Gerry Simone – June 15
I’ve read your selective info but don’t buy the spin Professor. Read more
James Feldman – June 3
What I’d like to know is why Hideji Okina and John McAdams are always able to get their pro-official lie posts published, no matter how absurd their “arguments” are, but I always have my posts “moderated” and then dismissed, Read more
Willy Whitten – March 23
Have no fear Dr Agular,
I understand the disingenuous nature of McAdams’ purposes here.
I had a comment that remains unpublished just before your last two, that makes this very clear. Read more
John McAdams – March 7
Isn’t it at all odd that Bush is naming two guys in 1975 who were two of three meeting to discuss Bush’s political future,…..?
So you think this is sinister? You could find something equally “sinister” about essentially everybody who had any importance at all in Texas politics in that era.
Has it ever occurred to you that if I took all your posts, and made a list of all the people whom you think have a sinister connection to somebody else you think is sinister, the list would come to several thousand people?
Bill Pierce – March 15
IMO the *ultra-elaborate theories* play right into the hands of WC fabulists who can easily mock the extraordinary number of farfetched variables and sinister people that those theories entail. Read more
John McAdams – December 6
Does the fact that a piece of evidence this important was hid from the public until the 70’s even though Hoover knew about it rather quickly bother you? – Steve Stirlen – December 5
I’m not aware of Hoover knowing about it.
Jean Hill saw JFK’s assassination up close. A few hours later, she told a Dallas TV interviewer what she saw. Her account is notable for its errors, illustrating the problem with eyewitness testimony in the JFK assassination story. Read more
Professor John McAdams, the self-styled Marquette Warrior, has issued his defense.
In a new blog post, the embattled former political science professor is defending the blog post that prompted Marquette University to fire him, ban him from campus, and seek to revoke his tenure. In the original post, McAdams used an anonymous source to attack a graduate teaching assistant for allegedly suppressing an undergraduate’s views on gay marriage.
John McAdams is a walking test of the First Amendment.
The Marquette political science professor is an obnoxious, persistent climate-change denier with a passion for attacking skeptics of the official theory of JFK’s assassination and smearing “liberals” for supposedly suppressing free speech. He is, in a word, an ass, an independent-minded donkey of a scholar with a thin skin and bad manners.
Once upon a time, he tried to accuse me (and this website) of supposedly suppressing his JFK opinions, an argument that he had to abandon when I welcomed his anti-conspiracist views on the site (within the capacious limits of the site’s comment policy).
Picking up on a story first reported in JFK Facts, CNN reporter Jake Tapper aired dramatic conversations from the reconstituted Air Force Once tapes from November 22, 1963, capturing the real-time reaction of U.S. government officials as the news spreads that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas.
I just took down some of Photon’s comments policy and since I don’t have a working email address for him. I thought I would explain why. It has
nothing to do with his opinions. It was required by the site’s comment policy.
There is much sound and fury in the comment section over Professor McAdams’s review of Richard Belzer’s book. The purpose was to stimulate debate and 36 comments and counting shows success on that score at least.
Besides the usual fulminations of Jim Fetzer (published without editing), there were many useful links, including Ronnie Wayne’s bibliography of CTKA.net reviews of McAdams’s work. Andrew sent along this this unusually thoughtful Politico interview with Belzer, which I missed when it came out.
The best way to advance the debate here is to let Belzer speak.
[Editor’s note; Note the byline on this story. It is not written by Jefferson Morley. JFK Facts welcomes contributions from readers, which are published every Saturday. Articles should be 750 words or shorter and should deal with recent developments or publications about JFK’s assassination, presidency or related issues of secrecy and national security.. If you want to contribute, email me your submission here.]
Imagine you are a high school student and you are writing a paper on some contentious historical issue — say, whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya, or whether Dick Cheney mounted the 9/11 attacks. And imagine you simply surf the web for information and believe pretty much anything you find on a web page. One can imagine the results. Read more
One of many fascinating features of the debate about the causes of the JFK’s assassination is the evident anxiety of some people who defend the theory that one man alone killed the president for no reason. As the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, their anxiety is growing.
Exhibit A: Dale Myers and Gus Russo attack me for having the temerity to say that the CIA is obligated to release all of its JFK-related files.
Exhibit B: Professor John McAdams is in a tizzy by my review of the trailer for “Parkland,” the new JFK film produced by Tom Hanks, that will be released on October 4. In my post, I predicted that “Parkland” will not deal with the troubling issue of an October 10, 1963, CIA cable in which five senior CIA operations officers said Lee Harvey Oswald was “maturing.”
This is “buff stuff,” writes McAdams in an email. Read more
Thanks to Lisa Pease and everybody else who participated in the debate about whether it appropriate for JFK Facts to include John McAdams’s JFK Assassination Page in its list of “Best JFK Web Sites.” WIth one exception, nothing I have read persuades me to change anything on the site.
Reader Clarence Carlson expressed my point of view precisely when he commented:
“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.”
The clinching argument came from Pease herself when she acknowledged she had learned from McAdams.