John McAdams, Propagandist, to Publish "Critical Thinking" Disinformation

[Charles Drago]

I have never met McAdams, nor would I wish to; his antics on aaj are just deplorable.

I did meet Ken Rahn, however. Ironically, it was the day before Katrina, when he happened to be in our area. We went to the Minnesota State Fair, and had dinner at our home that evening. He took some photos of us that ended up at his website. I drove him to the airport while Katrina was hitting NOLA. Somehow it seemed ironically fitting, as throughout the time we spent together there was not one single thing that we agreed on. WC defender meets fervent CT. I must admit, however, that he was something of a gentleman and seemed comfortable agreeing-to-disagree whenever we ended up at loggerheads.

The serpent is a charmer and a deceiver.

The agree-to-disagree position is precisely what Rahn's masters wish to preserve: perpetual doubt predicated upon the maintenance of an illusory level playing field for the LN lie and the conspiracy truth.

In my informed, Constitutionally-protected opinion, Rahn is the worst kind of de facto accessory-after-the-fact to JFK's murder: He abused his position (professor) of authority to corrupt his young and impressionable charges to the point that more than one of them -- including the Whiz Kid "A" student referenced above -- referred to the WCR as "the Bible."

[David Sellers]

Has anyone ever been able to review the marks/grades Mr. McAdams has given out over the years? I would love to see these to see if you speak of conspiracy in your papers whether this effects your grade average or not. (I would assume it does)

Is it possible to do this or would the school prevent it since it is a private university?

Just curious.

[David Sellers]

Cannot wait to read this book.

I can see Von Pein pouring over it right now for copy editing.

If he is anything like he was for Vincent Bugliosi's book we are in for a long year or so!

:phone:

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

The serpent is a charmer and a deceiver.

The agree-to-disagree position is precisely what Rahn's masters wish to preserve: perpetual doubt predicated upon the maintenance of an illusory level playing field for the LN lie and the conspiracy truth.

In my informed, Constitutionally-protected opinion, Rahn is the worst kind of de facto accessory-after-the-fact to JFK's murder: He abused his position (professor) of authority to corrupt his young and impressionable charges to the point that more than one of them -- including the Whiz Kid "A" student referenced above -- referred to the WCR as "the Bible."

That is simply dreadful, to think of the WCR as anything but at best a lame attempt to avoid WWIII. I underestimated Rahn, then, so you are correct that he was somewhat charming. I must say, though, that I was not comfortable with him, wondered why he had wanted to meet me in the first place, and since, when my husband Donner and I talk about him, I usually reference him as "that dreadful Ken Rahn." Maybe my instincts are better than I think. :nono:

[Magda Hassan]

Agreed Pamela. It always surprises me how the WCR is held up as the defining document when even the US government has moved on from that untenable position since the HSCA. But this is never acknowledge by the likes of Rahn and conveniently glossed over.

Yes, I'd be wondering why Rahn would be wanting to meet me too if I were you.

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

Agreed Pamela. It always surprises me how the WCR is held up as the defining document when even the US government has moved on from that untenable position since the HSCA. But this is never acknowledge by the likes of Rahn and conveniently glossed over.

Yes, I'd be wondering why Rahn would be wanting to meet me too if I were you.

It seems more curious as time goes by. Ironically, Rahn resembles an older and even grayer Robert Erickson, who was the producer of ITTC. When I met Robert at Dearborn I was miserably uncomfortable even though he was quite polite. Turned out he and Gary Mack seemed to have a foul agenda that surfaced a month later.

One of the more interesting things about my 7-year stint at aaj trying to stop the libel against JVB was to see how McAdams and Barb J seem to focus on doing everything possible to destroy her and protect Marina. (They also happen to be best buds with GM of course). It has got me thinking that perhaps Marina's credibility is essential to any pretense of 'valididy' of the WCR, and that if it Judyth or anyone successfully convinces the public that Marina is not credible, the remnants of the WCR go down the drain.

[Magda Hassan]

Marina's WC testimony is all over the place and she was obviously being led and fed by her minders and just as obviously a very vulnerable woman under the circumstances and not in a position to call any shots. Marina needs to be protected from researchers with agenda's too.And it needn't be at Judith's expense. They both have their piece of the jigsaw but no one has all of them.

Foul agenda's and GM? mmmm.... well, who'd have thought that? lol :orly:
Strange bed fellows there.