John McAdams Part 1

http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams.html

Part 2 is upcoming.

But this is the first full scale study of the disinfo artist to end all disinfo artists.

Look forward to reading it, Jim.

I think everyone will enjoy it.  Except for the professor and his pals like DVP, Reitzes and Paul May.

Link to McAdams's wikipedia edits. He edits using only an IP #, but "signs" some of the edits manually (John McAdams). His grasp of wikipedia's editing protocol, designed for quick mastery by the average member of the public who edits wikipedia article much less frequently than McAdams has, is similar to the cluelessness Paul Trejo demonstrated in similar editing tasks. Practice does not always make perfect, or even signs of developing skills. Maybe the enthusiasm of the mission clouds the learning process.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/134.48.30.18&dir=prev&target=134.48.30.18

On the "talk" page of the wikipedia McAdams bio begun by Gamaliel, McAdams is called out for using the IP at the link above. On the wikipedia page devoted to McAdams, he has edited the page using a different IP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_C._McAdams
Untitled old thread
...........
Somebody also inserted a section about my politics. It has a bunch of irrelevant stuff, one citation that does not check out, and another that's irrelevant. (John McAdams) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.198.73 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

He edits the McAdams wikipedia article using IP 65.26.198.73 :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_C._McAdams&action=history

This is the protocol to "sign" a wikipedia edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures
1. At the end of your comments simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

On my keyboard, the tilde symbol is on the key left adjacent to the numeral "1" key.

To keep this simple for the general public, the rest of the edit signature is automatic. If you are logged in under your user name, typing ~~~~ results in a time stamp on any edit also displaying your user name. Paul Trejo was prompted into finally doing this (Gamaliel was quite perplexed by Trejo ....) after several years editing wikipedia articles. McAdams has not mastered it between 2007 and now.

Here is McAdams earlier this year (using the very tactic Jim described in his McAdams piece part (1.) ) attempting to smear the wikipedia bio article on James Douglass.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_W._Douglass&diff=prev&oldid=533248137

Great article, Jim. Keep 'em coming!

Tom:

Did Gamaliel actually write the McAdams bio at Wiki?

Yeah Jim, wikipedia administrator Gamaliel AkA Fernandez, the guy who posted on his wikipedia user page that the article he is most proud of is the Lee Harvey Oswald bio article, created the wikipedia article on McAdams in January, 2010. just click on "begun by Gamaliel" in my last post and scroll to the bottom of the revision history page that loads, for.verification. I also sent you the link to that page.

Wow.  That ties right into what I am writing about in Part 2, McAdams close ties to Wikipedia.  What an incestuous relationship to keep the Krazy Kid Oswald myth alive.

Great article, Jim. I just finished reading it. McAdam's is a right wing nut who should be put into a mental hospital (not that I really needed to point that out). Can't wait for part 2.

See Hasan, most people who just know him from the JFK stuff don't know what a rightwing political operative the guy is.  This is why in Part 2, I am going to go into all that stuff.

Look forward to it, Jim. His belief about homeless people being homeless because they choose to be like that is as low as you can get, IMO. The man is scum, pure and simple.

Wait a minute, that is one I was not aware of.

Can you show me where he said that?

Jim,

To what lengths would you care to go to attempt to prove the extremism and ignorance of John C. McAdams?

Here he is, this month, railing on in a post on his blog.:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/
Friday, August 09, 2013
Indoctrination at Marquette: Bridging the Racial Divide, Theology in Black and White

In the wake of the racial polarization caused by the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman affair, it seems like a good time to examine a course at Marquette called “Bridging the Racial Divide,” taught by Robert Masson of the Theology Department. The notion of bringing blacks and whites together to address the issue of race seems, in principle, a good one.  But how does it play out here?  From the course description:

   Examination of racism, ethnic tension, and theology from the perspective of “white privilege” and African-American experience in American Christianity. ........

The whole notion of “white privilege” raises red flags. It suggests that white students in the class will be hectored and badgered about their supposed “white privilege,” and told that they can only expiate the taint of their whiteness by adopting all the standard leftist policy positions. An examination of the syllabus and course schedule reinforces this idea.

The books listed have a uniform leftist bias, pounding on the notion of “white privilege,” and clearly implying (and often stating) that the problems of the black community are the fault of whites. .....

