info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Jeff Morley Suspects I'm Some Sort of Government Agent
295 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
Feb 16, 2014, 9:10:49 PM2/16/14
to
I sent this to Jeff Morley, and copied it to a certain e-mail list:
On Feb 16, 2014 7:44 PM, "McAdams, John" <john.m...@marquette.edu>
wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
> I left a bunch of comments to various posts on your blog yesterday.
>
> None of them have become visible. They all show up as "awaiting moderation" in spite of the fact that more recent comments have been approved by you and are visible.
>
> If you have decided you won't allow me to comment on your blog, you need to tell me so I don't waste my time leaving comments.
>
> .John
I got the following reply from him.
Below his reply is my response to him.
<Quote on>
Hi John,
Yes I have been holding your comments. My primary concern with people
who comment frequently ( eg you, Photon, Karl Golovin) is the reader
experience. A web site is like a dinner party. A lot of talk is good.
A lot of talk from only one guest not so good.
As you know I go out of my way to encourage and present a wide range
of opinion. But it is important that readers feel everyone is speaking
in good faith.
So I want to be certain that you are speaking for yourself and no
other party.
Given that Cass Sunstein, a former senior White House official, has
advocated deploying people to intervene in online JFK discussions it
is at least possible that people participating in our discussions are
acting, on one way or another, at the government's behest.
I have no reason to think you are (otherwise I would not have
published you on the site)
And, as I have written I have no problem engaging w/ government agents
-- as long as they are disclosed as such.
So are you compensated in any way ( by remuneration, considerationi or
future reward) by any party for your JFK commenting? (Obviously you
work for Marquette and that is not a concern.)
If you can assure me in writing that you are not , your comments will
be published consistent with site policy.
I would like to publish your response to this query on the site, with
your permission
Best Jdff
<Quote off>
I'm insulting that you ask that, Jeff.
And the question implies that you are more and more being assimilated
into the more extreme wing of the buff culture.
But no, nobody is paying me to post anywhere. And no, I'm not
compensated in any way.
You should be deeply embarrassed for even asking the question.
.John
P.S. If government were paying somebody to correct all the buff
factoids on your site, it would be a better use of taxpayers money
than most government policies. I think you don't understand the
damage done to the "conspiracy" cause by all the nonsense that buffs
put out.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
On Feb 16, 2014 7:44 PM, "McAdams, John" <john.m...@marquette.edu>
wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
> I left a bunch of comments to various posts on your blog yesterday.
>
> None of them have become visible. They all show up as "awaiting moderation" in spite of the fact that more recent comments have been approved by you and are visible.
>
> If you have decided you won't allow me to comment on your blog, you need to tell me so I don't waste my time leaving comments.
>
> .John
I got the following reply from him.
Below his reply is my response to him.
<Quote on>
Hi John,
Yes I have been holding your comments. My primary concern with people
who comment frequently ( eg you, Photon, Karl Golovin) is the reader
experience. A web site is like a dinner party. A lot of talk is good.
A lot of talk from only one guest not so good.
As you know I go out of my way to encourage and present a wide range
of opinion. But it is important that readers feel everyone is speaking
in good faith.
So I want to be certain that you are speaking for yourself and no
other party.
Given that Cass Sunstein, a former senior White House official, has
advocated deploying people to intervene in online JFK discussions it
is at least possible that people participating in our discussions are
acting, on one way or another, at the government's behest.
I have no reason to think you are (otherwise I would not have
published you on the site)
And, as I have written I have no problem engaging w/ government agents
-- as long as they are disclosed as such.
So are you compensated in any way ( by remuneration, considerationi or
future reward) by any party for your JFK commenting? (Obviously you
work for Marquette and that is not a concern.)
If you can assure me in writing that you are not , your comments will
be published consistent with site policy.
I would like to publish your response to this query on the site, with
your permission
Best Jdff
<Quote off>
I'm insulting that you ask that, Jeff.
And the question implies that you are more and more being assimilated
into the more extreme wing of the buff culture.
But no, nobody is paying me to post anywhere. And no, I'm not
compensated in any way.
You should be deeply embarrassed for even asking the question.
.John
P.S. If government were paying somebody to correct all the buff
factoids on your site, it would be a better use of taxpayers money
than most government policies. I think you don't understand the
damage done to the "conspiracy" cause by all the nonsense that buffs
put out.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
jfk...@gmail.com
Feb 16, 2014, 9:31:45 PM2/16/14
to
theories put together, yes, even including Fetzers', can do more harm than
the circular reasoning of the WCR. Therefore, all 'complaining' needs to
be done in the proper context. McAdams just doesn't like the fact that
there is more than one side to the assassination.
olde...@gmail.com
Feb 16, 2014, 10:54:24 PM2/16/14
to
@Professor McAdams:
I, along with countless others feel Jeff Morley will eventually free
portions of this nation's history currently enslaved in secrecy. It takes
a tremendous amount of courage, patience & fortitude to lock horns with a
government agency often described as a 'killing machine'. I stick with
Jeff Morley for that reason; eventually he will bring results that will
bear fruit for all educators, historians & analysts as well as a curious
general public.
Jeff tries not to be boxed into a corner on what he believes happened to
President Kennedy & he does encourage an open exchange between all
concerned persons, be they just curious or professional spin masters. I
believe this is the ethics of a professional journalist.
There's no way Jeff Morley would be able to know who is who, who gets paid
by whom or who has an agenda or a sincere interest. Jeff has put what he
said to you in private to all of us at one time or another.
I personally like seeing opposing viewpoints because it causes any given
topic to receive the scrutiny it deserves. Our Court system is based on a
Prosecutor & a Defense; there is no reason I can think of to eliminate one
or the other from any JFK intellectual Forum.
In the final analysis, very few people were actually at the crime scene
when the deed against President Kennedy was carried out & those who were
can't agree on exactly what happened & who was responsible for it. You
come across as a far more fair minded, intelligent person than Vince
Bugliosi who stepped over a line when he tried to convince others there is
no Creator. As long as you don't do that you're in good standing with me,
good Sir.
Brad
I, along with countless others feel Jeff Morley will eventually free
portions of this nation's history currently enslaved in secrecy. It takes
a tremendous amount of courage, patience & fortitude to lock horns with a
government agency often described as a 'killing machine'. I stick with
Jeff Morley for that reason; eventually he will bring results that will
bear fruit for all educators, historians & analysts as well as a curious
general public.
Jeff tries not to be boxed into a corner on what he believes happened to
President Kennedy & he does encourage an open exchange between all
concerned persons, be they just curious or professional spin masters. I
believe this is the ethics of a professional journalist.
There's no way Jeff Morley would be able to know who is who, who gets paid
by whom or who has an agenda or a sincere interest. Jeff has put what he
said to you in private to all of us at one time or another.
I personally like seeing opposing viewpoints because it causes any given
topic to receive the scrutiny it deserves. Our Court system is based on a
Prosecutor & a Defense; there is no reason I can think of to eliminate one
or the other from any JFK intellectual Forum.
In the final analysis, very few people were actually at the crime scene
when the deed against President Kennedy was carried out & those who were
can't agree on exactly what happened & who was responsible for it. You
come across as a far more fair minded, intelligent person than Vince
Bugliosi who stepped over a line when he tried to convince others there is
no Creator. As long as you don't do that you're in good standing with me,
good Sir.
