McAdams melts down

[Pat Speer]

I normally don't do this, but I've been involved in a discussion with John McAdams that I suspect some will find interesting. He recently revealed that he thought the bullet striking Kennedy in the back entered at the C7/T1 level. Well, this blew my mind because on his website he embraces the photo comparison of Robert Artwohl, which shows the back wound to be around C5, several inches higher. I then confronted him with this slide.

Well, he amazingly claimed the lateral photo of Kennedy on the left of this slide more closely matched up with the Dox drawing on the right than the photo in the middle. This, to me, is the height of lunacy.

So I've continued to push him on this issue, to see what other bizarre stuff he will say in order to avoid admitting I have a point. Well, he has since admitted that he believes

1) the bullet entered at the C7/T1 level on Kennedy's back.

2) the bullet descended 21 degrees within Kennedy's body

3) it exited from the throat wound seen in the autopsy photos, which the HSCA depicted at the C7 level in their drawings.

Now, this would almost make sense if he offered one reason to believe the throat wound was below the C7 level. But, in undoubtedly the single most bizarre series of posts I've ever come across, he won't admit he thinks the bullet exited below the C7 level.

Well, how can this be? How can a bullet enter at one level, descend 21 degrees within the body, and exit at a level higher on the body? It can't. So why won't he say so?

Instead, he's totally melted down, and is now creating diversionary threads in which he bizarrely rants about how I won't answer HIS questions, etc. The clear purpose of these threads is to change the argument from what he thinks to what I think, so he can call me a wacko, etc.

In fact--get this--he's taken to calling me the "new Jack White" or some variant in every post. Classic.

Here is the original thread, if anyone's interested:

McAdams melts down

Here are the diversionary threads:

Diversionary thread #1

Diversionary thread #2

Edited January 17, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Paul Rigby]

You mean McAdams is as dishonest on this issue as....Tink Thompson? Inconceivable.

[Pat Speer]

You mean McAdams is as dishonest on this issue as....Tink Thompson? Inconceivable.

Apples and oranges, Paul. Are you saying that Tink refuses to acknowledge that a bullet sharply descending in the body can not exit from the same spot as a bullet entering at the same location and slightly ascending in the body?

I didn't think so.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Martin Hinrichs]

Game......Set.......Match.

You got it right and McAdams wrong.

Never expect a neutral and objective disscussion with McAdams.

I wonder if he realize how worse and damaging to the LN'er community he is.

Congrats Pat.

best

Martin

[Guest Tom Scully]

duplicate post-

Edited January 17, 2010 by Tom Scully

[Guest Tom Scully]

Pat,

History provides no incentive for McAdams, Mack, or politicians or journalists to be consistent, truthful, or even curious. Jerry Ford pushed the inaccurate and deliberately deceptive outcome in the WCR that you are at odds with McAdams about. Ford's behavior was rewarded with appointments to the offices of VP and US president. Mack presides over his museum.

Up is down, war is peace....Obama said so in Norway, just a few weeks ago.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...tein/index.html

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites --...

...Sunstein's response to these criticisms is easy to find in what he writes, and is as telling as the proposal itself. He acknowledges that some "conspiracy theories" previously dismissed as insane and fringe have turned out to be entirely true (his examples: the CIA really did secretly administer LSD in "mind control" experiments; the DOD really did plot the commission of terrorist acts inside the U.S. with the intent to blame Castro; the Nixon White House really did bug the DNC headquarters). Given that history, how could it possibly be justified for the U.S. Government to institute covert programs designed to undermine anti-government "conspiracy theories," discredit government critics, and increase faith and trust in government pronouncements?...

....UPDATE III: Just to get a sense for what an extremist Cass Sunstein is (which itself is ironic, given that his paper calls for "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups," as the Abstract puts it), marvel at this paragraph:

Sheesh...can't Doug Horne or his publisher even spring for the cost of a paid PR piece about his book?

Nothing in the news....nada;

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=dou...&lnav=hist9

Wake up, Pat. These guys all know how it "works", and I'm starting to "finally get it," too!

Here is a good example of the divergence in outcomes of those who supported policy vs. those who pursued the disclosure of the truth.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...ml?action=Popup

Fortunes of war: Iraq? Never did me any harm

As the Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous mission begins this week, Andrew Johnson recalls the key players – and calculates whether they are winners or losers in the aftermath of the conflict

Sunday, 22 November 2009

Tony Blair No weapons of mass destruction, thousands dead, yet Mr Blair won a third term in 2005. He resigned in 2007, becoming the UN's Middle East envoy and adviser to J P Morgan and Zurich Financial Services. He now commands up to £150,000 for lectures. His earnings are around £7m a year, not including a £5m memoirs deal nor his properties ? including a £4m Grade I home, two London houses, two in Bristol and his former Durham constituency home. Winner

