Greg Burnham Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) I beat him in a debate and Marquette beat him in court! Judge backs Marquette University's suspension of professor John McAdams over blog post Edited August 16, 2017 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Justice. Would filing another appeal on McAdam's part be expensive relative to the income of a college professor? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) Joe: McAdams is paying for nothing. That law firm he employs is part of the Koch bothers network of state legal bodies formed to push a rightwing agenda in certain regions of the country. I wrote about it in one of my essays on the subject. Also, McAdams had them lined up well in advance of the administrative hearing. Because in his first administrative interview, he actually warned the dean that he had a law firm he could use to sue Marquette. Nice way to make a good impression on your first interview eh? Edited August 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 13 hours ago, Greg Burnham said: I beat him in a debate and Marquette beat him in court! Is there somewhere I can read or listen to this? I'd be very interested to do so. Jim DiEugenio made a similar, albeit erroneous, claim. The reality is that it is quite difficult for a logical, scientific researcher to discredit John McAdams' stance regarding the JFK assassination; that there is a body of best evidence, without recourse to fanciful conjecture, that points to the truth. It seems that the only real strategy of attack is to employ fallacious ad hominem tactics. That McAdams is in this current situation does nothing to dilute or discredit his arguments. That no-one can address those head on, but rather attempt to destroy them using this age-old school playground approach says a lot about the research community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) Oh no, the scientist who still supports the discredited NAA bullet lead testing review. Anyone can find the Burnham debate with McAdams simply by using Google. It is really rich that Baker accuses me and Greg of using ad hominem attacks on McAdams. Shows how well informed he is. Before my debate with him, we both agreed not to do that. He broke his side of the agreement and did it, especially in part one. But that is Baker for you. And anyone who can say that what the professor did to Abbate reflects not at all on his behavior in this sphere does not know the whole Abbate affair. Which is nothing new with this guy. Edited August 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger DeLaria Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Thank you kindly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said: But that is Baker for you. And anyone who can say that what the professor did to Abbate reflects not at all on his behavior in this sphere does not know the whole Abbate affair. Which is nothing new with this guy. So Jim believes that, by some reasoning, the Abbate affair somehow reduces the credibility of McAdams' logic with respect to the JFK assassination. That is of course pure nonsense, but he's unlikely to ever admit that. I did, of course, search for the debate online, but what I found seemed to me to be too short to qualify. I look forward to listening, and hope it isn't as cringeworthy as Jim's failed attempt. Jim brings up NAA again. I'm not convinced he understands the science behind it, and is more concerned with discrediting those who demonstrate it as a viable analytic technique. Which is nothing new with this guy. Touché! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Paul Baker said: So Jim believes that, by some reasoning, the Abbate affair somehow reduces the credibility of McAdams' logic with respect to the JFK assassination. That is of course pure nonsense, but he's unlikely to ever admit that. I did, of course, search for the debate online, but what I found seemed to me to be too short to qualify. I look forward to listening, and hope it isn't as cringeworthy as Jim's failed attempt. Jim brings up NAA again. I'm not convinced he understands the science behind it, and is more concerned with discrediting those who demonstrate it as a viable analytic technique. Which is nothing new with this guy. Touché! The US Supreme Court ruled that NAA is inadmissible in court. Good luck discrediting SCOTUS. Touche. http://forensic-science-fall-2010.wikispaces.com/Neutron+Activation+Analysis Edited August 17, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) In the radio debate Burnham asks McAdams why he does what he does regards to spending so much of his time and energy trying to debunk those McAdam's feels are "conspiracy theorists" in regards to the JFK assassination? McAdams replies: ... "I don't like nonsense. I don't like falsehoods. I don't like people who don't tell the truth." Oh Please! The point of Burnham's question ( I think ) is...if McAdam's feels the JFK case is closed and he is 100% sure the WC and Gerald Posner got it right...why spend years of his time and energy reacting to and interacting with people he thinks are nonsensical and basically emotionally unbalanced nutcases chasing a myth? Like someone constantly going to a psyche ward ( McAdam's view of CTers ) to argue with patients about their mindsets and views? What's "nonsensical" here is McAdam's laughably weak and even irrational stated motivations for his years of debunking time and effort. So weak in fact that one can't help but view him - at best - as a desperately insecure attention seeking publicity hound ( using the JFK event as a bandwagon ) and/or at worst, perhaps a serious disinformation agent paid by more powerful others who have a self interest in keeping the JFK truth buried. Edited August 19, 2017 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 15 minutes ago, Paul Baker said: Jim brings up NAA again. I'm not convinced he understands the science behind it, and is more concerned with discrediting those who demonstrate it as a viable analytic technique. Which is nothing new with this guy. Touché! It is irrelevant whether or not Jim understands the science behind NAA. Scientist do understand it. And its use in Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis has been discredited by scientists, found to be flawed by the National Academy of Sciences, and its use in court has been discontinued. According to this Wikipedia article: The technique used by Guinn to analyse the bullet lead from the JFK assassination was a form of what has become known as Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA). Until 2004 the FBI used this technique to determine whether a crime scene bullet lead sample came from a particular box of ammunition or a particular batch of bullets. Guinn claimed that with the JFK bullet fragments, the technique could be used to identify the exact bullet the fragments came from. However, the validity of CBLA was discredited in a 2002 paper ("A Metallurgical Review of the Interpretation of Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis", (2002) 127 Forensic Science International, 174-191)[89] co-authored by Randich and by former FBI Chief Metallurgist, William Tobin. The 2002 Tobin/Randich paper prompted the National Academy of Sciences (Board on Chemical Science and Technology) to review the science of bullet lead analysis. In a report in 2004[90] the NAS found the scientific basis for matching bullet sources from the analysis of bullet lead composition as practiced by the FBI was flawed. As a result of that report, the courts appear to have stopped accepting this evidence[91] and the FBI has stopped using bullet lead analysis for forensic purposes.