Brad
John McAdams
Feb 16, 2014, 10:58:46 PM2/16/14
to
On 16 Feb 2014 22:54:24 -0500, olde...@gmail.com wrote:
>@Professor McAdams:
>
>I, along with countless others feel Jeff Morley will eventually free
>portions of this nation's history currently enslaved in secrecy. It takes
>a tremendous amount of courage, patience & fortitude to lock horns with a
>government agency often described as a 'killing machine'. I stick with
>Jeff Morley for that reason; eventually he will bring results that will
>bear fruit for all educators, historians & analysts as well as a curious
>general public.
>
>Jeff tries not to be boxed into a corner on what he believes happened to
>President Kennedy & he does encourage an open exchange between all
>concerned persons, be they just curious or professional spin masters. I
>believe this is the ethics of a professional journalist.
>
>There's no way Jeff Morley would be able to know who is who, who gets paid
>by whom or who has an agenda or a sincere interest. Jeff has put what he
>said to you in private to all of us at one time or another.
>
Huh? Are you telling me he's asked *you* whether you are a government
>@Professor McAdams:
>
>I, along with countless others feel Jeff Morley will eventually free
>portions of this nation's history currently enslaved in secrecy. It takes
>a tremendous amount of courage, patience & fortitude to lock horns with a
>government agency often described as a 'killing machine'. I stick with
>Jeff Morley for that reason; eventually he will bring results that will
>bear fruit for all educators, historians & analysts as well as a curious
>general public.
>
>Jeff tries not to be boxed into a corner on what he believes happened to
>President Kennedy & he does encourage an open exchange between all
>concerned persons, be they just curious or professional spin masters. I
>believe this is the ethics of a professional journalist.
>
>There's no way Jeff Morley would be able to know who is who, who gets paid
>by whom or who has an agenda or a sincere interest. Jeff has put what he
>said to you in private to all of us at one time or another.
>
employed spook?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
Feb 16, 2014, 11:51:04 PM2/16/14
to
other newsgroups and forums, 2) only post arguments supporting the
Oswald-did-it alone theory, 3) refuse to criticize any of the HSCA's
"experts" not subsequently denounced by an aspect of the government, and
4) have become far more active just at the moment JFKFacts seems to be
making an impact. I mean, you have your own website and this newsgroup to
trumpet your views. Why the sudden interest in JFKFacts?
Lanny
Feb 17, 2014, 10:17:04 AM2/17/14
to
If you were a compensated government agent, that's okay as long as you
admit it and he would have posted your replies anyway.
And if you are not an agent then, of course he would post your comments.
So what was he holding them for?
Marcus Hanson
Feb 17, 2014, 10:17:53 AM2/17/14
to
John,
Post your comments here please.
I'm interested in what you have to say.
What does Jeff mean by stating he has no reason to suspect you are a
government agent,but then proceeding to ask if you are compensated in any
way? Unless he thinks you are acting for {insert name of favourite
non-government conspiracy group here}??
I am a bit surprised and disappointed at Jeff's reasoning for rejecting
your comments with the "dinner party" argument.There are plenty of folks
who post frequently to his site,so that does not hold water.
If you and Peter imposed similar restrictions, this NG would be a lot
quieter and much the poorer for it.
Rgds,
Marcus
Post your comments here please.
I'm interested in what you have to say.
What does Jeff mean by stating he has no reason to suspect you are a
government agent,but then proceeding to ask if you are compensated in any
way? Unless he thinks you are acting for {insert name of favourite
non-government conspiracy group here}??
I am a bit surprised and disappointed at Jeff's reasoning for rejecting
your comments with the "dinner party" argument.There are plenty of folks
who post frequently to his site,so that does not hold water.
If you and Peter imposed similar restrictions, this NG would be a lot
quieter and much the poorer for it.
Rgds,
Marcus
Jason Burke
Feb 17, 2014, 10:19:00 AM2/17/14
to
Would you like me to look into this matter for you? I've been
receiving my checks regularly on the fourth Thursday of each month.
(okay, okay, it's after midnight...)
John Fiorentino
Feb 17, 2014, 10:26:31 AM2/17/14
to
The fact that we're even having a conversation like this speaks volumes
about the current state of "JFK research."
Each nutty idea seems to call for an even nuttier response.
Just a few things..............
Re: Morley
His reference to Sunstein, is unfortunately believable. Sunstein is a
LOOPER par excellence. Up there with Fetzer, or Horne. Now, did he really
make any statements re: JFK and online disinfo spooks? I really don't
know, but as I said, it's believable coming from him.
As to Morley falling for this crap, I must say, it's most unfortunate.
Re: Speer.............His statement: 2) only post arguments supporting the
Oswald-did-it alone theory, .........referring to McAdams is simply FALSE.
I've had my run ins with McAdams on several issues even though we agree on
the whole. I must say, I was a bit taken a back by some of the tactics
McAdams employed in his "discussions" on some of the medical evidence.
Apparently he has a hard time admitting mistakes, and I think takes at
face value much "evidence" that is simply inaccurate because it comes from
this or that Panel or Dr. or "expert" of the HSCA or other investigative
body.
Does any of it alter the basic conclusion that LHO acted alone?.......No
Is McAdams a CIA "spook".........it's no again.
Perhaps if we clean up our own act we can get more active participation
from experts of the various disciplines without them fearing the circus
atmosphere that currently permeates the scene.
John F.
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3750d8ba-73fd-44ef...@googlegroups.com...
about the current state of "JFK research."
Each nutty idea seems to call for an even nuttier response.
Just a few things..............
Re: Morley
His reference to Sunstein, is unfortunately believable. Sunstein is a
LOOPER par excellence. Up there with Fetzer, or Horne. Now, did he really
make any statements re: JFK and online disinfo spooks? I really don't
know, but as I said, it's believable coming from him.
As to Morley falling for this crap, I must say, it's most unfortunate.
Re: Speer.............His statement: 2) only post arguments supporting the
Oswald-did-it alone theory, .........referring to McAdams is simply FALSE.
I've had my run ins with McAdams on several issues even though we agree on
the whole. I must say, I was a bit taken a back by some of the tactics
McAdams employed in his "discussions" on some of the medical evidence.
Apparently he has a hard time admitting mistakes, and I think takes at
face value much "evidence" that is simply inaccurate because it comes from
this or that Panel or Dr. or "expert" of the HSCA or other investigative
body.
Does any of it alter the basic conclusion that LHO acted alone?.......No
Is McAdams a CIA "spook".........it's no again.
Perhaps if we clean up our own act we can get more active participation
from experts of the various disciplines without them fearing the circus
atmosphere that currently permeates the scene.
John F.
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3750d8ba-73fd-44ef...@googlegroups.com...
