John Simkin: Prosecute Those Who Disagree
John McAdams
an "attack on you" (meaning me).
Big deal, I thought.
But this was a bit more revealing than the others.
It's from John Simkin:
Note this paragraph:
<quote on>
The only way to get out of the forest is to use your own head and to
study the documents. It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like
John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the
assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop
an insanity plea.
<quote off>
That's right. He would like to "prosecute" me for disagreeing with
him on the Internet.
That says a lot about Simkin's politics. Ragardless of what he claims
to be (Labour, Liberal or whatever), he's really a Nazi.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Dave Yandell
It's amazing how some people whinge about alleged censorship here, when a
jack-booted goon like Simkin controls his all-CT forum. He provides
"forums" only for the sake of promoting *any* conspiracy view about
*anything.*
Simkin's all-conspiracy, all the time forum, where he manifests an
unbelievable level of credulity and inability to reason, is closed to
anyone who doesn't cater to Simkin's fantasies. Simkin periodically
reminds posters that his forum isn't a democracy but a dictatorship, since
Simkin is paying the bills.
It seems he's having a hard time coping with the fact that his personal
fiefdom doesn't extend over the entire internet and that (horror!) others
are able to express contrary views.
For a guy from the country that produced John Stuart Mill and George
Orwell, Simkin doesn't much care for free discourse. Simkin could best be
described as reason-impaired and morally retarded; his posts reflect
old-fashioned nationalist chauvinism.
For someone who pretends to promote education to favor the means used by
autocrats and tyrants to suppress discourse shows a kind of spiritual rot
that few are willing to exhibit so openly.
Peace,
Dave
Dave Yandell
BTW, Simkin's use of Descartes is profoundly misleading. Descartes was
describing a *provisional* and *temporary* policy of following custom to
guide his actions *while he suspended judgment about all of his beliefs in
order to examine which if any of them were beyond doubt.*
Whatever one thinks of Descartes's project, Simkin clearly has no
understanding of what Descartes was up to.
There is something especially creepy about an "advocate" of education
distorting the meaning of a text *for propagandistic purposes* in a
supposed critique of propaganda.
Simkin's incompetence and dishonesty seem to be in a contest with his
fascist attitudes for "most repellent character trait."
Dave
David Von Pein
Over a period of time, I've come to the conclusion that (IMO) the
majority of the active participants at Simkin's all-CT site can pretty
much be categorized as paranoid kooks.
The Education Forum isn't as bad as Wim Dankbaar's nuthouse of
conspiracy-flavored idiocy, however.
slats
news:4a7cbcd7....@news.supernews.com:
Fascistic impulses to be sure, but he's more of a Trotskyite.
Hypocritical radicals like himself serially accused Bush of "waging a war
on civil liberties" and "gutting the Constitution," yet he doesn't think
twice about punishing his political adversaries. At least we now know that
his "Bush rage" was all an act. You want to change his mind about Gitmo?
Just tell him Republicans will be shipped there.
timstter
Simkin routinely publishes nonsense on his supposedly *educational*
website. Here is a glaring example:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKholt.htm
Note the picture of Oswald at New Orleans Trade Mart, supposedly with
Chauncey Holt, that has this caption, presumably written by Simkin:
QUOTE ON:
Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pamphlets in New Orleans. Holt is the
man on the
far right. Holt has written in the names of some of the people
involved in this operation.
QUOTE OFF
One of the names Holt wrote in is Bud Belcher, a supposed pilot from
Cuba. Only problem is that this guy is actually John Alice, a business
man who worked at International Trade Mart. See this four page FBI
report:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=60405&relPageId=53
It's astonishing that Simkin gets away with trotting out junk like his
Holt nonsense above, passing off his work as *educational*, then calls
for the prosecution of others.
Simkin is the crackpot and his published junk doesn't accord with the
historical record.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
John McAdams
What is interesting is that he admits that Holt's claim to have been
one of the three tramps has been debunked.
But if *that* has been debunked, how seriously can we take anything
*else* he might say.
I guess for Simkin, very seriously.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
I didn't know you had all the connections "to cover-up the truth about the
assassination." That's a really big job for a humble college professor!
Where do find the time with all those papers to grade, etc.
I thought it was the Gigantic Conspiracy's responsibility since they
controlled the Warren Commission, the Senate, the House of
Representatives, every President since JFK, both political parties, the
entire news media, the FBI, CIA, Military-Industrial Complex, and anybody
else who doesn't believe in all those complicated mind- boggling
Conspiracy Theories.
Or maybe I underestimate you. When were you elected CEO of CGO
(Conspiratus Giganticus Omnipotens, Inc)? I didn’t get the memo, so
belated congratulations on your new promotion. Now that you’re in charge
of all conspiracies just one question: Are there still alien cadavers
stored in Hanger 18 or have they all beem moved to Area 51?
John McAdams
wrote:
Sometimes I'm almost flattered when some people think I'm the lynchpin
of the whole "coverup."
But that starts me wondering: where the hell is my check from
Langley?
The truth, of course, is that nobody at the CIA gives a damn about
whether people think there was a JFK conspiracy. They have other
things to worry about!
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
WBurg...@aol.com
John he may be uninformed, or biased, but why a Nazi? It seems to be
pervading our culture.... you don't agree with me, you are a Nazi.
Limbaugh does it. I think more highly of you than to blindly make that
charge.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
So, you read Education Forum from cover to cover, do you, Von Pein?
I assume this post was passed bymy co- moderator McAdams because he
feels those posters who do post at the Education Forum *and* on
alt.assassination.jfk do NOT fall under Von Pein's characterization.
They apparently must be *the minority* Von Pein excludes from his
character smear. Otherwise, this post would have been rejected.
For example, Barb Junkkarinen, ex-moderator of this newsgroup posts
regularly on the Education Forum.
As do a number of other folks.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John McAdams
Well, what do you have to do to make "Nazi" status? Kill 6,000,000
Jews.
I doubt Simkin would want to kill 6,000,000 Jews, although I think he
might not mind much if 6,000,000 Israeli citizens got killed.
I think he probably would kill 6,000,000 kulaks. But happily, he'll
never have the power to do that.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
WhiskyJoe
The Internet has millions of webpages, but I bet
there are not too many that accuse Jim Garrison and
John McAdams of working on the same side to cover up
the JFK assassination. Indeed, I am confident that
this webpage is unique in that regard.
And if they take away John McAdams, who would be next?
Steve Barber? bigdog? Cdddraftsman? David Von Pein?
Kenneth Rahn? David Reites? Myself? Of course, he says
that even some CTers like Jim Garrison, Robert Blakey
and Gary Mack are disinformation agents so is anyone
who posts here safe? By what criteria would Simkin use
to decide who should be arrested and who should not?
I bet he really would like to have that power.
WhiskyJoe
John Simkin founded Spartacus Educational.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsimkin.htm
He has written books about Hitler and Stalin.
That may be where he got his notion that McAdams
should be arrested for his ideas. But, if his dark
dream ever becomes a reality and they do come
from McAdams, some of us like Reites, Von Pein
and others will step forward and announce
"I am McAdams."
And, of course, there are some CTers who would
respond with "I knew you were really McAdams
all along."
David Von Pein
>>> "So, you read Education Forum from cover to cover, do you, Von Pein?"
<<<
Good heavens, no, Fokes. My stomach couldn't tolerate such a kook
onslaught. (Nor could my weak bladder.)
But it doesn't take a "cover-to-cover" reading of Simkin's site to know
where the posters stand....and it's invariably on the side with no
evidence at all (i.e., the CT side of the picket fence).
John McAdams
>
>The Internet has millions of webpages, but I bet
>there are not too many that accuse Jim Garrison and
>John McAdams of working on the same side to cover up
>the JFK assassination. Indeed, I am confident that
>this webpage is unique in that regard.
>
>And if they take away John McAdams, who would be next?
>Steve Barber? bigdog? Cdddraftsman? David Von Pein?
>Kenneth Rahn? David Reites? Myself? Of course, he says
>that even some CTers like Jim Garrison, Robert Blakey
>and Gary Mack are disinformation agents so is anyone
>who posts here safe?
Like the purge trials under Stalin. Being a loyal Bolshevik didn't
help you at all if you were on the wrong side of the dictator.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjspeare
read.
FACT: John Simkin is not a Nazi, and does not use gestapo tactics.
True, the Ed Forum is not a particularly friendly place for LNs, but
it's not because the moderators are out to get them. Indeed, a close
inspection will show that there are a few longtime LNs on the Forum,
including Craig Lansom and Tom Purvis, and that they are not censored.
No, the reality is that a number of CTs have left the Forum in recent
years due to Simkin's zealous belief in freedom of speech, and his
allowing LNs and Doubting Thomases (who many Forum members consider a
distraction) their say. John and I have exchanged hundreds of messages
and posts over the years and he has never said McAdams or any other
prominent LN should be prosecuted for their beliefs, or anything like
that. In fact, he has repeatedly invited McAdams, Posner, Bugliosi,
etc to participate in his forum, and feels the Forum would benefit
from intelligent input from the LN side.
FACT: this whole "Simkin is a fascist" thing was started up recently
by Don Bohning, a LN and Forum member who resented Simkin's pages on
Operation 40, which suggested they were an assassination squad.
Bohning particularly resented Simkin's repeated mention that documents
released by the ARRB proved that Bohning himself was once a CIA asset.
Bohning wrote an article complaining about Simkin for Max Holland's
site, and then expanded this article for a magazine put out for former
CIA officers. While some of his points were valid, Bohning
deliberately excluded information about Op 40 found on the CIA's own
website, and found in the Church Committee hearings. With the help of
myself and others, Simkin wrote a response to Bohning's article, which
showed that there were indeed numerous reasons to believe Op 40 was
involved in assassinations. The magazine publishing Bohning's article,
of course, refused Simkin's response. Still, Simkin published his
response on the internet. Now, is there any connection between his
spat with Bohning and this thread? I don't know.
FACT: John Simkin finds the finger-pointing so prevalent among
CTs--"this guy's CIA, that guy's CIA, ooh the CIA is out to get us"--a
huge distraction. At one point I was doing some research on John
McAdams and his CIA connections, to see if there was anything to it. I
assumed there was not. And yet, when I googled John McAdams, a picture
of John came up on a music website...a music website sponsored
by...the CIA. Yep, I refreshed the page a dozen times, and every
banner ad on the page was an ad for the Central Intelligence Agency.
Well, before telling anyone else about this, I contacted two friends
who run websites--Rex Bradford and John Simkin--and both told me that
almost certainly this was a coincidence. They both thought my guess
that google ads had somehow linked McAdams with the CIA, due to the
posts on his forum, and searches of his name, and had added the ads on
their own, without McAdams' involvement, was probably correct.
Now I ask you this, if Simkin was out to get McAdams, wouldn't he have
used the screen grabs I sent him of McAdams' face next to a CIA
recruitment ad in order to discredit McAdams? Instead of going out of
his way to convince me it was a coincidence?
I think John McAdams owes John Simkin an apology.
claviger
The idea is that Nazis would not tolerate dissent, criticism, free
expression, alternative ideas, or challenge to their kind of thinking.
Anyone who did not fall in line with Nazi political thought was
arrested and thrown in prison. That had a chilling effect on freedom
of speech.
__________________________________________
Dictionary.com
3. Sometimes Offensive. (often lowercase) a person who is fanatically
dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc.:
a jazz nazi who disdains other forms of music; tobacco nazis trying to
ban smoking.
Webster
2: one who is likened to a German Nazi : a harshly domineering,
dictatorial, or intolerant person.
__________________________________________
Sounds like Simkin! What a ridiculous statement for him to make since
his website is dedicated to being an alternative to the official
government position. I suspect there is professional jealousy involved
here, since the McAdams forum is far more popular, dynamic, and lively
than the dull and boring Spartacus tea party. Even the choice of name
is ironic, Spartacus the slave who challenged overbearing Roman
authority to conform or be punished. Simkin is acting more like Caesar
than like Spartacus.
Anthony Marsh
> On 7 Aug 2009 23:12:24 -0400, claviger<histori...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> I didn't know you had all the connections "to cover-up the truth about the
>> assassination." That's a really big job for a humble college professor!
>> Where do find the time with all those papers to grade, etc.
>>
>> I thought it was the Gigantic Conspiracy's responsibility since they
>> controlled the Warren Commission, the Senate, the House of
>> Representatives, every President since JFK, both political parties, the
>> entire news media, the FBI, CIA, Military-Industrial Complex, and anybody
>> else who doesn't believe in all those complicated mind- boggling
>> Conspiracy Theories.
>>
>> Or maybe I underestimate you. When were you elected CEO of CGO
>> belated congratulations on your new promotion. Now that you?re in charge
>> of all conspiracies just one question: Are there still alien cadavers
>> stored in Hanger 18 or have they all beem moved to Area 51?
>>
>>
>
> Sometimes I'm almost flattered when some people think I'm the lynchpin
> of the whole "coverup."
>
> But that starts me wondering: where the hell is my check from
> Langley?
>
> The truth, of course, is that nobody at the CIA gives a damn about
> whether people think there was a JFK conspiracy. They have other
> things to worry about!
