Arguing with McAdams

it's always, at least for me, a frustrating thing to deal with McAdams in places like JFK Facts. Though I have come up with a new tack, and want to suggest it here, thinking it's time for some guerrilla warfare against the disinformation kings like him (and Reitzes. van Pein, etc). I know we should just ignore them, but a lot of people outside of our sphere of interest read those idiots and take them seriously (yes, even some of my dumbass friends).

well, something seems to have worked, and I just wanted to suggest that others here start using it - I started reading McAdams' posts on Morley's site, especially those against Jim DiEugenio - McAdams does not like to read other people's books, so all he says, like a tape loop, is "where's the documentation?" as though the failure to produce such a thing immediately means it is all hearsay. So I started shadowing him on JFK Facts; every time he gives one of his fake references I say - "John, where is the evidence? Do have the documents? Have you seen them? Have you heard the tape? If not it is all hearsay." And it works, at least if you keep on doing it, because he will repeat the same garbage, as though posting a link is an answer, which it is not. And I suddenly realized that the success of his arguments (for that general audience) is the authoritative way in which he cleverly presents them, and the absence of immediate and material challenge.

in another post there I noted that McAdams keeps asking 'where's the evidence?" and when it is cited he then says 'where's the documentation" and when that is noted he then says "have you seen it?" and I pointed out that he is doing the routine "Who's on First?" Obfuscation, pure and simple, is his only motive. So fight confusion with confusion, I say -



i

Gawd... I hate to even ask... but hasn't McAdams been somewhat discredited?

I was readin' someplace that he isn't really McAdams, his name is something else.... is all that true? (I don't know, it's an honest question, I'm just a n00b, all I know is what I read on the internet).

John McAdams is his real name.  He once attended a critics conference using the false name Paul Nolan.  He is currently a Professor of political science at Marquette University.  This fact, that he teaches young minds, is too disgusting for me to spend too much time thinking about.

nonsqtr wrote:Gawd... I hate to even ask... but hasn't McAdams been somewhat discredited?

I was readin' someplace that he isn't really McAdams, his name is something else.... is all that true? (I don't know, it's an honest question, I'm just a n00b, all I know is what I read on the internet).

Being inquisitive is a fine thing. You do not have to be a n00b to ask when you don't know something.

And using "being a n00b" is getting a little old, I think.

No one here knows everything and we all have to ask questions. It is great to be new at something and need to ask questions but you do not need to keep reminding everyone how n00b you are to this.

Even those who have been at this for many eons will come across something new. We are all searchers together in the quest. When new data arises, we are all n00bs, but we do not need to remind one another.

Welcome to the community. There's no need to feel intimidated.

not unless somebody gives you a hard time for using the term n00b.

AllenLowe wrote:not unless somebody gives you a hard time for using the term n00b.

Touché

 

When you grow p00bs and you like b00bs you're no longer one of the n00bs.

I too have offered rebuttals to McAdams claims using the evidence. No responses yet. Additionally he claims those disagreeing with him are "hobbyists". This is another factor that offers he has no actual evidence in some cases but insults to distract from that problem.

Judging by his blog, I doubt I could sit at the table with him through an entire Thanksgiving holiday dinner.:
http://www.mu-warrior.blogspot.com/

There is a tiny possibility his reasoning is flawed in every other area other than his conclusions related to the JFK assassination, or visa, versa. It is not possible to debate with him, only to toy with him. Assume the only thing accomplished is to influence him to post comments for other readers to get a sense of him. He teaches political science but his Ron Paulist personal politics would eliminate the need or the opportunity to teach that subject, if such an incomplete and destructive political philosophy were ever to prevail. Business would regulate its environmental effect, Business always acts in its own best interests, except when banks stuffed hopeless mortgage loans into sausages called MBS which were actually time bombs. There are other examples contradicting the absurd faith of Paul and McAdams in predatory capitalism.

Noob here. 

OP is correct about the double-standard. He's correct about McAdams not reading books from the other side. 

I asked him (over at JFK Facts) if he would ever get around to reading and reviewing "Reclaiming Parkland". He said 'no'. He said he prefers discrediting 'factoids' one-at-a -time. He doesn't seem interested in reading books with a different POV from his own.

