Jump to content

Cold Case Nova: Aguilar and Wecht vs Sturdivan and the Haaga

Recommended Posts

Gary and Cyril cleaned up on the Haags pretty badly. I mean if that had been a boxing match, the referee would have stopped the fight.

It was so one sided that I am beginning to smell a rat.

Actually two of them. Their names are John McAdams and Larry Sturdivan.

What I think happened is that before the fiftieth, one of these guys, probably McAdams, went to the Koch Foundation and brought them this idea. Then they looked around for authorities of similar political persuasion. Which you can always find, as was evidenced by CBS in 1967 with the likes of Alvarez, Lattimer, and Schiller.

See McAdams was at the initial press junket for PBS blasting his mouth off in his usual inflated and fallacious manner. He then slinked away after all the BS was exposed.

Now, the Haags are being torched, and there is only Sturdivan there to catch all the left hooks and right crosses. PBS should have known better, but they are really in the tank to these rightwing foundations. Since the GOP has done so much to cut their federal funding. So, the objectivity PBS is supposed to represent has gone out the window for monetary gain.

Ah... I finally get it.

For a long time I've wondered why Koch and other righties support PBS with their wallets, given that they think PBS is liberal mouthpiece. (I am so naive.) It's because they are trying to buy their influence!

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Send me the petition when you are ready and then I can approve it with CTKA's backing. And I am sure Rex Bradford would do the same at MFF.

Then post it on one of the larger, more broadbased platforms

Check this out, Jim:




Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites


John McAdams is used to getting all kinds of attacks in forums: Heck! it goes with the territory. In this medium we all need a thick skin. Posters call him all kinds of epithets (I remember some funny, elegant from you, Jim) and he shrugs them off, casually. His Achilles Heel, however, is the world outside forums. In Nov. 2013 he was interviewed by Time Magazine in Dallas, after being congratulated and feted all over cyberspace, he wrote:

"It was a surprise! I did not expect to be interviewed".

He was basking in his glory. I was pissed: "Damn MSM! Why don't they interview somebody like Jeff Morley, to give the impression of balance? Of neutrality!? At least to keep appearances, some resemblance of objectivity, fer crying out loud!".

At the end of his interview he told the reporter something like "My job is to unmask the silliness" (don't recall the precise words). I posted the following in the most visible place of his whole illustrious career, Time Magazine:

"Professor, your task may be whatever you say, but something is well known: You are NOT INTERESTED in the TRUTH".

Hey, he said it himself: His objective is to ridicule people that have poor theories. That is not quite the same as the search for the truth, is it?

(Perhaps it is just me, but I cannot imagine being hit with anything worse than that).

To make it worse, mine was the TOP comment and Time Magazine posted those in order, for weeks and months my words were there for the whole world to read. In fact, I was afraid they would remove my post (it stuck like a sore thumb), but they left it on top, forever and ever and ever ...

That, my friends, was the real reason for his revenge. [No hard feelings, prof... :-) ]

So, our task is to challenge the LNs as follows:

"You guys are interested in The Truth as much as we are, correct? Therefore, if there is a PETITION, asking -for example- PBS to release the Dealey Plaza laser data, YOU WILL JOIN US signing it, correct? Right? I can't hear you, Posner! What did you say, Myers? Did the cat eat your tongue, Monsieur Haag? Can we have your John Hancock, Mr. Sturdivan?"

"Hey, all we want is the UNIVERSITIES taking over the whole investigation, in an open, peer reviewed, trial by fire, competitive environment (at least the science part, of course) Did I mention worldwide? How can you possibly be against that? Why would anybody? When are we? In the Dark Ages?"

We have a really good story, Jim, a nationwide confrontation, what we need is a journalist(s) covering it.


You actually got the McAdams/Time story all wrong, Ramon. He wasn't interviewed by Time in Dallas. It was in Pittsburgh, at the 50th anniversary Wecht Conference. I was appalled that the only national news story to come out of the conference was Time's article on McAdams, and asked John how it came to be. It turned out that Time wanted to do an article on McAdams, and only came to the conference to see how he interacted with the conspiracy theorists he attacks online. This ended up being a good thing. Maybe. A few weeks after the article on McAdams, Time did an article on Oliver Stone's appearance at the conference. It wasn't much, but the record seems to indicate it wouldn't have come to be if the writer wasn't there to see McAdams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You actually got the McAdams/Time story all wrong, Ramon. He wasn't interviewed by Time in Dallas. It was in Pittsburgh [...]

You are absolutely right. I stand corrected. I will change the word "Dallas" for "Pittsburgh".

Thanks for providing the other details.


Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

One always needs to determine who funds these so-called scientific programs on NOVA, Nat. Geo., etc. This one was funded by  the  David Koch Fund for Science” . The funding source determines the outcome- let there be no doubt about that.

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...