Lisa Pease reads me the Riot Act on John McAdams

More grief for my inclusion of Professor John McAdams’s website on my list of best JFK Web sites.

“Case Closed on Jefferson Morley,” says Len Osanic. That epitaph suggested with Posnerian certainty (and credibility) that I am somehow unreliable as a source of information about the JFK story. Then Professor Jim Fetzer fingered me on Facebook as a shifty character, which did not overly concern me. He’s expert at those sorts of things and entitled to his opinions.

But now comes Lisa Pease, a writer who has added to my understanding of the CIA, to read me the Riot Act about McAdams. I respect Lisa for her wisdom and passion, so I listened carefully.

“McAdams has been blatantly dishonest,” she writes. “Were you aware that he gave an interview to a reporter under a fake name (“Paul Nolan”), claiming a fake profession? He hasn’t even denied doing that.”

No, I wasn’t aware of this.

“McAdams made up a terrible lie about Gary Aguilar…. ”

I’ll skip the details but I didn’t know this either. I’ll assume its true.

Pease goes on:

“I once got McAdams to accept that he was mistaken in an online forum years ago. You know what he did? Went to another forum and took up the point he admitted he was wrong about as if the thread with me had never happened.”

Imagine that. An irrational male commenter haunting the JFK chat boards.

“You are losing credibility in the community with your defense of a guy who has been so provably dishonest, Jeff.”

Case conceded! My defense of McAdams was not a review of his character nor an endorsement of his views. I wrote once, in a now-notorious email, that in my experience, he had not been dishonest. That was true. Perhaps I was giving the man the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t deserve. I try to do that, not because it is wise but because it makes life more pleasant. If that harms my credibility, so be it.

What I have said (and will say again) is, students of the JFK assassination should go to his website. I’m not vouching for the man. I’m providing a link.

Lisa doesn’t see it that way. She sees a moral issue.

“I respect your work. But your desire not to raise McAdams’ ire is not going to win you fans from ANY quarter. You have to side with the truth, and the truth isn’t always palatable. … McAdams is a proven, admitted liar. If you ever claim again he has not been dishonest, I will reference this email.”

Please do. I mean, sure, I can subscribe to the statement “John McAdams is dishonest” and, if forced, I will adduce evidence to prove it.

That is all the more reason for people interested in the JFK story to look at his website. Only there can one begin to rebut his false claims.

Lisa complains that John is persistent and rigid in an unseemly way. He is. Yet his persistence has built a highly-trafficked website with serious Google rankings and thus a degree of online credibility. That is a fact that JFK researchers are free to ignore.

I prefer not to. What I can do is try to reach the many people who believe Professor McAdams’s tendentious and misleading assertions about the JFK story. It is a matter of social media common sense that anybody who cares about the online discussion of JFK’s assassination should be prepared to rebut McAdams and to engage in civil discussion with people who think like him.

That’s not a betrayal of the truth. That’s a method for expressing the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

65 comments

  1. Margot Williams says:

    “Love truth, but pardon error.”
    Voltaire, Discours sur l’Homme. Discours 3.
     

  2. Clarence Carlson says:

    In any important intellectual activity it is important, even essential, to explore and understand dissenting viewpoints. Likely we might find little to agree with, but will be “armed” , as it were, with more information and knowledge as we continue to explore the truth. I commend you for making all available information available to those who would wish to follow what is essentially the scientific method. Anyone suggesting that certain information should not be easily available, because it runs contrary to their own premises, would appear to be approving a kind of censorship. The patent assumptions seems to be that a reasonably intelligent person with a discerning mind couldn’t figure out, through their own examination, the apparent faults in the dissenting opinions.
    Good for you. Hang in there!

  3. Lisa Pease says:

    I was a bit surprised to find a private email posted publicly. But if it helps others be less trustful of McAdams, so much the better.

    I understand, although I don’t exactly support, your position, Jeff. But I will say this: McAdams taught me, perhaps more than anyone else online, how to look at evidence with a critical eye. He also taught me to check the backgrounds of all like him. I wasn’t surprised to find him linked to a CIA-funded institute.

    Btw – if you haven’t read Jim DiEugenio’s recent two-part piece on McAdams, I recommend it. http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams.html

    P.S. McAdams said he used the fake name at the conference for fear I would beat up on him, I presume verbally. But that doesn’t explain why, in my absence, he still lied to a reporter. ;-)

    • photon says:

      I note that in reviewing the very long reference by Mr. DiEugenio he claims that you can give someone cancer by “injecting cancer cells” and implies that this was done with Jack Ruby.
      This is patently false and makes me wonder what other “facts” he presents have any basis in reality and how much they would stand up to genuine,rigorous investigation.

      • Lisa Pease says:

        You are the one misrepresenting here. That’s not what Jim said. The government did experiment with injecting cancer into prisoners. It was on the front cover of Newsweek in 1959. I have a copy of that issue in my files. He questions whether that was done to Ruby. Some cancers are caused by viruses. And if the government knows how to do this, do you think they would tell? If so, I have some still-redacted family jewels to discuss with you.