Consider that this whining is coming from a Harvard educated PhD who attended segregated public schools in Lamar County, AL through the 12th grade. What is his perspective? Does he have any business or standing to be posting this sort of "woe is me," complaint, and does it have any merit? Is there substance or accuracy in his protests? Until the 1970's in the southern states, no records were even kept of, for example, athletic achievments by black high school athletes. All of the records older than 40 years in the record books are of white athletes only.

McAdams has the moral authority comparable to a member of the apartheid enforcement class in South Africa that lasted into the 1980's. In other words, he is a southern cracker exhibiting his arrested development. I also see a theme here along the lines of the Hidell mystery. How much of this contamination of American history and politics and even the assassinations of Lincoln, JFK and MLK, Jr., are actually rooted in the non-acceptance of Confederate States supporters and their descendants that there were overwhelming consequences resulting from utter defeat on the battlefields in 1864 and 1865? Black Americans and some thoughtful historians and probably some bleeding heart progressives of the ilk loathed by McAdams and his fellow faux news audience members, can provide a long list of examples showing the collateral damage inflicted by sons and daughters of the Confederacy who claim to only be defending "their heritage."

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/spring/into-the-wild
Intelligence Report, Spring 2006, Issue Number:  121
Sons of Confederate Veterans Heads in More Radical Direction

Leaner and meaner under a new leader, the Sons of Confederate Veterans heads into more and more radical territory.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Confederate_Veterans#Criticism
......The Civil War historian James M. McPherson has associated the SCV with the neo-confederate movement and in 2007 described board members of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia as "undoubtedly neo-Confederate". He said that the SCV and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) have "white supremacy" as their "thinly veiled agendas".[35] McPherson became considered a controversial figure among Confederate history groups; the UDC called for a boycott of his books and a letter-writing campaign against him. In response, McPherson said he did not mean to imply that all SCV or UDC chapters or everyone who belongs to them promotes a white supremacist agenda. He said that some of the people have a hidden agenda.[36]

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/739/Default.aspx
Confederate History Month

NEW YORK, N.Y. - March 29, 2011 - As we approach the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War, a dark yet formative period in U.S. history, The Harris Poll asked Americans to think about appropriate ways to remember this time, as well as what they think about the legacy of the conflict.
.........
......However, White adults living in the former Confederacy have a different mind regarding flying the Confederate flag and designating a Confederate History Month-at least half say each is appropriate (51% and 57%, respectively).

According to his father's 1997 Obituary, McAdams's father was a member of the Lamar County School board for 36 years.:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AIMfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FqYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4607,1769540&dq=mcadams+shorewood&hl=en

One source describes JC McAdams as board chairman in the 1980's

Alabama Education Directory - Page 63
books.google.com/books?id=Yu8kAQAAIAAJ
1985 - ‎Snippet view - ‎More editions
... Al 35592 BOARD OF EDUCATION Dennis Knight James Wilson III Larry Butler Charles L Cook J C McAdams Chairman of the Board Vice Chairman Board Member Board Member Board Member SUPERINTENDENT SYS SYSTEM NAME ...

The J.C. McAdams Stadium in Millport may have been named after him.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IJ2tklctjugC&pg=PA86&dq=lamar+county+school+board+%22jc+mcadams%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c_oNUpasFunkyQHOqYFQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lamar%20county%20school%20board%20%22jc%20mcadams%22&f=false
Lamar County - Page 86 - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=0738506753
Barbara Woolbright Carruth - 2001 - ‎History
Picrured in rhe earlv ItHOs are members of rhe Lamar Counry Board of ... Felix Sizemore, and Benron Hankins; (sranding) J.C. McAdams and Vance Johnson.

In the late 1980's a Federal District Court, after an exhaustive examination of the teacher certification tests required of teachers statewide in Alabama, as used as a defense by the Lamar County School system in a racial descrimination suit, the court found that the Lamar County School Board went to great lengths to contest a black teacher's racial discrimination claims by using the excuse that  she was not offered a fourth year of employment because she failed to pass the Alabama State test (the court found the teachers tests had been methodically engineered to maximize failure of black test takers) . The dismissed teachers asserted that by avoiding extending her that additional year of employment the intent of the school board was to preclude her from achieving tenure. You need to read the ruling to (the description on page 430 is all you need to read to grasp the intent of the board.) appreciate the court's impartiality and methodology.:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IK2M7hMkpIgC&pg=PA430&dq=lamar+teacher+certification+test&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Me8NUrSCHKKGyAGRgIHgAg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=alice%20richardson&f=false

What makes McAdams "run"? Could his core motivation be to distract from the problem of Oswald being the namesake of Confederate Army General, Robert E. Lee, and that the name Hidell may have been some sort of code word intended for 1960's "Lost Cause" diehards?