Alastair Campbell Then the PM's director of communications, he denied sexing-up the dossier. He resigned during the Hutton inquiry but was vindicated. His memoir The Blair Years may have earned him £5m. Winner

Lord Goldsmith The attorney general supplied the hotly contested legal advice that gave the authority for war. Resigned with Mr Blair in 2007 and is now head of European litigation at the London office of a US law firm. Winner

Jonathan Powell Tony Blair's chief of staff asked John Scarlett to alter the dossier as some of its language was "a bit of a problem" for No 10. He quit with Mr Blair in 2007 and became a managing director for Morgan Stanley. Winner

Richard Sambrook The BBC's director of news defended Andrew Gilligan, but confirmed Dr Kelly as the source. He became head of the World Service and director of BBC Global News in 2004. Winner

Tom Kelly Blair's spokesman had to apologise for calling Dr Kelly a Walter Mitty figure. Became group director of public affairs for BAA in 2007. Winner

Clare Short The then international development secretary opposed military action but voted for war. Quit the Cabinet two months later. Has resigned the Labour whip and will step down as an MP at the election. Loser

Jeremy Greenstock The UK ambassador to the UN during the build-up to the war and then the UK's special envoy to Iraq. The government prevented publication of his book The Costs of War in 2005. Currently director of the Ditchley Foundation, which promotes international relations. Loser

Elizabeth Wilmshurst The then deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office resigned saying the invasion was illegal. She is now a fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House and Professor of International Law at University College London. Loser

Dr Brian Jones A former analyst on biological weapons at the Defence Intelligence Staff, he cast doubts on the dossier. He is now retired. Loser

Katharine Gunn The former GCHQ translator was charged under the Official Secrets Act for leaking an email showing the US were looking to bug wavering nations before the UN war vote. The court dropped the case within 30 minutes. Now campaigns for whistleblowers. Loser

Where do you think Arlen Specter would have ended up if he had not enthusiastically played along with Dulles, McCloy, and LBJ?

If the governments of the English speaking countries continue to head in the direction they seem headed in, the last thing you would want for you children is for any of them to end up participating on a forum like this one. Better that McAdams or Mack be their role models, if they want to live comfortably and prosper, with their reputations intact.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Tom Scully

[Jack White]

Tom...I believe that the Horne books were self-published.

Jack

[William Kelly]

Tom wrote:

"Sheesh...can't Doug Horne or his publisher even spring for the cost of a paid PR piece about his book? Nothing in the news...nada...."

Tom,

Doug doesn't have publisher. He published it himself. Rex Bradford arranged for it to be printed. No publisher would touch it, especially the way Doug wanted to write it, which was to include all the little things he wanted to include. Inspired by Bugliosi, who had a mainstream publisher and a big advance and a million dollar kickback, and still insisted that they publish his entire prosecution of the Patsy, detailing every little way that he was framed. Doug new the type of book he had to write, and he did it.

Doug will however, spark the response of McAdams, Max Holland, Posner and Bugliosi, and each time they respond, it will be up to someone who has actually read Horne's work to defend him and correct them.

Here's what Dough Horne had to say:

Doug Horne: I was very stubborn about the kind of book I wanted to write. I was determined not to write a book that had arbitrary constraints placed upon its length, or that was aimed at the lowest common denominator in our society. This book was written for intelligent, questioning, and well-informed people — people who want to know even more about their country’s history during a crucial period in its recent past. If I had desired, I could easily have obtained a mainstream publisher who would have printed a handsome cloth edition for sale in bookstores (with a sophisticated photo section full of glossy or color illustrations), but without exception they all would have insisted that I reduce the length of my manuscript by at least 60% (I know; I tried.) To me, that was patently unacceptable. I owe a great debt of gratitude to the Mary Ferrell Foundation, and to Rex Bradford in particular, for allowing me to “do it my way.”

[Karl Kinaski]

T. Scully

Where do you think Arlen Specter would have ended up if he had not enthusiastically played along with Dulles, McCloy, and LBJ?

In an oil-drum?

[Cliff Varnell]

Doug will however, spark the response of McAdams, Max Holland, Posner and Bugliosi, and each time they respond, it will be up to someone who has actually read Horne's work to defend him and correct them.

Who's going to correct Horne?

I'm not terribly impressed with a lot of things I'm hearing about Horne's work.

For instance -- the back wound was faked?

&I saw Horne quoted as agreeing with a 1988 Tink Thompson statement

to the effect that most homicide cases become more clear with time -- but

that's not the case in the murder of JFK.

This opinion leads me to believe Doug Horne and Tink Thompson are

studying a different murder case than I am, as after nearly 20 years of study

my experience is the exact opposite.

Is the prolonged study of fraudulent evidence like the prolonged study

of the sun with the naked eye -- it's only a matter of time before you

can't see anything at all?

