Dale Myers, Don Thomas, & The Murder Of Officer Tippit

[William Kelly]

It's nice to know there are still some radical extremists who want to try to defend the undefensible.

All evidence in the JFK & Tippit murders points to one person (Oswald).

And yet anyone who believes Oswald was a lone assassin in those two murders is a "radical extremist".

Beautiful, Bill.

Certainly all the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murders points to one person - Oswald - since he was framed for the first one.

And of course you are a radical extremist, being one of less than 20% of the people who believe Oswald killed JFK alone.

A duck is a duck.

BK

[David Von Pein]

Certainly all the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murders points to one person - Oswald - since he was framed for the first one.

But not the second?

[William Kelly]

Certainly all the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murders points to one person - Oswald - since he was framed for the first one.

But not the second?

I don't know that Tippit's murder had anything to do with the JFK assassination, especially if he was killed by a disgrunted husband who didn't like Tippit sleeping with his wife.

If Oswald was Tippit's killer, I'm sure he didn't plan to kill a cop, and if he was " framed" for the Tippit murder, it was off the cuff and played on the fly, and not something planned.

BK

[Guest Tom Scully]

David, you infer that McAdams is not a xxxx. Will you concede that he is an extreme right wing Bush apologist not above quoting Norman Podhoretz to attempt to sell the notion that Bush sincerely believed Iraq posed an imminent threat justifying the response of invasion and occupation? How CLOSE is McAdams to Thomas L Jeffers? Have you considered that McAdams is a neocon and his JFK schtik is for the purpose of protecting GHW Bush? If so, isn't he a xxxx? Can one be a neocon and not be a xxxx? Take a gander at the wikipedia page of Podhoretz's wife's son-in-law, Elliott Abrams. Messy business, David....how deep are you in it?

Edited December 8, 2010 by Tom Scully

[David Von Pein]

how deep are you in it?

What in God's name are you babbling about?

[Duke Lane]

... I've often overlooked Tippit's murder but anybody with interesting articles on this subject please post links because I'm ready to learn! ...

I think this new forum software lets you look up the topics that people have posted in. If so, check out my topics: I've posted to several Tippit threads. There's a lot of information out there, some interesting and accurate, some not, but all generally informative either way.

[Guest Tom Scully]

how deep are you in it?

What in God's name are you babbling about?

You don't believe John McAdams is a xxxx...what are you babbling about? You are clueless about his agenda, and about limitless numbers of other details, it seems.

....E.G., per DiEugenio, all of these people were (or are) liars: Mary Bledsoe, William Whaley, Wes Frazier, Linnie Randle, Roy Truly, Harry Olsen, Marrion Baker, Will Fritz, Henry Wade, Ruth Paine, John McAdams, Dave Perry, Dale Myers, the entire Warren Commission, most of the HSCA and its staff, most of the FBI, the Clark Panel, Marina Oswald, and hundreds more.

David, on the slimmest of chances that you don't know what really is going on here, and Jim, who this should make plenty of sense, to...

John McAdams, from the results of my research, seems to exhibit all of the signs of a right wing, political extremist, and he has like minded friends at the religiously oriented "university" where he has been entrenched now for many years. McAdams and his colleague at Marquette are serious, about "mugging" history. Norman Podheretz is the stepfather-in-law of convicted perjurer, Elliott Abrams. When you consider how intertwined the "work" of Podheretz, Abrams, McAdams, and Jeffers is, it is difficult to believe that they are all engaged coincidentally in disinformation campaigns designed to distort and keep hidden the sheer volume of blood on the hands of Reagan, and Bush, father and son?

Just as important is their commitment to and justification of a modern day version of the christian crusades.

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/11/barbra-streisand-vs-norman-podhoretz.html

Friday, November 11, 2005

Barbra Streisand vs. Norman Podhoretz: Unequal Match

....It might seem unfair to pick on a woman easily dismissed as a Hollywood airhead, but her rhetoric is all to typical of the loony left in the Democratic Party, which unfortunately looks very much like the mainstream of the party.

