Re: John McAdams Caught Blatantly Lying In The Censored Forum... Part II

John McAdams

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 9:31:11 PM3/22/12

to

On 22 Mar 2012 08:56:50 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>>>>
>>>> >I assume you are talking about the PHONE taps of Oswald talking to the
>>>> >Soviet embassy, not the room bugs of Oswald at the Soviet embassy or Cuban
>>>> >consulate. Well, Hoover didn't get out much except to go to some parties
>>>> >where he could dress up as a woman or vacation with his lover Tolson or
>>>> >watch and bet on the horse races. He almost never went into the field to
>>>> >investigate anything. But he did have FBI agents in Mexico who went to the
>>>> >CIA station and listened to the tapes. They couldn't tell whose voice it
>>>> >was. When they compared that to what they heard on the TV of the real
>>>> >Oswald it didn't sound like the real Oswald.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, my!
>>>>
>>>> None of this is true, Tony. The Hoover in the dress stuff is
>>>> nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> And no FBI agents listened to the tapes.
>>>
>>> Here is a response made by Ben Holmes over on the conspiracy board
>>>to John`s claim that no FBI agents listed to the tapes...
>
>
>
>
>>> Does John think that FBI's Belmont was lying to Tolson when he
>>>noted in a memo:
>>>
>>>"...Inasmuch as the Dallas Agents who listened to the tape of the
>>>conversation allegedly of Oswald from the Cuban Embassy to the Russian
>>>Embassy in Mexico and examined the photographs of the visitor to the
>>>Embassy in Mexico and were of the opinion that neither the tape nor the
>>>photograph pertained to Oswald..." Or perhaps Mr. Hoover himself lied when
>>>he noted in a memo to the head of the Secret Service:
>>>
>>>"Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas,
>>>Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above, and
>>>have listened to a recording of his voice."
>>>
>>>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_00...
>>>More citations and evidence can be found here:
>>>http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FourteenMinuteGap/FourteenM...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What the buffs fail to notice is that *all* of these accounts come
>>through Alan Belmont. He talked to Shanklin, and apparently
>>misunderstood what Shanklin said. His misinformation then got passed
>>around.
>>
>>From the HSCA:
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm
>
>How silly!!
>
>The HSCA *KNEW* that the tapes existed, and had been listened to:
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/Goodpasture/html/Goodpasture_0148a.htm
>

Ben somehow fails to notice that this is supposedly a tape in Mexico
City.

Nothing about any tapes having been sent to Dallas.

And indeed, Goodpasture has no recollection if it!

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John McAdams

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 9:48:43 PM3/22/12

to

Oops!

Forget to edit the "Subject" header of this post.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 10:33:22 PM3/22/12

to

The FBI had agents in Mexico City who listened to the tape.

And two Warren Commission attorneys, Coleman and Slawson, went to Mexico
City and listened to an "Oswald" tape in CIA station Chief Scott's office.
I am not very good at math, but isn't November 22 usually more than two
weeks after October 1? Are you making some type of special adjustment for
Leap Year or daylight savings time?

Why is it that you always defend the CIA no matter how outrageous their
lies are? Cui bono?

John McAdams

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 10:36:26 PM3/22/12

to

On 22 Mar 2012 22:33:22 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 3/22/2012 9:31 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2012 08:56:50 -0700, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> What the buffs fail to notice is that *all* of these accounts come
>>>> through Alan Belmont. He talked to Shanklin, and apparently
>>>> misunderstood what Shanklin said. His misinformation then got passed
>>>> around.
>>>>
>>> > From the HSCA:
>>>>
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm
>>>
>>> How silly!!
>>>
>>> The HSCA *KNEW* that the tapes existed, and had been listened to:
>>>
>>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/Goodpasture/html/Goodpasture_0148a.htm
>>>
>>
>> Ben somehow fails to notice that this is supposedly a tape in Mexico
>> City.
>>
>> Nothing about any tapes having been sent to Dallas.
>>
>
>The FBI had agents in Mexico City who listened to the tape.
>

Post some evidence, Tony!