Former Bush speech writer Michael Gerson turning out themes similart to McAdams's, just last month. A cordinated message machine, turning out kernels of BS as if it were popcorn.;

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/michael-gerson-rand-paul-conviction-politician/article_d3cc2a06-d12f-55bf-965a-cfff2750dd1f.html
Michael Gerson: Rand Paul: Conviction politician : Stltoday
www.stltoday.com › News › Opinion › Columnists‎
Jul 19, 2013 - Michael Gerson: Rand Paul: Conviction politician. Saved. Save Article; .....But Hunter’s offenses were committed as an adult. They included defending a regime founded on slavery, comparing Abraham Lincoln to Saddam Hussein, and raising (in Hunter’s words) a “personal toast every May 10 to celebrate John Wilkes Booth’s birthday.” This was not a single, ideological puff, but a decade spent mainlining moonlight and magnolias in the ruins of Tara.

Rand Paul is rumored to be considering a 2016 presidential run. So his dismissal of the sympathetic treatment of a presidential assassin as the equivalent of sponsoring a wet T-shirt contest requires some explanation. .....My ... And they remain unhappy about the War of Northern Aggression.

(If you have not spent much time recently in the American Deep South, you might be aware that sentiments as bold and unrepentant (obnoxious, provocative, shameless, ignorant...) as those blogged by McAdams on August 9, are commonplace and "The Civil War" is really described by southern whites as  the War of Northern Aggression.) Yeah, we owned you, bought, beat, and sold you. It was a long time ago, and after Lincoln emancipated you, we no longer even had to feed you or house you, but you still had to work for us because we still owned all the tillable land. We made the rules, jailed you for the purpose of selling your labor, lynched some of your for Sunday family picinic entertainement. Get over it. - (John McAdams, as interpreted by Tom Scully)

James DiEugenio wrote:Wait a minute, that is one I was not aware of.

Can you show me where he said that?

It was in a discussion with me at his newsgroup some 13 years ago, I'm sure you can work out who is saying what:

> >> Who moans and groans?  Neoconservatives *are* anti-welfare.  And with
> >> good reason, since welfare programs have produced massive dependency
> >> and we are just now beginning to repair the damage.
> >
> >As the divide between rich and poor grows. As homelessness increases.
> >
>
> Nobody but leftists care about income distribution.
True.

>  A lot of people
> care about how well Americans -- rich and poor -- are doing.  They
> were *all* doing better during the Reagan years, and indeed have been
> doing better since.
The trickle-down theory was no failure. It certainly benefited those it was
meant to benefit. At the end of the '80's,  33%of the wealth in the US was
in 1% of all households. The rich paid fewer taxes, and the middle and
poorer classes paid more. Despite what you say, poverty did in fact,
increase. "Tricke-down" was just classic double-speak for "trickle-up".

> But we are supposed to be unhappy that the rich
> are getting richer.
Depends how they get richer. Since we gave you Rupert, the wealthiest media
tycoon here is a bloke called Kerry Packer. He thinks nothing of blowing
$2,000,000 in one night in Vegas. The same person pays personal taxes of 2%.
Compare that to wage-slaves who pay a graded rate up to 46%.

> As for homelessness:  it has nothing to do with the "gap between rich
> and poor," nor with social welfare policies for the most part.
It's all part of the equation - is as the trend in the US and here of
emptying out psychiatric hospitals.

> It really has more to do with American notions of "liberty" that hold
> that people who are mentally disturbed have a right to sleep in parks.
They also have a right to a decent chance in life. To that end, simply
emptying out hospitals without provision for community services to help
these people with living skills, is inhumane.

> A lot of the homeless have clinical depression.  A lot have drug
> habits.  Certain kinds approaches -- most certainly involving "tough
> love" -- may be able to help them.  But soaking the rich is irrelevant
> to the issue.
But soaking the poor is okay because they're the ones who cannot minimise
their taxes, have no power or influence, and worst of all - are the ones
most likely to end up homeless and/or clinically depressed - and therefore
become a "burdon" on society.

