Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams has passed on


Josh Cron
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thompson presents WImp's case for a blur illusion on pages 197-207 of his book.

Wimp presented this at an AARC conference himself with images and film.  

Its a combination of a camera blur and the infusion of black with white areas on film.  Thompson does a nice job presenting it with pictures.  Wimp did a nice job with the equivalent of a GIF.  Hank does not want you to listen to this or see it. Quite natural.

He also does not want to answer any of my questions I posed to him since they blast him out of the park. He calls them "begged questions", yeah sure Hank.  Asking how an entrance wound leaves a gaping avulsive hole in the back of Kennedy's head is a "begged question"?  Please; I wouldn't answer that either if I were you.

As per the rifle, look you can McAdams riff on this all day long.  But the following are all facts:

1. The entire transaction, including depositing it in Klein's account took about 24 hours.  When Oliver Stone did it, without any such deposit step, it took six days.

2. Not a single witness at the USPS office saw or recalled Oswald picking up a four foot package containing a rifle.

3. This is just about impossible to  understand.  Why? Because if you buy the FBI story--which I do not, but you are stuck with--Oswald did not order the rifle in his real name.  He ordered it under an alias, Hidell. As Stewart Galanor points out in his book Cover -Up, under  postal regulations,  the rifle should have been returned to sender due to the wrong name. (See Document 37). 

4.  The rifle the police found is not the one on the order. Wrong weight, wrong length, different classification.

5. As far as the payment goes, the 21. 45 deposit has a huge problem.  It was made by check from another Chicago bank.  (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 474) 

PS As per that silly argument he tries to pass about there being no difference between replying to a question as you are being escorted by the cops in a hallway, while being hustled off to a line up or your cell, and sitting in a chair being questioned without hustle and bustle around you--I mean anyone can see the difference in circumstances.  Anyone except a -----. 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Not my suggestion.  It's what the doctors speculated the night of the autopsy.

The rounds didn't exit.

The historical record indicates two possibilities -- the rounds were removed prior to the autopsy, or the rounds were high-tech blood soluble.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

<quote on>

Church:  Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved not only designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Colby:  Well, there was an attempt—

Church:  Or the dart.

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

Church:  As a murder instrument, that is about as efficient as you can get, is it not?

Colby:  It is a weapon, a very serious weapon.</q>

https://citizentruth.org/cia-heart-attack-gun/

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact.<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely.... Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize (sic).</q>

 

1. I note you reference the autopsy doctors supposed speculation, rather than the autopsy doctors conclusions. (More on this below).  

2. If the rounds didn't exit, they had to be going pretty slowly to start with, right? They only had to penetrate, what, about six inches of flesh to exit? Why would bullets just stop in the body? 

3. The historical record suggests a third possibility, one you don't even mention. The bullet struck JFK's back and exited his throat. That's the conclusion of the autopsy doctors, and the conclusion of the HSCA forensic panel that studied the extant autopsy materials in 1978. I'll go with the experts with over 100,000 autopsies performed between them. What is your medical training? 

4. Can you cite in the Sibert / O'Neill FBI report dated 11/26/63 about what they observed at the autopsy where there is any mention of an ice bullet? If this was a court trial of Oswald, couldn't their 11/26/63 memorandum be used to impeach their recollections from 15 years after the fact? Is there any contemporaneous evidence (circa 1963) that there was any speculation about an ice / plastic / frangible bullet? I see nothing of the sort in the historical record. 

5. The historical record (see the S/O memorandum for the record) reflects the doctor's attempt at merging the evidence they had at the time: that the bullet that struck JFK in the back exited out his back and was found on a stretcher at Parkland. Nothing in the historical record about plastic / ice / frangible bullets. 

All the best,

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard Booth said:

I have no interest in talking to you about any of your points and you mistakenly think that is what I was doing.

What I was doing was talking about John McAdams, which is the subject of this thread. 

I don't care what you say to your "opponent" and have zero interest in participating in that discussion.

Curiously, for someone who had no interest in talking to me about anything, you responded to one of my points with comments about what I wrote. 

== QUOTE ==

Ah, the good ole' "McAdams Special" as I like to call it.

Deign your opponent a crackpot buff and move along. If your opponent brings up the facts again, deem it a "factoid" and move along. 

== UNQUOTE ==

You weren't talking about McAdams, you were clearly talking about what I wrote. 