Once he was castigating some posters there about presenting their opinions as evidence. Then he told me his opinion that Walter Sheridan was a "decent fellow" (his words) and Sheridan thought it was his civic duty to sabotage Garrison's investigation. That sounded a lot like opinion evidence to me. So the double-standard is where he is vulnerable. He also needs to be on the receiving end of jokes. 

Also, McAdams is not above inventing his own 'factoids' (his word).  Overall, I'm thinking he's not a very good debater. He's locked into one argument. His opponent merely needs to point out the flaws in that argument -- and do it humorously. 

To debate him - he must be put on the defensive. Make him defend his coincidence theories. I've heard Greg Burnham and Jim DiEugenio (IIRC) debate him. Burnham owned him. He put hm on the defensive from the start. 

DiEugenio was more of a scholar. He was scrupulous about arguing facts and McAdams. That's not how you should debate a guy like that.

M.Ellis wrote:Noob here. 

OP is correct about the double-standard. He's correct about McAdams not reading books from the other side. 

I asked him (over at JFK Facts) if he would ever get around to reading and reviewing "Reclaiming Parkland". He said 'no'. He said he prefers discrediting 'factoids' one-at-a -time. He doesn't seem interested in reading books with a different POV from his own.

Once he was castigating some posters there about presenting their opinions as evidence. Then he told me his opinion that Walter Sheridan was a "decent fellow" (his words) and Sheridan thought it was his civic duty to sabotage Garrison's investigation. That sounded a lot like opinion evidence to me. So the double-standard is where he is vulnerable. He also needs to be on the receiving end of jokes. 

Also, McAdams is not above inventing his own 'factoids' (his word).  Overall, I'm thinking he's not a very good debater. He's locked into one argument. His opponent merely needs to point out the flaws in that argument -- and do it humorously. 

To debate him - he must be put on the defensive. Make him defend his coincidence theories. I've heard Greg Burnham and Jim DiEugenio (IIRC) debate him. Burnham owned him. He put hm on the defensive from the start. 

DiEugenio was more of a scholar. He was scrupulous about arguing facts and McAdams. That's not how you should debate a guy like that.

Thanks Marc (I take it you're the Marc Ellis that has posted at JFKFacts?),

My own experiences with McAdams go back to 2000 on his moderated google group. I can agree with everything you and others have said here. The man is a disgrace as a human being, and I say that based only on his opinions on certain non-JFK related issues.

On JFK-related issues, his techniques are so obviously those of the propagandist that I am amazed he gets any traction with anyone. Yet he does. 

Welcome to the forum!

greg parker wrote:

M.Ellis wrote:Noob here. 

OP is correct about the double-standard. He's correct about McAdams not reading books from the other side. 

I asked him (over at JFK Facts) if he would ever get around to reading and reviewing "Reclaiming Parkland". He said 'no'. He said he prefers discrediting 'factoids' one-at-a -time. He doesn't seem interested in reading books with a different POV from his own.

Once he was castigating some posters there about presenting their opinions as evidence. Then he told me his opinion that Walter Sheridan was a "decent fellow" (his words) and Sheridan thought it was his civic duty to sabotage Garrison's investigation. That sounded a lot like opinion evidence to me. So the double-standard is where he is vulnerable. He also needs to be on the receiving end of jokes. 

Also, McAdams is not above inventing his own 'factoids' (his word).  Overall, I'm thinking he's not a very good debater. He's locked into one argument. His opponent merely needs to point out the flaws in that argument -- and do it humorously. 

To debate him - he must be put on the defensive. Make him defend his coincidence theories. I've heard Greg Burnham and Jim DiEugenio (IIRC) debate him. Burnham owned him. He put hm on the defensive from the start. 

DiEugenio was more of a scholar. He was scrupulous about arguing facts and McAdams. That's not how you should debate a guy like that.

Thanks Marc (I take it you're the Marc Ellis that has posted at JFKFacts?),

My own experiences with McAdams go back to 2000 on his moderated google group. I can agree with everything you and others have said here. The man is a disgrace as a human being, and I say that based only on his opinions on certain non-JFK related issues.

On JFK-related issues, his techniques are so obviously those of the propagandist that I am amazed he gets any traction with anyone. Yet he does. 

Welcome to the forum!

Yeah, I'm the same. 

I've had a couple of exchanges with Mr. McAdams at JFK Facts. They were respectful and friendly. But I got a laugh out of both of them. Personally, I don't think he's a good debater - especially since he admits he refuses to read books by authors who disagree with him. 


