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

[Charles Drago]

John McAdams, one of the key power structure propagandists within the weaponized "academic community," is about to publish JFK Assassination Logic, the latest book-length assault-on-truth disguised as a scholarly treatise.

McAdams, like retired University of Rhode Island professor Ken Rahn, offers "critical thinking" methodologies that are alleged to encourage open-minded evaluations of conspiracy theories.

I know for a fact that, in the case of Rahn, his underegraduate courses at URI were designed to support the anti-conspiracy viewpoint in general and the Lone Nut JFK lie in particular. Rahn claimed to have an open mind regarding the JFK assassination. When he did so, I believe that he was not telling the truth.

How do I support this claim?

1. I foolishly agreed to co-sponsor with Rahn a JFK symposium in my home city of Providence, Rhode Island. During a planning session for that event, over dinner, Rahn conspiratorially whispered this question to me: "Can I convince you, Charlie, that Oswald did it alone?" He brazenly and directly spoke to his real, hidden position -- the Lone Nut position.

The Lone Nut lie.

He was as serious as a heart attack. In so asking, he revealed his true agenda: Use the "critical thinking" ruse to lend academic gravitas to the Lone Nut lie. He was targeting young Americans -- which is to say, the future; which is to say, history -- in a subtle brainwashing operation.

Here's a perfect example of Rahn's "critical thinking." During the conference one of his students received an "A" for a paper in which he argued that the observations of Parkland Hospital physicians regarding JFK's wounds are not to be trusted because, based on a national sampling, ER physicians are not sufficiently experienced in the treatment of gunshot wounds to offer meaningful judgements on their characteristics.

At the aforementioned conference, I asked Rahn and the student if they could speak to JFK's Parkland physicians' expertise in gunshot wound treatment. I asked them to explain the relevance of nationally averaged data to the analysis of known, JFK-attending Parkland doctors' skills and experience.

The student was dumbstruck. His "A"-rated critical thinking skills were nowhere to be found.

Rahn slinked away.

2. At that conference, Rahn presented what he billed in advance as the definitive defense of the Single Bullet Theory. His tout (and I paraphrase closely) "After my presentation, anyone who challenges the SBT will not be taken seriously."

Rahn proceeded to trot out his groundbreaking NAA data. He went into excruciating detail regarding the composition of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition batches and compared them to JFK evidence.

We listened for an hour.

Then, in roughly ten minutes, noted JFK researcher Stuart Galanor and a mathametician whose name escapes me so thoroughly and with the utmost academic rigor destroyed Rahn's presentation that the good doctor was forced to respond -- meekly -- "Well, this is just a work in progress."

"A 'work in progress,' Professor Rahn?" said Galanor, his voice redolent with justifiable scorn. "Didn't you just tell us that yours was the 'definitive' word on the SBT?"

Galanor then asked to see Rahn's scientific work notes.

"I left them in my other briefcase," said Rahn.

"Professor Rahn, I asked you for your notes the last time I heard you try to defend the SBT. And on that occasion, you used the same 'other briefcase' excuse."

Rahn slinked away.

Please know that I am recreating the above dialogue from memory -- and that my memory is very, very good. I believe that researcher John Hunt may have audio recordings of the conference. If so, and if he is reading this post, I ask him respectfully to produce them so as to compare my recollections to the audio record.

And now comes McAdam, with another "critical thinking" ploy.

There is little doubt but that the media's "A" students will be enthralled by the latest JFK work by this professor of propaganda. They'll swallow it whole.

There is little doubt that McAdam's book will be as dishonest, disreputable, and destructive to truth and justice as the propaganda of Ken Rahn.

Let us all welcome the appearance of McAdam's magnum opus. It will provide -- unintentionally -- key insights into the enemy's current thinking. And it will help us to expose their game as never before.

[Dawn Meredith]

HBO with Hanks, History Channel with a script so full of holes you could drive a truck through it now McMadman weighing in. The PTB are pulling out all the stops for the 50th anniversary. Could it be that they are realizing that more and more people are learning the truth about the assassination of JFK and they are becoming desperate to put that geanie back in the bottle.

Dawn

[Peter Lemkin]

John McAdams, one of the key power structure propagandists within the weaponized "academic community," is about to publish JFK Assassination Logic, the latest book-length assault-on-truth disguised as a scholarly treatise.

McAdams, like retired University of Rhode Island professor Ken Rahn, offers "critical thinking" methodologies that are alleged to encourage open-minded evaluations of conspiracy theories.

I know for a fact that, in the case of Rahn, his underegraduate courses at URI were designed to support the anti-conspiracy viewpoint in general and the Lone Nut JFK lie in particular. Rahn claimed to have an open mind regarding the JFK assassination. When he did so, I believe that he was not telling the truth.

How do I support this claim?

1. I foolishly agreed to co-sponsor with Rahn a JFK symposium in my home city of Providence, Rhode Island. During a planning session for that event, over dinner, Rahn conspiratorially whispered this question to me: "Can I convince you, Charlie, that Oswald did it alone?" He brazenly and directly spoke to his real, hidden position -- the Lone Nut position.

The Lone Nut lie.

