W. Tracy Parnell

50 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The First Day Evidence is a unified fact pattern.

Joseph Uscinski studies conspiracy theories. If ambition hits me at some point, I may do an article on his work as applied to the JFK case. I have two of his books and he mentions JFK quite often. While that would not convince you (or many others here) it would be an interesting exercise I believe.

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Tracy and I disagree on many aspects of the assassination, including how he has represented McAdams in this thread. But it is ignorant and downright wrong of you to call him a "disinformation artist." If anything, we are all in his debt for his superlative work destroying John Armstrong's ridiculous Oswald doppelganger theory.

Thank you Jonathan.

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

As I stated earlier, there are those on the Conspiracy side who DO have self decency and morals not to publicly make bitter comments upon someone's death out of respect and courtesy to the grieving family members and friends.

Yes there are Steve and thanks for making that point.

BTW, I think this thread has veered off course. It is supposed to be about the death of a man who was very accomplished and respected and who had a family and many friends. Whether you are religious or not, I think the golden rule-do unto others-is applicable here. A number of people have chosen to ignore this basic human tenant in pursuit of their political beliefs or their beliefs regard the JFK case. For better or worse, their comments are now a part of the public record.

11 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Well that's not true, is it? I mean, this has already happened.

There is a unified conspiracy theory? Could someone please point me to that?

46 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

Found it here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html

 

Yes, but I wouldn't use that link if I were you. It is from the site of a "lone nutter" and you just can't trust them.

Tribute to John McAdams ~ W. Tracy Parnell

1 hour ago, David G. Healy said:

Intent Lad, INTENT!

IMO, his "intent" was simply to enjoy the conference by way of anonymity.

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If this description of John McAdams behavior is accurate (and James D. places an emphasis on accuracy in his writing) I do not see how McAdams can be defended. 

I feel sorry for McAdams, who has befouled his own memory, but as he has passed on, probably less said the better. 

 

 

In light of the vitriol displayed in this thread, it is unsurprising to me that McAdams chose to go to a JFK conference incognito. If I understand it correctly, he revealed his true identity at the conclusion of the conference. Where's the harm?

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

So I sent McAdams a very polite e-mail, and received a dismissive reply. I again e-mailed politely, to another dismissive response, but no real answer. The third time my e-mail was ignored. 

I thought to myself, "If that is how backers of the WC think, then something is wrong." 

You would not believe the abuse and "dismissive responses" I have received since I have been working on my current Maurice Bishop project. I had an email exchange with a prominent CT researcher who I assumed was above such tactics. How wrong I was. It would make for interesting reading but I (of course) have a policy of not revealing private email exchanges. So, it works both ways assuming your characterization of your exchanges with McAdams is accurate.

32 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

However, what I did not like about McAdams is that he was unable to do this without resorting to personal attacks

He did not suffer fools gladly. I believe that he mostly attacked weak ideas however and not individuals although there may have been instances when certain people felt otherwise.

28 minutes ago, Calvin Ye said:

Tracy, it is called identity theft because Patrick Nolan is an name of forensic scientist who authored an book on JFK assassination and John McAdams ended up using Patrick's name

No, identity theft is when you steal someone's social security number and perform illicit acts in their name for your advantage. McAdams' act was innocent enough and I have no problem with it.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I suspect he is right on that and a few things. But, it doesn’t change the fact that we shouldn’t be condemning a man for a crime in absentia, when there is insufficient evidence to do so. 
That’s not justice. 

"We" are not condemning him. The facts as established by the Warren Commission and subsequent investigators are properly doing that.

42 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Then doesn’t an official body as part of another comprehensive investigation have to determine that to set the record straight?! The answer is ‘yes’. As I am applying the same logic I would to the WC and its findings. 
 

Fonzi was right about one thing. I think we have seen the "Last Investigation."

29 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

When someone you dislike passes away, my learned response is to wait awhile before letting it ( criticism ) all hang out. If even just a few days.

My response is to say that I disagreed with them but they were a human being with a grieving family who deserves respect. Unfortunately, we have seen some regrettable responses here.

13 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

The HSCA decided it was probable that there was a conspiracy to kill the president, based on the acoustic evidence.

Yes but how many debunkings do we have of the acoustics evidence by now? Three or four or perhaps more.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

The article on McAdams being a laughing stock was not by Fletcher, it was by Len Osanic. 

Thank you-I stand corrected.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Her name was Cheryl Abbate.

And he put her name and address on his attack polemics, which he then publicized through his media cohorts.

He then lied about this echo chamber effect he was causing.

And maybe Tracy wants to also forget about how he lied about his identity, saying he was Patrick Nolan at a JFK conference so he could disguise another hit piece he was cooperating on.  

No, I remember that very well. IMO, he may have simply used an alias out of fear for his safety. Some of the comments here would lend credence to that idea.

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Sorry Steve, but he was a horrible human. Actions have consequences.

Tell that to his family and the numerous researchers that he helped over the years. 

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Mcadams - Laughing stock of the internet (prouty.org)

Prouty calling McAdams a "laughing stock?" That's rich.

1 minute ago, Robert Burrows said:

Who decides which textbooks are used in classrooms?

Each institution I suppose-why?

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

John McAdams was an intellectual thug, plain and simple.

I see that quite a bit. I suspect that those who call him a thug may simply have been on the losing end of debates.

28 minutes ago, Robert Burrows said:

 

Consensus does not equal truth. And please define "legitimate". 

A textbook that you would find in a classroom as opposed to something like "Crossfire" for instance.

1 hour ago, Calvin Ye said:

McAdams's death is an win for the JFK research community

I hate to break it to you Calvin, but the CT community has already lost-they just don't know it. Go look on Wikipedia or read any of the mainstream books or websites or legitimate history textbooks. You will find the statement that LHO killed JFK alone.

The reason for this is not that there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the truth that includes the media and academia. It is because there exists no unified alternative explanation to the LN theory. You could put the top CT researchers in a room and they would agree on very little. The top researchers on both sides are dying at an alarming rate and when they are all gone so will the debate be.

In any case, celebrating a good man's death does absolutely nothing for your "cause." It does show that you (and others here) have extremely poor taste.

BTW, it should be mentioned that McAdams' site was one of the premier sources of information and was used extensively by both sides. Hopefully, it will be maintained.

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.