54 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Does it take an advanced degree to reach, confirm, or refute the good Doctors' findings?

A child could figure out the clothing evidence.

 

It would appear that the answer is "yes," unfortunately.

For the particular findings of Drs. Mantik and Chesser relating to the autopsy photographs and X-rays (and other autopsy materials) to which you refer, it requires approved access to the materials at the National Archives by a representative of the Kennedy family. To my knowledge, those that have been granted such access have been medical professionals with advanced degrees.

And here is something from Dr. David Mantik regarding his work at the National Archives that may be of interest to you...

2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Somebody needs to go see the x-rays and check to see whether the emulsion over the "T" really is unbroken, but I fear another Prayer Man situation where suddenly it becomes impossible to do a bit of checking up.

Here is Dr. David Mantik describing the procedure by which he verified that the emulsion is not missing over the T shaped inscription on the left lateral autopsy X-ray (thereby demonstrating that it is a copy film and not an original X-ray):

The following is Dr. David Mantik's 'Appendix H' of his new book "The Final Analysis" coauthored by Jerome Corsi. Appendix H is devoted to making recommendations for future testing to be performed at the National Archives as the evil empire has banned both Dr. Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser from conducting future testing ostensibly to prevent them from further embarrassing the government.

Note that Mantik lists verification of his findings regarding the T shaped inscription as number one on his list, and notes the following about others who have failed to conduct similar testing:

"...Surprisingly, no one (except for Chesser) has attempted
to confirm my observation of intact emulsion (on both sides). Chad
Zimmerman850 and Larry Sturdivan had that opportunity after my
observation became public, but they ignored it. In my emails with Stur-
divan, he seemed ignorant of that observation...." 

Mr. @Pat Speer apparently idolizes the type of work that Zimmerman and Sturdivan have performed on the autopsy materials. Perhaps he can advise us as to the reasons why they have failed to perform the most obviously needed testing of the autopsy materials at the National Archives -- to confirm or refute the alteration findings of Drs. Chesser and Mantik.

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Uhh... WHO decides who is an expert? Academia and the media. And who have they selected as their experts? People like Gerald Posner, John Lattimer, Vincent Bugliosi, Dale Myers, John McAdams, and Lucien Haag. 

I don't get why this is so hard to grasp. No matter what you or I think about the Kennedy assassination, the conspiracy/no conspiracy question has not been answered to the satisfaction of those who will write history. 

I mean, we are but voices at the bottom of a well. The voices of men like Warren, Cronkite, Caro, Jennings, Bugliosi and Posner have had much more sway with Academia and the media than, say, Jim Garrison, David Lifton, and Oliver Stone. 

Now you are articulating the home court advantage that the stenographers to power -- or better said, accessories after the fact -- enjoy by virtue of having been appointed by those who prevailed in the internecine struggle that ended with the coup d'etat  of 1963; but what sticks out most to me is how you proclaim it as if you wear it like a badge of honor.

If I were on that side of the divide I would hang my head in shame, just like Arlen Specter did...

ON JANUARY 4, 2012, Vince Salandria and Arlen Specter met at the Oyster House for lunch. It was scheduled for noon, but Specter got there first and was seated; Vince came in and waited in front. Finally, after 40 minutes or so, Arlen Specter came out and found him.

They sat down. There was no one sitting near them. Specter was smiling and pleasant.

But it was Vince who started talking, and kept talking. Specter listened.

Vince told Specter that he wanted him to know that if he had been assigned to work for the Warren Commission, as Arlen had been, and understood what he did now, that he, too, would have taken the assignment. He thought that Specter had a job to do as a lawyer.

Specter didn’t respond.

Vince said that not to do the work of the Warren Commission would have invited domestic disorder, and perhaps a dictatorship. The generals would have killed Vince, he told Specter, as quickly as Stalin would have. Specter probably saved his life.

Specter was quiet. His demeanor remained pleasant.

Vince explained what he hadn’t realized back in 1964: that the American people weren’t prepared to accept that military intelligence had assassinated the President in a coup. Vince added that his wife, a bright and rational woman, didn’t support his obsession with the assassination.

Specter listened.

Vince told Specter his rationale for the assassination—he had read correspondence between Kennedy and Khrushchev and concluded they were very fond of each other and were seeking to end the Cold War. The assassins wanted to continue the Cold War and to escalate the war in Vietnam. Vince told Specter he believed Kennedy was killed by the CIA with the approval of the military.

Specter took this in without comment.

Vince told him that he understood it was a conspiracy when Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald, and that no guilty government would tell us the truth about an institutional killing of the President.

Vince went on in this vein a bit longer, explaining more of his insights about the assassination. Specter asked him—the first time he had said anything in some time—whether Vince spoke frequently to Mark Lane. Vince said no, he didn’t.

Then Specter asked Vince what he remembered about their 1964 confrontation at the bar association event in Specter’s honor. Vince told him he had attended with his copy of the Warren Report. Specter wondered how long the report had been available—he thought it had been out only one week. Vince thought it was a couple of weeks. Specter seemed impressed with how quickly Vince had digested the report.

Then Specter said: “You charged me then, at that meeting, with fraud.”

That was true. As Vince laid out his case in his first article, the Warren Commission’s work was speculation conforming to none of the evidence, without the slightest credibility, with errors in logic and contrary to the laws of physics and geometry. He was charging Specter with corruption. Of perpetrating a fraud.

And now, at lunch, Arlen Specter had a request. “Instead of calling me corrupt,” he said, “can you change it to incompetent?”

Almost a half-century had passed since the Warren Commission’s work had been made public; almost a half-century since the event at City Hall at which Vince Salandria stood up and asked his pointed questions. During that time, Arlen Specter was forever being asked about the Warren Report and the Magic Bullet. He was laughed at over his theory. Oliver Stone made a movie in which Specter was mocked, and the running joke in the Specter household was that his epitaph would lead with the Magic Bullet.

He had lived with the assassination, and his role in solving it, forever. And he hadn’t stopped living with it, upholding his responsibility to explain. Arlen Specter, those close to him say, believed in that responsibility. He told friends he was looking forward to 2013, the 50th anniversary of the assassination, because it was an opportunity to speak about solving the murder of the President yet again, to engage the issue once more. Specter, they say, hadn’t backed off one inch.

Vince Salandria, too, had lived with the assassination for a long time, and he, too, had paid a steep price. He says now that teaching is far and away his most important life’s work, his true calling, yet he taught at Bartram High for only eight years before his conspiracy theories made him an outlier among his fellow teachers. He’d end up spending three decades as a school-system lawyer. He did well. It was work he believed in. But it wasn’t the same as teaching.

Long ago, Vince Salandria said: “No matter what comes of this work”—the assassination research he and fellow obsessives kept plugging away at—“we have involved ourselves in the worthiest cause of our lives.”

He says he still believes that. “Until we really come to grips with the true meaning of the assassination—i.e., the coup, by military intelligence services of the country—civil liberties are necessarily restricted,” he says. “Every president since Kennedy knows what happened to him and why. Therefore, every president knows he’s circumscribed in terms of what he can do and who he can oppose and how much he opposes them.”

