12-08-2013, 02:29 AM
See, when I was on Coast to Coast and they had that flake in front of me who said Madame Nhu plotted to kill JFK, George Noory asked me about all these conspiracy theories, and I promptly replied with:
"I don't deal with theories. I deal with facts. There are over 2000 footnotes in my book."
That is really the way I feel about it.
And I should have added two things:
1. Unlike the WC, the facts I rely on are reliable. I don't use Markham, or Brennan, or Ruth Paine as a witness.
2. My conclusions then flow from credible evidence. Not manipulated BS.
BY the way, if you have not seen this LA Times story about PBS' upcoming Cold Case: JFK in the LA TImes, you should look it up. McBride sent it to me.
The very first sentence is a perfect example of the framing we are talking about. This is it:"Sorry, conspiracy theorists, modern forensic science shows that John F. Kennedy was likely killed by "one guy with a grudge and a gun' said professor John McAdams during a panel for Nova's new Cold Case" JFK on Wednesday at the Television Critics Assn. press tour in Beverly Hills."
LOL!!! Ha ha ha! John McAdams! PBS has now hit rock bottom.
As per the "modern forensic science" I mean this is now the fourth time we have heard this. FIrst there was Posner and his FAA bit. THen there was Dale M and his lying computer simulation. THen there was Gary Mack with his unintentionally hilarious Inside the Target Car. Now we have John McAdams?
But note that sentence structure. It leads with "conspiracy theorists" being wrong. Not with the data or means by which the experiment was done. They know if that was given out teh show would be dead before it started. Like Max Holland's BS with the early bullet which the show's producers knew was bogus before they televised it.
Pity the country that has John McAdams on PBS talking about the JFK case.
BTW, I close Reclaiming Parkland with Newton Minow's great "vast wasteland" speech about TV in 1961. That seemed very appropriate. Now even more.
"I don't deal with theories. I deal with facts. There are over 2000 footnotes in my book."
That is really the way I feel about it.
And I should have added two things:
1. Unlike the WC, the facts I rely on are reliable. I don't use Markham, or Brennan, or Ruth Paine as a witness.
2. My conclusions then flow from credible evidence. Not manipulated BS.
BY the way, if you have not seen this LA Times story about PBS' upcoming Cold Case: JFK in the LA TImes, you should look it up. McBride sent it to me.
The very first sentence is a perfect example of the framing we are talking about. This is it:"Sorry, conspiracy theorists, modern forensic science shows that John F. Kennedy was likely killed by "one guy with a grudge and a gun' said professor John McAdams during a panel for Nova's new Cold Case" JFK on Wednesday at the Television Critics Assn. press tour in Beverly Hills."
LOL!!! Ha ha ha! John McAdams! PBS has now hit rock bottom.
As per the "modern forensic science" I mean this is now the fourth time we have heard this. FIrst there was Posner and his FAA bit. THen there was Dale M and his lying computer simulation. THen there was Gary Mack with his unintentionally hilarious Inside the Target Car. Now we have John McAdams?
But note that sentence structure. It leads with "conspiracy theorists" being wrong. Not with the data or means by which the experiment was done. They know if that was given out teh show would be dead before it started. Like Max Holland's BS with the early bullet which the show's producers knew was bogus before they televised it.
Pity the country that has John McAdams on PBS talking about the JFK case.
BTW, I close Reclaiming Parkland with Newton Minow's great "vast wasteland" speech about TV in 1961. That seemed very appropriate. Now even more.