http://CTKA.net/2013/mcadams.html
After reading James DiEugenio's smear piece on John McAdams [linked above], it becomes plainly evident that Professor McAdams wasn't debunked or wounded or defeated in any way whatsoever by DiEugenio's and Brian Hunt's August 2013 article at the CTKA website.
And it's also crystal clear that Professor McAdams' views on the JFK case are just as intact and logical and factual after reading the DiEugenio/Hunt smear piece as they were before reading it. The article was merely filled with a bunch of words that accomplished nothing.
In fact, DiEugenio's shallow and horrible McAdams' article reminded me very much of the two-part smear piece that DiEugenio wrote about me in 2010. [Also see this rebuttal.]
It would seem that Jimbo just likes to smear the opposition (in print). And when attempting to do so and when attempting to find out what makes the opposing "LNer" tick, he dredges up a bunch of totally irrelevant and peripheral stuff about that person's "career" (and in my case, it's only an "Internet career", since I'm a nobody who has never taught at a college in Wisconsin, nor have I taught any classes on the JFK case, or done much of anything else outside my computer and keyboard).
But when digging into the background of the lone-assassin advocate and trying to find as much dirt as he can to smear the LNer with, DiEugenio, in the end, finds pretty much--nothing. In short, there's just no "dirt" to be found.
About the worst thing DiEugenio could dig up on me and my alleged sordid "Internet career" is Jim's charge that I was "flooding the board" at Debra Conway's JFK Lancer forum a few years ago (as if that's a crime worthy of the gas chamber). But even that allegation was false (explained here).
And DiEugenio, incredibly, actually thinks he's driving a stake through my heart in some way by quoting the following things that I have said in the past about the JFK murder case:
"Aren't hard facts and evidence always more believable than wild speculation and conjecture?"
"The Single Bullet Theory has still not been proven to be an impossibility."
Jimmy D. also thinks I should hide my head in shame when I make claims about Oswald owning the Carcano rifle, or about Oswald killing Tippit, or about Oswald firing a shot at General Walker. DiEugenio actually thinks ALL of those things are bogus claims. ALL of them. Amazing.
And now DiEugenio (and I guess Brian Hunt too, who is listed as co-author of the crappy CTKA piece on McAdams) is attempting to dig up the awful truth about someone else--Professor McAdams. But, in the end, Jimbo and Brian fail miserably. And in the course of failing miserably, the authors of the smear piece attempt to make John McAdams look like a monster and disinformation artist due to the fact that many different myths associated with the JFK assassination are not propped up as fact (or discussed in enough detail to suit a conspiracy clown named DiEugenio) at Professor McAdams' website -- such as the "Clay Shaw Is Clay Bertrand" nonsense.
And DiEugenio does a nice job of totally misrepresenting (or just not understanding) the way in which John McAdams has utilized the term "factoid". It's hilarious to see that DiEugenio (or Hunt, or both) actually said this:
"McAdams...now applies it [the word "factoid"] to everything that counters the case of the Warren Commission. For instance...he labeled all the evidentiary problems in the Commission's Tippit case as "factoids". This would include the mismatching of the shells with the bullets..."
So, DiEugenio actually seems to be implying in the above quote that McAdams just flat-out DENIES that there WAS a mismatch in the brands when comparing the Tippit bullet shells to the actual bullets that were taken from Officer Tippit's body. But I can almost guarantee that Mr. McAdams has never once said any such thing. He knows that a mismatch exists. The mismatch is a fact. And McAdams knows this.
DiEugenio has very likely twisted and distorted something that McAdams has said about the mismatch, and turned the Professor's words into the incorrect notion that McAdams thinks the mismatch ITSELF is a "factoid", which is obviously not the case, since John knows there is a mismatch.
The type of "factoids" that Mr. McAdams often refers to are things that the conspiracy theorists have propped up as FACTS and the TRUTH, but are, in reality, not proven facts at all, such as all of this stuff:
The Mauser "factoid"....and the "factoid" about a bunch of witnesses being bumped off by the Death Squad or being strong-armed by the authorities into changing their testimony....and the "factoid" about Oswald "drinking a Coke" when he saw Baker & Truly on 11/22/63....and the "factoid" about how Oswald didn't have nearly enough time to get from the sixth floor to the second floor of the TSBD after the shooting....and the "factoid" about an automatic gun being used to kill Tippit....and the "factoid" about Oswald being a lousy shot who couldn't possibly have killed the President....and the "factoid" about Oswald's Carcano being the worst rifle ever manufactured....etc., etc. to "factoid" infinity (almost).
But it seems as though people like James DiEugenio do, indeed, want to turn those types of "factoids" into "facts". And yet the CTers have the gall to hang the label of "propagandist" on people like John McAdams and myself. When, in reality, it is the conspiracy mongers like Jim DiEugenio (and many others) who are engaging in "Factoid Propaganda" of the worst kind.
But I want to thank Jimbo for the article on Professor McAdams. Because after reading it and seeing the total lack of meaningful or valid criticism contained therein, I now have even more respect and admiration for John C. McAdams than I did a few hours ago.
In the final analysis, it is my opinion that Jim DiEugenio is trying to poke holes in the very large marble structure known as "Lee Harvey Oswald Is Guilty" by picking at that marble structure with a toothpick. And despite DiEugenio's efforts, the structure that surrounds Oswald's sole guilt in the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit is still standing erect and upright and unfazed by DiEugenio's meager toothpick assault on it. And Mr. McAdams is certainly not any the worse for wear as a result of DiEugenio's paper-thin attacks against him.
DiEugenio promises a "Part 2" on McAdams in the future (big yawn), which I predict will almost assuredly be just as shallow and meaningless as Part 1. Anybody care to wager? *
* EDIT (8/24/13) -- Sure enough, I was right. Here's Part 2.
In closing, I'll offer up this bonus quote (which is something that becomes more and more obvious every time Jimmy DiEugenio opens his mouth):
"I think the difference between "kook/delusional" and "liar" is substantial. A person can be very truthful and honest and still be a kook. That type of person, when it comes to the JFK case specifically, just simply has no capacity for properly evaluating the evidence in front of him. And it has been apparent to me for quite some time now that James DiEugenio is one of those persons. I mean, when a guy can suggest that Lee Oswald didn't carry any large bag at all into the Book Depository on Nov. 22--well, I think you get my point and I can safely rest my case." -- DVP; March 2013
David Von Pein
August 15, 2013
