JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy

[John Simkin]

Kenneth Scearce's review of John McAdams' new book:

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2012/01/mcadams.html

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I think it would be a good idea for more experienced JFK assassination researchers to review John McAdams book and tell folks what you think. You can get a used copy for $12 on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Logic-Claims-Conspiracy/dp/1597974897/ref=cm_rdp_product

I wrote a "quick and dirty" review. His book is really not that good, even accounting for the low bar set by "lone nutter" books.

"If you are a beginner to the study of the JFK assassination, I suggest you do not waste time with this book. The author is one of the least respected JFK researchers and I do not think this book has much to offer either in regards to understanding the 1963 Coup d'Etat or with developing your critical thinking skills.

McAdams for a long time has pushed the discredited "lone nutter" fantasy of the JFK assassination, so it is not surprising his book has little to offer. If you are an experienced JFK researcher, perhaps with 200+ books, I actually DO suggest buying, reading and reviewing this book. Then you can tell others how lacking it is.

For everyone else, just google "Here are some good JFK assassination books to read Education Forum."

This book addresses a bunch of peripheral issues of the JFK assassination - not the real "meat" in understanding why Lyndon Johnson, his Texas oil men and the CIA slaughtered John Kennedy.

McAdams points out that witness testimony is often frail. Well, the flip side to that is witness testimony - for example that of Madeleine Duncan Brown, Barr McClellan and Billie Sol Estes can be critically important. Not to mention Antonio Veciana, Fletcher Prouty or Victor Krulak. Google those names, folks. McAdams calls witness testimony "wacky" if he does not like it, if it does not conform to his preconceptions of the JFK assasssination: J.C. Price, Sam Holland and Bill Newman would be 3 examples.

Another key point, I think it is almost certain that the head kill shot to JFK came from the Grassy Knoll and that Oswald was U.S. intelligence. You can read John Newman, Philip Melanson, Christopher Sharrett, George Michael Evica and Judyth Vary Baker for that.

Many witnesses from Parkland and Bethesda saw a huge gaping wound in the back of Kennedy's head; McAdams seems to be unable to come to terms with this reality. You know its possible to have a side wound and a gaping back wound on JFK; they are not mutually exclusive and I think that is what happened.

McAdams talks about the Oswald sightings. I tend to think a lot of those were false sightings based on the massive publicity of the case. Say, why are we talking about Oswald, when LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Muchison, Hunt, David Atlee Phillips and Ed Lansdale were much more relevant to the JFK assassination. That is a summary of the problem with this book: McAdams spends a lot of time talking about the chick ___t stuff in JFK research and avoids the central issues, probably because he has nothing credible to say about them.

Next he is on to talking about Perry Russo, Jim Garrison and Clay Shaw. Again that is not central to the JFK case. Jim Garrison proved a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, but he did not have enough evidence to take CIA asset Clay Shaw to trial. That is where Garrison screwed up. He was also being massively and criminally undermined by LBJ, CIA and the FBI. McAdams does not tell you this:

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison at his press conference on 12/26/67:

"President Johnson is currently the most active person in the country in protecting the assassins of John Kennedy."

"President Johnson must have known by the time of the arrest that Oswald did not pull the trigger."

"You are being fooled. Everyone in America is being fooled. The whole world is being fooled."

"Why? Because of power - because if people knew the facts about the assassination they would not tolerate the people in power today. Keep in mind who profits most. Who appointed the Warren Commission? Who runs the FBI? Who runs the CIA? The President of the United States."

Then McAdams is off trying to undermine critical witnesses Jean Hill, Roger Craig, - who I think are pretty good. Both suffered persecution because of their truth telling in the JFK assassination. Arlen Specter famously told Jean Hill if she did not change her story he could have her locked up as crazy and he brought up her extra-marital affair as a way of intimidating her into lying.

Charles Crenshaw - that is another very credible truthteller in the JFK assassination. LBJ personally called Parkland asking for a "confession" from a dying Oswald - tellingly of LBJ not asking "who sent you" just confess and die so we can wrap this cover up and call it a day.

Lyndon Johnson was at the epicenter of the JFK assassination. Absolutely, LBJ was ruthless enough to drown a man in his own blood, although I am not sure it happened that way. But LBJ was damn sure capable of killing - just ask Henry Marshall, 1961!

p. 85 CIA operative and close associate of Allen Dulles, E. Howard Hunt has all but admitted being involved in the JFK assassination. Towards the end of his life he said that LBJ and CIA operatives killed JFK, but that he was a "backbencher" in the JFK assassination. He was up to his ears in it.

As I read McAdams book I find myself agreeing with him on minor points - such as disgarding the Jean West story. But so what, he is talking about the weeds of the case, not the tall trees of the coup d'etat.

