Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams has passed on


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Hank Sienzant said:

Didn't I cover this subject with you in detail on the International Skeptics forum?

You are MicahJava there, are you not?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12325583&postcount=303

Hank

I’ve just had a look at the JFKA section and the comments on that forum. It strikes me as very anti-intellectual, in general. 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 4/27/2021 at 9:47 PM, Ron Bulman said:

He actually said he was out front with Shelly, if you believe the FBI agents notes.  And of course you would believe J Edgar's boys?  Back with another blast of 18 posts n 16 hours.  Many long ones.  If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...

 

Fishing Hank?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humes never explained why he did not track the wound in the back.

Hank asks me what professionals do I abide by?

How about Henry Lee?  The most famous and probably illustrious criminalist in the world.

We asked him for the upcoming documentary, can you chart a trajectory through the body without it being dissected.

He replied on camera that its very difficult to do so.  He was even more negative off camera.

There you go Hank.  Someone not invested in this case with sterling credentials.

BTW, you should have heard him about the problems with Kennedy's autopsy.  He had nothing but disdain for it.  See Hank, he is a professional, one of the best.  And he is coming from the real world.  Not the Bermuda Triangle of the Warren Commission.

Hank is so blinded by the smoke and mirrors of Oswald did it, that he cannot see how Humes would be ripped to shreds at trial.  In fact, with what he did to his notes and autopsy--destruction of original evidence--he would probably be charged with a crime in the real world.

But Hank cannot see that.  He is so blind that he cannot even comprehend the various problems with the supplementary autopsy. Take a look at the date on that one Hank and note that its handwritten.  None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hank Sienzant said:

 

There is nothing on the x-rays confirming or denying the possibility of a shallow hole in the lower back of the skull. It is also difficult to differentiate between bullet fragments and artifacts on the x-rays. The x-rays are low quality and blurry because they were taken with portable equipment made for the battlefields of WW2. Everybody can agree these x-rays could use more scrutiny from experts and machines. And even if the official x-rays provably didn't show any kind of hole in the lower back of the skull, then my contesting argument would be that the x-rays could have been somehow faked or that the EOP wound could have existed lower in the hairline below the skull.

 

There's also nothing confirming or denying a small hole in the lower back of the scalp on the autopsy photos. The autopsy photos are, as the HSCA put it, of low photographic quality. There is witness evidence for missing photos.

 

The contemporaneous documents like the face sheet, Sibert and O'Neill's teletype, the handwritten and typed protocols, supplemental report, and Burkley's death certificate all support the EOP wound.

Humes, Boswell, Finck, Roy Kellerman, and John Stringer were four witnesses who gave very precise descriptions of seeing a small hole in the lower back of the head.

 

Other witnesses gave descriptions which were less detailed but also clearly suggested an EOP wound: Burkley, Lipsey, Robinson, and Chester Boyers.

More witness and document evidence suggests an EOP wound includes the damage to the brainstem and cerebellum and the "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" FBI memo.

 

There is literally no way to debunk this unless an exhumation and second autopsy proves otherwise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 8:29 PM, Chris Barnard said:

I’ve just had a look at the JFKA section and the comments on that forum. It strikes me as very anti-intellectual, in general. 

What in particular struck you that way? 

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2021 at 10:47 PM, Ron Bulman said:

He actually said he was out front with Shelly, if you believe the FBI agents notes.  And of course you would believe J Edgar's boys?  Back with another blast of 18 posts n 16 hours.  Many long ones.  If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...

 

I answered your points in two separate posts:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 10:35 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Humes never explained why he did not track the wound in the back.

Hank asks me what professionals do I abide by?

How about Henry Lee?  The most famous and probably illustrious criminalist in the world.

We asked him for the upcoming documentary, can you chart a trajectory through the body without it being dissected.

He replied on camera that its very difficult to do so.  He was even more negative off camera.

There you go Hank.  Someone not invested in this case with sterling credentials.

BTW, you should have heard him about the problems with Kennedy's autopsy.  He had nothing but disdain for it.  See Hank, he is a professional, one of the best.  And he is coming from the real world.  Not the Bermuda Triangle of the Warren Commission.

Curiously, you don't quote Henry Lee with disagreeing with the conclusions of the House Select Committee on Assassinations Medical Panel or with the original autopsists. Did he actually study the extant autopsy materials and reach a different conclusion?