        • photon says:

          I beg to differ. Mr. DiEugenio specifically claimed that you could inject cancer cells-and while not stating it directly implied that cancer could be caused by such injections. Otherwise, why bring it up? Why mention it with Ruby? Doesn’t it strike you as odd that you had to go back to 1959 to find an example of attempts to investigate the transmission of cancer from one person to another? Perhaps it is because it has been found to be impossible? Burkitt’s lymphoma is caused by the mononucleosis virus, but there has been no evidence that direct transmission of cells from patients with lymphoma causes the same tumor in anybody else. And that tumor is the template for the viral etiology of cancer in humans.
          This is the kind of superficial knowledge of medicine and science thrown out by a lot of conspiracy buffs.People claiming knowledge of ballistics without ever taking a physics course, people claiming knowledge of autopsy procedures without even taking a first aid course, people who have never been in an ER claiming to be experts on physical diagnosis and wound interpretation.
          I don’t claim to be an expert on these things-only that until somebody can prove their claims to the contrary those claims have no validity.

          • JSA says:

            But you yourself agreed Paul that the back of JFK’s head was blown out. That’s a pretty big admission, even if you got trapped in a logical argument with a “conspiracy buff” into doing so.
            http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&p=36543

            As for people claiming expertise, wouldn’t Drs. Crenshaw and McClelland qualify as “medical forensics experts”? Don’t you think THEY might have known if the back of Kennedy’s head was blown out or not? This business of Kennedy’s head not being visible from the back because he was lying down in the stretcher is complete hogwash. There’s no way that doctors working on the President to save his life would not have seen that gaping head wound. NO WAY.

          • photon says:

            Who is Paul?
            And no, Drs. McClelland and Crenshaw do not qualify as medical forensics experts. They were ER physician witnesses that studies have shown are accurate in actual wound identification around 50% of the time.And no, if you review the actual sequence of events the initial impression of JFK’s wounds was that his most serious wound was the throat wound. In fact, the gaping head wound wasn’t fully appreciated until resuscitation efforts were well under way. JFK’s large amount of hair (for the time) obscured the full extent of the wound.
            The Parkland docs spent perhaps 18-20 minutes on efforts to resuscitate JFK. They took no X-rays,apparently got no labs, never even turned him over. that is not a forensics exam.
            There is no documented evidence that the back of JFK’s head was blown out. Prove it-show us an autopsy picture that confirms that claim.

          • JSA says:

            Who is Paul? Riiiiiggt. About the JFK head wound, which you dismiss as less significant than his throat wound:

            The Parkland hospital treatment physicians observed what they thought was an exit wound, a “blowout,” in the back of the JFK’s head, and described it virtually unanimously in the following way: (1) it was approximately fist sized , or baseball sized, or perhaps even a little smaller – the size of a very large egg or a small orange; (2) it was in the right rear of the head behind the right ear; (3) the wound described was an area devoid of scalp and bone; (4) and it was an avulsed wound, meaning it protruded outward as if it were an exit wound.”

            ”Soon after the assassination, a Dallas medical student named Billy Harper found a portion of Kennedy’s skull near the assassination site. He took the fragment to his uncle, Dr. Jack C. Harper, who took it to Methodist Hospital in Dallas, where it was photographed. Dr. A.B. Cairns, former chief of pathology at the hospital, told an investigator for the HSCA that the skull fragment, which became known as the Harper Fragment, was from the lower occipital area, which denotes the lower back of the head. The government later lost the fragment. Horne points out that this observation of the Dallas treatment physicians was reinforced by a Dallas nurse named Pat Hutton whose written statement said that Kennedy had a “massive wound in the back of the head.” (Horne, Volume I, page 69.)She and the Dallas treatment physicians weren’t the only ones.

            Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who ran to the back of the presidential limousine and covered the president and Mrs. Kennedy with his body and who had a very good view of the president’s head wound during the trip to Parkland Hospital, wrote in his written report:

            I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing … part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair lying on it lying in the seat. (Horne, Volume I, page 69.)

            Or consider the sworn testimony of Sandra Spencer, the Petty Officer in Charge of the Naval Photographic Center’s White House lab in Washington, D.C., before the ARRB about one of the Kennedy autopsy photographs she developed, one of the many photographs that she said never made it into the official autopsy record:

            Gunn [ARRB interrogator]: Did you see any photographs that focused on the head of President Kennedy?

            Spencer: Right. They had one showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head.

            Gunn: Could you describe what you mean by the “wound at the back of the head?”

            Spencer: It appeared to be a hole … two inches in diameter at the back of the skull here.

            (Horne, Volume II, pages 314-315.)

            Gunn: Ms. Spencer, you have now had an opportunity to view all the colored images, both transparencies and prints, that are in the possession of the National Archives related to the autopsy of President Kennedy. Based upon your knowledge, are there any images of the autopsy of President Kennedy that are not included in those views that we saw?

            Spencer: The views that we produced at the Photographic Center are not included.

            (Volume II, page 325.)

            Horne sums up one import of Spencer’s sworn testimony before the ARRB (Horne, Volume II, page 331.):

            The second major implication of the Sandra Spencer deposition is that the Parkland hospital medical staff written treatment reports prepared the weekend of the assassination were correct when they described an exit wound in the back of President Kennedy’s head, and damage to the cerebellum. (Italics in original.) [Note: the cerebellum is the part of the brain that is located in the lower back of the head.]

            sources: Horne and the Future of Freedom Foundation

          • photon says:

            What you present is legally defined as hearsay.
            Produce a documented autopsy photo that demonstrates your claim. You have not done that.