TJCole
Feb 17, 2014, 1:10:06 PM2/17/14
to
On Monday, 17 February 2014 10:10:49 UTC+8, John McAdams wrote:
> I sent this to Jeff Morley, and copied it to a certain e-mail list: On Feb 16, 2014 7:44 PM, "McAdams, John" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote: > > Jeff, > > I left a bunch of comments to various posts on your blog yesterday. > > None of them have become visible. They all show up as "awaiting moderation" in spite of the fact that more recent comments have been approved by you and are visible. > > If you have decided you won't allow me to comment on your blog, you need to tell me so I don't waste my time leaving comments. > > .John I got the following reply from him. Below his reply is my response to him. <Quote on> Hi John, Yes I have been holding your comments. My primary concern with people who comment frequently ( eg you, Photon, Karl Golovin) is the reader experience. A web site is like a dinner party. A lot of talk is good. A lot of talk from only one guest not so good. As you know I go out of my way to encourage and present a wide range of opinion. But it is important that readers feel everyone is speaking in good faith. So I want to be certain that you are speaking for yourself and no other party. Given that Cass Sunstein, a former senior White House official, has advocated deploying people to intervene in online JFK discussions it is at least possible that people participating in our discussions are acting, on one way or another, at the government's behest. I have no reason to think you are (otherwise I would not have published you on the site) And, as I have written I have no problem engaging w/ government agents -- as long as they are disclosed as such. So are you compensated in any way ( by remuneration, considerationi or future reward) by any party for your JFK commenting? (Obviously you work for Marquette and that is not a concern.) If you can assure me in writing that you are not , your comments will be published consistent with site policy. I would like to publish your response to this query on the site, with your permission Best Jdff <Quote off> I'm insulting that you ask that, Jeff. And the question implies that you are more and more being assimilated into the more extreme wing of the buff culture. But no, nobody is paying me to post anywhere. And no, I'm not compensated in any way. You should be deeply embarrassed for even asking the question. .John P.S. If government were paying somebody to correct all the buff factoids on your site, it would be a better use of taxpayers money than most government policies. I think you don't understand the damage done to the "conspiracy" cause by all the nonsense that buffs put out. .John ----------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
In the interest of transparency maybe .John you can disclose how you
> I sent this to Jeff Morley, and copied it to a certain e-mail list: On Feb 16, 2014 7:44 PM, "McAdams, John" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote: > > Jeff, > > I left a bunch of comments to various posts on your blog yesterday. > > None of them have become visible. They all show up as "awaiting moderation" in spite of the fact that more recent comments have been approved by you and are visible. > > If you have decided you won't allow me to comment on your blog, you need to tell me so I don't waste my time leaving comments. > > .John I got the following reply from him. Below his reply is my response to him. <Quote on> Hi John, Yes I have been holding your comments. My primary concern with people who comment frequently ( eg you, Photon, Karl Golovin) is the reader experience. A web site is like a dinner party. A lot of talk is good. A lot of talk from only one guest not so good. As you know I go out of my way to encourage and present a wide range of opinion. But it is important that readers feel everyone is speaking in good faith. So I want to be certain that you are speaking for yourself and no other party. Given that Cass Sunstein, a former senior White House official, has advocated deploying people to intervene in online JFK discussions it is at least possible that people participating in our discussions are acting, on one way or another, at the government's behest. I have no reason to think you are (otherwise I would not have published you on the site) And, as I have written I have no problem engaging w/ government agents -- as long as they are disclosed as such. So are you compensated in any way ( by remuneration, considerationi or future reward) by any party for your JFK commenting? (Obviously you work for Marquette and that is not a concern.) If you can assure me in writing that you are not , your comments will be published consistent with site policy. I would like to publish your response to this query on the site, with your permission Best Jdff <Quote off> I'm insulting that you ask that, Jeff. And the question implies that you are more and more being assimilated into the more extreme wing of the buff culture. But no, nobody is paying me to post anywhere. And no, I'm not compensated in any way. You should be deeply embarrassed for even asking the question. .John P.S. If government were paying somebody to correct all the buff factoids on your site, it would be a better use of taxpayers money than most government policies. I think you don't understand the damage done to the "conspiracy" cause by all the nonsense that buffs put out. .John ----------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
afford to run your webpage? Completely out of your own pocket? Did you
design it yourself or did you pay someone to do it for you? Did you get
tenure at your university as part of you running your webiste? There are
lots of ways to skin a cat. We know that the CIA and US government has
sought to infiiltrate the media and/or chat sites to counter the
conspiracy talk and run planted stories (essentially propaganda) We also
know the CIA had a program to recruit college professors. Why wouldn't
that be you? It has to be someone.
mainframetech
Feb 17, 2014, 1:13:30 PM2/17/14
to
Why in the world would the government pay you, when they get your
services for free? I'm sure they're perfectly happy with things as they
are.
Chris
claviger
Feb 17, 2014, 1:14:17 PM2/17/14
to
John,
I can't believe Jefferson Morley would ask such a dumb question. We know
you don't work for the CIA. After working for the KGB for several years
you moved up to a higher paying job with SPECTRE. I assumed that was
common knowledge. Morley is way behind the curve.
olde...@gmail.com
Feb 17, 2014, 1:17:13 PM2/17/14
to
@ Professor McAdams:
'There's no way Jeff Morley would be able to know who is who, who gets paid
Not to criticize or chastise anyone for posting private email online, but
anything anyone says to me or I say to them in email I consider
confidential & not to be divulged to anyone for any reason (unless I'm
defending myself against criminal charges). It's between me, that person &
the NSA spying on us both. Now, if the NSA wants to spill the beans,
neither me or the person communicating with me in good faith & trust can
do anything about it. It would be nice if NSA would pick up the tab for
the pizza I ordered or at least cover me on the tip when the pizza
arrives.
Besides his crusade to free the enslaved historical JFK records, Jeff
Morley is all about civil exchanges & is trying to avoid the name calling
& deep suspicions commonly spread in JFK discussion forums (including this
one). That's not easy to do with an opinionated global public. Jeff caught
a lot of angry flak for listing your personal website as one of the 10
best to visit as well as posting your critique of 'Hit List'. As opposed
to the name calling & suspicions he welcomes open discussion from everyone
who visits his website & offers comments, regardless of who they are &
whom they may work for. That's a rarity in JFK discussion circles IMO. I
don't believe he has singled you out as a troublemaker; I believe he is
trying to keep his website balanced.
Brad
'There's no way Jeff Morley would be able to know who is who, who gets paid
by whom or who has an agenda or a sincere interest. Jeff has put what he
said to you in private to all of us at one time or another.'
'Huh? Are you telling me he's asked *you* whether you are a government
employed spook?
.John'
said to you in private to all of us at one time or another.'
'Huh? Are you telling me he's asked *you* whether you are a government
employed spook?
Not to criticize or chastise anyone for posting private email online, but
anything anyone says to me or I say to them in email I consider
confidential & not to be divulged to anyone for any reason (unless I'm
defending myself against criminal charges). It's between me, that person &
the NSA spying on us both. Now, if the NSA wants to spill the beans,
neither me or the person communicating with me in good faith & trust can
do anything about it. It would be nice if NSA would pick up the tab for
the pizza I ordered or at least cover me on the tip when the pizza
arrives.
Besides his crusade to free the enslaved historical JFK records, Jeff
Morley is all about civil exchanges & is trying to avoid the name calling
& deep suspicions commonly spread in JFK discussion forums (including this
one). That's not easy to do with an opinionated global public. Jeff caught
a lot of angry flak for listing your personal website as one of the 10
best to visit as well as posting your critique of 'Hit List'. As opposed
to the name calling & suspicions he welcomes open discussion from everyone
who visits his website & offers comments, regardless of who they are &
whom they may work for. That's a rarity in JFK discussion circles IMO. I
don't believe he has singled you out as a troublemaker; I believe he is
trying to keep his website balanced.