I remind you the HSCA autopsy panel had sterling credentials as well and actually agreed with the original autopsists about the origin of the shots (above and behind). And that panel had over 100,000 autopsies performed between them. And they actually studied the extant autopsy materials before reaching their conclusion. What did Henry Lee do concerning the JFK autopsy? 

   

Quote

Hank is so blinded by the smoke and mirrors of Oswald did it, that he cannot see how Humes would be ripped to shreds at trial.

Yeah, you said that already. But when I asked you to cite your source ("according to who?") you simply repeat your claim instead. 

  

Quote

In fact, with what he did to his notes and autopsy--destruction of original evidence--he would probably be charged with a crime in the real world. But Hank cannot see that. 

Hilarious. What world are you living in? Humes and I are in the real world. Humes wasn't charged with any crime. Your complaint here makes absolutely no sense. 

 

Quote

He is so blind that he cannot even comprehend the various problems with the supplementary autopsy.

Sorry, no. Instead of attacking me and calling me "blind", why don't you quote the autopsy experts that said they disagreed with the conclusions of the original autopsy and the HSCA review panel? Both those groups reached the same conclusions: two shots from above and behind struck the President. One bullet exited the throat of Kennedy and the other exited the right top of his head. 

 

Quote

Take a look at the date on that one Hank and note that its handwritten. 

 

So now you're complaining about the handwritten date on the Supplemental autopsy report instead of the lack of a date on the autopsy report? Sorry, same points as before: if these supposed conspirators you conjecture were attempting to fool everyone, do you think they'd overlook something as simple as the date? 

How does the lack of a date or a handwritten date overturn the conclusions or call into question the conclusions of the autopsy or the supplemental autopsy report?

Wouldn't Humes be the best person to know when the various reports were prepared? 

 

Quote

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

ad hominem. 

 

Edited by Hank Sienzant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2021 at 9:30 AM, Micah Mileto said:

There is nothing on the x-rays confirming or denying the possibility of a shallow hole in the lower back of the skull. It is also difficult to differentiate between bullet fragments and artifacts on the x-rays. The x-rays are low quality and blurry because they were taken with portable equipment made for the battlefields of WW2. Everybody can agree these x-rays could use more scrutiny from experts and machines.

The HSCA medical review panel reviewed the extant autopsy materials and concluded Kennedy was struck twice, both times from above and behind. The original autopsists, with the body in front of them, reached the same conclusions. Your expertise in autopsies is what, exactly? 

 

 

Quote

And even if the official x-rays provably didn't show any kind of hole in the lower back of the skull, then my contesting argument would be that the x-rays could have been somehow faked or that the EOP wound could have existed lower in the hairline below the skull.

"Somehow faked" - even though the HSCA medical panel reached the conclusion those were JFK's x-rays and the photographic panel concluded there was no evidence of fakery. 

You could adopt the argument that they were right, but that would be no fun and would mean abandoning your belief in extra shots striking JFK. 

 

Quote

There's also nothing confirming or denying a small hole in the lower back of the scalp on the autopsy photos. The autopsy photos are, as the HSCA put it, of low photographic quality. There is witness evidence for missing photos.

The HSCA medical review panel reviewed the extant autopsy materials and concluded two shots from above and behind. You have what? Complaints about the extant evidence, which doesn't overturn any of the conclusions.

 

Quote

 

The contemporaneous documents like the face sheet, Sibert and O'Neill's teletype, the handwritten and typed protocols, supplemental report, and Burkley's death certificate all support the EOP wound.

Humes, Boswell, Finck, Roy Kellerman, and John Stringer were four witnesses who gave very precise descriptions of seeing a small hole in the lower back of the head. 

Other witnesses gave descriptions which were less detailed but also clearly suggested an EOP wound: Burkley, Lipsey, Robinson, and Chester Boyers.

More witness and document evidence suggests an EOP wound includes the damage to the brainstem and cerebellum and the "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" FBI memo.

 

I'm confused about something: Why do we conduct an autopsy, and at that autopsy, take photos and x-rays of the deceased? I thought it was to reach a conclusion about what caused the death of the deceased and to document that conclusion via the evidence gathered, rather than rely on the memories of some observers decades later about what the evidence revealed. While memories fade, the evidence doesn't.  Isn't that why the HSCA panel used the extant autopsy evidence to reach their conclusions?