[William Kelly]

Doug will however, spark the response of McAdams, Max Holland, Posner and Bugliosi, and each time they respond, it will be up to someone who has actually read Horne's work to defend him and correct them.

Who's going to correct Horne?

I'm not terribly impressed with a lot of things I'm hearing about Horne's work.

For instance -- the back wound was faked?

&I saw Horne quoted as agreeing with a 1988 Tink Thompson statement

to the effect that most homicide cases become more clear with time -- but

that's not the case in the murder of JFK.

This opinion leads me to believe Doug Horne and Tink Thompson are

studying a different murder case than I am, as after nearly 20 years of study

my experience is the exact opposite.

Is the prolonged study of fraudulent evidence like the prolonged study

of the sun with the naked eye -- it's only a matter of time before you

can't see anything at all?

Hi Cliff,

Doug Horne has an errata page on his blog if you have any corrections to make about his book, which you apparently haven't read since you are quoting what other people have said.

I don't know about you, but after many years, decades of studying this case, my research is coming together, and the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fall in to place.

And the CIA are Patsies as much as Oswald.

Bill Kelly

[Jack White]

Doug will however, spark the response of McAdams, Max Holland, Posner and Bugliosi, and each time they respond, it will be up to someone who has actually read Horne's work to defend him and correct them.

Who's going to correct Horne?

I'm not terribly impressed with a lot of things I'm hearing about Horne's work.

For instance -- the back wound was faked?

&I saw Horne quoted as agreeing with a 1988 Tink Thompson statement

to the effect that most homicide cases become more clear with time -- but

that's not the case in the murder of JFK.

This opinion leads me to believe Doug Horne and Tink Thompson are

studying a different murder case than I am, as after nearly 20 years of study

my experience is the exact opposite.

Is the prolonged study of fraudulent evidence like the prolonged study

of the sun with the naked eye -- it's only a matter of time before you

can't see anything at all?

People with closed minds cannot an infusion of truth.

For many years, people's minds refused to believe that the Z film was faked. Now it is proven.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

For many years, people's minds refused to believe that the Z film was faked. Now it is proven.

Jack

SNORT! You owe me a keyboard Jack!

[Cliff Varnell]

Doug will however, spark the response of McAdams, Max Holland, Posner and Bugliosi, and each time they respond, it will be up to someone who has actually read Horne's work to defend him and correct them.

Who's going to correct Horne?

I'm not terribly impressed with a lot of things I'm hearing about Horne's work.

For instance -- the back wound was faked?

&I saw Horne quoted as agreeing with a 1988 Tink Thompson statement

to the effect that most homicide cases become more clear with time -- but

that's not the case in the murder of JFK.

This opinion leads me to believe Doug Horne and Tink Thompson are

studying a different murder case than I am, as after nearly 20 years of study

my experience is the exact opposite.

Is the prolonged study of fraudulent evidence like the prolonged study

of the sun with the naked eye -- it's only a matter of time before you

can't see anything at all?

People with closed minds cannot an infusion of truth.

For many years, people's minds refused to believe that the Z film was faked. Now it is proven.

Jack

I acknowledge that possibility in my comments. It is germane to my point:

the study of fraudulent evidence (the head wounds for certain, the Zap head

shot frames quite possibly) is a study of the cover-up, which should

not be confused with a study of the killing.

Nothing about the killing can be gleaned from fraudulent evidence.

Faked evidence is fetishized in the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community;

authentic evidence is ignored or spun to fit various Pet Theories, all at the expense

of the prima facie cases for conspiracy.

You haven't shown where Z186-Z255 is faked, Jack.

[Cliff Varnell]

Hi Cliff,

Doug Horne has an errata page on his blog if you have any corrections to make about his book, which you apparently haven't read since you are quoting what other people have said.

No, I'm not that interested, frankly. I restrict my studies to authentic evidence,

and it sure looks to me like Horne concentrates on fraudulent evidence.

Charles Barkley once said of basketball beat writers, "The more they watch the

game the less they understand."

I fear this is true of JFK assassination researchers: the more they study the

head wounds the less they understand.

I don't know about you, but after many years, decades of studying this case, my research is coming together, and the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fall in to place.

And the CIA are Patsies as much as Oswald.

Bill Kelly

Bingo!

It was a pan-organizational effort, people whose backgrounds were incidental to

their common goal, which, according to my reading of history, was the establishment of

a Laos-to-U.S. heroin pipeline thru Vietnam and Havana.

More and more it becomes clear (to me, at least) that JFK was murdered in a

manner designed to pin the blame on Castro, to provide a rationale for an invasion

of Cuba.

Hanging the crime on "the CIA" or "the Mafia" or "the FBI" only because various

perps had backgrounds in these various organizations is the wrong way to look

at the case, imo.

There is a history of blue-blood elites being involved in the dope trade, after all.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Cliff Varnell