|
Critique of John McAdams
Subject: Reply to John Mcadams slander of Col. Prouty From Ken Vogler John McAdams spouts the typical line of propaganda that is the norm in college today. I recently returned to a university to complete my Journalism degree and have been shocked at the level of propaganda that is being inculcated into today's college students. I had better teachers in the 8th grade. The US ranks near the bottom on student test results worldwide, politicians keep throwing money at the problem by stating that there should be more teachers that are paid higher. That is crap. The teachers common in schools today are those students who don't have the iniative or grades to compete in a fair market -- that's why they become teachers. Bums like McAdams who think a Phd. entitles them to continually spout inane gossip and discredited information in defense of a government gone bad are the bane of education in the US today. McAdams is full of shit and KNOWS IT. He should take his sorry ass services to the Taliban. BARB: I've been reading your posts in the string I started about the CIA's secret umbrella rocket launcher on the discussion at JFKresearch and have been struck by your seemingly obtuse statements and questions concerning this system which is described in my link to Sprague & Cutler's article on their conclusion that Umbrella Man used this weapon to fire the first shot (throat) at JFK while the man pictured talking on the walkie-talkie as he sat beside the Umbrella Man while both were observing the grassy knoll (on my site) was giving an obvious signal with his upraised arm right after UM's first shot with the dart gun (read my this morning's post there for info gleaned from Monk's first reply to your post where the information made it appear likely that UM fired his second dart into JFK's back). I gave you credit in my reply to your stupid questions as being just your attempt to play the Devil's Advocate with your repeated posts expressing complete ignorance of what was being discussed. I just stumbled on your reply to Sam's post about having had a post deleted from the moderated (censored) group which I quote from below. My question is: Were you playing Devil's advocate in your posts on the topic at JFKresearch, or, are you that stupid, or, does the following quote from your answer to Sam indicate that you just didn't have the time to read the article by Sprague & Cutler that we were all referring to and DID NOT do your own frame analysis before posting as I suggested. BTW. I don't think you're THAT STUPID since your posts on the fragment in Connaly's leg that supposedly came from 399 and therefore would've had to have struck Connaly at a faster speed to implant itself into Connaly's thigh was brillant. your quote: "I've given more than enough attention to this in the last couple of days to try and sincerely explain some things. But one cannot tell someone something when they already have their mind madeup otherwise and their mind is closed on the issue." McAdams previously censored one of my posts that violated no rules. HE'S FULL OF SHIT. |