>
Except for the DCI's 1967 memo to certain stations explaining why the CIA
is gravely concerned about all the JFK assassination conspiracy rumors.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Thalia
>
> >It's astonishing that Simkin gets away with trotting out junk like his
> >Holt nonsense above, passing off his work as *educational*, then calls
> >for the prosecution of others.
>
> >Simkin is the crackpot and his published junk doesn't accord with the
> >historical record.
>
> What is interesting is that he admits that Holt's claim to have been
> one of the three tramps has been debunked.
>
> But if *that* has been debunked, how seriously can we take anything
> *else* he might say.
>
> I guess for Simkin, very seriously.
>
> .John
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thats a silly argument: everyone studying the assassination, inclusing
Lone Nuts, will get something wrong at least onnce, hell just ask
Bugliosi! It doesn't mean that everything they argue should be summarily
dismissed (which is a fascist viewpoint IMO)
Thalia
> On 7 Aug 2009 23:12:24 -0400, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
Why the assumption that the CIA should be paying you??
Bib Leofile
It's from John Simkin:
http://surftofind.com/fraud
Note this paragraph:
<quote on>
John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the
assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to
cop
an insanity plea.
<quote off>
That's right. He would like to "prosecute" me for disagreeing with
him on the Internet.
That says a lot about Simkin's politics. Ragardless of what he claims
to be (Labour, Liberal or whatever), he's really a Nazi.
.John
This post says much more about Dr. McAdams than it does about John Simkin.
McAdams quotes a paragaraph that was OBVIOUSLY written by the owner of the
linked website AND NOT Written BY SIMKIN (who has a website of his very
own) then Dr. McAdams proceeds to attribute the quote to John SImkin.
I think that kind of mis-attribution is is also known as Misinformation.
Did someone suggest that Dr. McAdams is a misinformation agent?
greg
Resorting to Reductio ad Hitlerum in the very first post! Way to go
John.
And look at them all falling in behind you! You should be blushing.
As a professor, you should know how to read.
The first paragraph has quotes around what Simkin wrote. None of what
follows that first paragraph is likewise indicated to have been
authored by him. It follows that the author of the words which have
caused you to play the Hitler card was the person who owns the web
page.
On second thoughts, I think you know very well how to read. As do
those who were so eager to jump in and agree with you. None of you
care about the facts. Not when they stand in the way of engaging in a
bit of good old fashioned propagandising.
John McAdams
A poster has pointed out to me that perhaps Simkin didn't write that,
but rather the owner of that crazy website did.
If so, I owe Simkin an apology.
Except, he did call me a "disinformation agent," which is a pretty
fascist thing to do.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On Aug 8, 11:08�am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2009 23:04:18 -0400, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >It's astonishing that Simkin gets away with trotting out junk like his
>> >Holt nonsense above, passing off his work as *educational*, then calls
>> >for the prosecution of others.
>>
>> >Simkin is the crackpot and his published junk doesn't accord with the
>> >historical record.
>>
>> What is interesting is that he admits that Holt's claim to have been
>> one of the three tramps has been debunked.
>>
>> But if *that* has been debunked, how seriously can we take anything
>> *else* he might say.
>>
>> I guess for Simkin, very seriously.
>>
>
>Thats a silly argument: everyone studying the assassination, inclusing
>Lone Nuts, will get something wrong at least onnce, hell just ask
>Bugliosi! It doesn't mean that everything they argue should be summarily
>dismissed (which is a fascist viewpoint IMO)
It's one thing to get this or that historical issue wrong. It's
another to tell a wild, baldfaced lie.
Anybody can make a mistake, but not everybody will claim to have been
one of the Three Tramps in Dealey Plaza. That's not an innocent
mistake.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>Why the assumption that the CIA should be paying you??
Ask the crazies who think the CIA is paying me.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>A poster has pointed out to me that perhaps Simkin didn't write that,
>but rather the owner of that crazy website did.
>
>If so, I owe Simkin an apology.
>
>Except, he did call me a "disinformation agent," which is a pretty
>fascist thing to do.
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Awhile ago, I noticed some untrue comments about me on several web
pages. One page was hosted by the Education Forum. I asked Simkin to
remove the comment and he did so with alacrity. He was not the author
of the comments.
Everone should be careful when resorting to personal attacks on the
web.
Comments have a life of their own once they are online.
I am a member of the Education Forum, and although I am an infrequent
poster, I have found the discussions for the most part civilized and
free of rancour.
David Von Pein's generalized comments on this forum about CTs are an
example of unnecessary hyperbole in discussions. Often, the folks he
is calling kooks or paranoids remain unnamed and are simply classified
under the category "most" or the "majority".
In my opinion, that level of discourse is not appropriate, but under
our rules permittable because a poster is not specifically named.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
pjspeare
prosecuting McAdams is not in quotes and is not a quote from Simkin,
but is the opinion of the creator of the website. As I suspected,
Simkin NEVER said such a thing.
On Aug 7, 9:03 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
Ray
If so, I owe Simkin an apology.
Except, he did call me a "disinformation agent," which is a pretty
fascist thing to do.
.John
And you have already proved him right on this very thread
Coondog
> On 7 Aug 2009 22:58:58 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Over a period of time, I've come to the conclusion that (IMO) the
> >majority of the active participants at Simkin's all-CT site can pretty
> >much be categorized as paranoid kooks.
>
> >The Education Forum isn't as bad as Wim Dankbaar's nuthouse of
> >conspiracy-flavored idiocy, however.
>
> So, you read Education Forum from cover to cover, do you, Von Pein?
>
> I assume this post was passed bymy co- moderator McAdams because he
> feels those posters who do post at the Education Forum *and* on
> alt.assassination.jfk do NOT fall under Von Pein's characterization.
> They apparently must be *the minority* Von Pein excludes from his
> character smear. Otherwise, this post would have been rejected.
>
> For example, Barb Junkkarinen, ex-moderator of this newsgroup posts
> regularly on the Education Forum.
>
If this is supposed to be impressive it isn’t. Barb once told me JFK
had ordered the troops out of Vietnam in NSAM 263. I guess she got
that one from Stoned Stone’s epic movie.
Bill Clarke
jblubaugh
I think it is right on target from what I have read and seen. It is
certainly not the first time you have been accused of being that or have
you forgotten Lisa Pease?
JB
pamela
> An e-mail correspondent brought to my attention what he described as
> an "attack on you" (meaning me).
>
> Big deal, I thought.
>
> But this was a bit more revealing than the others.
>
> It's from John Simkin:
>
> http://surftofind.com/fraud
>
> Note this paragraph:
>
> <quote on>
>
> The only way to get out of the forest is to use your own head and to
> study the documents. It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like
> John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the
> assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop
> an insanity plea.
>
> <quote off>
>
> That's right. He would like to "prosecute" me for disagreeing with
> him on the Internet.
>
> That says a lot about Simkin's politics. Ragardless of what he claims
> to be (Labour, Liberal or whatever), he's really a Nazi.
>
does not happen to agree with him, is now claiming to be unfairly
criticized.
Anthony Marsh
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:51:47 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
> McAdams) wrote:
>
>> An e-mail correspondent brought to my attention what he described as
>> an "attack on you" (meaning me).
>>
>> Big deal, I thought.
>>
>> But this was a bit more revealing than the others.
>>
>> It's from John Simkin:
>>
>> http://surftofind.com/fraud
>>
>> Note this paragraph:
>>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> The only way to get out of the forest is to use your own head and to
>> study the documents. It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like
>> John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the
>> assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop
>> an insanity plea.
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> That's right. He would like to "prosecute" me for disagreeing with
>> him on the Internet.
>>
>> That says a lot about Simkin's politics. Ragardless of what he claims
>> to be (Labour, Liberal or whatever), he's really a Nazi.
>>
>
> A poster has pointed out to me that perhaps Simkin didn't write that,
> but rather the owner of that crazy website did.
>
So, who is the OWNER of the Web site?
Why isn't there some way that you can immediately see who the author of
a comment is? Doesn't sound like reliable software to me.
> If so, I owe Simkin an apology.
>
> Except, he did call me a "disinformation agent," which is a pretty
> fascist thing to do.
>
Fascist? Communist? You rightwingers seem to use the words interchangeably
not realizing which end of the extreme each occupies. Like your rightwing
friends putting a Hitler mustache on Obama and calling him a socialist. I
can understand the trailer trash not understanding the difference, but
surely a college professor should understand the difference.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
It's called Playing the Victim. Insults are hurled and it is politically
convenient to pick out a political enemy and claim he is the one who did
it.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 8, 11:15 am, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2009 23:12:24 -0400, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> John,
>>
>>> I didn't know you had all the connections "to cover-up the truth about the
>>> assassination." That's a really big job for a humble college professor!
>>> Where do find the time with all those papers to grade, etc.
>>
>>> I thought it was the Gigantic Conspiracy's responsibility since they
>>> controlled the Warren Commission, the Senate, the House of
>>> Representatives, every President since JFK, both political parties, the
>>> entire news media, the FBI, CIA, Military-Industrial Complex, and anybody
>>> else who doesn't believe in all those complicated mind- boggling
>>> Conspiracy Theories.
>>
>>> Or maybe I underestimate you. When were you elected CEO of CGO
>>> belated congratulations on your new promotion. Now that you�re in charge
>>> of all conspiracies just one question: Are there still alien cadavers
>>> stored in Hanger 18 or have they all beem moved to Area 51?
>>
>> Sometimes I'm almost flattered when some people think I'm the lynchpin
>> of the whole "coverup."
>>
>> But that starts me wondering: where the hell is my check from
>> Langley?
>>
>> The truth, of course, is that nobody at the CIA gives a damn about
>> whether people think there was a JFK conspiracy. They have other
>> things to worry about!
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Why the assumption that the CIA should be paying you??
>
Did the CIA pay Clay Shaw?
Anthony Marsh
NB: uncapitalized it has a slang meaning.
> Webster
> 2: one who is likened to a German Nazi : a harshly domineering,
> dictatorial, or intolerant person.
> ____________________________________
Some kook keeps accusing me of calling him a Nazi. I never did. So I
challenged him to quote me saying that. When he did it was clear that the
word I chose was NeoNazi. That means a modern day adherent to the Nazi
ideology rather than an original member of the Nazi party from the 30s or
40s. I doubt that there are many of those still around. What I find ironic
is the trick that the extreme rightwingers, who are real neo-Nazis, use to
attack Liberals by calling them Nazis, such as FemiNazies or attack
foreigners such as IslamoFascism.
______
>
> Sounds like Simkin! What a ridiculous statement for him to make since
> his website is dedicated to being an alternative to the official
Sounds like someone doesn't know what he is talking about and enjoys
stirring up the pot by false attribution.
> government position. I suspect there is professional jealousy involved
> here, since the McAdams forum is far more popular, dynamic, and lively
Shh, you're not supposed to admit in public that this is the McAdams
forum.
Robert Harris
john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> An e-mail correspondent brought to my attention what he described as
> an "attack on you" (meaning me).
>
> Big deal, I thought.
>
> But this was a bit more revealing than the others.
>
> It's from John Simkin:
>
> http://surftofind.com/fraud
>
> Note this paragraph:
>
> <quote on>
>
> The only way to get out of the forest is to use your own head and to
> study the documents. It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like
> John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the
> assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop
> an insanity plea.
>
> <quote off>
>
> That's right. He would like to "prosecute" me for disagreeing with
> him on the Internet.
I don't think that is what he said, .john. He did not say that you should
be prosecuted for disagreeing with him, but for "deliberately covering up
the truth".
Of course, such a thing is not prosecutable unless you're in a situation
in which perjury charges could be filed.
But why would you blame Simkin for saying such a thing after you have
publicly stated that you will not permit any kind of dissent at your
website and that you would not require your writers to correct
demonstrably false statements??
By its very definition, an advocate is required to coverup the truth,
john. He is no more concerned about reality than a used car salesman is
about whether his competitor is offering a better deal.
I cannot understand why you chose that path.
Robert Harris
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <4a7cbcd7....@news.supernews.com>,
> john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
>> An e-mail correspondent brought to my attention what he described as
>> an "attack on you" (meaning me).
>>
>> Big deal, I thought.
>>
>> But this was a bit more revealing than the others.
>>
>> It's from John Simkin:
>>
>> http://surftofind.com/fraud
>>
>> Note this paragraph:
>>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> The only way to get out of the forest is to use your own head and to
>> study the documents. It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like
>> John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the
>> assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop
>> an insanity plea.
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> That's right. He would like to "prosecute" me for disagreeing with
>> him on the Internet.
>
>I don't think that is what he said, .john. He did not say that you should
>be prosecuted for disagreeing with him, but for "deliberately covering up
>the truth".
>
And one habit of nasty bigots is believing that what *they* believe is
so obvious that anybody who disagrees is "deliberately covering up the
truth."
>Of course, such a thing is not prosecutable unless you're in a situation
>in which perjury charges could be filed.
>
>But why would you blame Simkin for saying such a thing after you have
>publicly stated that you will not permit any kind of dissent at your
>website and that you would not require your writers to correct
>demonstrably false statements??
>
Huh?
I have a fair number of essays on my website that I don't agree with
entirely.
Has it every occurred to you, Bob, that what you consider
"demonstrably false statements" might not be viewed that way by
somebody else?
