John McAdams Part 2

For those who have been waiting.

http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams_2.html

I wish I could be in the same room when the professor reads it to see the expressions on his face.

James DiEugenio wrote:For those who have been waiting.

http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams_2.html

I wish I could be in the same room when the professor reads it to see the expressions on his face.

I'm going to try and make some time tonight to give part 2 a read, Jim.

By the way, I have to urge everyone to read the linked pieces in this.  They are really good articles in themselves.

Each and every one of them.

Just finished reading part 2, Jim. Kudos to you, Greg, and others who have taken the time to expose this right wing idiot for what he is.

Yeah, a neo-fascist.

Great expose's Jim. It's good to know (some of) what we're up against. Mainly, though, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for the compliments you forwarded by 2 people who shall remain nameless in order to protect their identities from any (more) axe-wielding. Just in case you weren't able to receive my original replies.  
 
Take care of yourself,
Dan

You are welcome Dan.

No I did not get your original replies.  Those were excellent posts.

Jim,

I noticed that Albert Rossi has decided to leave the DPF. Maybe you could email him asking if he would like to join Greg's forum?

I talked to him about this today.  I then referred him to Greg.

By the way, I called this the creme de la creme of researchers on this case.

And I then added, you will actually learn something there.

Debunking John McAdams’ “Debunking” of Jim Marrs' JFK Witness List

As I am a new member here, I will provide a link to the full text a week from now.

John McAdams is the foremost Warren Commission apologist and Lone Nutter. He has spawned a number of wannabees who parrot his writings on internet forums dedicated to the JFK Assassination. To McAdams, JFK researchers seeking the truth are "conspiracy buffs" who are wrong to believe scores of eyewitnesses, Parkland doctors, photographic and acoustic evidence. 

McAdams astounding propensity to obfuscate is best illustrated in his attempt to debunk Jim Marrs' list in Strange" and "Convenient" Deaths Surrounding the Assassination  

Michael T. Griffith does an extremely thorough debunking of McAdams' Kennedy Assassination home page. 

This post will prove that McAdams' decades-long effort to refute the relevance of the JFK witnesses is an exercise in futility. He is apparently unaware that at least 57 of approximately 800 witnesses called to testify by the Warren Commission, Garrison/Shaw Trial, Senate Select Committee and the HSCA met “convenient” deaths in 1964-78. The probability is ZERO. 

The JFK Calc spreadsheet contains 115 convenient material witness deaths of whom 94 are included in the reference Who's Who in the JFK Assassination. So one-half of the witnesses listed in the spreadsheet were called to testify in the four investigations.

The following logical analysis represents a profound PARADIGM SHIFT in analyzing the significance of the "convenient" witness deaths. To prove a conspiracy, it does not matter one iota if individual witnesses were related or material to the assassination (even though they obviously were).  Witness relevance and connection to JFK becomes obvious after the fact. The salient point is that the number of witnesses called to testify in four investigations and died unnaturally by homicide, accident or suicide (or suspiciously timed heart-attacks) far exceeded the mathematical expectation. The probability is essentially ZERO that the number of unnatural deaths would occur in each investigation (as well as collectively in four). Therefore, if the deaths were not coincidental, there had to be a connection which means there was a conspiracy. It is no longer debatable. 

This straightforward probability analysis closes the book on McAdams' decades-old barrage of disinformation and utter disregard for the truth. As a professor of political science, one would expect McAdams to seek the truth with an honest scientific evaluation of the facts. His avoidance - or inability - of engaging in an honest analysis cannot be attributed totally to pure ignorance. His agenda is obvious to anyone paying attention. He has been exposed time and again as an illogical coincidence theorist (CT). The "tell" is his inability to refute the basic mathematical analysis which proves that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. He reveals his ignorance of logic and probability theory here: xxxxx

Apparently, McAdams had a limited math background, otherwise he would have done the analysis. His total ignorance of probability theory is shown by his feeble, pathetic attempt to refute the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical doctors at Parkland Hospital. The man has no shame. And this is a university professor? 

As a quantitative analyst/software developer working in defense/aerospace and Wall Street investment banking, I had the pleasure of programming mathematical models that were more complex than calculating probabilities of JFK witness unnatural deaths. 

We will teach you, "professor".

Welcome to the forum, Richard.

Thanks Hasan. Most of my posts are based on the JFK Calc spreadsheet. It includes a database of 115 witnesses, probability calculations, graphs, links. Witnesses can be sorted by date of death, name, cause of death, investigation with links to their bios and testimony. I will post a link to it next week. Of course you can always do a google search for JFK Calc.

Look forward to reading about it when I find the time, Richard.

 Isn't DVP rich?

This is a guy who smears WC critics 9 ways to Sunday each opportunity he gets.  "Kooks", "nuts" "paranoid" etc.

I tell the truth about McAdams and he says it s a smear of the professor.

And he doesn't note the irony. 

C'mon Dave.  Loosen up.

He's a nutcase, Jim. Or would that be kook? Let him live in his own fantasy world as much as he likes. No rational person buys the crap he and his fellow BS artists are spouting.

Hi Jim

 Will there be a Part 3 in this series?

No there will not.

What I am thinking of doing is writing an article called:

The Flip Floppers Flip Flop Back.

This will be about the latest nonsense by the trio of Russo, Myers and Reitzes.

The first two wrote a putrid article on Myer's blog and Crazy Dave just published a front page piece in the crappy magazine Skeptic.

Skeptic magazine is the perfect venue for a Reitzes article.  Where else would you expect to read an in depth analysis of why it's important to be skeptical of skeptics?

Arguing that we should be skeptical of his skepticism of skeptics would be adding a further unnecessary layer to this lunacy.

As promised, my debunking of John McAdams: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/