Jump to content
The Education Forum

Are McAdams and His Warren Commission Internet Shrine Laughing Stocks Yet?

Guest Tom Scully

Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Scully





Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark: A Life of Service


Accardo: the genuine godfather

books.google.com William F. Roemer - 1995 - 484 pages - Snippet view

Dillon, too, got a nice fee, and he spoke to Tom Clark. This was one of the biggest coups of Hump's career. He often bragged about it, which we overheard on Little Al, our bug in mob headquarters. "The trick," he said, "was to get to Tom Clark. He had the power to see that that indictment in New York could be vacated. But he had a lot of problems with that. What a cry would go up if the 'Capone guys' were dismissed....


Cover Page 07/17/96

Agency: FBI

Record Number: 124-10285-10194




FBI 10/21/64

To Director, FBI

FROM SAC, Chicago (92-350 Sub 11)

SujectL Murray L. Humphreys, aka AR


...This is an extremely delicate and sensitive source which the Chicago Office is making

every effort to fully protect.

As the bureau is aware, Chicago major hoodlum leaders Louis "Little New York" Campagna,

Charles "Cherry Nose" Gioe, Phil D'Andrea, Paul "The Waiter" De Lucia and John Roselli were co0

defendants in an anti-racketeering prosecution brought in the Southern District of New York, charged

with having extorted from vaious motion picture producers a sum upward of $1,000,000. These hoodlums

were convicted and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on Dec. 31, 1943. They were all released

on parole on Sug. 13, 1947, after having served just slightly over the minimum sentence received for

this conviction......


....On OCt. 16, 1964, CG 6758C* advised that on the early afternoon of that date, MURRAY HUMPHREYS

conversed with former Chicago bookmakers LEO SCHAEFFER and JOE EPSTEIN. SCHAEFFER has just been

released from the Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind., and information has been received

indicating that he was paroled early due to


the influence of U.S. Congressman ROLAND V LIBONATI.

In discusssing the fact that SCHAEFFER is on parole at the present time, the following conversation

between the above three individuals took place:

(The attention of the Dallas Office and the Bureau is invited to the fact that

the following conversa- tion is very spotty in that most of it was not received by the source. It so

happens that a unique situation exists with regard to the reception from this source. When the weather

is mild, the windows in the office where the source is located are always open, and the elevated

trains which run just outside the window cause considerable difficulty insofar as reception is

concerned. However, when the day is either extremely hot or extremely cold, these windows are closed so

that the air-conditioning can be effective. On October 16, 1964, the weather was mild, with the result

that the windows were open throughout the entire conversa- tion reported hereinbelow).


...Humphreys:.... They thought they had him real good. We had to have this one case removed,

to get ahold of CLARK. And then they had the charge knocked out.

Epstein: Yeah, if it was pending, they couldn't have made it.

Humphreys: Yeah, When that was take off, that gave me the chance. And that was where I was

afraid they were gonna catch somebody, because there were about eight or nine people there on

that, the different departments that we had to go through, you know. One department to another,

and they had to go before the Judge and dismiss it.

Epstein: Who was the Attorney General?


CG 92-350 sub 11

Humphreys: Clark. That's when .. after that he became a mean (obs) ! A HUNDRED PER CENT! You know?

When that happened, you couldn't get through nothing. He was through, he quit. You

couldn't get a favor off of him. Nothing.

When that happened, that was all. You see he did this a a favor.

He didn't do this on his own. He did it because the guy who went to him

was an ex-law partner and then the scandal broke! (obs)!

Schaeffer: But he stood up.

Humphreys: They all did.

Schaeffer: I seen a guy with him.....







Schaeffer and Epstein are later linked to "the rabbi"


...to "the rabbi," and to LBJ.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=83029&relPageId=23 ...summary of roles of "the rabbi" of Dallas, and LBJ in support of Chicago bookie and Murray Humphreys' intimate, Leo Schaeffer.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Jim, I am sure I'm speaking not only for myself in posting that I am looking forward to reading about McAdams's book and his background soon at ctka.net .

I believe I have a much more open mind and a less rigid orthodoxy in the area of JFK Assassination Research than John McAdams exhibits, and I concede that there is so much we still know so little about.

