Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams has passed on


Josh Cron
 Share

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

This is terrible news.  It means that next week's Black Op Radio will be a "tribute" show.

Not just LOL, but a big time belly laugh.  I've had the distinction of being called a buff, using factoids and accused of ad hominem attacks by the Mockingbird more than once on JFKfacts several years back.  But I don't remember him ever calling me a crackpot so I feel sure I was just a small blip on <his> radar.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

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. 

"We" are not condemning him. The facts as established by the Warren Commission and subsequent investigators are properly doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Calvin Ye said:

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

No, identity theft is when you steal someone's social security number and perform illicit acts in their name for your advantage. McAdams' act was innocent enough and I have no problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

However, what I did not like about McAdams is that he was unable to do this without resorting to personal attacks

He did not suffer fools gladly. I believe that he mostly attacked weak ideas however and not individuals although there may have been instances when certain people felt otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

He did not suffer fools gladly. I believe that he mostly attacked weak ideas however and not individuals although there may have been instances when certain people felt otherwise.

Your statement implies that those who take a position contrary to McAdams are fools and deserving of personal attacks. I would suggest that plenty of well informed and intelligent people have a different viewpoint than McAdams did, and moreso, comport themselves in a way that is worthy of respect.

The Lone Nutters' position is better served by sophisticated articulation, and there is no room in that debate for personal attacks, deception, omission or inappropriate behavior.

Ultimately, the better idea will win the debate.

That is, unless you don't have a better idea and need to be persuasive to those who don't know any better by denigrating your opponent. Which is ultimately what McAdams resorted to doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what happened.

McAdams went to a JFK conference, in as I recall, DC.

At that same conference, there was a journalist there who was going to do a hit piece on the critics. And he later admitted that is what he went there for.

He happened to meet up with a guy who was calling himself Patrick Nolan.  Nolan supplied him with a couple of derogatory quotes. The problem was that some people there knew and recognized McAdams.  So his cover was blown.  But further, evidently, McAdams had done some work in advance to fit the profile of this guy Patrick Nolan (it was not the author).

So when the real Nolan read the article, he got furious and blasted McAdams online for stealing his name and using it to do something he would not do. 

That was the real John McAdams.  A covert operator, who also ran CIA recruitment ads on his acapella radio station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is what happened.

McAdams went to a JFK conference, in as I recall, DC.

At that same conference, there was a journalist there who was going to do a hit piece on the critics. And he later admitted that is what he went there for.

He happened to meet up with a guy who was calling himself Patrick Nolan.  Nolan supplied him with a couple of derogatory quotes. The problem was that some people there knew and recognized McAdams.  So his cover was blown.  But further, evidently, McAdams had done some work in advance to fit the profile of this guy Patrick Nolan (it was not the author).

So when the real Nolan read the article, he got furious and blasted McAdams online for stealing his name and using it to do something he would not do. 

That was the real John McAdams.  A covert operator, who also ran CIA recruitment ads on his acapella radio station.

If this description of John McAdams behavior is accurate (and James D. places an emphasis on accuracy in his writing) I do not see how McAdams can be defended. 

I feel sorry for McAdams, who has befouled his own memory, but as he has passed on, probably less said the better. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is what happened.

McAdams went to a JFK conference, in as I recall, DC.

At that same conference, there was a journalist there who was going to do a hit piece on the critics. And he later admitted that is what he went there for.

He happened to meet up with a guy who was calling himself Patrick Nolan.  Nolan supplied him with a couple of derogatory quotes. The problem was that some people there knew and recognized McAdams.  So his cover was blown.  But further, evidently, McAdams had done some work in advance to fit the profile of this guy Patrick Nolan (it was not the author).

So when the real Nolan read the article, he got furious and blasted McAdams online for stealing his name and using it to do something he would not do. 

That was the real John McAdams.  A covert operator, who also ran CIA recruitment ads on his acapella radio station.

I replied to Parnell, stating that what McAdams was doing is identity theft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If this description of John McAdams behavior is accurate (and James D. places an emphasis on accuracy in his writing) I do not see how McAdams can be defended. 

I feel sorry for McAdams, who has befouled his own memory, but as he has passed on, probably less said the better. 

 

 

No.  He earned his self befouled memory and it should be properly disseminated for the public in pursuit of the Truth for the sake of History. 

History will not absolve us.  History will not be kind to us.  Can't remember who I'm quoting at the moment, but applicable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you imagine the lawsuit Marquette would have faced if Abbate had been hurt or killed? IMO, it would have been in the tens of millions.

Because this was not the first run in McAdams had in his attack on what he perceived as campus Political Correctness.

When I was writing about the case, I noted that Marquette should have disciplined McAdams earlier and did not.  This is why the Dean, in his original report, recommended terminating him, because of this recurrent pattern of behavior. That decision was overturned when the faculty committee heard the case and only voted for a nine month suspension.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

No.  He earned his self befouled memory and it should be properly disseminated for the public in pursuit of the Truth for the sake of History. 

History will not absolve us.  History will not be kind to us.  Can't remember who I'm quoting at the moment, but applicable. 

Ron B-

Oddly enough, McAdams is one of the reasons that my interest in the JFKA was re-ignited.

Years and years ago, I was just anew nosing around the JFKA again (the first two iterations of my JFKA interest involved reading books, which is about all one could do. I might not have even known about JFK conferences, etc.). I had discovered the internet had radically changed the landscape (and 90% for the better) and discovered McAdams. 

I reviewed the Z film online for myself, and noted Connally did a 180 in his seat after JFK moved his hands to his throat. Connally is seen looking back, with a concerned look on his face, but not a pained look from about frames 260-280. Connally does not appear to been have been shot.  

So I sent McAdams a very polite e-mail, and received a dismissive reply. I again e-mailed politely, to another dismissive response, but no real answer. The third time my e-mail was ignored. 

I thought to myself, "If that is how backers of the WC think, then something is wrong." 

Later, I re-discovered (what many JFKA'ers already knew) that many experienced observers (veterans, police officers) smelled gunsmoke in Dealey Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA.  

OK, the JFKA was not looking like a lone gunman, based on what I could see with my own eyes, and what too many consistent witnesses had said about gunsmoke. I tend to treat witness testimony warily, as it is so garbled, whether it favors my view or not. But everybody experienced seemed in agreement they smelled gunsmoke.

So...there you have it. McAdams triggered me into being a JFKA'er. 

Well, for me, forgiveness is something that you have to do (barring war criminals and true monsters). I have made mistakes in my life, plenty.  

But each to his own. Still, let us look forward. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The facts as established by the Warren Commission

Oh right :-) 

You are being obtuse, i’ll take it with a pinch of salt. Bereavements often make people emotional and impair logical thinking. 
 

Just for the record; you accept the WC findings but, not the HSCA.  

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...