An intellectually serious discussion http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/who-is-lying-about-iraq--9995 comes from Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary:

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

[. . .]

. . . it is as close to certainty as we can get that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.

How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment.

Podhorentz also masterfully dissects the statements of the left’s favorite (but now discredited) critic of the Bush Administration, Joseph C. Wilson.

In the protected little world of New York Times reading, NPR listening, Volvo driving and latte sipping liberals and leftists, the “Bush lied” rhetoric plays just fine. But it won’t play among people who care about history.

posted by John McAdams at 5:23 PM

http://beta.alternet.org/books/147932/looking_back_at_norman_podhoretz,_a_key_influence_on_today%27s_neoconservative_right

Truthdig / By Norman Birnbaum

Looking Back at Norman Podhoretz, a Key

Influence on Today's Neoconservative Right

Looking at two new books, by Thomas L. Jeffers and Benjamin Balint, on the longtime editor of Commentary and the magazine he shaped.

August 23, 2010 |

This article first appeared on TruthDig.

"Norman Podhoretz: A Biography," a new book on the editor of Commentary from 1960 to 1995, by an extremely admiring author, Marquette University professor of English Thomas Jeffers, depicts him as both prophet and martyr. His prophetic status resides in his unequivocal defense of the values expressed in the traditionalism of the conservative minority of American Jewry and its indissoluble attachment to Israel. The U.S., and its Americanized Jewish majority, cannot be counted upon. Eternal vigilance is required if its truly Jewish citizens (and those gentiles insightful and noble enough to rally to their cause) are to keep both Jewry and the U.S. from falling to inner demons. These include, variously, vacuous sentimentalism, multiculturalism, tolerance of homosexuality, pacifism, compulsive egalitarianism, feminism and militant secularism.

Podhoretz is deemed a prophet for having waged this battle, some youthful wavering apart. He is, however, a martyr since he has been constantly damned for it by those who lack his belief in the redemptive qualities of the U.S. Above all, a Jewish majority addicted to "liberalism" persists in a spiritually shallow and morally self-defeating attachment to an American version of Western European social democracy....

...The author of this contemporary morality tale is obviously in agreement with his subject on every conflict-laden issue mentioned in the text. (On homosexuality, Jeffers and Podhoretz make Justice Antonin Scalia sound rather nuanced.) Ordinarily, a minimum of critical distance is useful to biographers, but Jeffers' depiction of Podhoretz's life and works is unwaveringly loyal. The volume may be understood as a family chronicle, written by a distant acquaintance anxious to be numbered among its friends.

Podhoretz once used the term "family" to describe the New York intellectuals of the '50s and '60s, a group he joined as a very young man. Much of the readability of his first memoir (he has been repeating and occasionally adding to it ever since), "Making It" (1968), is in the description of the group. They were the editors and major contributors to Commentary and Partisan Review. Jeffers himself is fascinated by the sheer aggressiveness of the group, collectively and individually, takes it as evidence of the group's moral authenticity and excuses its excesses as spiritual collateral damage. He praises Podhoretz for his capacity to give as good as he gets....

...The Podhoretz of the text is, however, not merely an unusually articulate participant in public argument. He is Superman rather than Everyman, emerging triumphant from the inner and outer travails that have reduced the rest of us to exhaustion if not bewilderment. Professor Jeffers makes it clear that whatever else Podhoretz may have acquired on his long journey from Brooklyn to the Upper East Side of Manhattan, he has inexorably shed his doubts....

Edited December 8, 2010 by Tom Scully

[William Kelly]

Davey, concerning your crack about my mother, you have the sensitivity of a tortoise if you don' t understand that in your incontinent and uncontrollable desire to insult and smear,there are some places you just don't go. OK.

Concerniing Bill Kelly:

1. If TIppit was killed by a jealous hubby, then how did this guy get Oswald's wallet?

2. Concerning keeping DVP and his ilk on this forum--like Mark H. who wants to execute critics for being un American--I really do not understand this logic. Our side does not need to be challenged, since we challenge each other all the time. The points that DVP and his ilk bring up are usually points that have all been decided decades ago. And as I said, he brings them up with the same old same old arguments. And we are forced to recycle them. Why? Because Bill and John SImkin thinks it adds something to his forum--some pyrotechnics perhaps?