Does anyone have a theory about why Giancana/Accardo/Humphreys Las Vegas frontman John Factor was pardoned and quickly allowed to become a U.S. citizen, interfering with his impending and certain deportation?


Judge Frees Touhy, Gang Foe of Capone; TOUHY, GANGSTER,...

$3.95 - New York Times - Aug 10, 1954

Judge Barnes vacated Touhy's ninety-nine-year sentence for the kidnapping nd also a 199-year term imposed after Touhy and Continued on Page 13, ..


Link to image of second page of above 10 Aug., 1954 article, includes profile of Judge Barnes.:




Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Jan 27, 1960

Judge Barnes said he gave [considerable credence to the testimony of these two wit. nesses

despite the fact that Factor, in appear. ing before him on a number of occasions flatly denied ever having had such con. with either West. brook or .....

The FBI page on John Factor is impossible to find in its current form and is only available at the internet archive, because.:


The FBI Thins Its Files July 6, 2011

....The FBI has unhelpfully redesigned its website with the files alphabetized by FIRST name, so a line-by-line comparison is time-consuming. I’ll leave it to the Daily Mirror Brain Trust to sort through it. Let me know what you find.

FBI Files 2004 FBI Files 2011

Abby Edwards — 148 pages Al Capone .....


John Factor

John Factor, also known as "Jake the Barber," was born in England and raised in Poland. He is a brother of the cosmetic king, Max Factor. He was convicted and spent nine years in a Federal Prison for re-selling bonded whiskey in 1943. He sued Roger Touhy in 1959, for slander, when he wrote a book saying the kidnaping of John Factor was faked in 1933. In December 1959, Roger Touhy was killed as he entered the apartment building of his sister. John Factor was one of the group that owned the Stardust Hotel and the Desert Inn Hotel in Las Vegas. On December 24, 1962, President Kennedy granted a full and unconditional pardon to John "Jake the Barber" Factor for his 1943 conviction, and spared his possible deportation by the United States Immigration Service.

The JFK pardon of John Factor was announced by the white house on Christmas eve, 1962, and competed over the next several days with these news stories.:

Pardon of communist Junius Irving Scales and the release of nearly 1200 Bay of Pigs prisoners by Cuba and details of the ransom paid by the U.S. to Castro.



It was quickly reported that Robert Kennedy as Attorney General, investigated John "Jake the Barber" Factor's successful plea for clemency and that RFK personally interrogated Factor.:


Strings On Factor's Pardon .

Miami News - Dec 27, 1962


Bellmen Don't Get Golden Parachutes - Page 22

books.google.comSam Longo - 2010 - 200 pages - Preview

In 1933, Humphreys helped Al Capone arrange a fake kidnapping. The "victim" of this crime was to be John "Jake the Barber" Factor, a British con artist wanted in his home country for stock swindling. Factor, a Capone friend, ...

More editions Add to My Library▼

A Report on Chicago crime

books.google.comChicago Crime Commission - 1965 - Snippet view

On July 1, 1933 John (Jake the Barber) Factor, then known as an international swindler, was kidnaped near Chicago as he was returning ... On July 25, 1960 Factor sold Humphreys 400 shares of this same stock for $8000, or $20 a share.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Is McAdams book worth buying?

And I dont mean worth buying for my research or mind changing theories, I mean for the same reason that I bought Buglisosi or Posner, just to own the books and being able to look up the garbage that they wrote when the book is being discussed

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Is McAdams book worth buying?

And I dont mean worth buying for my research or mind changing theories, I mean for the same reason that I bought Buglisosi or Posner, just to own the books and being able to look up the garbage that they wrote when the book is being discussed

I wouldn't pay full price for it, but that's me. Having spent a lot of time arguing with McAdams over the years I know how he thinks. He almost always sides with what one might call "official-dumb." He is so afraid of appearing as he is--a lone nut theorist--in fact, that he refuses to acknowledge that the HSCA's experts were wrong about anything beyond their interpretation of the dictabelt evidence.

