'The Great Awakening'? How Does A Piece Of Q-Anon Conspiracy Garbage Make It To No. 1 on Amazon?

Can any sane person really believe this Amazon ranking for this piece of trash?  People interested in conspiracies - REAL ones - are better served going to my book on the JFK assassination:

My book is the product of  35 years of research into the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy, incorporating acoustic analyses, image analyses as well as exposing the sundry deficiencies of The Warren Report. In other words, it's grounded in reality,  not fantasy.

By contrast, 'The Great Awakening' was hatched by QAnon freaks,  likely on an all night bender of booze, bennies and  opioids, mixed with  MJ candy .  It is designed to appeal to the  indiscriminate Pizzagate conspiracy trolls and gullible gobblers,  the ones who believed (in 2016)  Hillary Clinton had a stable of child sex slaves.   I would say also  similar to  the wacko  delusions of Alex Jones of Info Wars fame, but even he has now admitted his false flag ideation about the Sandy Hook massacre was a result of severe mental illness.  What excuse do these latter dispensers of toxic mind rot have?

The Amazon book, which says it was written by a dozen “anonymous Q followers, decoders and citizen journalists known collectively as Where We Go One We Go All (WWG1WGA),” takes up where the Pizzagate rubbish left off. It claims that Democrats murder and eat children and that the government created AIDS, polio and Lyme disease. Then there’s the belief that the world is run by a Satanic cabal led by Hillary Clinton.

NBC News, which first reported on the book's placement on the Amazon charts, noted that the book received an algorithmic boost from product recommendations. The book, written by an anonymous author, averaged 4.5 stars and has been flooded with positive reviews.

Mike Rothschild, a conspiracy-theory expert, told NBC that the book is just another way for the QAnon movement to cash in on its gullible followers, calling it “a bold new step in the endless grift at the heart of Q.”

Nevertheless, the book keeps selling and racking up questionable glowing reviews, which Jason Kint, CEO of the trade association Digital Content Next, chalks up to manipulation and the lack of oversight on Amazon’s part.  As Kint explained to NBC:

“To be clear, they absolutely shouldn’t be censoring the availability of books like this. But the fact we’re left only with the publisher’s own description of the book and a clearly gamed set of 5-star reviews — how is the average shopper supposed to know this is toxic garbage?”

Uh, how about critical thinking? How about having an I.Q. that exceeds room temperature digits? 

Amazingly,  even Reddit now appears to be coming to its senses.  Last September it banned a forum dedicated to the QAnon conspiracy theory, saying users repeatedly violated its content policies.   This isn't difficult to parse because after Pizzagate nearly incited a tragedy (unhinged Trumpie entering D.C. Comet pizza parlor with loaded rifle to "liberate Hillary's child sex slaves")  there can be no issue these are dangerous loons.

Let's also get it very clear from the get go that the assorted nonsense being peddled does not qualify as conspiracy theories. They are conspiracy claptrap or refuse. In  previous blog posts I noted Barbadian psychologist Pat Bannister's categorization of those who invoke conspiracies and how she differentiated them. As part of her construction of a theory of mind, specifically showing the role of lying in young children, she also noted adeptness at detecting lies was linked to accurate detection of real conspiracies.

Dr. Bannister's classification was simple:

1- Conspiracy analysts

2- Conspiracy theorists

3- Conspiracy crackpots or cultists


At the top of the hierarchy were conspiracy analysts, such as Mark Lane, Peter Dale Scott, Harold Weisberg, Richard Charnin and others (like yours truly)).  These were serious people possessing some measure of intellect who brought their scientific, mathematical and other aptitudes to the investigation of multiple aspects of a putative real conspiracies like Iran-Contra and the JFK assassination.  These people put in real man hours and actually published their work in authoritative media (e.g. BOOKS - real books!) and respected forums as opposed to spreading bunkum through half-assed posts in the lowest dreg regions of the net, like 4chan and 8chan.  

By contrast, the 'conspiracy theorist' put forward conspiracy conjectures but didn't back them up with evidence. Or, if evidence was provided, it didn't meet elementary scientific standards for acceptance, such as consistent selection, coherent and accurate data assessment, and avoidance of confirmation bias.

The bottom feeders of the classification scheme were conspiracy crackpots or clowns, like Alex Jones.   Jones is most famous for his off the wall bunkum that the Sandy Hook/Newtown massacre was a federal "false flag" operation. Those slain  kids weren't really dead, they were merely actors- as well as the teachers- in an elaborate script to befuddle the public and make them demand gun confiscation across the land.  Jones claimed he'd watched "films over and over and just seen those kids walking in circles".  At least now he's admitted to being mentally unbalanced.  We now await the authors of The Great Awakening to do likewise.

How would Dr. Bannister, if she were alive today, describe a convoluted, paranoid -infused mental mosh pit like "The Great Awakening"?   Basically, she'd probably call it a psychotic's phantasmagoria and schizoid ideation attempting to make sense of disparate, suspicious elements in the contemporary U.S. - driven by social media. 

 She'd also make note that such fever dreams don't need a whole lot of external memetic fuel to get started: a coincidence here, a loaded word from Trump there, an obscure reference to "deep state" there- oh  and some "genius" who first puts it all together in his mother's basement and posts it on 4chan. Whereupon a susceptible brain will be infected and spread it on to other gullible souls, searching for meaning in their vacuous lives. Well, to be sure, it's probably a bit better than using opioids!

 It would be great if we could just ignore these looneytunes-  or dispatch them to an asylum for general ECT and lithium therapy. But alas, their fevered baloney can have real world consequences and act outs - especially when a virulently infected zombie gets activated - like the guy who fired a round into the D.C. pizza parlor looking for child sex slaves. Or the other screwball who tried to block traffic headed for the Hoover Dam.

These people desperately need help, but it seems there are just too few professionals around now to get the job done.   Where is Dr. Bannister when we need her?

Yes, LBJ Ordered The Hit On Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. For His Anti-Vietnam War Stance

As thousands gather in Memphis to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.  we still contend with a corporate media that keeps churning out the B.S. that King's. assassin was James Earl Ray.   Of course, as in the case of a prior "lone nut" narrative, Ray's personality traits have been thoroughly brewed then distilled by the "authorities" yielding a: "career criminal, bitter racist... and loner"  in the words of author William Pepper.

