Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams has passed on


Josh Cron
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would like to take the time to remind folks that John McAdams' primary method of discourse online involved throwing around ad-hominem personal attacks on people.

McAdams' legacy will always be that of the guy who called those who disagreed with him "crackpots" and "buffs" while doing away with facts he didn't want to address by calling them "factoids" which was a clever way of denoting some facts as less-factual, or perhaps relevant, than others. This style works very well when preaching to the choir, or perhaps persuading a person on the fence who is easily persuaded by less than scholarly methods. That is John McAdams. He was all about below-the-belt discourse and rarely if ever about being intellectually honest, much less carrying on in a respectful manner. I talk about all of this because I believe it's important to examine the ways in which people communicate to get across their message, as one thing I have learned in my life is that it's very often not what you say, but how you say it. 

McAdams' behavior on the JFK subject carried over into his conduct as a professor, showing that his chosen method of discourse wasn't one limited to the JFK case. For example, at least three times McAdams took to publishing on his blog the full name, contact information, and sometimes employment information relating to students that McAdams had a disagreement with. In doing so, his like-minded followers and blog readers could (and did) then harass those students. 

I've seen the same thing on some in the far-left, who also like to "out" people they disagree with by posting personal details and employment information in an apparent attempt to cause grief for their chosen target. It's a real shame when this is the approach taken by people who have some kind disagreement with another person, and I believe that doing this sort of thing reveals a character flaw in a person. 

Having said all of this, my point is that we should not get too distracted on this thread by anyone who wants to derail the subject of discussing John McAdams into instead discussing inconsequential, unimportant, and meaningless debates about the merits of one conspiracy theory or another. 

The best use of this thread is to discuss McAdams and his legacy. His online posts will be there for future students to take note of, and the way in which McAdams comported himself online will always be there for everyone to see. Serious students--those without an emotional attachment to the subject and no interest in playing internet keyboard games--will always see McAdams and his followers' tactics and it is those very tactics that will sway people away from McAdams' arguments. In that way, McAdams' "style" is counterproductive to convincing others that his position is correct. In some ways, then, McAdams' style is in fact what was *great* about John. To his fans, he gave them the spiteful and and mean-spirited tone they relish. Meanwhile, for serious thinkers who are interested only in thoughtful and respectful discourse, it provided a red-flag that signals to us that he was not to be taken seriously. 

One of my favorite reviews of McAdams' books comes from Dr. David Mantik. Mantik notes that although title and supposed central thesis to McAdams book is about thinking critically, McAdams ironically fails to do that because "he uses the standard tools of manipulation and commits a variety of crimes against logic—the straw man, the invalid analogy, begging the question, special pleading, the false dichotomy, and the moving goalpost."

Check out Mantik's review (link below) for a nicely documented example of how McAdams decided to write a book about critical thinking by using common obstacles to critical thinking:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/mcadams-john-jfk-assassination-logic-how-to-think-about-claims-of-conspiracy-1

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hank, please.  This stuff is as old as the hills and you recycle this rubbish as if its new and has not been exposed as such.

Holmes was a xxxx.  Plain and simple.  He was so bad that his family had to apologize for him posthumously in a letter sent to JFK Lancer.  And you did not know that?

The FBI knew that the correct name was not on any part of the application. Both Gil Jesus and John Armstrong have addressed this issue. (Armstrong, pp. 476)

Both John and David Josephs have proven that C2766 was not at Klein's at the correct time for it to be shipped to Dallas. (Armstrong, p. 469). David is really devastating on this issue.  Here is the main takeaway from his work:

  • Rupp admits that he does not track individual serial #’s for rifles – that C2766 is in carton #3376 on packing slip #3620 is only ascertained by looking at the original slips created when the rifles were packaged in Italy

  •   The FBI’s investigation states that Klein’s’ own documentation does not corroborate “C” 2766 but a “N” 2766 or “C” 2746 – sent June 18, 1962 and March 27,1963 respectively. “C”2766 could not have been associated with VC836 as we will show.

https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

Just like virtually everything else in this case, the chain of custody for the rifle would be blown apart at trial. Further, the rifle in the BYP is not the one found at the depository. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add a point here.  IMO, there are no sacred idols in this case: not Meagher, not Weisberg, not anyone.

One of my problems with the early critics is the alleged facts that they accepted:

 Oswald was in Mexico City

 Oswald ordered the rifle

 Oswald was allegedly at 544 Camp Street and stamped it on a flyer, but no one figured out what was at the address.