>By its very definition, an advocate is required to coverup the truth,
>john. He is no more concerned about reality than a used car salesman is
>about whether his competitor is offering a better deal.
>
>I cannot understand why you chose that path.
>
Try a little tolerance for people who disagree with you, Bob. Admit
that there are legitimate differences of opinion.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
No. She is the one who, after she told people I was a Colonel in the
Navy, I informed my promotion had come through and I was a General in
the Navy.
And she bought it! For months and months she told people I was a
General in the Navy.
She concluded one newsgroup poster, who tried to be nice and meet with
her in a shopping mall, was a spook when the fellow's wife came back
and he snapped at her!
Sure, she brought a lot of entertainment to the newsgroup.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> Ughh...this is one of the most woefully uninformed threads I've ever
> read.
>
> FACT: John Simkin is not a Nazi, and does not use gestapo tactics.
> True, the Ed Forum is not a particularly friendly place for LNs, but
> it's not because the moderators are out to get them. Indeed, a close
> inspection will show that there are a few longtime LNs on the Forum,
> including Craig Lansom and Tom Purvis, and that they are not censored.
> No, the reality is that a number of CTs have left the Forum in recent
> years due to Simkin's zealous belief in freedom of speech, and his
> allowing LNs and Doubting Thomases (who many Forum members consider a
> distraction) their say. John and I have exchanged hundreds of messages
> and posts over the years and he has never said McAdams or any other
> prominent LN should be prosecuted for their beliefs, or anything like
> that. In fact, he has repeatedly invited McAdams, Posner, Bugliosi,
> etc to participate in his forum, and feels the Forum would benefit
> from intelligent input from the LN side.
>
Invited? It is a close forum. Non members are not allow to post and it
does not accept new members.
It's called marketing. Ad pop-ups mean nothing except cash in someone's
pocket. Google sends out advertising asking people to link to certain
advertisers on their Web sites in return for cash.
> Now I ask you this, if Simkin was out to get McAdams, wouldn't he have
> used the screen grabs I sent him of McAdams' face next to a CIA
> recruitment ad in order to discredit McAdams? Instead of going out of
> his way to convince me it was a coincidence?
>
No, that is not McAdams' connection to the CIA. Look up the funding
through front groups such as The American Security Council and ICPSR.
pjspeare
interest in history or education--many members are British Educators
not remotely interested in the JFK assassination--are allowed to join,
regardless of whether they are CTs and LNs. The ground rules are
basically that you have to provide a picture and a bio. This keeps out
the trolls haunting places like alt.conspiracy.JFK and the IMDB Forum
for the film JFK. (Von Pein was booted when he wouldn't provide a
picture, and Slattery was booted when he accused a fellow member of
having Alzheimer's and openly rooted for him to die.) From your
background, I suspect you'd be accepted. Recent members include Robert
Groden and Jerry Logan.
John McAdams
>Ughh...this is one of the most woefully uninformed threads I've ever
>read.
>
>FACT: John Simkin is not a Nazi, and does not use gestapo tactics.
>True, the Ed Forum is not a particularly friendly place for LNs, but
>it's not because the moderators are out to get them. Indeed, a close
>inspection will show that there are a few longtime LNs on the Forum,
>including Craig Lansom and Tom Purvis, and that they are not censored.
>No, the reality is that a number of CTs have left the Forum in recent
>years due to Simkin's zealous belief in freedom of speech, and his
>allowing LNs and Doubting Thomases (who many Forum members consider a
>distraction) their say. John and I have exchanged hundreds of messages
>and posts over the years and he has never said McAdams or any other
>prominent LN should be prosecuted for their beliefs, or anything like
>that. In fact, he has repeatedly invited McAdams, Posner, Bugliosi,
>etc to participate in his forum, and feels the Forum would benefit
>from intelligent input from the LN side.
>
People who have been called "disinformationists" aren't going to be
attracted by a forum such as his.
>FACT: this whole "Simkin is a fascist" thing was started up recently
>by Don Bohning, a LN and Forum member who resented Simkin's pages on
>Operation 40, which suggested they were an assassination squad.
>Bohning particularly resented Simkin's repeated mention that documents
>released by the ARRB proved that Bohning himself was once a CIA asset.
>Bohning wrote an article complaining about Simkin for Max Holland's
>site, and then expanded this article for a magazine put out for former
>CIA officers. While some of his points were valid, Bohning
>deliberately excluded information about Op 40 found on the CIA's own
>website, and found in the Church Committee hearings. With the help of
>myself and others, Simkin wrote a response to Bohning's article, which
>showed that there were indeed numerous reasons to believe Op 40 was
>involved in assassinations. The magazine publishing Bohning's article,
>of course, refused Simkin's response. Still, Simkin published his
>response on the internet. Now, is there any connection between his
>spat with Bohning and this thread? I don't know.
>
Probably it didn't publish Simkin's reply because it didn't believe it
had merit.
The "Op 40 assassination squad" stuff is silly.
>FACT: John Simkin finds the finger-pointing so prevalent among
>CTs--"this guy's CIA, that guy's CIA, ooh the CIA is out to get us"--a
>huge distraction.
Then why does he imply that the high ranking of my JFK assassination
site is the result of my having some sinister connections?
>MAt one point I was doing some research on John
>McAdams and his CIA connections,
Which shows your mentality.
>to see if there was anything to it. I
>assumed there was not. And yet, when I googled John McAdams, a picture
>of John came up on a music website
No, not a picture of me.
>...a music website sponsored
>by...the CIA.
That's my site:
http://www.live365.com/stations/jmcadams?site=live365
My site is one of about 10,000 at Live365. I have no control over
which ads run, except I can ban "adult" ads, and ads for alcohol and
tobacco.
All kinds of advertisers run ads there, including the CIA.
>Yep, I refreshed the page a dozen times, and every
>banner ad on the page was an ad for the Central Intelligence Agency.
>Well, before telling anyone else about this, I contacted two friends
>who run websites--Rex Bradford and John Simkin--and both told me that
>almost certainly this was a coincidence. They both thought my guess
>that google ads had somehow linked McAdams with the CIA, due to the
>posts on his forum, and searches of his name, and had added the ads on
>their own, without McAdams' involvement, was probably correct.
>
No, it's not Google ads, and it didn't link me to the CIA.
Rather, the ads are on all Live365 stations, and that includes mine.
>Now I ask you this, if Simkin was out to get McAdams, wouldn't he have
>used the screen grabs I sent him of McAdams' face next to a CIA
>recruitment ad in order to discredit McAdams? Instead of going out of
>his way to convince me it was a coincidence?
>
Good for Simkin, but he has called me a "disinformationist" and
written that my websites high ranking on Google is the result of some
sinister "connections" I have.
>I think John McAdams owes John Simkin an apology.
>
I've already said I owe him an apology for the "prosecute" thing.
He owes me an apology for the "disinformationist" thing.
And you owe me an apology for your silly "research on John
McAdams and his CIA connections."
Do you know how absurd that sounds outside the little world of
paranoid buffs?
When you go to bed at night, but sure to look under the bed. A bunch
of CIA disinformationists are likely to be there.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
No, because Shaw was not any kind of agent, nor an "asset."
He gave reports to the DCS.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
It was you leftists who were always comparing Bush to Hitler.
You need t get the ideological blinders off.
>I
>can understand the trailer trash not understanding the difference, but
>surely a college professor should understand the difference.
>
OK, since you want to go ad hominem:
I have a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard, and I don't need any
lectures on political ideology from a bus driver.
In common use, "Nazi" and "fascist" mean narrow, bigoted people
intolerant of people who disagree. Thus it's perfectly possble to be
a leftist and a Nazi. In fact, a lot of leftists are Nazis.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/7/2009 11:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2009 23:12:24 -0400, claviger<histori...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> I didn't know you had all the connections "to cover-up the truth about the
>>> assassination." That's a really big job for a humble college professor!
>>> Where do find the time with all those papers to grade, etc.
>>>
>>> I thought it was the Gigantic Conspiracy's responsibility since they
>>> controlled the Warren Commission, the Senate, the House of
>>> Representatives, every President since JFK, both political parties, the
>>> entire news media, the FBI, CIA, Military-Industrial Complex, and anybody
>>> else who doesn't believe in all those complicated mind- boggling
>>> Conspiracy Theories.
>>>
>>> Or maybe I underestimate you. When were you elected CEO of CGO
>>> (Conspiratus Giganticus Omnipotens, Inc)? I didn?t get the memo, so
>>> belated congratulations on your new promotion. Now that you?re in charge
>>> of all conspiracies just one question: Are there still alien cadavers
>>> stored in Hanger 18 or have they all beem moved to Area 51?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes I'm almost flattered when some people think I'm the lynchpin
>> of the whole "coverup."
>>
>> But that starts me wondering: where the hell is my check from
>> Langley?
>>
>> The truth, of course, is that nobody at the CIA gives a damn about
>> whether people think there was a JFK conspiracy. They have other
>> things to worry about!
>>
>
>Except for the DCI's 1967 memo to certain stations explaining why the CIA
>is gravely concerned about all the JFK assassination conspiracy rumors.
Beautiful!
You cite a document from 40 years ago.
The KGB was trying to spread conspiracy beliefs, Tony.
I guess that makes all of you folks suspect, eh?
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Oh, my!
Tony, you see spooks everywhere. The ICPSR??!!
Are you a disciple of Lisa Pease?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "David Von Pein's generalized comments on this forum about CTs are an
example of unnecessary hyperbole in discussions. Often, the folks he is
calling kooks or paranoids remain unnamed and are simply classified under
the category "most" or the "majority"." <<<
Yes, exactly. Which is precisely why I utilize words like "most" and
"majority". And, of course, an obligatory (and almost-always unwritten)
"IMO" automatically goes with such comments as well.
So, Peter, tell me where I was wrong.
pamela
It seems that "DVP" likes to mimic his idols, such as the Bug, who feel it
necessary to heap scorn on anybody who happens to disagree with him.
In RH the Bug repeatedly calls CTs 'cooks' and 'paranoid' or worse.
Apparently, the Bug is trying to make arrogance a mandate for a real LNT.
While "DVP" may sincerely believe he is adding qualifiers; somehow, they
usually tend to be lacking.
Barb Junkkarinen
I did???? Doesn't sound like me at all.
An advanced groups search with me as author and words "NSAM 263"
returns a post from my son asking a question for a history assignment
in 2000 when he was in 7th grade (awwwww) ... and there was some
discussion about it in relpies he rec'd .... he did a couple other
posts thanking everyone and with some follow up.
It's nice ... he got some thoughtful responses ... and everyone
clearly knew they were talking to my son. I personally did not
parfticipate in that thread as as I can see, nor do I see your name
there ... maybe you were using a different one then. :-)
Here is his initial post/question: (January 22, 2000)
QUOTE
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
From: bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb Junkkarinen)
Date: 2000/01/22
Subject: How did the JFK assassination effect the world?
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hi,
I am Barb's son Jason. I am in the 7th grade. We each have to do a
research paper on a different topic and show how that topic changed
the world. I have chosen the JFK assassination.
I am interested in people's opinions on how they think the JFK
assassination changed our world. My teacher says we have to be able to
support our claims with citations from people and books, etc.
Some things I am considering so far are the Viet Nam war, the end of
the mafia crackdown and trust in our government because of all the
reviews and investigations about this and other things that never seem
to stop.
Any opinions and direction to where I can read more and find citations
would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Jason
END QUOTE
Refresh my memory with a quote and a message number of me telling you
or anyone else that JFK had ordered troops out of VN in NAM 263. . :-)
Barb :-)
>I guess she got
>that one from Stoned Stone�s epic movie.
Your guesses apparently any better than your assertions. <g>
Barb :-)
>
>Bill Clarke
Barb Junkkarinen
Now HERE is a KEEPER!!!
Thanks!
ROTFL
>
>
David Von Pein
>>> "In RH ["Reclaiming History"][,] the Bug [Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.]
Of course, if "Pam" had really taken the time to read "Reclaiming
History", "she" would easily be able to see that Vince hardly ever calls
CTers "kooks" (or even "cooks", as "Pamela" suggests; are all CTers chefs
too, "Pam"?).
When referring to conspiracy theorists, Bugliosi utilizes the word "kook"
very seldom in his masterwork known as "Reclaiming History". For some
reason, "Pam" thinks that Vince uses that word quite often throughout the
2,700+-page book. But she is wrong.
Vince uses different words to describe CTers throughout "RH", but the
specific word "kooks" is used very seldom to describe conspiracy theorists
(if at all, in fact).
Vince describes Lee Oswald as a "kook" on many occasions (and he's right,
of course). But that's hardly the same thing as calling a conspiracist a
"kook".
>>> "While "DVP" may sincerely believe...<snip>" <<<
Still living in that make-believe world where "DVP" doesn't even
exist, eh "Pamela"?
Please maintain that silly belief, "Pam". Because, frankly, I love it.
claviger
> In fact, he has repeatedly invited McAdams, Posner, Bugliosi,
> etc to participate in his forum, and feels the Forum would benefit
> from intelligent input from the LN side.
Yes indeed, the inbreeding in that herd is in desperate need of
intellective heterosis. By the same token, why doesn't Simkins post here?