Then McAdams wastes time on the so-called "mysterious deaths" of the JFK case, trying to debunk them one by one. That is like circumcising a flea; who cares? Very people I know focus on that or care about it much. I probably agree with McAdams on most of that. It is another straw many he likes to knock down while avoiding unpleasant facts such as by September, 1965, the Russian intelligence had determined that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination and was telling their operatives in the USA this. That came out with the ARRB in the 1990's and it is BLOCKBUSTER.

p. 149 Oswald and Mexico City. That is a pretty important issue in JFK research and I can't say I really understand the point McAdams is trying to make. He thinks Oswald went to Mexico City; I agree mainly because David Atlee Phillips said that when all is said and done we will find out that Oswald never went to Mexico City. That is good enough for me: Oswald was there! Why the CIA try to pass another man off as him I do not know, but it is damn fishy.

p. 161 The backyard photos of Oswald which Marina took in April, 1963. Marina thinks Oswald is innocent in the year 2011; she probably did massive amounts of lying about LHO in the 1963-64 time period. But she STILL says she took the backyard photos, so in my opinion they are legit. Part of Oswald's CIA sheepdipping program. Look at me: the fake pro-Castro Marxist with my guns and commie newspapers. All so transparent... but not if you are John McAdams!

p. 166 Did Oswald shoot Edwin Walker? God, what a joke. Not just no, but hell no. That is all about the posthumous frame up of Oswald post assassination by the LBJ-CIA murderers of JFK.

p. 182 The "jet effect." Junk science and the corruption of science. Genius and acclaimed physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez proves that dispassionate science takes a back set to peer pressure and is a good example of the "Emperor's New Clothes" effect. Alvarez plays the role of a townsman praising the emperor's missing clothers. Telling the truth on the JFK assassination was politically and socially unacceptable in the early years.

p. 202 "Bureaucratic Incompetence" that needs to be retitled "Bureaucratic Malevalence" or "Bureaucratic participation in the JFK assassination" or "Accessories after the fact" to the JFK murder.

Hoover, LBJ's close friend and neighbor of 19 years, started that cover up way, way, way too quick. I think he was one of the plotters. How come stuff like this is not in McAdams' book?:

J Edgar Hoover:

"If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to the country. Our whole political system could be disrupted." Hoover was responding to a question of whether Oswald really shot JFK. (Speaking to Billy Byars, Jr. son of Texas oil man Billy Byars, Sr., a close friend of Hoover.) See what I mean about McAdams focusing on the weeds and leaving out the trees of JFK research?

p. 217 a defense of the "Magic Bullet Theory" - fantasy constructed by Belin/Specter the government to cover up the JFK assassination and pretend that JFK was not hit by multiple shooters. What is next? Telling us we never landed a man on the moon or a defense of aliens at Roswell?

I think we have reached the point where the lone nutters will be getting the scorn they deserve."

Edited February 24, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Patrick Block]

Mr. Morrow, you make this grievious error in your review of that bit of propaganda 'how to not think'.

"The author is one of the least respected JFK researchers..."

I would offer the observation that calling this gentleman a "JFK researcher" is akin to calling Jack the Ripper a surgeon. A surgeon tries to save lives with a knife...Jack took them violently. Just wielding a scalpel and using it to cut living flesh does not a surgeon make.

A JFK researcher looks for the truth about what happened that dark day in Dallas. The author of "how to not think" is not interested in the truth. He is interested in making sure that the treason committed that day remains hidden from everyone else.

If he himself knows the truth and is being paid to do this by the organization involved in the assassination, it logically follows that he is committing treason himself.

A JFK researcher he is not.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Mr. Morrow, you make this grievious error in your review of that bit of propaganda 'how to not think'.

"The author is one of the least respected JFK researchers..."

I would offer the observation that calling this gentleman a "JFK researcher" is akin to calling Jack the Ripper a surgeon. A surgeon tries to save lives with a knife...Jack took them violently. Just wielding a scalpel and using it to cut living flesh does not a surgeon make.

A JFK researcher looks for the truth about what happened that dark day in Dallas. The author of "how to not think" is not interested in the truth. He is interested in making sure that the treason committed that day remains hidden from everyone else.

If he himself knows the truth and is being paid to do this by the organization involved in the assassination, it logically follows that he is committing treason himself.

A JFK researcher he is not.

We have a country of 300,000,000 people. A few of them are just going to be too stupid to be able to figure out something pretty simple and apparent. I think that McAdams honestly believes what he thinks. I do not think McAdams is a government operative. Having said that, he is a propagandist.

The Jack the Ripper of general surgeons or JFK researchers. Ha!

I think more folks need to write a review of his book at Amazon.