When Arlen Specter asked Vince Salandria to change his opinion of him from corrupt to incompetent, Vince told him that he couldn’t change it. He told Arlen Specter he knew from the public record that the Senator was quite competent then—in 1964—and that he was, at all times, competent. He had never considered Specter incompetent. And he wasn’t incompetent now.

Specter had no reaction to that, just as he hadn’t reacted to anything else Vince said.

Perhaps Specter, in asking Salandria to change his opinion, was admitting that the Warren Commission got it wrong, that the Magic Bullet and a lone gunman really don’t wash. Or perhaps it was simpler than that, a moment between two men who had lived with the same profound event for so long, who played such important and different roles in our understanding of what happened and, well … did Vince’s opinion have to be so harsh? Perhaps, in other words, it was merely a personal moment. Whatever he was up to, Arlen Specter certainly opened the door a crack to yet another debate about what he really believed.

He would ask Vince another question: Do you think the Warren Commission was a setup? That is, did Vince think Earl Warren was told that Lee Harvey Oswald had to be their man before there was any investigation at all?

Yes, Vince said.

Arlen Specter had no reaction to that, either, and remained pleasant to the end, even though, Vince is sure, he’d arranged lunch in order to hear one thing: that Vince could come to a new opinion about Specter’s work for the Warren Commission. Whatever personal redemption Specter may have been seeking, he left without it.

Though he didn’t leave empty-handed. On the way out of the Oyster House, Vince handed Specter a copy of James Douglass’s book JFK and the Unspeakable, published in 2008. The book is dedicated to Vince and another conspiracy theorist. Vince told Specter it was the best work ever written on the assassination.

First appeared in the March, 2014 issue of Philadelphia magazine.

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 

And... Bugliosi said he disproved the arguments for conspiracy..

You were a freakin' lawyer. Certainly you understand that it doesn't matter what the lawyers think--as virtually all lawyers think they won their case, no matter ho weak their case--but what they jury thinks.

And the jury in this case is still out. 

 

Your retort is valid, in my view, to the extent that it recognizes that Bugliosi, to whom this was clearly "just another case," lawyered the JFKA, while Vince Salandria lived it, and offered an obvious remedy for the illness that you are continuing to articulate...

"...Schotz, a Boston psychiatrist, long ago suggested to Salandria that the public was encased in denial concerning the Kennedy assassination. Schotz observed that public discourse seemed to permit the notion that a conspiracy was “possible” or “likely.” A common statement on the subject is that one “feels” or “believes” that there was official misconduct and obfuscation in the crime. Like the addict or alcoholic unable to confront the seriousness of the disease, the American public would prefer not to know the truth and say it, but to remain locked in psychic and political paralysis rather than state outright that Kennedy was removed by official power, and thereby confront the monstrousness of our political-economic system. I have suggested to Schotz that he extend his penetrating insight a bit further, since to live in America, it seems to me, means to live in some state of denial, because a sensitive person could not live here, aware of the nation’s history, its murderous past, its cruel and inequitable present, without hiding in a carapace of denial. It is the hope of Schotz, Salandria, and this writer that we may all confront truth, shed denial, and build a better world...."

Christopher Sharrett
Seton Hall University
July, 1999 

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/titlepage.html

23 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

See if you can grasp this. Your logical proof is invalid. First of all, there can be more than one LN theory. Disproving an LN theory does not disprove ALL LN theories. And second of all,, there is no arbiter of what has been proved. Virtually al facts on both sides of the divide are in dispute and there is no arbiter beyond perhaps public opinion. 

So the jury is still out. Sorry. 

 

Well, Mr. Speer, I really don't know what to tell you other than that there is a remedy for the illness you have just so eloquently articulated...

"...We cannot consider ourselves a free and democratic people until we understand and address the evil nature of the warfare-state power which murdered President John F. Kennedy. Until then we cannot begin the vital work of ridding the world of the terror produced by our mighty war machine that crushes hopes for true substantive democracy here and elsewhere. We can no longer afford to shield ourselves by asserting that the murder of President Kennedy is a mystery. There is no mystery regarding how, by whom, and why President Kennedy was killed. Only when we strip away our privileged cloak of denial about the truth of the killing will we be able to free ourselves for the hard global work of changing our unfair and brutal society to one that is more equitable and less violent...."

False Mystery
Essays on the JFK Assassination
by Vincent Salandria

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/titlepage.html

"...For Salandria, the endless probing of the evidentiary minutiae proceeds from the assumption that the case for conspiracy isn’t proven (and perhaps can never be proven), and that we should give the authorities the benefit of the doubt as we continue obsessional and debilitating detective work. For Salandria this reasoning, which invites the authorities to continue in their prevarication, is absurd and intellectually dishonest, since a consciousness of guilt was manifest in state power from the moment the assassination occurred. The micro-fixated critical orientation to this case forestalls an understanding of the assassination as a political act requiring mass mobilization, and an analysis of the murder attentive to its political-economic context...."

"...Schotz, a Boston psychiatrist, long ago suggested to Salandria that the public was encased in denial concerning the Kennedy assassination. Schotz observed that public discourse seemed to permit the notion that a conspiracy was “possible” or “likely.” A common statement on the subject is that one “feels” or “believes” that there was official misconduct and obfuscation in the crime. Like the addict or alcoholic unable to confront the seriousness of the disease, the American public would prefer not to know the truth and say it, but to remain locked in psychic and political paralysis rather than state outright that Kennedy was removed by official power, and thereby confront the monstrousness of our political-economic system. I have suggested to Schotz that he extend his penetrating insight a bit further, since to live in America, it seems to me, means to live in some state of denial, because a sensitive person could not live here, aware of the nation’s history, its murderous past, its cruel and inequitable present, without hiding in a carapace of denial. It is the hope of Schotz, Salandria, and this writer that we may all confront truth, shed denial, and build a better world...."

Christopher Sharrett
Seton Hall University
July, 1999 

15 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

As you seem to have missed a part, I´ll repeat it for you :

 16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cut

If it weren't for

Leaving out a part of my response, doesn´t work here, nice try Mr., but rather cheap in the end.

So I´ll complete it for you:

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Cut

If it weren't for the fact that (some) LNers are useful to our cause, I'd be in favor of a forum rule against claiming there wasn't a conspiracy or cover-up. If it were practical, I would go so far as banning all LNers from the site.

Cut

Mr. Larsen described a hypothetical circumstance pursuant to which he would favor such a ban, but did not, as you are claiming, call for an actual ban under the present circumstances, so would you please kindly explain the point of your comment? 

Also, I repeat, would you please kindly present links and citations to substantiate your claim that the concerns expressed in this thread and others about the dissemination of disinformation and propaganda in this forum actually represent an agenda to arbitrarily and capriciously ban "LN members"?

