Discussion:
Question for John McAdams
(too old to reply)
Robert Harris
2009-12-13 19:36:41 UTC
Permalink
As I understand, you have had more than a little contact with Vincent
Bugliosi. I ask because I was rather amazed to see Mr. Bugliosi's
"rebuttal" of the notion that John Elrod overheard Oswald talking to FBI
people and identifying one of the perps involved in a weapons heist.

It seems that Mr. Bugliosi is totally ignorant of the details of the case,
and argued that Elrod wasn't even in the Dallas jail that day.

My question is, didn't you ever contact him to explain that the FBI went
to great lengths to prevent the name of the informant involved in that
case, to be disclosed, even to the judge??

And did you mention that they lied, telling the court that the informant
was an ATF agent?

And did you tell him that when this fact was revealed in the newsgroup,
you and all your cohorts clammed up and refused to talk about Elrod or
*Oswald Talked*??



Robert Harris
John McAdams
2009-12-14 00:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Harris
As I understand, you have had more than a little contact with Vincent
Bugliosi. I ask because I was rather amazed to see Mr. Bugliosi's
"rebuttal" of the notion that John Elrod overheard Oswald talking to FBI
people and identifying one of the perps involved in a weapons heist.
Actually, no. Bugliosi never contacted me.

And he never saw my web page, since he doesn't *do* web pages.

Apparently, people printed out pages from my site and sent them to
him.

It was interesting to see him cite "page 4" of an essay on my site,
since there was no "page 4" in the essay, just one long HTML page. So
it was in page 4 of the printout he had.

He must have liked the stuff, since he said some nice things about my
site.
Post by Robert Harris
It seems that Mr. Bugliosi is totally ignorant of the details of the case,
and argued that Elrod wasn't even in the Dallas jail that day.
Bob, the evidence is overwhelming that Elrod was not in that cellblock
with Oswald.
Post by Robert Harris
My question is, didn't you ever contact him to explain that the FBI went
to great lengths to prevent the name of the informant involved in that
case, to be disclosed, even to the judge??
What case?

Oh, you mean the silly "case" involving "gun running" that had nothing
to do with the Kennedy assassination?
Post by Robert Harris
And did you mention that they lied, telling the court that the informant
was an ATF agent?
Why should I "mention" things that aren't true?
Post by Robert Harris
And did you tell him that when this fact was revealed in the newsgroup,
you and all your cohorts clammed up and refused to talk about Elrod or
*Oswald Talked*??
We discussed it ad nauseam, Bob, and the entire book is bogus.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gil Jesus
2009-12-14 00:27:50 UTC
Permalink
My questions are these:

# 1 --- How can Bugliosi "say some nice things" about McAdams' site if
he's never been to it ?

And # 2 --- Does Bugliosi take on blind faith pages people print out
and send to him without doing any research to verify the source ?

WOW
tomnln
2009-12-14 02:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Well he apparently "bought" the WC Bullshit didn'r he ! ! !
Post by Gil Jesus
# 1 --- How can Bugliosi "say some nice things" about McAdams' site if
he's never been to it ?
And # 2 --- Does Bugliosi take on blind faith pages people print out
and send to him without doing any research to verify the source ?
WOW
Chuck Schuyler
2009-12-14 03:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
# 1 --- How can Bugliosi "say some nice things" about McAdams' site if
he's never been to it ?
Because he saw material from it that he apparently liked/agreed with/
felt was well researched, doofus.
Post by Gil Jesus
And # 2 --- Does Bugliosi take on blind faith pages people print out
and send to him without doing any research to verify the source ?
Whether you agree with VB or not, no one can accuse him of not doing
research.
Post by Gil Jesus
WOW
Here's an example of Gil's research, first "published" (*giggle*)
right here at acj:

Gil <on>

"Let's not forget that all of the previous three successful
Presidential assassinations were made from a distance of three feet
or less. In addition, the position of Kennedy's head at Z312,
together
with the description by the witnesses of an entry wound in the right
front of the head and an exit wound in the right rear, would indicate
a trajectory of a shot coming out of the floorboard of the car.