He's kind of like the mirror reflection of the worst conspiracy theorists, IMO. While some CTs "collect" evidence for a conspiracy, and will continue to cite discredited claims for a conspiracy, McAdams is reluctant to let go of any of the "official" explanations, and official conclusions, no matter how outdated. In what might be his worst moment, he claims the back wound was well above the throat wound, even though the HSCA pathology panel said it was below the throat wound, but then denies that he's moved the back wound from where the HSCA panel claimed it to have been.

From patspeer.com, chapter 19:

The Re-invention of Lying

In September 2010, I gained further insight into Professor McAdams' mindset. I had noted on the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup the repeated claims of many LNTs that Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Oliver Stone are liars. I pointed out that I considered this a double-standard, as these same LNTs were not remotely interested in the evidence Dr. Lattimer, Gerald Posner, and Vincent Bugliosi are liars. McAdams then defended this particular LN obsession by insisting that Lane, Garrison, and Stone really were liars. He posted a link to his webpage, in which he discussed a number of inaccuracies in Jim Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins. He claimed that by making so many errors, which inevitably exaggerated either the case against Clay Shaw or Garrison's role in the investigation and trial of Shaw, Garrison had revealed himself to be a xxxx. I then pointed out that, by McAdams' own definition, Dr. Baden was also a xxxx, as his books and television appearances have included a number of errors, which inevitably exaggerate both the case against Oswald and his--Dr. Baden's--role in demonstrating Oswald's guilt.

But I couldn't get McAdams to agree with this. It was clear as day--what's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc. But McAdams wouldn't budge.

And then finally, on September 19, 2010, he explained why he felt Baden was not a xxxx, and confirmed my worst suspicions. He wrote

"If somebody misstates a strong case against Oswald, we would have to assume he's mistaken and/or confused. If you don't *need* to lie to find Oswald guilty, it's not plausible to believe somebody did."

He then further excused Baden's persistent mis-statements and exaggerations by repeating

"People don't lie when the truth serves their purposes just as well. He should have checked things out. The fact that he didn't actually shows he was not lying. People who are lying usually calculate carefully what lies they are going to tell (at least if not caught off guard). If he actually sat down to write thinking "I'm going to lie about this," he would check the HSCA material to see what lies he could tell and possibly get away with. But if he checked the HSCA, he would find he didn't need to lie."

Well, great googley moogley! Here was the author of a book entitled JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy telling me that, to his way of thinking, those who invent their own facts about the Kennedy assassination are not liars, as long as they claim Oswald acted alone...since those claiming Oswald acted alone do not "need" to lie!!!

What utter nonsense!

And what a blatant double-standard! Does McAdams really believe Jim Garrison's lazy research and/or convenient memory proves him to be a xxxx, while, at the same time, Dr. Baden's lazy research and/or convenient memory proves him not to be a xxxx? I mean, to use McAdams' logic, if Garrison's lies had only been as SLOPPY as Baden's lies, we would have reason to believe he wasn't actually lying.

But wait, it gets worse. To a related question, as to whether people with bad memories who make things up can be called liars, or if those telling untruths have to KNOW what they say is untrue before they can be called a xxxx, McAdams later added:

"They have to *know* it's untrue before they can be called a xxxx."

He, of course, had never demonstrated that Garrison had "known" any of his inaccuracies were untrue! He had concluded that Garrison had misrepresented events and facts that he should have known were incorrect, and had concluded from this that Garrison had knowingly lied. And I had offered the same case against Baden. At which time, McAdams attempted to preserve the illusion of Baden's and the HSCA's integrity by claiming that someone with such disregard for the truth that they refuse to read or memorize their own reports before going on TV and babbling on about something for which they are supposedly an expert can not be considered a xxxx if they did not "need" to lie, i.e. if their original report was something he--McAdams-- had personally agreed with.

He had thereby re-defined the word "xxxx", which can be used to designate those who tell falsehoods whether they know them false or not, to suit his own needs. Garrison was a xxxx, whether or not he knew what he said was untrue, but Baden was not a xxxx, as he may not have known he was lying.

