his website.

See also his links page. He is willing to publicize websites that take a pro-conspiracy view of the assassination.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bestof.htm

McAdams pays to be listed first on search engines, according to Rich DellaRosa (who has had similar offers). Ask yourself, WHAT FINANCIAL SOURCE SUPPORTS a poor college professor to create an elaborate non-educational website and pay to have it listed?

On top of that, his university has found it necessary at times to reprimand him for his excesses. He features writings by questionable agents of disinformation. His specialty is superficial "debunking" of important information concerning Roscoe White, Jean Hill, Lee Bowers, Madeleine Brown, etc. His website, though apparently from Marquette, apparently is not sponsored by the school nor related to his area of study and teaching.

Marquette University is operated by the Jesuit Order, which has notorious ties to the CIA.

Jack

[John Simkin]

McAdams pays to be listed first on search engines, according to Rich DellaRosa (who has had similar offers). Ask yourself, WHAT FINANCIAL SOURCE SUPPORTS a poor college professor to create an elaborate non-educational website and pay to have it listed?

When a company pays a search-engine to list its site on the first page it has to show this is some way. For example, Google places them on the right of the screen in a border.

One of the reasons that John McAdams website always appears first in all Google searches is because his website is the top ranking site in the dmoz directory (one of the most important factors in deciding the ranking system at Google). McAdams is the category editor of this site and places his own website at the top. However, you can see he does not use his position (as many do) to keep other good sites off the list. If you look down the list you will find it includes a large number of websites that support the conspiracy view: Assassination Science, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site, History Matters, Fair Play, JFK Lancer, etc. My own JFK website was added within a few days of it being submitted.

The only conspiracy is that McAdams knows how second generation search-engine rankings work. He therefore gives plenty of links to related websites. As a result of this a lot of websites link to him, further increasing his ranking.

http://dmoz.org/Society/History/By_Region/.../Assassination/

[Jack White]

When a company pays a search-engine to list its site on the first page it has to show this is some way. For example, Google places them on the right of the screen in a border.

One of the reasons that John McAdams website always appears first in all Google searches is because his website is the top ranking site in the dmoz directory (one of the most important factors in deciding the ranking system at Google). McAdams is the category editor of this site and places his own website at the top. However, you can see he does not use his position (as many do) to keep other good sites off the list. If you look down the list you will find it includes a large number of websites that support the conspiracy view: Assassination Science, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site, History Matters, Fair Play, JFK Lancer, etc. My own JFK website was added within a few days of it being submitted.

The only conspiracy is that McAdams knows how second generation search-engine rankings work. He therefore gives plenty of links to related websites. As a result of this a lot of websites link to him, further increasing his ranking.

http://dmoz.org/Society/History/By_Region/.../Assassination/

Thanks for the information, which sounds authentic. This is contrary to information furnished by Rich, who told of being solicited by search engines to have a high listing, with costs determined by number of hits.

"Paid" listings are usually set apart at the top, in my observation. My impression was that order is supposed to be determined by number of hits and chronology, not by a person. Timeliness generates hits, so timely subjects rise to the top. If McAdams is able to move his own site to the top, something is wrong with the system. That implies popularity, importance and timeliness... which is untrue.

McAdams clearly is more interested in debunking than in JFK research. I have seen NO research attributed to him.

Jack

[John Simkin]

The web is where the current battle for ideas is taking place. Knowing how search-engines work is vitally important. Second-generation search engines, influenced by the success of Google, are fair (how long this will remain true is another matter).

The most important factor is the number of websites that are linked to your website (described as peer group approval). Further details on links to your website can be found here:

http://www.marketleap.com/publinkpop/default.htm

The domain name is also very important. For example, www.JFKassassination.com is bound to score high. You also get a lot of points for the amount of external and internal links on a page. The naming of the page is also important. You must use the words that you expect will be typed into a search engine. A direct match will ensure a fairly high ranking.

Using this system I have managed to get top ranking for most of the key witnesses, suspects, investigators, etc., involved in the assassination of JFK. I have been helped by this by John McAdams when he placed my JFK site in second place (below his own) on the dmoz directory. As he clearly knows how the system works, and knows that I believe that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy, I think it shows he is not as bad as people say he is.

However, he still refuses to join the forum and debate these issues. Others who share his views have also declined to post (though some are members).

By the way, I have discovered that Google conspires against some political websites. Type in “Ku Klux Klan” and see what happens. If the normal rules were followed the official website should come up first. This has really upset the supporters of the Ku Klux Klan. This is especially true of the school system in Texas. They are very unhappy with my account of the KKK.