January 19, 2002

The Kennedy assassination would have been solved years ago if cover up artists like John McAdams did not aggressively promote the Warren Report Fraud.

Where does John McAdams get the time and the money to attack every single person who does not accept the Warren Report Fraud? Needless to say, McAdams is the frontman of the cabal which is assigned the task of continuing to cover up the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The following newsgroup post illustrates the repugnant tactics that these aggressive goons practice.

"John McAdams" wrote in message
news:3c471ef5.852056752@news.alt.net...
On 16 Jan 2002 18:57:57 -0500, "Michael O'Dell"
wrote:

There is Rivera's (Orr's) site full of nonsense where he relies on the "man in the
doorway" argument here:
http://www.geocities.com/jfkawards/links.htm

Thanks for the link!

Just more evidence, I guess, that this old factoid does continue to
need to be debunked.

In spite of having been decisively debunked by the WC, and decisively
debunked by Tink Thompson in SSID, and decisively debunked by the
HSCA, and even debunked by Bob Groden in TKOAP!

Things like this just don't go away, do they?

"John McAdams" wrote in message
news:3c460999.781051843@news.alt.net...
Jerry Organ sent me a nice graphic of the "man in the doorway" issue
(was it Oswald or was it Lovelady?). My first reaction was "this old
chestnut doesn't even need to be debunked."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/lovelady.JPG

But then somebody sent me the following link as "the truth about the
Kennedy assassination."

migrayed from geocities

So I guess it *does* need to be debunked.

Can anybody tell me of other sources which *still* insist that that
was Oswald in the doorway?

I'll soon do a web page on this, using the Organ graphic as the
central element.

.John

The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

It is absolutely astounding that John McAdams thinks that he has the power to discredit everybody who does not endorse the Warren Report Fraud. This is probably one of the most deluded people in the entire United States of America.

We call John McAdams and his cronies ignorant thugs because it is simply not possible to legitimately oppose the simple truths they deliberately target. Amazingly, most people clearly understand the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone, yet McAdams & Company have somehow managed to make their views the dominant voice on the Internet. Can anybody figure out the amount of money and the resources required, to make every typical majority view appear to be just another myth that John McAdams miraculously debunks?

Most people who have followed the work that McAdams publishes cannot avoid the conclusion that John McAdams is evidently the head of a CIA-funded think tank that is supposed to cover up the truth about the Kennedy assassination, and while that may be difficult to conclusively prove in an age of extreme secrecy, it doesn't really matter. Clearly, if we assume that McAdams is not a deliberate propagandist, 'certified crackpot' is the only apt description to describe people of his ilke, and anybody who has reviewed his work cannot avoid the observations of people like Debra Hartman, who posted the following observations about John McAdams on 10 October 2000:

In many ways, John McAdams is a product of the times -- a symptom, not the disease. The disease is the corruption of the American educational system. It has become more and more difficult in recent times to tell the truth in America; nowhere is that more true than in America's schools, colleges and universities. There are many theories on when this began and why it happened. Whatever the cause, the point is it has happened, and the progess of a McAdams through the American educational system (both public and private) to a teaching position at a university is a cautionary tale of the new dark age we have entered in America.

McAdams has neither the educational preparation nor the ability for such a position -- his language skills are abysmal; his analytical skills non-existent. Not only has he done no research whatsoever on the historical question he pretends to study, he has no knowledge of even the basics of a research methodology. Thus, McAdams himself argues against long established historical facts; on the other hand, he is incapable of doing the research necessary to either confirm or dispute such facts.

In the academy, once a work is published in a fact-checked or peer-reviewed venue in any discipline, long established practice is this: Those who would challenge such published information must do a complete and thorough review -- whether the case involves historical research, scientific study, or a mathematical proof.

On this newsgroup [alt.conspiracy.jfk] and on the website of Marquette University, McAdams commits daily academic fraud. He pretends that evidence for a corpus of facts drawn from HSCA records, most of which has been available in print for at least six years, has never been provided. Instead, he argues with knowing deceit that there are no documents to support a major story appearing in the heavily fact-checked Washington Post (and later, in the seminal book on the JFK assassination, Oswald Talked). An interesting charge, if true; but of course it's not. The professor at the distinguished university is an academic crackpot, and sadly, a fraud on the public -- a base propagandist in scholar's robes.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

---

There is a huge disconnect between people like Professor John McAdams, who attack our websites, and you, the public, who send us letters which are intelligent and informative. We have received letters of thanks and encouragement from people from all around the world. We thank each and every one of you here, and we are forever surprised by the depth of the knowledge you demonstrate in your letters to us. To our surprise, and we say that because we are an outfit without an advertising budget, we have received thousands of letters since 1998, and we publish the latest one today [it is February 6 2002 and we are evidently on a dry spell -keep your letters coming ! ! !] -you are clearly far more knowledgeable than the people who attack us.

 
 
To: jfkawards@yahoo.com
Subject: Enjoyed your site
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:26:06 -0600

  Hello,

  I was just searching around on the internet when I stumbled across your site. I enjoyed the pictures of "Billy Nolan Lovelady" standing in front of the TSBD doorway. Too bad you do not have pictures of some of the many shirts Lovelady claimed he wore that day. (He couldn't even keep that story straight). The remarkable thing, if one is to believe the Warren Commission and Lovelady's story is another overlooked question. "Why was Loveday dressed like Oswald to begin with"? Typical of the entire case.

One more thing that I have never heard anyone discuss is this:

I believe the purpose of the Tippet murder was a very pivitol point in catching Oswald.

(1) The original plan was to kill Oswald at 10th and Patten. Jack Ruby, so boldly killing Oswald in front of millions of people demonstrated that those in the "know" did not want Oswald in police custody that Friday afternoon. That plan did not work out.

(2) Tippet might have or might not have known everything but he was at Tenth and Patton at a time when Oswald could have been walking by. How neatly the case would have ended if a heroic policeman would have killed Oswald there. I believe Oswald never showed, and another man or two killed Tippet. Tippet probably never knew about such a backup plan in case Oswald did not show. Witnesses describe men other than Oswald standing near Tippet immediately after he was shot. I believe another man was used here to be seen running away from the Tippet murder site towards where Oswald was eventually caught.

I write this about the Tippet murder because if the event never happened at all, how would the police explain being in that part of the city that day, so far from the TSBD? If Oswald would not die at Tenth and Patton, at least the police could explain their motive for being in that area with Tippet being murdered in the street. Since Tippet was not going to be the hero, his death could fuel a greater public outrage against Lee Oswald. Who was it that said, "I knew we had the man who shot the President because he just shot Officer Tippet".

Anyway, great site. I really enjoyed seeing and reading what you have.

 
 
Take care,
 
 
Lewis

---