Jump to content
The Education Forum

McAdams or me?


Ron Ecker
 Share

Recommended Posts

An interesting exercise has been going on the last few days at McNeese State University, resulting in my JFK website getting hundreds of hits a day. This went on the same time last year too, but I don't recall mentioning it.

There's a written exercise for incoming freshmen, one of which is to determine which of two JFK assassination websites is the most objective source of information. The two linked sites are mine and McAdams's. Well, you can imagine which one of them most will consider most objective, since mine can be seen right off as being a "conspiracy" site. Nothing objective about that! Ha ha ha ha ha.

Here's a link to the exercise. Scroll down to No. 21:

http://library.mcneese.edu/tutorial/freshorientation.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually, Ron, since an “objective” website should show both (all?) sides of an issue without bias to one or the other, neither your site or his would qualify. However, I have noticed that most of his links lead to his own writings (thus his own opinion) whereas yours goes to numerous other sites and other people's opinions. Granted, most of those opinions agree with yours, but at least they are from a number of sources, and not just one.

Just because McAdam's site happens to agree with the official version of events doesn't mean it's “objective” in the least.

JWK

Edited by J. William King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Gillespie

"An interesting exercise has been going on the last few days at McNeese State University, resulting in my JFK website getting hundreds of hits a day. This went on the same time last year too, but I don't recall mentioning it."

______________________________

We all could use more exericise but this amounts to futility, though certainly I'm riding on your site, everytime, if McAdams is the only other choice. But, as Mr. King has written, this gives the students something between specious and Hobson. Not surprising. O tempura, O mores.

JG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I blind, or did you not provide a link to McAdams' site? If not, why not? Isn't that what an "objective" site would do?

The Assassination of JFK: Index - John Simkin's site includes many assassination-related biographies, links to reports, organizations and websites, and a forum for debating the issues.

How did you manage to overlook its virulently pro-conspiracy slant? Why the benign, neutral language?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Ron, since an “objective” website should show both (all?) sides of an issue without bias to one or the other, neither your site or his would qualify.

I agree in a manner of speaking. Once one becomes familiar with all the evidence, I believe there is only one "objective" conclusion to reach in the JFK case. My site represents that conclusion, but of course one cannot know that by simply looking at the site in a class exercise without knowing what all the evidence is.

Take the question of who was better looking in their day, Marty Feldman or Robert Redford. One can have a website which "objectively" shows both sides of the issue, both isn't there only one objective answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Ron, since an “objective” website should show both (all?) sides of an issue without bias to one or the other, neither your site or his would qualify.

I agree in a manner of speaking. Once one becomes familiar with all the evidence, I believe there is only one "objective" conclusion to reach in the JFK case. My site represents that conclusion, but of course one cannot know that by simply looking at the site in a class exercise without knowing what all the evidence is.

Take the question of who was better looking in their day, Marty Feldman or Robert Redford. One can have a website which "objectively" shows both sides of the issue, both isn't there only one objective answer?

I've been writing a bit on the McAdams forum lately, (to get a feel for the opposition)... One of the things I've found is that there is no one LN position. Virtually every LN has his pet theories just as most every CT has his pet theories. McAdams, for example, stands by Baden's impression of the head wounds, when most every prominent LN on the forum, e.g. Canal and Zimmerman, thinks it's hooey.

The GREATEST MYTH perpetrated by the media is that there is an LN viewpoint on the assassination, and that all these CTs are pushing their pet theories in opposition to a consensus of experts. Nothing could be further from the truth. The LN community is all over the map. I''ve spent considerable time on Radiology forums . I've placed fliers all over medical centers asking for feedback from doctors. Guess what? No one will defend the so-called "official" view of events. Even McAdams departs frm the last government investigation when he pushes the Connally was hit at 224 scenario, a scenario that has never been confirmed by any government panel. The HSCA said the SBT occurred at Z-190, and that is still the official government position.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GREATEST MYTH perpetrated by the media is that there is an LN viewpoint on the assassination, and that all these CTs are pushing their pet theories in opposition to a consensus of experts.

It's the same media that was so heavily invested in Posner and his book. Every major venue seemed to give him an extensive forum.

