David Von Pein Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 (edited) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/yXt025gjMfk/NhH4NLmTgF4J -------------- Edited December 27, 2014 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 (edited) I ask again - Who is this "Edward J. Snowden" who wrote a book "Everything You Know About the Constitution Is Wrong".and an open letter to McAdams' boss purporting to represent JFK researchers? Why does someone cllaiming to support transparancy.and open records use an alias? I agred with Lisa Pease - McAdams is a distraction and a waste of time. BK Edited December 27, 2014 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 (edited) Bill, as a huge admirer of your work on the AF-1 tapes (with several friends also following your progress) I can attest that many people find McAdams an intriguing personality simply from the allegations that have been flying around that he is sponsored by a US Intelligence agency with a dark & disturbing reputation. For some, what he does & says is a living example of Operation Mockingbird coming across from media & educational platforms. Just how the 'Company' will come to his aid in this kettle of hot water he fell into or will he be left out to dry (as predicts Jim DiEugenio in the recent Black Ops interview I posted a link to a few posts back) is intriguing to a lot of people. It appears to many globally that the more the Company makes itself visible in the JFK arena via 'sock puppets', the more some people feel it has something really big to hide about JFK's murder. For some, Big John's Internet escapades is a constant reminder that the Company is not asleep at the wheel. Edited December 27, 2014 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 I listened to Jim DiEugenio & Len Osanic's take on the situation last night & found it quite interesting here (at the top of the listings): http://blackopradio.com/archives2014.html Big Jim believes McAdams should have consulted the Dean of the Ethics department before posting to the blog in question... What he should have cleared his blog post with the head of a department he never worked for? Why does academic freedom apply to Ward Churchill, Butz and Jihad Jane but not McAdams? I dont think he should have been suspended. I do think that marriage is a ethics issue and should be discussed. I agree he need not have cleared anything. On JFK he has promoted inaccurate matters. I can't believe I'm in essential agreement with Gaal, maybe I should re-evaluate my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 I listened to Jim DiEugenio & Len Osanic's take on the situation last night & found it quite interesting here (at the top of the listings): http://blackopradio.com/archives2014.html Big Jim believes McAdams should have consulted the Dean of the Ethics department before posting to the blog in question. Both researchers predict bigger, better things are in store for big John should Marquette boot him out for good (such as a possible permanent spot on Fox news). Neither come across as your typical McAdams cheerleaders or groupies (lol), although I do believe McAdams was treated much more fairly than he is known for treating others on the Internet. Len Osanic gives me the impression the 'gun' McAdams used to shoot himself in the foot wasn't large enough (lol). It's a thought provoking , free & downloadable listen for those who don't want to listen to it online at the website. BM I gave it a listen and Mr. Dieugenio's account was 'factually challenged' he said McAdams had "set up" the lecturer and indicated he'd sent the student to record her. Based on articles posted on his website that was NOT the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 (edited) @Len: According to Mr. DiEugenio in the Black Op interview, the immediate visible damage created by Mr. McAdams' blog posts were 'setting up a fellow academic instructor for ridicule' that resulted in 'hate messages'. Like a tornado spinning off multiple vortices, underlying issues not so 'visible' are also a part of this story; a clash between Left wing & Right wing ideals. Mr. DiEugenio buddies Mr. McAdams up with the likes of Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly as Right wing talking heads & accuses him of attacking the Left wing in this issue. Is he correct? According to Mr. Osanic, John McAdams has 3 websites under his wing: his own, aaj & JFKFacts. Like Len Osanic, I prefer to avoid all 3. There's only 3 reasonable explanations for the death of President Kennedy IMHO: Oswald did it alone, Oswald did it with some help or Oswald had no involvement in the crime. I haven't seen a website yet capable of swaying my opinion of what occurred 51 years ago; for me propaganda websites are (to use the words of Casey Anthony) 'a huge waste'. What researchers & cloak & dagger types have to say about this issue is important for many, especially if facts are getting bent out of shape as the story develops. BM Edited December 27, 2014 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 I wouldn't exactly say McNumbnuts has JFK Facts "under his wing". If I was a friend of his, I would be embarrassed for him if I was to read the things he posts there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 I have to agree with Robert Prudhomme on this point. While McAdams may win SOME of the battles on Jfk Facts, he by no means wins all of them, or even a large majority of them--which he needs to do to solidify his position as THE go-to guy for the mainstream media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 (edited) You'll notice in the latest posted interview with Jim DiEugenio at Black Ops near the end Len Osanic states 'McAdams has taken it over' (JFKFacts). This actually was a subject topic at JFKFacts a few months back. The website published several complaints that McAdams & his cheerleaders were 'hogging' the posts. To someone that had just visited aaj & then clicked on Facts it might seem as if they were still at the same website. Mr. Osanic has a point. At one point, a visitor to Facts would see more comment posts from McAdams than they would at alt. As Bob Dylan wrote, it was 'too much of nothing' for some folks. It great to see Pat Speer commenting, I am a huge admirer of his website work. I completely forgot about him in my earlier comment about no website being able to sway my opinion on the JFK case. Pat's did. I believe it's always good to check in & refresh one's