"Let's also not forget that Johnson's man Connally was less than 3
feet from the President when he was murdered and was reportedly known
thave carried a gun strapped to his ankle."

<off>

Gil Jesus, "researcher", speculating that Connally may have shot JFK.

Nice work, ace.
aeffects
2009-12-14 03:22:27 UTC
Permalink
ya can always tell when brain-dead Chuckles Cuckster Schuyler leaves
home without his overnight bag. He comes in here thinking we'll come
his hair for him -- what-a-fucking pussy!

Carry on trollster
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Gil Jesus
# 1 --- How can Bugliosi "say some nice things" about McAdams' site if
he's never been to it ?
Because he saw material from it that he apparently liked/agreed with/
felt was well researched, doofus.
Post by Gil Jesus
And # 2 --- Does Bugliosi take on blind faith pages people print out
and send to him without doing any research to verify the source ?
Whether you agree with VB or not, no one can accuse him of not doing
research.
Post by Gil Jesus
WOW
Here's an example of Gil's research, first "published" (*giggle*)
Gil <on>
 "Let's not forget that all of the previous three successful
Presidential assassinations were made from a distance of three feet
or less. In addition, the position of Kennedy's head at Z312,
together
with the description by the witnesses of an entry wound in the right
front of the head and an exit wound in the right rear, would indicate
a trajectory of a shot coming out of the floorboard of the car.
"Let's also not forget that Johnson's man Connally was less than 3
feet from the President when he was murdered and was reportedly known
thave  carried a gun strapped to his ankle."
<off>
Gil Jesus, "researcher", speculating that Connally may have shot JFK.
Nice work, ace.
robert harris
2009-12-14 03:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
As I understand, you have had more than a little contact with Vincent
Bugliosi. I ask because I was rather amazed to see Mr. Bugliosi's
"rebuttal" of the notion that John Elrod overheard Oswald talking to FBI
people and identifying one of the perps involved in a weapons heist.
Actually, no. Bugliosi never contacted me.
And he never saw my web page, since he doesn't *do* web pages.
Apparently, people printed out pages from my site and sent them to
him.
It was interesting to see him cite "page 4" of an essay on my site,
since there was no "page 4" in the essay, just one long HTML page. So
it was in page 4 of the printout he had.
He must have liked the stuff, since he said some nice things about my
site.
Post by Robert Harris
It seems that Mr. Bugliosi is totally ignorant of the details of the case,
and argued that Elrod wasn't even in the Dallas jail that day.
Bob, the evidence is overwhelming that Elrod was not in that cellblock
with Oswald.
Bullshit - the test of whether he was in a cellblock with Oswald is not
about denials by a handful of cops who never saw the two men at the time.

It is about who Elrod overheard.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
My question is, didn't you ever contact him to explain that the FBI went
to great lengths to prevent the name of the informant involved in that
case, to be disclosed, even to the judge??
What case?
The case which was the basis for the entire book that you tried so
desperately to refute.

Why are you pretending to be ignorant of that?
Post by John McAdams
Oh, you mean the silly "case" involving "gun running" that had nothing
to do with the Kennedy assassination?
It had everything to do with whether Oswald was an informant for the FBI.

If the FBI was truthful, then Elrod overheard an ATF agent that day. But
the AFT confirmed that it was NOT true, and it makes no sense that one of
them would have been in that cell.

An honest man would have been EAGER to resolve that question. So why did
you clam up, after I posted about that issue?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
And did you mention that they lied, telling the court that the informant
was an ATF agent?
Why should I "mention" things that aren't true?
Really?

So, you confirmed that the informant really did work for the ATF??