In his riveting 2003  talk  An Act of State - The Execution of Martin Luther King -  Pepper described his in -depth interview (along with Ralph Abernathy) of the alleged King assassin, James Earl Ray:

"He had a virtually non-existent marksmanship score when he took his test in the Army. He didn’t know much about guns. When he was instructed to buy a weapon that became the throw-down gun in the assassination he bought a .243 Winchester rather than a thirty-ought-six [.30-06] that he was told to get. He didn’t know the difference between them. When he showed the weapon he had bought to Raul, who was controlling him, he sent him back to exchange it. It was a matter of record. He went back and exchanged this one rifle for another the next day. That’s not something he thought of himself. It just was the wrong gun. The guy wanted a .30-06 caliber rifle so they had a .30-06 rifle as the throw-down gun. So he had to go back and exchange it. After the interview we became convinced, Abernathy and I became convinced that he was not the shooter. We didn’t know what other role he might have played. But it was clear he was not the assassin of Martin Luther King."

This "Ray did it"  twaddle could be accepted - more or less - up until  the Jan. 1998 Baltimore Sun revelations which referenced the U.S. Army's admission that its intelligence agents had monitored the public appearances of Rev. King in Memphis.  These disclosures then could be seen to dovetail with earlier revelations (from William Pepper's 1995 book, Orders to Kill)  that an Alpha 184 unit had been in Memphis and the purpose was not at all benign. They were to serve as backup to a hired contract killer (via New Orleans' crime boss, Carlos Marcello) - but more on this later. For the moment readers can refer to the image of the attached orders issued to the 20th AFG Alpha 184 team members.  Let me note before moving on, that such orders could not have come from any old government lackey or official, not even J. Edgar Hoover or then Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.  No, they could only have come from the top dog himself, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

For those who've been involved in deep politics research, and especially got their "baptism" with the Kennedy assassination, it's abundantly clear the lone nut assassin in the King case is another  cover story. In fact, all the evidence - including from LBJ's role in the Kennedy assassination - masterminding the plan from Big D-   we know he is the one who also engineered the King assassination. And why not? He'd already gotten away with the first assassination via the cover fraud "investigation" known as the Warren Commission, which even  54 years later has gullible twits buying it lock, stock, and barrel. Emboldened by that, why not take down Rev. King too - who'd become a gadfly over the Vietnam War?

The incredulity of too many in the face of these facts traces to how King has mainly been erected as a civil rights totem in the last 50 years. This hyper emphasis has minimized his fierce pacifism - especially against the Vietnam War- which brought him into direct conflict with Johnson.  An April, 1998 Baltimore Sun piece by Colman McCarthy  ('A Fierce Advocate of Pacifism') summarized how King had been turned into a one-dimensional Milquetoast by the media:

"All the textbooks, for sure, carry excerpts from the 'I Have a Dream' speech. After three decades of being sentimentalized into an historical relic mummified by the formaldehyde of nostalgia, King has been marginalized in ways never thought possible while he was around to defend himself."

McCarthy, like Pepper, cites the powerful moral voice against Johnson's war - and yes, it was his war, given he signed the original NSAM (273) formalizing it, and then confected the Tonkin Gulf incident to justify a massive troop commitment. (Again, for more on the backstory of LBJ's NSAM -273 check out the information in the link below:

http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM273.html )

Among the more visceral words of Dr. King (ibid.):

"We have destroyed Vietnam's two most treasured institutions - the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops... We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men."

As McCarthy points out, no textbook quotes Dr. King in this respect. Which is exactly why - in order to grasp why Johnson would have him killed - people need to grasp the severity of MLK's anti-war stance and the rage it stoked in LBJ.  As King's unswerving opposition to the War increased Johnson became enraged at the prospect of its threatening his precious civil rights and "Great Society" legacy. He also worried about King's promise to bring hundreds of thousands to the Capitol for a poor people's march that summer.    McCarthy recalls how the media at the time tried to back King away from his anti-War mission, e.g.:

"The corporate media's reporters and editorial writers dismissed King as being far out of his depth with his anti-military views. The New York Times and Washington Post instructed King to stick to racial issues and leave weighty foreign policy matters to sophisticated people - like the pro-Vietnam War editorial writers at the Times and the Post. To King critics Carl Rowan and J. Edgar Hoover, anti-war equaled anti-American.  Rowan, a courtier to the warmonger Johnson, accused King of being duped by people 'more interested in embarrassing the U.S. than anything else."

Johnson himself just wanted King to STFU and cease criticizing the War.  Each King moral censure struck Johnson and his Texas Pride like a body blow. According to Pepper (p. 350) , it was Hoover who intimated (to oil baron H.L. Hunt)  the only way possible to stop King was to "completely silence him" , i.e. a kill, an assassination.  Hunt,  at the time, wanted to discredit King by repeated personal attacks via his 'Life Line' program which aired in 398 cities. No doubt LBJ - who was a close friend of Hoover's - was also informed this was his only way to escape the latter day, anti-War  "Jeremiah".

That LBJ was fully capable of masterminding the earlier JFK hit we pretty well know, at least those who have been prepared to follow the leads, evidence and indicators.  Credit here to Steve Kornacki  who first reported (with documents) on the peril Johnson faced  in the tightening Bobby Baker scandal. This was  in his ‘UP’ journal on MSNBC, the morning of Nov. 23, 2013. Using tapes and media documents, Kornacki showed that Johnson was about to be exposed as an influence peddler in conjunction with the Bobby Baker scandal by LIFE magazine in its upcoming issue. He faced not only being knocked from the 1964 ticket but severe prosecution and ultimate disgrace- with the money trail to be published. Hence HE stood to gain the most, at just the right instant of time, with JFK killed. Getting JFK to travel to Dallas,  where LBJ had control at multiple points (including the motorcade route) , was half the effort.

We know now (in retrospect)  a feral rat like Johnson wouldn't have taken this lying down or passively, given some 21 years later his role in the murder of a Texas agricultural official (Henry Harvey Marshall) was exposed e.g.



