John Simkin Thought John McAdams Was a CIA Propagandist

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I agree with these statements.

This is one of the saddest things I've read on this forum.

[Michael Griffith]

15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

John McAdams' smear of Prouty was simply awful. And as with Epstein, it was a way of getting at Oliver Stone's film JFK.  

Actually, McAdams' critique of Prouty was entirely valid. In fact, it did not even include some of the most damaging evidence against Prouty. It is a matter of indisputable record that Prouty appeared on an anti-Semitic radio program 10 times, that he spoke at two conferences hosted by anti-Semitic/Holocaust-denying groups, that he had a book published by a Holocaust-denying publisher, that he wrote a letter to the editor of a Holocaust-denying journal praising the journal's principles, that he defended L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology fraud and even attacked Scientology whistleblowers, and on and on we could go. 

Quote

The irony being that the info Prouty gave Stone on VIetnam and the 112th was accurate.

Actually, it was not at all accurate. Even most liberal historians reject Prouty's claims about JFK's intentions regarding Vietnam. He peddled a fringe view that even a radical leftist such as Noam Chomsky has rejected.

As for the 112th, have you forgotten that Prouty back-pedaled all over the place regarding the 112th in his ARRB interview? And, when asked to produce the notes he claimed he took of his phone call with the 112th's deputy commanding officer, Prouty lamely said he "thought" they were "long gone," without explaining how in the world he could have allowed such historic notes to simply go missing. It is a shame that his ARRB interviewers did not press him on this point, especially since he had previously claimed in writing that he still had the notes.

The guy was a phony from start to finish. Defending him brings great discredit to the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination.

[Gil Jesus]

McAdams' legacy is legendary.

www.prouty.org/mcadams

As the lone moderator of the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup, this patron saint of the LN side left no one to approve posts after he died, leaving all of his supporters unable to post. This was not a man in search of the truth.

Edited Wednesday at 11:09 AM by Gil Jesus

[Keven Hofeling]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

MISTAKEN REPEAT POST

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:12 AM by Keven Hofeling
MISTAKEN REPEAT POST

[Keven Hofeling]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

MISTAKEN REPEAT POST

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:13 AM by Keven Hofeling
MISTAKEN REPEAT POST

[Keven Hofeling]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is one of the saddest things I've read on this forum.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30833-john-simkin-thought-john-mcadams-was-a-cia-propagandist/?do=findComment&comment=549020

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30833-john-simkin-thought-john-mcadams-was-a-cia-propagandist/?do=findComment&comment=549031

Mr. Bulman expresses agreement with Sandy Larsen's stated opinion that there is nothing wrong with acknowledging suspicions of CIA disinformation operative activities in this forum so long as specific members are not implicated [without evidence, I would add]; that moderators should enjoy the same rights of freedom of expression on the forum as all members enjoy; and that the purpose of the JFK Debate section of the Education Forum is to discuss the established facts of the JFK assassination conspiracy and cover-up, and not for the dissemination of government disinformation and propaganda calculated to obfuscate and misrepresent those established facts; and your response, Mr. Speer, is "[t]his is one of the saddest things I've ever read on this forum."

What precisely about such statements of principle constitute "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

Is it that Mr. Bulman agrees that forum members should enjoy free speech rights to spotlight government disinformation and propaganda within the bounds of the rules of the forum is something that in your view constitutes one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

Is it that Mr. Bulman agrees that forum moderators should enjoy the same rights of freedom of expression on this forum as any forum member enjoys that is something that in your view constitutes one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

Is it that Mr. Bulman agrees that forum members should not be free to disseminate information on this forum that can be proved to be disinformation and propaganda that is something that in your view constitutes one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

It appears that you are taking a stand against free speech and free expression rights of forum members and forum moderators, while simultaneously defending some kind of privilege for forum members to disseminate provably false propaganda and disinformation. 

Does that describe the "principles" you are attempting to defend, Mr. Speer?

Would you please kindly clarify what precisely you intend to communicate by stating that Mr. Bulman's agreement with the principles articulated by Sandy Larsen constitute one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

Edited Wednesday at 11:50 AM by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The topic of this segment of the EF is "The JFK Assassination Debate." 

We can't really have a "debate" if a premise of the EF-JFKA is that LN'ers are "spreading disinformation."

Earnest and intelligent observers can have different opinions, interpretations on the JFKA/RFK1A. To say the least. 

Let it go at that. Try to be collegial, civil. 