Brad
Mike
Feb 17, 2014, 6:32:39 PM2/17/14
to
He has exposed the way he thinks and if he thinks that way then their
might be a reason.
So you need to ask Jeff Morely if he is being paid by ANY government or
any agents of any government.
Specifically ask Jeff Morely what his relationship is to the government
of Israel.
Mike
Feb 17, 2014, 6:38:26 PM2/17/14
to
On 2/16/2014 8:10 PM, John McAdams wrote:
Mike
Feb 17, 2014, 6:38:36 PM2/17/14
to
On 2/16/2014 8:10 PM, John McAdams wrote:
Jason Burke
Feb 17, 2014, 6:39:15 PM2/17/14
to
I pay $10 a year for my domain and use 000webhost to host it. As in
don't cost nuthin'.
We're not talking about keeping a private Cessna fueled and waiting to
go 24/7.
Anthony Marsh
Feb 17, 2014, 6:39:52 PM2/17/14
to
On 2/17/2014 10:26 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> The fact that we're even having a conversation like this speaks volumes
> about the current state of "JFK research."
>
> Each nutty idea seems to call for an even nuttier response.
>
> Just a few things..............
>
> Re: Morley
>
> His reference to Sunstein, is unfortunately believable. Sunstein is a
> LOOPER par excellence. Up there with Fetzer, or Horne. Now, did he
> really make any statements re: JFK and online disinfo spooks? I really
> don't know, but as I said, it's believable coming from him.
>
> As to Morley falling for this crap, I must say, it's most unfortunate.
>
> Re: Speer.............His statement: 2) only post arguments supporting
> the Oswald-did-it alone theory, .........referring to McAdams is simply
> FALSE.
>
> I've had my run ins with McAdams on several issues even though we agree
> on the whole. I must say, I was a bit taken a back by some of the
> tactics McAdams employed in his "discussions" on some of the medical
> evidence.
>
> Apparently he has a hard time admitting mistakes, and I think takes at
> face value much "evidence" that is simply inaccurate because it comes
> from this or that Panel or Dr. or "expert" of the HSCA or other
> investigative body.
>
> Does any of it alter the basic conclusion that LHO acted alone?.......No
>
> Is McAdams a CIA "spook".........it's no again.
>
Define "spook." Not everyone involved with the CIA is a "spook" whatever
> The fact that we're even having a conversation like this speaks volumes
> about the current state of "JFK research."
>
> Each nutty idea seems to call for an even nuttier response.
>
> Just a few things..............
>
> Re: Morley
>
> His reference to Sunstein, is unfortunately believable. Sunstein is a
> LOOPER par excellence. Up there with Fetzer, or Horne. Now, did he
> really make any statements re: JFK and online disinfo spooks? I really
> don't know, but as I said, it's believable coming from him.
>
> As to Morley falling for this crap, I must say, it's most unfortunate.
>
> Re: Speer.............His statement: 2) only post arguments supporting
> the Oswald-did-it alone theory, .........referring to McAdams is simply
> FALSE.
>
> I've had my run ins with McAdams on several issues even though we agree
> on the whole. I must say, I was a bit taken a back by some of the
> tactics McAdams employed in his "discussions" on some of the medical
> evidence.
>
> Apparently he has a hard time admitting mistakes, and I think takes at
> face value much "evidence" that is simply inaccurate because it comes
> from this or that Panel or Dr. or "expert" of the HSCA or other
> investigative body.
>
> Does any of it alter the basic conclusion that LHO acted alone?.......No
>
> Is McAdams a CIA "spook".........it's no again.
>
you think that means.
Was Clay shaw a CIA "spook"?
No. He was a "Domestic Services contact."
Various researchers have been consultants or informants to the CIA.
Does that make them CIA "spooks"?
> Perhaps if we clean up our own act we can get more active participation
> from experts of the various disciplines without them fearing the circus
> atmosphere that currently permeates the scene.
>
Anthony Marsh
Feb 17, 2014, 6:40:50 PM2/17/14
to
That's why the InterNet was invented.
pjsp...@aol.com
Feb 17, 2014, 6:42:19 PM2/17/14
to
Jeff's question is 1) reasonable under the circumstances, and 2) not
reflective of Jeff's suspicions. It seems clear to me Jeff's trying to
offset criticism of his own website, by pointing out that he did all he
could to ascertain John's intentions before allowing him such a strong
presence on his website.
It's political, John, (you understand politics, don't you?), and your
response--trying to depict Jeff as a nut for asking you to clarify your
intentions--is also political. This raises a question--who are you trying
to impress by painting Jeff as a nut?
If you had planned on answering Jeff's questions, I suspect you would have
done so without making such a fuss. So it seems probable your plan of
attack is to refuse to answer his questions, and use his asking these
questions to further divide those with an interest in the assassination.
Am I right?
Anthony Marsh
Feb 17, 2014, 6:42:39 PM2/17/14
to
On 2/17/2014 10:17 AM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> John,
>
> Post your comments here please.
> I'm interested in what you have to say.
>
> What does Jeff mean by stating he has no reason to suspect you are a
> government agent,but then proceeding to ask if you are compensated in any
> way? Unless he thinks you are acting for {insert name of favourite
> non-government conspiracy group here}??
>
I think what he means is if McAdams gets any money from a fund for
> John,
>
> Post your comments here please.
> I'm interested in what you have to say.
>
> What does Jeff mean by stating he has no reason to suspect you are a
> government agent,but then proceeding to ask if you are compensated in any
> way? Unless he thinks you are acting for {insert name of favourite
> non-government conspiracy group here}??
>
college research or organization which gets funds from the CIA.
Anthony Marsh
Feb 17, 2014, 8:32:56 PM2/17/14
to
participant is being supported by the government.
It's also a matter of basic honesty.
stevemg...@yahoo.com
Feb 17, 2014, 8:34:54 PM2/17/14
to
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:10:49 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
300, multiply it by last week's winning Florida lotto number that you get
DCIA John Brennan's home address.
More or less.
I say ban him, Mr. Morley.
news
Feb 17, 2014, 8:41:56 PM2/17/14
to
Sad to see paranoid Morley recycling the Jack White "paid provacateur"
crap. He undeservedly flatters himself if he thinks anyone at the CIA
gives a shit about his website or this stale case.
John Blubaugh
Feb 17, 2014, 8:42:25 PM2/17/14
to
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:10:49 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
sponsor you a few years ago?
JB
cmikes
Feb 17, 2014, 8:44:10 PM2/17/14
to
There's the truth. The supposed "other side" is a collection of theories
that apparently don't hold water since no one has been able to actually
prove anything else happened other than what we have evidence for. The
evidence we now have shows Oswald fired three shots at the motorcade on
11/22/63, hitting with two of them.
Could there have been 16 more shooters with 47 more bullets fired? It's
possible, but if it happened, there's been no evidence of it for 50 years.