Don't need a photo and he can use an alias if he prefers. I would like to
see if Simkins has what it takes to run the gauntlet on this rough and
tumble open forum. If he thinks McAdams has put forth "disinformation"
then be specific and let's discuss it. No shrinking violets here and
plenty of CTs for a cheering squad. Should be easy pickin's for such an
urbane intellectual like Professor Simkins versus a parochial rustic like
Professor McAdams.
Dave Yandell
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:51:47 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
>
>
>
>
>
> McAdams) wrote:
> >An e-mail correspondent brought to my attention what he described as
> >an "attack on you" (meaning me).
>
> >Big deal, I thought.
>
> >But this was a bit more revealing than the others.
>
> >It's from John Simkin:
>
> >http://surftofind.com/fraud
>
> >Note this paragraph:
>
> ><quote on>
>
> >The only way to get out of the forest is to use your own head and to
> >study the documents. It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like
> >John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the
> >assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop
> >an insanity plea.
>
> ><quote off>
>
> >That's right. He would like to "prosecute" me for disagreeing with
> >him on the Internet.
>
> >That says a lot about Simkin's politics. Ragardless of what he claims
> >to be (Labour, Liberal or whatever), he's really a Nazi.
>
> but rather the owner of that crazy website did.
>
>
> Except, he did call me a "disinformation agent," which is a pretty
> fascist thing to do.
>
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I should and do apologize for my comments about Simkin's interpretation of
Descartes. That should be applied to the author of that portion of the
webpage.
Mr. Simkin, I apologize for mistakenly attributing the passage butchering
Descartes interpretation to you. I was mistaken and I am sorry
That said, I stand by my other comments on Simkin.
He lists in his profile at Spartacus as "books" he has published a whole
series of self-published pamphlets, for some reason not mentioning in his
profile his two contributions to the "Bermuda triangle" issue. To add
insult to injury, he spells Gandhi's name incorrectly in claiming to have
written a "book" about him.
As to the claim that a couple of token non CTers make the "education"
forum balanced, it is to laugh. Do you also think that Colmes being
Hannity's sidekick used to make FOX News fair and balanced?
BTW, the volume that should have ended the bizarro world claims that there
is SOMETHING in the "triangle" (The Bermuda Triangle Mystery Solved) has
recently been republished by Barnes & Noble. It is a model of careful
research and mild-mannered but devastating debunking.
Though I do miss Charles Berlitz's spectacular mustache. Fringe authors
should sport novelty facial hair more often.
Best,
Dave
claviger
> Fascist? Communist? You rightwingers seem to use the words interchangeably
> not realizing which end of the extreme each occupies. Like your rightwing
> friends putting a Hitler mustache on Obama and calling him a socialist. I
> can understand the trailer trash not understanding the difference, but
> surely a college professor should understand the difference.
Fascists, Nazis, Communists are three different manifestations of
Socialism. All three opposed the concept of free market Democracy and
diffusion of political power. All three produced dictators to enforce
Socialism prior to WWII. They were experimental models of government in
competition with each other. Both Fascism in Italy and National Socialism
in Germany were able to regenerate economic growth and rebuild
transportation infrastructures in each country, but Communism, the purest
form of Socialism, was an ongoing disaster in the Soviet Union. They went
from being a net exporter of grain to starvation of millions due to
government policy designed to eliminate the most successful and productive
segment of agriculture, the kulaks. The need for these Socialist models to
concentrate power at the top and dispense with democratic elections were
contributory causes of WWII. Socialism had some successful accomplishments
before the War but entropic tendencies inherent in Socialism work against
long term economic vitality.
claviger
> An e-mail correspondent brought to my attention what he described as
> an "attack on you" (meaning me).
>
> Big deal, I thought.
>
> But this was a bit more revealing than the others.
>
> It's from John Simkin:
>
> http://surftofind.com/fraud
>
> Note this paragraph:
>
> <quote on>
>
> The only way to get out of the forest is to use your own head and to
> study the documents. It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like
> John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the
> assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop
> an insanity plea.
>
> <quote off>
>
> That's right. He would like to "prosecute" me for disagreeing with
> him on the Internet.
>
> That says a lot about Simkin's politics. Ragardless of what he claims
> to be (Labour, Liberal or whatever), he's really a Nazi.
>
The website that is the source of the misunderstanding is bizarre to the
say the least. The author remains anonymous throughout, which is a random
hodgepodge of political rants. I would use the adjective sophomoric but it
doesn't even rise that level of immature discourse. It is more like
kindergarden political jabbering. One thing is obvious the author has a
schoolgirl crush on JFK. I can't imagine any CT on this group wanting to
associate themselves with this puerile approach to this case. The mystery
author is stuck in low gear on the Lovelady and Three Tramps photos.
The problem was created by not identifying the author of "The Real Jim
Garrison", either at the top or at the end of the article, which made it
seem like John Simkin was being quoted in the entire concluding section
taking jabs at you. Whether just sloppy writing or intentional deception
to put words in his mouth, the first time I read it I too thought all that
was being attributed to Simkin. In fact, he is the one who should be
offended and demand the author of the website clarify who is doing the
talking.
pamela
"DVP" seems to be again enabling his 'hero' , the Bug, by choosing to
minimize the demeaning rhetoric the Bug uses throughout RF. But his
protestations of innocence fall on deaf ears.
Let's start with a chapter heading, p. 872 -- "The Zanies (and Others)
Have their say". In the first para alone he manages to call the ct's
'crackpots' and witnesses 'cukoo birds' as well as gullibles who seize 'on
these stories as holy writ and totally worthy of belief.'
In fact, RH is basically a call to LNTs to arrogantly denigrate the CT
community. Meanwhile, it is is the fanatic LNTs such as the Bug and, it
seems, you, who blindly follow all the dead-ends of the WCR and claim them
as sacrosanct.
pjspeare
the internet with three different CIA recruitment ads above your head, and
chose not to post them on forums or send them to people who would take
delight in such a thing. You're now telling me that the appearance of
these ads above your face was ENTIRELY a coincidence. That's funny. I've
spent hundreds of hours on music websites and don't recall ever seeing a
CIA recruitment ad before. I still think there must have been some sort of
program matching ads with pages, that found your name and CIA linked on CT
sites, and put the two together.
As far as why I was researching you...well...I've been selling off my CD
collection on the internet. And you bought one from me. Although I've sold
several thousand titles, you are the only person with whom I've had any
personal connection to ever buy one from me. Based on your reputation, it
made me a little paranoid. I thought maybe you were sending me a message.
As to why I should have any suspicion about you...well, your comment about
Op 40 is a good example. The CIA's own internal histories admit that
assassination lists were drawn up for Operation Success in Guatemala, and
as part of the planning for the Bay of Pigs. The CIA's own website has
documents proving that Manola Ray thought Op 40 was supposed to
assassinate his followers. Marita Lorenz claimed Op 40 was an
assassination squad, and no one refuted her at the time. As I recall,
Frank Sturgis testified to have been part of Op 40. His case officer
Sanjenis was purportedly involved in its planning. Sturgis testified
further that his other case officer, Bernard Barker, had approached him
regarding an assassination, but that Sturgis had refused because it was to
be on American soil. No one disputed Sturgis' testimony at the time.
So, absent a detailed list of what Op 40 WAS trained to do, and what they
actually did, there is no reason to assume they were not involved in
assassinations. CLEARLY, there were groups of anti-Castro Cubans trained
in assassination. If Not Op 40, then WHO? The Florida exile community has
had it both ways for too long. They want everyone to think they were
adamantly against Castro, and willing to fight him to death, but that none
of them were ruthless killers. This is a non- sequitur. They were
terrorists, more than willing to kill innocent civilians to accomplish
their goals. Do you really expect us to believe there were no assassins in
their midst?
On Aug 8, 4:18 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
John McAdams
>John, I don't feel that I owe you an apology. I found an image of you on
>the internet with three different CIA recruitment ads above your head, and
>chose not to post them on forums or send them to people who would take
>delight in such a thing. You're now telling me that the appearance of
>these ads above your face was ENTIRELY a coincidence.
OK, now I'm confused as to what you have seen.
My little hobby Internet radio station runs CIA ads. That's not
because the CIA sponsors it, but because they buy ads with Live365.
But now I think you are talking about something else.
If some wild-eyed buff put a picture of me on his page and claimed I
was CIA, then yes, the Google software might put a CIA ad on that
page. Google does not know nor care that it's me, only that the crazy
buff put the words "CIA" on the page.
>That's funny. I've
>spent hundreds of hours on music websites and don't recall ever seeing a
>CIA recruitment ad before.
You're certainly not talking about *my* website. You are talking
about somebody *elses* website.
I can't control paranoid idiots who put my photo on their site and
call me a CIA spook.
Why don't you find the site and find who runs the site and write them?
>I still think there must have been some sort of
>program matching ads with pages, that found your name and CIA linked on CT
>sites, and put the two together.
>
>As far as why I was researching you...well...I've been selling off my CD
>collection on the internet. And you bought one from me.
What did I buy?
>Although I've sold
>several thousand titles, you are the only person with whom I've had any
>personal connection to ever buy one from me. Based on your reputation, it
>made me a little paranoid. I thought maybe you were sending me a message.
>
????!!!!!!
It sent the message that I wanted a copy of the CD!
Do you know how wild your last two sentences sound?
>As to why I should have any suspicion about you...well, your comment about
>Op 40 is a good example. The CIA's own internal histories admit that
>assassination lists were drawn up for Operation Success in Guatemala, and
>as part of the planning for the Bay of Pigs. The CIA's own website has
>documents proving that Manola Ray thought Op 40 was supposed to
>assassinate his followers. Marita Lorenz claimed Op 40 was an
>assassination squad, and no one refuted her at the time. As I recall,
>Frank Sturgis testified to have been part of Op 40. His case officer
>Sanjenis was purportedly involved in its planning. Sturgis testified
>further that his other case officer, Bernard Barker, had approached him
>regarding an assassination, but that Sturgis had refused because it was to
>be on American soil. No one disputed Sturgis' testimony at the time.
>
Look . . . you are quoting crackpot witnesses. If there was an "Op
40," you should be able to produce an actual primary source showing
that it existed.
>So, absent a detailed list of what Op 40 WAS trained to do, and what they
>actually did, there is no reason to assume they were not involved in
>assassinations. CLEARLY, there were groups of anti-Castro Cubans trained
>in assassination. If Not Op 40, then WHO?
So you admit that you have no evidence that any "Op 40" had anything
to do with assassinations.
The CIA was certainly trying to kill Castro, but you probably should
stick to Church Committee stuff and Inspector General stuff.
>The Florida exile community has
>had it both ways for too long. They want everyone to think they were
>adamantly against Castro, and willing to fight him to death, but that none
>of them were ruthless killers. This is a non- sequitur. They were
>terrorists, more than willing to kill innocent civilians to accomplish
>their goals. Do you really expect us to believe there were no assassins in
>their midst?
>
>
Look . . . you might try using syllogistic logic rather than stream of
consciousness.
You seem to be saying "these were evil people, therefore Op 40
existed, and therefore it was about assassinations." That doesn't
follow.
You might try providing some *solid* evidence that there was an "Op
40," and then that it was an assassination operation.
Your post suggests that you don't know either thing.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:816dfb75-1bce-4047...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4c28a345e0612c9d
>>> "Let's start with a chapter heading, p. 872 [of "Reclaiming History"] -- "The Zanies (and Others) Have their say". In the first para[graph] alone[,] he [VB] manages to call the ct's 'crackpots' and witnesses 'cu[c]koo birds' as well as gullibles who seize 'on these stories as holy writ and totally worthy of belief.' " <<<
LOL.
"Pam" actually thinks that "Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi is
talking about CONSPIRACY THEORISTS on Page 872. Of course, as per usual,
"Pamela" is wrong. All of the words like "cuckoo birds" and "zanies" and
"crackpots" that Bugliosi uses on Page 872 are referring to assassination
WITNESSES, not conspiracy THEORISTS.
For example, when Bugliosi writes the word "crackpots" on Page 872, he
isn't referring to "CTers". He's referring to the "crackpot" witnesses
like Gordon Arnold, etc.
And the "zanies" referred to by Vince in that chapter are not conspiracy
theorists either. The "zanies" are people like Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold,
Jean Hill, Julia Mercer, Richard Carr, and Tom Tilson (et al).
Maybe "Pam" should learn how to evaluate the words she is reading before
shouting her anti-Bugliosi claptrap from the rooftops. That'd be nice,
wouldn't it?
Footnote:
Now, I'm not saying that Bugliosi NEVER calls the conspiracy theorists
some rather unflattering names throughout the nearly 2,800 pages of
"Reclaiming History", because Vince does, indeed, blast the CTers with
some good verbal salvos in his book and accompanying CD-ROM computer disc.
(And, of course, the CTers deserve every verbal blast that VB unleashes
upon them, IMO.)
In fact, I want to retract the last five words of my August 9th aaj forum
comment reprinted below (because since writing that post, I looked and
found three instances of Bugliosi calling conspiracy theorists "kooks"
among the 958 pages of endnotes on the CD-ROM). But, still, only three
"kook" references in 958 pages is a tiny number, IMO.