Just now, Jean Ceulemans said:

@Keven Hofeling

Feel free to file a complaint against me for false accusations if you feel that is justified.  And most certainly do it if makes you feel better. But I don´t really care.

The operative point is, in my opinion, that in making the claim -- that the concerns expressed in this thread and others about the dissemination of disinformation and propaganda in this forum actually represent an agenda to arbitrarily and capriciously ban "LN members" -- you demonstrated that you are deliberately and knowingly disseminating disinformation and propaganda, and are now conceding that that is exactly what you are doing.

4 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

It is (and always has been) about kicking out the LN members, where have you been?

I do not agree with a bunch of LN-statements, too many things that don´t add up IMO.  But kicking them out - per Sandy "get rid of them" - is, IMO, not what this forum was about. 

If Dr N feels some members are crossing the line, he should sanction them, but he doesn´t, why o why? Think...

Would you please kindly provide your links and citations to substantiate your claim that Sandy Larsen, Dr. Niederhut, myself or any other member of this forum is pushing an agenda to arbitrarily and capriciously ban "LN members" or any other class of individuals based upon a system of beliefs, as opposed to addressing provably false disinformation and propaganda?

Should you fail to do so, I believe it will be reasonable for us to conclude that you are making a false factual claim.

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The topic of this segment of the EF is "The JFK Assassination Debate." 

We can't really have a "debate" if a premise of the EF-JFKA is that LN'ers are "spreading disinformation."

Earnest and intelligent observers can have different opinions, interpretations on the JFKA/RFK1A. To say the least. 

Let it go at that. Try to be collegial, civil. 

If an LN'er or CT'er makes a factually incorrect statement, then write a response with a correction of the mistake (as you see it), but not an attack on the LN'er or CT'er. 

Surely, we can tolerate and even invite a wide range of views on the EF-JFKA. 

You are preaching to the choir, Mr. Cole.

I have seen no members state on this thread that there should be any kind of "premise" that anyone is spreading disinformation and propaganda.

I think a more accurate characterization is that opposition has been stated to the dissemination of information that can be proven to be disinformation and propaganda, and that dissemination of such disinformation and propaganda, once proven to be false, should not be condoned nor tolerated.

There seems to be some kind of unspoken taboo against spotlighting and opposing such provably false disinformation and propaganda that a certain group of individuals on this forum repeatedly attempts to enforce with various rhetorical tactics and fallacious appeals to authority; as well as in your case, appeals to the 'principle of charity.'

If you can articulate a good case for why the principle of charity should be extended to deliberate and repetitive misinformation and propaganda, I'd be interested in reading it. In my view, the principle of charity should be extended to honest debatable opinions about established facts, and not to deliberate and repetitive false statements of fact which clearly constitute disinformation and propaganda.

Why should the principle of charity be extended to obvious, deliberate and provably false disinformation and propaganda, Mr. Cole?

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is one of the saddest things I've read on this forum.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30833-john-simkin-thought-john-mcadams-was-a-cia-propagandist/?do=findComment&comment=549020

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30833-john-simkin-thought-john-mcadams-was-a-cia-propagandist/?do=findComment&comment=549031

Mr. Bulman expresses agreement with Sandy Larsen's stated opinion that there is nothing wrong with acknowledging suspicions of CIA disinformation operative activities in this forum so long as specific members are not implicated [without evidence, I would add]; that moderators should enjoy the same rights of freedom of expression on the forum as all members enjoy; and that the purpose of the JFK Debate section of the Education Forum is to discuss the established facts of the JFK assassination conspiracy and cover-up, and not for the dissemination of government disinformation and propaganda calculated to obfuscate and misrepresent those established facts; and your response, Mr. Speer, is "[t]his is one of the saddest things I've ever read on this forum."

What precisely about such statements of principle constitute "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

Is it that Mr. Bulman agrees that forum members should enjoy free speech rights to spotlight government disinformation and propaganda within the bounds of the rules of the forum is something that in your view constitutes one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

Is it that Mr. Bulman agrees that forum moderators should enjoy the same rights of freedom of expression on this forum as any forum member enjoys that is something that in your view constitutes one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

Is it that Mr. Bulman agrees that forum members should not be free to disseminate information on this forum that can be proved to be disinformation and propaganda that is something that in your view constitutes one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

It appears that you are taking a stand against free speech and free expression rights of forum members and forum moderators, while simultaneously defending some kind of privilege for forum members to disseminate provably false propaganda and disinformation. 

Does that describe the "principles" you are attempting to defend, Mr. Speer?

Would you please kindly clarify what precisely you intend to communicate by stating that Mr. Bulman's agreement with the principles articulated by Sandy Larsen constitute one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

MISTAKEN REPEAT POST

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

MISTAKEN REPEAT POST

Just now, Pat Speer said:

Let's cite this as Example 1A of what happens when a moderator thinks that attacking the motivations of others is okie-dokie. 

You take offense that this subject is receiving some sunlight, do you?

Okay Mr. Okie-Dokie, precisely whose motivations did Dr. Niederhut question?

22 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my...

An interested party--let's say the U.S. Government--might take a position on something--let's say that Jim Garrison is spreading communist propaganda--that they then leak to a few writers. If these articles then get cited by other writers--who simply dislike Jim Garrison because he looks weird or comes across as homophobic--it can be claimed these people are publishing or repeating government propaganda. But it doesn't mean they are getting paid by the government or are even witting of the source of the articles they found so convincing. 

 

The honest brokers on these forums aren't going to know what kind of renumeration the government trolls are receiving from the government because that information is classified, right?  And the government trolls on these forums who do know aren't going to divulge that information but are instead going to make deflective and dismissive comments of the variety that you have made, wouldn't you say?

Are we talking about young military recruits assigned to psychological warfare and counterespionage duties who are functioning remotely by computer, much like the killer drone operators do, or are FBI and/or CIA agents handling young miscreants and delinquents, much like criminal informants, to perform the operations? The honest brokers definitely aren't going to know that.

As for those in the MSM and academia who generate disinformation and propaganda for the government, they are not exactly going to be very motivated to disclose the sordid details either, now are they?

Although the honest brokers don't know the exact details of HOW it is being done, specifically who it is being done by, or how the services are being compensated, the evidence is overwhelming that it IS being done. 

Your perfunctory ruminations to the contrary are an insult to our intelligence.

16 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Dr. Niederhut, it’s not discussion of the phenomenon that is the problem it’s your naming of names accusing people of things with no proof. Does it give you no qualm of conscience at all to consider what if you’re wrong in labeling and damaging someone innocent?

Suppose you label someone innocent of the accusation you make—where there was no process, no vetting through fellow peer moderators, no mechanism or guardrails against abuse or a (hypothetical) irresponsible moderator?

From my point of view, my issue if there was a hidden hand, cia or other paid relationship would be the lack of disclosure. I would still support reading and critically discussing any writings or publications, especially if, if hypothetically there were real cia connected actors, they would likely have access to better documents, sources, photos, evidence, and information. I mean here information, not disinformation.

But you are a moderator run amok making freewheeling accusations with no sign at all of a conscience about the possibility of smearing innocent persons.