Could there have been thousands of people from the CIA, FBI, Secret
Service, Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force, military
contractors, the Mafia, Anti-Castro Cubans, Pro-Castro Cubans, the Soviet
Union, the John Birch Society, and the Daughters of the American
Revolution that all got together and decided to kill JFK? It's possible,
but if they did, no one has any evidence of it happening. Could RFK been
involved in the cover-up of his brothers death by refusing to release the
autopsy materials while accepting that the dozens of forensic pathologists
that examined the materials were part of the conspiracy? It's possible,
but no one's ever brought forward any evidence of it. And so on, and so
on....
To be perhaps a little blunt, at a certain point the conspiracy theorists
have to put up or shut up. Theories are great. If you're researching a
subject, a lot of times theories give you a starting point to examining
evidence and provide a path to narrow your focus. But eventually, you
have to realize now matter how sublime the theory, no matter how much
sense it makes, no matter how wedded to it you are, if there's no evidence
for it, it doesn't take you very far.
Anthony Marsh
Feb 17, 2014, 8:45:15 PM2/17/14
to
He doesn't want to discuss. He wants to dictate.
John Fiorentino
Feb 17, 2014, 9:08:55 PM2/17/14
to
Anthony asks........
You know any major scientists who haven't already gotten involved?
I say.........
MANY
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:530255be$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
You know any major scientists who haven't already gotten involved?
MANY
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:530255be$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Sandy McCroskey
Feb 17, 2014, 9:26:48 PM2/17/14
to
circumstances" are that some people, like .John and myself, find to be
UNreasonable--to wit, that the government (or should that be "The
Government"?) is covering up The Conspiracy in which you so fervently
believe.
cmikes
Feb 17, 2014, 9:28:32 PM2/17/14
to
conspiracy theorists, Mark Lane among them, should we ask the same
question of all the CTs? After all, Russia under Putin has continued many
of the old Soviet programs, why not this one?
Bud
Feb 17, 2014, 9:29:03 PM2/17/14
to
Anthony Marsh
Feb 17, 2014, 9:34:31 PM2/17/14
to
the forum rules to post someone else's e-mail without permission and has
deleted messages from people doing that and banning them for doing so. But
of course the rules do not apply to McAdams and his cronies.
Anthony Marsh
Feb 17, 2014, 9:37:07 PM2/17/14
to
labor with his college students who want to earn their brown noses for
extra credit.
Everyone knows that I am very poor, but when I signed up for cable and
Internet I automatically got 7 Web sites with that and wrote my own pages.
When I found that I had too many Gigabits for the cable company Web sites,
I decided to buy Web space from a third party company and was fronted $500
from a CIA agent. When I ran a FIDO node, local researchers would
contribute small amounts of money and IBM compatible equipment as my old
Commodore 64 didn't have the BAUD and Gigabits to handle the traffic.
stevemg...@yahoo.com
Feb 17, 2014, 9:40:15 PM2/17/14
to
there, a statement over there. They pore over the Zapruder film, over the
testimony, over fuzzy TV clips from the arrests and try to find something,
anything in them to indicate something odd.
And sure, if we examine any case, any event in history, we will find
strange, odd things.
But isolated strange odd things, some connection between person A and B,
some confusion in eyewitness accounts is not a grand conspiracy involving
every major branch of the government for half a century.
Time is the enemy both of conspirators and conspiracy advocates.
Eventually, the conspiracy unravels, it's exposed; or it's not and what is
exposed is the theory and not the act.
Time is ticking against the conspiracy advocates.
It didn't happen. Lee Oswald took his rifle and killed the president.
That's what happened.
Anthony Marsh
Feb 17, 2014, 10:46:21 PM2/17/14
to
>
> To be perhaps a little blunt, at a certain point the conspiracy theorists
> have to put up or shut up. Theories are great. If you're researching a
> subject, a lot of times theories give you a starting point to examining
> evidence and provide a path to narrow your focus. But eventually, you
> have to realize now matter how sublime the theory, no matter how much
> sense it makes, no matter how wedded to it you are, if there's no evidence
> for it, it doesn't take you very far.
>
the authority to arrest anyone. The government does. But they're too
busy killing babies in Pakistan.
Anthony Marsh
Feb 17, 2014, 10:48:37 PM2/17/14
to
then sponsor the organizations.
TJCole
Feb 18, 2014, 9:23:55 AM2/18/14
to
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 07:42:19 UTC+8, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Monday, February 17, 2014 7:26:31 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote: > The fact that we're even having a conversation like this speaks volumes > > about the current state of "JFK research." > > > > Each nutty idea seems to call for an even nuttier response. > > > > Just a few things.............. > > > > Re: Morley > > > > His reference to Sunstein, is unfortunately believable. Sunstein is a > > LOOPER par excellence. Up there with Fetzer, or Horne. Now, did he really > > make any statements re: JFK and online disinfo spooks? I really don't > > know, but as I said, it's believable coming from him. > > > > As to Morley falling for this crap, I must say, it's most unfortunate. > > > > Re: Speer.............His statement: 2) only post arguments supporting the > > Oswald-did-it alone theory, .........referring to McAdams is simply FALSE. > > > > I've had my run ins with McAdams on several issues even though we agree on > > the whole. I must say, I was a bit taken a back by some of the tactics > > McAdams employed in his "discussions" on some of the medical evidence. > > > > Apparently he has a hard time admitting mistakes, and I think takes at > > face value much "evidence" that is simply inaccurate because it comes from > > this or that Panel or Dr. or "expert" of the HSCA or other investigative > > body. > > > > Does any of it alter the basic conclusion that LHO acted alone?.......No > > > > Is McAdams a CIA "spook".........it's no again. > > > > Perhaps if we clean up our own act we can get more active participation > > from experts of the various disciplines without them fearing the circus > > atmosphere that currently permeates the scene. > > > > John F. > > > > > > > > > > "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:3750d8ba-73fd-44ef...@googlegroups.com... > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:10:49 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote: > > > I sent this to Jeff Morley, and copied it to a certain e-mail list: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2014 7:44 PM, "McAdams, John" <john.m...@marquette.edu> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I left a bunch of comments to various posts on your blog yesterday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of them have become visible. They all show up as "awaiting > > > > moderation" in spite of the fact that more recent comments have been > > > > approved by you and are visible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have decided you won't allow me to comment on your blog, you need > > > > to tell me so I don't waste my time leaving comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I got the following reply from him. > > > > > > > > > > > > Below his reply is my response to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > <Quote on> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > Yes I have been holding your comments. My primary concern with people > > > > > > who comment frequently ( eg you, Photon, Karl Golovin) is the reader > > > > > > experience. A web site is like a dinner party. A lot of talk is good. > > > > > > A lot of talk from only one guest not so good. > > > > > > As you know I go out of my way to encourage and present a wide range > > > > > > of opinion. But it is important that readers feel everyone is speaking > > > > > > in good faith. > > > > > > So I want to be certain that you are speaking for yourself and no > > > > > > other party. > > > > > > Given that Cass Sunstein, a former senior White House official, has > > > > > > advocated deploying people to intervene in online JFK discussions it > > > > > > is at least possible that people participating in our discussions are > > > > > > acting, on one way or another, at the government's behest. > > > > > > I have no reason to think you are (otherwise I would not have > > > > > > published you on the site) > > > > > > And, as I have written I have no problem engaging w/ government agents > > > > > > -- as long as they are disclosed as such. > > > > > > So are you compensated in any way ( by remuneration, considerationi or > > > > > > future reward) by any party for your JFK commenting? (Obviously you > > > > > > work for Marquette and that is not a concern.) > > > > > > If you can assure me in writing that you are not , your comments will > > > > > > be published consistent with site policy. > > > > > > I would like to publish your response to this query on the site, with > > > > > > your permission > > > > > > Best Jdff > > > > > > > > > > > > <Quote off> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm insulting that you ask that, Jeff. > > > > > > > > > > > > And the question implies that you are more and more being assimilated > > > > > > into