Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams has passed on


Josh Cron
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Who has unified it?

Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria.

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Where is it published

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GaetonFonzi/WCTandAS.html

They induced Arlen Specter to have a nervous breakdown over the clothing evidence.

The high water mark of JFKA research: start with the T3 back wound and the fact it's too low to associate with the throat wound.  Follow the evidence from there.

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

and have all JFK researchers signed off on it?

The ones who haven't should find another subject to study.  Do us all a favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I am signing off on this thread because I fear that it is giving too much publicity to the nasty comments about McAdams and I don't want that.

I stopped throwing rocks at a beehive because I didn't want to get stung.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that bothered me years ago on JFKfacts was coming to the conclusion that McAdams was not one person in terms of his internet presence and website.  Being called a buff or crackpot, accused of ad hominem attacks, using "factoids" was frustrating and disturbing.  But the speed and frequency of responses, not just to me but many others was stunning.  Detailed, knowledgeable responses about the WC and critics.  

Knowing he was a professor, I guessed teaching a full load, I wondered, did he have Graduate Assistants helping him with his website, maybe even posting responses for him in other forums?  No I thought.  G/A's would be working on a thesis in Political Science and trying to support themselves in most cases, teaching lower level courses or however.  They would not be suddenly experts on the subject.

So how did he do it?  Teaching a full load he could stay on the internet several hours a day?  I read the other day in I think one of the K & K articles about him doing this on I think five websites?  I know some professors are decently compensated but from the little I know there is some expense to setting up and maintaining a website.  As well as time involved in/on it.

Maybe he was well compensated enough to pay and train expert assistants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

That’s true, Cliff. He’s avoided direct questions, filibustered, and ignored some inconvenient truths in the matter. 

Funny thing is there'd been no slams on McAdams for over 24 hours when Tracy bailed.

Holding the First Day Fact Pattern up to a nutter is like garlic before vampires.

They want to debate theories.  That's a game for losers. 

The facts collected in the first 24 hours of the assassination have a unified consistency: two wounds of entrance, no exits, no bullets.

Lots of Pet Theorist "CT"s can't stand these root facts any more than nutters.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Funny thing is there'd been no slams on McAdams for over 24 hours when Tracy bailed.

Holding the First Day Fact Pattern up to a nutter is like garlic before vampires.

They want to debate theories.  That's a game for losers. 

The facts collected in the first 24 hours of the assassination have a unified consistency: two wounds of entrance, no exits, no bullets.

Lots of Pet Theorist "CT"s can't stand these root facts any more than nutters.

I have seen your concise and to the point proof a few times and it’s very hard for anyone to argue there wasn’t a conspiracy regarding the shirt hole and wound. Plus all those witnessed at Parkland. 

Even though bullets do some peculiar things and theoretical physics can explain some strange things, there is no way one bullet caused all those wounds, and ends up in tact. If you had no Oswald, and gave that case to any impartial detectives, ballistic experts or forensics, there is no way they come up with that scenario, its pure fantasy. 

I read the HSCA transcripts (I think) on the shell fish toxins and weapon used to fire them. I am still very much on the fence about whether A) Some high tech stuff was used B) Bullets were removed pre-autopsy (I know that argument rages). I certainly can’t explain where the seemingly low calibre round that went in the throat has gone. Could the shallow back round have been retrieved? Could there still be some lead in JFK? Or mercury? 
 

I still think that Alek Hidell YouTube South Knoll simulation is the best scenario I have seen. I keep thinking why the low calibre round and if it was the ice bullet or shellfish toxin, what is the effectiveness and accuracy of a round like that at 100 yards? I think that’s the distance to the south knoll bushes, possibly slightly further for the throat shot as it was a little higher up the road. If that came from the grassy knoll, then why the windscreen hole?.
This is what makes it so intriguing. 

Do you have a theory on what kind of weaponry and where it came from for the throat shot? Was it off target or was it to subdue. Is that over-elaborate or necessary to subdue him when a skilled marksman could just have taken him out in one go at that range. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2021 at 1:55 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Most people see bias in the media of one kind or another. In fact, Uscinski addresses this if I remember correctly. The bias that you and Jim D see would probably differ from my own perceptions.