If there is a real issue of undisclosed paid operatives, convene moderators and consider an intelligent policy to address that concern through process, perhaps formalizing an ethical obligation honor system request that sources of funding for JFK research be disclosed if so.

Dr. Niederhut has not accused anybody of anything, Mr. Doudna. The disinformation operatives are functioning covertly, and the forum rules forbid members from accusing fellow members of being such covert operatives. Dr. Niederhut has not violated that rule by pointing out what should be so obvious to all researchers who also happen to be honest brokers.

But the following defamatory accusation that you have leveled against Dr. Niederhut -- that he is a "moderator run amok making freewheeling accusations with no sign at all of a conscience about the possibility of smearing innocent persons" -- is a violation of the rules of this forum, and I believe it is incumbent upon you to take self-corrective action in regard to this violation.

Some of us happen to care to see that American democracy and the constitutionally protected free speech rights of American citizens is not infringed, and we have a right to explore these issues within the bounds of the rules of this forum. Conversely, you do not have the right to obstruct such inquiry and discussion by violating the rules of this forum.

I suggest you take immediate self-corrective action, Mr. Doudna. 

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

So let's do some fact checking.

The title of W's thread is "John Simkin Thought John McAdams Was a CIA Propagandist" sort of invoking this forum "Faith of our father's " argument to justify his IMO, Witch hunt accusations.

So Pat is directly refuting W's characterization and says that was never Simkin's  viewpoint .

So W. what direct evidence do you have that Simkin thought that McAdams was a CIA propagandist??

Oh so you're a victim now W.?

It's you who is sticking your butt into everybody else's business and trying to ensure forum "hegemony."

I'll tell you what I saw.

IMO, The Litwin thread had the makings of a good hearty discussion concerning Garrison. Then  a number of LNers and neutralists voiced approval of Litwin's (who IMO has  spent a couple of years just slinking around here and not contributing anything) "coming out." Then W. progressively poisons the atmosphere with first innuendo then more direct accusations of his opposition being sponsored by the CIA. 

So at last we get some hint that Litwin's prepared to discuss these issues. And there was some debate as Jim gets actively involved attacking Litwin and his previous statements and associations, and Litwin responds in kind with a bunch of links, which is fair game for both if we could eventually center the discussion on specific points. 

While the bulk of your comments W. were involving "Operation Mockingbird" . How did we get on that? Because you're implying the opposition are paid disinformation agents! Then  the thread becomes hijacked  because a number of people, including myself become concerned about your overstepping, and we spent 15 pages trying to debate if this discussion can happen at all. This is simply not your job as moderator.

And while there were some good discussions about that, that unfortunately I don't think will go anywhere, that was clearly not the intention of the thread.

To the contrary, Mr. Gallaway, what I think is most obvious about this thread is that when multiple participants quite justifiably raised the issue of covert manipulation and interference by U.S. intelligence agencies in the First Amendment protected free speech activities of researchers the exact same cast of characters that on other threads have repeatedly attempted to deflect and divert attention from this very important aspect of the history of the JFKA have again engaged in identical tactics to shut the discussion down. It is simply undeniable that there is a long sordid history of disinformation and propaganda operations calculated to obfuscate incriminating evidence of government coverup through various nefarious covert means which violate both the spirit and the letter of American democracy and the rule of law, and that there are immense financial expenditures being devoted to these ends. 

While it would appear that you wish to discourage researchers from discussing and inquiring further into this alarming state of affairs, and would have us dismiss it as a "witch hunt," others, such as myself, recognize it as being a subsidiary element of the JFKA crime itself, and wish to unravel and expose it into obscurity, as the consequences of such government abuses of power represent a dire threat to the American system of government and to the ideal of democracy itself.

It befuddles and perplexes me that one as seemingly bright and articulate as yourself -- which also applies to the cast of characters who automatically spring up to defend the crimes of the national security state in these threads each and every time this particular issue arises -- do not appear to recognize the critical interests that are put at stake by these government transgressions. "Move along; there's nothing to see here" seems to be the message of such active measures, and there is nothing about it that makes any objective sense to me, when taken at face value.

In any event, and pursuant to your stated objective of "fact checking," Mr. Gallaway, what I would like to see you "fact check" and debunk is the following which represents a fleeting glimpse into the monstrosity that has been brought into existence by member nation states of the NATO alliance to destroy the free speech activities and inquiries of their citizen populations (of course, such monstrosities exist in the autocratic nations of the world, but that is the fundamental point -- it shouldn't exist or be tolerated here) :

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. <!--more-->

Glenn Greenwald

February 24 2014, 6:25 p.m.

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:

The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

The CIA, of course, has long been concerned about the effects of the assassination research community on public perceptions of the government and the intelligence services...

President Obama appointed Professor Cass Sunstein to implement his "Cognitive Infiltration" doctrines in social media...

And legitimate researchers unwittingly encounter these cognitive infiltration operatives every day, both through the mainstream media, academia, and particularly on social media platforms...

Every once in a while, there are leaks which reveal the basic outlines of the inner workings of these disinfo operations, and how they function, such as this 2014 Intercept article:

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. <!--more-->

Glenn Greenwald

February 24 2014, 6:25 p.m.

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:

The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

Documents referenced in this article:

• The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations

https://www.blackopradio.com/mcadams/faq.html

Who is Mcadams, CIA disinformation asset, or just plain Crackpot?
Since Mcadams is known to use the alias "Paul Nolan" just how many other names has he used to deceive?
He claims to be many things. A jet-propulsion expert... or Crackpot?
Here is what was discovered...

T H E   O F F I C I A L   M A C A D A M S  F A Q
Frequently Asked Quuestions regarding john mcadams / aka - paul nolon
By Jim Hargrove
This FAQ info seems to have prematurely disappeared from DejaNews, but after considerable searching on my old hard drive, here, by popular demand, is the "Official John MacAdams FAQ," first posted on Usenet way back in 1995 by a wonderful Englishman named Bill MacDowall. Bill made "John Locke" (an earlier and even meaner version of "Amythest") stop smearing people on this newsgroup forever by using well-paid lawyers, who for once served a reasonably worthy cause.

This FAQ exists to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about John McAdams.

This FAQ will be posted regularly to forewarn new users of the dangers of becoming another McAdams victim.
 

1. Who is John McAdams?

John McAdams is a professor of political science employed in the Jesuit Marquette University.

2. Is John McAdams hell-bent on destroying the (alt.conspiracy.jfk) newsgroup?

Sadly yes. His own words appended below summarize his intentions better than I could.

From jmcadams@primenet.com Sat Feb 15 05:17:02 1997
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Blown back by shot
From: jmcadams@primenet.com (John McAdams)
Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700

You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme
to make this group a shambles.
And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret.
I have publicly announced it.
I have made it perfectly obvious.
I have rubbed you buffs' noses in it.
It's blatantly obviously to everybody.