When I pointed out you avoided what I wrote entirely and substituted a straw man argument instead, suddenly you have no interest in talking to me. 

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2021 at 7:38 PM, 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. Besides, everyone has made their points.

I see it differently. Debating the assassination with conspiracy theorists is what John McAdams would want us to do. Doing it in this thread is the best place for that. Pointing out their attempts to poison the well by attacking McAdams himself instead of his arguments is a good place to start. 

All the best.

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Hank, let me repeat my questions which you did not reply to, instead you quote something I wrote about Uscinski. And then you say I am not responding with facts.  

Please.  In this day and age, to say the WR is not speculative?  What are you going to say: its factual? 

How? 

What is your proof that LHO was in the window at the proper time?

What is your proof that anyone could do what the WC said Oswald did?

What is your proof that CE 399 was on Connally's stretcher?

How could you possibly get CE 399 into evidence in court?

How could a bullet from behind leave a large avulsive would in the back of Kennedy's skull?

Where did the 6.5 mm fragment come from in 1968?

How does a bullet go from a right left trajectory, to a left right trajectory to exit Kennedy's skull?  And exit above and to the right of his right ear, and land in the front seat. Cut in half, with the base and tip landing there.  But the middle part left in the rear of the skull?

How did Oswald send a coupon and payment to Klein's in Chicago for the rifle, which arrived, was sorted, and then deposited in about one day--a distance of  thousand miles.  When Oliver Stone did that experiment, it took six days.  And recall, back then--no zip codes, no computers, no sensors. 

Note I used the word proof at the start.  Oswald had no lawyer to defend him or raise these questions.  Therefore, there was no standard that the WC had to meet.  This is why they never had to answer these questions.

 

I did respond. I pointed out it was a Gish Gallop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

1. I note you reference the autopsy doctors supposed speculation, rather than the autopsy doctors conclusions. (More on this below).  

The autopsy conclusions were not contemporaneous.

16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

2. If the rounds didn't exit, they had to be going pretty slowly to start with, right? They only had to penetrate, what, about six inches of flesh to exit? Why would bullets just stop in the body? 

I've already answered this question in detail.

16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

3. The historical record suggests a third possibility, one you don't even mention. The bullet struck JFK's back and exited his throat.

So you think the back of your neck is 4 inches below the bottom of your collar?

16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

That's the conclusion of the autopsy doctors, and the conclusion of the HSCA forensic panel that studied the extant autopsy materials in 1978.

Wrong.

"In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.  This is correspondingly seen in the shirt underneath."   [1 HSCA 196]    

16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

 

I'll go with the experts with over 100,000 autopsies performed between them. What is your medical training? 

4. Can you cite in the Sibert / O'Neill FBI report dated 11/26/63 about what they observed at the autopsy where there is any mention of an ice bullet?

I've already posted the source of this information.

16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

 

If this was a court trial of Oswald, couldn't their 11/26/63 memorandum be used to impeach their recollections from 15 years after the fact? Is there any contemporaneous evidence (circa 1963) that there was any speculation about an ice / plastic / frangible bullet? I see nothing of the sort in the historical record. 

I posted links to the historical record.

16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

5. The historical record (see the S/O memorandum for the record) reflects the doctor's attempt at merging the evidence they had at the time: that the bullet that struck JFK in the back exited out his back and was found on a stretcher at Parkland. Nothing in the historical record about plastic / ice / frangible bullets. 

All the best,

Hank

You can't process information that doesn't conform to your bias.  Bad beat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hank A: I did respond. I pointed out it was a Gish Gallop. 

And I pointed out that what you were really doing was evading the questions because they undermine your position. 

Which is what the WC did back in 1964.

If the prosecution cannot surmount problems in their own core evidence, they have a long road ahead of them.   Or as Bob Tanenbaum once said, no DA could have convicted Oswald on this evidence.  Because most of it would have been thrown out before trial.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

I see it differently. Debating the assassination with conspiracy theorists is what John McAdams would want us to do. Doing it in this thread is the best place for that. Pointing out their attempts to poison the well by attacking McAdams himself instead of his arguments is a good place to start. 

All the best.

Hank

Yes, McAdams would want people to debate theories and when the nutters can't refute the facts they pretend the facts don't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

== QUOTE ==

Ah, the good ole' "McAdams Special" as I like to call it.