 

Quote

There is literally no way to debunk this unless an exhumation and second autopsy proves otherwise.

Now that's funny

We both know conspiracy believers will reject any evidence and any conclusion by any panel that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs. You yourself did this above in rejecting the HSCA autopsy experts conclusions: 

Quote

...the x-rays could have been somehow faked or that the EOP wound could have existed lower in the hairline below the skull.

If you're wedded to something, divorce is hard and messy. 

Edited by Hank Sienzant
Correct typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yearslong McAdams was spreading the disinfo that Mary Sherman was just an orthopedist and not a cancer-expert as established by Edward Haslam in his book DR MARYS MONKEY and later by Judyth Baker in her book ME AND LEE ... McAdams was using a stolen unredacted manuscript of Bakers then unpublished book ME AND LEE and quoting out of it on the internet ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Yearslong McAdams was spreading the disinfo that Mary Sherman was just an orthopedist and not a cancer-expert as established by Edward Haslam in his book DR MARYS MONKEY and later by Judyth Baker in her book ME AND LEE ... McAdams was using a stolen unredacted manuscript of Bakers then unpublished book ME AND LEE and quoting out of it on the internet ... 

Spartacus Educational says her specialty was as an orthopedic surgeon who worked with Alton Ochsner into the causes of cancer:

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKshermanM.htm

Quote

Mary Sherman became Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, and practiced medicine at UC's Billings Hospital. Sherman's research was brought to the attention of Dr. Alton Ochsner and she was invited to become a partner in the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans where he was carrying out research into the causes of cancer. She was also offered the post of Associate Professor at the Tulane Medical School. Sherman accepted Ochsner's proposal and started work for her new employer in 1952.

Sherman's career prospered and she was elected to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS). Soon afterwards she was appointed as chairman of the Pathology Committee of the AAOS.

According to that site, the New Orleans Time-Picayune called her an orthopedic surgeon in reporting on her death on July 21st, 1964:

Quote

 

(4) New Orleans Times-Picayune (21st July, 1964)

An intruder forced his way into a fashionable St. Charles Ave. apartment early today, stabbed a prominent woman orthopedic surgeon to death and set fire to her body. Police apparently had virtually no clues to the identity of the slayer of Dr. Mary Stults Sherman...

 

 

They cite no source for the cancer claim that I could find, unless it's Haslam's book. 

Spartacus Educational says Haslam "argues" in his book (not "establishes") her cancer credentials:

Quote

Edward Haslam argues in Dr. Mary's Monkey (2007) that Sherman was involved in carrying out secret research into developing a vaccine to prevent an epidemic of soft-tissue cancers caused by polio vaccine contaminated with SV-40. [emphasis added]

My understanding is Spartacus Educational leans toward conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Hank Sienzant

Spartacus Educational is a little bit outdated regarding this particular aspect of the Kennedy-assassination puzzle. 

To give you a sense of Haslams book, some quotes:

Quote: DR MARYS MONKEY, by Ed Haslam.
----------
I  (Haslam) even  remember  sitting  on Mary Sherman’s lap once as a child. She and my father worked together at
Tulane Medical School in New Orleans. They had taken a British doctor out to dinner and then to our family’s home for an after-dinner drink.
(...)
In  the  late  1960s,  I  heard  about  Mary  Sherman’s  connection  to  an underground medical laboratory run by a suspect in the murder of President Kennedy. I was told they were using monkey viruses to create cancer. The possibility of this being used as a biological weapon was clear. The dark specter  of  unleashing  a  designer  virus  on  the  world  haunted  me.  I  even offered  a  sarcastic  comment  at  the  time:  “The  good  news  is  if  there’s  a
bizarre global epidemic involving cancer and a monkey virus thirty years from now, at least we’ll know where it came from.”
(...)