If I had written "RH", that number would be in triple digits (at least). I
haven't done a page-by-page "kook" check of the 1,600+ pages of the
hardcover book, however. So I'm not sure how many times Mr. Bugliosi was
able to work in the very accurate "K" word in the physical volume itself
when speaking of the loony conspiracy theorists who are very much
responsible for taking twenty years out of Vincent's life. .....
"Vince uses different words to describe CTers throughout "RH", but
the specific word "kooks" is used very seldom to describe conspiracy
theorists (if at all, in fact)." -- DVP; 08/09/09
My corrected and updated version of that 8/9/09 aaj post resides at the
acj post archived below:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1450078cce8108ab
But in the examples cited by "Pamela" in her last Internet message, "Pam"
hasn't a leg to stand on, because Vince Bugliosi is talking about
WITNESSES on Page 872 when VB says "crackpots" etc., not CONSPIRACY
THEORISTS.
Anthony Marsh
ZE/RIFLE was the section of Operation 40 set up to carry out assassinations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_40
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Fascist? Communist? You rightwingers seem to use the words interchangeably
>> not realizing which end of the extreme each occupies. Like your rightwing
>> friends putting a Hitler mustache on Obama and calling him a socialist. I
>> can understand the trailer trash not understanding the difference, but
>> surely a college professor should understand the difference.
>
> Fascists, Nazis, Communists are three different manifestations of
> Socialism. All three opposed the concept of free market Democracy and
Historically inaccurate. Fascism and Nazism come from the right wing and
Communism comes from the left wing.
Many systems oppose free market, which by the way is not Democracy.
> diffusion of political power. All three produced dictators to enforce
> Socialism prior to WWII. They were experimental models of government in
> competition with each other. Both Fascism in Italy and National Socialism
> in Germany were able to regenerate economic growth and rebuild
> transportation infrastructures in each country, but Communism, the purest
> form of Socialism, was an ongoing disaster in the Soviet Union. They went
> from being a net exporter of grain to starvation of millions due to
> government policy designed to eliminate the most successful and productive
> segment of agriculture, the kulaks. The need for these Socialist models to
Yeah, and we went from being the largest creditor nation to being the
largest debtor nation. So what?
> concentrate power at the top and dispense with democratic elections were
> contributory causes of WWII. Socialism had some successful accomplishments
> before the War but entropic tendencies inherent in Socialism work against
> long term economic vitality.
Hitler propelled Germany from poverty to wealth by using the power of
coersion to accomplish what wishful thinking could not.
timstter
> On 7 Aug 2009 23:04:18 -0400, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 8, 9:51 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> An e-mail correspondent brought to my attention what he described as
> >> an "attack on you" (meaning me).
>
> >> Big deal, I thought.
>
> >> But this was a bit more revealing than the others.
>
> >> It's from John Simkin:
>
> >>http://surftofind.com/fraud
>
> >> Note this paragraph:
>
> >> <quote on>
>
> >> The only way to get out of the forest is to use your own head and to
> >> study the documents. It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like
> >> John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the
> >> assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop
> >> an insanity plea.
>
> >> <quote off>
>
> >> That's right. He would like to "prosecute" me for disagreeing with
> >> him on the Internet.
>
> >> That says a lot about Simkin's politics. Ragardless of what he claims
> >> to be (Labour, Liberal or whatever), he's really a Nazi.
>
> >> .John
>
> >> --
>
> >Simkin routinely publishes nonsense on his supposedly *educational*
> >website. Here is a glaring example:
>
> >http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKholt.htm
>
> >Note the picture of Oswald at New Orleans Trade Mart, supposedly with
> >Chauncey Holt, that has this caption, presumably written by Simkin:
>
> >QUOTE ON:
>
> >Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pamphlets in New Orleans. Holt is the
> >man on the
> >far right. Holt has written in the names of some of the people
> >involved in this operation.
>
> >QUOTE OFF
>
> >One of the names Holt wrote in is Bud Belcher, a supposed pilot from
> >Cuba. Only problem is that this guy is actually John Alice, a business
> >man who worked at International Trade Mart. See this four page FBI
> >report:
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=604...
>
> >It's astonishing that Simkin gets away with trotting out junk like his
> >Holt nonsense above, passing off his work as *educational*, then calls
> >for the prosecution of others.
>
> >Simkin is the crackpot and his published junk doesn't accord with the
> >historical record.
>
> What is interesting is that he admits that Holt's claim to have been
> one of the three tramps has been debunked.
>
> But if *that* has been debunked, how seriously can we take anything
> *else* he might say.
>
> I guess for Simkin, very seriously.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Hi .John,
I find it interesting that he simply leaves the lies Holt told about
the Trade Mart incident on his webpage as bald fact.
These lies are as bad as the ones Holt told about the tramps incident.
I doubt he'd even mention the debunking of Holt's tramp claims if the
debunking hadn't been done by CT researchers, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
Op 40 is an abbreviation of Operation 40. It was a section of the
National Security Council to implement intelligence operations against
Cuba. A precursor to Operation Mongoose. ZR/RIFLE was the component
which dealt with assassinations. These are historical facts and there
are documents to back them up. Stop running away from historical facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_40
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/9/2009 8:36 AM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> Fascist? Communist? You rightwingers seem to use the words interchangeably
>>> not realizing which end of the extreme each occupies. Like your rightwing
>>> friends putting a Hitler mustache on Obama and calling him a socialist. I
>>> can understand the trailer trash not understanding the difference, but
>>> surely a college professor should understand the difference.
>>
>> Fascists, Nazis, Communists are three different manifestations of
>> Socialism. All three opposed the concept of free market Democracy and
>
>Historically inaccurate. Fascism and Nazism come from the right wing and
>Communism comes from the left wing.
>Many systems oppose free market, which by the way is not Democracy.
>
But a free market is the only economic system consistent with
democracy.
>> diffusion of political power. All three produced dictators to enforce
>> Socialism prior to WWII. They were experimental models of government in
>> competition with each other. Both Fascism in Italy and National Socialism
>> in Germany were able to regenerate economic growth and rebuild
>> transportation infrastructures in each country, but Communism, the purest
>> form of Socialism, was an ongoing disaster in the Soviet Union. They went
>> from being a net exporter of grain to starvation of millions due to
>> government policy designed to eliminate the most successful and productive
>> segment of agriculture, the kulaks. The need for these Socialist models to
>
>Yeah, and we went from being the largest creditor nation to being the
>largest debtor nation. So what?
>
If you oppose Obama's "stimulus," and the Democrats' omnibus stimulus
bill, good for you.
>> concentrate power at the top and dispense with democratic elections were
>> contributory causes of WWII. Socialism had some successful accomplishments
>> before the War but entropic tendencies inherent in Socialism work against
>> long term economic vitality.
>
>
>Hitler propelled Germany from poverty to wealth by using the power of
>coersion to accomplish what wishful thinking could not.
>
A genuine free market policy would have worked better.
Remember, it *did* work great for German in the 1950s.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Dolan still claims that we are all working for the KGB to spread
conspiracy beliefs.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, because they were both extreme right wingers. It's silly to compare
a Liberal to a rightwinger.
> You need t get the ideological blinders off.
>
Nope.
>
>> I
>> can understand the trailer trash not understanding the difference, but
>> surely a college professor should understand the difference.
>>
>
> OK, since you want to go ad hominem:
>
> I have a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard, and I don't need any
> lectures on political ideology from a bus driver.
>
> In common use, "Nazi" and "fascist" mean narrow, bigoted people
> intolerant of people who disagree. Thus it's perfectly possble to be
> a leftist and a Nazi. In fact, a lot of leftists are Nazis.
>
No, it isn't.
Anthony Marsh
> On 8 Aug 2009 17:11:51 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/2009 10:38 AM, Thalia wrote:
>>> On Aug 8, 11:15 am, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>>> On 7 Aug 2009 23:12:24 -0400, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why the assumption that the CIA should be paying you??
>>>
>>
>>
>> Did the CIA pay Clay Shaw?
>>
>>
>
> No, because Shaw was not any kind of agent, nor an "asset."
>
So? Maybe you are likewise not any kind of an agent nor an asset just
like Clay Shaw. But only a Domestic Contact.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/8/2009 7:20 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 8 Aug 2009 17:11:51 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/8/2009 10:38 AM, Thalia wrote:
>>>> On Aug 8, 11:15 am, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Aug 2009 23:12:24 -0400, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why the assumption that the CIA should be paying you??
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Did the CIA pay Clay Shaw?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, because Shaw was not any kind of agent, nor an "asset."
>>
>
>So? Maybe you are likewise not any kind of an agent nor an asset just
>like Clay Shaw. But only a Domestic Contact.
>
And maybe you work for the KGB.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
> > Fascists, Nazis, Communists are three different manifestations of
> > Socialism. All three opposed the concept of free market Democracy and
> Historically inaccurate. Fascism and Nazism come from the right wing and
> Communism comes from the left wing.
> Many systems oppose free market, which by the way is not Democracy.
Perhaps you didn't take PoliSci in college or maybe you just flunked the
course, so here are some clues to help clear up your confusion. Socialism
is not defined by which wing is in control. Socialism is the very
structure of government itself and the powers allocated to that
government. In the original US Republic based on Democracy, limited powers
were specifically allocated to government, while others were specifically
denied to the central government. In the Socialist model the government
controls the economic decisions, not the Free Market. As such Socialism is
compatible with monopolies and in fact find them very useful. This is the
opposite to free-market dynamics in which access to markets is open to
innovative start-up companies.
In theory a Socialist model could tolerate a free-market economy and
Democracy could opt for more economic control to the point where
government dictates to large business entities, as we have recently
witnessed with the new Administration in Washington. However, in practice
Socialist governments find it convenient to partner with the largest
business entities who in turn support the government. Good insurance to
stay in a dominant position for a long time rather than compete with newer
business models. This is why Socialism is prone to stagnation and Free
Market economies enjoy such healthy vitality.
The difference in the three models is top-down Socialism versus bottom- up
Socialism. All three employed violence and intimidation to gain power and
quickly dispensed with the electoral process after taking control. So
reality is quite different from theory. Socialism and monopolies make easy
partnerships while Democracy favors diversity. The US free-market
democratic model fought all three socialisms, two during WWII and an even
longer post-war struggle with the Soviet Union. Free-market Democracies
are more responsive in making change to unpopular policies, whereas
Socialist governments can ignore the will of the people in the interest of
achieving long-term objectives. In conclusion, there can be
right-wing/left-wing Democracies and right- wing/left-wing Socialist
models. In pre-WWII Europe the RW Socialists hated the LW Socialists, and
all three hated the US Democratic Republic.
> > Both Fascism in Italy and National Socialismin Germany were
> > able to regenerate economic growth and rebuild transportation
> > infrastructures in each country, but Communism, the purest form
> > of Socialism, was an ongoing disaster in the Soviet Union. They
> > went from being a net exporter of grain to starvation of millions
> > due to government policy designed to eliminate the most successful
> > and productive segment of agriculture, the kulaks.
> Yeah, and we went from being the largest creditor nation to being the
> largest debtor nation. So what?
The Socialist concept of eliminating a whole class of people who produced
the nation's food supply backfired. A whole lot of Socialists staved to
death because of that kind of stupidity.
> > concentrate power at the top and dispense with democratic elections were
> > contributory causes of WWII. Socialism had some successful accomplishments
> > before the War but entropic tendencies inherent in Socialism work against
> > long term economic vitality.
> Hitler propelled Germany from poverty to wealth by using the power of
> coersion to accomplish what wishful thinking could not.
And what allowed him to get away with that is gradual acceptance of the
National Socialist Party of Germany. It proved economically efficient in
the short run, but disastrous in the long run. There were no further
elections held to put the brakes on the Head Socialist.
Coondog
> On 8 Aug 2009 17:02:57 -0400, Coondog <billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 7, 8:17 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >> On 7 Aug 2009 22:58:58 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Over a period of time, I've come to the conclusion that (IMO) the
> >> >majority of the active participants at Simkin's all-CT site can pretty
> >> >much be categorized as paranoid kooks.
>
> >> >The Education Forum isn't as bad as Wim Dankbaar's nuthouse of
> >> >conspiracy-flavored idiocy, however.
>
> >> So, you read Education Forum from cover to cover, do you, Von Pein?
>
> >> I assume this post was passed bymy co- moderator McAdams because he
> >> feels those posters who do post at the Education Forum *and* on
> >> alt.assassination.jfk do NOT fall under Von Pein's characterization.
> >> They apparently must be *the minority* Von Pein excludes from his
> >> character smear. Otherwise, this post would have been rejected.
>
> >> For example, Barb Junkkarinen, ex-moderator of this newsgroup posts
> >> regularly on the Education Forum.
>
> >If this is supposed to be impressive it isn’t. Barb once told me JFK
I just made a quick run at it and didn’t find the old post either.
Since I can’t backup what I said with evidence honor requires I
retract my statement, ask your forgiveness and apologize for making
the statement.
Please accept my heartfelt apology.
Bill Clarke
pjspeare
happen to advertise on that page? Are they in the habit of supporting all
a cappella internet websites? And, if so, shouldn't you, as a fiscal
conservative, adamantly complain about their wasting our tax dollars?
