JFK Assassination

For some reason I always associate this song with JFK'S assassination on the zapruder film. I think it'd be the perfect background music, even on a history documentary.

we in ireland all know about such cases as the guildford 4 (and anne maguire and her family ) as well as the birmingham 6 and these people probably appeared as guilty as sin and yet the truth was very different ,things are not always how they appear and that i believe is very true of most aspects of the jfk assassination .

1/ "Oswald broke tradition and traveled to Irving on THURSDAY afternoon after work when he had NEVER done this in the past "

the only reason that is regarded as suspicious is because buell wesley frazier told the police oswald said he was going home to collect some curtain rods (the same curtain rods frazier said oswald had the next morning in his truck wrapped in paper ) the same package that both frazier and his sister linnie randall both said was no more than 24 inches and which frazier described oswald as holding it cupped in the palm of his hand and tucked up under his arm pit . the lenght of the parcell (given by randall and frazier )at 24 inches is not compatable with the measurements of the carcano and those measurements make it physicly impossible for oswald to have carried the broken down carcano in the fashion frazier described .

"Why DID Oswald decide to make an unexpected visit to Irving the very night before the President was assassinated with a rifle linked to Oswald and no one else?"
when did frazier say oswald carried a rifle in his truck either on thursday night or friday morning ? thats a patently false statment . why would oswald leave the curtain rods in fraziers truck (frazier would be heading back to irving friday evening ) oswald was going to north beckley and so was not getting a lift from frazier and so would not leave the curtain rods in the truck . we have to add to this that oswald denied ever saying anything about curtain rods to frazier (or carrying them that morning in his truck ) the curtain rod story only came from frazier ,oswald said he only carried his lunch and had no 35.8 inch long by 6 inch wide package when going into work that morning ,jack dougherty when asked was very sure that when he saw oswald enter the building he did not see him carry such a package .

2/"Why did Oswald leave his wedding ring and virtually all of the money he had in the world with Marina the morning of the assassination? If Oswald was simply going to work that day and expected to return to Irving later that evening why leave money and his wedding ring in a tea cup for Marina to find later? Any sensible ideas?"

yes true oswald left money and i believe his wedding ring as he awoke late for work and left in a hurry (who of us have never done some thing like that ) incidentely he left quite a large sum of money £120 thats a vast amount for a man who worked for about $1.25 (anyone wonder how he came to have so much money ? ) and by the way it wasnt all the money he had in the world as he was arrested with $12 dollars on him thats nearly half his weekly wage .

3/"What WAS in that long brown package Oswald brought to work with him on the morning of the assassination? Remember he told Wesley Frazier that he didn't bring his lunch that day and said the package contained curtain rods, but strangely no curtain rods were found in the TSBD after the assassination and Oswald is not witnessed by anyone eating any lunch that day. And even though there was some discrepancy in the length of the package it still does not resolve what WAS in it, does it? Any possible explanations?"
we only have fraziers word about the curtain rods and the package that he says he saw at close range could not be the broken down carcano which when broken down was 35.8 inches long . oswald was seen atleast two times between 11.50 and midday on the first floor (where he said he went for lunch) first by his supervisor bill shelly and then by eddie piper (that is in the warren comission vollumes ) carolyn arnold claims to have seem him also eating his lunch all tho there is debate as to the exact time she saw him either 12.15 or 12.25 . so to say no one saw him is again patently false .

4/" Where WAS Oswald at the time of the assassination? He claimed to be in the first floor lunchroom, yet other employees KNOWN to have been there (James Jarman for one) said they didn't recall seeing Oswald in there after 12:00 noon. And also remember that during his interrogation Oswald slipped up and told DPD interrogators that after the assassination he "came downstairs." In James Douglass's flawed work, "JFK and the Unspeakable" he resurrects the old theory that Oswald is seen in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the assassination (in the Altgens photograph). But this theory reveals the historical weakness of Douglass's book since it seems highly unlikely that Oswald would have been in the doorway to the TSBD at the time of the assassination yet when questioned by police Oswald was too dumb to tell police this little tidbit. So where WAS Oswald at the time of the assassination?"

oswald did tell the police he was outside with bill shelly and others so thats another factual error ,harold norman did say in his warren commission testimony that while he was in the first floor lunchroom with jarmin that someone was there but he couldnt say who . oswald did say that while he ate his lunch two negros came in one was called junior and the other one was very short (that was norman ) how could oswald if he is on the 6th floor know who was in the lunchroom ? especially since on that day of all days that some staff changed their habits some eating quickly in the lunchroom to go out side and see jfk others going directly outside ,how could oswald have picked the only two men who were most certainly in the lunchroom untill some time between 12.10 and 12.15 ?. also its wrongly said that oswald claimed to have eaten with jarmin and norman and that he said he was with bill shelly outside ,both claims are false because oswald was known as man who sat by himself /ate by himself and talked very little to people all oswald claimed was that while he was eating jarmin and norman were there (not that he ate with them ) and that bill shelly was there in the area where he was standing outside (that does not mean he spoke to shelly or even that shelly saw him ) these people took no real interest in oswald their focus was on seeing jfk .

exactly how does oswald slip up when saying he went down stairs after the assassination ? of course he goes down stairs after the assasination how else can he leave the building (which he admitted doing as did many other people ) i dont believe for a second that oswald is the man in the doorway in altgens its billy lovelady oswald was on his way upstairs (or already up there ) buying a coke at that time .