          • photon says:

            Here is another illustration of how accurate wound descriptions are:#1. take a copy of any of the released autopsy photos of JFK’s head wound and show it to 20 random people for 30 seconds. After taking it back, ask each one where the wound was located. #2. record the percentage who say “back of the head”. In my experience over 50% have described the wound as “back of the head” without having to alter the photo in any way.
            of course, that description without reference to anatomic landmarks is useless.

          • Photon says:

            Billy Harper is described as a “medical student” by JSA. At the time of the assassination he was a student at Texas Christian University.
            Texas Christian University doesn’t have a medical school.
            How does JSA explain that?

          • JSA says:

            Death by nitpickery.

            The fact is, doctors in Dallas saw the massive head wound, TCU student Harper found a piece of Kennedy’s skull, which is from the rear of the head, consistent with material blasted out, SS agent Hill saw the back of the President’s head blasted out, yet YOU dismiss all of these observations as “hearsay.” Yet when the Warren Commission forces and bends inconvenient facts to fit a lone gunman scenario, employing a lawyer (Arlen Specter), to force-feed a ridiculous single bullet theory, you swallow it all whole! I think you need to go back and re-examine your biases, Photon. The Warren Report was a political report, an effort not to find the truth, because they omitted many facts and witnesses. The purpose of that report was to save CIA’s hide, and get Lyndon Johnson elected. What part of that do you not understand?

          • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

            1. if you review the actual sequence of events the initial impression of JFK’s wounds was that his most serious wound was the throat wound. In fact, the gaping head wound wasn’t fully appreciated until resuscitation efforts were well under way.

            Answer: If you knew as much as you pretend to know about ER treatment, you would know that establishing an airway is the first priority in Emergency Medical Treatment.

            2. “There is no documented evidence that the back of JFK’s head was blown out.”

            Answer: Really? What do you call the hand drawn charts reflecting JFK’s head wounds done by Crenshaw, Bell, etc? (submitted to the Warren Commission).

            3. “take a copy of any of the released autopsy photos of JFK’s head wound and show it to 20 random people”

            Answer: I’ll take a copy of the photo’s and show you 20 specific locations that the photo has been altered, which matches precisely the locations stated by Medical staff where the back of head wounds were located. I’ll show you the sheet of rubber sewn onto the back of JFK’s head and neck as well. I’ll show you the small surgical clip on the back of his neck.

      • SM Coogan says:

        I’d listen to Lisa Pease. Anyone who criticises Jim Di better make a good point. This one is B.S prepare to get stoved.

  4. Len Osanic says:

    What a pathetic reply from Jeff Morley.
    First of all when you start a website named “JFK Facts” don’t you think you should have some sense of the facts? For you to not be aware of John McAdams tactics reminds me of Robert Blakey thinking the “CIA won’t lie to me”. And shows just how out of touch you are with the JFK research community.

    Your mission statement. “The site is dedicated to improving media coverage and public understanding of JFK’s assassination”. This is an insult listing John McAdams as any authority.

    How about you read Jim DiEugenio’s recent articles on John McAdams before asking people for donations for your website.
    John McAdams and the Siege of Chicago: Part One and Part Two by Jim DiEugenio, with Brian Hunt. Here’s the link http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams.html

    How about you read the years and years of complaints about John McAdams tactics collected at http://www.prouty.org/mcadams.

    Jeff Morley could have asked any top 20 researchers from Mark Lane to Cyril Wecht what they know about the fraud of McAdams. But with his head in the ground claims to be unaware of McAdams reputation.
    keeping McAdams in the Best websites section.
    Then JFK Facts goes further to list “Black Op Radio” for voting as the worst website of JFK research. http://www.blackopradio.com/morley.jpg

    Lisa Pease’ letter should have embarrassed you to apologise to everyone still hanging around your site. You go on to praise McAdams high Google standing. I’m sure the Westboro Baptist Church have a good website too.

    Jeff Morley – making non-sense of JFK’s assassination after 50 years

    Len Osanic

    • Len has it right. It is a fact that McAdams is a disinformation op. It is a fact that, in collaboration with others, I have proven the Zapruder film has been massively altered. It is a fact that the Zapruder is not even internally consistent and that it is inconsistent with the Nix.

      It is a fact that I have published one book and at least a dozen articles that establish the case. For a nice summary, see, for example, “The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/14/the-jfk-war-the-challenging-case-of-robert-groden/

      It is a fact that the film is not even internally consistent, since you can see the blow out at the back of the head in frame 374, but it has been covered-up (blackened out) in earlier frames. See, for example, “JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVCv3Yha4xw

      It is a fact that the Zapruder and the Nix films are not consistent, since Jackie moves further back and Clint Hill further forward in the Nix than in the Zapruder. See “Nix Film contradicts Zapruder”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12 /03/nix-film-contradicts-zapruder-more-proof-of-jfk-film-fakery/

      It is a fact tha my latest article, “The JFK Escort Officers Speak: The Fred Newcomb Interviews”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/04/03/the-jfk-escort-officers-speak-the-fred-newcomb-interviews-3/ offers more and more proof of the limo stop, which is not a part of the Zapruder film.