Deign your opponent a crackpot buff and move along. If your opponent brings up the facts again, deem it a "factoid" and move along. 

== UNQUOTE ==

You weren't talking about McAdams, you were clearly talking about what I wrote. 

 

What I wrote was clearly about John McAdams, I identified him by name and I highlighted a few things he liked to do.

I noticed that you had brought up a fallacy of logic that McAdams frequently used, and I wanted to chime in to note that it was one of his tactics given this thread is about McAdams.

That you would prefer instead to engage in a pointless back and forth about something else entirely is your right, but I'm not going to play that game. This will be the second time that I have had to clarify my comments were about John McAdams and I won't make any additional statements about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

On the fence is the place to be, Chris.  There are arguments on both sides.

From the 1975 Church Committee testimony of William Colby, Director of the CIA.

Church
Have you brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people? 

Colby: 
We have indeed. 

Church
Does this pistol fire the dart? 

Colby: 
Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a small dart. [self-propelled, like a rocket.]

Church: 
So that when it fires, it fires silently? 

Colby: 
Almost silently; yes. 

Church: 
What range does it have? 

Colby: 
One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100 meters. 

I don't know what to make of the t&t windshield defect.  I can't imagine anyone planning to put a bullet into the windshield.

My best guess -- errant shot from a nervous shooter.

JFK appears to be paralyzed after the throat shot.  What's the simplest explanation for someone acting paralyzed?

No matter how skilled and cold-blooded these shooters had to have been, it's another level of tension when the target is the US President. 

What if the first shot only wounds the target and he ducks down?

Scorpion logic -- paralyze the prey first.

Thanks Cliff. There are some interesting thoughts there and I am not disagreeing but, I’ll play devils advocate on some. 
 

- The opposing argument to JFK looking paralysed would be that he acted perhaps like anyone who was choking or trying to cope with a bullet in the throat / windpipe. There would be blood running down the throat and he’d be trying to breathe/cough. The shock might have prevented him ducking or reacting. 
- Thats dead interesting with the dart gun and its range. 100 yards Is the range but, the reliable accuracy must be a lot less if the max range is 100 yards. Where do we think its been fired from? Someone on the street or the drains? Or a range getting towards its max range? 
- Would lower diameter bullets be more efficient when shooting through reasonably thick glass? Presumably s large round could put the whole windscreen or at least put a larger spiders web style fracturing of the glass around the hole. Does that explain the use of a seemingly different round? 
- There are other threads about the angle of deviation when shooting a glass windshield. I can’t verify the truth in it but, some have claimed the angle of deviation is relatively predictable, ie someone skilled could practice it and make allowances for it. The evidence and eye witness accounts seen to indicate it the windscreen hole was passing in through the windshield toward passengers as opposed to exiting the vehicle. I guess the hole angle would indicate that. 
 

That’s probably why I am so on the fence. i suspect those who have stood in Dealey Plaza and walked about a bit would have a clearer idea after looking at the angles etc I was even sat thinking last night along the lines if a ferrous bullet could have been used and removed with a high powered magnet, leaving no incisions where a bullet gad been removed. Over-elaborate I know. This is one case where ‘Ocram’s Razor’ isn’t of use, the more complex, the more it will seem unbelievable to the public. 
 

Cheers

Chris 

 

PS Colby’s death is pretty damn suspicious based on this piece.
http://www.pythiapress.com/wartales/colby.htm

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, this is Wiki's definition of a Gish Gallop

The Gish gallop is a term for an eristic technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

The problem with Hank copping out with this is that my questions were all well founded, based on accurate information and were quite sound.  For instance, the chain of custody for CE 399 is now very well illustrated by the ARRB declassifications and the work of Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson.   Hank does not want to deal with that record.

If I were him, neither would I. 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Hank actually wrote this:

One obvious fact is that the rifle shipped to Oswald's PO Box was found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination. Do you dispute that obvious fact? 

First, its the wrong rifle.  

Second, no one ever recalled LHO picking up any rifle. 

In fact, according to USPS rules he could not have done so since the order was not in his name.

Hank is in the Von Pein/Litwin school.

First, the Kleins records show they shipped him the rifle bearing the serial number C2766. That's the rifle found in the Depository. It's Oswald rifle.