5/"5. Why was Oswald's rifle found on the same floor that eyewitnesses placed a gunman at the time of the assassination? If Oswald really was innocent of any involvement how did his rifle get there?"

was it oswalds rifle ? the rifle they say oswald ordered is not the rifle they say now resides in the archives (its the wrong lenght) the only thing that links oswald to the rifle is the name a hiddel (nothing more ) the commision was fully aware that oswalds po box was setup only to recieve mail for lee oswald (see the po box application form which i posted earlier in this thread stating only one name lee oswald ) a hiddel is nowhere to be seen on that application form so a hiddel was no more entitled to recieve mail at that po box than i am . there is no record of oswald ever recieving or picking up the rifle ,also the said the serial number on the rifle was unique to that rifle and that was and is factually untrue and inaccurate .

dallas police chief jesse curry said
"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand."

6/ "Why didn't Oswald stick around after the assassination to watch the story unfold in Dealey Plaza. Oswald was arguably THE most politically literate employee of the TSBD. Oswald defenders even point out that Oswald was fond of Kennedy and his family, yet at the same time these Oswald defenders fail to see anything unusual about Oswald refusing to remain on the scene of the most important event he would ever witness in his lifetime, but instead takes off on foot running, jogging, walking seven blocks away from Dealey Plaza. Any alternate explanation for this strange behavior?"

other people left the building along with oswald so should their behaviour be viewed as equally stange ? ,oswald was on his lunch break and was entitled to leave and was allowed to leave having been vouched for .yes it must be said that he did not return but he said that he did not think there was any point returning as he didnt think any work would be done in the remaing few work hours (which would have been the case ) that said oswalds trip to the theatre was for more than a place to hide .

7/ "Why wouldn't Oswald patiently await the arrival of the Marsailles Street bus at the bus stop across the street from the TSBD? Remember that there was a bus stop at the intersection of Houston and Elm where Oswald could have calmly sat and awaited for the arrival of his bus, but he chooses instead to race seven full blocks and then hail the bus in mid-intersection before climbing aboard. Does this scenerio makes sense if Oswald is innocent of murdering Kennedy? Of course it makes PERFECT sense if he is guilty and fleeing the scene of his crime. Any good explanation for this odd behavior?"

not one witness ever said oswald was seen racing to the bus or to the cab that again is completely untrue and unfactual .oswald is seen by 3 people on the bus mary bledsoe (who says oswald is wearing a shirt torn at the elbow with buttons missing ,this is clearly how the shirt apppeared after the scuffle in the theatre which wouldnt happen for another hour ) roy jones and bus driver mcwatters both say oswald wore a jacket so how can bledsoe see oswalds shirt torn at the elbow ? . oswald did say he got on a bus and then got off (there is no law against that ) as it was bogged down in traffic going no where , cab driver willlaim whalley also contradicts bledose and the commission as he to says oswald was wearing a faded blue jacket (thats 3 witnesses saying oswald wore a jacket and one witness who said he wore a shirt ) who do the commision believe 3 people who are consistent no they believe bledsoe (who was clairevoyant it seems in seeing oswalds shirt ripped and tornwhen it wouldnt be ripped and torn for another hour ) why because she said she knew him previously and that he had murder in his eyes ,no other witness described oswald as she did (but the commission showed their obvious bias and that they were only interested in evidence that might show oswald to be guilty ) it would be the only time the commison acted in such a manner .

8/ "Can anyone explain why Oswald would have asked the cab driver to drive him four blocks PAST his residence on North Beckley street instead of simply dropping him off in front of his house? Is there a logical explanation for Oswald to pay the extra money to the cab driver and then walk nearly a half-mile BACK to the same address the cab driver just drove past?"

it is strange that he drove past his rooming house and i dont know why he would have done that ,the money is not an issue after all we are only talking about a few extra cents the total cab far i believe was 98 cents . by the money he had is rising when you add the $120 dollars he left behind with the $12 dollars in his pocket to the bus and cab fare he spent ,where does a man on his wage get that kind of money ? that equaits to a little under $1000 dollars today ,and it wasnt the only time he had money beyond his known means .

9/"Why would Oswald change all of his clothes and pick up his loaded revolver in between arriving home and leaving for the movie theater? The clothing he changed into were not nicer nor more shabby than what he wore to work, and there is no reason to believe they were dirty or unkempt and the reason for him changing clothing and picking up his revolver seems to only make sense when one realizes that he was guilty of committing a crime and obviously wanted to change his appearance and have his revolver on him in the event police stopped him. Is there a logical alternate explanation supported by either common sense or logic? On the day President Reagan was shot (March 30, 1981) I left work early to watch the event unfold on television, but I didn't race home change my clothes, pick up my revolver, and take off on foot roaming the streets of Livonia, Michigan. Why did an innocent Oswald do exactly this?"

i have to assume as he was at work his clothes were dirty and perhaps his shirt was sweaty ,so he changed his shirt and his britches and placed them in the drawer (its not unreasonable or unusuall for a person to change out of their work clothes ) i see nothing out of the ordinary in a man doing that .on the day reagan was shot i stayed at work and came home afterwards had a shower and changed in to some fresh clothes so i guess all that shows is people think and do things differently but that doesnt make them all killers .

