Jump to content
The Education Forum

James DiEugenio

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About James DiEugenio

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

28,106 profile views
  1. The thing is, what people like Uscinski do is a way to get your ticket punched in the academic world. QAnon has been the icing on the cake.
  2. Take a look at who this guy is and what he does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Uscinski Can TP be serious with this approach?
  3. This whole issue about the critics not being able to present a unified concept of what really happened to JFK is used by the other side a lot. People like Dan Rather for example. I have never been able to understand the basis for it. It took about four years to expose the evidence chasms within the WR. But it was done not by the MSM--who never read the volumes. But by private citizens who did: Lane, Meagher, Weisberg for example. It then took another 30 years to get the documents declassified. Again, not by the MSM. But by a man who was bitterly attacked by the MSM, Oliver
  4. It is the following passage that caused the friction TP complains about: Brilliant man who fought misinformation and stood up for what he believed in. He said he would win the lawsuit against Marquette and he did. Simply an irreplaceable loss for the LN community-God bless him and his family. The last thing I would call McAdams would be brilliant. He fought "misinformation"? Hmm He won the lawsuit for two reasons, neither having anything to do with him or the merits of the case: 1.) He had a Koch sponsored law firm to handle it for him 2.) The Wisconsin Supreme
  5. IMO, Mike Chesser is doing the best work there is on the Kennedy autopsy today.
  6. Richard that is unbelievable. In the memo that I have there is no qualification to it. Kohn says that Shaw is identical to Bertrand. Then there is a second source in the memo, who has a digraph code, who says the same thing. Then in the memo, the FBI has printed the name Bertrand under the first paragraph dealing with Shaw's arrest. In the real world, Litwin would be laughed out of court.
  7. The reason McAdams was exposed at the conference was because people recognized him from photos on the web. And when they approached him he could not deny it.
  8. Fred Litwin did not debunk anything I ever wrote about New Orleans. And I took 50 pages of analysis to show why. I mean how stupid can one be to say that Garrison was looking for Bertrand/Shaw in 1963!!! Before the WR was even published . Somehow Parnell missed that. Or how about this: Litwin never mentions that, after Kennedy was killed, Ferrie was trying to seek out and secure evidence linking him with Oswald in the summer of 1963. He did this three times between 11/22 and 11/27!! And the FBI knew of at least one of them. Which would have given them the famous CAP photo.
  9. To this day, I think this is one of the best articles we ever posted. And it explains why Wikipedia is so bad on the JFK case. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/will-the-real-wikipedia-please-stand-up
  10. As both John Simkin and Len Osanic have shown, the reason McAdams site gets more hits is because of Wikipedia. Gamamiel is one of the most active Wiki supervisors and he is a WC zealot. Len used to argue with him concerning Prouty. Len eventually got kicked off the back talk pages. Concerning McAdams, in those pages, he tried to say that Probe magazine was not a credible source, which is why we are never quoted in the JFK case. As I have shown, his site is really a model of disinfo. Wikipedia refers to it since Wiki has now become the web version of the NY TImes on the JFK case.
  11. Is this like your tribute to Fred Litwin? Then don't bother.
  12. You mean when I called him out for making stuff up, which he had done. He was so upset about that, that he actually called me and started yelling at me incoherently. it got so bad I ended up hanging up on him.
  13. Can you imagine the lawsuit Marquette would have faced if Abbate had been hurt or killed? IMO, it would have been in the tens of millions. Because this was not the first run in McAdams had in his attack on what he perceived as campus Political Correctness. When I was writing about the case, I noted that Marquette should have disciplined McAdams earlier and did not. This is why the Dean, in his original report, recommended terminating him, because of this recurrent pattern of behavior. That decision was overturned when the faculty committee heard the case and only voted for a nine mo
  14. The first is Martin Schotz. The second is Kissinger.
  15. This is what happened. McAdams went to a JFK conference, in as I recall, DC. At that same conference, there was a journalist there who was going to do a hit piece on the critics. And he later admitted that is what he went there for. He happened to meet up with a guy who was calling himself Patrick Nolan. Nolan supplied him with a couple of derogatory quotes. The problem was that some people there knew and recognized McAdams. So his cover was blown. But further, evidently, McAdams had done some work in advance to fit the profile of this guy Patrick Nolan (it was not the author
  • Create New...