This erodes any claims McAdams may make to cognitive superiority, IMO. Rather than questioning Baden's and the HSCA panel's conclusions because Baden had revealed himself to be a lazy researcher who preferred to make stuff up, McAdams had insinuated that Baden's and the HSCA panel's conclusions were BEYOND DISPUTE, and that, therefore, Baden's subsequent failures as a researcher and story-teller were irrelevant.

Pardon my French...but that is worse than utter nonsense...it's (fill in the blank)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Having spent a lot of time arguing with McAdams over the years I know how he thinks. He almost always sides with what one might call "official-dumb." He is so afraid of appearing as he is--a lone nut theorist--


regarding this specific subject matter there is always a reason for looking "official-dumb," grants perhaps?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow


Dave Mantik just offered his rough draft of his review. Which I am going over now.

I agree with Pat Speer. I would not pay full price for it.

To give you but one example: in his discussion of the Two Oswalds concept, he ducks Armstrong's Harvey and Lee. Instead he goes after RIchard Popkin! In fact Armstrong in not even in his index.

There is a guy who is current for you.

I believe the JFK assassination was a full blown coup d'etat, with the CIA playing a key role, and I don't buy into Armstrong's 2 Oswalds theory. I have not read his whole book Harvey and Lee; but I have read enough to not be impressed.

Having said that I have order McAdams book and will have it ready for target practice after I read it. I know what his views are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

The problem McAdams and the man at wikipedia who created McAdam's bio article there and "guards" the wikipedia article on LHO, is that there are just too many coincidences they don't permit to see the light of day.

How did thugs, both officers at General Dynamics, Crown and Hoy, obtain and retain the most expensive government contract ever awarded in the history of the world, the TFX fighter jet contract?

In addition info to my other posts on this thread, there is more related info here.L



Excpect Big Vote Tomorrow

WEATHER IS KEY; NEW DATA IN FIO RITO CASE Seek Typewriter, Quiz Hotel Official 2 New Leads Found by FioRito Probers


Feb 25, 1963

Sheriff Richard B. Ogilvie disclosed two new developments last night in his investigation into the eligibility of Michael L. FioRito, 51, an attorney, to be the Democratic candidate for alderman in the

1st ward. 1. A search was pushed for a typewriter which was used in certifying that FioRito was a permanent resident of the Con- rad Hilton hotel, in the ward. 2.

The sheriff di s co vered police records which showed that FioRito won dismissal of drunken driving charges in October against Robert Leo White, 42, of 1484 Winnemac av., assistant manager of the hotel.

Ogilvie said that the records showed White was arrested in north Lake shore drive by Policeman Frank Schneider at 3:50 am on Oct. 4 and re- fused to take a sobriety test. He was charged with drunken driving.

White told sheriff's police last night that the charges against him were dismissed when he appeared in Traffic court Oct. 29.

Ho said that a friend, whom he refused to identify, suggested he retain FioRito as his lawyer.

The 1st ward Democratic organization revealed FioRito as its write-in candidate Thurs- day night.

Previously two other nominees, Ald. Johri D'Arco and State Senator Anthony J. De - Tolve, were forced out of that race, reportedly by the crime syndicate. The interrogation of White by sheriff's police interrupted the search in the hotel for

the type- writer with pica style letters and a worn ribbon. If the type- writer can be found, Ogilvie said,

it might reveal "signifi- cant evidence to challenge Fio- Rito's eligibility to run for office."

The elegibility of FioRito aE a candidate is based on the vot- ing residence he claims to established in the 1st ward hote on Jan. 26. According to the sheritt, the typewriter was used to add the names of FioRito and his wife, Margaret, to the Jan. 28 affi- davit in which a Conrad Hilton executive had listed 57 perma- nent residents of the hotel. The affidavit was questioned in a report to the sheriff by Robert C. Goldblatt, a type- writer identification expert. The affidavit was filed with the Chi- on page 4, col. 41 by FioRito Probers cago board of election commis- sioners on Jan. 28 by Thoma $ J. McNamara, the hotel man- ager. Goldblatt told the sheriff the typewriter with the worn rib- bon was used to list the Fio Ritos on the affidavit as the 58th and 59th permanent resi- dents of the hotel. The names of 57 other residents were writ- ten on the affidavit with an elite style typewriter, Goldblatt said. The sheriff's detectives ob- tained specimen writing from typewriters in hotel offices that were opened yesterday. The specimen, Ogilvie said,, would be compared by experts with the typing of the FioRito names on the questioned affidavit. The sheriff announced that three teams of detectives would continue the search for the typewriter today in the hotel and in the 1st ward democratic headquarters, 100 N. La Salle st., and the City hall offices of the election board. on Saturday,