10/" Why would Oswald sneak into the Texas Theater without paying the 75-cent admission cost--especially when one realizes that Oswald had over $12 on him at the time? If Oswald was innocently entering the theater to watch a movie, why not buy a ticket like everyone else? Of course if Oswald is fleeing police and panicking then his behavior is perfectly understandable. Is there a logical alternate explanation for this blatantly illegal act?"

did oswald sneak in without paying ? did he go in a little after 1.00 pm or did he go in about 1.35 as seen by brewer ? ,brewer and julia postal say different things regarding oswald entering the theatre in their warren commision testimony .after all he had paid for the bus and the cab so why would he now not pay to enter the theatre ? .assuming oswald is fleeing the police and looking for a darkened place to hide why draw attention to himself by not paying ? ,why then would oswald draw even further attention to himself by moving around the theatre and sitting next to all most all the patons ? .who was the second man who was taken out of the rear door while oswald was being taken out the front door ? ,could the second man have been the man who brewer saw ? .

11/ "Why would Oswald stand up in the theater, produce his revolver, and attempt to murder Dallas police officer Nick McDonald during some routine questioning. Wouldn't an innocent Oswald naturally assume that the police were there to question him about sneaking into the theater without paying? Is it logical to conclude that Oswald would risk the death penalty in Texas over a 75 cent movie ticket? And while we are on the topic, what did Oswald mean when he stood and yelled out, "Well it's all over now!" WHAT was "all over now"? Was Oswald referring to the movie? Was he referring to his weekend? Was he referring to his movie-filled afternoon break? Or was he referring to his flight from police?
Any innocent explanations for this behavior?"

there is no certainty about what oswald said at that second the officer was not sure he thought oswald might have said "this is it " no witness said oswald tried to murder a cop in fact the only witness who saw a gun in a hand said the person holding the gun had a short sleeve oswald wore a long sleeve shirt . clearly oswald had a gun on him when arrested (which he admitted) we must remember that this was dallas texas in the 1960s and so someone carrying a gun was a lot more common place and it was legal to own them ,after all jack ruby just happened to be strolling by the police station on sunday morning with a gun in his pocket so oswald clearly wasnt the only person walking around dallas with a gun in their pocket .

12/ "Why wouldn't Oswald admit to owning a rifle? If Oswald was innocent of any involvement AND if no bullets had been matched to Oswald's rifle yet AND if Oswald hadn't brought his rifle to work that morning wouldn't an innocent Oswald have no good reason to deny owning a rifle? They were perfectly legal to own in Dallas and Oswald would naturally assume that his rifle was still in the garage at Ruth Paine's home, wouldn't he? Why would Oswald repeatedly lie about owning a rifle if it wasn't used in the assassination? How would his rifle, safely wrapped up in a blanket in Ruth Paine's garage possibly link him to a crime he didn't commit? His repeated denials of ownership only make sense when one realizes that Oswald was guilty and he knew that admitting his ownership of the murder weapon would point guilt in HIS direction.

Or IS there an innocent explanation for his repeated denials of rifle ownership?"

why in the world would oswald say he owned a rifle if he didnt ? thats ridiculous . to say oswald repeatedly lied about the rifle you have to prove he ordered/recieved /picked up a rifle and that hasnt been done (it also has to be expalined if he did indeed order a rifle how the rifle he ordered is not the one he recieves ),it also has to be proven that the rifle in the backyard photos is the same rifle thats in the national archives and clearly there are differences in those rifles (see the pictures of both rifles i posted in an earlier post ) to say oswald had no good reason to deny he owned the rifle is hogwash he denied he owned it simply because he didnt own it .

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

'Hey Lee someone just shot the president'

'Damn............. I think I will go home, change my clothes, kill a cop, act suspiciously and then sneak into a movie theatre armed with a handgun'.

Sometimes the most easiest solution is the true one. Oswald fired 3 shots from the book depository and then made his getaway.

i appreciate everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter if that opinion may be right or wrong ,you posted "twelve things involving Oswald's behavior that make him appear VERY guilty" yes im sure there were things that made him appear guilty .there have been many people freed after many years in prison (who probably appeared very guilty at the time ) some of which i named in my last post that have later been shown to be innocent .

there was a man in the uk (his name alludes me now ) he spent 20 plus years in jail for raping and murdering a young woman ,dna showed him to be completely innocent and he was freed .

there is a lot more to oswald than we know ,he wasnt a crazy lone nut anything but and the same goes for jack ruby.

i recognised the rhetoric in the post but wasnt quite sure who was the original author my thinking was dave von pien or dave rietzes but i see its from a certain mr mcadams .

i believe i posted this before but ill post it again .