I don't know who Photon is over there. But you can play him for a joke too. 
I remember once the subject was Oswald's pistol. He asked some poster what possible difference could it make what the transaction records showed for that pistol. I pointed out that chain of custody was somewhat important in a court-of-law. But it may be less important if you're just going to have a mob guy walk into the police station and whack the defendant. 

He didn't answer that. 

I don't know the facts well enough to argue them yet. I'm not a researcher. I'm just a student. 
But I know when you can play someone for a joke. And those two are easy marks.

On JFK Facts, some posters have called McAdams out for his hypocrisy on Climate Change. 

When it comes to the Kennedy assassination, he trusts the consensus opinion of the "experts" and media establishment.  

When it comes to Climate Change, on JFK Facts he has said he disagrees with the consensus among Scientists and the media establishment.

Hi Marc, welcome!
 
Just as an aside, over at Greg Burnham's forum today you asked "That's why I was looking through history to find something similar. I haven't. If anyone can find an historical analogue to JFK's assassination, I'd like to know. I can't find one."
 
If you look closely at the Lincoln assassination, I think you'll see several similarities to the JFK assassination. One of our members here, terlin, (Terry) has written an excellent eBook book on this subject: The Plot To Kill John Wilkes Booth.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t796-the-plot-to-kill-john-wilkes-booth-by-c-fenway-braxton
 
Also, Greg's outstanding eBook, Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War, points out some interesting historical precedents that apply to the JFK assassination as well.
 
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t721-amazon-link

Reading both of these books, you'll see similarities to JFK.

nonsqtr wrote:Gawd... I hate to even ask... but hasn't McAdams been somewhat discredited?

I was readin' someplace that he isn't really McAdams, his name is something else.... is all that true? (I don't know, it's an honest question, I'm just a n00b, all I know is what I read on the internet).

Jim D's CTKA essay on Macadams should help you out.

M.Ellis wrote:

greg parker wrote:

M.Ellis wrote:Noob here. 

OP is correct about the double-standard. He's correct about McAdams not reading books from the other side. 

I asked him (over at JFK Facts) if he would ever get around to reading and reviewing "Reclaiming Parkland". He said 'no'. He said he prefers discrediting 'factoids' one-at-a -time. He doesn't seem interested in reading books with a different POV from his own.

Once he was castigating some posters there about presenting their opinions as evidence. Then he told me his opinion that Walter Sheridan was a "decent fellow" (his words) and Sheridan thought it was his civic duty to sabotage Garrison's investigation. That sounded a lot like opinion evidence to me. So the double-standard is where he is vulnerable. He also needs to be on the receiving end of jokes. 

Also, McAdams is not above inventing his own 'factoids' (his word).  Overall, I'm thinking he's not a very good debater. He's locked into one argument. His opponent merely needs to point out the flaws in that argument -- and do it humorously. 

To debate him - he must be put on the defensive. Make him defend his coincidence theories. I've heard Greg Burnham and Jim DiEugenio (IIRC) debate him. Burnham owned him. He put hm on the defensive from the start. 

DiEugenio was more of a scholar. He was scrupulous about arguing facts and McAdams. That's not how you should debate a guy like that.

Thanks Marc (I take it you're the Marc Ellis that has posted at JFKFacts?),

My own experiences with McAdams go back to 2000 on his moderated google group. I can agree with everything you and others have said here. The man is a disgrace as a human being, and I say that based only on his opinions on certain non-JFK related issues.

On JFK-related issues, his techniques are so obviously those of the propagandist that I am amazed he gets any traction with anyone. Yet he does. 

Welcome to the forum!

Yeah, I'm the same. 

I've had a couple of exchanges with Mr. McAdams at JFK Facts. They were respectful and friendly. But I got a laugh out of both of them. Personally, I don't think he's a good debater - especially since he admits he refuses to read books by authors who disagree with him. 


I don't know who Photon is over there. But you can play him for a joke too. 
I remember once the subject was Oswald's pistol. He asked some poster what possible difference could it make what the transaction records showed for that pistol. I pointed out that chain of custody was somewhat important in a court-of-law. But it may be less important if you're just going to have a mob guy walk into the police station and whack the defendant. 

He didn't answer that. 

I don't know the facts well enough to argue them yet. I'm not a researcher. I'm just a student. 
But I know when you can play someone for a joke. And those two are easy marks.