the more extreme wing of the buff culture. > > > > > > > > > > > > But no, nobody is paying me to post anywhere. And no, I'm not > > > > > > compensated in any way. > > > > > > > > > > > > You should be deeply embarrassed for even asking the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > .John > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. If government were paying somebody to correct all the buff > > > > > > factoids on your site, it would be a better use of taxpayers money > > > > > > than most government policies. I think you don't understand the > > > > > > damage done to the "conspiracy" cause by all the nonsense that buffs > > > > > > put out. > > > > > > > > > > > > .John > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm > > > > His request is not unreasonable, IMO, seeing as 1) you have long avoided > > other newsgroups and forums, 2) only post arguments supporting the > > Oswald-did-it alone theory, 3) refuse to criticize any of the HSCA's > > "experts" not subsequently denounced by an aspect of the government, and > > 4) have become far more active just at the moment JFKFacts seems to be > > making an impact. I mean, you have your own website and this newsgroup to > > trumpet your views. Why the sudden interest in JFKFacts? To be clear, I do not suspect John is paid to do what he does. But I think Jeff's question is 1) reasonable under the circumstances, and 2) not reflective of Jeff's suspicions. It seems clear to me Jeff's trying to offset criticism of his own website, by pointing out that he did all he could to ascertain John's intentions before allowing him such a strong presence on his website. It's political, John, (you understand politics, don't you?), and your response--trying to depict Jeff as a nut for asking you to clarify your intentions--is also political. This raises a question--who are you trying to impress by painting Jeff as a nut? If you had planned on answering Jeff's questions, I suspect you would have done so without making such a fuss. So it seems probable your plan of attack is to refuse to answer his questions, and use his asking these questions to further divide those with an interest in the assassination. Am I right?
me thinks John does protest too much.
> On Monday, February 17, 2014 7:26:31 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote: > The fact that we're even having a conversation like this speaks volumes > > about the current state of "JFK research." > > > > Each nutty idea seems to call for an even nuttier response. > > > > Just a few things.............. > > > > Re: Morley > > > > His reference to Sunstein, is unfortunately believable. Sunstein is a > > LOOPER par excellence. Up there with Fetzer, or Horne. Now, did he really > > make any statements re: JFK and online disinfo spooks? I really don't > > know, but as I said, it's believable coming from him. > > > > As to Morley falling for this crap, I must say, it's most unfortunate. > > > > Re: Speer.............His statement: 2) only post arguments supporting the > > Oswald-did-it alone theory, .........referring to McAdams is simply FALSE. > > > > I've had my run ins with McAdams on several issues even though we agree on > > the whole. I must say, I was a bit taken a back by some of the tactics > > McAdams employed in his "discussions" on some of the medical evidence. > > > > Apparently he has a hard time admitting mistakes, and I think takes at > > face value much "evidence" that is simply inaccurate because it comes from > > this or that Panel or Dr. or "expert" of the HSCA or other investigative > > body. > > > > Does any of it alter the basic conclusion that LHO acted alone?.......No > > > > Is McAdams a CIA "spook".........it's no again. > > > > Perhaps if we clean up our own act we can get more active participation > > from experts of the various disciplines without them fearing the circus > > atmosphere that currently permeates the scene. > > > > John F. > > > > > > > > > > "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:3750d8ba-73fd-44ef...@googlegroups.com... > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:10:49 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote: > > > I sent this to Jeff Morley, and copied it to a certain e-mail list: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2014 7:44 PM, "McAdams, John" <john.m...@marquette.edu> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I left a bunch of comments to various posts on your blog yesterday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of them have become visible. They all show up as "awaiting > > > > moderation" in spite of the fact that more recent comments have been > > > > approved by you and are visible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have decided you won't allow me to comment on your blog, you need > > > > to tell me so I don't waste my time leaving comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I got the following reply from him. > > > > > > > > > > > > Below his reply is my response to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > <Quote on> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > Yes I have been holding your comments. My primary concern with people > > > > > > who comment frequently ( eg you, Photon, Karl Golovin) is the reader > > > > > > experience. A web site is like a dinner party. A lot of talk is good. > > > > > > A lot of talk from only one guest not so good. > > > > > > As you know I go out of my way to encourage and present a wide range > > > > > > of opinion. But it is important that readers feel everyone is speaking > > > > > > in good faith. > > > > > > So I want to be certain that you are speaking for yourself and no > > > > > > other party. > > > > > > Given that Cass Sunstein, a former senior White House official, has > > > > > > advocated deploying people to intervene in online JFK discussions it > > > > > > is at least possible that people participating in our discussions are > > > > > > acting, on one way or another, at the government's behest. > > > > > > I have no reason to think you are (otherwise I would not have > > > > > > published you on the site) > > > > > > And, as I have written I have no problem engaging w/ government agents > > > > > > -- as long as they are disclosed as such. > > > > > > So are you compensated in any way ( by remuneration, considerationi or > > > > > > future reward) by any party for your JFK commenting? (Obviously you > > > > > > work for Marquette and that is not a concern.) > > > > > > If you can assure me in writing that you are not , your comments will > > > > > > be published consistent with site policy. > > > > > > I would like to publish your response to this query on the site, with > > > > > > your permission > > > > > > Best Jdff > > > > > > > > > > > > <Quote off> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm insulting that you ask that, Jeff. > > > > > > > > > > > > And the question implies that you are more and more being assimilated > > > > > > into the more extreme wing of the buff culture. > > > > > > > > > > > > But no, nobody is paying me to post anywhere. And no, I'm not > > > > > > compensated in any way. > > > > > > > > > > > > You should be deeply embarrassed for even asking the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > .John > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. If government were paying somebody to correct all the buff > > > > > > factoids on your site, it would be a better use of taxpayers money > > > > > > than most government policies. I think you don't understand the > > > > > > damage done to the "conspiracy" cause by all the nonsense that buffs > > > > > > put out. > > > > > > > > > > > > .John > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm > > > > His request is not unreasonable, IMO, seeing as 1) you have long avoided > > other newsgroups and forums, 2) only post arguments supporting the > > Oswald-did-it alone theory, 3) refuse to criticize any of the HSCA's > > "experts" not subsequently denounced by an aspect of the government, and > > 4) have become far more active just at the moment JFKFacts seems to be > > making an impact. I mean, you have your own website and this newsgroup to > > trumpet your views. Why the sudden interest in JFKFacts? To be clear, I do not suspect John is paid to do what he does. But I think Jeff's question is 1) reasonable under the circumstances, and 2) not reflective of Jeff's suspicions. It seems clear to me Jeff's trying to offset criticism of his own website, by pointing out that he did all he could to ascertain John's intentions before allowing him such a strong presence on his website. It's political, John, (you understand politics, don't you?), and your response--trying to depict Jeff as a nut for asking you to clarify your intentions--is also political. This raises a question--who are you trying to impress by painting Jeff as a nut? If you had planned on answering Jeff's questions, I suspect you would have done so without making such a fuss. So it seems probable your plan of attack is to refuse to answer his questions, and use his asking these questions to further divide those with an interest in the assassination. Am I right?
claviger
Feb 18, 2014, 9:27:07 AM2/18/14
to
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:31:45 PM UTC-6, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:10:49 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:10:49 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> The "buffs" didn't initiate the problem, the WCR did. All of the CT
> theories put together, yes, even including Fetzers', can do more harm
> than the circular reasoning of the WCR.