That is in stark contrast to an author like, say, Gerald McKnight and his excellent book A Breach of Trust.

Larry Hancock's new, revised Someone Would Have Talked should be a blockbuster. Chances are, it will get little mention by the media at large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GREATEST MYTH perpetrated by the media is that there is an LN viewpoint on the assassination, and that all these CTs are pushing their pet theories in opposition to a consensus of experts.

It's the same media that was so heavily invested in Posner and his book. Every major venue seemed to give him an extensive forum.

That is in stark contrast to an author like, say, Gerald McKnight and his excellent book A Breach of Trust.

Larry Hancock's new, revised Someone Would Have Talked should be a blockbuster. Chances are, it will get little mention by the media at large.

Speaking of the media giving revisionists like Posner a forum denied those much more knowledgable...I read today that ABC is running a special on September 10 that blames 9/11 on Bill Clinton and Democrats in general. Have conservatives no shame?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GREATEST MYTH perpetrated by the media is that there is an LN viewpoint on the assassination, and that all these CTs are pushing their pet theories in opposition to a consensus of experts.

It's the same media that was so heavily invested in Posner and his book. Every major venue seemed to give him an extensive forum.

That is in stark contrast to an author like, say, Gerald McKnight and his excellent book A Breach of Trust.

Larry Hancock's new, revised Someone Would Have Talked should be a blockbuster. Chances are, it will get little mention by the media at large.

Speaking of the media giving revisionists like Posner a forum denied those much more knowledgable...I read today that ABC is running a special on September 10 that blames 9/11 on Bill Clinton and Democrats in general. Have conservatives no shame?

No, Patrick they do not. And you know that.

Posner, like McAdams, is so CIA is's beyond sickening.

"All I want is some truth; just gimme some turth"

J Lennon.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the media giving revisionists like Posner a forum denied those much more knowledgable...I read today that ABC is running a special on September 10 that blames 9/11 on Bill Clinton and Democrats in general. Have conservatives no shame?

WTF? What planet are you living on? Clinton and his cronies are nakedly intimidating an independent media outlet into censoring itself and it's conservatives' fault? How? You do realize that liberals are in charge of this miniseries, right? You do realize that Disney and ABC have been reliably pro-Democrat in the past, right? Would you be as magnanimous if Bush and Rove were pulling the same stunt? Hell no. BTW, the miniseries is equally tough on Clinton and Bush, but only the Clinton crowd is going apexxxx crazy. Nor do I see the Bush White House threatening to yank ABC's license, like Harry Reid did the other day on the Senate floor. Why is Bubba so worried? Because the terrorist menace grew and became increasingly obvious during his administration. Let us note a few highlights:

* January 25, 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Virginia, killing two CIA employees.

* February 26, 1993: Islamic terrorists try to bring down the World Trade Center with car bombs. They failed to destroy the buildings, but killed 6 and injured over 1000 people.

* March 12, 1993: Car bombings in Mumbai, India leave 257 dead and 1,400 others injured.

* July 18, 1994: Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, kills 86 and wounds 300. The bombing is generally attributed to Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran.

* July 19, 1994: Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901 is bombed, killing 21. Generally attributed to Hezbollah.

* July 26, 1994: The Israeli Embassy is attacked in London, and a Jewish charity is also car-bombed, wounding 20. The attacks are attributed to Hezbollah.

* December 11, 1994: A bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. It develops that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for the larger terrorist attack he is planning.

* December 24, 1994: In a preview of September 11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who planned to crash the plane in Paris.

* January 6, 1995: Operation Bojinka, an Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean, is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after a fire occurred in the apartment. Noted terrorists including Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are involved in the plot.

* June 14—June 19, 1995: The Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, in which 105 civilians and 25 Russian troops were killed following an attack by Chechan Islamists.

* July—October, 1995: Bombings in France by Islamic terrorists led by Khaled Kelkal kill eight and injure more than 100.

* November 13, 1995: Bombing of OPM-SANG building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 7

* November 19, 1995: Bombing of Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan kills 19.