But I know you won't. You can't.

>And two Warren Commission attorneys, Coleman and Slawson, went to Mexico
>City and listened to an "Oswald" tape in CIA station Chief Scott's office.
>I am not very good at math, but isn't November 22 usually more than two
>weeks after October 1? Are you making some type of special adjustment for
>Leap Year or daylight savings time?
>

Unfortunately, you need to get the "tapes" (not just one tape) in
Dallas. That's what the bogus reports the buffs cite say.

>Why is it that you always defend the CIA no matter how outrageous their
>lies are? Cui bono?
>

Tony, your constant "liar, liar!" rhetoric looks very bad.

You seem to be acting out of some personal hostility, rather than
evaluating evidence.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 10:53:34 PM3/22/12

to

Then tell the CIA to stop lying.

> You seem to be acting out of some personal hostility, rather than
> evaluating evidence.
>

Yeah, good idea. Forget all their other crimes and make it personal.
Maybe I got a little annoyed when they killed Frank Olson and threatened
to kill my father and my entire family.
Just ignore all the millions around the world they have killed.

>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John McAdams

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 10:54:36 PM3/22/12

to

On 22 Mar 2012 22:53:34 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Thank you for reinforcing my point, Tony.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Bud

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 7:52:34 PM3/23/12

to

On Mar 22, 10:53 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 10:36 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 Mar 2012 22:33:22 -0400, Anthony Marsh

> > <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> >> On 3/22/2012 9:31 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >>> On 22 Mar 2012 08:56:50 -0700, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> What the buffs fail to notice is that *all* of these accounts come
> >>>>> through Alan Belmont. He talked to Shanklin, and apparently
> >>>>> misunderstood what Shanklin said. His misinformation then got passed
> >>>>> around.
>
> >>>>> From the HSCA:
>
> >>>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm
>
> >>>> How silly!!
>
> >>>> The HSCA *KNEW* that the tapes existed, and had been listened to:
>

> >>>>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/Goodpasture...

>
> >>> Ben somehow fails to notice that this is supposedly a tape in Mexico
> >>> City.
>
> >>> Nothing about any tapes having been sent to Dallas.
>
> >> The FBI had agents in Mexico City who listened to the tape.
>
> > Post some evidence, Tony!
>
> > But I know you won't. You can't.
>
> >> And two Warren Commission attorneys, Coleman and Slawson, went to Mexico
> >> City and listened to an "Oswald" tape in CIA station Chief Scott's office.
> >> I am not very good at math, but isn't November 22 usually more than two
> >> weeks after October 1? Are you making some type of special adjustment for
> >> Leap Year or daylight savings time?
>
> > Unfortunately, you need to get the "tapes" (not just one tape) in
> > Dallas. That's what the bogus reports the buffs cite say.
>
> >> Why is it that you always defend the CIA no matter how outrageous their
> >> lies are? Cui bono?
>
> > Tony, your constant "liar, liar!" rhetoric looks very bad.
>
> Then tell the CIA to stop lying.
>
> > You seem to be acting out of some personal hostility, rather than
> > evaluating evidence.
>
> Yeah, good idea. Forget all their other crimes and make it personal.
> Maybe I got a little annoyed when they killed Frank Olson and threatened
> to kill my father and my entire family.
> Just ignore all the millions around the world they have killed.

Is it true to say you would blame the CIA for killing Kennedy even
if you didn`t believe they did?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > .John
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 7:31:43 PM3/24/12

to

I can't say yes or no because I don't know what you think your question is
supposed to mean.

Would I blame the entire CIA for the actions of a few rogue officers? No.
Do I automatically assume that the CIA is always guilty and lying about
everything? Yes.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> .John
>>> --------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>

Bud

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 6:05:02 PM3/25/12

to

I don`t see how you couldn`t, I didn`t use any big words.

I guess I could say the same thing using different words...

