Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams has passed on


Josh Cron
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

When someone you dislike passes away, my learned response is to wait awhile before letting it ( criticism ) all hang out. If even just a few days.

There are exceptions of course.

Those who we know or suspect have demeaned or purposely caused pain ( emotional and physical ) injury and even death to others no matter the numbers.

Where does McAdams rate on that scale? 

In my mind and heart, the man did shamelessly demean others as a matter of habit. He seriously harmed Ms. Abbate.

But more than anything imo, he demeaned the truth, justice and memory importance of the JFK assassination and therefore JFK himself.

And all Americans who cared to give JFK's murder, memory and justice more thought, contemplation and study than just mindlessly accepting the LBJ appointed and FBI / Hoover controlled Warren Commission finding that Lee Harvey Oswald ( a lifetime frustrated minimum wage earning loser ) simply had an incredibly lucky "open window" shot at making a name for himself...took it... and who then sauntered out into the frantic crowd and cop filled streets to take a public bus and cab ride home right after.

Hand cuffed, two guards at his side Lee Harvey Oswald's own assassination 2 days later by a local strip club owner right inside the DPD building just added more instant closure to the case when it should have done the opposite.

Nothing to see here folks! No need to think about this crazy, illogical and nonsensical turn of events right before your eyes in just two days.

As the official PR person for the WC  ( Gerald "Ferry never knew Oswald " Gerald Posner ) said..."Case Closed."

I think McAdam's public legacy was one of more harm than good in this sense. 

Ergo this instant criticism is to be expected and in some ways is deserved.

 

 

 

You’re spot on Joe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Her name was Cheryl Abbate.

And he put her name and address on his attack polemics, which he then publicized through his media cohorts.

He then lied about this echo chamber effect he was causing.

And maybe Tracy wants to also forget about how he lied about his identity, saying he was Patrick Nolan at a JFK conference so he could disguise another hit piece he was cooperating on.  

No, I remember that very well. IMO, he may have simply used an alias out of fear for his safety. Some of the comments here would lend credence to that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

When someone you dislike passes away, my learned response is to wait awhile before letting it ( criticism ) all hang out. If even just a few days.

My response is to say that I disagreed with them but they were a human being with a grieving family who deserves respect. Unfortunately, we have seen some regrettable responses here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Yes but how many debunkings do we have of the acoustics evidence by now? Three or four or perhaps more.

Then doesn’t an official body as part of another comprehensive investigation have to determine that to set the record straight?! The answer is ‘yes’. As I am applying the same logic I would to the WC and its findings. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thompson's book exposes the so called official debunkings of the acoustics.

The main one was an out and out joke run by Luis Alvarez who said to Barger to his face, "It does not matter what you say, I am going to vote against you." 

And even though the Ramsey panel was supposed to be about acoustics science, half the people on it were from the field of physics.

Really, how many times do we have to expose the use of junk science and politically motivated so called scientists in the JFK case?

I would have thought that after Randich and Grant left Guinn without clothes, that would have been enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Then doesn’t an official body as part of another comprehensive investigation have to determine that to set the record straight?! The answer is ‘yes’. As I am applying the same logic I would to the WC and its findings. 
 

Fonzi was right about one thing. I think we have seen the "Last Investigation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Fonzi was right about one thing. I think we have seen the "Last Investigation."

I suspect he is right on that and a few things. But, it doesn’t change the fact that we shouldn’t be condemning a man for a crime in absentia, when there is insufficient evidence to do so. 
That’s not justice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, I remember that very well. IMO, he may have simply used an alias out of fear for his safety. Some of the comments here would lend credence to that idea.

Tracy, it is called identity theft because Patrick Nolan is an name of forensic scientist who authored an book on JFK assassination and John McAdams ended up using Patrick's name

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel bad for his family and friends, and it's unfortunate that he could not have grown to become a better person when he was alive.

His legacy will be one of using the internet to promulgate ad-hominem attacks, logical fallacies, bullying, and leaving behind a bad book about the JFK assassination and a paper that argues in favor of putting people to death.

I am in favor of Lone Nutters being able to present their positions, and argue their case, as I believe that their case will not stand up to a skillful and knowledgeable person arguing for a conspiracy. However, what I did not like about McAdams is that he was unable to do this without resorting to personal attacks or logical fallacies. He always resorted to that, and his behavior towards students on his person blog showed that his conduct in both the JFK debate and as a professor was clearly the result of a character flaw--he was a horrible person, unable to comport himself like a gentleman, and always had to resort to the inappropriate. 

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...