So we have a damned good idea of what LBJ was capable of. and we know the motive: LBJ felt he was screwed out of the Presidency at the 1960  LA convention, where the Kennedy campaign team did a neat end run about him  and  JFK already had the nomination sewed up at the first roll call – unbeknownst to the hot-headed Texan. LBJ accepted JFK’s offer for VP – but only grudgingly. Meanwhile, he stewed over time, entering the Oval office almost at will in the mornings – according to Kennedy’s secretary Evelyn Lincoln, as she described in her book: Kennedy and Johnson,  (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968, pp. 149-151 ).  He felt he was entitled to be top dog or at least be co-president and even proposed on one occasion a “shared presidency” – at which point Jack kicked him out of his office and gave him some more scut work to do. 

Those who wish to examine the document basis in more detail are advised to get hold of Philip Nelson's, 'LBJ - The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination' which makes a profoundly credible case for Johnson's involvement - again noting Kennedy's removal cleared the way for Johnson to  accede to the Presidency and escape a long prison sentence.  The Warren Commission was his vehicle for clearing any culpability - using his pal Hoover as the "cleanup man". (E.g. ensuring that no controverting evidence -i.e.  to that painting Oswald as the lone nut assassin- found its way before the Commissioners.)

Now, what put Rev. King in LBJ's sights?  Basically, it was King's ever increasing willingnss to condemn and criticize the Vietnam War.  LBJ felt especially betrayed by Martin, given what he (LBJ) thought were his contributions to advancing civil rights.  So LBJ wanted King's voice silenced once and for all. He'd gotten too much attention on the Vietnam issue, and it undermined LBJ's "great legacy" - having already taken control of all of Kennedy's ideas and programs and pushed them through. 

Pepper- in his 2003 speech-  observed that:

 "Martin King was killed because he had become intolerable.  It was not just that he opposed the war and was going to the bottom line of a number of the major corporations of the United States, those forces that essentially rule the world at this point in time - the transnational entities. 

But more importantly, I think the reason is because he was going to bring a mass of people to Washington in the spring of '68 and that was very troubling."

Pepper also noted  that what incepted his further investigation into the King killing was an article  by journalist Steve Tompkins in the Memphis Commercial Appeal.  It dealt with the infiltration of the civil rights movement and black leaders by U.S. military intelligence.

 "One paragraph" from the Tompkins article in particular caught his eye. It noted that on the day of Rev. King's  assassination a Special Forces Alpha 184 team was in place, and no one understood at the time why this 6-man  sniper unit was present in Memphis. Pepper then approached Tompkins, who conceded this introduced a whole other dimension to the case - which was now not nearly as closed as the media would have had us believe.  Once a copy of the (original) Top Secret order was obtained, it was game on.

Pepper's breakthrough (and what led to his book 'Orders to Kill')) arrived on learning that a film existed of the King assassination. It was in the hands of Army psyops (psychological operations) officers who had been in Memphis that day to take photographs of everything, including any vehicles passing in the vicinity of the Lorraine Motel. One of the recording officers, as Pepper noted - in his speech and in the book - just happened to spin his camera around on hearing the shot, toward the bushes in front of the motel, thereby catching the actual assassin - a lone white man - not James Earl Ray. 

As described by Pepper (pp. 484-85) "it clearly appears the hit was to be carried out by a civilian contract killer with the Army snipers there as backup shooters if the contract killer cold not make the shot or he failed to kill Dr. King".

Pepper conjectured the contract killer was likely arranged by New Orleans' Mob boss Carlos Marcello, whose territory would have included Memphis and the southwest. Meanwhile, two members of the Alpha 184 team (Capt. Billy Eidson and Lt. Robert Worley)  "either died or were killed in the years following the events of April 4, 1968" .   Two other members of the Alpha 184 team,  a  "Warren" and "Murphy" (pseudonyms - from the file records),   realized a clean up operation was underway and "left the country".   Another member - the central communications operator "went into hiding in Canada" and another member "J.D." was killed some years later.  In many ways, the cleanup operation followed the witness elimination template after the JFK assassination - and this has been shown to be mathematically substantiated by Richard Charnin in his book,  Reclaiming Science- The JFK Conspiracy, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-jfk-assassination-book-all-serious.html

For those interested in the details of Pepper's investigation into the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination I suggest getting hold of the book Orders to Kill, or at least availing themselves of this abbreviated account of Pepper's findings from the  transcript of the 2003 speech he gave:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WFP020403.pdf

James Douglass ('JFK and the Unspeakable')  has held all of us to account for not seeing that all the 1960s assassinations (JFK, MLK, RFK, Malcolm X) were interconnected, all orchestrated for the end of silencing powerful voices. Also, each killing, according to Douglass, made the next one easier because we all became susceptible to the anti-conspiracy mindset pushed by the Operation Mockingbird -compromised media. Too many thereby became  enmeshed in the media's lies that "one lone nut" was involved each time. Hence, to the extent we gave the media's apparatchiks a pass we became accomplices and parties to the "unspeakable" 

But in all of this, there is a clear path showing LBJ was instrumental in at least two of the killings -whether his hagiographers and sometime fans - wish to admit that or not.  That is what is truly unspeakable.

Ditching Online Discussion Groups - A Rational Choice!

Back in May I wrote a post explaining why I ceased to frequent any online discussion Google Groups. As I noted:

"Google groups is as beset by noise from trolls, morons and screwballs as Usenet was in the mid 90s. In fact, I'd say even more.  The JFK assassination is a case in point and shows pretty well that most of the numskulls who post aren't interested in serious discussion - but drive -by snark that would embarrass an intelligent 8-year old. But this was one reason that in 2001 I stopped forthwith with Deja news and never signed onto Google groups. Too much noise, not enough signal."

This was particularly to do with groups on the JFK assassination, which I found increasingly beset by noise and inhabited by that bottom feeder species of internet denizen known as the troll. After citing a number of examples of my own experience, and Richard Charnin's (about whose JFK book I'd written a review) I observed:

"This is why it's a total waste of time, mental capital and energy to attempt to dispense any pearls of wisdom regarding the JFK assassination (and I'd guess global warming as well) on Google Groups. It is simply not a venue conducive to intellectual exercise or exchange."

Well, it appears I am by no means the only person to have left these groups to the lower dregs. An article in the recent Mensa Bulletin ('Why I Quit Online Discussion Groups',  October, p. 32) by Bryan Lundgren, sheds even more light on why intelligent people are no longer inclined to waste time or intellectual capital in these over-hyped venues.

