McAdams or me?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

For more on who's really interested in letting Osama go free - hint: it's not Clinton or Sandy Berger - see:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/09/tru...thiness_10.html

For more on conservatives with a conscience who also think ABC's entertainment was underhanded - and how unevenly the coverage has depicted the show's critics as being liberal [rather like BS himself] - see:

http://mediamatters.org/

Edited September 11, 2006 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Jack White]

For more on who's really interested in letting Osama go free - hint: it's not Clinton or Sandy Berger - see:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/09/tru...thiness_10.html

For more on conservatives with a conscience who also think ABC's entertainment was underhanded - and how unevenly the coverage has depicted the show's critics as being liberal [rather like BS himself] - see:

http://mediamatters.org/

Robert...I was quite surprised on going to the website you recommend that

it turned out to be a leading ANTI-CONSPIRACY site. Indeed, it looks like

all the recommended articles were written by the CIA.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

For more on who's really interested in letting Osama go free - hint: it's not Clinton or Sandy Berger - see:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/09/tru...thiness_10.html

For more on conservatives with a conscience who also think ABC's entertainment was underhanded - and how unevenly the coverage has depicted the show's critics as being liberal [rather like BS himself] - see:

http://mediamatters.org/

Robert...I was quite surprised on going to the website you recommend that

it turned out to be a leading ANTI-CONSPIRACY site. Indeed, it looks like

all the recommended articles were written by the CIA.

Jack

bet ABC's overnight ratings went through the roof .... poor suckers need something to stay competitive.... hope Sen. George Mitchell (ret-D) of Disney sent a thank you to B.Clinton...

**********************************

'Brendan Slattery' dronned:

[...]

You wouldn't even know about my politics were it not for the incessant, left-wing, McGovernite, birkenstock radicalism coarsing through the bloodstream of this forum.

[...]

***********

you're "late 60's references" are sounding very familiar, BS['er]... your not going to break out in a *commie rant* anytime soon are you?

Edited September 11, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Len Colby]

Back to the topic of this thread before I tear into BS, Ron do you know what the results were this year or last?

[Ron Ecker]

Back to the topic of this thread before I tear into BS, Ron do you know what the results were this year or last?

I have not inquired. I became aware of the exercise last year and this year only because of the large number of visits from the McNeese web address. But I don't need to ask, I know which site is considered most objective based on first impression by freshmen most of whom probably know little about the case other than Oliver Stone's vilified JFK (now they are told that with World Trade Center he has made a sensible movie), and which they were too young even to see when the film was released. (God, how time flies.)

[Brendan Slattery]

For more on who's really interested in letting Osama go free - hint: it's not Clinton or Sandy Berger - see:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/09/tru...thiness_10.html

For more on conservatives with a conscience who also think ABC's entertainment was underhanded - and how unevenly the coverage has depicted the show's critics as being liberal [rather like BS himself] - see:

http://mediamatters.org/

Robert...I was quite surprised on going to the website you recommend that

it turned out to be a leading ANTI-CONSPIRACY site. Indeed, it looks like

all the recommended articles were written by the CIA.

Jack

bet ABC's overnight ratings went through the roof .... poor suckers need something to stay competitive.... hope Sen. George Mitchell (ret-D) of Disney sent a thank you to B.Clinton...

**********************************

'Brendan Slattery' dronned:

[...]

You wouldn't even know about my politics were it not for the incessant, left-wing, McGovernite, birkenstock radicalism coarsing through the bloodstream of this forum.

[...]

***********

you're "late 60's references" are sounding very familiar, BS['er]... your not going to break out in a *commie rant* anytime soon are you?

Depends. Are you a pinko?

[John Simkin]

you're "late 60's references" are sounding very familiar, BS['er]... your not going to break out in a *commie rant* anytime soon are you?

Depends. Are you a pinko?

I am. Why don't you debate the issue here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7751

[Len Colby]

Back to the topic of this thread before I tear into BS, Ron do you know what the results were this year or last?

I have not inquired. I became aware of the exercise last year and this year only because of the large number of visits from the McNeese web address. But I don't need to ask, I know which site is considered most objective based on first impression by freshmen most of whom probably know little about the case other than Oliver Stone's vilified JFK (now they are told that with World Trade Center he has made a sensible movie), and which they were too young even to see when the film was released. (God, how time flies.)