If an LN'er or CT'er makes a factually incorrect statement, then write a response with a correction of the mistake (as you see it), but not an attack on the LN'er or CT'er. 

Surely, we can tolerate and even invite a wide range of views on the EF-JFKA. 

You are preaching to the choir, Mr. Cole.

I have seen no members state on this thread that there should be any kind of "premise" that anyone is spreading disinformation and propaganda.

I think a more accurate characterization is that opposition has been stated to the dissemination of information that can be proven to be disinformation and propaganda, and that dissemination of such disinformation and propaganda, once proven to be false, should not be condoned nor tolerated.

There seems to be some kind of unspoken taboo against spotlighting and opposing such provably false disinformation and propaganda that a certain group of individuals on this forum repeatedly attempts to enforce with various rhetorical tactics and fallacious appeals to authority; as well as in your case, appeals to the 'principle of charity.'

If you can articulate a good case for why the principle of charity should be extended to deliberate and repetitive misinformation and propaganda, I'd be interested in reading it. In my view, the principle of charity should be extended to honest debatable opinions about established facts, and not to deliberate and repetitive false statements of fact which clearly constitute disinformation and propaganda.

Why should the principle of charity be extended to obvious, deliberate and provably false disinformation and propaganda, Mr. Cole?

 

Edited Wednesday at 12:33 PM by Keven Hofeling

[Michael Kalin]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

• There is nothing wrong with a member saying that they suspect or believe there to be CIA disinformationists on the forum, as long as member names are not given.
• Moderators are also members and should be able to post anything that other members are allowed to post.
• The purpose of the JFK Assassination Debate forum is to discuss the assassination conspiracy and cover-up, NOT whether or not they occurred. It has already been abundantly established that they occurred.

Expand  

I agree with these statements.

It would be a sad thing to bar moderators from contributing to this forum's subject matter, but they should do so on a level playing field.

What this means is there's a need for a second non-moderation login that will allow other contributors to put them on ignore, same as everyone else, when there is a desire to turn off their content.

Otherwise, for example, it's far too easy for a frustrated moderator to resolve heated arguments by throwing an opponent into the penalty box.

[Jean Ceulemans]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30833-john-simkin-thought-john-mcadams-was-a-cia-propagandist/?do=findComment&comment=549020

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30833-john-simkin-thought-john-mcadams-was-a-cia-propagandist/?do=findComment&comment=549031

Mr. Bulman expresses agreement with Sandy Larsen's stated opinion that there is nothing wrong with acknowledging suspicions of CIA disinformation operative activities in this forum so long as specific members are not implicated [without evidence, I would add]; that moderators should enjoy the same rights of freedom of expression on the forum as all members enjoy; and that the purpose of the JFK Debate section of the Education Forum is to discuss the established facts of the JFK assassination conspiracy and cover-up, and not for the dissemination of government disinformation and propaganda calculated to obfuscate and misrepresent those established facts; and your response, Mr. Speer, is "[t]his is one of the saddest things I've ever read on this forum."

What precisely about such statements of principle constitute "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

Is it that Mr. Bulman agrees that forum members should enjoy free speech rights to spotlight government disinformation and propaganda within the bounds of the rules of the forum is something that in your view constitutes one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

Is it that Mr. Bulman agrees that forum moderators should enjoy the same rights of freedom of expression on this forum as any forum member enjoys that is something that in your view constitutes one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

Is it that Mr. Bulman agrees that forum members should not be free to disseminate information on this forum that can be proved to be disinformation and propaganda that is something that in your view constitutes one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

It appears that you are taking a stand against free speech and free expression rights of forum members and forum moderators, while simultaneously defending some kind of privilege for forum members to disseminate provably false propaganda and disinformation. 

Does that describe the "principles" you are attempting to defend, Mr. Speer?

Would you please kindly clarify what precisely you intend to communicate by stating that Mr. Bulman's agreement with the principles articulated by Sandy Larsen constitute one of "the saddest things [you've] ever read on this forum," Mr. Speer?

It is (and always has been) about kicking out the LN members, where have you been?

I do not agree with a bunch of LN-statements, too many things that don´t add up IMO.  But kicking them out - per Sandy "get rid of them" - is, IMO, not what this forum was about. 

If Dr N feels some members are crossing the line, he should sanction them, but he doesn´t, why o why? Think...

And the EF subject here is still:

JFK Assassination Debate

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 12:17 PM by Jean Ceulemans

[Keven Hofeling]

4 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

It is (and always has been) about kicking out the LN members, where have you been?