In Lundgren's case he'd signed up for eight Yahoo Groups, hoping to extract some residue of intellectual exchange via collegial and interesting discussions on a variety of topics.  What he discovered instead was more akin to an intellectual vacuum and worse, one inhabited by the usual breed of deranged and deluded assholes one encounters in such places. They know little or nothing, as in the JFK assassination Google groups, yet feel they are entitled to spout off on anything and even that their bilge trumps the contributions of experts.

As Lundgren noted, based on his experience, (p. 33):

"The first time I came across one of these nasty people online I called my Internet-savvy daughter and explained the situation:

'This guy throws out a post that takes five minutes, calls people names . Next the group goes into a five hour frenzy. What's up with that?"

His daughter then asks if he has never hears of trolls, with which she has to deal in her online work - mainly trying to screen their random eruptions as best she can.

Lundgren then cites the Urban Dictionary definition of "Internet Troll":

"A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with over the internet over extremely trivial issues."


Lundgren then claims to have begun to research online communications, including diagnosing disruptive personalities that seem to pop up in these Yahoo and Google groups like random roaches searching for new feeding stores.  Lundgren also sought to try to learn why "these few bad apples behaved so negatively".  Ultimately, he was able to get to the point of recognizing the M.O. of most of these losers and being able to predict the obnoxious behavior of a certain subset.  Most of these dregs fell into one of three groups: trolls for their own sake, narcissists and depressives unwilling to medicate properly.

The trolls for their own sake are perhaps the bunch most on the loose in Google groups. The JFK assassination especially seems to draw them out, because they believe after they read a few short articles they are experts on it. Thus, they feel compelled to challenge more experienced contributors and authors simply because they can. (One reason I advised Richard Charnin not to waste his time on any of these groups any more, including mentioning his book, Reclaiming Science).

Narcissists, well they just like seeing themselves have fun at others' expense. They can also be especially nasty about it and often engage in character assassination - like John McAdams, a classic case. Meanwhile, depressives engage in this slimy behavior as a way to partially self-medicate, whereas if they'd just leave the keyboard alone and get a Zoloft or Paxil prescription they'd be going out for a jog, or reading a damned book.

Lundgren noted he finally gave up and left the online groups because the effort needed to create and sustain a useful online exchange was "excessive" relative to the rewards. In other words, like my experience with the JFK assassination Google groups, it more and more became a case of tossing pearls before swine and as I noted,

"this is what you get when you offer substantive fare for consideration to mentally deficient imps who are more at ease wallowing in their own verbal feces and hurling it at anyone who dares try to enter their 'den' for education purposes."

Lundgren's solution - analogous to my own - was to be much more selective in internet use. Now, instead of wasting hours and hours uselessly arguing with those not invested in the content or enhancing discussion, he spends more constructive time reading one or two blogs and making the occasional comment.  The time and energy has added more quality to his own life, but I am sure the trolls and narcissists are PO'd they don't have another person whose time (and talents) they can waste.

Lundgren like me, has joined tens of thousands of netizens who have tired of partaking in useless, rancorous online discussions that now are the hallmark of an intellectual wasteland.

Why I Don't Waste Time Posting On JFK Issues in Google Groups

Google groups is a later iteration of Usenet newsgroups and newsgroup culture after Google took them over ca. 2001. According to a Wikipedia entry:.

By 2001, the Deja search service was shut down. In February 2001, Google acquired Deja News (and its archive), and transitioned its assets to groups.google.com.Users were then able to access these Usenet newsgroups through the new Google Groups interface.

But cursory inspection shows that contrary to the claim of being a better information repository, Google groups is as beset by noise from trolls, morons and screwballs as Usenet was in the mid 90s. In fact, I'd say even more.  The JFK assassination is a case in point and shows pretty well that most of the numskulls who post aren't interested in serious discussion - but drive -by snark that would embarrass an intelligent 8-year old. But this was one reason that in 2001 I stopped forthwith with Deja news and never signed onto Google groups. Too much noise, not enough signal.

In the current discussions in the JFK assassination forum author Richard Charnin has tried valiantly to introduce the resident peanut gallery to my recent JFK assassination book, but with zero success. He's received one to two line responses (again,  most that a 2nd grader wouldn't write), ranging from: "Jeez why should I waste money on some book full of CT shibboleths and nonsense!" (Amazing he could use the word "shibboleths")  to "I bet he don't have a job and sits in his mom's basement writing this stuff!" (Actually no, I'm nearly 69 and long since retired - able to travel and work on my own projects. You should be so lucky, Sparky!)

But this is the sort of drivel one must put up with if he dares to cast pearls before swine. Because given their nature, swine won't appreciate what's on offer and will generally use the occasion only to evacuate their bowels - or in this case resort to verbal diarrhea via their keyboards.  This is the low quality dreck that serious assassination researchers have to put up with – because these semi-educated (on the assassination) critics only serve to clutter the cybersphere with yet more disinformation and ignorance when some of us are attempting to educate our countrymen as to what really went down – based on actual documents released on the basis of the JFK Records Act – not half-assed speculations or conjectures.

Heck, most of these turkeys couldn't distinguish Oswald's CI/SIG 201 file from his 74-500 file, far less Kennedy's  NSAM-263 from Johnson's NSAM-273.  I warrant they've never even read them ....or the cables from the Mexico City station (dispatched compliments of station chief David Atlee Phillips)  that clearly sets up Oswald as the patsy. They talk and write about this being "more CT nonsense" but the very writing of such idiocy shows they're not invested in the truth (as James Douglass shows in his 'JFK and the Unspeakable') but denial and propaganda.

Another dolt actually asked Mr. Charnin if I ever "came up with an original theory on the assassination".  But why would I when the existing JFK records, released files clearly show  - to any person with an IQ at least one standard deviation beyond normal - that there is no need to "reinvent the wheel" as it were. All the evidence is there and points to a CIA-instigated hit - which this bozo would learn about if he possessed the reading level (2nd year college) to appreciate my book. Also, to appreciate my original mathematical approach to the analysis of the backyard photos (using fractional calculus) and the rifle shots.

But see, when people lack aptitude - either in reading or mathematics- the only response they're left with is the default  put down, irresponsible (uninformed) criticism, and simpleton snark. They aren't going to applaud the work - because hell, they aren't prepared to exercise their minds to a degree that exceeds accepting  more than the simplest answers. It's more comfortable to remain brainwashed zombies gobbling up lone nut propaganda.