Maybe because they are not doing the heavy lifting and people like me and Lee are. Its fun I guess if you are in the bleachers tossing popcorn.

Not long ago, a pal of mine, who is a critic, tried to join. He got a message back saying Spartacus was not accepting new members. Yet, after I joined, Davey Boy, Reitzes and Francois Carlier got on quickly. And now, people from Duncan's forum get on easily like this Mark guy who was obviously sent over to draw SBT trajectories and go after Speer and his sack--even though he did not do the experiment Pat suggested. ANd DVP stays on even though he gets away with provocation after provocation and insult after insult.

Maybe John, Bill and the moderators like having us play gladiators to all these goofy WC advocates, while they mostly watch the entertainment. After all, it is called Spartacus.

Maybe Bill and John fancy themselves running a gladiator camp, with John as the Peter Ustinov character?

But recall what happened after this kind of treatment? The rebellion.

Now I know why DPF started.

I don't believe Tippit was killed by a jealous husband, though Tippit did sleep around with a couple of the waitresses at the Barbeque and got one pregnant. My point was to establish there are other suspects in the murder besides Oswald, just as there are other suspects in the assassination besides Oswald.

Wait a minute, I think I'm doing my share of the lifting, and I'm engaged with Dale Myers, the guy who got Simkin booted off Hoch's private little chit chat, that was the straw that broke Simkin's interest in this game and he threw in the towl.

The last time I sent Simkin a private email was to ask him to let Jimmy D in the ball park.

You want to engage DVP in an endless debate, that's your business. Nobody's forcing you to be a gladiator.

And I think that Simkin should open the floodgates to whoever wants to join, and that the moderators should stay awake and go after those who attack the forum and try to bring it down, and not bother with the bs as to the motivation of posters and whose calling who a lier.

In the meantime, I'll try to see if we take the research further, learn more about the case, and bring it to Congress and the Courts before the 50th anniversary.

And those who want to join in this effort with me can, and those who want to debate the bs can do that to.

BK

Edited December 8, 2010 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

BK: YEA, MR. WHITE STICKS TO HIS STORY AND THEY DON'T BOTHER INTERVIEWING MATHER, WHO WORKS FOR COLLINS RADIO, A COMPANY THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES IDENTIFIED ON ITS FRONT PAGE ON NOVEMBER 1, 1963 AS A COMPANY THAT OWNED THE SHIP THE REX THAT THE CIA USED TO RUN TERRORISTS COMMANDOS INTO CUBA, INCLUDING A TEAM THAT WAS PICKED UP AND ARRESTED BY THE CUBANS AND WHO CONFESSED THEY WERE TO USE THE HIGH POWERD RIFLES WITH SCOPES THEY WERE ARRESTED WITH TO TRY TO ASSASSINATE CASTRO. BUT OF COURSE NONE OF THE DALLAS POLICE READ THE NEW YORK TIMES SO THEY WERE IN THE DARK ABOUT THAT, BUT THE FBI SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT AND INQUIRED, BUT THEY DON'T BOTHER QUESTIONING MATHER AT ALL!

It's always seemed to me to be a strange request that Mather put on the table. Why would someone who knows nothing need immunity from prosecution?

Thanks for that Lee,

And Carl Mather asks for Immunity from prosecution in order to testify, Blakey grants it to him, and then they never bother to call him and question him under oath?

What's with that?

Then when CBS did a special they took Carl Mather and his wife out to dinner and tried to interview him, but he was too nervous to eat and while Mrs. Mather gets listed in the credits, they never mention Mather in the documentary.

And when I was in Dallas one year and interviewed Wes Wise, taped on the record at the the scene of the Mexican restaurant parking lot - he then interviewed me with Bob Porter back at the Sixth Floor Muse, where my interview is part of the Oral History program. At that time I asked Wes Wise if he would interview Carl Mather for the Sixth Floor Oral History program, but I don't think they ever did it.

