Greg Burnham & John McAdams
This debate took place back in 1999 – yeah, it was that long ago – between me (Greg Burnham) and John McAdams, on “The Paul Garson” radio show.
I am indebted to Jim Hackett for preserving these two pieces – which I have combined – of the debate for me.
Give it a listen and let me know what you think.
Great job outing an asset The more mcadams talks, the
more he digs himself in hole. He is a parrot of a failed myth that no thinking
person believes.
Hi Len,
Thanks for stopping in to comment. I don’t agree with anything McAdams has ever said or written on the subject. I do not claim to know what motivates him, but I do know that the information he spreads is not based in truth. I spend little time on him or on those of his ilk. Also, thank you for everything you do to contribute to the further understanding of this case. It was an honor to be the first guest on Black Op Radio all those years ago when we first started out. Take care, my friend.
The wound on Connally was 1 cm into the thigh, where the alleged CE399 had hit with the nose first. If the bullet was 3 cm long, how do they mean the bullet could lose lead from the base of the bullet – that would end up in the wound?
Thanks for your comment, Staffan. Warren Commission apologists need not follow the rules of logic nor do they need to apply critical thinking skills to this case. After all, those tools are only useful to those seeking the truth.
Nicely done! I couldn’t agree with you more Greg. It boggles the mind to see allegedly educated people cling to such fallacious absurdity as the Warren Report and the magic bullet – to say nothing of the temporary elasticity of physics and the blatant complicity of a looming VP while the crooked, shadowy edges of an intelligence apparatus on the verge of extinction fought back furiously against he who would strike them down – JFK himself. I believe the crime itself was nothing if not remarkably complex, in that hall-of-mirrors, plausibly deniable way that the CIA knows so well. (See Robert F. Kennedy, 6/4/68). While I’m far too young to have lived through these tragedies, I could go on ad nauseam spewing forth my contentions, but there’s one above all that I agree we can settle – Lee Harvey Oswald was an innocent man. Keep carrying the torch for the truth-seekers among us, and thank you again for the excellent work!
Debunking John McAdams’ “Debunking” of Jim Marrs’ JFK Witness List
John McAdams is the foremost Warren Commission apologist and Lone Nutter. He has spawned a number of wannabees who parrot his writings on internet forums dedicated to the JFK Assassination. To McAdams, JFK researchers seeking the truth are “conspiracy buffs” who are wrong to believe scores of eyewitnesses, Parkland doctors, photographic and acoustic evidence.
McAdams astounding propensity to obfuscate is best illustrated in his attempt to debunk Jim Marrs’ list in “Strange” and “Convenient” Deaths Surrounding the Assassination: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm.
McAdams’ disinformation has been thoroughly debunked by many researchers: http://richardcharnin.com/JMLaughingStock.html
This post will prove that McAdams’ decades-long effort to refute the relevance of the JFK witnesses is an exercise in futility.
The following logical analysis represents a profound PARADIGM SHIFT in analyzing the significance of the “convenient” witness deaths. To prove a conspiracy, it does not matter one iota if individual witnesses were related or material to the assassination (even though they obviously were). Witness relevance and connection to JFK becomes obvious after the fact.
The salient point is that the number of witnesses called to testify in four investigations and died unnaturally by homicide, accident or suicide (or suspiciously timed heart-attacks) far exceeded the mathematical expectation. The probability is essentially ZERO that the number of unnatural deaths would occur in each investigation (as well as collectively in four). Therefore, if the deaths were not coincidental, there had to be a connection which means there was a conspiracy. It is no longer debatable.
This straightforward probability analysis closes the book on McAdams’ decades-old barrage of disinformation and utter disregard for the truth. As a professor of political science, one would expect McAdams to seek the truth with an honest scientific evaluation of the facts. His avoidance – or inability – of engaging in an honest analysis cannot be attributed totally to pure ignorance. His agenda is obvious to anyone paying attention. He has been exposed time and again as an illogical coincidence theorist (CT). The “tell” is his inability to refute the basic mathematical analysis which proves that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. He reveals his ignorance of logic and probability theory here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic.htm
Apparently, McAdams had a limited math background, otherwise he would have done the analysis. His total ignorance of probability theory is shown by his feeble, pathetic attempt to refute the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical doctors at Parkland Hospital. The man has no shame. And this is a university professor? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic2.htm
We will teach you, “professor”.This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.
Facts, logic and mathematical proof are the bane of the disinformationist. Knowing the unnatural mortality rate (R) for (n) witness unnatural deaths in a group of (N) individuals over a given time period (T) is all that is required in order to calculate the probability of (n) deaths. The first step is to calculate R, the weighted average unnatural mortality rate:
R = (homicide rate* homicides + accidental death rate* accidents + Suicide rate*suicides+unknown rate* unknowns)/unnatural deaths
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=0
……..
Much more at the link:
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/