Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams and John Simkin


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Don Bohning has sent me this posting by John McAdams. I don't know who said McAdams was a "crackpot" but it was not me. It is not a word I ever use. Nor do I understand how the person who made this statement is as a result of it, a Nazi? I just do not understand the logic of this argument.

John McAdams View profile

(5 users) More options Aug 7, 7:51 pm

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:51:47 GMT

Local: Fri, Aug 7 2009 7:51 pm

Subject: John Simkin: Prosecute Those Who Disagree

Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

An e-mail correspondent brought to my attention what he described as

an "attack on you" (meaning me).

Big deal, I thought.

But this was a bit more revealing than the others.

It's from John Simkin:

http://surftofind.com/fraud

Note this paragraph:

<quote on>

The only way to get out of the forest is to use your own head and to

study the documents. It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like

John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the

assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop

an insanity plea.

<quote off>

That's right. He would like to "prosecute" me for disagreeing with

him on the Internet.

That says a lot about Simkin's politics. Ragardless of what he claims

to be (Labour, Liberal or whatever), he's really a Nazi.

.John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is also discussed, here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14656

Last I checked, a number of posters at alt.ass.JFK, including myself, pointed out to McAdams that the quote he claimed was from you, was not. He then backed down and admitted he owed you an apology, but still claimed your claim he was a disinfo agent revealed your fascistic tendencies, or some such thing.

I don't recall. Did you ever claim he was a disinformation agent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is also discussed, here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14656

Last I checked, a number of posters at alt.ass.JFK, including myself, pointed out to McAdams that the quote he claimed was from you, was not. He then backed down and admitted he owed you an apology, but still claimed your claim he was a disinfo agent revealed your fascistic tendencies, or some such thing.

I don't recall. Did you ever claim he was a disinformation agent?

last I checked majority of posters on AAJ (McAdams USENET board) ARE lone nut-trolls. Those that think they can change nutters, discuss or even persuade them otherwise are dreaming... .john is locked into 1999.... IMHO, he's pretty low on the disinfo scale these day's, many have raced to head that pact.... David Von Pein, aka Dave Reitzes-pieces come to mind, the guy has to have at least 7 websites and blogs supporting the unsupportable -- the WCR-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome nonsense (and that doesn't count the Bugliosi AMAZON gigs or YouTUBE) and who knows (or cares) how many internet aliases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know who said McAdams was a "crackpot" but it was not me. It is not a word I ever use. Nor do I understand how the person who made this statement is as a result of it, a Nazi? I just do not understand the logic of this argument.

McAdams was not suggesting that calling someone a crackpot makes the name-caller a Nazi.

It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like

John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the

assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop

an insanity plea.

McAdams is just saying that only Nazi's (totalitarians) would want to PROSECUTE "crackpots" (as in CRIMINAL PROSECUTION) on account of their beliefs, and I am sure most members would agree with that particular sentiment.

Of course McAdams was falsely attributing those sentiments to John Simkin, but he has apologized, in a fairly half-hearted sort of way.

What we got here is a failure to c'mmunicate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know who said McAdams was a "crackpot" but it was not me. It is not a word I ever use. Nor do I understand how the person who made this statement is as a result of it, a Nazi? I just do not understand the logic of this argument.

McAdams was not suggesting that calling someone a crackpot makes the name-caller a Nazi.

It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like

John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the

assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop

an insanity plea.

McAdams is just saying that only Nazi's (totalitarians) would want to PROSECUTE "crackpots" (as in CRIMINAL PROSECUTION) on account of their beliefs, and I am sure most members would agree with that particular sentiment.

Of course McAdams was falsely attributing those sentiments to John Simkin, but he has apologized, in a fairly half-hearted sort of way.