Who is John McAdams?

Who is Mcadams, CIA disinformation asset, or just plain Crackpot?
Since Mcadams is known to use the alias "Paul Nolan" just how many other names has he used to deceive?
He claims to be many things. A jet-propulsion expert... or Crackpot? Here is what was discovered...

---

THE OFFICIAL MCADAMS FAQ <H4><H5>Frequently Asked Quuestions regarding John Mcadams / aka Paul Nolan
By Jim Hargrove <H5>Back To The mcadams FAQ MAIN Page <H5>This FAQ info seems to have prematurely disappeared from DejaNews, but after considerable searching on my old hard drive, here, by popular demand, is the "Official John MacAdams FAQ," first posted on Usenet way back in 1995 by a wonderful Englishman named Bill MacDowall. Bill made "John Locke" (an earlier and even meaner version of "Amythest") stop smearing people on this newsgroup forever by using well-paid lawyers, who for once served a reasonably worthy cause. <H5><H5>This FAQ exists to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about John McAdams. <H5><H5>This FAQ will be posted regularly to forewarn new users of the dangers of becoming another McAdams victim. <H5><H5>

---

<H5><H5>1. Who is John McAdams? John McAdams is a professor of political science employed in the Jesuit Marquette University. <H5><H5>

---

<H5>2. Is John McAdams hell-bent on destroying the (alt.conspiracy.jfk) newsgroup? Sadly yes. His own words appended below summarize his intentions better than I could.
From jmcadams@primenet.com Sat Feb 15 05:17:02 1997
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Blown back by shot
From: jmcadams@primenet.com (John McAdams)
Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700

You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme to make this group a shambles. And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret.
I have publicly announced it.
I have made it perfectly obvious.
I have rubbed you buffs' noses in it.
It's blatantly obviously to everybody.

.John

<H5>

---

<H5>This recent post by McAdams should be viewed in terms of the Charter he submitted as part of the process of forming the moderated JFK group:

CHARTER AND MODERATION POLICY

This group will be for the purpose of providing an area for serious discussion and research of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The group will be moderated to prevent the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued alt.conspiracy.jfk and made it nearly useless as a vehicle for intelligent research. Questions surrounding JFK's death have made this one of the most talked about and controversial issues of our generation. This will be the one usenet group which deals seriously with this important topic.

One supposes that since the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued the alt.conspiracy.jfk group were and are part of McAdams freely admitted plans to turn the group into a shambles, the moderated group can only be seen as his personal vehicle for selective manipulation of content.

<H5>

---

<H5>3. Is McAdams connected to the CIA?

Many people have suggested he is and it would not be difficult to imagine how useful a professor of political science at a respected university would be as a CIA asset. It is impossible to know if McAdams has "company" links but his background and behavior may shed some light.

The following is a quote from a letter written by McAdams to the Milwaukee Sentinel Newspaper:

(Dr) Gary Aguilar accused me on the politics forum of being A CIA sponsored disinformationist because I was once the Marquette Official representative of the I.C.P.S.R. an utterly unspooky social science data archive.

The article below throws some light on just how "un-spooky" the ICPSR actually is:

Not being widely known outside its narrow area of research the ICPSR may not register with most people, but if you are familiar with intelligence and covert action, you will recognize that some of their "classes" deal in "nation building" concept, which is what the interventionists call it when they set up a puppet government through subversion of the existing institutions of said nation.

The ICPSR is housed in the Institute for Social Research, or ISR which itself has been documented has recipient of spook research grants.

This is a repost of something Lisa Pease posted a while back that elaborates on these spook research grants and also contains Mcadams' admission, if not boast, that he was at one time "official representative" to ICPSR.

They have a web page, so you can check it out for yourself. You may notice studies on assassinations and the courses on the "formation of elites" in Chile etc..

The URL is: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/

Of course, McAdams may or may not be connected with the CIA, you pay your money and take your chance in dealing with him.

<H5>

---

<H5>CIA infiltrating as Teachers ?

Search for "Marquette University & the CIA" on any search engine a see what comes up... Here's a small sample of what I found

CIA Sends Agents To Schools -- To Teach ... Floyd L. Paseman, who ran the CIA's East Asian operations and is now on a two-year teaching stint at Marquette University in Milwaukee, draws similar plaudits ...

www.commondreams.org/headlines/041800-02.htm - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

CIA Officer in Residence Program ... according to Carlos D. Davis, deputy director of the CIA's ... of Southern California,the University of Maryland, New Mexico State University, Marquette ... www.cia-on-campus.org/foia/oir.html - Similar pages

Center for Studies of Intelligence: Educational Outreach ... Since the program started in 1985, CIA has ... University of South Carolina, University of Oregon, University of Kentucky, Texas A&M, Marquette ... www.cia.gov/csi/officer.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

dci_annual_report_99_22

... American University, US Naval Academy, US Naval War College, Ohio State University, Marquette University ? New Information Services Governance Process: CIA?s ...

www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fy99intellrpt/ dci_annual_report_99_22.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.cia.gov ]

Marquette University - Chris Sloane

... For more on the trebuchet, visit http://www.marquette ... Future plans: PhD program in Physics at the University ... working in industry or government — maybe the CIA. ...

www.marquette.edu/as/featured_profiles/sloane.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.marquette.edu ]

<H5>

---

<H5>4. Has McAdams any track record in covert-type activity?