As far as Op 40, Simkin wrote a response to Bohning, and you should
read it.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14334&hl=Bohning
P.S. Anthony, you're confusing the 40 Committee, which was supposed to
oversee foreign policy decisions, with Operation Forty, an anti-Castro
Cuban group acknowledged to have existed, and purported by Manolo Ray,
among others, to have been a group designed to kill his leftist supporters
after the Bay of Pigs invasion was successful.
On Aug 9, 8:00 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
John McAdams
>It was your Live 365 page, John. And why, may I ask, does the CIA just so
>happen to advertise on that page? Are they in the habit of supporting all
>a cappella internet websites? And, if so, shouldn't you, as a fiscal
>conservative, adamantly complain about their wasting our tax dollars?
>
They don't even *know* about my station.
They buy ad "impressions" from Live365. (They may buy click-throughs;
it could be either.) Live365 puts the ads on stations in their
network. I have no idea whether Live365 thinks they can match ad
interest to music content.
And recruiting widely is a good use of taxpayer money.
Are you trying out to be the new Lisa Pease? Trying to find spooks
under every bed and behind every bush?
>As far as Op 40, Simkin wrote a response to Bohning, and you should
>read it.
>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D14334&hl=3DBohning
>
>P.S. Anthony, you're confusing the 40 Committee, which was supposed to
>oversee foreign policy decisions, with Operation Forty, an anti-Castro
>Cuban group acknowledged to have existed, and purported by Manolo Ray,
>among others, to have been a group designed to kill his leftist supporters
>after the Bay of Pigs invasion was successful.
>
>On Aug 9, 8:00=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 9 Aug 2009 22:43:15 -0400, pjspeare <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> >John, I don't feel that I owe you an apology. I found an image of you on
>> >the internet with three different CIA recruitment ads above your head, a=
>nd
>> >chose not to post them on forums or send them to people who would take
>> >delight in such a thing. =A0You're now telling me that the appearance of
>> >these ads above your face was ENTIRELY a coincidence.
>>
>> OK, now I'm confused as to what you have seen.
>>
>> My little hobby Internet radio station runs CIA ads. =A0That's not
>> because the CIA sponsors it, but because they buy ads with Live365.
>>
>> But now I think you are talking about something else.
>>
>> If some wild-eyed buff put a picture of me on his page and claimed I
>> was CIA, then yes, the Google software might put a CIA ad on that
>> page. =A0Google does not know nor care that it's me, only that the crazy
>> buff put the words "CIA" on the page.
>>
>> >That's funny. I've
>> >spent hundreds of hours on music websites and don't recall ever seeing a
>> >CIA recruitment ad before.
>>
>> You're certainly not talking about *my* website. =A0You are talking
>> about somebody *elses* website.
>>
>> I can't control paranoid idiots who put my photo on their site and
>> call me a CIA spook.
>>
>> Why don't you find the site and find who runs the site and write them?
>>
>> >I still think there must have been some sort of
>> >program matching ads with pages, that found your name and CIA linked on =
>CT
>> >sites, and put the two together.
>>
>> >As far as why I was researching you...well...I've been selling off my CD
>> >collection on the internet. And you bought one from me.
>>
>> What did I buy?
>>
>> >Although I've sold
>> >several thousand titles, you are the only person with whom I've had any
>> >personal connection to ever buy one from me. Based on your reputation, i=
>t
>> >made me a little paranoid. I thought maybe you were sending me a message=
>.
>>
>> ????!!!!!!
>>
>> It sent the message that I wanted a copy of the CD!
>>
>> Do you know how wild your last two sentences sound?
>>
>> >As to why I should have any suspicion about you...well, your comment abo=
>ut
>> >Op 40 is a good example. The CIA's own internal histories admit that
>> >assassination lists were drawn up for Operation Success in Guatemala, an=
>d
>> >as part of the planning for the Bay of Pigs. The CIA's own website has
>> >documents proving that Manola Ray thought Op 40 was supposed to
>> >assassinate his followers. Marita Lorenz claimed Op 40 was an
>> >assassination squad, and no one refuted her at the time. As I recall,
>> >Frank Sturgis testified to have been part of Op 40. His case officer
>> >Sanjenis was purportedly involved in its planning. Sturgis testified
>> >further that his other case officer, Bernard Barker, had approached him
>> >regarding an assassination, but that Sturgis had refused because it was =
>to
>> >be on American soil. No one disputed Sturgis' testimony at the time.
>>
>> Look . . . you are quoting crackpot witnesses. =A0If there was an "Op
>> 40," you should be able to produce an actual primary source showing
>> that it existed.
>>
>> >So, absent a detailed list of what Op 40 WAS trained to do, and what the=
>y
>> >actually did, there is no reason to assume they were not involved in
>> >assassinations. CLEARLY, there were groups of anti-Castro Cubans trained
>> >in assassination. If Not Op 40, then WHO?
>>
>> So you admit that you have no evidence that any "Op 40" had anything
>> to do with assassinations.
>>
>> The CIA was certainly trying to kill Castro, but you probably should
>> stick to Church Committee stuff and Inspector General stuff.
>>
>> >The Florida exile community has
>> >had it both ways for too long. They want everyone to think they were
>> >adamantly against Castro, and willing to fight him to death, but that no=
>ne
>> >of them were ruthless killers. This is a non- sequitur. =A0They were
>> >terrorists, more than willing to kill innocent civilians to accomplish
>> >their goals. Do you really expect us to believe there were no assassins =
>in
>> >their midst?
>>
>> Look . . . you might try using syllogistic logic rather than stream of
>> consciousness.
>>
>> You seem to be saying "these were evil people, therefore Op 40
>> existed, and therefore it was about assassinations." =A0That doesn't
>> follow.
>>
>> You might try providing some *solid* evidence that there was an "Op
>> 40," and then that it was an assassination operation.
>>
>> Your post suggests that you don't know either thing.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
--
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>>> Fascists, Nazis, Communists are three different manifestations of
>>> Socialism. All three opposed the concept of free market Democracy and
>> Historically inaccurate. Fascism and Nazism come from the right wing and
>> Communism comes from the left wing.
>> Many systems oppose free market, which by the way is not Democracy.
>
> Perhaps you didn't take PoliSci in college or maybe you just flunked the
> course, so here are some clues to help clear up your confusion. Socialism
> is not defined by which wing is in control. Socialism is the very
You are spewing historical distortion to push your political agenda.
> structure of government itself and the powers allocated to that
> government. In the original US Republic based on Democracy, limited powers
The United States was not based on Democracy. Only a very few were
allowed to vote. It is a representative form of government, a Republic,
not a Democracy.
> were specifically allocated to government, while others were specifically
> denied to the central government. In the Socialist model the government
> controls the economic decisions, not the Free Market. As such Socialism is
The Free Market is never actually free. There is always some type of
government control. Always has been, always will.
> compatible with monopolies and in fact find them very useful. This is the
> opposite to free-market dynamics in which access to markets is open to
> innovative start-up companies.
>
> In theory a Socialist model could tolerate a free-market economy and
> Democracy could opt for more economic control to the point where
> government dictates to large business entities, as we have recently
> witnessed with the new Administration in Washington. However, in practice
> Socialist governments find it convenient to partner with the largest
> business entities who in turn support the government. Good insurance to
> stay in a dominant position for a long time rather than compete with newer
> business models. This is why Socialism is prone to stagnation and Free
> Market economies enjoy such healthy vitality.
>
You are talking about what has already been going on in this country for
the last 300 years.
> The difference in the three models is top-down Socialism versus bottom- up
> Socialism. All three employed violence and intimidation to gain power and
> quickly dispensed with the electoral process after taking control. So
Violence and intimidation have always been used to install whatever form
of government. Ever hear of the American Revolution? Or do you think the
Colonists just wrote a letter to King George and he replied, "Sorry, I
didn't know you felt that way. So, ok, I hereby grant you soverignty."
> reality is quite different from theory. Socialism and monopolies make easy
> partnerships while Democracy favors diversity. The US free-market
Ever hear of the Robber Barons? Ever hear of anti-trust laws? Ever hear
of Microsoft? You need to do some reading.
> democratic model fought all three socialisms, two during WWII and an even
> longer post-war struggle with the Soviet Union. Free-market Democracies
> are more responsive in making change to unpopular policies, whereas
> Socialist governments can ignore the will of the people in the interest of
You are talking about totalitarian societies, not Socialist. A monarchy or
a dictatorship is unresponsive to change and that has nothing to do with
Socialism.
> achieving long-term objectives. In conclusion, there can be
> right-wing/left-wing Democracies and right- wing/left-wing Socialist
> models. In pre-WWII Europe the RW Socialists hated the LW Socialists, and
> all three hated the US Democratic Republic.
>
You are misusing political terms to push your political ideology.
Mind pointing out the right-wing democracies?
>>> Both Fascism in Italy and National Socialismin Germany were
>>> able to regenerate economic growth and rebuild transportation
>>> infrastructures in each country, but Communism, the purest form
>>> of Socialism, was an ongoing disaster in the Soviet Union. They
>>> went from being a net exporter of grain to starvation of millions
>>> due to government policy designed to eliminate the most successful
>>> and productive segment of agriculture, the kulaks.
>> Yeah, and we went from being the largest creditor nation to being the
>> largest debtor nation. So what?
>
> The Socialist concept of eliminating a whole class of people who produced
> the nation's food supply backfired. A whole lot of Socialists staved to
> death because of that kind of stupidity.
>
Socialist? No, you seem to be referring only to Stalinist policies. That
is a Socialist dictatorship. I don't see any stories about Russians
starving today, but there are stories about Americans without food, water
and electricity.
>>> concentrate power at the top and dispense with democratic elections were
>>> contributory causes of WWII. Socialism had some successful accomplishments
>>> before the War but entropic tendencies inherent in Socialism work against
>>> long term economic vitality.
>> Hitler propelled Germany from poverty to wealth by using the power of
>> coersion to accomplish what wishful thinking could not.
>
> And what allowed him to get away with that is gradual acceptance of the
> National Socialist Party of Germany. It proved economically efficient in
You don't seem to understand Hitler's history. His first job after the war
was for the Army as a spy, infiltrating Communist groups. But when he
infiltrated the Socialist Workers Party he found that he could take it
over and use it for his own Fascist agenda. That is the only reason the
word Socialist appears.
> the short run, but disastrous in the long run. There were no further
> elections held to put the brakes on the Head Socialist.
>
Mussolini got the trains to run on time. People often trade liberty for
stability and prosperity. As in the United States.
Anthony Marsh
Well, I did drive around a Soviet dance troop when they came to Boston.
And the KGB officer tipped me with a pack of Russian cigarettes and a
bottle of pre-Glasnost Vodka. Most of it has evaporated by now.
claviger
typo correction:
The Socialist concept of eliminating a whole class of people who produced
the nation's food supply backfired. A whole lot of Socialists starved to
Anthony Marsh
> On 10 Aug 2009 09:01:12 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/9/2009 8:36 AM, claviger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fascist? Communist? You rightwingers seem to use the words interchangeably
>>>> not realizing which end of the extreme each occupies. Like your rightwing
>>>> friends putting a Hitler mustache on Obama and calling him a socialist. I
>>>> can understand the trailer trash not understanding the difference, but
>>>> surely a college professor should understand the difference.
>>>
>>> Fascists, Nazis, Communists are three different manifestations of
>>> Socialism. All three opposed the concept of free market Democracy and
>>
>> Historically inaccurate. Fascism and Nazism come from the right wing and
>> Communism comes from the left wing.
>> Many systems oppose free market, which by the way is not Democracy.
>>
>
> But a free market is the only economic system consistent with
> democracy.
>
Nonsense. You are paid to peddle government fiction. There is no such
thing in existence as a Free Market. What we have is called Capitalism. It
exists solely to make a few people very rich. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is not compatible with Democracy. We do not have Democracy. We have a
Republic.
>
>>> diffusion of political power. All three produced dictators to enforce
>>> Socialism prior to WWII. They were experimental models of government in
>>> competition with each other. Both Fascism in Italy and National Socialism
>>> in Germany were able to regenerate economic growth and rebuild
>>> transportation infrastructures in each country, but Communism, the purest
>>> form of Socialism, was an ongoing disaster in the Soviet Union. They went
>>> from being a net exporter of grain to starvation of millions due to
>>> government policy designed to eliminate the most successful and productive
>>> segment of agriculture, the kulaks. The need for these Socialist models to
>>
>> Yeah, and we went from being the largest creditor nation to being the
>> largest debtor nation. So what?
>>
>
> If you oppose Obama's "stimulus," and the Democrats' omnibus stimulus
> bill, good for you.
>
I'm talking about Bush. We were the largest creditor nation under Clinton
with a record surplus. With Bush we became the largest debtor nation with
record deficits. Obama is trying to repair the damage that your neocons
did. Naturally you are opposed to any reform.
http://www.boot.com/USbudgetDeficitChart.jpg
Tell us more about those weapons of mass destruction you found in Iraq.
>
>>> concentrate power at the top and dispense with democratic elections were
>>> contributory causes of WWII. Socialism had some successful accomplishments
>>> before the War but entropic tendencies inherent in Socialism work against
>>> long term economic vitality.
>>
>>
>> Hitler propelled Germany from poverty to wealth by using the power of
>> coersion to accomplish what wishful thinking could not.