> >John, every $ spent on welfare saves even more $'s in other areas, such
as
> >the cost of crime, healthcare, family breakdown.
> >
>
> Huh?
>
> Why did crime increase radically in the 60s and 70s at the same time
> social welfare spending increased?
What type of crime are you talking about? The anti-war type?

> If you admit that "family breakdown" is a problem, why is it the case
> that in Sweden -- the Model Welfare State -- half of all children are
> born out of wedlock?  And more people live alone than in other western
> democracies?
If they're born out of wedlock, there's obviously no family breakdown. They
are redifining what a family is or can be.

Jim,
 
I actually seem to recall you mentioning McAdams and homeless people on Black Op Radio. It now looks like I was mistaken.

THose are good contributions by Greg and TOm.  I think I can use them in Part 2.

This guy is even more RW than I thought.

Jim, you provide some very good (and to me) new material in that piece, along with some very keen observations.

I do have a couple of issues though, which I address below.

Many legal analysts have noted that Kennedy's murder took place before either the Escobedo or Miranda decisions were handed down by the Supreme Court. This meant that in 1963, the police did not have to furnish Oswald with a lawyer during questioning; nor did they have to advise him that he could remain silent, and if he chose not to have counsel, everything he said could later be used against him in court. Miranda also dictated that if a suspect wished to stop answering questions, he could say so and the police had to stop questioning him. As no less than Vincent Bugliosi admits, Oswald did say he wanted to stop answering. But since there was no Miranda decision in place, the police overrode his request and kept on questioning him anyway. (Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 161)

Percy Foreman disagrees https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t196-what-percy-foreman-said-about-oswald-s-rights

In light of all these factors that favored the police, why would Fritz choose not to record these sessions with the most important suspect he ever had? After all, Oswald was literally defenseless in front of him. Well, according to the late Mary Ferrell, Fritz did record the sessions. He recorded them with a hidden tape recorder. But once Oswald was killed, Fritz stored the tapes in a safe deposit box at a bank. (Author's 2008 interview with the late Jack White) As most commentators know, Fritz then largely clammed up about this case for the rest of his life. And no one knows what he did with the tapes.

Do I have it right that this is not direct from MF, but comes as hearsay through Jack White? Why would MF have such knowledge and not disseminate widely? If you are going to (quite rightly) accuse McAdams of using evidence lacking pedigree and provenance, then you have to be careful not to be guilty of same. Unless there is something more substantive than what looks to me like a guess shared by MF with JW, then you should drop this.

But the Marquette professor was not done misrepresenting the Ruby case. When describing how Ruby ended up dying, he said that he was granted a new trial but died of cancer in 1967, before it was held. When Burghardt added that some people think he was injected with cancer cells, McAdams laughed this off as somehow being farfetched. The professor had also warned the audience to avoid "buff forensics". The implication being that they are not be trusted.


Perhaps nothing in this discussion shows just how arrogant and, at the same time, how utterly ignorant the "professor" was and is. For in this very case he assumes to be an expert on, there is compelling evidence that cancer cells can be injected. And indeed had been injected on an experimental basis in the fifties.

The first thing to be noted is that "some people think he was injected with cancer cells" because Jack Ruby himself claimed he was being injected with cancer cells. Flowing from that, the question is - what made Jack suspect such a thing? Officially, he was being treated with vitamin shots. There is no way those giving him the shots actually said to Jack - "hey Jack, hold still while we shoot you up with these cancer cells." And Jack didn't have the imagination to pull the notion out of thin air.

McAdams knows where Jack got the idea because I told him on his newsgroup in November, 2001.

McAdams to Martin Shackleford:
> Martin, I've run this "injection with cancer cells" stuff by colleagues in the Biology Department.  They have Ph.D. degrees. > They say it's nonsense.

Me to McAdams in response:
John...if I may interrupt... they were being truthful. I have already
posted on this. Ruby was getting injections. The experiments with cancer
cell injections at the Jewish hospital were being reported on, and it is
therefore plausible that Ruby read or otherwise heard about these... and
jumped to a particular conclusion about what was in HIS injections.
I put forward an alternative theory that he was getting injected with
beryllium to induce his cancer. I have now reconsidered this after looking
at the results of testing on mice. Injections of beryllium would more like
induce bone cancer... to get lung cancer from it, it would need to be
breathed in. Given what's happening now with anthrax... it would not have
been difficult to get him breathing it. But then, that leaves those
injections unexplained.