It seems he has!

John McAdams attended the 1995 Copa Conference using the assumed name Paul Nolan. More than that, he also fabricated a background to go with the name in that he purported himself to be a jet-propulsion expert and some-time computer store owner from Sherwood, Wisconsin. In that guise, he was quoted in an article in the Washington press by journalist Matt Labash. Mr. Labash later confirmed that McAdams had duped him. Mr. Labash had quoted Paul (McAdams) Nolan in good faith whilst in fact McAdams was lying through his teeth.

McAdams later claimed he had used an assumed name to avoid contact with users of the alt.conspiracy group who may have been attending the conference. With McAdams record of willfully abusing users of the group, this story might seem plausible but going to trouble of inventing a detailed cover story and lying to the press have more sinister overtones.

<H5>

---

<H5>5. Has McAdams accused other group users of pedophilia and drug abuse?

He most certainly has!

In 1997 McAdams openly accused one Stuart Lyster of having served time in prison for child abuse and accused Dr Gary Aguilar of being a drug addict.

In the light of McAdams behavior in the group and his other activities such as at the Copa Conference, Stuart Lyster asked McAdams explain his motives in using this group and in return posted the following offensive reply:

From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Subject: Re: A cornered rat turns vicious

Date: 12 Sep 1995 13:04:53 GMT

Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services

In article < 405_9509091355@miratel.uniserve.com, Stuart.Lyster@miratel.uniserve.com (Stuart Lyster) writes:

And .John refuses to discuss how he uses this newsgroup for profit. So, .John, are you ready to discuss your *REAL* use of this newsgroup and why you are here, and....

Stuart, you've first got to address charges that you are a pedophile who has served time in jail for molesting young children. I'm going to keep after you on this until you respond.

.John

This reply earned McAdams coverage in the Milwaukee Sentinal newspaper:

By Tom Vanden Brook of the Journal Sentinel staff

_____________________________________

A Marquette University professor who hurled profane insults across the Internet - including accusations of drug use and pedophilia - has been chastised by university officials, has annoyed people across the country, and has sparked a small, intense debate on etiquette in cyberspace.

John McAdams, a political science professor who teaches a course on the Kennedy assassination and has created a home page on the World Wide Web devoted to the topic, admitted to using blue prose in computer correspondence.

But he defended himself by saying he was responding in kind to people he says are viciously critical of his views on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. "The Internet used to be a reasonable place to discuss the Kennedy assassination," McAdams said. "Now, it's a complete 'flamefest'."

"Flaming," in Internet circles, refers to diatribes aimed at those with differing viewpoints. McAdams is a vocal opponent of academics and others who ascribe to various conspiracy theories concerning the assassination.

Last fall, participants in an assassination discussion group complained to the Roman Catholic university about McAdams' profane references to them on computer bulletin boards. Gary Aguilar, a San Francisco surgeon, said he contacted MU after McAdams asked him to respond to charges that he had used drugs. Aguilar vehemently denies using drugs.

"He's extremely mean-spirited," Aguilar said. "What academic purpose can be served by calling people these names? I find it peculiar in the extreme that a professor at Marquette University, a Catholic institution, would do this."

In response to these criticisms McAdams said:

"I refuse to be driven off the Internet by abuse or attacks," McAdams said. "If I called somebody a bimbo, it's in reaction. I refuse to be bound by any notion of political correctness."

Of course McAdams didn't call anyone a "bimbo" which is hardly a description calculated to fuel anger. What he did do is make allegations of child abuse and drug taking which is quite different.

McAdams has made repeated claims that he did not accuse Stuart Lyster of child abuse, merely asked him to address allegations.... readers will recognize semantics when they encounter them.

Subsequently, McAdams claimed Stuart Lyster had apologized to him and was not making an issue out of the pedophilia slurs.

To date, despite repeated requests, McAdams has been unable to post this alleged apology. McAdams protestations of not actually having called Stuart Lyster a pedophile fails to square with an article written by Heather Anichini in Marquette University's own newspaper:

In condemning Vanden Brook’s ‘unfair’ assessment of him, McAdams wrote that his school paper, the Marquette Tribune, had produced a very fair story. In that story, written by Heather Anichini and printed on 10/17/95, McAdams claimed he had only called someone a pedophile in response to that correspondent’s accusing me (McAdams) of using the group to write a book....

McAdams explained his actions in the Tribune saying, I was attempting to show the ridiculousness of such claims. ONE DOES NOT MAKE SUCH STATEMENT WITHOUT FOUNDATION. (emphasis added).

The man later wrote and apologized (as noted above, no proof of this alleged apology has ever been offered by McAdams...perhaps he doesn't know how to fake email)

So McAdams, in order to illuminate the inadvisability making charges without having a foundation, made himself the unfounded, and decidedly more mean-spirited, charge of pedophilia!