Harm to what? How is the WCR conclusion circular reasoning? Did the HSCA
> theories put together, yes, even including Fetzers', can do more harm
> than the circular reasoning of the WCR.
use circular reasoning too?
> Therefore, all 'complaining' needs to be done in the proper context.
> McAdams just doesn't like the fact that there is more than one side to
> the assassination.
the Number One debate forum on the Internet pertaining to this historic
case. Diverse theories and vigorous debates have contributed to the
international reputation of Professor McAdams as a leading expert on this
American tragedy. By using the newsgroup as a method to teach and
encourage rational thinking Professor McAdams has brought publicity to
Marquette University as a college where critical thinking is not only
allowed but encouraged.
I'm fascinated how McAdams makes use of this forum to teach logic,
rhetoric, philosophy, research acumen, and scientific methodology. Quite
a package of analytical skills and brain cell stimulation for both his
students and anyone else who spends time here. We all benefit from this
newsgroup and I've learned a lot, not only from Professor McAdams but from
everyone who participates in this robust debate forum. All other forums
lack the verve and vitality we enjoy here every day that energizes ongoing
debates where topics with 200+ posts are not unusual. Compare that to
other forums.
McAdams and I don't always agree and he's disapproved several posts for
one reason or another, but I accept the fact it's his classroom and he
sets the ROC we must all obey. Well 99% of us anyway. There is one
'teacher's pet' with a boisterous personality who gets away with unruly
behavior and he's a diehard CT. Go figure.
claviger
Feb 18, 2014, 8:59:30 PM2/18/14
to
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:51:04 PM UTC-6, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:10:49 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> His request is not unreasonable, IMO, seeing as 1) you have long
> avoided other newsgroups and forums,
Or have they avoided him?
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:10:49 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> His request is not unreasonable, IMO, seeing as 1) you have long
> avoided other newsgroups and forums,
> 2) only post arguments supporting the Oswald-did-it alone
> theory,
> 3) refuse to criticize any of the HSCA's "experts" not
> subsequently denounced by an aspect of the government, and
> 4) have become far more active just at the moment JFKFacts seems
> to be making an impact. I mean, you have your own website and
> this newsgroup to trumpet your views. Why the sudden interest in
> JFKFacts?
We had this discussion 5 years ago:
8/22/09
____________________________________
I seriously doubt John McAdams is connected to the CIA, but actually it
doesn't even matter. Either what he says is logical, rational, and
sensible or it isn't. CTs have a lot of theories but no facts. You want us
to accept those unsubstantiated theories a bouche ouverte. Sorry, it
doesn't work that way. How would you like to be on trial in a court of law
and be convicted by theories with no facts?
There are several competing conspiracy theories that are mutually
exclusive so they can't all be true. One author may claim all the other
theories are sponsored by the CIA to confuse the public. If Pat Speer's
theory makes another CT look ridiculous then Pat Speer must be a CIA
disinformation agent.
A theory has merit if it can present several corroborating facts. I have
yet to see a CT argument that can do that. The only ones I see are based
on conjecture and unsupported theories. No one using cognitive thinking
will be swayed by theories so lacking in tangible evidence.
The accusation that John McAdams is a CIA hireling is based on the
assumption that one man can somehow cover up this entire case. That notion
is completely absurd, therefore whether he is or isn't affiliated with the
CIA is irrelevant. It is the power of his intellect that causes so much
frustration for CTs and the fact he keeps asking for proof to support the
various theories. For anyone who ever went to college McAdams is just
acting like a typical college professor. I think he has mixed emotions
about this CIA thing, sometimes amused and sometimes annoyed, depending on
what kind of a day he is having.
jfk...@gmail.com
Feb 18, 2014, 9:01:01 PM2/18/14
to
On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:14:17 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
> John,
>
>
>
> I can't believe Jefferson Morley would ask such a dumb question. We know
>
> you don't work for the CIA. After working for the KGB for several years
>
> you moved up to a higher paying job with SPECTRE. I assumed that was
>
> common knowledge. Morley is way behind the curve.
Funny. :-)
You might want to help Jeff grab a clue. :-0
> John,
>
>
>
> I can't believe Jefferson Morley would ask such a dumb question. We know
>
> you don't work for the CIA. After working for the KGB for several years
>
> you moved up to a higher paying job with SPECTRE. I assumed that was
>
> common knowledge. Morley is way behind the curve.
Funny. :-)
You might want to help Jeff grab a clue. :-0
jfk...@gmail.com
Feb 18, 2014, 9:01:41 PM2/18/14
to
great deal from McAdams and this forum. I have a much better
understanding of how to defend my positions, and I have learned that
nothing McAdams says is as it seems, and there is always a deeper level of
understanding to be discerned. I feel as though I have walked into the
"belly of the beast" so to speak, and survived. :-)
jfk...@gmail.com
Feb 18, 2014, 9:04:34 PM2/18/14
to
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:27:07 AM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:31:45 PM UTC-6, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:10:49 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
> > The "buffs" didn't initiate the problem, the WCR did. All of the CT
>
> > theories put together, yes, even including Fetzers', can do more harm
>
> > than the circular reasoning of the WCR.
>
>
>
> Harm to what?
Harm to the newbies who are sincerely trying to understand what happened.
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:31:45 PM UTC-6, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:10:49 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
> > The "buffs" didn't initiate the problem, the WCR did. All of the CT
>
> > theories put together, yes, even including Fetzers', can do more harm
>
> > than the circular reasoning of the WCR.
>
>
>
> Harm to what?
How is the WCR conclusion circular reasoning?
circular reasoning.
>Did the HSCA
>
> use circular reasoning too?
yes.
>
>
>
> > Therefore, all 'complaining' needs to be done in the proper context.
>
> > McAdams just doesn't like the fact that there is more than one side to
>
> > the assassination.
>
>
>
> Why do you say that?
it.
>Without various opinions this website would not be
>
> the Number One debate forum on the Internet pertaining to this historic
>
> case. Diverse theories and vigorous debates have contributed to the
>
> international reputation of Professor McAdams as a leading expert on this
>
> American tragedy. By using the newsgroup as a method to teach and
>
> encourage rational thinking Professor McAdams has brought publicity to
>
> Marquette University as a college where critical thinking is not only
>
> allowed but encouraged.
a posture put forth in order to attract dissent and make this forum more
interesting? :-0
>
>
>
> I'm fascinated how McAdams makes use of this forum to teach logic,
>
> rhetoric, philosophy, research acumen, and scientific methodology. Quite
>
> a package of analytical skills and brain cell stimulation for both his
>
> students and anyone else who spends time here.