Ogilvie charged that the election board was "ig- noring possible fraud" in the Conrad Hilton affidavit. It was reported yesterday that the shock waves from the political turmoil in the Ist ward had caused a shakeup in the hierarchy of the crime syndi- cate. The crime syndicate king, Sam [Moe] Giancana, 53, an ex- convict, reportedly dictated the "dumping" of D'Arco and De- Tolve as aldermanic nominees of the Ist ward Democratic organization. FouI' syndicate gambling chiefs in the Ist ward report- edly suffered a loss of under- world power in December when they were unable to persuade Giancana to sanction the candi - dacy of D'Arco. The four are Gus [slim] Alex and Frank [strongy] Ferrara, the overlords of gambling in the ward; Louie Briatta, a former city payroller who is D'Arco's brother-in-law; and Nick [Mousiel Garambrone, a mob enforcer in the Loop.



Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: Gus Alex


7:12 AM MN ter If the

RIF#: 124-10209-10118 (02/13/62) FBI#: 92-3182-434

Displaying two of the seven pages.:

Highlights: (Richard Cain is also involved in the "investigation".)

It begins with mobsters talking about the first paragraph of the above article, related to White and the dismissed drunken driving charge.


Sid Korshak is instructed to contact Pat Hoy, General Dynamics V.P. to contact the Hilton and instruct employees there not to cooperate with the investigation.:


In 2004, the suddenly talkative Robert S. McNamara married the widow of Ernest L. Byfield, Jr. Byfield had been Patrick Hoy's longtime boss and business partner.:


Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid Korshak is instructed to contact Pat Hoy, General Dynamics V.P. to contact the Hilton and instruct employees there not to cooperate with the investigation.:


Korshak was everywhere. When it came out that Marcello had threatened to kill JFK to get at Bobby, the FBI contacted Korshak and he told them "nevermind." When Howard Hughes' personal papers were stolen, and it was discovered that they had held some CIA secrets--such as the real purpose of the Glomar Explorer--the thief (almost certainly actor Leo Gordon) approached Korshak to see if he would be the middle man.

I have long fantasized about writing a novel or screen play with Maheu and Korshak as two of the principal players, and men such as Edward Bennett Williams, Irving Davidson, Jack Anderson, Drew Pearson, Nixon, Kennedy, and Howard Hughes on the periphery. They were in the middle of most everything.

P.S. At one point I read something about Korshak's house, and how he tried to keep a low profile by living in the middle of suburbia. I figured out where he'd lived--an upper middle class home with a circle drive just north of Ventura Blvd. in the San Fernando Valley, a few miles from my apartment, and a few blocks from where actor Phil Hartman was murdered. (The trendy section is SOUTH of Ventura.)

Ironically, this area was right by a housing tract built atop a former movie lot...which had been the site of Bedford Falls, Jimmy Stewart's home town in It's a Wonderful Life.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Folks, I just got the book JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy by John McAdams.

I am in the process of reading it. It is a lone nutter book so by definition it is a disaster. I do encourage many experienced JFK researchers to read it and more importantly review it Amazon and on other places on the internet.

The book basically focuses on bits and pieces of JFK assassination research. It pops around on the various issues. It tries to discredit many of the high quality witnesses in JFK truth revelation.

The 4 blurbs on the back of the book are written by Robert Blakely (the guy who engineered the HSCA cover up in 1978), Gary Mack who runs the Sixth Floor Museum (a disinfo outlet of the first degree on the 1963 Coup d'Etat), Paul Hoch, and Dave Reitzes.

Gerald Ford was dead so he could not chip in. Somehow Arlen Specter escaped writing the forward.