      Yet it is a fact that Jefferson Morley originally recommended the McAdams’ web site as “one of the best”—now as “the best anti-conspiracy web sites”–and my assassinationscience.com as “one of the worst” on the ground that I endorse the position that the Zapruder film is not authentic!

      It is a fact that Jefferson Morley knows nothing about the Z-film and that discrediting my web site on that basis is not only without justification but is an example of covering up one of the most important findings in the history of JFK research.

      It is a fact that Jefferson Morley is entitled to regard John McAdams’ site as “the best anti-conspiracy web site”. But it is also a fact that classifying mine as “one of the worst” on the ground that I maintain the Z-film was massively revised is provably wrong–and should remain “a fact” no longer.

  5. Hans Trayne says:

    There is a level of desperation in this current breed of online JFK researchers & websites smear perpetrators that is truly sad. Once reading through the quagmire of their complaints the bottom line of their complaints is they feel they are not getting the attention they believe they righteously deserve, particularly from TV media investigative expose they see as sacred ground inaccessible to their viewpoints . So they attack what they see.

    When any one of them trades places with Jeff & his attorney & develops new research & understanding to the JFK story like they have done & continue to pursue I would consider them in a different light, until that occurs to me, they are just envious wannabe’s that really don’t have much of a purpose in life, something I feel applies to anyone with a destructive nature.

    • mitchum22 says:

      Mr. Morley has his first groupie. How nice.

      JFK researchers do their work in order to get attention?? (Guess that old “JFK researchers do their work in order to get rich” is getting stale.) But oh yeah — look at all the grand attentions Joan Mellen has gotten, and HP Albarelli, DiEugenio, Gerald McKnight, Joe McBride, Phil Melanson, Lisa Pease, Len Osanic, John Newman et al. Household names, every one of ‘em. Right up there with George Clooney and Lady Gaga.

      As Mr. Morley has learned, to seriously research this case means to be defamed, definanced, and marginalized. It is the LoneNutters — or the “Kennedy’s driver shot him in the head” crackpots — who grab all the attentions. As we will all see, to our sorrow, these next three months.

      • jeffmorley says:

        All I can say is that when the Associated Press covered my research, I was not defamed or marginalized by the Washington Post, Huffington Post, Christian Science Monitor, the Daily Mail,, and the many other online news outlets that carried the story.

        • mitchum22 says:

          Good to hear. :-)

        • Eric Saunders says:

          Well, respectfully Jeff, that is because you do not go very far with your critiques of the official story. Oswald’s movements and associations and the impossible forensic case (CE 399, the bullet exiting higher than it supposedly entered, etc. etc.) render the state’s case absurd. Other than sentimentality or duplicity, there is no reason to act as though the official story is tenable. But as Michael Parenti points out, the obvious conclusions are so delegitimizing to the prevailing powers that the flatness of the Earth must be ever maintained.

      • Hans Trayne says:

        YouTube allows an avenue for shunned investigative journalists to get their work online & global. Any and all disinformation efforts can quickly be neutralized there. Where are the Jim DiEugenio video presentations on his interpretation of the case at YouTube? What’s stopping him from getting his research online where it can be viewed instantly around the world? I’d rather see that than stones hurled across the Internet at those the media does present. That hurdle can be overcome at YouTube & in private blogs & be a lot more effective IMO.

  6. Mark Groubert says:

    Read the transcript of the debate between McAdams and DiEugenio. That should be enough for you unless you are trying to get traffic from McAdam’s website to help promote your own.

  7. mitchell says:

    Great post Mr. Morley.

    I find it difficult to disagree with the critical community on so many issues that I keep some distance.

    On the topic of McAdams, I needn’t concern myself with his honesty since his single bullet theory page demonstrates his incompetence. He actually links to a diagram Boswell drew of JFK’s back wound high on the neck. On the same page, McAdams links you to the animation of Dale Myers wherein the back wound is correctly placed below the shoulder.

    Does McAdams not understand the back from the neck? Or is he just out to post any and all incongruent objections to anything the critical community has to offer?

    After reading the article on the Sylvia Odio Incident, I conclude it is the latter.

  8. Avinash says:

    Sad to see so much infighting. Lets stop fighting and focus on the main issue namely assassination research.

  9. PBR says:

    I believe that your decision to steer prospective researchers in the direction of McAdams’ website is entirely correct Jeff. I am keenly appreciative of the moral outrage expressed by contributors to this discussion on said individual but I feel that a dispassionate and objective dissection of McAdams’ claims regarding the assassination evidence is infinitely more valuable as a means by which to show the lack of empirical substance to his overall analysis. As such the well informed researcher has nothing to fear from McAdams’ or his clever sophistry and dissimulation. A calm detachment and a careful weighing of the evidence rather than an ad hominem onslaught on the individual clearly exposes the flaws and contradictions in his overall evaluation of the evidence in the case. The intellectual danger posed by McAdams is that he is clever, nay intelligent, albeit in a narrow sense and his ideas have the potential to be influential with the uninitiated so to speak. As such you do well, Jeff, to point out that his work should be handled, ‘ with care’. The public have the right to examine the varied points of view on this case for without that right and that approach we become dogmatic and unchallenged. Indeed, McAdams presents a challenge to our views and has rendered a great service to the research community in that we can deconstruct his reading of the evidence and expose the many flaws therein.