Looking at the cancer cell injections again... I would maintain my position
that cancer cell injections could not cause cancer.... BUT... I think it
may be at least theoretically possible to induce cancer with such
injections as one step in a process. First step would be to bring down the 
subject's immune system...

From the previous posting mentioned above. Have highlighted the relevant section:

Largely in response to the Thalidomide tragedy, the FDA began
requiring that new drugs be tested in controlled experiments
before sale to doctors and the public.  Thus, in March 1963, the
Saturday Evening Post featured yet another article on prison
volunteers, pointing out that the use of prisoners for the
testing of experimental drugs had assumed great importance since
the FDA's ruling.  This article differed from earlier ones of
this genre in that it made plain that most prisoners, while
volunteers, were rewarded (usually financially) for acting as
guinea pigs.  The issue of experimentation on humans made
headlines in the nation's newspapers and magazines in January
1964 when it was discovered that elderly patients at the Jewish
Chronic Disease Hospital in Brooklyn had been injected with live
cancer cells as  part of an experiments conducted by two eminent
physicians at Sloan-Kettering.This experiment had first been
conducted in 1956 on prison volunteers in the Ohio State
penitentiary and had been reported on without comment by Time
magazine and Newsweek at that time.  ("Cancer by the Needle,") https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/KpXhY4vtHt4

Bottom line: it's irrelevant that some people think he was injected with cancer cells. What matters is what Ruby thought -- and WHY he thought it.

I think that Foreman is referring to the Gideon case.  If I recall correctly, that was decided before the assassination.  ANd in fact, he may be right there.

Jack told me that after Mary died, which I think was in 2007.

Your last bit of info is really interesting.  I was not aware of it and I would have used it if I had been.

Many, RUby was doomed wasn't he?  Between the psychedelics and this stuff.

Jim, when do you think part 2 of the article will be done? I've put up a link to part 1 on my blog.

I will work on it this weekend.

Maybe by Monday night.

Thanks, Jim. Hope to see you back on Black Op Radio soon.

James DiEugenio wrote:I think that Foreman is referring to the Gideon case.  If I recall correctly, that was decided before the assassination.  ANd in fact, he may be right there.

Jack told me that after Mary died, which I think was in 2007.

Your last bit of info is really interesting.  I was not aware of it and I would have used it if I had been.

Many, RUby was doomed wasn't he?  Between the psychedelics and this stuff.

Yeah, I do believe he was doomed.

I think they may have left those "Jewish hospital" articles laying around for him to read before starting him on the regimen of injections and telling him it was vitamins. Let him put two and two together to make him look crazy.

The injections (and hypnosis) were being administered by none other than Joly West at around the time the appeal processes began.

Contrary to what is commonly believed, Ruby did not "suddenly" get cancer and die after the new trial was granted.

He was "given" cancer when the appeals process started. First symptoms appeared in June '66. Diagnosis was not made until much later. The diagnosis has simply been conflated with onset.  I have this all nailed down tight. 

On the general subject of dealing with people like McAdams, my aim is always to present them with as small a target as possible. That means not presenting anything that cannot be defended with hard facts. They will always zero in on any perceived weak argument and ignore everything else. If there is no weak argument, they will soon expose themselves for the propagandists they are - because the techniques of the propagandist will be all they have at their disposal in the face of finding no weaknesses. Sincerely, Jim... I would drop the stuff about tape recording... it is the weak link...

Jim,

Please see my PM to you. When you log in, you should see 1 new message near the top of the screen.

"I think they may have left those "Jewish hospital" articles laying around for him to read before starting him on the regimen of injections and telling him it was vitamins. Let him put two and two together to make him look crazy."

Ha, that's a good point Greg.  His jailers could have been messing with his head (he killed a dude on live TV, its not like they were tormenting an innocent man).  Reminded me of the time DEA agents convincing a mobster after routine surgery that they'd gone ahead and implanted a tracking device while he was under. It worried him so much he sued.

"We can confirm that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration did not implant a tracking device in defendant Vincent M. Marino's buttocks," U.S. Attorney Donald Stern said in a statement. "But we cannot speak, however, for any extraterrestrial beings. I hope that this will finally put the matter behind us."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/702615/DEA-agents-deny-they-implanted-tracking-bug-in-reputed-mobster.html?pg=all

Part 2 should be up today.

BTW, this is the highest rated article on CTKA.

It is getting almost 600 views per day.