I do not agree with a bunch of LN-statements, too many things that don´t add up IMO.  But kicking them out - per Sandy "get rid of them" - is, IMO, not what this forum was about. 

If Dr N feels some members are crossing the line, he should sanction them, but he doesn´t, why o why? Think...

Would you please kindly provide your links and citations to substantiate your claim that Sandy Larsen, Dr. Niederhut, myself or any other member of this forum is pushing an agenda to arbitrarily and capriciously ban "LN members" or any other class of individuals based upon a system of beliefs, as opposed to addressing provably false disinformation and propaganda?

Should you fail to do so, I believe it will be reasonable for us to conclude that you are making a false factual claim.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You are preaching to the choir, Mr. Cole.

I have seen no members state on this thread that there should be any kind of "premise" that anyone is spreading disinformation and propaganda.

I think a more accurate characterization is that opposition has been stated to the dissemination of information that can be proven to be disinformation and propaganda, and that dissemination of such disinformation and propaganda, once proven to be false, should not be condoned nor tolerated.

There seems to be some kind of unspoken taboo against spotlighting and opposing such provably false disinformation and propaganda that a certain group of individuals on this forum repeatedly attempts to enforce with various rhetorical tactics and fallacious appeals to authority; as well as in your case, appeals to the 'principle of charity.'

If you can articulate a good case for why the principle of charity should be extended to deliberate and repetitive misinformation and propaganda, I'd be interested in reading it. In my view, the principle of charity should be extended to honest debatable opinions about established facts, and not to deliberate and repetitive false statements of fact which clearly constitute disinformation and propaganda.

Why should the principle of charity be extended to obvious, deliberate and provably false disinformation and propaganda, Mr. Cole?

 

KE-

All I can do is recite a banality: What some regard as propaganda from the infernal regions, others regard as the Divine Truth. 

 

[Pat Speer]

I received this response to an email to John Simkin

 

Hi Pat,

 

I am still alive and well and still investigating political corruption. However, I am not involved with JFK research as I have enough on my hands with what is going on in the UK. I do not post on the forum and play no role in the way it is run. However, you have permission to quote this email on the forum.

 

I initially set up the forum to discuss different interpretations of the past. Over time the JFK assassination began to dominate the forum. From the very beginning I allowed people to join the forum with a wide variety of different views on the assassination. That includes those who believed in the lone-gunman theory. One example of this was J. Timothy Gratz who was one of our most regular posters. I also arranged for people like Don Bohning and Nina Burleigh to join the forum to discuss their books on the forum although they did not believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK (see link below). Even when Bohning went on to write an article in a journal for retired CIA officers where he attempted to smear me with the claim that I was a "communist" I did not remove his membership. I am someone who believes in free speech for everyone, not just for people who agree with me.    

 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/forum/204-history-and-political-books-debates-with-authors/

 

John   

Edited Wednesday at 02:42 PM by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

McAdams' legacy is legendary.

www.prouty.org/mcadams

As the lone moderator of the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup, this patron saint of the LN side left no one to approve posts after he died, leaving all of his supporters unable to post. This was not a man in search of the truth.

FWIW, there was a second moderator for the group for most of the years I was there. His name was Peter ffokes if I recall. And he was a CT. 

It should also be pointed out, IMO, that McAdams, a blowhard right-winger and crappy researcher, had a soft spot for Anthony Marsh, a virulent leftist and strident CT. Although outnumbered, Marsh routinely called McAdams and his fanboys "fascists" and such. And suffered no consequences. So, bad as he was personally, the McAdams newsgroup was not a closed shop, and was not a place where one side of the CT/LN divide was more dominant than the other. (There were probably more posts from LNs than CTs, but the CT posts mostly won the day, IMO.)

Edited Wednesday at 03:13 PM by Pat Speer

[W. Niederhut]

42 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

KE-

All I can do is recite a banality: What some regard as propaganda from the infernal regions, others regard as the Divine Truth. 

 

False equivalence.

Also solipsism-- the notion that there are no discernible, objective truths (and facts.)

This kind of solipsism has often been your philosophical shibboleth, Ben, in our discussions about an array of issues on the forum.

[Jean Ceulemans]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cut

If it weren't for the fact that (some) LNers are useful to our cause, I'd be in favor of a forum rule against claiming there wasn't a conspiracy or cover-up. If it were practical, I would go so far as banning all LNers from the site.

Cut

 

@Keven Hofeling

Feel free to file a complaint against me for false accusations if you feel that is justified.  And most certainly do it if makes you feel better. But I don´t really care.