Oswald Assassination

Critique of John McAdams
Subject: Critique of John McAdams by Jeff Orr - 02/08/00

I would have to say that John McAdams either has mental problems, or is a conscious and deliberate agent of dis-information. Perhaps he is both, but no one could be as familiar with the facts as he seems to be and still advocate such a position. I would like to explain my experience with Mr. John McAdams, and try to let that experience speak to the reputation of this person.

I wish that I had copies of the posts that I put up at his newsgroup location. If I am able to get a copy of that I will be glad to furnish it as proof. I didn't know that the JFK assassination newsgroup that I was posting on was affiliated to the McAdams website, until after my posts were removed and I was blocked from making any further posts. I am not a serious researcher but I have looked very closely into the JFK assassination and I put a post on that newsgroup. The subject of the post was the question "Where was George Bush on the day Kennedy was assassinated?" My post explained that the day following the assassination Bush had met with J Edgar Hoover to discuss JFK's murder, and that those in Dallas that day included Frank Sturgis, Howard Hunt, and Jack Ruby. I also made a post about the motivation for Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. The subject of that post was speculation that Oswald was probably meant to die in the theater, and that Ruby had to act in this way because the plotters intended Oswald to be the dead "patsy" following the assassination.

McAdams sarcastically responded to the posts with a speed that arouses suspicion. Because who has time to sit by a computer and watch the posts as they come in? He claimed that there was no evidence to support anything I said in the Bush post. I can't remember what he said about the Ruby post. He could do no more than to refute every reference by claiming that the info and the sources were phony or false. He ended by saying that what I had offered were only "factiods". So I coolly responded with the complete info and the sources, still thinking that this information was probably unknown to him, and that he would take the info seriously when I gave him the references and more background on them. There was nothing hostile or rude in my response only good solid sources for the claims I made; yet the post was removed within minutes. I had tried to post it at a second JFK assassination newsgroup and found that it wouldn't accept my post. I tried to re-post at the site that had briefly contained my reply to McAdams, but found that the site was blocking my posts just as the other site was. I can't say for sure, but I am fairly sure he is the person who has censored my posts.

Here we have a chap who has a tremendous amount of time on his hands to promote a fiction about the assassination of JFK through websites, newsgroups, and no telling what other means. Whether he is a paid dis-information specialist, or unpaid, he is definitely promoting information that is knowingly false to him. His opinions cannot stand in a debate with an informed person. He cannot help but contradict himself in defending his untenable position. He is not trying to seek the truth whatever it may be, he is trying to promote myths that exonerate those who are implicated by evidence in the assassination of their own leader, a United States President named John F. Kennedy. He is out to discredit people who are putting the logical conclusions together from the irrefutable evidence. Whatever his reasons are for trying to continue the cover-up of the JFK assassination, I don't have any appreciation of them.

Jeff Orr

Postscript: It looks like Jeff Orr's question has been answered.

Boycott Parkland