.John



John gives the victory sign after deleteing posts at alt.jfk
 

This recent post by McAdams should be viewed in terms of the Charter
he submitted as part of the process of forming the moderated JFK group:

 

This group will be for the purpose of providing an area for serious discussion and research of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The group will be moderated to prevent the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued alt.conspiracy.jfk and made it nearly useless as a vehicle for intelligent research. Questions surrounding JFK's death have made this one of the most talked about and controversial issues of our generation. This will be the one usenet group which deals seriously with this important topic.

One supposes that since the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued the alt.conspiracy.jfk group were and are part of McAdams freely admitted plans to turn the group into a shambles, the moderated group can only be seen as his personal vehicle for selective manipulation of content.
 

3. Is McAdams connected to the CIA?

Many people have suggested he is and it would not be difficult to imagine how useful a professor of political science at a respected university would be as a CIA asset. It is impossible to know if McAdams has "company" links but his background and behavior may shed some light.

The following is a quote from a letter written by McAdams to the Milwaukee Sentinel Newspaper:

(Dr) Gary Aguilar accused me on the politics forum of being A CIA sponsored disinformationist because I was once the Marquette Official representative of the I.C.P.S.R. an utterly unspooky social science data archive.

The article below throws some light on just how "un-spooky" the ICPSR actually is

This is a repost of something Lisa Pease posted a while back that elaborates on these spook research grants and also contains Mcadams' admission, if not boast, that he was at one time "official representative" to ICPSR.

They have a web page, so you can check it out for yourself. You may notice studies on assassinations and the courses on the "formation of elites" in Chile etc..

The URL is: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/

Of course, McAdams may or may not be connected with the CIA, you pay your money and take your chance in dealing with him.
 

CIA infiltrating as Teachers ?

Search for "Marquette University & the CIA" on any search engine a see what comes up...
Here's a small sample of what I found

CIA Sends Agents To Schools -- To Teach
... Floyd L. Paseman, who ran the CIA's East Asian operations and is now on a two-year
teaching stint at Marquette University in Milwaukee, draws similar plaudits ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines/041800-02.htm - 14k - Cached - Similar pages


CIA Officer in Residence Program
... according to Carlos D. Davis, deputy director of the CIA's ... of Southern California,
the University of Maryland, New Mexico State University, Marquette ...
www.cia-on-campus.org/foia/oir.html - Similar pages


Center for Studies of Intelligence: Educational Outreach
... Since the program started in 1985, CIA has ... University of South Carolina, University
of Oregon, University of Kentucky, Texas A&M, Marquette ...
www.cia.gov/csi/officer.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages


dci_annual_report_99_22
... American University, US Naval Academy, US Naval War College, Ohio State University,
Marquette University ? New Information Services Governance Process: CIA?s ...
www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fy99intellrpt/ dci_annual_report_99_22.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.cia.gov ]


Marquette University - Chris Sloane
... For more on the trebuchet, visit http://www.marquette ... Future plans: PhD program in
Physics at the University ... working in industry or government — maybe the CIA. ...
www.marquette.edu/as/featured_profiles/sloane.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.marquette.edu ]

 

4. Has McAdams any track record in covert-type activity?

It seems he has!

John McAdams attended the 1995 Copa Conference using the assumed name Paul Nolan. More than that, he also fabricated a background to go with the name in that he purported himself to be a jet-propulsion expert and some-time computer store owner from Sherwood, Wisconsin. In that guise, he was quoted in an article in the Washington press by journalist Matt Labash. Mr. Labash later confirmed that McAdams had duped him. Mr. Labash had quoted Paul (McAdams) Nolan in good faith whilst in fact McAdams was lying through his teeth.

McAdams later claimed he had used an assumed name to avoid contact with users of the alt.conspiracy group who may have been attending the conference. With McAdams record of willfully abusing users of the group, this story might seem plausible but going to trouble of inventing a detailed cover story and lying to the press have more sinister overtones.
 

5. Has McAdams accused other group users of pedophilia and drug abuse?

He most certainly has!

In 1997 McAdams openly accused one Stuart Lyster of having served time in prison for child abuse and accused Dr Gary Aguilar of being a drug addict.

In the light of McAdams behavior in the group and his other activities such as at the Copa Conference, Stuart Lyster asked McAdams explain his motives in using this group and in return posted the following offensive reply:

From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: A cornered rat turns vicious
Date: 12 Sep 1995 13:04:53 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services


In article < 405_9509091355@miratel.uniserve.com,
Stuart.Lyster@miratel.uniserve.com (Stuart Lyster) writes:

And .John refuses to discuss how he uses this newsgroup for profit.
So, .John, are you ready to discuss your *REAL* use of this newsgroup
and why you are here, and....


Stuart, you've first got to address charges that you are a pedophile
who has served time in jail for molesting young children.
I'm going to keep after you on this until you respond.


.John



This reply earned McAdams coverage in the Milwaukee Sentinal newspaper:

By Tom Vanden Brook of the Journal Sentinel staff
_____________________________________

A Marquette University professor who hurled profane insults across the Internet - including accusations of drug use and pedophilia - has been chastised by university officials, has annoyed people across the country, and has sparked a small, intense debate on etiquette in cyberspace.

John McAdams, a political science professor who teaches a course on the Kennedy assassination and has created a home page on the World Wide Web devoted to the topic, admitted to using blue prose in computer correspondence.

But he defended himself by saying he was responding in kind to people he says are viciously critical of his views on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. "The Internet used to be a reasonable place to discuss the Kennedy assassination," McAdams said. "Now, it's a complete 'flamefest'."

"Flaming," in Internet circles, refers to diatribes aimed at those with differing viewpoints. McAdams is a vocal opponent of academics and others who ascribe to various conspiracy theories concerning the assassination.

Last fall, participants in an assassination discussion group complained to the Roman Catholic university about McAdams' profane references to them on computer bulletin boards. Gary Aguilar, a San Francisco surgeon, said he contacted MU after McAdams asked him to respond to charges that he had used drugs. Aguilar vehemently denies using drugs.

"He's extremely mean-spirited," Aguilar said. "What academic purpose can be served by calling people these names? I find it peculiar in the extreme that a professor at Marquette University, a Catholic institution, would do this."

"I refuse to be driven off the Internet by abuse or attacks," McAdams said. "If I called somebody a bimbo, it's in reaction. I refuse to be bound by any notion of political correctness."

Of course McAdams didn't call anyone a "bimbo" which is hardly a description calculated to fuel anger. What he did do is make allegations of child abuse and drug taking which is quite different.

McAdams has made repeated claims that he did not accuse Stuart Lyster of child abuse, merely asked him to address allegations.... readers will recognize semantics when they encounter them.

Subsequently, McAdams claimed Stuart Lyster had apologized to him and was not making an issue out of the pedophilia slurs.