What we got here is a failure to c'mmunicate.

all you need to know about Paul (McAdams alias) Nolan, er John McAdams...

http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html (half way down the article)

p.s. there is a REAL Paul Nolan - JFK researcher as the above article states...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know who said McAdams was a "crackpot" but it was not me. It is not a word I ever use. Nor do I understand how the person who made this statement is as a result of it, a Nazi? I just do not understand the logic of this argument.

McAdams was not suggesting that calling someone a crackpot makes the name-caller a Nazi.

It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like

John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the

assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop

an insanity plea.

McAdams is just saying that only Nazi's (totalitarians) would want to PROSECUTE "crackpots" (as in CRIMINAL PROSECUTION) on account of their beliefs, and I am sure most members would agree with that particular sentiment.

Of course McAdams was falsely attributing those sentiments to John Simkin, but he has apologized, in a fairly half-hearted sort of way.

What we got here is a failure to c'mmunicate.

all you need to know about Paul (McAdams alias) Nolan, er John McAdams...

http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html (half way down the article)

p.s. there is a REAL Paul Nolan - JFK researcher as the above article states...

While Jimmy D hits on a lot of sore points in this article, here’s the part about McAdams infiltrating COPA and subsequent Mockingbird Press reports, though to me it was more like Laurel and Hardy.

McAdams at Marquette? There must be a Catholic connection there somewhere. Maybe he’s with that super secret Vatican Nazi branch of the CIA.

There’s also more to Loomis than meets the eye, but in the end, I’m sure we’re going to know all the sorid details.- BK

McAdams Infiltrates COPA

http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html

James DiEugenio

The resultant hubbub even spawned a second film on the subject named Ruby. Which was not nearly as good or powerful as Stone's film. All of this furor greatly increased the size of the so-called critical community. It brought in many people who got really interested for the first time. It brought back many others who had been onto other things. It greatly expanded the circulation of existing journals like The Third Decade and it gave birth to new ones like Probe. Because of all this interest, many conferences and seminars were now set up, like the ASK Conference in Dallas, and others in Chicago and Washington. The Coalition on Political Assassinations was also formed.

Clearly, all of this attracted the attention of the Dark Side. And with the 30th anniversary of JFK's death upcoming, there were two overt ways that they decided to counteract it all. The first was when the notorious Robert Loomis met up with Gerald Posner. (The Assassinations, ed. by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 369) As I have discussed before, Loomis had been a mainstay at Random House for many years. His first wife, Gloria Loomis, had worked for CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton for a long time. Loomis had been associated with the likes of CIA friendly journalist Sy Hersh from almost the beginning of Hersh's career. (ibid) Loomis had also worked with another spooky reporter, James Phelan, for decades. (ibid) Loomis had been instrumental in getting Bob Houghton's apologia for the LAPD cover up of the Robert Kennedy assassination, Special Unit Senator published in 1970. He was then part of the effort to withdraw from the bookstands the excellent 1978 volume on the RFK case by Bill Turner and Jonn Christian,The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. (Turner and Christian, 2006 edition, p. xvi) In talking to Posner after a debate, Jim Marrs asked him how he came to write his book on the JFK case. Posner told him he had been approached by Loomis who promised him access to certain people like Yuri Nosenko—who, of course, almost no one had access to at the time. (DiEugenio and Pease, op. cit.) I once called Loomis' New York office. He was not in. His secretary told me he was in Washington. She said he shuttled down there almost every other week. Clearly, Loomis and his Washington cronies were preparing to strike back at Stone's film through their use of Posner. So Posner's lousy book, which has since been reduced to rubble many times over, was given one of the great publicity tours ever. Including a front cover on US News and World Report. (August 30, 1993).

I first heard of Posner in 1992. It was through Gus Russo. He told me about this Wall Street lawyer who was preparing this powerhouse book that was going to create a lot of problems for the critical community. Another person who alerted me to Posner's book was Zaid. At the time, he had been meeting with people like Dick Russell and Jim Lesar about forming an organization to lobby Congress about the creation of the Assassination Records Review Board. I wrote a letter to those three outlining a strategy we should follow. I was stunned by what Zaid wrote back. First, he tried to say that there was not really enough evidence to call for a reopening of the case, and he pointed to Beverly Oliver as a witness to prove his point. I thought this was superfluous because I had never written about, talked to, or endorsed that woman. But secondly, he revealed in this letter that he had shown my original communication to his colleague Gerald Posner. Understandably, I felt betrayed. Though his book had yet to be published, I understood what Posner was up to.