    • Lisa Pease says:

      It’s not the “well informed reader” that we’re worried about. It’s the naïve reader who trusts Jeff and therefore trusts McAdams that we worry about.

      • PBR says:

        With all due respect I have yet to see an endorsement of McAdams’ analysis of the case by Jeff Morley. My considered opinion has always been that the notion of free speech is a fundamental driving principle behind the varied contributions to this site. If that is the case, then surely the antithesis of this would be a forum for censorship of views which we might find unpalatable. Perhaps a more productive modus operandi would be to continue to challenge McAdams’ analysis on an open forum and present the counter arguments against him with the hard evidence to substantiate the resultant conclusions?

      • D. Olmens says:

        I’ve read this site for a number of months. Up until now I’ve not commented, but that comment rubs me the wrong way.

        In my view, the content and attitude of that comment is symptomatic of a profoundly unbalanced way of looking at the larger debate.

        Lisa, it’s the bit about the “well informed reader”, the “naïve reader” and what you imply about each of these groups. There is a clear suggestion here that to anyone who reads anything about the topic it’s inherently obvious where the truth lies. On the other hand, anyone who thinks to the contrary is naive at best, or is stupid, or even deliberately deceptive, at worst.

        I’ve read your work, I’ve heard you interviewed and I don’t agree with your views. However, I would not claim that you’re either stupid or deliberately deceptive. I think your views are interesting and I don’t question your sincerity or diligence.

        But, I have a problem with the way you and a great number of your colleagues approach your work and the way you present it.

        I would argue that there is a lack of objectivity, intellectual rigor and balance in the work of so many of the participants in this debate.

        It’s there in the enlightened/stupid, “well informed”/”naïve” comment. Also illustrative is the way in which Jim DiEugenio laughs when he’s dismissing a differing interpretation as inherently absurd during his regular spot on BlackOpRadio.

        It’s this inability to acknowledge, understand, analyze and evaluate an alternate viewpoint that always stands out to me.

        In my view, many conspiracy theorists approach the historical process from the wrong end. They start with the conclusion that there was a conspiracy and then work backwards towards the actual event, seeking ways to prove a conspiracy. This colors their interpretations of events, evidence, and the human aspects of the protagonists such as their characters, beliefs and behavior. That’s not history. That’s having a theory and searching for ways to support it. This is how you end up so immersed in a particular viewpoint that dissenting voices have no value. This approach is not persuasive. It’s so obviously unbalanced.

        Furthermore, when you present a viewpoint with the kind of attitude embodied in your comment (not to mention the knowing laughter others exhibit), the overall impression becomes still less persuasive.

        The emails to Jeff Morley in the last few days about website links are silly. Does this really matter? Why not let people make up their own minds? Len Osanic, I listen to your show every week, I don’t care what the link says.

        In my opinion, this debate needs more participants like Jeff Morley and Bill Simpich. Writers who have interesting things to say and who express their views in a thoughtful and considered way, as opposed to the shrill, hectoring comments here by yourself, DiEugenio and Osanic.

        • Bill Pierce says:

          D. Olmens writes:
          “conspiracy theorists approach the historical process from the wrong end. They start with the conclusion that there was a conspiracy and then work backwards towards the actual event, seeking ways to prove a conspiracy.”

          I strongly disagree. Consider . . .

          Only a few hours after JFK’s murder, Oswald was charged with the crime. But Parkland doctors and other credible witnesses thought the shots came from the front. The autopsy findings had not been finalized and some of the wounds were baffling. The Z film – available to authorities but carefully blocked from public viewing – showed a headshot that appeared to come from the front. On the other hand . . .

          The Dallas justice system was under the microscope and under attack. The system was desperate to project an image of order, efficiency and professionalism. The police had arrested a likely suspect. He was in the right place. He was armed when arrested. Police found his rifle near the sniper’s nest. He had defected to the USSR and he was involved in un-American activities. And so on. That’s the brief, superficial synopsis.

          Most people who watched the news unfold – people who later became fierce critics of the official version – gave the authorities the benefit of the doubt in the first few days (and months). The quick charge against Oswald seemed reasonable for awhile. In short, there wasn’t a crazy stampede to find conspiracies – even after Ruby killed Oswald. People trusted their government to make an honest effort to solve the crime.

          In the background (and unknown to the public), the government was very aggressively limiting the scope of the investigation. This started immediately, long before a thorough, honest investigation could rule out conspiracy . . . and contrary to the mountain of evidence that pointed to conspiracy. Eventually, with the release of the Warren Report, “theorists” found that the investigation was shoddy, dishonest, and woefully incomplete. Nothing in the last five decades has changed that perception.

          It is true that “theorists’ are still trying to make sense of the event and the government’s fanatical effort to block full discovery. That’s the government’s fault, isn’t it?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Well said.

          • Photon says:

            To regurgitate- the perceptions of the ER Physicians of where the shots came from are meaningless in the absence of a full examination and an autopsy. He had only an incomplete examination during heroic attempts to treat a DOA patient. They completely missed the first wound that JFK suffered. Medical studies by board -certified medical experts have demonstrated the inherent inaccuracy of ER wound descriptions, let alone bullet trajectories. Those are facts and are not open to rebuttal- unless you are an MD and perform a study that contradicts them.