Wouldn`t you proclaim the CIA was culpable for Kennedy`s death even
if you didn`t think they were?

> Would I blame the entire CIA for the actions of a few rogue officers? No.
> Do I automatically assume that the CIA is always guilty and lying about
> everything? Yes.

No, no, no, you don`t get to rewrite the question and then answer.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 4:22:04 PM3/26/12

to

Define "the CIA." I talk about a rogue element in the CIA. One
department, the assassination department.

>> Would I blame the entire CIA for the actions of a few rogue officers? No.
>> Do I automatically assume that the CIA is always guilty and lying about
>> everything? Yes.
>
> No, no, no, you don`t get to rewrite the question and then answer.
>

Your question was not framed logically.

Bud

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 7:10:36 PM3/26/12

to

Wouldn`t you proclaim the CIA culpable in Kennedy`s assassination
even if you felt that no one at the CIA took part in Kennedy`s
assassination?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 3:19:24 PM3/27/12

to

No, not exactly. The entire organization might be guilty of malfeasance
for not knowing what one section was doing. But that comes with the
territory.

Bud

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 11:58:14 PM3/28/12

to

No, no, try again, my question included everyone at the CIA.

"Wouldn`t you proclaim the CIA culpable in Kennedy`s
assassination even if you felt that no one at the CIA took part in
Kennedy`s assassination?"

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 29, 2012, 9:49:45 AM3/29/12

to

It's a silly question. I've already answered it hundreds of times. Why
not ask it again?

Bud

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 1:19:15 AM3/30/12

to

It`s a great question. If you were to answer it it would expose you as
someone whose bias and agenda negates any expressed opinions on the
subject of the assassination. I`m sure your going to such lengths not to
answer the question will tell any intelligent reader what your answer
really would be if you were to give it.

> I've already answered it hundreds of times.

Then one more shouldn`t hurt.

Or you can link to where you answered my specific question.

Or you can make another meaningless claim.

>Why
> not ask it again?

"Wouldn`t you proclaim the CIA culpable in Kennedy`s assassination
even if you felt that no one at the CIA took part in Kennedy`s
assassination?"

>
>
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 4:40:22 PM3/30/12

to

Well, gee, I think almost everyone here figured out after the first 5
times why you asked the question and why you phrased it the way you did.
I just don't understand why you think I am obligated to fall into your
tiger traps.

>> I've already answered it hundreds of times.
>
> Then one more shouldn`t hurt.
>

Well then, ask again.

> Or you can link to where you answered my specific question.
>

I have answered it for others hundreds of times, but you don't know how
to search through the messages.

> Or you can make another meaningless claim.
>

What claim did I make?

>> Why
>> not ask it again?
>
> "Wouldn`t you proclaim the CIA culpable in Kennedy`s assassination
> even if you felt that no one at the CIA took part in Kennedy`s
> assassination?"
>

Another stupid loaded question with a false assumption.

Pamela Brown

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 4:41:19 PM3/30/12

to

But what would be the value of doing that?

Bud

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 12:08:33 AM3/31/12

to

If someone thought that the CIA got away with a truckload of evil things
they might think it was ok to blame some heinous event on them even if the
person advancing the idea didn`t really believe they were really
responsible himself.

As for the value, what has been the value of the whole effort put forth
by both sides in this affair? In real terms aren`t things exactly as they
would be if nobody kicked up a fuss pro or con?

Bud

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 12:09:09 AM3/31/12

to

I phrased it the way I did to expose something about you that you
would rather keep hidden.

> I just don't understand why you think I am obligated to fall into your
> tiger traps.

Actually it`s skunk trap. A tiger wouldn`t be afraid of it.

> >> I've already answered it hundreds of times.
>
> > Then one more shouldn`t hurt.
>
> Well then, ask again.

Naw, thats ok, I got what I wanted.

> > Or you can link to where you answered my specific question.
>
> I have answered it for others hundreds of times, but you don't know how
> to search through the messages.

Better chance of going to Loch Ness and finding Nessie as finding
your answer to this question in the archives.