This brings up my other main point on why I won't waste time with these clueless nimrods: they already have made their minds up on what's true and what's false - just like the climate change deniers. It is what I have earlier called "false knowledge syndrome".  As I noted in a post elaborating on the condition:

"Sure, all humans want to believe they’re rational, but Kahan's work shows that in reality most people employ their reason  ex post facto to  rationalize what they already want to believe. Thus, if they already believe global warming is a "hoax" their brains won't work in order to process new information that invalidates that, but rather they will search for bogus information (say from a Terry Lovell, or Richard Lindzen, or Jason Lisle) that reinforces their misperceptions. "

Let's also bring in another related observation for those who so vehemently (and mindlessly) defend the lone nut bunkum (which one Mensa Bulletin letter writer in 1995  compared to "accepting the virgin birth").  Then there is this percipient take compliments of Matt Ridley in his Wall Street Journal column of Sept. 10, 2011:

"How do we know that our own rational rejections of conspiracy theories are not themselves infected with beliefs so strong that they are, in effect, conspiracy theories too?"

A point surely missed by the uneducated yahoos who inhabit Google Groups, namely the JFK discussion forum.  Because if a rational man like Richard Charnin (and even long time researcher Anthony Marsh- who noted whenever he gave an original theory it was shot down in the forum) can be so summarily dismissed there is no hope for rational exchange.  Further, the evidence is manifestly clear that the bulk of respondents are fools and trolls just as wedded to their own wacko conspiracy theories (in this case irrationally anti-CT) as those who currently believe U.S. Army special forces are in Texas for an Obama "takeover"

The worst tragedy is that, leaving out all subjective back and forth,  these morons are totally unable to see how the basic physics - mechanics points to conspiracy.( I.e. grasping that Jackie's limo  trunk motion is impossible for a rear shot such as from the Book Depository, because the direction of linear momentum is always in the direction the bullet travels)  It is almost like trying to impart or teach Chinese to chimps.  As for the mathematical proofs - such as via Charnin's Poisson  analysis or use of my fractional calculus - when you  have to deal with those possessing subnormal IQs (who wouldn't be able to do even basic algebra) you're not going to get kudos because again...showing your work is analogous to showing Chinese to a chimp. A chimp isn't likely to read that page of Chinese characters but more probably defecate on it.

Bear in mind these misfits who find it so easy to slam a reflective book of analysis they haven't read,  likely couldn't even write a convincing comic book. But this is what you get when you offer substantive fare for consideration to mentally deficient imps who are more at ease wallowing in their own verbal feces and hurling it at anyone who dares try to enter their 'den' for education purposes.

This is why it's a total waste of time, mental capital and energy to attempt to dispense any pearls of wisdom regarding the JFK assassination (and I'd guess global warming as well) on Google Groups. It is simply not a venue conducive to intellectual exercise or exchange.

If I were Richard Charnin I wouldn't waste another minute of time or mental energy on the Google Groups JFK forum. He's better served writing a follow-up to his excellent original conspiracy book - this time focusing on LBJ's role. Perhaps doing a Poisson analysis showing that what too many regard as disconnected, "coincidental" events: i.e.  destruction of the bloody suit coat, cleaning and disassembly of the limo and even the Bethesda autopsy- could only have been orchestrated by Johnson. He had the means, motive and opportunity (as well as the power)  to do it and everything to lose (owing to the exploding Bobby Baker scandal) if JFK wasn't in a box by the time the entourage left Big D.

Something to consider.

Why I Remain Uniquely Qualified to Have Reviewed Richard Charnin's JFK Book.

Have any of the twits who think I'm not a JFK assassination expert even read my book?

I really had to unleash howls of laughter as I perused some of the daft comments from the peanut gallery after Richard Charnin posted a link to my review of his JFK book, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-jfk-assassination-book-all-serious.html

 on Google groups. One dumbo actually replied,  saying, in effect, "Well, Charnin,  when you finally write an astrophysics book then Stahl can review it" (citing my astrophysics background). And also, "Yeah, he's qualified to review it if JFK saw stars in Oswald's eyes before he fired" or some blather to that effect.

The level of doltishness disclosed made me wonder at the average level of education of most of the commentariat in this forum. Had they no insight at all that the main basis of Charnin's book was the application of the Poisson statistical distribution to the JFK witness deaths? And did I not fully show my expert background precisely in the use of the Poisson distribution - albeit to the occurrence of solar flares?  E.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/one-of-most-massive-scientific-projects.html

Wherein I referenced my paper  ‘Limitations of Empirical-Statistical Methods of Solar Flare Prognostication’  which showed how the relevant flare incidence corresponds to a Poisson process of the form: P(t) =   exp (- l)   l^t  / t!,    But, okay, maybe these folks simply lack the imagination or extrapolation ability to see how - if one can apply the Poisson in one setting - it is no biggie to apply it another. Or, maybe they simply don't believe that because I can apply it to the solar setting I am also qualified to apply to the JFK witness deaths  - to the level of reviewing Charnin's  book. 

But if that indeed was the case, which it is not, then it would mean I really had no clue about using the Poisson, period!  The whole point of understanding a statistical distribution - whether Poisson, Student's t or chi squared, is that you have to be able to apply it with maximal generality, not just to one case or two!

These intellectual misfits also appeared to have missed the memo that I began as a JFK assassination researcher as part of a physics challenge, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/how-i-became-interested-in-jfk.html

And in addition, have spent 35 years as a researcher and ultimately wrote a definitive book on the assassination, e.g.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/philip-a-stahl/the-jfk-assassination-the-final-analysis/paperback/product-21532732.html

Have any of these jokers and naysayers read the book? If not,  then how the hell can they challenge my expertise on the event?  Have they even read my FAQ on the assassination - published in multiple parts  on this blog in November, 2013? Are these twits even able themselves to answer questions on a basic test?

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/05/basic-test-on-kennedy-assassination-can.html

All of which indicates to me their aspersions are much ado about nothing. The random expulsions of brains captured by the gravity of  a 'black hole' of insight -  from which they are intellectually incapable of  escaping.  A 'black hole' of denialism spawned by the twisted gibberish of John McAdams - the conservative gadfly  and JFK disinformationist formerly ensconced at Marquette University.

It's easier for these  shoot -from-the -hip critics to take snide potshots than to have one  independent thought outside of McAdams' orbit. They would rather just fall under the sway of a pseudo intellectual force that aligns them with the monumental fraud  of the Warren Commission.