The purpose of this FAQ is to address the McAdams problem facing this group and provide some insight for new users to the group of what is actually behind the flame wars being carried out by McAdams and a few of his associates.

<H5>

---

<H5>Van:Robert Harris (reharris1@yahoo.com)
Discussies:alt.conspiracy.jfk
Datum:2003-09-30 12:32:52 PST
Just to set the record straight:

McAdams did indeed, make comments that were intended to imply that Aguilar was a drug addict. IMO, they were deliberate, malicious and intended to smear the doctor.

His statements about destroying this newsgroup, as well as those about "pedophillia", were very obviously, sarcastic and not meant to be taken seriously.

As for a CIA affiliation, I would bet the ranch on it, although he is probably not an employee.

But none of those things are what is important here, or even comes close to defining what makes him the despicable slug that he is.

McAdams' real crime is that he is a professional propagandist, who has positioned his website to become *THE* primary source of information on the internet, about the JFK assassination.

As you probably know, that site is the greatest collection of lies and disinformation that has ever appeared in this case. McAdams has publicly stated that he will permit nothing to appear there that challenges his LN theory, or corrects factual errors in his or his lackey's "articles".

And he does all of that, knowing full well that JFK was the victim of multiple assassins.

Robert Harris

<H5>

---

<H5>Van:Michael T. Griffith (mikegriffith1@cs.com)
Onderwerp:Re: McADAMS TRIES TO CENSOR TRUTH AGAIN
Discussies:alt.conspiracy.jfk
Datum:2001-01-15 13:46:14 PST

I have a little story to tell about McAdams' censorship. Last year I was engaged in a dialogue. My opponent repeatedly resorted to name-calling and personal insults. Finally, three or four replies later, I made one comment about my opponent that called his integrity into question. Incredibly, McAdams sent me an e-mail saying he would not post my reply unless I deleted the comment. In response, I noted to McAdams that he had allowed my opponent to make several far more egregious attacks on me. McAdams said nothing but merely repeated his position that he wouldn't post my reply unless I deleted the offending statement. Until then, I had dismissed reports of McAdams' censorship as overblown. Now I know better.

MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH
Visit my Real Issues Home Page, where you'll find web pages on the LDS Church, creation vs. evloution, American politics, and the JFK assassination:
http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id35.htm
<H5>

---

<H5>Van:Martin Shackelford (mshack@concentric.net)
Onderwerp:John McAdams: A Few Tidbits for his "fans" here
Discussies:alt.conspiracy.jfk
Datum:2003-10-09 06:30:10 PST

Internet issues:

VILE TACTICS: During a JFK discussion, implied that one of his critics might be a child molester, and that another might be involved with drugs. Totally unrelated to the discussions, but a way of distracting attention from the issues.
SEARCH HOGGING: His website is designed to pop up first and often in search engine inquiries about JFK. One website review service described McAdams as the Matt Drudge of the JFK assassination.

PSEUDONYM: Attended 1995 COPA conference in Dallas as computer store owner Paul Nolan, and was interviewed by City Paper under that alias.

DOUBTFUL: Marquette University Associate Professor; PhD. Harvard University His official Marquette syllabus for his JFK course includes a link to his Judyth Baker attack page--the only name in that group linked to his website. I wonder if Marquette realizes they are "sponsoring" this attack.

DEATH PENALTY: Most pro death penalty websites include a McAdams quote. He managed to convince USA Today (1998) that he was an "unlikely defender" of the death penalty, though he was a propagandist for executions. He admits that blacks are more likely to be executed, but noting that blacks make up nearly half of all murder victims, he argues that eliminating the death penalty would be assign less value to black murder victims, "a subtle kind of racism." In other words, you are a racist if you don't support a death penalty that executes blacks disproportionately--in fact he argues for MORE executions of blacks. What a guy!! He admits that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent, then turns around and argues that it deters murders (same way he argues JFK issues). His "cost-benefit" argument is that the more murderers we execute, the more victims we spare. He happily informed ABC News that executions were becoming more popular. Comments like this led to a Catholic group, JusticeSeekers, to ask whether McAdams shouldn't resign from Marquette University, a Catholic institution, as a majority of Catholics opposed the death penalty.

DUBIOUS "RESEARCH":JFK researcher Stewart Galanor has exposed McAdams' manipulation data in his analysis of Dealey Plaza witnesses:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf

POLITICS: On Wisconson public radio discussions involving a liberal and a conservative, McAdams was one of the frequently tapped conservatives. In 1991, he received an award from the Dirksen Center. He is on the Board of Advisors of the Heartland Institute--but is not listed under ANY of the Institute's areas of expertise, unlike most Advisors. He has been cited as an opponent of campaign finance reform: http://www.wisinfo.com/heraldtimes/news/archive/local_6105053.shtml Wrote a briefing paper against campaign finance reform for the conservative Cato Institute.

---

Original Message

---

From: Nathan Howland
To: info@JFKmurdersolved.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:13 PM
Subject: John McAdams


Hi there,

I wish I had seen some of your information about McAdams before going into 'his' Assassination Newsgroup.

