John McAdams has passed on

[Joe Bauer]

 

McAdams put a lot of time, energy and expense ( travel, publishing and time and effort have a quantitative dollar value ) engaging with the JFK Assassination research community ( the huge majority conspiracy believers ) in an adversarial way.

I never really got his point for expending all that time, effort and expense into such a futile and antagonizing agenda. He knew he wasn't going to change any conspiracy believer's minds. That he wasn't going to educate them regards their loony reality.

So, if that proposition is true, what was his agenda?

Keeping history accurate and untainted? Notoriety? A sadistic pleasure at riling up JFK conspiracy believers? Did he make some good side money doing this? A book deal perhaps with a nice advance?

There always seems to be "professional debunkers" of seriously controversial and potentially ominous historical events and the conspiracies they spawn that somehow get regular national TV, radio and sometimes news print and internet coverage exposure.

They are so similar in their MOs.

Phillip Klass, Michael Shermer, John McAdams, Gerald Posner and several others.

I always consider the reality that I mentioned...that none of them do this because they actually think they are going to change anyone's minds. They also know their efforts aren't going to seriously protect or even bolster historical accuracy of these events as conveyed in the official government sanctioned educational realm.

I guess some of these long term debunkers make some money putting in years of effort into their self conceived noble minded efforts at exposing the fraud of conspiracy believers. Book deals?

Hard to believe anyone would actually buy their books however. People who believe conspiracy believers are nuts, aren't going to pay money to read what they already believe. I always wondered if these national media coverage debunkers get funding for their efforts from ...well ... you know who.

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Joe Bauer

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

This whole issue about the critics not being able to present a unified concept of what really happened to JFK is used by the other side a lot.  People like Dan Rather for example.

I have never been able to understand the basis for it.

It took about four years to expose the evidence chasms within the WR.  But it was done not by the MSM--who never read the volumes.  But by private citizens who did:  Lane, Meagher, Weisberg for example.

It then took another 30 years to get the documents declassified. Again, not by the MSM.  But by a man who was bitterly attacked by the MSM, Oliver Stone. It was only through the controversy created by his film, that these documents saw the light of day.  

But even at that, the ARRB did not finish the job in its four year run time.  And therefore many important documents were placed on a phased withdrawal program.  Therefore we did not find out that the mayor of Dallas was a CIA asset until the new millenium, or that Clay Shaw's file had been severely altered, or that, contrary to what the FBI said,  there was no chain of custody at all on CE 399.

The other side does not acknowledge any of this, either in general or the specifics. But in a high profile homicide case, how can you be sure who the culprit is if the record is being covered up 58 years later? And when people like Jim Garrison and Richard Sprague tried to penetrate this wall of secrecy, we know what happened to them.

Bingo.   And the difficulty formulating a unified explanatory theory of what really happened on 11/22/63 is not a validation of the Warren Commission's "Lone Nut" theory.

The Lone Nut theory has already been invalidated by numerous contrary facts in the case.

It's a theoretical Humpty Dumpty.  All the King's horses, and all the king's men, (including John McAdams) couldn't put Dulles's Lone Nut theory together again.

[Cliff Varnell]

8 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

There is a unified conspiracy theory? Could someone please point me to that?

No, there is a unified conspiracy fact pattern based on the First Day Evidence:  The physical evidence recovered with the body; the contemporaneous written reports of men in position of authority; the authenticated cervical x-ray; the overwhelming consensus ear/eye witness statements.

The bullet holes in the clothes are four inches below the bottom of the collars, which lines up with the Third Thoracic Vertebra.

Admiral Burkley's Death Certificate (signed off as "verified") put the back wound at T3.

The autopsy face sheet filled out by James Curtis Jenkins (signed off as "verified") put the back wound closer to T4 than T3.

Soon after the autopsy FBI SAs James Sibert and Francis O'Neill cabled FBI HQ to report a shallow wound in the back.

In his contemporaneous notes Mortician Thomas Robinson recorded a back wound 5 inches below the neck.

Dr. Ronald Jones and Dr. James Carrico at Parkland wrote contemporaneous notes recording an entrance wound in the throat.

The authenticated cervical x-ray shows a hairline fracture of right T1 transverse process and an air pocket overlaying the right T1/C7 transverse processes -- a trajectory which lines up with the damaged trachea.

The night of the autopsy Humes, Boswell, and Finck looked at the back wound, which had no exit and no bullet, and asked the FBI men if there existed rounds which would dissolve in the body.