* January 1996: In Kizlyar, 350 Chechen Islamists took 3,000 hostages in a hospital. The attempt to free them killed 65 civilians and soldiers.

* February 25 - March 4, 1996: A series of four suicide bombings in Israel leave 60 dead and 284 wounded within 10 days.

* June 11, 1996: A bomb explodes on a train traveling on the Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya Line of the Moscow Metro, killing four and unjuring at least 12.

* June 25, 1996: The Khobar Towers bombing, carried out by Hezbollah with Iranian support. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed and 372 wounded.

* February 24, 1997: An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from several countries. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

* November 17, 1997: Massacre in Luxor, Egypt, in which Islamist gunmen attack tourists, killing 62 people.

* January 1998: Wandhama Massacre - 24 Kashmiri Pandits are massacred by Pakistan-backed Islamists in the city of Wandhama in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

* February 14, 1998: Bombings by Islamic Jihadi groups at an election rally in the Indian city of Coimbatore kill about 60 people.

* August 7, 1998: Al Qaeda bombs U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.

* August 31 – September 22, 1998: Russian apartment bombings kill about 300 people, leading Russia into Second Chechen War.

* December 1998: Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb American and Israeli tourists in Jordan, and arrest 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.

* December 14, 1998: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.

* December 24, 1998: Indian Airlines Flight 814 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi, India is hijacked by Islamic terrorists. One passenger is killed and some hostages are released. After negotiations between the Taliban and the Indian government, the last of the remaining hostages on board Flight 814 are released in exchange for release of 4 terrorists.

* January 2000: The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

* August 8, 2000: A bomb exploded at an underpass in Pushkin Square in Moscow, killing 11 people and wounding more than 90.

* August 17, 2000: Two bombs exploded in a shopping center in Riga, Latvia, injuring 35 people.

* October 12, 2000: AL Qaeda bombs USS Cole with explosive-laden speedboat, killing 17 US sailors and wounding 40, off the port coast of Aden, Yemen.

Be afraid, Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron

I joined this Forum specifically because the McAdams site was so dominant the on net,

and obviously a warren commission/ lone nut propaganda job.

I read spartacus and you and James, etc. and joined

to add my two cents to the debate................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I blind, or did you not provide a link to McAdams' site? If not, why not? Isn't that what an "objective" site would do?
The Assassination of JFK: Index - John Simkin's site includes many assassination-related biographies, links to reports, organizations and websites, and a forum for debating the issues.

How did you manage to overlook its virulently pro-conspiracy slant? Why the benign, neutral language?

Yet that is just what I do. Look again at this index and you will see links to the sites of non-conspiracists like John McAdams and Ken Rahn. Yet these gentleman do not provide a link to my website. I do this because I believe that the intelligent investigator will come to the right conclusion if they look at all the evidence available. It is the same reason why I allow lone nutters like you to post on this forum. As they will discover from reading your posts, you are completely illogical and unable to take part in an intelligent debate on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the same reason why I allow lone nutters like you to post on this forum. As they will discover from reading your posts, you are completely illogical and unable to take part in an intelligent debate on the subject.

Hear hear, ........... some will never question nor think for themselves,

and I pity the small minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I blind, or did you not provide a link to McAdams' site? If not, why not? Isn't that what an "objective" site would do?

The Assassination of JFK: Index - John Simkin's site includes many assassination-related biographies, links to reports, organizations and websites, and a forum for debating the issues.

How did you manage to overlook its virulently pro-conspiracy slant? Why the benign, neutral language?

Yet that is just what I do.

I was clearly addressing Ron.

Look again at this index and you will see links to the sites of non-conspiracists like John McAdams and Ken Rahn. Yet these gentleman do not provide a link to my website.

Get your eyes checked, genius.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sites.htm

I do this because I believe that the intelligent investigator will come to the right conclusion if they look at all the evidence available.

And earn bonus points if they implicate the eeevil CIA, your fave pet obsession.

It is the same reason why I allow lone nutters like you to post on this forum.

How big of you.

As they will discover from reading your posts, you are completely illogical and unable to take part in an intelligent debate on the subject.

Yeah, I'd be much more popular if I started some "enemies in our midst" threads.

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...