          • D. Olmens says:

            Thanks for your comment Bill, but it’s not really a response to my main point.

            In my view, conspiracy theorists fail to understand and acknowledge the way their beliefs, values and worldview impact and color their interpretations and writing about the assassination. In their evaluation of evidence, analysis of the protagonists and views on the event, these factors come into play and the researchers time and again come down on the side of conspiracy when examining the details of the case. There can be no other interpretation; everything is further evidence to support their viewpoint. It’s an unbalanced approach.

            As the 50th anniversary approaches, let’s take stock for a moment.

            Firstly, if you pick up a book about this period of history anywhere in the world you’ll find the consensus historical version of this event has not moved one inch.

            Secondly, there is no consensus argument amongst pro-conspiracy theorists as to what happened that day.

            Thirdly, I’m struggling to think of another single historical event which has had so much written about it in such expansive detail with such labyrinth hypotheses, challenging a conventional historical view which has made so little progress towards evolving that consensus view.

            Fourthly, there is a debate, but it’s essentially between pro-conspiracy theorists, and it’s not happening in any larger public or academic arena, anywhere. It’s a debate that is confined to websites, podcasts, books and forums dedicated to the topic.

            My guess is that the response of a conspiracy theorist to these four points would be:

            1) Censorship, organized resistance and bias in the media (and academia?)
            2) They all agree that there was a conspiracy
            3) RFK, MLK
            4) Don’t get the airtime or opportunity to share their views

            Almost 50 years after the event I don’t find that to be a persuasive argument.

            I would suggest that it has a lot to do with the way people look at the world, their beliefs, values and perspectives. Some people have a particular way of looking at the world, and the way government and society works that predisposes them to interpret events in a specific way.

            It’s a mindset that is rife with self-reinforcing logic: “The media doesn’t air our views, therefore they’re censoring us, we’re onto something here”, “The government won’t release documents, therefore we’re being lied to, we’re onto something here”, etc. etc. These are self-reinforcing feedback loops; they only serve to further entrench the views of the researchers.

            I find the work of the myriad researchers working on this case interesting but ultimately unpersuasive for these reasons. This is why their work remains outside the paradigm and is consigned to the fringes of historical discussion. Is that the government’s fault? After nearly 50 years? I don’t think so.

          • John Kirsch says:

            Mr. Pierce,I agree with your response to Olmens. Speaking only for myself, I believe that there has never been a proper investigation of 11/22 in the first place. Taking Oswald into custody was an act that must have seem warranted at the time. But, of course, he never made it to trial,which meant that the state never had to defend its case against Oswald’s defense lawyer or lawyers. So since I believe that we still have not had a real investigation, I also believe it is not possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt (as a jury might have) that Oswald actually shot JFK. Far from positing a conspiracy and then cherry picking information to fit my conspiracy framework, I believe that we have not yet completed (and may never complete) the basic work needed to arrive at a sound,plausible conclusion about what happened in Dealey Plaza and the days afterward. First things first.

          • D. Olmens says:

            This is in response to John Kirsch.

            “Speaking only for myself, I believe that there has never been a proper investigation of 11/22 in the first place.”

            That’s quite a bold claim when you take a step back and consider the sheer amount of work you’re invalidating.

            Is there nothing in the work of either the WC or the HSCA for example that has any merit whatsoever? Nothing at all that would meet any reasonable definition of “investigation”? Nothing in all those volumes? All the work of those involved, including some quite notable public figures, was completely worthless? That seems unreasonable to me.

            You might disagree with the conclusions arrived at by these groups, but I don’t think you can dismiss them out of hand in such a manner.

            From what we now know you could argue they were constrained in specific areas due to information being deliberately withheld from them (although, I would suggest the degree to which this might have affected their overall conclusions is questionable given what we currently know of the information that was withheld**).

            But, I don’t think it’s justifiable to effectively skip past all prior investigations effectively saying, “they don’t count”.

            “So since I believe that we still have not had a real investigation, I also believe it is not possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt (as a jury might have) that Oswald actually shot JFK. Far from positing a conspiracy and then cherry picking information to fit my conspiracy framework, I believe that we have not yet completed (and may never complete) the basic work needed to arrive at a sound,plausible conclusion about what happened in Dealey Plaza and the days afterward.”

            In my view, there’s some mental gymnastics going on here.

            Arguing on the one hand that “basic work” and a “proper” investigation has never been undertaken, whilst simultaneously suggesting that such an investigation, if held, would lead to a “sound, plausible conclusion”. The implication clearly being that the generally accepted version of events is neither “sound”, nor “plausible”.

            It strikes me as an attempt to move to a fallback position that at first glance might seem reasonable, but at the same time suggesting any “real” investigation will come to a different conclusion.

            ** I hope Jeff Morley succeeds in his efforts to get more of the remaining documents declassified so we can have greater clarity on this point.

          • John Kirsch says:

            This is in response to the response by Mr. Olmens to my comment. (This is starting to get a little hard to follow).

            You quoted my comment “Speaking only for myself, I believe that there has never been a proper investigation of 11/22 in the first place.”

            Your response began by saying “That’s quite a bold claim when you take a step back and consider the sheer amount of work you’re invalidating.”