Did anybody ever question Carl Mather?

Did anybody ever question his wife, who was also present during the CBS dinner?

Bill Kelly

[Duke Lane]

... Concerning the Olsen episode, Thomas states that in Olsen's Warren Commission testimony he "claimed that he took the day off because of a broken leg. But hospital records show that Olsen broke his leg in a car accident on December 7th, two weeks after the assassination, not before. And his employement records show that he worked Thursday, the day before the assassination, and again on Monday, the first regular working day following the assassination, taking only Friday off to nurse his bum leg." Hear No Evil page 515....

The FBI interviewed him while recuperating at Methodist, and he made some rather interesting remarks that contradict his later WC testimony. But let's not belabor that point here: as we'll see below, people just don't want to know.

... What does Myers say? "That's how he [Olsen] happened to be moonlighting on the day of the assassination; acting as a guard at the property of an elderly woman located on Eighth Street, two blocks from the Stemmons Freeway in Oak Cliff."

But what does Myers leave out? "According to Olsen he spent the day guarding an estate, but could not remember the name or the address of the estate....forgetting he had a broken leg, stated that he had walked to the estate, which was supposedly on Eigth Street, only four blocks away from Coleman's apartment [Kathy Kay Coleman whom Olsen was having an affair with]" Hear No Evil page 515.

As Thomas points out, and he uses the work of four researchers who went to look for this elusive estate, "there were no estates on Eigth street, or anywhere else in central Oak Cliff, a rundown neighborhoood where many of the residents are minorities...[Penn] Jones of Midlothian Texas drove to Oak Cliff and searched the area for the alleged "estate." Jones assures us that there were no estates on Eigth Street within several blocks either side of Exing, and in fact, no "estates" anywhere in the neighborhood." Hear No Evil page 515-516. ...

Olsen later told someone that the estate was not an "estate" as in "large house," but rather (part of) the estate of a deceased man whose property was being guarded at the behest of the probate attorney.

Either way, there are a few locations along 8th that are, in fact, larger homes than those around it, and on the east side of the expressway (which is not Stemmons at that point, BTW) there were larger lots that could have – but by no means certainly did – fit the description of an "estate." Whatever was on them fifty years ago has been razed and re-developed, including a couple of lots now owned and used by the Dallas school district.

The ethnic makeup of the area may now be described as "run down" and "minority" (even though, in Dallas, the "minorities" are now the majority!), but that does not appear to be true half-a-century ago. Not to say that it was ever an affluent neighborhood – it wasn't – but it was by no means an area in need of rehabilitation.

... Thomas claims "…hospital records show that Olsen broke his leg in a car accident on December 7th, two weeks after the assassination, not before" (Hear No Evil page 515).

But Thomas doesn't cite any such "hospital records". Instead he cites the Warren Commission testimony of Harry Olsen himself and that of Olsen's girlfriend Kathy Kay Coleman.

Their testimony makes it clear that Olsen broke his leg twice.

The first time was before the assassination;

... The second time was after the assignation;

... Trying to bolster his claim that Olsen did not have a broken leg at the time of the assassination Thomas claims "And his employement records show that he worked Thursday, the day before the assassination, and again on Monday, the first regular working day following the assassination, taking only Friday off to nurse his bum leg." (Hear No Evil page 515).

But Thomas doesn't cite any employment records ....

... You claim that Thomas is wrong about the hospital records. That Olsen actually broke his leg twice. ... Anyway, you then use Olsen's testimony to prove this proves Thomas wrong. The only thing that would prove Thomas wrong would be the medical records of Olsen.

... You, Todd, don't expect me to call out Myers for leaving out stuff and not do the same with you, would you? The only thing you have cited as a rebuttal to Thomas' work is the testimony of Harry Olsen.

You write: "The only thing you have cited as a rebuttal to Thomas' work is the testimony of Harry Olsen."

