John McAdams has passed on

[W. Tracy Parnell]

41 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What information is forthcoming from people like you and Joe Zircon who pretend inconvenient evidence doesn't exist?

First, why do you persist on referring to him as Joe Zircon when he has explained that is a pseudonym? Second, I am not pretending that evidence does not exist that could lead someone to question a particular finding. I understand that it does and in a case where there are perhaps millions of pieces of information, that is to be expected. As far as what information we have, Hank has outlined some of that here. For the rest, you can go to David Von Pein's or John McAdams' site.

Edited April 28, 2021 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Cliff Varnell]

40 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

First, why do you persist on referring to him as Joe Zircon when he has explained that is a pseudonym?

Because contempt is the only intellectually honest response to pathological lying.

Same contempt I have for Holocaust deniers.

40 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Second, I am not pretending that evidence does not exist that could lead someone to question a particular finding.

You certainly do! 

You and Zircoff always have.  I dealt with you guys for years on usenet.  I know your fake-debate routine by heart. 

40 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I understand that it does and in a case where there are perhaps millions of pieces of information, that is to be expected.

What pablum! 

40 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 

As far as what information we have, Hank has outlined some of that here. For the rest, you can go to David Von Pein's or John McAdams' site.

Both of you have spent decades ignoring the First Day Evidence.  You haven't earned any one's respect.  Not around here, sonny jim.

[David G. Healy]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

This "scholarly" forum should be able to easily refute Hank's assertions. Instead, they want to chase him off. Or perhaps they are brewing up a scheme to try and get rid of him like they did Von Pein. Why not just debate him? A debate is more informative than and echo chamber.

why?

[James DiEugenio]

We have neutralized Hank's assertions, since they are based upon quicksand.

One cannot rely on the conclusions of the WR as he is doing. 

Because the Commission either ignored or did not know the state of the raw evidence, which was mostly handled  by the FBI. But also by the Secret Service, and to a lesser extent by the CIA.

Are you really going to say you find what the CIA did in Mexico City credible?  Today, with the Lopez Report declassified we know that what the WC did there was a stuttering. flubbering joke--and they knew it.  Even Willens wanted to know why the FBI let the Mexican interior forces--Echeverria and Ochoa--handle the investigation BEFORE the FBI got to work.  And that is in Shenon's cruddy book.  And those two guys kept Duran away from the Commission. 

What can one say about the Secret Service today?  They have been pretty much exposed as negligent or worse by VInce P and Bolden and Horne.

As Gary Aguilar, TInk Thompson, and the late John Hunt have shown, along with Ray Marcus, the FBI lied its head off about CE 399.  

As Bob Tanenbaum said years ago, what made the WR so deeply flawed was its reliance on agencies of government that, at the very least, were in on a cover up that falsified the record. 

BTW, I just learned this evening that Tanenbaum has written a book about what he and Sprague did while they were running the HSCA.  He is almost done with the manuscript.  It will be submitted next month.

 

[Matt Allison]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

BTW, I just learned this evening that Tanenbaum has written a book about what he and Sprague did while they were running the HSCA.  He is almost done with the manuscript.  It will be submitted next month.

 

That is absolutely fantastic news. Can't wait to read it.

[Dennis Berube]

Indeed, that is exciting. The Tannenbaum (or maybe it was Sprague?) story about seeing that video of Oswald and Shaw together at the CIA cuban training ground (forgot the long name, in Louisiana though I think?) was always stunning to me. You can’t get much more of a smoking gun than that. Of course, that info was essentially known, albeit not visually, at the Shaw trial, but a little character assassination by the CIA defense team made it go away. 
I hope Tanenbaum will include that video story in his book. Maybe he even knows what happened to the film? I’m sure Hank will reassure us that those two eminently respectable professionals made that story up and the tape never existed. Phew, that was a close one! Instead, we should listen to the guy who was selected to replace them and investigated everything but the CIA and then claimed the CIA lied to him 30+ years later even though it was probably himself that censored the CIA section of the Mexico City report which is another piece of evidence that no longer exists (as far as I know). No wonder its tough to “change the view of history” as an honest citizen. 
 