Yes, the loss of a mind can be a terrible thing. In the case of McAdams' sundry sniping puppets it means they will never be able to see the truth that a conspiracy was behind the killing of JFK.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/cam-americans-distinguish-conspiracy.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html

with:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/hyper-skepticism-of-conspiracy-phobics.html

Educating An Australian 'Bloke' On Basic Precepts of Truth & Authenticity Re: The JFK Hit

Good grief! It appears the virulent, mind -numbing, truth - perverting infestation spawned by the likes of  John McAdams has insidiously and collaterally crept into the brain of a certain Aussie.  After Richard Charnin posted my takedown of a recent McAdams' snipe  on Google groups, an Aussie named Tim Brennan (from Sydney) scribbled a terse response that read as follows:

"Stahl is probably some bloke who makes regular blurtations on Global  Warming as well.

Can't see how his expertise on solar matters makes him some kind of JFK  expert."

Timmy, Tim, Tim!  Seriously? "Blurtations on global warming?" If you mean posts showing how it is supported, and by a majority of REAL climate scientists  i.e.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/12/carbon-isotope-ratios-and-climate.html

Then yes indeedy, I stand accused! But only insofar as attempting to dispel the gigabytes of denier nonsense making the rounds, viz.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/newsmaxglobal-warming-is-22-billion.html

 And evidently infecting susceptible brains like yours. But considering the whole denial gestalt, perhaps it is no coincidence you share denial of anthropogenic global warming and denial that there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK. The memetic underpinnings are extremely similar and in both cases basic physics is rejected in favor of transparent codswallop masquerading as science.

Re: your not being able to see how my expertise on solar matters "makes him some kind of expert on JFK."  Well, that was why you needed to read the content in the link provided by Mr. Charnin - where you would have found:

2) I am most certainly a bona fide expert on the JFK assassination having already written one of the most extensive books of analysis ever: 'The JFK Assassination- The Final Analysis' based on more than 35 years' research.

See the book link here:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/philip-a-stahl/the-jfk-assassination-the-final-analysis/paperback/product-21532732.html


Brennan  also goes on to babble:

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where SENIOR OIC member Mark Lane lied!

Stop the LIES! Oswald INSIDE!! Disband the OIC!!!

Oh really? Stop the LIES? Seriously?  How about the Warren Commission's LIES on its assorted exhibits, maestro? Though not included at the time of the WC Report as an official exhibit,  the fake autopsy photo -image (left -below) did surface at the time of the House Subcommittee investigation ca. 1979 - when the actual autopsy image also did. (Gerald R. Ford prevented the release of any autopsy photo- even the fake one -  as an official Warren Report exhibit because he believed them too graphic.)  However, this false image did conform with the drawing fiction of how the WC believed the head shot ought to have occurred, e.g. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk1/1p255f68.jpg

The reference to "used in Warren Commission" then, doesn't  mean as any official exhibit - but as a dummy mold or 'model'  from which the 2D fictional head shot drawing was rendered.  The critical aspect being the phony basis for a rear shot as opposed to a frontal shot.(The fake construction was done before the WC sketch was made part of the WC exhibits)

Then there were the WC exhibit photos of Oswald holding a rifle

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk1/1exhf179p124.jpg


which I have already exposed as fakes, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html

Then there was the WC exhibit of the fake FPCC handbills. In respect to these, Military Science Professor John Newman in his 'Oswald and the CIA' refers to[1]:

"evidence that was deliberately falsified at the Government Printing Office during the publication of the Warren Commission Exhibits."

But let's not stop there!

In respect of the Warren Commission  CE399 exhibit, Dr. Joseph Dolce, a consultant in wound ballistics to the Army, stated he was given 100,  6.5mm bullets, by the Warren Commission, to fire at cadavers. (Documentary, 'The Single Bullet Theory'). In no case,  he went on, did any of the bullets come out pristine as CE 399 showed. In fact, all showed significant deformity. In his own words (ibid.):

No, it (CE399) could NOT have caused all the wounds. Our experiments here show beyond any doubt that merely  shooting a wrist deforms the  bullet drastically. In every instance, the front or tip of the bullet was smashed. It's impossible for a  bullet to strike a bone, even at low  velocity and still come out with a perfectly normal tip.

     To fix ideas and clarify,  the images of CE399 (A) and also one of the bullets tested by Dolce (B) are shown below:

As for the 'X' marks the spot baloney Brennan cites, it conforms with the falsity of the other exhibits cited.  What we behold is a boxlike mold in separate scenes,  with presumed projections of "hits" but no indications of exactly where the hits struck in terms of cranial morphology.  (Rendering the 'X' more like a cartoon joke that seeks to confer credibility where none exists.) It's all of the same deceptive piece as the fake FPCC handbills Newman exposed, the fake autopsy photo (though not a formal exhibit - the WC's top guiding honcho (LBJ)  did authorize its creation at Bethesda), the fake Oswald rifle exhibit, and the CE399 fake.  Close inspection of the images in the exhibit frames shows nothing of any value or anything specific in terms of  relating shot precision to the exact anatomical positions in the absurdly configured  "head". We have a word for such bollocks - it's called a "Macguffin".

The fact of the matter is that a trained team of expert marksmen was unable to replicate Oswald's alleged feat! Oswald was presumed to have fired from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, so effectively six stories up or 60’ in altitude. However, the experts were allowed to fire from a tower only half this altitude (30’)[2]. In addition, while Oswald had to have fired at a limousine moving at 11 mile per hour, the experts fired at stationary targets. Anyone who's ever fired a high powered rifle will tell you it's much easier to hit a stationary target than a moving one!

The target area was also magnified for the experts, to the whole upper torso of the target prop’s body – while Oswald was limited to the head and neck. The latter according to the WC, though in fact, no bullets struck the neck - it was the upper back- level with 3rd thoracic vertebra. Gerald Ford altered the autopsy notes to read 'base of neck' because otherwise the single bullet nonsense wouldn't work, e.g.


More to the point, the rifle was altered away from the one Oswald used. The rifle sight itself was rebuilt and “metal shims were fitted to provide a degree of accuracy previously absent’. When Ronald Simmons, the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Army’s Ballistics Research Division was asked about this he replied: “Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope" (Op. cit. ,Vol. II, p. 250.)