And that's all Thomas did. And he got it wrong. Had you checked Thomas; citations, you'd have found the same thing.

I guess you don't get it. Some people never will.

Leaving aside the question of which "assignation" Todd is referring to (but please DO feel free to fill in these elusive details!), if I take the point here correctly, it is that Thomas cites "hospital records" and "employment records" when he offers no such proof, even if he's got it.

There is an axiom that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs," which in this case comes down to "if you got the records, show us the records!" Did Baylor or Methodist, both still in operation (tho' the Gaston Avenue hospital has been razed), actually give someone's medical records, even after nearly 50 years, to someone else without either consent or some legal documentation? I guess it's possible, no matter how unlikely it might seem, but I'd think some offer of proof would and should be made. If Thomas does in fact have them, then Lee's statement that "the only thing that would prove Thomas wrong" is absolutely correct.

Ditto DPD employment records, although I believe that those are matters of public record, a cop's salary being paid from public funds.

But if Thomas' citation is in fact to Olsen's WC testimony, then he did get it wrong, and so did Lee in demanding a proof in return that Thomas himself never offered, and in decrying the use of testimony to refute that self-same testimony. Olsen did not say that he took the Friday off to "nurse his bum leg," nor did he in any way insinuate (that I can recall) that his leg had anything to do with him taking the day off.

On the other hand, Todd's plaint that "you don't get it. Some people never will" is far off the mark as well. It appears that he – as do many others with a point to "prove" – wants to take a snippet of the evidence that self-servingly "clears" the subject without any consideration of what else there might be that calls it (or the witness) into question, and thus declare the matter "closed," in this case that Olsen "provably" had absolutely nothing to do with JD Tippit's murder simply because he painted himself as innocent, even unknowledgable, of any such thing.

The trouble is that this "innocent man" provably perjured himself during his testimony, or else contradicted himself – including to the FBI during the course of its official investigation – at other times. In making his point, Todd focuses on only a small portion of Olsen's testimony and Thomas' larger argument as if by dint of his testimony lily-white and pure. What shows that not to be the case was not addressed by the WC, but has about as much probative value as much of what the WC decided otherwise about Oswald.

The WC, had it not been so intent upon its mission to "dispel rumors" and instead pursued all leads as energetically as it did those involving Oswald, might well have chosen to look into Harry's story a little closer. Those who still subscribe to the notion that the WC was a complete and thorough investigation that left no stones unturned, and that it "ultimately got things right" even when its efforts and methods were less than sterling, are no more interested in hearing about than they are anything else that doesn't paint Oswald as the lone and unaided killer.

But then, some people don't get it and never will.

... the dozen witnesses who were in the immediate vicinity of Tenth & Patton at approx. 1:15 PM on Nov. 22 and saw Oswald firing bullets into the body of a policeman and/or saw Oswald leaving that murder scene with gun in hand, dumping shells out of that gun.... The various "mistaken identity" witnesses are fun to play around with, but they obviously were all truly mistaken. Because the real Oswald's whereabouts are accounted for.

How do you know they were "mistaken identity" witnesses, and if they were, how come the ones who saw "Oswald" shoot Tippit at 10th & Patton didn't make the same "mistaken identity," especially if there was someone or more than one person who either looked like Oswald or was intentionally impersonating him?

How come all the Tippit murder witnesses, at least in your mind, say they saw the historic LHO, when the others were mistaken, even though Oswald was certainly in the hood at the time? ... How do you differenciate between the positive identifications of Oswald and the bogus ones?

The above is a fair example of what I'd meant about not getting it: what does 1:15 have to do with anything?

A call came over the police radio at around 1:16, thus supposedly making this time important. Does anyone think that there was suddenly some sort of time warp that allowed a crowd to gather and several attempts at using the police radio to take place after Donny Benavides "waited" in his truck lest the shooter get him too, etc., etc., such that only a minute actually went by between the shooting and the on-air notification of it? In point of fact, many if not most witnesses (and "witnesses") to the event thought it was much later than 1:15 when the shooting took place; the only two who were paying any attention to the time both said it was significantly earlier.