There were 16 eye-witnesses to a back wound consistent with T3, and 14 eye-witnesses to the throat entrance wound.

There are 56 ear-witnesses to a "bang...bang bang" shot pattern.

And let's not forget FBI SA James Hosty's interview notes with Oswald which recorded Oswald sayng he'd gone outside to watch the "P. parade."

The First Day Evidence is a unified fact pattern.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

50 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The First Day Evidence is a unified fact pattern.

Joseph Uscinski studies conspiracy theories. If ambition hits me at some point, I may do an article on his work as applied to the JFK case. I have two of his books and he mentions JFK quite often. While that would not convince you (or many others here) it would be an interesting exercise I believe.

[Cliff Varnell]

Just now, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Joseph Uscinski studies conspiracy theories. If ambition hits me at some point, I may do an article on his work as applied to the JFK case. I have two of his books and he mentions JFK quite often. While that would not convince you (or many others here) it would be an interesting exercise I believe.

I didn't bring up any "conspiracy theories."

I cited a Fact Pattern which you must pretend not to comprehend, apparently.

[Cliff Varnell]

JFK suffered a shallow wound in his back and an entrance wound in his throat with no exit.

There were no rounds recovered from those wounds during the autopsy.

Those are the root facts of the JFKA. 

Y'all need to learn how to deal with it.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The First Day Evidence is a unified fact pattern.

It's all there in the First Day file, Clarice -- everything you need to catch them, those men you seek.

[Matt Allison]

4 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I accept the view that some may hold, that the truth could be damaging to the fabric of the USA. If honestly held, then that is a misguided but understandable position.  

It's actually much more basic than that; the reason the CIA doesn't want to cooperate with any research into the Kennedy assassination is very simple: money.

Nothing is more sacrosanct than the money the agency receives in the US budget every year. Anything that could embarrass them, and therefore hamper that budget, like nasty connections from almost 60 years ago, must be avoided at all costs. In their view, that could put them at a disadvantage in their current activities keeping the US safe.

So while no one currently working there has any connection to that assassination, they feel it is in their best interests for the subject to be kept as un-researched as possible.

[James DiEugenio]

Take a look at who this guy is and what he does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Uscinski

Can TP be serious with this approach?  

 

[Ron Bulman]

39 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Take a look at who this guy is and what he does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Uscinski

Can TP be serious with this approach?  

 

"Conspiracy theories are for losers"

Something that woke me up many years ago was an article on the the concept of framing (Bush/Dukakis).

[Calvin Ye]

56 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

It's actually much more basic than that; the reason the CIA doesn't want to cooperate with any research into the Kennedy assassination is very simple: money.

Nothing is more sacrosanct than the money the agency receives in the US budget every year. Anything that could embarrass them, and therefore hamper that budget, like nasty connections from almost 60 years ago, must be avoided at all costs. In their view, that could put them at a disadvantage in their current activities keeping the US safe.

So while no one currently working there has any connection to that assassination, they feel it is in their best interests for the subject to be kept as un-researched as possible.

It is much more than just that. Another reason why CIA doesn't want to cooperate with any research into the Kennedy assassination is: avoidance of criminal investigation probe into CIA. In CIA's view, cooperation with research would eventually led to criminal investigation probe into CIA, which would led to dismantled of CIA

[James DiEugenio]

The thing is, what people like Uscinski do is a way to get your ticket punched in the academic world.

QAnon has been the icing on the cake.

 

[Matt Allison]

21 minutes ago, Calvin Ye said:

In CIA's view, cooperation with research would eventually led to criminal investigation probe into CIA, which would led to dismantled of CIA

Nah. There will never be a dismantling of the CIA, no matter what prior or future trouble they find themselves in. The world is now a place where every country has a foreign intelligence service, and the US isn't going to drop theirs. 

[Paul Baker]

On 4/17/2021 at 3:52 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Is this debate one we can be linked to? If so, can you provide this?

 

Here's a link to the debate on David Von Pein's JFK Archives website. This includes links to DVP's own opinions about the debate, which are well worth a read after you've listened.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john-mcadams.html

It's a little cringeworthy at times, but McAdams' responses are sensible and robust.

Edited April 19, 2021 by Paul Baker

[Cliff Varnell]

7 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

Here's a link to the debate on David Von Pein's JFK Archives website. This includes links to DVP's own opinions about the debate, which are well worth a read after you've listened.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john-mcadams.html

It's a little cringeworthy at times, but McAdams' responses are sensible and robust.

The Lone Nut is a cult.  It requires a true belief impervious to obvious fact.