Thus, even IF the images depicted in Brennan's WC Exhibit link were authentic one would still not be able to conclude that there was a faithful replication of the shooting - on account of the manipulation of the scope!  But don't take my word!  Simmons himself added that the aiming apparatus had to be rebuilt by a machinist with two shims added, one to adjust for the elevation, the other for the azimuth.

 In other words, had they actually used the rifle in the same condition Oswald was alleged to have had it, then they’d likely not have hit the side of a barn. (Maybe one reason the Italians dubbed their Norma Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm bolt action rifle that Oswald was supposed to have used as "the rifle that never killed anyone")

At the end of the test trials, these Master Marksmen each fired two series of three shots each (18 rounds in all) at 3 stationary targets placed at distances of 175’, 240’ and 265’ (the last coming nearest to the distance from the Texas School Book Depository to the head shot). Even Chief Simmons admitted that the targets were not placed where they ought to have been to emulate conditions on November 22, 1963.

Just one of the three expert riflemen was able to get off three shots in under 5.6 seconds – the designated time interval for total shots declared by the Warren Commission. And most to the point: none of the total 18 shots fired struck the targets in the head or the neck. In other words, from a technical standpoint of duplicating Oswald’s alleged shots- this trio of experts failed. Another key aspect: for the duration of the 18 rounds, two of the “master” riflemen were unable to reload and fire at the stationary target as rapidly as Oswald purportedly did for the moving limo.

These are the facts, but alas, it is doubtful Brennan would accept them any more than he does the facts of anthropogenic global warming - which he dismisses as "blurtations".  Alas, he fails to see his off the cuff, inane response to Charnin's post was the real "blurtation":  blurting, brainless and an irritation.

---

[1] John Newman: 1995 Oswald and the CIA, Carroll & Graf, p. 307.
[2] The Warren Commission Report, p. 137.

John McAdams Tries To Rip My Review of Richard Charnin's JFK Book

McAdams about 18 years ago doing a fist bump after nearly destroying a usenet newsgroup on the JFK assassination with which he didn't agree. He's since been fired by Marquette Univ.

It appears known, long time JFK assassination conspiracy disinformationist, .John McAdams (he likes to write his name with a period in front - maybe as reminder to pause and remember which persona he will be for a day) didn't approve of my review of Richard Charnin's excellent book, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-jfk-assassination-book-all-serious.html

On one shilling -for- the- Warren Commission forum, McAdams claims to have tried to dig up material on me and learned:  "No academic appointment, he never had any job with any reputable scientific organizations - and has been an atheist for 25 years and written dozens of  articles in major newspapers and had  one-on-one debates with priests, ministers."

But if this is an indicator of his googling or research skills it shows he's beyond pathetic.  Even the most menial googler would have learned (from the All Experts site) that I've been an atheist 36 years (not that this has any relation to the JFK assassination)  and also written four atheist books, none of which McAdams mentions. But why should he have since the whole point was to demean my accomplishments and by extrapolation the book review.  Had he done more intense research as opposed to acting the part of a "hit man", however,  he might have learned I am an Emeritus member of the American Astronomical Society and a member of its Solar Physics and Dynamical Astronomy divisions. He'd  also have encountered my appointment at the Geophysical Institute - Space Physics Dept, over 1985-86 and also my appointment as a peer reviewer for the NSF in the 80s  - for space and solar physics papers.  Then my additional appointment to help in completing the most massive monograph on solar -terrestrial physics  yet published: The Solar -Terrestrial Predictions Proceedings (Meudon).  Oh, then there was my appt. as tenured physics lecturer at Harrison College, but I guess this was too "small fry" for McAdams to consider "reputable".

Conveniently, McAdams leaves out any mention of my physics books including the most recent 'Modern Physics: Notes, Problems and Solutions', and 'Selected Analyses in Solar Flare Plasma Dynamics'. But we give him a break here, because any dope that can't even correctly nail the number of years I've been an atheist assuredly wouldn't be able to grasp the use of the Landau contour - say applied to the 2-stream instability!

He then bellyaches that  "usually peer review means reviewed by a bone fide expert" - but two things here: 1) I never claimed the review was "peer-reviewed" from a "scholarly journal", and 2) I am most certainly a bona fide expert on the JFK assassination having already written one of the most extensive books of analysis ever: 'The JFK Assassination- The Final Analysis' based on more than 35 years' research.
-
To the point (1),  since the average peer- reviewed academic paper in a scholarly journal is only read by 0.12 people on average (stat from one American Physical Society survey) then why put it in such a limited venue when a more popular one assures far more readers? (And indeed, the link above for my blog review has now had over 160 hits  - not a lot - but I think 160 > 0.12!  Also, I have a review posted at amazon.com as well.)

Of course, all this deflection from the book review and huff and puff about me and my credentials is intended to buffalo readers who then won't stop to ask why this guy hasn't written a single sentence about the content of the book review.  As opposed to interjecting half-assed knowledge concerning my background, why  not instead show exactly where my use of Poisson statistics (and Charnin's by extension) is wrong?  How hard can that be IF you know what you're talking about? Why not criticize the probability basis and assumptions? Well, again, because it's much easier for a non-serious propaganda tool to use irrelevant smear tactics than to actually examine the book review and critique it!

But see, hit men and crank disinformationists like Johnny  Mac are only interested in put downs as a tool to distract readers from the truth and this has been McAdams M.O. from the time he darkened usenet JFK newsgroups with his Darth Vader persona.

Long before there was Twitter, Facebook or Blogs, there was something called Usenet where entities known as "newsgroups" sprang up to encourage debate and discussion on any number of issues, topics.  I had observed McAdams putdowns in the (un-moderated)  newsgroup alt. conspiracy.jfk for some months before actually engaging in a one on one exchange with him. This was concerning my REAL FAQ  that I had published in the newsgroup as an antidote to a pro-lone nut FAQ by frequent poster John Locke. 