[92] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) "Of course, all CTers enjoy trashing Dr. [Vincent] Guinn's analysis and his HSCA testimony, as the conspiracists consider Guinn's 1978 analysis to be completely outdated. But what I'd like to know is this: Just exactly how likely (odds-wise) is it that Dr. Vincent P. Guinn would testify to the effect that TWO specific bullets (that both very likely came from the barrel of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, via Guinn's NAA results) were the only two bullets that can be linked to any of the ballistics samples in the John Kennedy murder case....and yet still NOT have Oswald's Carcano doing all of the damage to the victims on November 22nd, 1963? Even via 1970s-era NAA technology, what are the odds that Guinn's data would end up revealing the likelihood that ONLY BULLETS FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE STRUCK ANY VICTIMS ON 11/22/63? My guess is this -- The odds of that type of scientific evidence favoring the likelihood that only Oswald's gun was involved in the assassination, and somehow having that data being totally FALSE, must be fairly low indeed. In addition (and probably even more important on the "common sense" and "sheer luck" scales): What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from MORE THAN ONE GUN striking the victims in JFK's limousine on Elm Street....and yet, after the bullets stopped flying and the missiles and fragments were examined, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-C2766 gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any victims on Elm Street? Would anybody be willing to take those incredibly low odds to Vegas?" -- DVP; Circa 2006 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html Edited August 17, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) The Carnival Barker--DVP-- is at it again. Look, anyone who sat through the 75 minute presentation Gary Aguilar arranged in San Francisco where Randich and Grant thoroughly explained why their old friend Guinn was wrong on this, came away with a basic understanding of why it is not reliable. I also read a very long paper on this by Tobin. Guinn was not a metallurgist and he was not a statistician. And Blakey, who hired the guy to create the so called lynchpin to the cover up, later was forced to admit what Guinn did was nothing but junk science. Anyone who listened to that oral analysis, or read the written analysis, could understand why Guinn was wrong. Here is a good essay which exposes both Bugliosi and Guinn, scroll down to the Bullet Evidence in the JFK case for the relevant part. Even Baker can understand this I think: http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Review_of_Reclaiming_History.html Edited August 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) Woooooosh! My "What Are The Odds?" observation goes sailing right over the head of Jimmy D.! (What a surprise.) Edited August 17, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) As per McAdams, in the Abbate case, he showed all the trademarks that he had previously used in the JFK arena. Having studied the Abbate case at length and in depth, I know what I am talking about. He deliberately set out to make her radioactive by using a mischaracterization of the incident. And then he tried to hide his own role in it. He was the student's faculty advisor and the student had switched to him just recently. He immediately mischaracterized the whole series of events that took place afterwards, by saying that Marquette had "blown the kid's complaint off", and he also left out the fact that the student was flunking the class. Which was a very important piece of information for obvious reasons. (If Mr. Scientist does not understand why, I will inform him of why.) He then wrote a series of blog posts and appeared on radio and named the student teacher multiple times. ( He later mischaracterized all these actions on TV by saying he had been suspended over "a blog post".) By naming her, and then going public, he set her up for the written threats she got, some to her own school mailbox. She was physically threatened and this created a real psychological fear, and the college had to provide her a security guard. It got so bad she had to flee her position at Marquette. She went to Colorado U at Boulder. This was a real professional sacrifice, since she now had to make up and repeat many credit units. If she had been attacked, or killed, Marquette would have faced a horrific law suit and terrible publicity. Especially in light of the fact of McAdams' past behavior in regards to students and teachers, which was detailed in both administrative reviews. Because of those factors, I would not have been surprised if her family would have gotten over ten million dollars in a wrongful death action, maybe more with punitive damages. And topflight lawyers would have been begging to represent them. As I said, I know this case well since I wrote about it on three occasions and actually read the Dean's report and the final faculty report, combined at about 170 pages. The personal traits displayed here are so cognate with what McAdams had done in the JFK arena that some people wanted to write Marquette a letter signed by some prominent researchers. I advised against it for the simple reason that what he had done with Abbate was so appalling on its own, that I thought it would surely be enough to make for some kind of serious punishment. It did, but even then, McAdams was offered a deal to come back if he pledged to abide by the faculty handbook. He refused. PS As per DVP's latest carnival barking, please give us all a break will you? When I heard what you did to Bob Harris, it reminded me of just how bad you really are. Edited August 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio 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