Sidenote (after seeing one of Hanks links): I still cant get over the term “factoid”. One of the most anti-intellectual, idiotic phrases I have ever come across. 

[James DiEugenio]

This is what Eddie told me about the censoring of the Lopez Report.  After the report was done, the CIA had the right to request redactions.  So he and Blakey and Danny and Goldsmith sat at a table and started going through the report. There were two CIA guys there.  It took them 8 hours to get through the first two pages of the report.   After that Blakey threw in the towel.  Since the report was 300 pages long.

And to my knowledge, the annex named "Was Oswald an Agent of the CIA" has never been declassified.

[Steve Roe]

On 4/28/2021 at 11:55 AM, James DiEugenio said:

 

FOR THE ABOVE POST, HANK SAID I WAS LACKING IN REFERENCES.  THIS IS HOW HE GOT AWAY FROM REPLYING. THIS IS ALL JFK 101. IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR DECADES ON END.  IT IS NOT A GISH GALLOP. THAT IS JUST AN AVOIDANCE TECHNIQUE. 

 

Mr. DiEugenio, you avoided/sidestepped/ignored answering your claim that Gerdes saw Oswald. A couple of attempts were made to get you to answer or debate that issue. A primary document from the Garrison papers clearly pointed out your mistake. And you ran away.......

[James DiEugenio]

No I did not,. As I said you do not read well.

Keep it up Roe and I will place you on ignore.

[David G. Healy]

On 4/28/2021 at 8:54 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

This "scholarly" forum should be able to easily refute Hank's assertions. Instead, they want to chase him off. Or perhaps they are brewing up a scheme to try and get rid of him like they did Von Pein. Why not just debate him? A debate is more informative than and echo chamber.

it did, about 6 months after it got underway... we obliterated and certainly created LHO doubt re the 1964 WCR results. Couple that with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, even Fetzer's post Zap film Hoax contributions, now better informed JFK assassination related web sites such as K&K, JFK Facts, Black Op radio, etc. The current demise of AAJ and .John, the only thing left is whining on Nutter's part... louder and more dramatic the better... Time to retire Tracy?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

15 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

The current demise of AAJ and .John, the only thing left is whining on Nutter's part... louder and more dramatic the better... Time to retire Tracy?

You are right in this sense-the death of John is an incalculable loss to the LN community. As far as my retiring-you can hope.

[Pamela Brown]

David Healy said: The current demise of AAJ and .John, the only thing left is whining on Nutter's part... louder and more dramatic the better...

I agree. I have posted there since its inception.  I was regularly bashed by McAdams. I put some of my frustration into a blog...http://mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com/

[Dennis Berube]

On 4/29/2021 at 2:27 PM, James DiEugenio said:

There were two CIA guys there.  It took them 8 hours to get through the first two pages of the report.   After that Blakey threw in the towel.  Since the report was 300 pages long.

And to my knowledge, the annex named "Was Oswald an Agent of the CIA" has never been declassified.

The above passage is a nice succinct summary of what it was all about in 5 sentences.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Dennis.

Then came the ARRB.

 

 

[Hank Sienzant]

On 4/27/2021 at 9:53 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Those aren't contemporaneous accounts -- therefore irrelevant.

Hilarious. According to what rule of law? Who sets the standards for what is admissible evidence here? You? Why? 

Below you declare that only the evidence that came in before the "Magic Bullet" can logically be weighed. I'd love to see you defend that. And while there is a bullet hole in the back of the shirt and the back of the jacket, you cite the holes but make no argument regarding that. You cite the autopsy face sheet but throw out the autopsy as not contemporaneous. 

On 4/27/2021 at 9:53 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

No, you don't understand the problem.  Only the evidence that came in before the Magic Bullet can logically be weighed.  CE399 taints everything that followed.

 

I don't cite any opinions.  I cite the evidence you are incapable of processing -- the bullet holes in the clothes, the contemporaneous reports of witnesses in position of authority, the verified and authenticated medical evidence, robust consensus witness statements.

Good old Joe Zircon -- throw the clothing evidence in his face and he'll say it's only an opinion.

It's the opinions of the medical people in the first 24 hours that count.  Both the Death Certificate and the autopsy face sheet were signed off as "verified."

Those are the opinions that count.