Len Osanic weighs in on McAdams and JFK Facts

Len Osanic of Black Ops Radio copied me on an email response to yesterday’s post about Lisa Pease’s criticism of me for referring people to John McAdams’s JFK Assassination Home page.
“Here is my reply in case he [Morley] doesn’t have the guts to leave it posted,” Osanic writes.
Not only will your comment be posted Len, but I am publishing it in its entirety. This doesn’t take guts. I’m glad to hear from you.
“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’s 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.”
To which I say:
Thanks for your thoughts, Len, and the links. I was not aware of some of them.
I want to know what readers think about this dispute and what they would recommend for JFK Facts. I will respond substantively tomorrow.

15 comments

  1. Michael Flower says:

    I think it depends on who Len interviews as far as whether or not Black Op radio is legit. For instance , some of Jim Fetzers analysis’s can be pretty much OUT THERE ; but on the other hand , I think Doug Hornes actual experience with the ARRB gives us pretty good ideas about some of the evidence turned up by the JFK act. What I like about Len and his show is Len shuts up and lets the author or researcher tell their side of the story . Now whether or not the taped interview is legit depends on what the author or researcher says. And Len doesnt necessarily AGREE with what the interviewee has to say , but lets them give their take. So if I had to choose between BOR or McAdams , having heard McAdams debate , and realizing McAdams will just do his best to muddy actual facts unearthed by FOIA documents , calling them FACTOIDS ; I would much rather listen to BOR than someone who just does his best to confuse and muddy the waters. Now I know that Jeff Morley doesnt wish to comment on HYPOTHESIS or GUESSING , and would rather stick to actual facts , and there is nothing wrong with that. CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG ? What some need to realize is that if you werent in Dealey plaza that day in November , you really are just guessing , unless you have actual evidence , and your own take is just YOUR OPINION ..

  2. PBR says:

    Cf my comment below under the post on Lisa Pease.

  3. George Simmons says:

    The JFK assassination has always intrigued me. I am not an expert or researcher, not by any means, but I enjoy reading up on all the information and opinions in my spare time.
    For a long time, I would surf the internet but was never really able to find a ‘home’ where I could base my assassination interest. Most websites usually consisted of people just hurling insults at each other. The pursuit of the truth appeared to be of secondary importance.
    When I came across JFK facts it was like a breath of fresh air.
    Here, people of all opinions are allowed to air their views, which is how it should be. Otherwise, it is a form of censorship isn’t it? Also, I enjoy debating with people with an opposite opinion to my own ( I believe there was a conspiracy ), because sometimes you learn more about the assassination, and also makes you question your own beliefs, which I don’t think is a bad thing once in a while.
    I appreciate that some people will not be genuine. They will be dishonest, they will be rude and belittle the efforts of others. With these people I just respectfully agree to disagree, and move on.
    I regard Mr Morley to be the ‘voice of reason’. He encourages people of all opinions to come here, he always treats them respectfully, and always attempts to find common ground.
    When I look at the work Mr Morley has been doing in his pursuit of the truth ( CIA Lawsuit, George Joannides, Jane Roman cable etc) I see a genuine guy who, in my opinion, is moving the JFK assassination community forward with regards to the suspicious behaviour of senior CIA operatives which has not been explained.

    I am not saying I agree with everything Mr Morley says and does, and the Mcadams website is not a place I tend to spend a lot of time at, but I think he has done enough to earn our respect and trust.

    Finally, in my opinion, I think some of the language used to describe Mr Morley in the recent posts has been a little distasteful. Why cant we just say, “Hey Jeff, dont agree with that, and this is why….”.

    So, as far as I am concerned Jeff should just carry on doing what he does. Pursuing the truth in the JFK assassination. He does it better than most.

  4. Clarence Carlson says:

    Apparently there are those who believe that websites featuring information on the JFK assassination must include “IMPRIMTUR nihil obstat” so that we can all know that the site is free from doctrinal or moral error. After all, the weak minded or those not initiated into the teachings might be led astray. To even mention non-approved websites opens these people to the work of the devil.

    Your is one of about three websites that I visit to obtain up to date information on the subject. I don’t want to be, nor do I need to be shielded from information that is, admittedly, contrary to my understanding of the events. The irony here is that this is exactly what much of the mainstream media has done is continuing the “lone-nut-did-it” hypothesis. We don’t need more “selective” journalism.

    Please keep on keepin’ on.

  5. leslie sharp says:

    The timing of this argument is suspicious, otherwise it might be interesting and constructive. Unless I’m mistaken, the McAdams site has been on Mr. Morley’s “best of” for quite some time. Why the vociferous (and seemingly simultaneous) challenge now?

    Having been involved in public relations in a past life, the debate suggests to me that certain high-profile researchers (some of whom have not regularly and/or openly engaged at jfkfacts) are stirring things up for a reason. Could it be designed to draw attention to Dallas 2013 in an albeit clumsy fashion, or more distasteful, to jockey for position leading to the 50th? How embarrassing for well-regarded JFK assassination experts to be asked in Dallas about their endorsement of Jeff Morley if he includes McAdams’s site on his own. On the other hand, Morley’s FOIA challenge and the Joannides angle has positioned him as a flavor of the month/time period, and it is only natural that seasoned researchers wish to include him in any high profile exchange, contentious or not. Until the reasoning behind this supposed outrage and Morley’s vague response is made clear, I worry that we’re witnessing remoras latching onto sharks, and I’m not sure which is which.