In one particular and unforgettable confrontation, McAdams complained about my reference to Jackie “climbing over the limo trunk” in an effort to retrieve part of JFK’s blown out skull fragment (later inferred to be the Harper bone fragment retrieved by William Harper). He insisted "she wasn't climbing over anything" to which I then replied, "Ok, let's say she's moving across it to the rear - which shows a frontal shot".  He tried to "debunk"  this as well but a picture is worth a thousand words. And in the one below (from the Zapruder film - frames 313-14) readers can see the FACT of Jackie's trunk motion for themselves:


Now really, if a guy can't even admit reality when it's staring him in the bleeping face, why would one wish to trust him on anything?  No serious person should because a man who'd deny reality would deny anything  - and also stoop to say anything to serve his agenda.  I mean this turkey wasn't even able to get the number of years I've been an atheist correct! If he is going to use my atheism against me in an attack mode I'd at least expect him to get minimal facts correct, but even this was too much.

McAdams is such a liar and tool that even when presented with testimony from the "bible" (Warren Commission) he usually rigorously defends, he won't budge if he's been exposed as an ass.   For example, in conjunction with the issue of Jackie going across the limo trunk I added her Warren Commission Testimony (from Volume Five of the special hearings) where she says:

"You know, then, there were pictures later of me climbing out the back, but I don't remember that at all."

And from her secret testimony (excised from original version), op. cit., p. 16:

"I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."

 But once again, this jackass McAdams disputed the WC sources and said Jackie also must have been mistaken, as there was no time at which she climbed across the trunk. SO much for  .John's "debunking" which is largely a matter of denying reality.  The trouble is, when one denies reality there is no way to support his claims.

Perhaps the best information ever assembled on John McAdams (nee, “Paul Nolan”) was put together by Jim Hargrove. The basic thrust was to answer questions concerning McAdams and his background because it so much seems to fit the sort of CIA assets described in the CIA document 1035-960.

When McAdams blabbed (as he did in one forgettable  TIME  mini-interview in Nov. 2013) : "These people think the CIA cares about them. It does not!"

He misses the point. It isn't that the CIA "cares about" anyone personally, but only to the extent it can disrupt their discussions in assorted forums discussing the assassination.  Thus conforming to the words in the CIA document  1035-960 that explicitly state as one primary objective:  "To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics".

How can this be reconciled with a guy who "just likes to brawl"? Well, if brawling consumes more time than useful communication about facts (like Jackie's limo trunk action) and files (like Oswald's  201-289248 CI/SIG) than one can say the objective has been achieved.

If McAdams has at any time been a real CIA propaganda asset, it makes sense one of his first obligations would be to neutralize any outlets for serious JFK assassination discussion he doesn’t control (like his moderated newsgroup). Thus his intrusions into the un-moderated group shed definite light on his intentions.  Consider, for example, this post from  McAdams, Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700:

“You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme to make this group a shambles. And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret. I have publicly announced it. I have made it perfectly obvious.  I have rubbed you buffs' noses in it. It's blatantly obviously to everybody.”
.John

Hmmmmmm......sounds like a fuckin' CIA asset to me. 

Now, let’s clear our heads and think about this a bit: Would a normal everyday professor of Political Science be doing these things?  Spending 8-12 hours a day on usenet newsgroups to sow chaos?  Would he be bragging about leaving a Usenet newsgroup a “shambles”?  It doesn’t add up.  Any real prof worth his salt would be working on research to submit for publication to a peer-reviewed journal, not acting the part of an overgrown adolescent  (with anger issues)  for most of every day!


Jim Hargrove, in his “McAdams FAQ” provides the Charter Policy written by McAdams himself for his own moderated group. Reading its first paragraph sheds a lot of light:

CHARTER AND MODERATION POLICY

This group will be for the purpose of providing an area for serious discussion and research of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The group will be moderated to prevent the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued alt.conspiracy.jfk and made it nearly useless as a vehicle for intelligent research. Questions surrounding JFK's death have made this one of the most talked about and controversial issues of our generation. This will be the one usenet group which deals seriously with this important topic.

But as Hargrove observes:

“One supposes that since the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued the alt.conspiracy.jfk group were and are part of McAdams freely admitted plans to turn the group into a shambles, the moderated group can only be seen as his personal vehicle for selective manipulation of content”

Which is totally logical, and again, it comports with CIA doc. 1035-960!  Hargrove then quotes McAdams from a letter written to The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

“(Dr) Gary Aguilar accused me on the politics forum of being 

A CIA sponsored disinformationist because I was once the 

Marquette Official representative of the I.C.P.S.R. an utterly

 unspooky social science data archive.”

In truth, The ICPSR is housed in the Institute for

Social Research, or ISR, which itself  has been documented

as a recipient of “spook” (e.g. CIA) research grants.

 They also have a webpage:

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/

Which the interested reader can explore for himself. My own take is that it could easily be a CIA  (Clandestine Operations) front for  psy-ops intelligence operations which could easily include anti-conspiracy propaganda. We already know that the founder of American Propaganda – Edward Bernays – was steeped in the social sciences and firmly believed the public was too irrational to entrust to its own thought and conclusions and therefore had to be manipulated toward specific directions. In his own words: 

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized 

habits and opinions of masses is an important element in 

democratic society”

What better way to do that than from a networked academic consortium –

 interwoven into all the  social sciences – with access to a central data clearinghouse

 that’s amassed everything from the   latest frequency of teen pregnancies, to

 homicides by race or gender, or assorted other historical   arcania. It’s literally

 a propagandist’s dream.

Those who prefer to demur to think about this need to read Chris Hedges, 'Empire of Illusion'.

Hedges has warned (, p. 129):

 "Psychologists, in and out of government, have learned how to manipulate social behavior. "

He goes on to note that such manipulation has as its primary objective an adherence to conformity, especially of thought. (The cult of "positive psychology" is particularly involved in this, but psychologists are also part of the CIA's ongoing psych agenda, as first demonstrated in "Operation Mockingbird")

Clearly, McAdams - his mindless minions and his pathetic pseudo-history site - are part of the axis of the "unspeakable" ,  using the term from James Douglass book, JFK and the Unspeakable. Douglass notes it was originally coined by the monk,  Thomas Merton, to refer to the unspeakable evil of deliberate denial of the truth. In this case,  behind one of the most dastardly crimes ever committed - and against we, the American people.

John McAdams has a lot to answer for, at least as much as the climate change deniers who've taken our planet to the precipice by their dissembling. In McAdams' case, he's deliberately helped to smother the truth  concerning JFK's murder, while character-assassinating sundry truth tellers, enabling a festering national sore to persist over a half century.

See also:

https://ceabbate.wordpress.com/recent-controversy/

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/educating-australian-bloke-on-basic.html