He was as serious as a heart attack. In so asking, he revealed his true agenda: Use the "critical thinking" ruse to lend academic gravitas to the Lone Nut lie. He was targeting young Americans -- which is to say, the future; which is to say, history -- in a subtle brainwashing operation.

Here's a perfect example of Rahn's "critical thinking." During the conference one of his students received an "A" for a paper in which he argued that the observations of Parkland Hospital physicians regarding JFK's wounds are not to be trusted because, based on a national sampling, ER physicians are not sufficiently experienced in the treatment of gunshot wounds to offer meaningful judgements on their characteristics.

At the aforementioned conference, I asked Rahn and the student if they could speak to JFK's Parkland physicians' expertise in gunshot wound treatment. I asked them to explain the relevance of nationally averaged data to the analysis of known, JFK-attending Parkland doctors' skills and experience.

The student was dumbstruck. His "A"-rated critical thinking skills were nowhere to be found.

Rahn slinked away.

2. At that conference, Rahn presented what he billed in advance as the definitive defense of the Single Bullet Theory. His tout (and I paraphrase closely) "After my presentation, anyone who challenges the SBT will not be taken seriously."

Rahn proceeded to trot out his groundbreaking NAA data. He went into excruciating detail regarding the composition of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition batches and compared them to JFK evidence.

We listened for an hour.

Then, in roughly ten minutes, noted JFK researcher Stuart Galanor and a mathametician whose name escapes me so thoroughly and with the utmost academic rigor destroyed Rahn's presentation that the good doctor was forced to respond -- meekly -- "Well, this is just a work in progress."

"A 'work in progress,' Professor Rahn?" said Galanor, his voice redolent with justifiable scorn. "Didn't you just tell us that yours was the 'definitive' word on the SBT?"

Galanor then asked to see Rahn's scientific work notes.

"I left them in my other briefcase," said Rahn.

"Professor Rahn, I asked you for your notes the last time I heard you try to defend the SBT. And on that occasion, you used the same 'other briefcase' excuse."

Rahn slinked away.

Please know that I am recreating the above dialogue from memory -- and that my memory is very, very good. I believe that researcher John Hunt may have audio recordings of the conference. If so, and if he is reading this post, I ask him respectfully to produce them so as to compare my recollections to the audio record.

And now comes McAdam, with another "critical thinking" ploy.

There is little doubt but that the media's "A" students will be enthralled by the latest JFK work by this professor of propaganda. They'll swallow it whole.

There is little doubt that McAdam's book will be as dishonest, disreputable, and destructive to truth and justice as the propaganda of Ken Rahn.

Let us all welcome the appearance of McAdam's magnum opus. It will provide -- unintentionally -- key insights into the enemy's current thinking. And it will help us to expose their game as never before.

I award you the wordsmith of the month award!

[Charles Drago]

I humbully akcept.

[Phil Dragoo]

Master critical thinker McAdams recently asserted there was absolutely no proof Lee Oswald and David Ferrie knew each other.

Would McAdams predict the color of his socks (and their match) by an audit and average of his sock drawer?

The youth of the nation are more street-wise than chairwarmers in Langley and its ivied shills of academe would credit.

[Ed Jewett]

I got a kick out of the ER doc thesis. Most ER's in that era were not staffed at all with physicians present in the "room" before the patient showed up but when the patient arrived, typically in that era by ambulance or mortician's wagon, the hospital switchboard put the word out primarily to surgeons first, and to general and thoracic surgeons specifically, who among the specialties of that era had the most experience in gunshot wounds, likely from service in Korea or during World War II if not direct experience with the victims of a large urban setting. Most other cases of what today we would consider an emergency did not present to the ER at all, it being opened in most situations in most hospitals only on demand, but to a doctor's office. It was the Vietnam war experience that radically transformed what we know today as emergency medicine or emergency care, with helicopter transfer and paramedic intervention in the field, brought home most notably by an organization of orthopaedic surgeons and transformed into a 40-hour, then 81-hour, then extended course for emergency medical technicians, and cemented in place by national legislation in 1973. From this came, eventually, the development of the specialty field of emergency medicine, a specialty defined solely by its lateral chronological focus rather than its deep specialized focus. At any rate, it would not seem to me to be that difficult a task to gather the names of the individual witnesses in question, do some research on the nature of their specific medical education, and ascertain the medical standard of care and required education for the emergent management of gunshot wounds to the head for 1960.

[Charles Drago]

Sorry, Ed.

Such critical thinking puts you on the "critical" list.

Nice to have company.

[Robert Morrow]

Master critical thinker McAdams recently asserted there was absolutely no proof Lee Oswald and David Ferrie knew each other.

Would McAdams predict the color of his socks (and their match) by an audit and average of his sock drawer?

The youth of the nation are more street-wise than chairwarmers in Langley and its ivied shills of academe would credit.

Here is that photo of David Ferrie on left and Lee Harvey Oswald on the right. Of course they knew each other. Also Barry Seal was in Civil Air Patrol at about that time.

http://garrisoninvestigation.tripod.com/...oswald.jpg

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

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.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Cannot wait to read this book.

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