    For the record, long before I understood the term mis or dis information, I questioned McAdams, but that distrust served as a prompt to dig deeper. Perhaps mine is an example of Jeff Morley’s reasoning for including McAdams’s JFK Assassination Home Page on his list, although as “jeffc” suggested in another post, ‘it’s all a bit fuzzy.’ Morley’s ‘recommend’ does nothing but tie new researchers who hold him in high regard in knots. What is the point of that, unless assassination research has become little more than a hobby.

    What if this whole kerfuffle serves but as a distraction (in a timely fashion) from the central issues: who authorized, who planned, who executed, who covered up, and who benefited from the assassination of an elected president of the United States. Surely Jeff Morley, Lisa Pease, Len Osanic, et al recognize that possibility and find it disconcerting.

    • jeffc says:

      hi Leslie

      there is some context underlying this. While McAdams site was appearing, qualified, on the “Best” of the web list, Black Op Radio was appearing on this site’s short voting list for “Worst” of the web – a designation which this site identified as purveying “misinformation” and “disinformation”. Those two things taken together served as a sort of provocation.

      • leslie sharp says:

        jeffc: Thank you, and I wasn’t aware of the trajectory of events; however, I stand behind the essence of my comment which is to say, the McAdams issue has been argued for years, and I believe that it’s an unwarranted distraction going into the anniversary and unwise for those committed to moving things forward this year.

  6. neopatriot says:

    I have a great deal of respect for Ms. Pease’s work and her opinion and found her missive to be professional. In my opinion Mr. Osanic’s tone was needlessly a acerbic and juvenile, such behavior alienates allies. “Civility is not a sign of weakness.” Despite the fact that I disagree with many of the opinions on the McAdams site, it does contain a treasure trove of exhibits, and merits a link based solely on that. I have noticed that several individuals on the web take gratuitous cheap shots at Professor Fetzer, despite the fact that much of his work has been groundbreaking. No one is right about everything every time, especially when pieces of the puzzle are intentionally missing. All that being said, I have found Mr. Morley’s site to be a breath of fresh air and would remind Mr. Osanic that this is Mr. Morley’s site, he owns it and is entitle to put whatever links he wants on it. If Mr. Orsanic doesnt like what is on this site, he does not have to come to it – and he is also free to construct a site of his own I believe if he feels so strongly about it. We are guests here and should act like it. By the way, I do disagree with one thing Mr. Morley said regarding this issue – it did take guts to post the opinion of such a detractor when he could have just deleted it. In my book that’s called intellectual integrity – something that’s sorely missing on other sites.

  7. Mark Wright says:

    I for one like John McAdams web site, I used it most days and find it very informative. I can also understand why people would not like it. Josh has a great sense and information proving some the nutcase theory’s wrong.

    He gets a lot of flack fro authors etc, but in my view they are the ones pushing facts based on hearsays and maybes. It’s also sad that these authors now start quoting each other to try to gain some type crediitbilably.

    Some of my favourite crack pot theories are LHO in the doorway, LHO was a government agent actually trying to stop 22/11/63, the shot from the south knoll, badgeman James Files and Clancy Holt.

    Not everyone will like Johm McAdams, as it may cost them book sales.

  8. Jacob Hornberger says:

    I’m impressed at how you handle all this, Jeff.

  9. Hans Trayne says:

    I can sympathize with Len & his peers for feeling frustrated by being shunned by the media. What he’s doing with his YouTube presentations is more effective IMO because they are global & instant & he has full control over the content.

    Financial support for investigative exposes can come from anywhere around the globe where the wealthy just might have some compassion for journalists seeking to bring closure to the sordid event that robbed President Kennedy of his life.

  10. William Kane says:

    I’m with Len Osanic. My late father told me, as a boy, that the whole “Oswald did it” was a load of rubbish. As a middle aged man, I have chosen to look into this whole thing for myself. Len’s site was one of the first I came across and I’ve been hooked ever since.

    The idea that Black Op Radio should be a “nominee” on the list of worst sites for JFK research is not only laughable but downright insulting.

    I shall, for the time being, still visit JFK Facts, however you’re on a “yellow card” as we say in England.

  11. Neil T. says:

    I find it strange that you place the Black Op Radio on a list of dubious JFK sites. Black Op Radio is essentially a an interview archive interviewing researchers and witnesses, and contains over 600 episodes. Even if you are not a big fan of the host, and you subtract all of the interviewees you don’t agree with, there is a still a huge body of interesting information there. And most of the guests are credible people, not simply Fetzer or Marrs types. I recommend the site to anybody.

  12. appie b. broek says:

    Most astonishing is the fact that after 50 years we still don’t know what really happened. In 1988, that’s 25 years ago, my conclusion was, and still is, that the so-called ‘Watergate-burglars’ were part of the JFK-complot. And even more astonishing was the fact that nobody was interested in the real story!

  13. stephen Healy says:

    Black Op radio is fantastic and Len is very objective and fair. I agree with comments above that James Fetzer’s anaylsis can get a bit out there. For example he now claims no person was shot at sandy hook, we apparently did not land on the moon. I tend to agree that John McAdam promotes the flat earth society viewpoint on the JFK case. I will continue to listen to Len’s show.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.