To date, despite repeated requests, McAdams has been unable to post this alleged apology. McAdams protestations of not actually having called Stuart Lyster a pedophile fails to square with an article written by Heather Anichini in Marquette University's own newspaper:

In condemning Vanden Brook’s ‘unfair’ assessment of him, McAdams wrote that his school paper, the Marquette Tribune, had produced a very fair story. In that story, written by Heather Anichini and printed on 10/17/95, McAdams claimed he had only called someone a pedophile in response to that correspondent’s accusing me (McAdams) of using the group to write a book....

McAdams explained his actions in the Tribune saying, I was attempting to show the ridiculousness of such claims. ONE DOES NOT MAKE SUCH STATEMENT WITHOUT FOUNDATION. (emphasis added).

The man later wrote and apologized (as noted above, no proof of this alleged apology has ever been offered by McAdams...perhaps he doesn't know how to fake email)

So McAdams, in order to illuminate the inadvisability making charges without having a foundation, made himself the unfounded, and decidedly more mean-spirited, charge of pedophilia!

The purpose of this FAQ is to address the McAdams problem facing this group and provide some insight for new users to the group of what is actually behind the flame wars being carried out by McAdams and a few of his associates.

--Jim Hargrove

https://www.whokilledjfk.net/4527810.htm

https://www.blackopradio.com/mcadams/index.html

John Mcadams - Laughing stock of the Internet?       He's the Westboro Baptist Church of The JFK Research Community ! ...McAdams has neither the educational preparation nor the ability for such a position -- his language skills are abysmal; his analytical skills non-existent. Not only has he done no research whatsoever on the historical question he pretends to study, he has no knowledge of even the basics of a research methodology. Thus, McAdams himself argues against long established historical facts; on the other hand, he is incapable of doing the research necessary to either confirm or dispute such facts. - Debra Hartman   Who is Mcadams, CIA disinformation asset, or just plain Crackpot? - By Jim Hargrove Since Mcadams is known to use the alias "Paul Nolan" just how many other names has he used to deceive? He claims to be many things. A jet-propulsion expert, or Crackpot? Here is what was discovered. McAdams is not just a fraud as a teacher. He is a corrupt man. - by Isabel Kirk And not merely corrupt; he is an evangelist for corruption and fraud. He has sought and enlisted disciples, and they employ his knowingly fraudulent "methodology" in their writing "assignments," many of which are posted to the website of Marquette University. John McAdams and the Siege of Chicago by Jim DiEugenio with Brian Hunt Part One Part Two "McAdams did indeed make comments that were intended to imply that Gary Aguilar was a drug addict. IMO, they were deliberate, malicious and intended to smear the doctor." Mcadams Embarrassed at "The Education Fourm"- by John Simkin If you do any research of major figures in the JFK assassination via web search engines you will soon find yourself on John McAdams’ website. He is clearly the main disinformation source on the net. He adopts an academic tone and if one was not aware of the facts of the person or event he is writing about, one would think he has logically looked at the evidence available. He is therefore doing a successful job in misleading students about the JFK assassination. Remember that John McAdams was a representative of ICPSR - By Lisa Pease Reviews of John McAdams' JFK Assassination Logic:   How to Think Like John McAdams - by David Mantik Despite his pompous claim to teach all of us how to think critically, McAdams offers not a single reference to standard works on logical fallacies. Nor does he ever present his unique credentials for this task. A   Review - by Gary Aguilar, MD Right off the bat, John McAdams displays a trait that skeptics find both common and infuriating among Warren Commission loyalists – blatant dishonesty. The Gospel According to John McAdams - by Pat Speer   Review - by Frank Cassano …I suppose McAdams misremembered his real name when he was seen carousing around the 1995 COPA Conference using the assumed name of “Paul Nolan: Jet Propulsion Expert”? Comments on John Mcadams - by Michael T. Griffith It is my contention that most of McAdams’ claims are wrong and that in some cases McAdams presents information that is badly outdated. Critique #1 of John McAdams - by From Ken Vogler Critique #2 of John McAdams - by Jeff Orr Critique #3 of John McAdams Critique #4 of John McAdams The Professor at the distinguished university is an Academic Crackpot... John Mcadams Pedophilia Scandle McAdams accuses group users of pedophilia and drug abuse? On LIne Insults Put Conduct @ Issue - by Tom Vandenbrrok of the Milwaukee -Journal Sentinel - March 24th 1996 A Marquette University professor who hurled profane insults has been chastised by university officials... Wikipedia Scandle John Mcadams flagged hundreds of time "conflict of interest.html" flags for his role Mcadams and Nazis Wiki user pal of mcadams USER Gamaliel aka "Robert Fernandez of Florida" deletes hundreds of posts with Most proud of his contributions to the Wikipedia article on Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone assassin... deletes anything to the contrary.> He had Nazi Swastika on his website Althought I did notice wikipedia editor Gamaliel has a NAZI swastika flag on his talk page. Len Osanic 70.71.5.183 20:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC) I'm very discouraged to learn that the editor who took issue with your corrections had a Nazi swastika on his page. User:Pedant 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Sieg heil Gamaliel! Thank you for that utterly worthless block... Gamaliel wikipedia page Maybe you should just lock the page. (John McAdams) Sorry, Wikipedia policies prohibit us from locking the page to protect a preferred version. I will try to keep a better eye on it though. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC) That will be appreciated. (John McAdams) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.247.65 (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Althought there is no nazi writing on mcadams website shouldn't he be more careful who he associates with? Payback for your own website quote john Radio Debate: Host Anton Batey Tom Rosley vs mcadams Radio Debate: Host Paul Garson Greg Burnham vs mcadams Radio Debate: Host Len Osanic Jim DiEugenio vs mcadams   Mcadams rants and raves about the book "Report From Iron Mountain" Lets look at what the author had to say before Mcadams slanders Fletcher Prouty any further. This is what author Leonard Lewin said about his own book. Read it for yourself first. New York Times Book Review: March 19, 1972 Leonard Lewin wrote a review of his own book in March 19th, 1972 Col. Fletcher Prouty read this and kept it. He quotes from the review during this interview in 1988. He knew for years what Leonard Lewin wrote!   Other opinions of the interview Others have left e-mail with their thoughts on the Report from Iron Mountain and Col. Prouty's comments on the Leonard Lewin novel.

 

15 min. clip		"Tom Valentine Show" A discussion of the "Report from Iron Mountain" Tom interviews Col. Fletcher Prouty Tom: One of my listeners sent me some tapes of another radio show out of Seattle, Washington. And there was a guy on, and I'm gonna have that guy on my show next week. A guy named K.C. Depass, Depass yeah. And he was saying that the, the powers structure guys. These same guys we've been talking about, this USTEC and everything. They had, one of your old bosses, was the head man of this group. Were wondering what would happen to the world if it didn't have a war economy. You know as a lot of people say you can't an economy without wars anymore, not under modern...uh... there's no free enterprise anyway but modern capital and communistic type enterprise. You must have wars or you're not gonna be able to sustain an economy, you're gonna have a terrible depression. And these people got together to study, what we can do with the economy, if we have a peacetime situation. And this guy K.C Depass says that "what was written as novel in a book called 'Report from Iron Mountain' is really and truly factual material" from a group of men headed by none other than your old boss McNamara. And these guys where talking about, "how are we gonna keep the economy going in peacetime?" Now what do you think about that book? Col. Prouty's comments follow... please listen to the clip. or to apreciate to wisdom, knowledge, and insight of Col. Fletcher Prouty listen to the whole interview
75 min clip		2. The Entire Interview" The entire interview with Tom Valentine 12/10/88 - Radio free America -

 

---

Asleep at the wheel...
 