Second, the rifle was shipped to Oswald in March of 1963. Eight months later, the weapon was found in the Depository. Oswald was accused of using that rifle to assassinate the President. Sometime after that, no one wanted to take credit (or more accurately, the blame) for handing the rifle over to Oswald, and you find that worthy of note? 

Third, The portion of the application that shows who was allowed to receive mail at the PO Box 2915 (where the rifle was shipped) was discarded, so there's no way to know who was allowed to receive mail at that box. It's important to note that Oswald did designate Hidell as eligible to receive mail at another PO Box (30061) he opened in New Orleans a few months later. 

Fourth, Harry Holmes explained that while the rules say one thing, in practice the PO staff might take shortcuts. 

== QUOTE ==

Mr. LIEBELER. Now supposing that Oswald had not in fact authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact, one did at Post Office Box 2915, what procedure would be followed when that package came in?
Mr. HOLMES. They would put the notice in the box.
Mr. LIEBELER. Regardless of whose name was associated with the box?

Mr. HOLMES. That is the general practice. The theory being, I have a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would be all right.
Mr. LIEBELER. So that the package would have come in addressed to Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from it?
Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it.

== UNQUOTE ==

I trust this clears up some of your confusion. 

All the best, 

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

What I wrote was clearly about John McAdams, I identified him by name and I highlighted a few things he liked to do.

I noticed that you had brought up a fallacy of logic that McAdams frequently used, and I wanted to chime in to note that it was one of his tactics given this thread is about McAdams.

That you would prefer instead to engage in a pointless back and forth about something else entirely is your right, but I'm not going to play that game. This will be the second time that I have had to clarify my comments were about John McAdams and I won't make any additional statements about it.

And this is the third time you've responded to me, and the second time you're telling me you weren't talking to me about what I said, when your initial post was clearly a response to what I wrote, and you clearly likened my arguments to some straw man arguments instead of responding to the actual points I made. 

You can deny it all you want. It doesn't change the facts any. 

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Thanks Cliff. There are some interesting thoughts there and I am not disagreeing but, I’ll play devils advocate on some. 
 

- The opposing argument to JFK looking paralysed would be that he acted perhaps like anyone who was choking or trying to cope with a bullet in the throat / windpipe. There would be blood running down the throat and he’d be trying to breathe/cough. The shock might have prevented him ducking or reacting. 
- Thats dead interesting with the dart gun and its range. 100 yards Is the range but, the reliable accuracy must be a lot less if the max range is 100 yards. Where do we think its been fired from? Someone on the street or the drains? Or a range getting towards its max range?

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

Black Dog Man had a "very distinct straight line feature" "near the region of his hands".  BDM was a "conspicuous person" who happened to "disappear the next instant."

If BDM was the throat shot shooter, the round had to have hit the right side of JFK's larynx, deflect down the right side of the trachea, burst blood vessels in the neck, cause a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and leave an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes.

Quote

- Would lower diameter bullets be more efficient when shooting through reasonably thick glass? Presumably s large round could put the whole windscreen or at least put a larger spiders web style fracturing of the glass around the hole. Does that explain the use of a seemingly different round? 
- There are other threads about the angle of deviation when shooting a glass windshield. I can’t verify the truth in it but, some have claimed the angle of deviation is relatively predictable, ie someone skilled could practice it and make allowances for it. The evidence and eye witness accounts seen to indicate it the windscreen hole was passing in through the windshield toward passengers as opposed to exiting the vehicle. I guess the hole angle would indicate that. 
 

That’s probably why I am so on the fence. i suspect those who have stood in Dealey Plaza and walked about a bit would have a clearer idea after looking at the angles etc I was even sat thinking last night along the lines if a ferrous bullet could have been used and removed with a high powered magnet, leaving no incisions where a bullet gad been removed. Over-elaborate I know. 
 

Cheers

Chris 

I'll always be on the fence on this issue.  The post-mortem fakery angle has been exhaustively studied by Lifton and Horne, while the only name researcher who's looked into the high-tech angle is Greg Burnham.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

Black Dog Man had a "very distinct straight line feature" "near the region of his hands".  BDM was a "conspicuous person" who happened to "disappear the next instant."

I'll always be on the fence on this issue.  The post-mortem fakery angle has been exhaustive studied by Lifton and Horne, while the only name researcher whose looked into the high-tech angle is Greg Burnham.

Thanks - I guess we can live in hope that some light is shed one day which settles it one way or the other but, it may well be lost to the sands of time. 

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...