I find this all quite an irony, as John's aims is to actually assassinate anything that draws a reasonably intelligent comment or questioning mind toward the mass of irregular and tampered with evidence reported by the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission's report. I suggest everyone shold keep a copy of this vital work in your toilets should have the emergency of running out toilet paper!

I had only joined the newsgroup for a few days, and have been quietly researching the events on that fateful day in Dealy Plaza for about 15 years. however, it took only 48 hours of questioning 'against the grain' of the Lee Oswald official line, for me to be set upon by John's abusive, and patronising lackies. He is msart enough not to do his own dirty work for fear of exposing himself.

In response, I defended my corner (without lowering myself to using abuse) by merely pointing out that the kind kindergarten behaviour being exhibited was not only very suprising from so-called adults, but was counterproductive to open investigative debate, especially given serious subject matter at hand. Also, if my humble theories were wrong (which is fine by me!), I requested that they please discuss show how any mistakes had been made in my research, as I was more than happy to keep an open mind about everything. I believe this to be true investigative debate. I believed it to be a mature arena for educated and inspiring analitical conversation ! A reasonable retort you might think, right??

Not in the slightest! To my 'reasonable' response I was sent an email by McAdams stating that my reply had been censored and deleted, and that its (and I quote) "Rhetoric was too tough!" To me this comment only appeared to be a euphemism for "I am John McAdams, and quite often talk out of my backside!" A Professor of Politics, and so-called open mind in full view. He should know full well that we have a democratic right to free speech and comment. I wasn't using foul language or attacking anyone......unlike his little slave-hands. This was another direct seige on this fundamental right, for which he showed absolutely no remorse whatsoever!! Even when, later, it was brought to his attention there not a hint of regret. That in itself is deeply disturbing behaviour by someoneof his standing reputation. At this moment, I stood back, and looked in more depth at the newsgroup. I then realised this was a blatant and common manipulation of open, truthful, investigation and discussion that he not only support, but actively encouraged. Worryingly, there was a long history of this type of behaviour by McAdams and his 'helpers'. The tactics being used are very much akin to the bullying, rude, offensive, and exhaustive grinding tactics, often seen used by members of the head freaks of the Scientology fraternity.

John McAdams seems on a single-minded mission to completely gloss over the truth in the labyrinth of lies, avoidance, intimidation, foul play, and obstruction waged by the government for decades in the aftermath of the assassination of 35th President of the United States. I find it a complete disgrace! It is almost as if, in his role as teacher, he is carrying out some other agenda to at least ensure the truth is obscured and fudged from the new generations of younbg sparkling bright minds, who might carry on the torch of questioning this miscreant plot. He does this, manipulatively dictatorial in his position as Head Moderator to this group, standing with his 'surrogate bible', the Warren Commission Report, as he silences those voices and opinions he does not want heard any longer.

A man of his educated position should be shamed of his actions in this way. And there's me thinking we in a Democracy!?

Thank you for listening to me....and keep up the good work exposing this dictatorial idiot and his Munchkins!

In gratitude for all your efforts

Nathan Howland <H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5></H5>

</H4>

as can be seen by bowers testimony he was cut off (more than once ) some thing we see quite a bit in the warren commission testimonies as well as discussions going off the record . bowers told lane what he would have said in his testimony had he not been cut off .

when bowers tried to explain about the sequence of shots he heard which were bang bangbang meaning one shot then a gap and then 2 shots all most on top of each other (as other witnesses said ) he was informed he was not an expert ,why does one need to be an expert to say i heard 3 shots and they were spaced this like this .

the reason i asked the questions regarding the knoll was in reply to your comment
"So what about the shooters on the Grassy Knoll?
Well it's reported that loads of people ran straight for it after hearing shots from there. Not true, a minute after the final shot a motorcycle cop ran up there to talk to a colleague and the people presumed he was after an assassin so followed him up there. There was no shooter seen by anyone including a railroad worker who was on a bridge near the place. "

your very simplistic comment in no way reflects the true nature of all that went on in and around the knoll . the testimonies of all the witnesses (who were called to both the commission and hsca ) can be read by anyone and they can see where people said the shots came from in addition to that you have statments and affidavits from people who were never called . also people who stood near elm and houston thought atleast 1 shot came from the knoll area .

"who was the man on the knoll who was falsely claiming he was a secret service agent ?