Once I read the book, I will write a review. I encourage other knowledgeable researchers to take the time to read/skim the book and also write a review. We need to give folks an antidote of truth.

Here are some much better books/articles on the JFK assassination for the newbies reading this:

If you want to get quickly “up to speed” on the JFK assassination, here is what to read:

1) LBJ: Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination by Phillip Nelson

2) JFK and the Unspeakable:Why He Died and Why it Matters by James Douglass

3) Brothers: the Hidden History of the Kennedy Years by David Talbot

4) The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh

5) Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty by Russ Baker.

6) Google the essay “LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK” by Robert Morrow.

7) Google “National Security State and the Assassination of JFK by Andrew Gavin Marshall.”

8) Google “Chip Tatum Pegasus.”

9) Google “Vincent Salandria False Mystery Speech.” Read everything Vincent Salandria ever wrote.

10) Google “Murray Rothbard the JFK Flap”

11) Google “Preserving the Legacy by Mat Wilson”

11) Google “Bertrand Russell 16 Questions on the Assassination”

12) Watch on You Tube the extremely important videos The Men Who Killed Kennedy, episodes 7, 8, and 9 which focus on the role of Lyndon Johnson.

13) Watch on You Tube Jesse Ventura’s show on the JFK assassination.

14) Watch the movie JFK director’s cut by Oliver Stone.

15) Watch on You Tube “Evidence of Revision.” – 8 hours of fantastic and rare footage relating to the JFK assassination.

Another key point: Lee Harvey Oswald was U.S. intelligence and he shot NO ONE on 11/2263. Re: Oswald's intelligence connections read 1) "Oswald and the CIA" by John Newman 2) "Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and US Intelligence" by Philip Melanson 3) "History Will Not Absolve Us" by Martin Schotz (Chapter V Oswald and U.S. Intelligence by Christopher Sharrett) 4) "Me and Lee" by Judyth Vary Baker (Oswald's mistress in New Orleans, summer 1963) 5) Google “Lee Harvey Oswald’s reading habits summer 1963”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Hmmm...weird thread, I intended for it to be about how the evidence supports the observation that the WC was set up so the CIA, FBI, and the mob could be free to "investigate" themselves, troubling evidence of which McAdams and wikipedia scrupulously avoid, but it is what it is.

I've never seen this done before. Apparently, a wikipedia user made a change to John C. McAdams's wikipedia article that was so shocking to the sensibilities of McAdams lapdog/wikipedia admin, fernandez, that he followed up on the user who reverted the offending edit.

Whatever was in the edit, it was not enough to remove it and restore the article, but still permit viewing of the version that was removed. Fernandez disappeared whatever was in the edit, and I have never seen that happen on any wikipedia article before, so it is a rare procedure.



18:41, 29 August 2011 Gamaliel (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of "John C. McAdams": removed content for 1 revision ‎ (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material: attack page)

Well...further searching serves up a reliable picture of the "attack" against the McAdams wikipedia article that fernandez considered too shocking to ever again see the light of day.

The wikipedia member who committed what we can only guess was a horrible offense against the McAdams wikipedia shrine, was a contributor with 20,000 wikipedia edits. No matter, he touched the third rail at wikipedia, he questioned the McAdams/fernandez control.:

(He applied for reinstatement, and does his best to communicate what motivated him to sin so grievously.)