Right then and there, I should have understood who Russo and Zaid were. I also should have understood that there was a large and forceful movement afoot by the Dark Side, which felt that they had been ill-prepared for the hurricane effect created by Stone's film. But I, and many others, were not quite aware of what was happening. But when PBS broadcast their 1993 Frontline special on Oswald, the truth about Russo began to dawn on us all. After all, Russo originated the show and was a chief correspondent. The program featured witnesses like Ed Butler, Priscilla Johnson, Ed Epstein, Robert Blakey, and Carlos Bringuier. As per the clincher with Zaid, at the 1993 Dallas ASK Conference mentioned above, Zaid went out of his way to do a very peculiar thing. The late Larry Harris had done a fine job in gathering many of the living eye witnesses who had been in Dealey Plaza the day of the assassination. He actually put them in their original places to be photographed and interviewed by the attendees. Zaid walked down to the Plaza with a stack of literature in his hand. And he began to distribute flyers about those witnesses explaining why they could not be believed! (He later wrote a pamphlet on this very subject with fellow "critic" Dennis Ford.)

Question: What kind of Kennedy researchers would pay money to fly to such a conference, stay in a hotel, and pay for meals, in order to argue that the critical community was all wrong? In effect, Zaid and Russo were doing their best to scuttle the efforts of a nascent movement. Because Cyril Wecht and myself spoke out against them at the 1993 ASK Conference, Zaid and Russo did not appear on the conference scene again. But that did not mean that Loomis and the Dark Side was done. Far from it. For in 1994, Russo had reportedly met with CIA officers Ted Shackley and Bill Colby. (See Probe Vol. 6 No. 2, and Who Is Gus Russo? for more details.) The word was that they were worried about what organizations like COPA were going to say about their so-called maligned colleague David Phillips. After all, there were many new documents being released about Phillips that were quite interesting. Russo later tried to say this meeting was a research foray for a book he was writing. But what would CIA propaganda writer Joe Goulden be doing there if that was really the sole aim of the meeting? Further, one of the attendees there admitted that COPA was discussed. And John Newman later called Colby who confirmed this was so and they were worried about further disclosures about Phillips. Russo was toast within the community. But a man named Paul Nolan was unknown.

III

I had my marching orders.

—Matt Labash to Gary Aguilar

Which brings us to the second overt way Loomis and the Dark Side struck back. See, Paul Nolan is an alias. More accurately, it is an undercover name. Paul Nolan's real name is John McAdams. And to understand why Loomis and company would use him to go after COPA and defend David Phillips, you have to understand a bit about his background.

McAdams first surfaced after Stone's film was released. But he first reared his ugly visage not in public, but on the Internet. He began to frequent many of the JFK forums that sprang up around the time period of 1992-93. Except he outdid almost anyone in the number of posts he delivered. At times they were around fifty per day. (Probe Vol. 3 No. 3 p. 13) But as I wrote at the time, his personality was so repellent and his style so pugnacious that many new to the field saw through him quickly. One wrote in an e-mail: "McAdams is a spook isn't he ... I am concerned about McAdams and his ilk. The stuff he puts up on the 'Net is pure disinformation ... The stuff McAdams puts on the 'Net is pure acid. He doesn't respond to the facts, he just discredits witnesses and posters." (ibid.)