memory banks at his website. I used to think maybe Lee Oswald pulled this crime off solo until I visited Pat's place & slowly absorbed what he was detailing on his website. Pat's website work changed my perspective. I encourage all to check in with Pat from time to time. I am also a huge admirer of Robert Prudhomme's work regarding the ballistics of the case & rifles & ammunition questions & answers. I hope to live long enough to see a website dedicated to what he knows about those topics constructed & visible globally on the Internet. Robert has the coolest last name I've ever seen too. BM Edited December 28, 2014 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) It great to see Pat Speer commenting, I am a huge admirer of his website work. I completely forgot about him in my earlier comment about no website being able to sway my opinion on the JFK case. Pat's did. I believe it's always good to check in & refresh one's memory banks at his website. I used to think maybe Lee Oswald pulled this crime off solo until I visited Pat's place & slowly absorbed what he was detailing on his website. Pat's website work changed my perspective. I encourage all to check in with Pat from time to time. BM John McAdams and Pat Speer both put JFK's back wound at T1. I don't see a dime's worth of difference between them. That's how important the T3 back wound is. It's the cardinal fact of the JFK assassination. Edited December 30, 2014 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Cliff I agree with you that the back wound was at the level of thoracic vertebra T3. The very important question is, what became of this bullet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Cliff I agree with you that the back wound was at the level of thoracic vertebra T3. The very important question is, what became of this bullet? Indeed. A topic for another thread, however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 It great to see Pat Speer commenting, I am a huge admirer of his website work. I completely forgot about him in my earlier comment about no website being able to sway my opinion on the JFK case. Pat's did. I believe it's always good to check in & refresh one's memory banks at his website. I used to think maybe Lee Oswald pulled this crime off solo until I visited Pat's place & slowly absorbed what he was detailing on his website. Pat's website work changed my perspective. I encourage all to check in with Pat from time to time. BM John McAdams and Pat Speer both put JFK's back wound at T1. I don't see a dime's worth of difference between them. That says more about you than it does about me, old friend. McAdams says a T-1 entrance is inches above the throat wound, which the HSCA Panel also placed around T-1. You, apparently, accept his nonsense, as you continue to behave as though an entry at T-1 supports the SBT. I have demonstrated multiple times and in multiple venues that it does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) It great to see Pat Speer commenting, I am a huge admirer of his website work. I completely forgot about him in my earlier comment about no website being able to sway my opinion on the JFK case. Pat's did. I believe it's always good to check in & refresh one's memory banks at his website. I used to think maybe Lee Oswald pulled this crime off solo until I visited Pat's place & slowly absorbed what he was detailing on his website. Pat's website work changed my perspective. I encourage all to check in with Pat from time to time. BM John McAdams and Pat Speer both put JFK's back wound at T1. I don't see a dime's worth of difference between them. That says more about you than it does about me, old friend. McAdams says a T-1 entrance is inches above the throat wound, which the HSCA Panel also placed around T-1. You, apparently, accept his nonsense, as you continue to behave as though an entry at T-1 supports the SBT. I have demonstrated multiple times and in multiple venues that it does not. The overwhelming significance of the T3 back wound goes far beyond the SBT, Pat (an aside: I can't abide Pat's work on the back wound but I'd have a beer with the guy anytime). It would be one thing if your research concluded that McAdam's T1 back wound was too low for the SBT. If you left it at that -- great! Many times I've been tempted to cite your work in this area, Pat. Something like this: "Pat Speer has conclusively proven the fictional wound at T1 still kills the SBT." But I can't cite your work, Pat, because you insist against all reason that the wound was at T1. Bullet holes in the clothes -- 4 inches below the bottom of the collars -- align with T3. Physical evidence, consensus witness statements, properly prepared documents all put the wound at T3. WTF is your problem, Pat? Edited December 30, 2014 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 @Len: According to Mr. DiEugenio in the Black Op interview, the immediate visible damage created by Mr. McAdams' blog posts were 'setting up a fellow academic instructor for ridicule' that resulted in 'hate messages'. Like a tornado spinning off multiple vortices, underlying issues not so 'visible' are also a part of this story; a clash between Left wing & Right wing ideals. Mr. DiEugenio buddies Mr. McAdams up with the likes of Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly as Right wing talking heads & accuses him of attacking the Left wing in this issue. Is he correct? According to Mr. Osanic, John McAdams has 3 websites under his wing: his own, aaj & JFKFacts. Like Len Osanic, I prefer to avoid all 3. There's only 3 reasonable explanations for the death of President Kennedy IMHO: Oswald did it alone, Oswald did it with some help or Oswald had no involvement in the crime. I haven't seen a website yet capable of swaying my opinion of what occurred 51 years ago; for me propaganda websites are (to use the words of Casey Anthony) 'a huge waste'. What researchers & cloak & dagger types have to say about this issue is important for many, especially if facts are getting bent out of shape as the story develops. BM "Big Jim" also indicated that McAdams "set up" the instructor by sending the student too record the conversation but there is no evidence that was the case. Based on aticles posted on his website the student did so spontaneously immediately following the class in which she had told another student the subject of gay marriage was verbotten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now