His idea of 'research' is my idea of 'one-sided posturing'. So from my
standpoint, the key to the value of this forum is that nothing is as it
appears and everything needs to be analyzed in order to separate the false
from the true.
Anthony Marsh
Feb 18, 2014, 9:09:50 PM2/18/14
to
On 2/18/2014 9:27 AM, claviger wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:31:45 PM UTC-6, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:10:49 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>
>> The "buffs" didn't initiate the problem, the WCR did. All of the CT
>> theories put together, yes, even including Fetzers', can do more harm
>> than the circular reasoning of the WCR.
>
> Harm to what? How is the WCR conclusion circular reasoning? Did the HSCA
> use circular reasoning too?
>
Yes. Once again you don't remember that there were two HSCAs. The second
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:31:45 PM UTC-6, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:10:49 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>
>> The "buffs" didn't initiate the problem, the WCR did. All of the CT
>> theories put together, yes, even including Fetzers', can do more harm
>> than the circular reasoning of the WCR.
>
> Harm to what? How is the WCR conclusion circular reasoning? Did the HSCA
> use circular reasoning too?
>
HSCA was installed to rubberstamp the WC. In both cases they started
with the conclusion and then molded the evidence to fit it.
>> Therefore, all 'complaining' needs to be done in the proper context.
>> McAdams just doesn't like the fact that there is more than one side to
>> the assassination.
>
> Why do you say that? Without various opinions this website would not be
> the Number One debate forum on the Internet pertaining to this historic
Open to all. McAdams does not own it. He has no right to run it as he
sees fit. You don't even know how the Internet works. Ask Al Gore.
> case. Diverse theories and vigorous debates have contributed to the
> international reputation of Professor McAdams as a leading expert on this
> American tragedy. By using the newsgroup as a method to teach and
of searches. This is not his Web. I realize that you want to kiss up to
him, but you don't even understand the difference between a Web site and a
Usenet newsgroup.
> encourage rational thinking Professor McAdams has brought publicity to
> Marquette University as a college where critical thinking is not only
> allowed but encouraged.
>
> I'm fascinated how McAdams makes use of this forum to teach logic,
> rhetoric, philosophy, research acumen, and scientific methodology. Quite
> a package of analytical skills and brain cell stimulation for both his
> students and anyone else who spends time here. We all benefit from this
> newsgroup and I've learned a lot, not only from Professor McAdams but from
> everyone who participates in this robust debate forum. All other forums
> lack the verve and vitality we enjoy here every day that energizes ongoing
> debates where topics with 200+ posts are not unusual. Compare that to
> other forums.
>
Volume is no guarantee of quality. Look at the Nuthouse.
> McAdams and I don't always agree and he's disapproved several posts for
> one reason or another, but I accept the fact it's his classroom and he
> sets the ROC we must all obey. Well 99% of us anyway. There is one
cmikes
Feb 18, 2014, 9:13:50 PM2/18/14
to
just how many times the acoustic evidence has been debunked. But let's
roll with it for once, just to make a point.
IF the acoustic evidence is true, who was the man killed in Dealy Plaza?
Since the "shots" recorded on the Dictabelt are a minute or so after the
motorcade went through Dealy Plaza, where were the shots recorded? If the
man killed in Dealy Plaza was some kind of body double, where was the real
JFK in order to be killed a minute or so later when the "shots" were
recorded on the Dictabelt? And since we know that the stuck microphone
wasn't with the motorcade, since at the time the "shots" were recorded,
the motorcade was halfway to Parkland, who's microphone was stuck open at
the undisclosed location where the real assassination happened?
Since you've missed all this over the years, I really encourage you to
check out this website, it should answer all you questions about how many
times and in what ways the acoustic evidence has been proven invalid.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm
Sandy McCroskey
Feb 19, 2014, 10:08:41 AM2/19/14
to
On 2/18/14 9:04 PM, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:27:07 AM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:31:45 PM UTC-6, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:10:49 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The "buffs" didn't initiate the problem, the WCR did. All of the CT
>>
>>> theories put together, yes, even including Fetzers', can do more harm
>>
>>> than the circular reasoning of the WCR.
>>
>>
>>
>> Harm to what?
>
> Harm to the newbies who are sincerely trying to understand what happened.
>
> How is the WCR conclusion circular reasoning?
>
> The WCR begins and ends with the axiom that LHO acted alone. That is
> circular reasoning.
>
The report was written after the conclusion was reached. I supposed you
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:27:07 AM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:31:45 PM UTC-6, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:10:49 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The "buffs" didn't initiate the problem, the WCR did. All of the CT
>>
>>> theories put together, yes, even including Fetzers', can do more harm
>>
>>> than the circular reasoning of the WCR.
>>
>>
>>
>> Harm to what?
>
> Harm to the newbies who are sincerely trying to understand what happened.
>
> How is the WCR conclusion circular reasoning?
>
> The WCR begins and ends with the axiom that LHO acted alone. That is
> circular reasoning.
>
would rather have read a mystery novel, with the outcome revealed only at
the end, but that's not how investigative committees report their
findings. Have you ever read an academic paper? They don't keep you
waiting for their breath-taking conclusions, but first they tell you what
they found and then they tell you how they found it.
And here I thought you were supposed to have some sort of academic
background! I must have been thinking of someone else.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Feb 19, 2014, 9:32:27 PM2/19/14
to
between channel 1 and channel 2 which relies on the false notion that no
one was using channel 2 for 90 seconds during the assassination.
> man killed in Dealy Plaza was some kind of body double, where was the real
> JFK in order to be killed a minute or so later when the "shots" were
> recorded on the Dictabelt? And since we know that the stuck microphone
> wasn't with the motorcade, since at the time the "shots" were recorded,
> the motorcade was halfway to Parkland, who's microphone was stuck open at
> the undisclosed location where the real assassination happened?
>
were fired a minute later. They are saying that their synchronization
WOULD place the shots one minute later. That's how we know that their
synchronization is a lie.
And don't try to snow me of all people about the acoustical evidence.
Save that for the newbies.
> Since you've missed all this over the years, I really encourage you to
> check out this website, it should answer all you questions about how many
> times and in what ways the acoustic evidence has been proven invalid.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm
>
heard about it.
Lanny
Feb 20, 2014, 9:39:31 PM2/20/14
to
embrace a hypothesis than test it.
claviger
Mar 1, 2014, 10:50:24 PM3/1/14
to
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:39:31 PM UTC-6, Lanny wrote:
> It would seem that a disturbing number of folks would simply
> rather embrace a hypothesis than test it.
You just hit the nail on the head. CTs don't like the "test it" part.
> It would seem that a disturbing number of folks would simply
> rather embrace a hypothesis than test it.
clarkw...@charter.net
May 18, 2014, 11:32:18 PM5/18/14
to
>
>
>
> And the question implies that you are more and more being assimilated
>
> into the more extreme wing of the buff culture.
>
conspiracists.
>
>
> But no, nobody is paying me to post anywhere. And no, I'm not
>
> compensated in any way.
>
How stupid do you take people for?
>
>
> You should be deeply embarrassed for even asking the question.
>
::Clark::
0 new messages