I wouldn't be so sure Ron, most polls show that a high percentage of the US population if not a majority believe the assassination was part of a conspiracy. In one of my last posts on the "Image Integrity" thread there are links to a Scripts Howard poll. They asked about the assassination and IIRC 30 - 40% of respondants said they thought the CIA was involved. I also would be surprised if many of them had seen the movie and didn't know how criticized it was. For what its worth about 10% of that age group believes Elvis is still alive (see the link to the CBS poll in the same post)

In any case I'd be curious to find out, aren't you?

you're "late 60's references" are sounding very familiar, BS['er]... your not going to break out in a *commie rant* anytime soon are you?

Depends. Are you a pinko?

I am. Why don't you debate the issue here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7751

Actual debate doesn't seem to be his forte.

[Ron Ecker]

In any case I'd be curious to find out, aren't you?

I've emailed the McNeese library to ask about the results.

[Shanet Clark]

A better student assignment would be to compare

MCADAMS to SPARTACUS

[Peter McGuire]

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.

Ha ha ha ha ha. It looks like BS was addressing me in the above quotes. Unfortunately I have had his posts on the forum blocked for some time, so I can only "enjoy" them when snippets are quoted by other posters as above.

He wants to know why my site overlooks this site's "virulently pro-conspiracy slant." I believe that all of the links on my site are to sites that are "pro-conspiracy," or at least are run by researchers who have no doubt there was a conspiracy. Why should I waste the time of visitors to my site by referring them to LN sites, when the idea that Oswald did it alone is so easily debunked?

I admit that this disqualifies my site as an "objective" site. The thing about the McNeese State freshman orientation exercise is that the faculty is bamboozling students into thinking that McAdams's site is more "objective," an impressive one easily gets on first impression. Most of the students I'm sure have no way of knowing that the McAdams site, for all the worthwhile info that it contains, is run by what many consider to be a disinformation agent, who laboriously tries to slant everything, to the last jot and tittle, to support an impossible conclusion (there being, among other things, wounds on JFK's body that prove the impossibility) that Oswald acted alone.

I think that what the McNeese faculty is doing, manipulating freshman students on the JFK part of the exercise, is despicable. But on the bright side, it is sending hundreds of young students to my site, so maybe something good will come of it, as many of them consequently visit some of the linked "virulently pro-conspiracy" sites like this one. Maybe a couple of them will even read this thread and join the forum.

This matter of 'objectivity' is often used as a weapon on the right...as it 'political correctness' [in its re-born sense] and the litmus test of not ever seeing any conspiracies anywhere - even when [especially when!] they exist. Would a site on the Holocuast be more 'objective' if it included holocaust denial sites...I wouldn't suggest they do so. Some things are for reasonable and objective humans beyond needed conter-arguments presented. Anyone can always seek them out themselves. As long as there is mention or one can reasonably read into the material that other points of view exist, I think that is enough.

Well put, Peter. Specifically in the Kennedy case, there is plenty of material spread around supporting the official position, while the other side is way behind in equal exposure by the media. When time is given to the "other side" by Lone Whacko's , it is often spun to their side anyway. ( see Cyril Wecht in one of Jenning's specials)

What we need to do is unapologetically present our case as our research shows it. How silly would it be if a lawyer said "well that concludes my case, now my advisary has his opinions, listen to them carefully because everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, mine IS the right one but his could be true too" .

There is no doubt about what happened that afternoon. Clearly , it is the intention of the conspiritors to continue to fool enough people to keep this thing down until time fades it away.

And they have the power, the will, and resourses to do just that.

Peter

Edited October 1, 2006 by Peter McGuire

[Ron Ecker]

A better student assignment would be to compare

MCADAMS to SPARTACUS

Ideally yes. But I'm sure they were looking for an obvious conspiracy site to compare with the "objective" sounding language on McAdams's introductory page. As one item in a library exercise, it was not something they wanted the students to spend a lot of time pondering. So they probably chose my site because it's short and to the point. Ergo an easy-answer question (from the library's perspective).

Comparing McAdams and Spartacus sounds more like a final exam.