>>
>
> A genuine free market policy would have worked better.
>
It has never happened and never will.
> Remember, it *did* work great for German in the 1950s.
>
Ever hear of the Marshall Plan?
It was part of the Cold War.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 10 Aug 2009 21:56:09 -0400, pjspeare<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
>> It was your Live 365 page, John. And why, may I ask, does the CIA just so
>> happen to advertise on that page? Are they in the habit of supporting all
>> a cappella internet websites? And, if so, shouldn't you, as a fiscal
>> conservative, adamantly complain about their wasting our tax dollars?
>>
>
> They don't even *know* about my station.
>
> They buy ad "impressions" from Live365. (They may buy click-throughs;
> it could be either.) Live365 puts the ads on stations in their
> network. I have no idea whether Live365 thinks they can match ad
> interest to music content.
>
It's perfectly random. That's why all the CIA ads also show up on all the
other channels. And of course no one there is smart enough to try to match
ads to listeners. That's why they sell fine wine on country western
stations and cheap beer on classical stations.
> And recruiting widely is a good use of taxpayer money.
>
Huh?
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/10/2009 10:00 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 10 Aug 2009 21:56:09 -0400, pjspeare<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> It was your Live 365 page, John. And why, may I ask, does the CIA just so
>>> happen to advertise on that page? Are they in the habit of supporting all
>>> a cappella internet websites? And, if so, shouldn't you, as a fiscal
>>> conservative, adamantly complain about their wasting our tax dollars?
>>>
>>
>> They don't even *know* about my station.
>>
>> They buy ad "impressions" from Live365. (They may buy click-throughs;
>> it could be either.) Live365 puts the ads on stations in their
>> network. I have no idea whether Live365 thinks they can match ad
>> interest to music content.
>>
>
>It's perfectly random. That's why all the CIA ads also show up on all the
>other channels. And of course no one there is smart enough to try to match
>ads to listeners. That's why they sell fine wine on country western
>stations and cheap beer on classical stations.
>
I have no idea what other channels CIA ads show up on. I can assure
you that nobody would do an "ad buy" for my little station.
It's possible that Live365 or the CIA has figured out that people who
listen to "inspirational" radio stations don't hate America, and
therefore might think of going to work for the CIA.
But that's doubtless true of (say) country music, and several other
genres.
>> And recruiting widely is a good use of taxpayer money.
>>
>
>Huh?
>
The ads in question encourage people to think about working for the
CIA.
That's known as "recruiting."
It's a good idea. They need talent, and they spread the net widely.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> It was your Live 365 page, John. And why, may I ask, does the CIA just so
> happen to advertise on that page? Are they in the habit of supporting all
> a cappella internet websites? And, if so, shouldn't you, as a fiscal
> conservative, adamantly complain about their wasting our tax dollars?
>
> As far as Op 40, Simkin wrote a response to Bohning, and you should
> read it.
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14334&hl=Bohning
>
> P.S. Anthony, you're confusing the 40 Committee, which was supposed to
The original comment was about Operation 40, not any 40 Committee, and
indeed it was an assassination operation.
claviger
> It was your Live 365 page, John. And why, may I ask, does the CIA just so
> happen to advertise on that page? Are they in the habit of supporting all
> a cappella internet websites? And, if so, shouldn't you, as a fiscal
> conservative, adamantly complain about their wasting our tax dollars?
>
> As far as Op 40, Simkin wrote a response to Bohning, and you should
Pat,
So you actually believe the CIA calls attention to it's secret agents
by advertising on their websites?!! If so, you still think the CIA was
smart enough to pull off the most incredibly brilliant conspiracy of
all time?!!!
curtjester1
> On 7 Aug 2009 23:15:23 -0400, WBurgha...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 7, 6:51 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> An e-mail correspondent brought to my attention what he described as
> >> an "attack on you" (meaning me).
>
> >> Big deal, I thought.
>
> >> But this was a bit more revealing than the others.
>
> >> It's from John Simkin:
>
> >>http://surftofind.com/fraud
>
> >> Note this paragraph:
>
> >> <quote on>
>
> >> The only way to get out of the forest is to use your own head and to
> >> study the documents. It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like
> >> John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the
> >> assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop
> >> an insanity plea.
>
> >> <quote off>
>
> >> That's right. He would like to "prosecute" me for disagreeing with
> >> him on the Internet.
>
> >> That says a lot about Simkin's politics. Ragardless of what he claims
> >> to be (Labour, Liberal or whatever), he's really a Nazi.
>
> >pervading our culture.... you don't agree with me, you are a Nazi.
> >Limbaugh does it. I think more highly of you than to blindly make that
> >charge.
>
> Well, what do you have to do to make "Nazi" status? Kill 6,000,000
> Jews.
>
> I doubt Simkin would want to kill 6,000,000 Jews, although I think he
> might not mind much if 6,000,000 Israeli citizens got killed.
>
> I think he probably would kill 6,000,000 kulaks. But happily, he'll
> never have the power to do that.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Even Hitler didn't have that power. He had to be told and financed.
It's always planned and never much too spontaneous.
CJ
pjspeare
> On 10 Aug 2009 21:56:09 -0400, pjspeare <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
> >It was your Live 365 page, John. And why, may I ask, does the CIA just so
> >happen to advertise on that page? Are they in the habit of supporting all
> >a cappella internet websites? And, if so, shouldn't you, as a fiscal
> >conservative, adamantly complain about their wasting our tax dollars?
>
> They don't even *know* about my station.
>
> They buy ad "impressions" from Live365. (They may buy click-throughs;
> it could be either.) Live365 puts the ads on stations in their
> network. I have no idea whether Live365 thinks they can match ad
> interest to music content.
>
> And recruiting widely is a good use of taxpayer money.
>
> Are you trying out to be the new Lisa Pease? Trying to find spooks
> under every bed and behind every bush?
>
>
>
> >As far as Op 40, Simkin wrote a response to Bohning, and you should
> >read it.
No, I'm not trying to be the new anything. I opted not to tell anyone
about the screen grabs after being assured your image next to a CIA ad
was probably related to some ad program. Now you're saying it was not
related to a program but was purely a coincidence. Not sure if I buy
it. After all, if Mark Lane or Gary Aguilar had a webpage with ads
from the Russian Travel Bureau, you'd be jumping for joy and adding
the screen grabs to your webpage, right?
Dave Yandell
> happen to advertise on that page? Are they in the habit of supporting all
> a cappella internet websites? And, if so, shouldn't you, as a fiscal
> conservative, adamantly complain about their wasting our tax dollars?
>
> As far as Op 40, Simkin wrote a response to Bohning, and you should
I don't know which is sillier, the idea that the CIA is somehow
channeling money to John McAdams by buying ads on the Live 365 site or
that if there were a covert connection between John and the CIA the
CIA would reveal its relationship by putting ads on John's page on
that site.
I understand we're working at a level where "research" into a secret
link between someone and an intelligence agency consists of a Google
search and the incident that sparked your "paranoid" reaction (your
term) was John's buying a CD from you, but what in the world do you
think your "discovery" actually indicates?
Your post has told us a good deal about you, Pat, your idea of
"research" and the degree to which you think rationally about the
world and nothing about John except that he has a musical hobby.
Do you think that John *sells* the ads on Live 365? That all people
with pages there are CIA assets? Or was it just so overstimulating
when you saw CIA ads on his Live365 page that all the blood rushed
downward and you weren't able to reflect about what significance it
had?
Curious,
Dave
John McAdams
Well you are *acting* like Lisa Pease, who thought she had found
something terrible sinister when she found I was associated with (God
help us) the ICPSR.
She also thought I was a General in the Navy.
>I opted not to tell anyone
>about the screen grabs after being assured your image next to a CIA ad
>was probably related to some ad program. Now you're saying it was not
>related to a program but was purely a coincidence.
You're not understanding this. The CIA apparently did an "ad buy"
with Live365. I have no idea whether they have ads appearing on all
stations, or whether they picked out certain genres.
They most certainly did not buy ads on my station specifically. My
station is too small to be worth any sort of "ad buy."
>Not sure if I buy
>it. After all, if Mark Lane or Gary Aguilar had a webpage with ads
>from the Russian Travel Bureau, you'd be jumping for joy and adding
>the screen grabs to your webpage, right?
People at the Russian Travel Bureau are now more pro-capitalist than
Lane or Aguilar.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>Even Hitler didn't have that power. He had to be told and financed.
>It's always planned and never much too spontaneous.
>
>http://vodpod.com/watch/222807-who-controls-the-world-illuminati-jesuits-bilderberg-church-skull-religion
>
Is that video a parody, or is it serious?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/10/2009 3:10 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 10 Aug 2009 15:06:56 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> And maybe you work for the KGB.
>>
>
>Well, I did drive around a Soviet dance troop when they came to Boston.
>And the KGB officer tipped me with a pack of Russian cigarettes and a
>bottle of pre-Glasnost Vodka. Most of it has evaporated by now.
>
That's enough to make you thoroughly suspect, Tony . . .
*if* I thought like a conspiracist.
.John
Dave Yandell
> On 10 Aug 2009 21:56:09 -0400, pjspeare <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
> >It was your Live 365 page, John. And why, may I ask, does the CIA just so
> >happen to advertise on that page? Are they in the habit of supporting all
> >a cappella internet websites? And, if so, shouldn't you, as a fiscal
> >conservative, adamantly complain about their wasting our tax dollars?
>
> They don't even *know* about my station.
>
> They buy ad "impressions" from Live365. (They may buy click-throughs;
> it could be either.) Live365 puts the ads on stations in their
> network. I have no idea whether Live365 thinks they can match ad
> interest to music content.
>
> And recruiting widely is a good use of taxpayer money.
>
> Are you trying out to be the new Lisa Pease? Trying to find spooks
> under every bed and behind every bush?
>
>
>
>
>
> >As far as Op 40, Simkin wrote a response to Bohning, and you should
> >read it.
>
> - Show quoted text -
The whole Live365 site, which includes over 6000 "stations" is full of CIA
advertisements, mostly for linguists.
The banner ads for these recruitment efforts are on all stations' pages,
inclding "MichiganRadical" which varies its union classics, anti-war
music, etc., with recordings of lectures by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.
The same ads are on hiphop, rock, classical, jazz, folk, pop, blues, and
all other stations.
pjspeare actually set off to discuss this "discovery" about John McAdams's
station with Simkin and others WITHOUT NOTICING that it was either
meaningless or an indication that *all 6000+ Live365 station programmers
were thereby "implicated."
This is at very best *unbelievably* shoddy "research" and at worst an
example of an attempted smear so clumsy and wilfully fact-avoiding as to
almost beggar description. If its perpetrator has the capacity to feel
shame, now would seem to be an appropriate time.
On the other hand, John certainly had it coming, given that he had the
audacity (allegedly) to buy a CD.
Now, how about that apology?
Un-freaking-believable.
Dave
claviger
At this point I consider this website so unreliable we don’t know if
John Simkin said any of this stuff. Does anyone know if Professor
Simkin is being quoted correctly in this concluding paragraph?
____________________________________________________
According to Kennedy assassination researcher, John Simkin;
"If you do any research of major figures in the JFK assassination via
web search engines you will soon find yourself on John McAdams’
website. He is clearly the main disinformation source on the net. He
adopts an academic tone and if one was not aware of the facts of the
person or event he is writing about, one would think he has logically
looked at the evidence available. He is therefore doing a successful
job in misleading students about the JFK assassination. In fact, it
could be argued that his impact has been as great as other
disinformation agents such as David Atlee Phillips, G. Robert Blakey,
Dick Billings, Jack Anderson, Gary Mack and Gerald Posner."
____________________________________________________
This sounds too inflammatory and intemperate based on the image
described by those who defend Professor Simkin. Do we have any
confirmation he actually made these harsh statements? No source or
footnotes were provided to verify the accuracy of this quotation.
Anybody know where it came from? Those who post on Spartacus might
know.
surftofind:
"Indeed, John McAdams is a propagandist who simply exploits the well
known capacity to deceive."
This is a brilliant statement if there ever was one. What exactly is
the “well known capacity to deceive”? Does this refer to all mankind
or just a select few like Professor McAdams?
"The only way to get out of the forest is to use your own head and to
study the documents."
Study the documents! What a novel idea!! Wonder why no one else
thought of that? Now we can all hold hands like Hansel and Gretel and
get out of the forest!!! But hey, I’m a green kinda guy. I like the
forest. Can I still read the documents anyway? This all sounds pretty
dramatic when you think about it. Is this what they call a docudrama?
Are we being filmed right now?!
"It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like John McAdams for
deliberately covering up the truth about the assassination of John F.
Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop an insanity plea."
Why don’t you just do away with the First Amendment while you’re at
it?
And what IS the “truth about the assassination” that is being covered
up? Why would some professor at Marquette University know the truth
when no one else does? So how does one guy cover up the whole case?
Sandy McCroskey
> On 11 Aug 2009 09:06:31 -0400, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
>
> Is that video a parody, or is it serious?
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Oh, it' serious... ly deranged!
"These three men were coaxed and encouraged to join the Titanic"!
Very suspicious.
"Qui a coulé le Titanic? - - Iceberg, encore un Juif." --Serge
Gainsbourg (un Juif lui-même).