> > Or you can make another meaningless claim.
>
> What claim did I make?

The meaningless claim that you had answered this question hundreds
of times before.

> >> Why
> >> not ask it again?
>
> > "Wouldn`t you proclaim the CIA culpable in Kennedy`s assassination
> > even if you felt that no one at the CIA took part in Kennedy`s
> > assassination?"
>
> Another stupid loaded question with a false assumption.

How is it loaded and what is the false assumption?

And who other than you could answer it?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 10:01:57 PM3/31/12

to

No, you phrased it that way as part of your smear campaign against
Liberals to make up a phony position for what I believe.

>> I just don't understand why you think I am obligated to fall into your
>> tiger traps.
>
> Actually it`s skunk trap. A tiger wouldn`t be afraid of it.
>

Finally you admit that it was only a trap.

>>>> I've already answered it hundreds of times.
>>
>>> Then one more shouldn`t hurt.
>>
>> Well then, ask again.
>
> Naw, thats ok, I got what I wanted.
>

Yes, you got what you wanted, revealing your true agenda.

>>> Or you can link to where you answered my specific question.
>>
>> I have answered it for others hundreds of times, but you don't know how
>> to search through the messages.
>
> Better chance of going to Loch Ness and finding Nessie as finding
> your answer to this question in the archives.
>
>>> Or you can make another meaningless claim.
>>
>> What claim did I make?
>
> The meaningless claim that you had answered this question hundreds
> of times before.
>
>>>> Why
>>>> not ask it again?
>>
>>> "Wouldn`t you proclaim the CIA culpable in Kennedy`s assassination
>>> even if you felt that no one at the CIA took part in Kennedy`s
>>> assassination?"
>>
>> Another stupid loaded question with a false assumption.
>
> How is it loaded and what is the false assumption?
>

The false assumption is that I would know that no one at the CIA took
part in Kennedy's assassination.

> And who other than you could answer it?
>

Many other people.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 10:07:06 PM3/31/12

to

Not fair. You are interfering with his kook baiting game.

Bud

unread,

Apr 1, 2012, 8:48:49 AM4/1/12

to

You could have answered the question and made your position clear.

Of course by refusing to answer you did answer, and proved my
assumption correct.

> >> I just don't understand why you think I am obligated to fall into your
> >> tiger traps.
>
> > Actually it`s skunk trap. A tiger wouldn`t be afraid of it.
>
> Finally you admit that it was only a trap.

I was trying to trick you into telling the truth. You`re too
clever for that.

> >>>> I've already answered it hundreds of times.
>
> >>> Then one more shouldn`t hurt.
>
> >> Well then, ask again.
>
> > Naw, thats ok, I got what I wanted.
>
> Yes, you got what you wanted, revealing your true agenda.

I didn`t hide it. I explained it to Pamela.

> >>> Or you can link to where you answered my specific question.
>
> >> I have answered it for others hundreds of times, but you don't know how
> >> to search through the messages.
>
> > Better chance of going to Loch Ness and finding Nessie as finding
> > your answer to this question in the archives.
>
> >>> Or you can make another meaningless claim.
>
> >> What claim did I make?
>
> > The meaningless claim that you had answered this question hundreds
> > of times before.
>
> >>>> Why
> >>>> not ask it again?
>
> >>> "Wouldn`t you proclaim the CIA culpable in Kennedy`s assassination
> >>> even if you felt that no one at the CIA took part in Kennedy`s
> >>> assassination?"
>
> >> Another stupid loaded question with a false assumption.
>
> > How is it loaded and what is the false assumption?
>
> The false assumption is that I would know that no one at the CIA took
> part in Kennedy's assassination.
>
> > And who other than you could answer it?
>
> Many other people.

Now that your evasions made the answer obvious they can.

Bud

unread,

Apr 1, 2012, 6:06:49 PM4/1/12

to

I thought it was strange she needed it pointed out to her, CTers
usually consider themselves adept at figuring out people`s agendas.