            My response is that the mere fact that the Warren Commission report contains lots of words doesn’t mean it’s worth taking seriously. Serious scholars have raised significant questions about the value of the WC’s work. I think it was Dulles himself who reportedly said that no one would read the report. I would also point out that polls show that the American people have never accepted it.

            “Is there nothing in the work of either the WC or the HSCA for example that has any merit whatsoever? Nothing at all that would meet any reasonable definition of “investigation”? Nothing in all those volumes? All the work of those involved, including some quite notable public figures, was completely worthless? That seems unreasonable to me.” Your faux pleading tone doesn’t fool me. What you’re really saying is that I should defer to the prominent men who sat on the commission because, well, they were prominent men and they produced a report with lots of words.

            Your response is a perfect example of the “sit down and shut up” attitude that we have seen for so long from defenders of the Official Story.

            You went on to write “You might disagree with the conclusions arrived at by these groups, but I don’t think you can dismiss them out of hand in such a manner.” My response is that you are in no position to tell me to agree or disagree with anything and yes I certainly can dismiss the report.

            You continue, “But, I don’t think it’s justifiable to effectively skip past all prior investigations effectively saying, “they don’t count”.” My response, actually, I think it’s perfectly justifiable and that’s exactly what I have done. Your lofty, know-it-all tone is one of the most annoying things about defenders of the Official Story.

            “So since I believe that we still have not had a real investigation, I also believe it is not possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt (as a jury might have) that Oswald actually shot JFK. Far from positing a conspiracy and then cherry picking information to fit my conspiracy framework, I believe that we have not yet completed (and may never complete) the basic work needed to arrive at a sound,plausible conclusion about what happened in Dealey Plaza and the days afterward.”

            “In my view, there’s some mental gymnastics going on here.”

            “Arguing on the one hand that “basic work” and a “proper” investigation has never been undertaken, whilst simultaneously suggesting that such an investigation, if held, would lead to a “sound, plausible conclusion”. The implication clearly being that the generally accepted version of events is neither “sound”, nor “plausible”. My response: “You got it! I AM saying that the generally accepted version of events is neither sound nor plausible. Ain’t communication a wonderful thing?

            You continue, “It strikes me as an attempt to move to a fallback position that at first glance might seem reasonable, but at the same time suggesting any “real” investigation will come to a different conclusion. My response is that I don’t understand what you’re trying to say in this passage.

            ** I hope Jeff Morley succeeds in his efforts to get more of the remaining documents declassified so we can have greater clarity on this point.

      • Eric Saunders says:

        Additionally, it would seem to pretty damning when you think about it, that the guy’s site has somehow been able to game Google’s algorithms. He does not seem himself like any sort of tech wizard…

        • JSA says:

          I doubt McAdams “games” the Google algorithms. He’s been a web presence for a long time, and he’s built up searchable content over the many years.

          I don’t buy into McAdams’ views, whether it’s JFK assassination (pro-Lone Nutter) or whether it’s his global warming denier views. But he has a right to be out there posting, along with the other wackos who think that 9/11 was an “inside job” or the people who believe in homeopathy and such.

          • photon says:

            What is it with the constant global warming comments? Prouty had some really off-the-wall beliefs but he has been practically canonized by some conspiracy buffs.Let’s stick with facts.Please.

          • JSA says:

            Okay, speaking of smearing a source, I’ll lay off the global warming denier kook status of John McAdams, if you’ll lay off Mark Lane’s initial support and work for Jim Jones, which also has nothing to do with the JFK assassination case. Deal?

      • Photon says:

        When someone has to resort to censorship to protect their position, that position cannot stand on its own and is likely false.
        It is amazing how sensitive and threatened the conspiracy buffs are simply by listing a contrary viewpoint. They are deathly afraid that someone might take a critical view of the assassination and come away with a more rational viewpoint than some of the improbable theories out there.
        As many of them make a living off of their “expertise” they also see any opposing viewpoint as a financial threat.

        • Thomas says:

          “When someone has to resort to censorship to protect their position, that position cannot stand on its own and is likely false.”

          It’s amazing to write that point of view and still support the Warren Report.

          • Photon says:

            Over 20 volumes of censorship?

          • JSA says:

            Yes, there were over twenty volumes published. So what? When any citizen tries to verify certain details in the WC Report, as David Lifton has, there are certain areas that are still censored, that CIA doesn’t want the public to see.

            How about some consistency about the issue: FREE ALL of the CIA JFK-assassination related files. What a novel concept!

      • Lanny K says:

        What a coincidence. It is that same naive reader who might be tempted to swallow whole the outrageous tales of corpse nabbing and forensic desecration from David Lifton and/or Doug Horne that some of us on the other side “worry about.”

        Other than simply allowing such nonsense to go unchallenged, might you have a constructive suggestion as to how we might responsibly address those concerns?

        • JSA says:

          It’s not a huge stretch to imagine JFK’s body (primary evidence in the case) being secreted via body bag in a separate ambulance, to be carefully photographed and examined so that the shot only from behind scenario wouldn’t be challenged by any future investigation. This tampering with evidence was done to the limousine also, btw. It got cleaned up and refitted in Ohio after being quickly flown to Washington and hidden in the White House garage. By refitting the car quickly and in secret, another valuable piece of evidence in the crime could be covered up before too many people could look at it carefully and ask the wrong questions.