/sandy
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec46ffce-36dd-40a3...@q23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
http://surftofind.com/fraud
surftofind:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McAdams' knowledge (or, lack thereof) can be found in this debate>>>
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
> On 11 Aug 2009 09:10:19 -0400, pjspeare<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 10, 7:00 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> On 10 Aug 2009 21:56:09 -0400, pjspeare<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> No, I'm not trying to be the new anything.
>
>
> Well you are *acting* like Lisa Pease, who thought she had found
> something terrible sinister when she found I was associated with (God
> help us) the ICPSR.
>
You told me that you didn't have any connection with ICPSR.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/11/2009 10:36 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 11 Aug 2009 09:10:19 -0400, pjspeare<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 10, 7:00 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>>> On 10 Aug 2009 21:56:09 -0400, pjspeare<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I'm not trying to be the new anything.
>>
>>
>> Well you are *acting* like Lisa Pease, who thought she had found
>> something terrible sinister when she found I was associated with (God
>> help us) the ICPSR.
>>
>
>You told me that you didn't have any connection with ICPSR.
>
No, I volunteered that I was Official Representative of the ICPSR at
Marquette when somebody said they wanted data on Congressional voting
scores.
Do you think the ICPSR is "spooky," or not?
Tell us!
Your credibility rides on this (but I won't tell you how).
.John
Anthony Marsh
Straw man argument. No one said the CIA is paying McAdams via their ads.
The original poster was trying to find ANY associations.
> I understand we're working at a level where "research" into a secret
> link between someone and an intelligence agency consists of a Google
> search and the incident that sparked your "paranoid" reaction (your
> term) was John's buying a CD from you, but what in the world do you
> think your "discovery" actually indicates?
>
> Your post has told us a good deal about you, Pat, your idea of
> "research" and the degree to which you think rationally about the
> world and nothing about John except that he has a musical hobby.
>
Musical? You claim that what he does is play classical music on that
station? Maybe you didn't see all the political radio listed.
http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?first=1&genre=political&charset=UTF-8
Notice how the CIA ad always appears no matter which page you visit. I
forget the technical term for it, but it is THE persistent and preferred
ad all the time. And Live 365 has a wide selection of politics.
Anthony Marsh
That CIA ad shows up everywhere, always on all the main pages.
http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?first=1&genre=political&charset=UTF-8
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
So it seems the CIA has bought ads on all Live365 stations, and isn't
trying to determine which genres have listeners that are most
receptive.
.John
pjspeare
with advertisements from the CIA, and ASSUMED it was a coincidence, and
the fact that I even noticed such a thing and checked with a few people
who run websites before deciding it was a coincidence, makes me a "shoddy"
researcher? What nonsense! I suspect that not one of the LNs on this site
would have done the same should the shoe have been on the other foot, and
they have noticed the Socialist Party advertising on John Simkin's site,
or the KGB advertising on JFK Lancer, or on Mark Lane's or Robert Groden's
home pages.
Don Bohning and Mel Ayton have recently been attacking John Simkin as some
secret communist disinfo agent. In their attempts, they have made much
todo about Simkin's once belonging to a printer's union! To them, this
makes him suspect! We also have Max Holland's smears on Mark Lane,
Posner's smears on Sylvia Meagher, etc. But not one word of complaint from
the LNs on this site when it is dragged out over and over that such people
as Lane and Meagher were willing to lie and say Kennedy was killed by a
conspiracy when they should have suspected he was not, or were so filled
with hate for America they couldn't tell the difference between black and
white.
Meanwhile, we have John McAdams, who seemingly defends the CIA at every
turn. I reject the idea that he is a paid disinfo agent. I do not,
however, reject the idea that he has friends in the CIA who consider him a
friend to the agency and would go out of their way to make sure his
projects and hobbies are funded with CIA money. And NO ONE here has any
reason to doubt this. NO ONE here has any idea WHY the CIA decided to
advertise on Live365, and why it ended up advertising on his tiny station.
The CIA most certainly does not routinely advertise on radio stations, or
in music publications.
I worked in the record business. The currency with which favors were
repaid was AD DOLLARS. If I did a salesperson a favor by helping him meet
an unrealistic quota on one title, he would be expected to repay my
company by advertising heavily on another title. I suspect the same is
true for historians. If they defend the right people, and push the right
agenda, certain groups who monitor such things and reward such behavior
will sponsor their pet projects, or help them get book deals, etc. Look
at Max Holland. He continues to push that the first shot was fired before
the Z-film began--which is so out there he can't get a single prominent LN
to agree--and yet he is reported to have received a large book advance for
a book pushing such nonsense.
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I believe it has been established that Holland
has worked for the CIA as an historian. NOW, is it "paranoid" to think
Holland's CIA connections have anything to do with his getting this
advance? Yes? REALLY? Then, tell me this, can you imagine a CT at this
point in time getting a huge advance for such obvious nonsense? Of course
not.
Perhaps John McAdams can put this whole "McAdams is CIA" nonsense to rest
by describing his relationship to the CIA, and right-wing think tanks
supporting the CIA. I mean, it's just not credible that he has NO contacts
in the CIA or in these right-wing think tanks. Simkin, who is supposedly
anti-CIA, has had a number of contacts with former (and perhaps even
current) CIA personnel. It defies belief that McAdams, who appears to be
one of the CIA's biggest supporters, has NO contact with such men. If he
has already published such an account, please point me in its direction.
Perhaps McAdams can address the "Paul Nolan" story as well. Did McAdams,
in fact, attend a JFK conference under an alias, and somehow get to be
interviewed at this conference using this alias? And, if so, would McAdams
agree that such behavior was a bit foolish, and helped fuel the suspicion
of people prone to such suspicion that he is something more than a
conservative history professor?
> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-Hide quoted text -
John McAdams
>The hypocrisy level is rising. I saw John McAdams' little radio station
>with advertisements from the CIA, and ASSUMED it was a coincidence, and
>the fact that I even noticed such a thing and checked with a few people
>who run websites before deciding it was a coincidence, makes me a "shoddy"
>researcher? What nonsense! I suspect that not one of the LNs on this site
>would have done the same should the shoe have been on the other foot, and
>they have noticed the Socialist Party advertising on John Simkin's site,
>or the KGB advertising on JFK Lancer, or on Mark Lane's or Robert Groden's
>home pages.
>
Look . . . try to get this into your head . . . neither the KGB nor
the CIA give a damn about the Kennedy assassination. That's Cold War
stuff.
They have today's problems to deal with, and national interests to
protect that are just vastly different from what prevailed back when
the KGB was trying to promote JFK assassination conspiracy theories.
I certainly might mention if the Socialist Party were advertising on
Simkin's site, since he is a hard leftist, and people who frequent his
site might be receptive, but that would not be secret in any way,
would it?
>Don Bohning and Mel Ayton have recently been attacking John Simkin as some
>secret communist disinfo agent. In their attempts, they have made much
>todo about Simkin's once belonging to a printer's union! To them, this
>makes him suspect!
If he was an activist in a far left union, that makes him suspect for
having ideological biases.
>We also have Max Holland's smears on Mark Lane,
>Posner's smears on Sylvia Meagher, etc. But not one word of complaint from
>the LNs on this site when it is dragged out over and over that such people
>as Lane and Meagher were willing to lie and say Kennedy was killed by a
>conspiracy when they should have suspected he was not, or were so filled
>with hate for America they couldn't tell the difference between black and
>white.
>
It is true that the conspiracy community skews left, and it's
significant.
>Meanwhile, we have John McAdams, who seemingly defends the CIA at every
>turn.
I defend the CIA from yahoos that blame it for stuff it never did.
Why don't you post an attack on the CIA for not being competent enough
to kill Castro. I'll jump in with an "amen."
>I reject the idea that he is a paid disinfo agent. I do not,
>however, reject the idea that he has friends in the CIA who consider him a
>friend to the agency and would go out of their way to make sure his
>projects and hobbies are funded with CIA money.
Oh, my God!
What's Posner's hobby? Golf? Do they pay his greens fee? Does Max
Holland get regular additions to his stamp collection from the CIA?
I don't make any money from the advertising that appears on Live365.
If you should buy a "VIP" membership from them, and do it from my
page, then I would get a few bucks. But it wouldn't end up in my
hands, it would just reduce a bit what I pay for the station.
>And NO ONE here has any
>reason to doubt this.
Except the fact that it's idiotic.
>NO ONE here has any idea WHY the CIA decided to
>advertise on Live365, and why it ended up advertising on his tiny station.
>The CIA most certainly does not routinely advertise on radio stations, or
>in music publications.
>
Kindly look at the other posts from people who report that the CIA
advertises on *all* Live365 stations.
>I worked in the record business. The currency with which favors were
>repaid was AD DOLLARS. If I did a salesperson a favor by helping him meet
>an unrealistic quota on one title, he would be expected to repay my
>company by advertising heavily on another title. I suspect the same is
>true for historians. If they defend the right people, and push the right
>agenda, certain groups who monitor such things and reward such behavior
>will sponsor their pet projects, or help them get book deals, etc. Look
>at Max Holland. He continues to push that the first shot was fired before
>the Z-film began--which is so out there he can't get a single prominent LN
>to agree--and yet he is reported to have received a large book advance for
>a book pushing such nonsense.
You really *do* need to look under the bed before you go to sleep
every night.
>
>Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I believe it has been established that Holland
>has worked for the CIA as an historian.
No, he worked for THE NATION magazine.
>NOW, is it "paranoid" to think
>Holland's CIA connections have anything to do with his getting this
>advance? Yes? REALLY? Then, tell me this, can you imagine a CT at this
>point in time getting a huge advance for such obvious nonsense? Of course
>not.
>
A *lot* of CTs get advances for nonsense.
Even you know that.
>Perhaps John McAdams can put this whole "McAdams is CIA" nonsense to rest
>by describing his relationship to the CIA, and right-wing think tanks
>supporting the CIA.
If I do, do you promise to believe me?
Otherwise, this is just a silly game, isn't it?
>I mean, it's just not credible that he has NO contacts
>in the CIA or in these right-wing think tanks. Simkin, who is supposedly
>anti-CIA, has had a number of contacts with former (and perhaps even
>current) CIA personnel. It defies belief that McAdams, who appears to be
>one of the CIA's biggest supporters, has NO contact with such men. If he
>has already published such an account, please point me in its direction.
>
Pat, you *are* the new Lisa Pease.
I *once* met *one* CIA agent who came to Marquette to give a talk.
That's it. That's all.
>Perhaps McAdams can address the "Paul Nolan" story as well. Did McAdams,
>in fact, attend a JFK conference under an alias, and somehow get to be
>interviewed at this conference using this alias?
I was being attacked and harassed by crazy buffs. Indeed, one fellow
at the (if memory serves) University of Maryland got his graduation
delayed because of his e-mail harassment of me.
So I didn't want to get into some shouting match or nasty
confrontation with some crazy buff.
Ask Todd Wayne Vaughan, who got into just such a confrontation with
Cyril Wecht at ASK, 1993.
>And, if so, would McAdams
>agree that such behavior was a bit foolish, and helped fuel the suspicion
>of people prone to such suspicion that he is something more than a
>conservative history professor?
>
I don't give a damn about "fueling suspicion" among paranoids who
think that everybody who disagrees with them about the assassination
is a "disinfo agent."
.John
Anthony Marsh
> On 11 Aug 2009 00:28:31 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/10/2009 10:00 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 10 Aug 2009 21:56:09 -0400, pjspeare<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It was your Live 365 page, John. And why, may I ask, does the CIA just so
>>>> happen to advertise on that page? Are they in the habit of supporting all
>>>> a cappella internet websites? And, if so, shouldn't you, as a fiscal
>>>> conservative, adamantly complain about their wasting our tax dollars?
>>>>
>>>
>>> They don't even *know* about my station.
>>>
>>> They buy ad "impressions" from Live365. (They may buy click-throughs;
>>> it could be either.) Live365 puts the ads on stations in their
>>> network. I have no idea whether Live365 thinks they can match ad
>>> interest to music content.
>>>
>>
>> It's perfectly random. That's why all the CIA ads also show up on all the
>> other channels. And of course no one there is smart enough to try to match
>> ads to listeners. That's why they sell fine wine on country western
>> stations and cheap beer on classical stations.
>>
>
> I have no idea what other channels CIA ads show up on. I can assure
> you that nobody would do an "ad buy" for my little station.
>
That CIA ad shows up all the time on their main pages. It is a preferred
ad.
> It's possible that Live365 or the CIA has figured out that people who
> listen to "inspirational" radio stations don't hate America, and
> therefore might think of going to work for the CIA.
>
Alex Jones?
Dave Yandell
Not that it matters much, but Simkin is a former school-teacher turned
classroom software entrepeneur. He isn't a professor and (as I mentioned
earlier), his so-called books are self-published pamphlets intended for
schoolroom use.
All of which is admirable and valuable, but only *IF* the software,
pamphlets, and web resources are accurate classroom presentations of
genuine scholarship. Given the puffery of his own bio on the site, the
lack of discernment in his own material posted there, and the one- sided
character of the forum, I confess I wouldn't be too thrilled for my own
children to be relying on his materials for their education.
Best,
Dave