-------------------------

IN  1971,  during  what  might  be  described  as  a  deathbed  conversation,  I confronted my father about Mary Sherman. He was getting ready to go to the  hospital.  
(...)  I  had  a  few questions  (...) Questions  that  I  would  never  be  able  to  ask  him again. Questions that I thought were important for him to answer, so that the  truth  would  not  die  with  him.  I  asked  him  to  tell  me  about  Mary Sherman and about all that spooky stuff that was going on at the U.S. Public Health  Service  Hospital.  “Wasn’t  she  some  kind  of  cancer  expert?”  I ventured. He shook his head slowly from side to side, to let me know that he would not tell me. I persisted. I wanted to know why he would not tell me. Solemnly he said, “There might be repercussions. I have to think about the family first. I have to protect them.”
“What if I figure it out myself?” I challenged. “I’m hardly in a position to stop you,” he said with the casual resignation
of  a  man  who  never  expected  to  see  another  football  game.  Then  he collected his thoughts and, in a grave voice, he gave me this warning: “Ed, I need you to listen to me carefully. I will not be able to say this to you again.
If you do figure out what happened down there and decide to tell the world what you found, I need you to realize that you will be crossing swords with the most powerful people in our country. And you should think twice before crossing them.”

-------------------------

The  medical  researchers  of  the  1960s  irradiated  tumors  in laboratory animals, including primates, and shot radiation directly into the tumors  of  human  patients. 
(...)
Three  references  to  the  use  of  radiation  on  tumors  can  be  found  in (the publication) "Tumors  of  Bone  and  Soft  Tissue"  (Chicago:  1964).  In  “Histogenesis  of Bone Tumors,” p. 16, Mary Sherman discusses genetic damage inflicted on cells by irradiation. In “Giant Cell Tumor of Bone,” p. 166, Sherman questions the claim that x-ray therapy turns benign tumors into deadly sarcomas.  On  p.  10  R.  Lee  Clark  says,  “X-ray  therapy  in  the management  of  soft  tissue  of  tumors  is  almost  limited  to  Kaposi’s sarcoma.”

---------------------------
close quote

That's exactly the way they did genetics at the early sixties: Bomarding monkeys (and all kind of labor-mammals), bacteria, viruses, cancer-cells, all kinds o cells with all kinds of rays and particle beams and looking at the "results". It was primitive. Sometimes it worked. 

Acc. to Haslam in NOLA was a later dismantled underground linear particle accelerator where this kind of "genetics" was done. Sherman was deeply involved in this kind of research. She was (acc.to Haslam and Baker) involved in a GET CASTRO WITH CANCER project ... after Sherman was brutally murdered in the summer of 1964 a day before some staff-workers of the Warren Commission arrived in NOLA to investigate, J.Edgar Hoover was sending out a memo to his agents NOT to investigate the murder of Shermann ... this person, Sherman, was more than an ordinary orthopedist ... (And Fauci is more than just an ordinary immunologist serving as director of NIAID. SCNR.😉)

There is a lot of Haslam stuff on Y-Tube. Here is  a link to a short vid.

Haslam about Hoover Memo

OT: McAdams was, after all, working with criminals, when he obtained the stolen manuscript of the unpublished and unredacted Baker-book, and  posting parts of it on the internet was criminal too. Here we have a man posing as another person at a conference, obtaining stolen stuff and using it in an unlawful way ... 

 

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More about the woman McAdams labeled as just another orthopedist:

Quote, Dr Marys Monkey, by Ed Haslam
CHAPTER 6

THE  WOMAN  ENTERS  OUR  STORY  as  an  enigma.  Considered  “absolutely brilliant”  by  her  medical  colleagues, Mary Sherman rose rapidly to the very top ranks of the male-dominated hierarchy of American medicine in bone
and joint surgery a field that to this day has extremely few female physicians. Self-made,  financially  successful,  and  professionally  respected,  Dr.  Sherman was  a  sophisticated  and  powerful  woman  during  an  era  when  the  future feminists of the 1960s were still sitting at home watching Leave it to Beaver.
Yet the glimpses we see of her very private personal life show a complex and sensitive  woman  who  loved  theater,  literature,  music,  wine,  flowers,  and international travel, and who carried with her some terrible personal burdens.
But we see no discernible political interest. None of this seems to explain, or even hint at, her involvement with a politically violent, emotionally unstable, drug-addicted  social  outcast  like  David  Ferrie,  who  had  no  formal  medical training. Most  of  what  we  know  about  Mary  Sherman  comes  from  newspaper articles, an unusual police report, and her will. To that we add insights from a few medical articles, and a handful of interviews with people who knew her, to
produce  a  sketch  of  an  unusually  talented  woman  who  met  an  unusually horrible end. Born “Mary Stults” in Evanston, Illinois in 1913, she was one of several daughters  of  a  musical  voice  teacher.  At  the  age  of  sixteen,  Mary  went  to France for two years to study at L’ecole de M. Collnot, and later taught French while  working  on  a  masters  at  the  University  of  Illinois.  Marrying  ThomasSherman, she became Mary Sherman. The pattern of an academic superstar is immediately obvious from her Phi Beta Kappa membership to her graduate work at the University of Chicago. For  those  unfamiliar  with  this  institution,  please  note  that  within  academic circles, the University of Chicago is an intellectual powerhouse which rivals Harvard, Stanford, and any other famous university one might name. It was founded by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, and was designed on the model of the European research university, rather
than  the  American  teaching  college.  This  was done at a time when the Rockefeller fortune was heavily  involved  in  the  drug  companies,  and their sponsorship of biochemical research helped develop  new  commercial  drugs.  Today,  the University  of  Chicago  continues  on  the  leading edge of genetics and cancer research. As an outgrowth of this biochemical medical research, the University of Chicago became one of the first major centers of nuclear research. The landmark  event  of  this  nuclear  effort  was  the construction of the first “atom smasher,” a huge nuclear accelerator hidden in the bowels of UC’s sports stadium. In 1937, it produced the first sustained nuclear reaction for UC physicist  Enrico  Fermi.  This  is  where  Mary  Sherman  did  her  post-graduate work. She was trained at the headwaters of nuclear, bio-chemical, and genetic research in America. Before she became involved in human medicine, Mary did ground-breaking research into botanical viruses which lived in soil. Her early articles were so profound  and  so  insightful  that  they  were  frequently  quoted  in  the  1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Though she had been dead for thirty years, the  Scientific  Citation  Index  shows  ten  medical  articles  published  in  1993 which contained references to her scientific writings published between 1947 and 1965. The names of the journals tell the story of her state-of-the-art use of
radiation for the treatment of bone cancers: 
--- Radiology Acta Radiologia
--- Skeletal Radiology Histopathology
--- Pathologic Research Bone
From  this,  we  can  see  the  evidence  of  her  breakthrough  thinking.  This young woman, who studied in France at the time when Madame Curie’s name was  at  the  top  of  the  scientific  heap,  was  one  of  America’s  most  promising minds. With the proper training, encouragement and opportunities, she could be within striking distance of the legendary Curie herself, and could possibly become the most important woman in science. Maybe it would be Mary, who at such a young age had understood the basic life of viruses better than anyone before her, who would break through “the cancer barrier.” The great minds at UC  saw  her  potential  and  brought  her  along.  During  the  1940s  she  became Associate  Professor  of  Orthopedic  Surgery,  and  practiced  medicine  at  UC’s Billings Hospital. In  the  early  1950s,  Mary  Sherman’s  life changed.  Her  cancer  work  at  the  University  of Chicago had attracted the attention of a famous and  wealthy  doctor  who  was  president  of  the American Cancer Society, president of a famous medical clinic which bore his name, and Chief of Surgery  at  Tulane  Medical  School,  one  of  the most respected medical schools of the day.  The doctor  was  Alton  Ochsner,  M.D.,  of  New Orleans.

Close Quote

 

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 2:09 AM, Hank Sienzant said:

 

As explained by Dr. Purdy of the HSCA, it is impossible to see beveling on the x-ray. The HSCA panel only contended that the x-rays show some kind of small "shadow" ~4 inches above the EOP (they actually use the word "Radiographic shadow"). An equal number of medical professionals, as listed by Pat Speer, have looked at the X-rays and didn't report finding anything special in that area. Yes, the photographs of the scalp do appear to show some small laceration in the upper back of the head. And yes, the HSCA panel did note a small grayish discoloration around the edges of the red spot. But these do not add up to a bullet entrance wound. Boswell said that he thought that red spot was a small wound connected to the large head wound (The HSCA claimed this couldn't be true because the red spot seemed to clearly have it's own borders, but wounds of the scalp can start from the inside-out just like they can outside-in). We do not even know if the red spot on the photos is directly on top of the small x-ray "shadow". Congress had little basis for declaring the official theory that this cowlick thing represented the one and only small wound in the back of Kennedy's head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...