          • JSA says:

            As to the presidential limousine, and the chain of events related to its handling before and after the assassination, you can go here:
            http://ss100x.com/

            A number of people noticed a hole in the windshield on the passenger side and this can be read in the above link.

          • Photon says:

            As Jackie Kennedy was with the body essentially from the time JFK was pronounced dead until the autopsy started it is an impossible stretch.

          • JSA says:

            No, she wasn’t. When LBJ got sworn in, she had to leave the casket in the rear of the plane.

          • Lanny K says:

            Dave Powers, Godfrey McHugh and others have insisted the casket was never unattended.

            Besides, the casket was at the end of a short hallway less than 20 feet from where the swearing-in ceremony was taking place directly behind and within view of photographer Stoughten and Judge Hughes. Judge Hughes’ and LBJ’s voices were the only sounds during the ceremony. Are you going to tell me that you and a few other conspirators are going to remove the restraining straps, open the casket and manhandle a still bleeding corpse out the back door of an aircraft without making a sound clearly audible to everyone in the adjoining cabin, not to mention in full view of DPD officers on the tarmac, Love Field control tower personnel, and those passengers on Air Force Two parked alongside AF-1?

            You only believe this nonsense because you clearly lack the ability to understand how impossible it would be to pull off.

          • JSA says:

            HI Lanny,

            Top o’ the morning to you, too.

            I was disputing Photon’s assertion that Jackie was with the casket the entire time. I did NOT say or insinuate that his casket was removed from the plane and put onto the other plane. I clearly understand the difficulties in doing this. I don’t think the body was altered but I do think it was altered in photo retouches and that the autopsy was doctored for political reasons to control the evidence of the direction of the shots (ie. to remove any thinking that shots could have hit JFK from the front). Just as the car was quickly cleaned up and evidence of a bullet hole in the front windshield was “shielded from future investigators” I think the autopsy erased what the Dallas doctors saw, to fit the lone nut firing from behind scenario.

            You can rail away and stomp your feet all you like, but I think my theory has some weight. Sorry.

          • Photon says:

            You have absolutely no proof for your claim that the autopsy was doctored for political reasons- or even what “doctoring” an autopsy is.
            Obviously you have never seen one or even know much about autopsies in general.
            There is no proof whatsoever that the autopsy photos were altered or faked. Your only evidence for that are claims from people who weren’t part of the autopsy or never came in direct contact with the body.
            Even with the problems associated with ER physician wound interpretations all of the Parkland physicians interviewed on a PBS program who were given the autopsy photos agreed that those photos were consistent with what they saw in 1963. One changed his mind- 40 years after the event.

  10. Philip T. says:

    Everyone needs to take a breath. Mr. Morley: spelling Mr. Osanic’s site incorrectly is a little disrespectful so fixing that would help. Mr. Osanic: as bad as McAdams’ site is (very), you have to recognize what Mr. Morley has done in terms of research and spreading the word. If he links a site we all know is garbage, he still deserves some major slack. Let’s not forget, just recently, he got pictures of George Joannides flashed across international AP wires along with some of the only sensible discussion of the JFK case that main stream media ever sees. He deserves my respect as much as you or Lisa Pease or Jim DiEugenio.

    I wish everyone would just take a breath. Some toes were stepped on on both sides. But they were just toes and these aren’t really sides at all. Just a misunderstanding. 50th is coming up. Stay frosty, people.

    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/russholmes/104-10406/104-10406-10110/html/104-10406-10110_0002a.htm

  11. Thomas says:

    In the end this issue of links is irrelevant, pretty much a parlor game for people with similar interests to discuss for a while then move on to more interesting topics. Making more of it than than that Mr. Photon is merely trying to stir the pot.

  12. The allegation that McAdams libeled Gary Aguilar is quite correct. That was indeed despicable and if memory serves, he has never apologized for falsely accusing Aguilar of being a drug addict.

    The “Paul Nolan” issue is a bit different however, and not nearly as evil as it has been made out to be. At that time McAdams and I had partnered to form a moderated newsgroup and he had told me about his intentions to go to the COPA conference using an alias, mainly because he was concerned about confrontations with conspiracy people there, which might result in screaming matches or worse. This thing has been blown way out of proportion.

    McAdams’ much worse sin has been to continue to promote the lone nut theory, after fully realizing that shots at the end of the attack were too closely spaced for Oswald to have fired them all. There’s a bit more to this story than I will type here, but this is something that I am quite certain about.

    • Photon says:

      Actually the most recent evidence has been that the shots were spaced much further apart than first believed, at least 8 seconds and possibly as much as 11 seconds- although the latter seems unlikely.
      The 8 second scenario has been repeatedly demonstrated to be easily performed with the necessary accuracy.

    • Lisa Pease says:

      He lied to a reporter though and pretended to be someone he wasn’t to the press. THAT is the disturbing part, not being too cowardly to attend a conference under his real name due to all the ire he had generated against himself.

  13. S. R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

    I think in the case of “McAdams” website, we need to look separately at the website and the man himself. I personally am not impressed with the likes of McAdams or Fetzer, but McAdams website does have useful information. (John, I think people might appreciate if you lose the condescending tones and innuendos).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more