The below article is not a matter of "perceptions".  It is a matter of facts and documents from inside CBS which expose how CBS lied for 30 years about their four part 1967 special.  Roger Feinman pilfered the documents and di d interviews with people involved. 

 https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-cbs-covered-up-the-jfk-assassination

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len and I will be talking about John McAdams and his legacy this week on Black Op Radio.

I will try and focus on these main points:

His attacks on Fletcher Prouty and the thesis of JFK withdrawing from Vietnam.

His assault on Oliver Stone and his film JFK.

His unwarranted influence at Wikipedia

His use of an alias to cooperate on an attack on the critical community for publication.

The orchestration of his unprofessional smearing of a colleague at Marquette, which resulted in a real danger to her personal health, life and well being. This resulted in her leaving the campus to go to another university to complete her Ph. D.  

I think the last is important since it is an extension of what he did to the critical community online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The orchestration of his unprofessional smearing of a colleague at Marquette, which resulted in a real danger to her personal health, life and well being. This resulted in her leaving the campus to go to another university to complete her Ph. D.  

Don't forget to mention this was a pattern, that he did this to three students. If someone, any student, disagreed with him he posted their name, position and personal information on his website for his followers to harass. I believe that Abbate was the third student he did this to. It was a pattern for him, something that the school considered when taking action against him. 

It might also be worth nothing his creation of a lexicon of derogatory terms to use to characterize critics and historians and facts inconvenient to him: "buffs" "crackpot" and "factoid" -- all within the realm of ad-hominem, his refuge when he could not win with facts. 

Mantik's review of McAdams' book laid out the plethora of logical fallacies in McAdams' book that might be worth your revisiting when you make your notes for the show. Mantin did very well in that review in showing the faulty reasoning he used. Let us never lose sight of the fact that he relied upon logical fallacy in debates and arguments, which essentially tells us he had no way to win in a debate without resorting to intellectually disingenuous methods.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 3:41 PM, Richard Booth said:

The main problem I had with McAdams was his downright nasty, ad-hominem attacks and belittling of people. He was sneaky, crafty, underhanded, unprofessional, and rotten. 

I had the identical problem with Donald Trump.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2021 at 9:54 PM, Matt Allison said:

No normal person gets that wound up trying to defend something as speculative as the WC unless in service to an agenda.

Well, that's the logical fallacy of begging the question. You haven't establish the Warren Commission was 'speculative' (you've only asserted it) and you're assuming everyone who defends it must have some agenda other than the truth. 

Don't paint those who might have a differing opinion with such a broad brush. 

All the Best,

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2021 at 6:29 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

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.

Cliff,

Wait, let's start with the last "fact", and see what we can glean from that, okay?

I don't think the last "fact" is meaningful in any way. 

Yes, it's a "fact" that Hosty notes that. Presumably, you want to accept Hosty's word on that, but others on this board list Hosty as a member of the cover-up, if not the conspiracy. Even accepting the "fact" that Oswald did indeed tell Hosty that, do we accept the word of the accused in this case - and every case - when they claim they were somewhere at the time of the crime? 

I remind you that serial killer Theodore Robert "Ted" Bundy denied killing anyone until a few days before his execution date -- at which point he started singing like a canary, hoping to exchange his knowledge of what people he killed and where he disposed of their bodies for additional time to live. But from the time of his first arrest for kidnapping until those final days (over a decade) he maintained his innocence. 

It's quite simple - the accused doesn't necessarily have an unbiased viewpoint, and isn't always the most trustworthy individual.  That's true in case after case. 

Or do we only reserve this special dispensation for Oswald, accepting everything he saiid at face value? He also said he didn't bring any long package to the Depository that day, but at least two people saw him with one. Were they both mistaken or did Oswald have a package of two to three feet long that morning, and was Oswald less than forthcoming?

All the best,

Hank

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2021 at 7:31 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

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.

So ya'll suggesting two magic bullets, then?

What, one wasn't enough for you? 

If JFK was struck with a bullet in the back and another in the front, where'd they exit -- as there were no bullets seen in the full body x-rays at the autopsy. Did they just magically disappear? What evidence can you provide to make this argument reasonable? 

If there were bullets that struck JFK in the back and the throat, why didn't they exit? The bullet that struck Connally went through his trunk, his wrist and into his thigh before apparently falling out onto a stretcher. What kind of bullets struck JFK twice from two different directions and didn't do significant damage? What evidence can you provide to make this argument reasonable?  

All the best,

Hank

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...