IMO, today these are all keystones in the JFK case. The problems with the rifle are pretty much overwhelming today Hank.  You should drop it.  Its a real loser.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2021 at 12:50 AM, James DiEugenio said:

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.

So this is tomorrow night at:

6:00-7:30 PT

7:00-8:30 MT

8:00-9:30 CT

9:00-10:30 ET

Here:

Black Op Radio

On the World Wide Web.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion this is one of the best BOR shows we have ever done.

Len had a guest on before me to talk abut the death of Ramsey Clark.

Then me and him talked about the following the deaths of Dick Sprague and McAdams

You will learn a heck of a lot more about those three listening to BOR than you did from the MSM.  No contest.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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

You make a very good point. In my defense, I would say that many of the areas touched on by this thread are not my area of expertise. I have been devoted to studying the life of Oswald until recently when I got sidetracked into a study of the Maurice Bishop affair which I am writing a book on. Time is precious so I don't argue with the CTs as much as I probably should. But I have cooked up a big batch of popcorn and I am enjoying it while you dismantle their arguments as Von Pein used to do here before they found a way to get rid of him. Great job sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

You make a very good point. In my defense, I would say that many of the areas touched on by this thread are not my area of expertise. I have been devoted to studying the life of Oswald until recently when I got sidetracked into a study of the Maurice Bishop affair which I am writing a book on. Time is precious so I don't argue with the CTs as much as I probably should. But I have cooked up a big batch of popcorn and I am enjoying it while you dismantle their arguments as Von Pein used to do here before they found a way to get rid of him. Great job sir!

Bunk.  Siezant's posts on this thread are what a RAND Corporation analyst dubbed a "firehose of falsehoods."

It's a propaganda technique of flooding media with so many falsehoods that it is difficulty to track and respond to all of them.

I'm looking forward to hearing James DiEugenio's analysis on Black Op radio this evening.

Thanks to Ron Bulman for posting the link.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim D is on BOR tonight?

How do I find this broadcast on my radio here on the California Coast 125 miles South of SF?

Siezant's posts on this thread are what a RAND Corporation analyst dubbed a "firehose of falsehoods."

It's a propaganda technique of flooding media with so many falsehoods that it is difficult to track and respond to all of them.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Jim D is on BOR tonight?

How do I find this broadcast on my radio here on the California Coast 125 miles South of SF?

Siezant's posts on this thread are what a RAND Corporation analyst dubbed a "firehose of falsehoods."

It's a propaganda technique of flooding media with so many falsehoods that it is difficulty to track and respond to all of them.

 

 

I've not done this myself, yet...

Black Op Radio

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Presumably, Jim D. still has one "sacred idol"-Garrison.

Tracy, this is a completely different order of battle.

Garrison was a DA who was trying to find out the who of the matter.  If Oswald did not kill Kennedy--and he did not--then who did?  And WHY was Oswald in New Orleans that summer?  Who were his cohorts and what was he doing there? Because Garrison's investigation was showing what Joan Didion referred to in this way: "The stones that were turned over! Fantastic characters kept emerging...this whole revealed world."

Because of this, and the danger it created, it was not a matter of just calling up a book publisher and discouraging them from releasing a book, as with Turner, Lane and Fields.  It was a direct assault on his inquiry which included infiltration, electronic surveillance, bribery, financial threats, physical beatings etc.  Which you and Litwin studiously avoid revealing. 

As Garrison once said, and I agree, exposing the Warren Report was the easy part. That POS was so riddled with errors of omission and commission that it was like shooting fish in a barrel. 

But the fact that this apparatus was created and went to work to undermine him--one which Shaw's lawyers literally begged for--that is all on a different plane.  Not the same thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

You make a very good point. In my defense, I would say that many of the areas touched on by this thread are not my area of expertise.

So you've drawn conclusions prior to investigation.

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I have been devoted to studying the life of Oswald until recently when I got sidetracked into a study of the Maurice Bishop affair which I am writing a book on. Time is precious so I don't argue with the CTs as much as I probably should.

How does your determination to remain ignorant of the root facts of the case -- the First Day Evidence File -- lead to the conclusion of a single shooter?

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 

But I have cooked up a big batch of popcorn and I am enjoying it while you dismantle their arguments as Von Pein used to do here before they found a way to get rid of him. Great job sir!

A case study in intellectual dishonesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2021 at 10:12 PM, Hank Sienzant said:

So coming to McAdams defense "prods" others into attacking him, making the one who comes to someone's defense the guilty party here. 

Wow.

Through the looking glass, I guess. Black is white, and white is black. 

Right, Eddy? 

Is that your final answer? 

All the best,

Hank

Wow, he lives!!! 

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...