Would you mind sharing with us, how you came to that conclusion?? And why
did the ATF people who worked on that case, deny that they had an
informant?

And why would the FBI have worried about protecting the identity of a guy
whose cover was already blown when they brought one of the perps up to his
cell?

Are you going to continue to dodge these issues, .john?

THERE WAS AN INFORMANT - that fact is confirmed in the trial transcript.
And the government refused to identify his identity.

You should want to know who that informant was, .john. Why don't you?





Robert Harris
John McAdams
2009-12-14 03:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by robert harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
As I understand, you have had more than a little contact with Vincent
Bugliosi. I ask because I was rather amazed to see Mr. Bugliosi's
"rebuttal" of the notion that John Elrod overheard Oswald talking to FBI
people and identifying one of the perps involved in a weapons heist.
Actually, no. Bugliosi never contacted me.
And he never saw my web page, since he doesn't *do* web pages.
Apparently, people printed out pages from my site and sent them to
him.
It was interesting to see him cite "page 4" of an essay on my site,
since there was no "page 4" in the essay, just one long HTML page. So
it was in page 4 of the printout he had.
He must have liked the stuff, since he said some nice things about my
site.
Post by Robert Harris
It seems that Mr. Bugliosi is totally ignorant of the details of the case,
and argued that Elrod wasn't even in the Dallas jail that day.
Bob, the evidence is overwhelming that Elrod was not in that cellblock
with Oswald.
Bullshit - the test of whether he was in a cellblock with Oswald is not
about denials by a handful of cops who never saw the two men at the time.
All the reports from Nov. 22 were that Osweald was buy himself in that
cellblock.

This is cops, this is media (who could not have known they were
supposed to lie), this is police officials.
Post by robert harris
It is about who Elrod overheard.
Since he wasn't in the cellblock, that doesn't matter.
Post by robert harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
My question is, didn't you ever contact him to explain that the FBI went
to great lengths to prevent the name of the informant involved in that
case, to be disclosed, even to the judge??
What case?
The case which was the basis for the entire book that you tried so
desperately to refute.
Why are you pretending to be ignorant of that?
I barely remember any of these silly LaFontaine factoids.
Post by robert harris
Post by John McAdams
Oh, you mean the silly "case" involving "gun running" that had nothing
to do with the Kennedy assassination?
It had everything to do with whether Oswald was an informant for the FBI.
He wasn't.
Post by robert harris
If the FBI was truthful, then Elrod overheard an ATF agent that day. But
the AFT confirmed that it was NOT true, and it makes no sense that one of
them would have been in that cell.
An honest man would have been EAGER to resolve that question. So why did
you clam up, after I posted about that issue?
We discussed this at huge length years ago.

It was resolved. The LaFontaines were wrong. They produced a silly
book all based on the testimony of Elrod.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/laf.htm
Post by robert harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
And did you mention that they lied, telling the court that the informant
was an ATF agent?
Why should I "mention" things that aren't true?
Really?
So, you confirmed that the informant really did work for the ATF??
Would you mind sharing with us, how you came to that conclusion?? And why
did the ATF people who worked on that case, deny that they had an
informant?
I don't know that any of that is true, Bob.

