PART TWO OF DEBATE
tomnln
BOTTOM POST;
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:qsrop5t9q4t6ptigl...@4ax.com...
> On 13 Mar 2010 18:38:49 -0500, j leyden <JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 13, 3:23?pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>> I just finished with another debate with Tom Rossley on Anton Batey's
>>> show.
>>>
>>> It was much less congenial than the last one, with Rossley making
>>> several comments that would have got rejected here on the moderated
>>> newsgroup. ?Batey seemed a bit embarrassed by it.
>>>
>>> I'll post the link when I get it.
>>>
>>> .John
>>
>>I'll make a prediction here and now, John. Rossley will claim victory and
>>tell everyone he mopped the floor with you. Of course, you don't gotta
>>post that one.
>>
>>
>
> Tom can claim victory if he wants, anybody who cares at all can simply
> listen to the debate.
>
> I caught him misrepresenting some sources, and he turned really
> hostile.
>
> He actually embraced Horne's book.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After admitting that he had NOT read Horne's book, I'm wondering HOW McAdams
could Reject it ! ! !
It seems that McAdams reaches conclusions BEFORE Gathering the Facts ! ! !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "After admitting that he had NOT read [Doug] Horne's book, I'm wondering HOW [John] McAdams could Reject it!!! It seems that McAdams reaches conclusions BEFORE Gathering the Facts!!!" <<<
Nobody needs to read Horne's nonsense to know that his whole 5-volume
series is total malarkey which goes against EVERY PREVIOUS OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION OF THE KENNEDY MURDER.
Besides, Mr. McAdams doesn't need to read all five of Horne's fantasy
volumes, because the main thrust of all of those volumes is right
there in the ARRB Memos that Horne wrote from 1996 to 1998.
And there's certainly enough laughable stuff in these memos [linked
below] to convince any reasonable, rational person that Douglas P.
Horne was thoroughly brainwashed by David S. Lifton:
http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/arrb/contents_arrb_staff-memos.htm
As I wrote in a prior Internet posting, my guess is that the entire 5-
member panel which headed up the Assassination Records Review Board
was very likely totally embarrassed by Douglas P. Horne's ridiculous
memos.
And as I also stated previously, it's also my guess that Horne was
very lucky he wasn't tossed out the front door by one of the top-level
members of the ARRB once it became common knowledge where Horne was
going with his ludicrous "Humes Altered The Body" and "Altered
Zapruder Film" hogwash.
Horne was extremely fortunate, IMO, to have been given the space in
the ARRB report he was given (in the form of "memos"), because those
memos certainly do not deserve to take up ANY space at all within the
contents of a U.S. Government report (or any of its addendums).
Horne's memos (and book) belong in only one place -- an incinerator.
==================================================
THE CLAPTRAP OF DOUGLAS P. HORNE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0e2e36113ce98e6b
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/155a3a578f5005f5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2bdfb1d377432d7e
==================================================
McADAMS VS. KOOK ROSSLEY (SECOND DEBATE)(MARCH 13, 2010):
Part 1:
http://YouTube.com/watch?v=yjoVcZ9H_PA
==================================================
tomnln
The answer was supplied by Anton. (while I was searching my notes)
It was also answered in the Frst Debate.
Are ALL LN's as S-L-O-W at Learning as you & McAdams?
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BIgon.23392$NH1....@newsfe14.iad...
> http://www.youtube.com/my_subscriptions?pi=0&ps=20&sf=added&sa=0&dm=2&s=oYJ-mgzbsEg&as=1
>
>
>
> "davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:29b050da-7237-4dbf...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 16, 10:03 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Here's a link to part two of our debate>>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/my_subscriptions?pi=0&ps=20&sf=added&sa=0&dm=2...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/my_subscriptions?pi=0&ps=20&sf=added&sa=0&dm=2&s=oYJ-mgzbsEg&as=1
>
>
> A good example of how a live, unscripted debate can come to a grinding
> halt is when somebody is insistent in finding an exact citation for
> something. Rossley wants to find a citation regarding a doctor's comment
> regarding Connally's chest wound. He can't readily do it (understandably),
> and the debate comes to an awkward, boring, and a somewhat embarrassing
> pause as the moderator tries to keep things going by asking additional
> questions. After all, it IS on the radio ... it IS live ... and there IS a
> listening audience.
>
> If all the subject matter was made known in advance and no tangents were
> permitted, naturally, both McAdams and Rossley could come armed with all
> kinds of citations, as in a formal debate. But this was NOT a formal
> debate and unexpected issues come up about which BOTH the debaters have
> knowledge, yet, cannot immediately cite the chapter and verse. Who CAN do
> that?
>
> Ultimately it was the MODERATOR who discovered the citation Rossley could
> not find. And he mentioned it after the issue had come and gone and they
> were on to other things. You can't do a live debate in that manner without
> it seeming disjointed, slow-paced, and boring ... all the things a radio
> host would NOT want.
>
> Maybe we should have stopped the debate while McAdams got in his car,
> drove to work, and got the manuscript so he could find the citation for
> the "very early in the morning" cashing of Oswald's unemployment check on
> Sept 25th.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>