e/c)Hi EdJohnston, thank you for replying and will try to explain what exactly happen, over only a few hour period, if that? And yes, this was a lapse of judgment, I did make a mistake, I do apologize again to the communitty and the other editor involved. There has been, or I have had a dispute over whether we/you/I should including McAdams web site links in the EL section of articles. I feel that it doesn’t, and certainly wonder why nearly 500 pages in the project link to it? It is personally published by the author and I don’t believe it is really peer reviewed per say, but whatever, I believe the feeling was, whatever, the guy is an academic, he is big on the uunet(?), he has a book, he is a real big JFK buff but the material on the site might not be of the most encyclopediatic tone, ect. but how does it hurt. Basically very few people care about this since it really is so low level, ect. and there was never any lock down, concrete consensus, if you remove/add it you will be in trouble, ect. I have removed it and it has been added back and I have removed it and it has been added back over years now, whatever again. The other editor reverted two of my edits and then immediately tagged a very obscure article I created. I know I am not suppose to talk about otherfolks behavior, but I admitt that I took this personally, felt hounded and then felt that if the Prouty article has the McAdams critique, why can’t the McAdams article have the Prouty critique? That was a mistake. I believe I found the Prouty site by googling both their names. I read the top where it says “crackpot” which mirrors what the McAdams site says in it title, tit for tat, so I added it. I believe this all happened over a period of minutes or at the most an hour? I was wrong in doing that. I don’t now anything about blacklisted sites except that the wiki software won’t you add some sites? I really usually remove material from the project if anything, I am an admitted minimalist/deletionist. I don’t have anything to do with the Prouty site and certainly don’t support it, seems pretty nutty and I certainly didn’t intend to out another editor, or call them a Nazi. I certainly would not add it in the future. I really don’t edit JFK article since I have little interest. The Michael Moore revert, I do have watch paged, and have edited it before, and didn’t agree with the other editors removal of content but that to was a mistake as well since there was a ongoing dispute with him, ect. Anyways, I HATE walls of text like this and now I certainly wouldn’t have the patience to read it, so I appreciate who ever follows along. Again I apologize to the communitty, but more so to the other editor. We might disagree over content, but not to the level where I want to hurt anybody over this, seriously. Anyways, if I missed anything or you would like more specifics, please let me know. Thank you, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)ps Beeblebox, ok, I do conceed your point. I usually think or edit warring as 3rr. As explained above, this really is, unfortuately, a very low level type dispute which it seems few other edits really care about, or enough to the point where there is clear consensus. Anyways, I would promise going forward that I won't remove any McAdams links since there is no consensus(either way it seems). I feel like there should be consensus FOR inclusion, rather than other way around, but would not remove them since this has risen to such a level. Thank you, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)pss Wow, sorry, in all my wall I didn't even answer you question Ed. I don't now anything about McAdams and realy don't want to, especially after all of this. I really don't have ANY opinion about him, this was a content dispute over ELs. The things I mentioned were what I found by googling Prouty and McAdams and reading different forum postings ect.. The reason I never linked to any sites in the past was becasue none seem of high quality or reliable and didn't want to repeat them here. I never found anything in the NYT for example. I can assure you that I am NO conspiracy believer and actually think those folks are nuts, but never say so as to try to be NPOV. Anyways, I hope that helps abit? --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Digging further, this is the crux of the fernandez (aka gamaliel) censorship, and what better place to emphasize it than here on the Education Forum.:

This is the link added to the McAdams wikipedia article by Threeafterthree that was judged too terrible to even remain in the edit history of the McAdams article.:John Mcadams - Laughing stock of the Internet?

(Click on the "Laughing stock" title above and scroll down a bit in the page on the prouty.org site, and my explanation of all this will become clearer.)


All of my edits have been reverted back to Gamaliel's preferred version. Fine. I don't intend on reverting those back. Another admin agreed that Gamaliel's adding the MacAdams link to the L. Fletcher Prouty article wasn't appropriate, but its back, check it out. A self published web site attached to over 500 wiki pages here.--Threeafterthree (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

...and yes, it is "still there", displayed near the bottom.:


External links....

L. Fletcher Prouty Fearless Truth Teller, or Crackpot?

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Is McAdams book worth buying?

And I dont mean worth buying for my research or mind changing theories, I mean for the same reason that I bought Buglisosi or Posner, just to own the books and being able to look up the garbage that they wrote when the book is being discussed

I have it...

From what I have read, it might more correctly be called "Assassination Fallacy: How to Not think about the JFK assassination.

If you are looking for something new, you will not find it there. McAdams writes amazingly similarly in the book as he does on aaj; as a playground bully who gets to make all the rules and demand that others adhere to them.

This book is also a classic case of going back in time to the WCR mentality. It is horrifying to think that fifty years later anyone would be comfortable putting themselves into such a hole, but McAdams prides himself on sitting alone in his ivory tower, where even the MU admin doesn't know what he is up to.

Just my opinion. So far.

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
  • Create New...