At the time, I noted that McAdams liked to forge false messages in order to insult people in the JFK field, like Jim Garrison, and to promote others, like Posner. He would jump around from forum to forum posting disinformation. Like for example that Clay Shaw was never really on the Board of Directors of Permindex. According to McAdams, that was a myth promoted by Oliver Stone. Well, finally someone actually scanned Shaw's ownWho's Who entry in which he himself noted he was on the board of Permindex. This shut up McAdams on that forum. So what did McAdams do? He went to another forum and said the same thing about Shaw—knowing it had been proven false! Nothing tells us more about the man than that fact. And nothing tells us more about the people who choose to associate with McAdams in spite of that, e.g. Dave Reitzes and David Von Pein.

But one good thing about McAdams at the time, at least for the Dark Side, was that his presence in the JFK case had been confined to the Internet. So very few people in the critical community had ever seen him. That facial anonymity, plus his willingness in using a false name made him useful in the attack against COPA. In 1995, McAdams/Nolan attended the COPA Conference in Washington. Unfortunately for him, there actually was another JFK researcher whose real name was Paul Nolan. When he found out about the McAdams deception, he posted a web message: "I was just doing some research over the net. I wanted to see if anything came up that had my name in it. Guess what? My REAL name is Paul Nolan! Apparently some asshole wants to use my name as an alias." (ibid)

Using this phony name, McAdams went to the above conference. He happened to meet a conservative reporter named Matt Labash there. Labash was on assignment for City Paper out of Washington D.C. Nolan/McAdams told Labash that he managed a computer store in Shorewood, Wisconsin—which he did not. In Labash's resultant negative article on that conference, Nolan was the only participant quoted at length. And what was one of the things Labash quoted him on? Shades of Mark Zaid. It was Dr. Luis Alvarez' nutty "jet effect" explanation of Kennedy's back and to the left reaction in the Zapruder film. (ibid, p. 26)

Coincidence? Hardly. Labash had worked for rightwing propaganda mills like American Spectator and the intelligence riddled Washington Times. At the time of his hit piece on COPA he was working at Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard. Further, Labash is believed to have done this kind of infiltration assignment before for the Washington Times. His target then was the Institute for Policy Studies. When Gary Aguilar called Labashc, he admitted that he had his "marching orders" from on high for his COPA assignment (ibid).

To most people, it would appear that Colby and Shackley had fulfilled their mission. Except it was not through Russo. It was through McAdams masquerading as Paul Nolan....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is also discussed, here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14656

Last I checked, a number of posters at alt.ass.JFK, including myself, pointed out to McAdams that the quote he claimed was from you, was not. He then backed down and admitted he owed you an apology, but still claimed your claim he was a disinfo agent revealed your fascistic tendencies, or some such thing.

I don't recall. Did you ever claim he was a disinformation agent?

This website quotes John Simkin in an attack on John McAdams.

http://surftofind.com/fraud

McAdams has in turn created a thread on alt.assassination.JFK where former Forum members David Von Pein and Brendan Slattery have dogpiled on Simkin and called him a Nazi, Bolshevik, etc... someone out to enforce his view of the world on others.

The problem is that the key quote McAdams uses "It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop an insanity plea." is not in quotes on the website and is not attributed to Simkin by the creator of the website.

McAdams is attacking Simkin for NO reason other than his ridiculous notion that John Simkin is some sort of fascist out to arrest anyone who disagrees with him. What malarkey!

McAdams owes John Simkin a beer.

I am sorry but I was away and I missed this posting. Thank you Pat for getting him to admit that:

"McAdams has acknowledged that Simkin did not write the bit about having McAdams prosecuted. He acknowledged he owes Simkin an apology. He then turned around and added "Except, he did call me a "disinformation agent," which is a pretty fascist thing to do."

I am pretty sure I have called him a disinformation agent in the past because that it what I believe. Of course, McAdams, Bohning, Ayton have said the same thing about me. Does that make them fascists? Of course it doesn't. This group started off by calling me a communist. Now that I have argued that I am a fairly successful capitalist, they have switched it to the other extreme and I am now a fascist. The strange world of those who think JFK was killed by a lone gunman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...