McAdams commits daily academic fraud ...McAdams has neither the educational preparation nor the ability for such a position -- his language skills are abysmal; his analytical skills non-existent. Not only has he done no research whatsoever on the historical question he pretends to study, he has no knowledge of even the basics of a research methodology. Thus, McAdams himself argues against long established historical facts; on the other hand, he is incapable of doing the research necessary to either confirm or dispute such facts. - Debra Hartman

As of this morning, Facebook has censored a third video excerpt from Oliver Stone and James DiEugenio's JFK: Destiny Betrayed. This one is also taboo information from the perspective of the national security state and the mainstream media, having to do with Robert Kennedy's suspicions about CIA involvement in the JFK assassination, and his distrust of the Warren Commission. And note that credit for the editing of the excerpt goes to Gil Jesus.

Here's a summary of the video in 5 bullet points:

Initial Suspicions (00:02–00:48): Right after John F. Kennedy's assassination, Robert Kennedy (Bobby) suspected a domestic conspiracy. His first call was to the CIA, asking if they were involved. Close aides, who were near the assassination site, told him that gunfire came from multiple directions.

CIA-Mafia-Cuban Connections (00:48–01:24): Bobby Kennedy learned of secret CIA-Mafia plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. These operations, involving figures like CIA officer William Harvey and mobster Johnny Roselli, were still ongoing, leading Bobby to suspect anti-Castro Cubans, the mafia, and the CIA in his brother's assassination.

Cuban Exiles Suspicion (01:24–02:04): Bobby confronted a member of the Cuban Exile Committee, Harry Ruiz Williams, accusing them of involvement in JFK's assassination, though not directly blaming Williams himself.

Limited Investigation Power (02:04–02:38): After JFK's death, Bobby lost much of his investigative capacity, as the Justice Department and FBI largely operated under J. Edgar Hoover. Emotionally devastated, he distanced himself from the Warren Commission and its investigation.

Distrust in the Warren Commission (02:38–03:16): Bobby Kennedy privately expressed doubts about the Warren Commission's findings, considering it a cover-up controlled by President Lyndon Johnson’s administration. His close aides confirmed that he was determined to uncover the truth and planned to reopen the investigation if he returned to the White House.

_______________

1. Robert Kennedy's Immediate Suspicion:

- Attorney General Robert Kennedy, upon learning of his brother's murder, immediately suspected a domestic conspiracy.

- His initial reaction was to call the CIA desk officer and inquire about their involvement.

- He was informed by close aides, Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers, who were in the limousine behind the President's, that gunfire had come from multiple directions, suggesting a crossfire.

- This information reinforced Kennedy's belief that there wasn't a lone gunman.

2. Previous CIA-Mafia Connection:

- In 1961, the FBI uncovered secret CIA-Mafia plots to assassinate Fidel Castro.

- Robert Kennedy, as Attorney General, requested a full briefing from the CIA.

- The CIA admitted to the plots but claimed they had been stopped.

- However, the plots were still ongoing, orchestrated by CIA officer William Harvey and Chicago mobster Johnny Roselli.

3. Suspects in the Assassination:

- Robert Kennedy suspected the CIA, the Mafia, and anti-Castro exiles in his brother's assassination.

- He directly questioned Harry Ruiz Williams, who was associated with the Cuban Exile Community, and stated that "one of your guys did it."

4. Limitations and Impact on Investigation:

- Following his brother's death, Robert Kennedy lost much of his investigative capacity at the Justice Department.

- The FBI, nominally under his control, was actually more loyal to J. Edgar Hoover.

- This hampered his ability to conduct a thorough investigation.

- Kennedy was deeply affected by his brother's death and initially refused to engage in the investigation, feeling overwhelmed and unwilling to face the reality of the situation.

- He later expressed his skepticism about the Warren Commission's investigation, calling it a "fairy tale" and a "convenient cover-up."

5. Kennedy's Determination for Truth:

- Despite the initial emotional setback and limitations, Robert Kennedy remained determined to uncover the truth.

- He believed the Warren Commission's investigation was compromised by political influences and the FBI.

- Kennedy was committed to establishing a new, independent inquiry into his brother's murder, a task he hoped to accomplish once he returned to the White House.

_______________

Excerpt from Episode One of Oliver Stone and James DiEugenio's 2021 'JFK: Destiny Betrayed': https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8ngrke

S1 E1 - JFK: Destiny Betrayed: Chapter 1: https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Destiny-Betrayed-Season-01/dp/B09PVNCNKR

JFK Revisited -- Through the Looking Glass -- by James DiEugenio and Oliver Stone: https://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/9781510772885/jfk-revisited/

8 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

There is zero to indicate a cover-up. 

Really? Then what is your explanation for Facebook prohibiting me from posting these two particular videos without providing me with the standard appeal procedures consistent with the FB "community Standards" policies?

And why is it that these two particular videos out of a total of fifty-six excerpt videos from Oliver Stone and James DiEugenio's JFK: Destiny Betrayed are prohibited by Facebook from being posted on the platform?

"Secret Service Destruction of Records to Thwart the JFK Records Release Act": 

"Reversal of JFK's Vietnam Withdrawal Policy Began the Weekend of the Assassination":

Unless I am mistaken, you seem to be making an absolutist statement that "[t]here is zero to indicate a cover-up" in the JFK assassination, period.

Is that what you are saying?

If so, then would you please explain why the following actions of the HSCA do not constitute a cover-up of the evidence of a large avulsive wound in the back right side of JFK's head per Dr. Gary Aguilar?

The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public).

In the section of its Final Report concerning the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and x-rays the HSCA wrote:

"Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39)

The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy."

When the ARRB released the staff interviews referenced by the HSCA its authentication report that the committee had classified "top secret" for fifty years, it was quickly discovered that the Bethesda witnesses had actually confirmed the presence of a large avulsive rear defect in JFK's skull, consistent with the Parkland witnesses' accounts, and they had also provided written and verbal descriptions of the rear defect to the HSCA, and even drew diagrams, all of which were suppressed by the HSCA. Dr. Gary Aguilar later wrote of this sad sordid episode, as well as the 1995 COPA conference at which some of the HSCA staff members were confronted about it, as follows:

"...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed.
⁠
By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028.
⁠
This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position....
⁠
In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents.
⁠
In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .” Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had.
⁠
The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288]
⁠
Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense.
⁠
More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses.
⁠
That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289]
⁠
So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants."
⁠
 ⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

The following is the video of the segment of the 1995 COPA conference described by Dr. Aguilar:

1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD

The HSCA Fraudulent Cover-Up of JFK's Large Rear Head Wound from JFK Destiny Betrayed

Dr. Gary Aguilar on the HSCA Cover-Up of JFK's Back of the Head Wound Seen at the Bethesda Autopsy

So, Mr. Morissette, if the above amply documented fraudulent conduct of the HSCA does not constitute evidence of "cover-up," then how would YOU characterize it?