They, of course, are "wrong" while the others are merely "mistaken." Based on what? On the presumption that the confluence of events – what all of these people said they saw and did, matched up with what other people said they saw and did – occured in the space of one minute?!?

Tom Bowley's radio call (it's now official, by the way: Tom Bowley made the call, and was recently recognized by the City of Dallas for making it, no matter what Donny Benavides and the WC might have said or thought!) is the only bit of "evidence" there is to fall back on to suggest that Oswald could have done it, and then only if we presume that either time slowed down or people speeded up to do all that they needed to do to reach that point in time. Oh, and that Helen Markham and Tom Bowley himself – the only two witnesses who even had any cause to be paying attention to the time – were wrong because ... well, why were they wrong other than the arbitrary determination that, because the call came over the radio at 1:16, the shooting took place only a minute earlier at 1:15?

The basis of that – feel free to correct me – is that Oswald couldn't have gotten there much if any sooner, at least not if he'd left and gotten to the other places he is presumed to have been in the time alloted to get to and from them. And, of course, that only Oswald could have possessed the gun that presumably shot Tippit because it was presumably – but not demonstrably – in his possession at the time of his arrest.

If we presume that Tippit was actually shot in the timeframe stated by both Markham and Bowley, then Oswald couldn't have been the shooter, or else Oswald wasn't at his rooming house when Earlene Roberts (thought she) saw him, or he didn't get there by Whaley's taxi, or he wasn't on the bus, or ... what?

Those who insist that he was all of those places are constrained by an inability to get to 10th & Patton from 1026 North Beckley in any less time without someone having given him a ride, for which there is also no evidence. So, having to put him there as soon as he could be there constrains all other actions to that conclusion, a case of fitting the facts to the theory and ignoring those that don't support it.

Some people just don't get it and never will. And the rest of us are idiots. Go figure.

[David Von Pein]

Yet, after I joined, Davey Boy, Reitzes and Francois Carlier got on quickly.

Pretty much anybody can join this forum. All they need to do is e-mail John Simkin directly -- at john.simkin@ntlworld.com (which is the e-mail address I used on August 1st, 2010, to arrange my current membership).

And DiEugenio is wrong about Francois Carlier joining up after Jimbo joined. Fact is, Francois has been a member since January 19, 2010, which was five months before DiEugenio joined.

And, of course, as Duncan MacRae has already pointed out, Mark H. wasn't "sent" here by any evil LN forces. He undoubtedly joined up because he wanted to. And he probably went through the exact same process I did when I joined in August, via e-mailing John Simkin directly (if he received the "Forum Is Currently Not Accepting New Members" message that many people have encountered recently).

My $0.02:

An occasional LNer is most certainly needed in a conspiracy-infested forum like this one, just to provide some degree of balance to people like Jim DiEugenio and Lee Farley and Jim Fetzer (and many others) who believe in some of the strangest and off-the-wall things imaginable when it comes to the JFK assassination -- such as believing that Lee Oswald never fired a shot at EITHER John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit, which is truly an off-the-wall belief that only a relatively small percentage of Americans endorse, as this ABC News poll indicates.

Other unsupportable nonsense that should be swatted down by the occasional LNer is the notion that the cops would have had ANY desire whatsoever to want to FAKE Oswald's bus AND cab rides on November 22, 1963. Such an idea is just flat-out crazy, and everybody should know why.

So, having an "LNer" around to occasionally come in here and point out the basic common-sense flaws in many of the arguments put on the Education Forum table by various conspiracy theorists is certainly not a bad thing. Otherwise, the "lurkers" who come in here might actually start to accept some of the nonsense being spouted by DiEugenio, Farley, Fetzer, Lifton, White, and others.

Edited December 8, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

John McAdams, from the results of my research, seems to exhibit all of the signs of a right wing, political extremist, and he has...

I'll stop you right there. I couldn't care less what Prof. McAdams' position is regarding politics. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in that aspect of Mr. McAdams.