That's all silly LaFontaine stuff.
Post by robert harris
And why would the FBI have worried about protecting the identity of a guy
whose cover was already blown when they brought one of the perps up to his
cell?
Are you going to continue to dodge these issues, .john?
THERE WAS AN INFORMANT - that fact is confirmed in the trial transcript.
And the government refused to identify his identity.
You should want to know who that informant was, .john. Why don't you?
None that any of that had anything to do with Ruby or Oswald or the
JFK assassination.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
2009-12-14 18:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by robert harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
As I understand, you have had more than a little contact with Vincent
Bugliosi. I ask because I was rather amazed to see Mr. Bugliosi's
"rebuttal" of the notion that John Elrod overheard Oswald talking to FBI
people and identifying one of the perps involved in a weapons heist.
Actually, no. Bugliosi never contacted me.
And he never saw my web page, since he doesn't *do* web pages.
Apparently, people printed out pages from my site and sent them to
him.
It was interesting to see him cite "page 4" of an essay on my site,
since there was no "page 4" in the essay, just one long HTML page. So
it was in page 4 of the printout he had.
He must have liked the stuff, since he said some nice things about my
site.
Post by Robert Harris
It seems that Mr. Bugliosi is totally ignorant of the details of the case,
and argued that Elrod wasn't even in the Dallas jail that day.
Bob, the evidence is overwhelming that Elrod was not in that cellblock
with Oswald.
Bullshit - the test of whether he was in a cellblock with Oswald is not
about denials by a handful of cops who never saw the two men at the time.
All the reports from Nov. 22 were that Osweald was buy himself in that
cellblock.
This is cops, this is media (who could not have known they were
supposed to lie), this is police officials.
NO members of media were able to track Oswald's whereabouts on the
afternoon of 11/22/63..

You are claiming that a police dept was infallible, whom you have
described on numerous occasions, as virtually incompetent, and who we
KNOW, falsely claimed that Oswald was never put in a cell until after
midnight.

We already KNOW they were wrong about when Oswald was placed in that cell.
The only controversy is about HOW WRONG they were.
Post by John McAdams
Post by robert harris
It is about who Elrod overheard.
Since he wasn't in the cellblock, that doesn't matter.
Of course it matters.

Elrod overheard that informant, whom we know was real, because the FBI had
to confirm his existence in court, but refused to reveal his identity.

This is a documented FACT, which trumps the opinion of a few cops, who
obviously did not know when Oswald was placed in that cell. If they had,
they would not have made the false claim that he was placed there after
midnight.

You tell me .john. Was that an honest mistake, or did they deliberately
lie?

Either way, why in hell, should we accept their second, "Well then, would
you believe...." story??
Post by John McAdams
Post by robert harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
My question is, didn't you ever contact him to explain that the FBI went
to great lengths to prevent the name of the informant involved in that
case, to be disclosed, even to the judge??
What case?
The case which was the basis for the entire book that you tried so
desperately to refute.
Why are you pretending to be ignorant of that?
I barely remember any of these silly LaFontaine factoids.
Nonsense, that was your life for a very long time.
Post by John McAdams
Post by robert harris
Post by John McAdams
Oh, you mean the silly "case" involving "gun running" that had nothing
to do with the Kennedy assassination?
It had everything to do with whether Oswald was an informant for the FBI.
He wasn't.
Didn't Harvard give classes in critical thinking?

Did they teach nothing about making absolute claims without a shred of
evidence to back them up?

Not only are you basing your entire case on "witnesses", which you claim
is a worthless commodity anyway, from an agency that you have frequently
dissed, but you are trusting witnesses who already gave false information
on the very question that is on the table.

How weak does your case have to get before you admit the truth, john?
Post by John McAdams
Post by robert harris
If the FBI was truthful, then Elrod overheard an ATF agent that day. But
the AFT confirmed that it was NOT true, and it makes no sense that one of
them would have been in that cell.
Why are you ignoring this issue?

Why don't you care about what the one federal agency said, who had not
been proven to have lied about Oswald and Elrod??
Post by John McAdams
Post by robert harris
An honest man would have been EAGER to resolve that question. So why did
you clam up, after I posted about that issue?
We discussed this at huge length years ago.
Bullshit!

Show me a relevant posting that you think resolved this question.
Post by John McAdams
It was resolved. The LaFontaines were wrong. They produced a silly
book all based on the testimony of Elrod.
Signature mcadams - zero content, zero analysis, and massive evasion.

You are STILL evading this issue. Why do you have to substitute these
endless assertions that you cannot support to save your life??
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/laf.htm
That article is shameful, john.




Robert Harris

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...