Hi Marc

Photon, who posts utter crapola at JFK Facts, is a guy called Paul May.

Stan Dane wrote:Hi Marc, welcome!
 
Just as an aside, over at Greg Burnham's forum today you asked "That's why I was looking through history to find something similar. I haven't. If anyone can find an historical analogue to JFK's assassination, I'd like to know. I can't find one."
 
If you look closely at the Lincoln assassination, I think you'll see several similarities to the JFK assassination. One of our members here, terlin, (Terry) has written an excellent eBook book on this subject: The Plot To Kill John Wilkes Booth.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t796-the-plot-to-kill-john-wilkes-booth-by-c-fenway-braxton
 
Also, Greg's outstanding eBook, Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War, points out some interesting historical precedents that apply to the JFK assassination as well.
 
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t721-amazon-link

Reading both of these books, you'll see similarities to JFK.

Thanks Stan,

the similarities are actually more in the aftermath, insofar as you had an attempt to pin it on Communists, and also in that the patsy was thrown to the wolves (straight away in this case). The biggest similarity however, was in the conduct of the government. They got a judge to head the investigation. Result? Lone nut. Then responding to the shit-storm, they got a Scotland Yard detective to head a REVIEW of that investigation - which is exactly the original task given the Warren Commission - to simply review the FBI report. The lads from the Yard were expressly forbidden from carrying out any investigations of their own. This frustrated them because the government investigation had a number of un-followed leads. In the end, and unsurprisingly, they had nothing to go against the original verdict.

What the assassination itself does resemble - VERY much - is the RFK hit. 

• Young charismatic liberal on the campaign trail and favored to win 
  
• Shot at close range with a pistol recently purchased
  
• Shot in public place with multiple witnesses
  
• Patsy - a young man in and out of employment with no father figure
  
• A member of the occult Californian group, AMORC
  
• No previous record of violence
  
• Practiced self-hypnosis
  
• Confused political beliefs 
  

So not only did the assassination resemble that of RFK, the alleged assassin is carbon copy of Sirhan.

Marc, you asked at GB's forum "If anyone can find an historical analogue to JFK's assassination, I'd like to know. I can't find one."

There have been some assassinations carried out by rifle fire on car passengers, but not that many, and in quite different circumstances.

The better place to look for analogues is in the background and psychological profile of alleged assassins.

The alleged assassin referred to here - Juan Roa Sierra has much in common with Sirhan and Giteau. But the common themes with many are being fatherless, delinquency as a child, unstable work history, among other things.

Carmine Savastano wrote:I too have offered rebuttals to McAdams claims using the evidence. No responses yet. Additionally he claims those disagreeing with him are "hobbyists". This is another factor that offers he has no actual evidence in some cases but insults to distract from that problem.

And "buffs" too.  

Tom Scully wrote:"...It is not possible to debate with him, only to toy with him...."

I think that is exactly right. And if you understand how to do that, you can get some surprising admissions out of him and get him tripped up on his double-standards and the conundrums of his belief system. He's a professor. He's used to lecturing students. He's not comfortable playing defense. 

greg parker wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:Hi Marc, welcome!
 
Just as an aside, over at Greg Burnham's forum today you asked "That's why I was looking through history to find something similar. I haven't. If anyone can find an historical analogue to JFK's assassination, I'd like to know. I can't find one."
 
If you look closely at the Lincoln assassination, I think you'll see several similarities to the JFK assassination. One of our members here, terlin, (Terry) has written an excellent eBook book on this subject: The Plot To Kill John Wilkes Booth.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t796-the-plot-to-kill-john-wilkes-booth-by-c-fenway-braxton
 
Also, Greg's outstanding eBook, Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War, points out some interesting historical precedents that apply to the JFK assassination as well.
 
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t721-amazon-link

Reading both of these books, you'll see similarities to JFK.

Thanks Stan,

the similarities are actually more in the aftermath, insofar as you had an attempt to pin it on Communists, and also in that the patsy was thrown to the wolves (straight away in this case). The biggest similarity however, was in the conduct of the government. They got a judge to head the investigation. Result? Lone nut. Then responding to the shit-storm, they got a Scotland Yard detective to head a REVIEW of that investigation - which is exactly the original task given the Warren Commission - to simply review the FBI report. The lads from the Yard were expressly forbidden from carrying out any investigations of their own. This frustrated them because the government investigation had a number of un-followed leads. In the end, and unsurprisingly, they had nothing to go against the original verdict.