What I do know is this (regardless of McAdams' political views) -- he has an excellent website on the JFK assassination, which presents both sides of many, many important issues dealing with JFK's death, and he has written many top-notch articles and Internet posts supporting the official lone-assassin view of the assassination, which IMO are articles and posts that are filled with FACTS, COMMON SENSE, and LOGIC (three things that virtually all conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists lack when dealing with this subject).

If you want to think that Mr. McAdams' political views (whatever they may be, which don't interest me in the slightest) somehow are coloring his opinions and his articles regarding the JFK assassination, well, you just go right ahead and think that. It's a free country, after all.

I, however, will stick to the FACTS and COMMON SENSE that Mr. McAdams imparts on a daily basis when he speaks about the issues associated with President Kennedy's murder.

Edited December 8, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

...

the "lurkers" who come in here might actually start to accept some of the nonsense being spouted by DiEugenio, Farley, Fetzer, Lifton, White, and others.

you're whining at fever pitch again, David Von Pein.

[Guest Tom Scully]

John McAdams, from the results of my research, seems to exhibit all of the signs of a right wing, political extremist, and he has...

I'll stop you right there. I couldn't care less what Prof. McAdams' position is regarding politics. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in that aspect of Mr. McAdams.

What I do know is this (regardless of McAdams' political views) -- he has an excellent website on the JFK assassination, which presents both sides of many, many important issues dealing with JFK's death, and he has written many top-notch articles and Internet posts supporting the official lone-assassin view of the assassination, which IMO are articles and posts that are filled with FACTS, COMMON SENSE, and LOGIC (three things that virtually all conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists lack when dealing with this subject).

If you want to think that Mr. McAdams' political views (whatever they may be, which don't interest me in the slightest) somehow are coloring his opinions and his articles regarding the JFK assassination, well, you just go right ahead and think that. It's a free country, after all.

I, however, will stick to the FACTS and COMMON SENSE that Mr. McAdams imparts on a daily basis when he speaks about the issues associated with President Kennedy's murder.

Nuthin' unusual goin' on here, move along, now...right, David? McAdams assassination "stuff" is totally separate from any other agenda...he is an individual spontaneoulsy serving up a treasure trove of valuable...etc., etc.,

David, don't p**** down the back of my neck and then tell me it's rainin' please.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gamaliel

User:Gamaliel

I am an administrator here so feel free to contact me if you need assistance with anything....

...What I'm proudest of and spent more time working on than anything else are my contributions to Lee Harvey Oswald. The Oswald entry is even mentioned in a newspaper article(broken link) on wikipedia. If you want to witness insanity firsthand, try monitoring these articles for conspiracy nonsense.

Useful links:

.... Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Prod-nn

{{Prod-nn}} (for tagging non-notable articles for proposed deletion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._McAdams

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_C._McAdams&action=history

(cur | prev) 18:46, 1 December 2010 Gamaliel (talk | contribs) (1,771 bytes) (object to prod, add upcoming book)

(cur | prev) 11:52, 1 December 2010 Abductive (talk | contribs) (1,628 bytes) (Prod-nn)

17:13, 26 January 2010 Gamaliel (talk | contribs) (1,545 bytes) (←Created page with ''''John C. McAdams''' is an associate professor of political science at Marquette University. He earned his PhD from Harvard University in 1981. McAdams tea...')

Really David, do you think we are all that stoopid, here? It hasn't quite dawned on you, if you are sincere, and even on many who agree with me on most aspects of this assassination conspiracy and cover up controversy, that the politics cannot be kept separate. McAdams does not keep them separate from his assassination research, his politics are what motivate his research, and everything else he says and does. We've had to endure a Ford, a Reagan, a Bush, and a Bush-Cheney (and now, an Obama) regime expressly because we in opposition refuse to accept and respond to and link the politics behind the crimes, to the crimes themselves....one long, uninterrupted crime spree. McAdams is not laboring under a similar disadvantage.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Tom Scully

[David Von Pein]

Oh, give it a rest, Scully. You're embarrassing yourself.

Edited December 8, 2010 by David Von Pein