This was a claim made by Officer Joe Marshall Smith and he was convinced it was a Secret Service agent. The agent was supposed to be there to help the shooter/shooters escape. According to assassination literature and testimony it has long been established that no genuine Secret Service agents were in Dealey Plaza until later in the afternoon of November 22, 1963. Surprisingly, not only were there no Secret Service agents assigned to or stationed behind the grassy knoll area, but there were no FBI or other federal agents, or Dallas Police Officers stationed there either. This fact suggests phony Secret Service agents were in Dealey Plaza, and that perhaps they were there to help the assassins escape. The fact remains no one knows who the secret service agent was."

joe smith was convinced the man was a ss agent because the man showed him identification , the man wore a sports jacket and had dirty finger nails smith said "he looked like an auto mechanic " ,if this man was genuine im sure the fbi etc would have been very quick in parading him for all to see to put the matter to rest (this has never happened ) the man seen by smith was either a shooter or was there to distract the police to enable a second man to make his escape . the second man is probably the man seen by j c price .

i read many many testimonies /articles etc and yes its hard work and it takes many many hours (and your never really finished because there is always more to read ) but if one doesnt read these they can never have a full understanding of exactly what did occur on the knoll or any other significant place such as the tsbd .

for example the finding of the rifle (or rifles as the case me be)on the 6th floor ,for instance officialy the shells were found at 1.17 and the rifle about 5 to 6 minutes later but it seems as with all aspects of this case there is more to be learned .

the man who found the snipers nest was luke mooney he found it according to his testimony at 1.00 or maybe a little earlier ,mooney said


"At that time, some news reporter, or press, I don't know who he was--he was calming up with a camera. Of course he wasn't taking any pictures. He was just looking, too, I assume. So I went back down ahead of Officers Vickery and Webster. They come in behind me down to the sixth floor.
I went straight across to the southeast corner of the building, and I saw all these high boxes. Of course they were stacked all the way around over there. And I squeezed between two. And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from."

"Mr. Ball.
About what time of day was this?Mr. Mooney.Well, it was approaching 1 o'clock. It could have been 1 o'clock.Mr. Ball.Did you look at your watch?Mr. Mooney.No, sir; I didn't. I should have, but I didn't look at my watch at the time to see what time it was."
now he didnt look at his watch but he had a rough idea of the time the shells were found which would turn out to be quite accurate and unwittingly corroberated by will fritz .mooney upon finding the shells at about 1.00pm sticks his head out the window (the snipers nest window )

"So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window, the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.

so mooney saw will fritz who had just arrived at the tsbd having come from parklands hospital ,what time does will fritz say he arrived at the tsbd ?

will fritz was at the trade mart when the news that jfk had been shot filtered through

"Mr. Ball.
I see. Now, what time did you, what time was it that you heard the President had been shot?Mr. Fritz.I show that he was shot at 12:35, and one of the Secret Service men who was assigned the same location where we were assigned, got a little call on his, evidently got a call on his little transistor radio and Chief Stevenson, who was also assigned to some part of the building there, came to me and told me that the President had been hit at the underpass, and asked me to go to the hospital and see what I could do.Mr. Ball.You say you show he was shot at 12:35?Mr. Fritz.Yes, sir.Mr. Ball.You mean that is the time you heard about it?Mr. Fritz.Well, we heard about it immediately after that, and we arrived and we checked----"
fritz left the trade mart and went to parklands and from there to the tsbd on elm street

"Mr. Ball.When you heard of this what did you do?Mr. Fritz.Immediately left, and I told the two officers with me, Mr. Sims and Boyd that we would run to our police car that was parked nearby, listened to radio call to see whether it was a hoax or whether it was the truth. It was only 10 minutes' time for the President's arrival, we didn't want to leave unless this was a genuine call, and a true call.
When we got to the radio, of course, we began to get other news. We went to Parkland Hospital as we had been instructed, and as we drove up in front of the hospital, we I suppose intercepted the chief, Chief Curry, between the curb and the hospital, and I told him we had had a call to the hospital but I felt we were going to the wrong place, we should go to the scene of the crime and he said, "Well, go ahead," so I don't think our car ever quit rolling but we went right to the scene of the crime."
so what time did fritz arrive at the tsbd ?

"Mr. Ball.Did you go directly to a building?Mr. Fritz.Directly to the Texas School Book Depository Building.Mr. Ball.What time did you arrive there?Mr. Fritz.Well, sir; we arrived there---we arrived at the hospital at 12:45, if you want that time,and at the scene of the offense at 12:58.Mr. Ball.12:58; the Texas School Book Depository Building.Mr. Fritz.Yes.Mr. Ball.Were there any officers there at the time?Mr. Fritz.Yes, sir.Mr. Ball.In the front?Mr. Fritz.Several officers; yes, sir."
so fritz arrives outside the tsbd at 12.58 ,he wastes little time going in to the the tsbd because the belief was that the shooter may still be in there . so mooney finds the shells at about the same time as fritz arrives (which fritz said was 12.58) but lets say it was 1.00pm ,now the rifle was found about 5 minutes maybe 6 after the shells were found and that puts the finding of the rifle at 1.05 to 1.06 .

now we can tie two pieces of info together ,roger craig said the rifle was found at about 1.06 (but he said it was a mauser ) and he said that an unknown officer had come up and told them that an officer had been shot in oakcliff (this can only be jd tippit ) ,so not only does fritz testimony unwittingly corroberate mooney it goes a long way to corroberating things that roger craig said .

i believe it would have been the electric chair ,as an officer (i forget his name ) upon hearing oswald was dead went to ruby (told him the news ) and the officer said well jack it looks like gonna be the electrick chair for you .so if ruby would have been getting the chair it would have been the same for oswald .