John McAdams has passed on

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

McAdams' appalling treatment of Cheryl Abbate shows him to have been a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

When you add to that his JFK assassination-related activities, his advocacy of the death penalty, and his corporate-friendly denial of climate science, it's clear he was nothing more than an authority-worshipping reactionary propagandist who thought that the ends justified the means. I'd guess this was tied up somehow with his religious beliefs.

On that subject, there's a problem with the title of this thread. McAdams has not "passed on", which implies that he went from one place to a different place, presumably the great book depository in the sky. He didn't. He died: his brain stopped functioning, and consequently his consciousness ceased, permanently. That's one more item on the list of things McAdams was wrong about.

https://prouty.org/mcadams/

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

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." 

You would not believe the abuse and "dismissive responses" I have received since I have been working on my current Maurice Bishop project. I had an email exchange with a prominent CT researcher who I assumed was above such tactics. How wrong I was. It would make for interesting reading but I (of course) have a policy of not revealing private email exchanges. So, it works both ways assuming your characterization of your exchanges with McAdams is accurate.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours 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. 

 

 

In light of the vitriol displayed in this thread, it is unsurprising to me that McAdams chose to go to a JFK conference incognito. If I understand it correctly, he revealed his true identity at the conclusion of the conference. Where's the harm?

[David G. Healy]

37 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

In light of the vitriol displayed in this thread, it is unsurprising to me that McAdams chose to go to a JFK conference incognito. If I understand it correctly, he revealed his true identity at the conclusion of the conference. Where's the harm?

Intent Lad, INTENT!

AAJ (alt.assassination.jfk) was nothing more than: pro 1964 WCR *writing demo exercise* for those looking to enter the publishing/literary field. In short, on the bones of JFK -- exposure hounds.

.John never got over being thrown out of ACJ (alt.conspiracy.jfk)

.John was surely smart enough to let his minions/students carry his water. And 'STILL' carry it.

RIP!

[Joe Bauer]

4 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

A bastion of common sense. RIP.

I still like to listen to his debate with Jim DiEugenio on Black Op Radio.

Is this debate one we can be linked to? If so, can you provide this?

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, David G. Healy said:

Intent Lad, INTENT!

IMO, his "intent" was simply to enjoy the conference by way of anonymity.

[David G. Healy]

31 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

IMO, his "intent" was simply to enjoy the conference by way of anonymity.

subterfuge... so much more revealing... wouldn't you agree?

 

Noun

1.

subterfuge - something intended to misrepresent the true nature of anactivity; "he wasn't sick--it was just a subterfuge"; "the holding company wasjust a blind" blind deception, misrepresentation, deceit - a misleading falsehood

Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University,Farlex Inc.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Tribute to John McAdams ~ W. Tracy Parnell

[James DiEugenio]

7 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

A bastion of common sense. RIP.

I still like to listen to his debate with Jim DiEugenio on Black Op Radio.

You mean when I called him out for making stuff up, which he had done.

He was so upset about that, that he actually called me and started yelling at me incoherently. it got so bad I ended up hanging up on him.

[James DiEugenio]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Tribute to John McAdams ~ W. Tracy Parnell

Is this like your tribute to Fred Litwin?

Then don't bother.

[W. Niederhut]

I have hesitated to chime in on this thread, because it is bad manners to speak ill of the dead.

But, based on my experiences elsewhere, including a less scholarly forum, I have to say that John McAdams's disinformation about the JFK assassination has, unfortunately, been taken at face value by people who haven't studied the scholarly JFKA literature in any detail.

It's a shame.  The truth matters-- especially with regard to the history of our genocidal U.S. military-industrial complex.

It doesn't help that McAdams's disinformation conveniently comes up at the top of many Google searches on JFK-related topics.

I have tended to view McAdams as one of the many CIA assets working in our M$M and social media during the past 57 years to implement the 1964 agency-wide CIA order to do whatever is necessary to promote public acceptance of the Warren Commission Report.

At best, we could say that John McAdams was "patriotic" about following CIA orders.

[James DiEugenio]

As both John Simkin and Len Osanic have shown, the reason McAdams site gets more hits is because of Wikipedia.

Gamamiel is one of the most active Wiki supervisors and he is a WC zealot. Len used to argue with him concerning Prouty.  Len eventually got kicked off the back talk pages.

Concerning McAdams, in those pages, he tried to say that Probe magazine was not a credible source, which is why we are never quoted in the JFK case.  As I have shown, his site is really a model of disinfo.  Wikipedia refers to it since Wiki has now become the web version of the  NY TImes on the JFK case.

Edited April 17, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

To this day, I think this is one of the best articles we ever posted. 

And it explains why Wikipedia is so bad on the JFK case.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/will-the-real-wikipedia-please-stand-up

 

[Hank Sienzant]

What explains why the Encyclopedia Britannica "is so bad on the JFK case"?

https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy

"... at about 12:30 PM, shots rang out. A bullet pierced the base of the neck of the president, exited through his throat, and then likely (according to the Warren Report) passed through Governor Connally’s shoulder and wrist, ultimately hitting his thigh. Another bullet struck Kennedy in the back of the head....  Bullet casings were found near a window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building overlooking the plaza; a rifle (later proved to have been owned by Oswald) was discovered elsewhere on the sixth floor... Meanwhile, Oswald made his way to the boardinghouse where he had been staying. Some 15 minutes after leaving the boardinghouse, he was confronted by a Dallas policeman, J.D.Tippit, who is thought to have believed that Oswald matched the description. Oswald shot and killed Tippit with a .38 revolver in the presence of a number of witnesses and was later seen entering the Texas Theatre, where at 1:50 PM he was apprehended by police."

I doubt if you would agree with much of just the small portion quoted above. 

 

 

[Steve Roe]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Is this like your tribute to Fred Litwin?

Then don't bother.

You mean the Fred Litwin who is debunking your Garrison nonsense? You might want to read his blog, of course after you finish your despicable "Grave Dancing" rants.