What the assassination itself does resemble - VERY much - is the RFK hit. 

• Young charismatic liberal on the campaign trail and favored to win 
  
• Shot at close range with a pistol recently purchased
  
• Shot in public place with multiple witnesses
  
• Patsy - a young man in and out of employment with no father figure
  
• A member of the occult Californian group, AMORC
  
• No previous record of violence
  
• Practiced self-hypnosis
  
• Confused political beliefs 
  

So not only did the assassination resemble that of RFK, the alleged assassin is carbon copy of Sirhan.

Marc, you asked at GB's forum "If anyone can find an historical analogue to JFK's assassination, I'd like to know. I can't find one."

There have been some assassinations carried out by rifle fire on car passengers, but not that many, and in quite different circumstances.

The better place to look for analogues is in the background and psychological profile of alleged assassins.

The alleged assassin referred to here - Juan Roa Sierra has much in common with Sirhan and Giteau. But the common themes with many are being fatherless, delinquency as a child, unstable work history, among other things.

Thanks very much for that. I mean it. You've given me a lot to think about here. 
There is something nagging me about this. 

I'm a logical person. Something has to make sense. I look for inconsistencies. 
Inconsistencies happen. But even they can make sense when they do. 

I never read much on JFK until the 50th anniversary. When I got to the part about 
the leaflets LHO stamped 544 Camp Street - logic kicked in. Something did not add up.
Actually, that happened with General Walker incident too. But at 544 Camp Street, 
I really got interested. I go forward and backward from that address in my reading.


Why would a left-wing, pro-Castro partisan put that address on those leaflets? 
And everybody agrees - even McAdams - that LHO put that address on those leaflets. 
McAdams' explanation makes no sense.  And I told him so. He didn't respond. 


Anyway, what you wrote here has me thinking. Coup d'etats are usually messy affairs. 
And there is always a leader waiting in the wings to step in. Ergo, it's impossible for 
me to believe LBJ had no foreknowledge of this thing happening. 

Also, this was really a precision operation. The DeGaulle attempt was sloppy by 
comparison. There is always a patsy as you point out. But to try to pin a precision
hit like this on a lone patsy is a very hard sell. 

So what's nagging me is the precision of the whole thing. It raises a lot of questions. 
That is what I'm wondering about now. I thought history might offer a clue. 
But as you point out - this kind of operation is rare, if not sui generis. 

It's an urban ambush by concealed professional snipers, using rifles in a pre-determined
placement, at least two teams. There were only a few shots fired. Then they had to either relocate or hunker down. There was at least one head shot from the side or rear. There was entrance wound on the throat. There was an entrance wound on the upper-back. So the snipers were within range to all be aiming for head shots. 

Military snipers generally aim for body shots from longer range. Were these mechanics from the military? Or were they trained for close-in work like police-snipers? 

There are a lot of questions I'm wondering about. Two questions I wonder about. 
Were they Americans and how long did they survive? Right now I'd answer 'no' and 
'I don't now'.

capone81 wrote:On JFK Facts, some posters have called McAdams out for his hypocrisy on Climate Change. 

When it comes to the Kennedy assassination, he trusts the consensus opinion of the "experts" and media establishment.  

When it comes to Climate Change, on JFK Facts he has said he disagrees with the consensus among Scientists and the media establishment.

That second sentence there, says it all.

Even as a n00b, even just studying this thing for "more than a week", it is abundantly clear that the consensus opinion of the "experts" and the media establishment is a complete and total fraud.

It's not even an "opinion", it's a carefully crafted and disseminated fantasy, a farce, a parody.

Anyone who "trusts" the official line on this thing is simply unqualified to be a serious JFK researcher. PERIOD. Trust is not something that should be associated with JFK research.

And, along these same lines, it is trivially easy to discredit any fact or collection of facts. JFK research "history" is RICH with this kind of "discrediting", any in my view, some of it is right up there with the kind of stuff that got Giordano Bruno burned at the stake. "How dare you threaten the orthodoxy", blah blah blah, here's the witch and there's the faggot, let's have a party.

That kind of stuff is dangerous, people like that should be ostracized and whenever possible excised from the community. That's by humble n00b opinion. Yuk.