And how do you excuse the HSCA for making the Bethesda autopsy camera disappear upon their discovery that they could not authenticate that the camera took the extant autopsy photographs?

The following is from a letter by Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Cyril Wecht and Rex Bradford. It is an excerpt of a Letter to the Editor rebutting an article* giving the standard mainstream line of nonsense and government lies about the medical evidence in the Kennedy assassination. Both the article and the Letter to the Editor appeared in the medical journal "Neurosurgery" in 2004.

*Levy, M. L., Sullivan, D., Faccio, R., Grossman, R. G., Goodrich, J. T., Kelly, P. J., Laws, E. R., & Sturdivan, L. (2004). A neuroforensic analysis of the wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2 - A study of the available evidence, eyewitness correlations, analysis, and conclusions. Neurosurgery, 54(6), 1298-1312. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15157287/

The link to the Letter to the Editor I have excerpted from below: https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf

Dr. Aguillar, Dr. Wecht and Rex Bradford explain the situation as follows:

"...The story begins in an inconspicuous footnote that qualified the HSCA’s public claim that from “microscopic” and “stereoscopic” examinations of the photos its experts had confidently concluded that the images were authentic (52, 53).

52. HSCA vol 6:225–226. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0116a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0116b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04.

53. HSCA report by Frank Scott entitled, “Report on Autopsy Color Photographs Authenticity.” HSCA vol 7:69–71. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0040a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0041a.htm.  Accessed 10/29/04. 

The footnote only offered the minor caution that the HSCA had encountered a negligible glitch during authentication.

It wrote:

Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens that were used to take these [autopsy] photographs, the [photographic] panel was unable to engage in an analysis similar to the one undertaken with the Oswald backyard pictures that was designed to determine whether a particular camera in issue had been used to take the photographs that were the subject of inquiry. (54)

54. HSCA vol 6:226, footnote # 1. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0116b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. 

Regarding that very sentence, ARRB investigator, Mr. Douglas Horne, wrote, “By late 1997, enough related documents had been located and assembled by the authors to bring into serious doubt the accuracy of the HSCA’s conclusion that ‘the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens’. . .” (22).

22. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy,” pp 2–24. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0001b.htm. to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0012b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. 

Mr. Horne reported that the Navy had sent the HSCA a fact sheet that “strongly reiterates the Navy’s position that the camera provided to the HSCA was indeed the camera used at the autopsy on President Kennedy.” The proof was a suppressed letter to the HSCA from the Assistant Secretary of Defense indicating that the Department of Defense had indeed located, and had in fact already sent to the HSCA, “the only [camera] in use at the National Naval Medical Center in 1963” (22).

22. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy,” pp 2–24. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0001b.htm. to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0012b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. 

However the HSCA wasn’t satisfied with the camera the Defense Department had fetched. In a letter asking the Secretary of Defense to look around for another one, HSCA chief counsel, Robert Blakey, explained the problem:

[O]ur photographic experts have determined that this camera, or at least the particular lens and shutter attached to it, could not have been used to take [JFK’s]autopsy pictures. (22)

22. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy,” pp 2–24. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0001b.htm. to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0012b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. 

Whereas the HSCA reported it could not completely close the loop because the camera was missing, the suppressed record suggests that 1) the loop was closed, 2) the camera was located, and 3) that the HSCA’s own experts determined the camera “could not have been used to take [JFK’s] autopsy pictures.” The HSCA staff elected to withhold this inconvenient information from the public. They also kept it from their own experts on the FPP, including the chairman, Dr. Micheal Baden (personal communication), and one of the authors of this essay [CHW]. And so, as Dr. Levy makes clear, the FPP experts were left to labor under the illusion that the images had passed authentication with flying colors.

The following from the ARRB on the HSCA failure to authenticate the extant autopsy photographs:

THE ARRB ON THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE JFK AUTOPSY CAMERA DURING THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS INVESTIGATION:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43609#relPageId=1

"...4. By late 1997, enough related documents had been located and assembled by the author to bring into serious doubt the accuracy of the HSCA's conclusion (see paragraph 2 above) that "...the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens...used to take...[the autopsy] photographs." If the HSCA was incorrect in its conclusion that the camera it examined was not the autopsy camera, the implications for what may have happened on November 22-23, 1963 are considerable. In paragraph 5 below, a timeline has been constructed of HSCA activities in the autopsy camera area, referencing appropriate documents assembled by the author, that will explain why a reasonable student of the assassination might conclude that the HSCA reached the wrong conclusion regarding the autopsy camera. [Appropriate documents are attached to this memo as enclosures.] Implications of the HSCA's possibly incorrect analysis of the situation are explored in paragraph 6 below...."

"...7.  Looking at this problem from another viewpoint, the HSCA report writers (presumably Blakey, Cornwell and Billings) might just as well have said, after receiving John Kester's letter of April 20, 1978, "Because the Navy did provide the camera used at the autopsy, through DOD, for our examination--and our experts have concluded it could not have been used to take the autopsy pictures--the Committee therefore concludes that the official autopsy photographs in the collection at the National Archives were taken by someone other than John Stringer, and that John Stringer's photographs were removed from the collection prior to April 26, 1965." But instead of openly pointing out, in its written report, the possibility of either conclusion being correct, the HSCA apparently assumed the photographs were Stringer's without question, and therefore concluded that the Navy and DOD must have provided the wrong camera to the Committee, in spite of the strong assurances of the Department of Defense that the Graphic View Camera provided for examination in 1978 was the only one used at Bethesda in November, 1963. Perhaps worst of all, the document that would have cast doubt on the seeming certainty of the HSCA's conclusion regarding the camera, the John Kester letter of April 20, I978, was apparently sealed for 50 years by someone on the HSCA staff.  In light of the HSCA's deposition of Robert L. Knudsen in August. 1978, in which he indicated with great certainty that he had developed color negatives (vice color positive transparencies) from the autopsy, and a film pack of black-and-white negatives (vice black-and-white negatives from a duplex film holder), and the Committee staff's subsequent decision not to publish or even mention his testimony in its final report, and to seal it for 50 years, one cannot wonder whether some important, high-ranking members of the HSCA staff had a strong disposition against accepting, at face value, indications that there may have been chain-of-custody or authenticity problems with key photographic evidence in the Kennedy assassination, and a predilection in favor of benign explanations for apparent discrepancies in the photographic evidence...."

Dr. Gary Aguilar on the HSCA's Fraud Regarding its Failure to Authenticate the Autopsy Photographs

8 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

There is zero to indicate a cover-up. 

So, in light of all of the above, I don't see any way that you can rationalize your statement.