McAdams refuses to grab a clue re Marina's defection from the WCR party line

On Dec 26, 11:03 am, John McAdams wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2011 11:59:41 -0500, "jfk2...@gmail.com"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 25, 5:21 pm, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 25 Dec 2011 14:03:20 -0500, Raymond wrote:
>
> >> This one works.
>
> >>http://www.bettyconfidential.com/ar/ld/a/Marina_Oswald_Porter_Discuss...
>
> >> Any assertion made my Marina falls into one to two categories:
>
> >> 1.) witness testimony, based on what she saw, heard and personally
> >> experienced.
>
> >> 2.) opinions, based on what she has been told and read.
>
> >> Where (1.) is concerned, she has continued to affirm all the key
> >> testimony she gave to the Warren Commission.
>
> >Your opinion.  I think you are wrong.  Anything that does not support
> >"LHO acted alone" denies the WCR.
>
> You are being really *slow* getting this.

Wrong.  You are being really *slow* getting this.  Marina has recanted the thesis of the WCR.
>
> Marina has *consistently* insisted that Oswald shot at Walker, and
> told her he had.
>
Not relevant.

> She has *consistently* said that Oswald had a rifle that disappeared
> from the Paine garage on the day of the assassination.

Not relevant.  LHO was never seen with the M/C in Dallas.  He may not have known where it was.
>
> She has *consistently* said she took the backyard photos.

Not relevant.
>
> She has *consistently* said that Lee told her he had gone to Mexico
> City.
>
>
Not relevant.
>
> >> Where (2.) is concerned, her opinions simply don't matter.
>
> >Marina has said different things at different times.  How do we know when
> >she is lying?  How do we know when she is telling the truth?
>
> Go back and read what I wrote above.

I have.  Your opinion is still wrong.
>
> Changing your *opinion* does not mean you were lying when you had a
> different opinion.

Really?  Are you acknowledging that the WCR is simply *opinion*? 
>
> >Will you now apply the same 'logic' to Marina's statements that you did to
> >Judyth's?
>
> You are really *slow* getting this.

You are really *slow* getting this -- Marina has said different things at different times.  She has recanted the thesis of the WCR. 
>
> Go back and read what I wrote above until you understand it.
>
Go back and read what I wrote until you understand the implications of what I have said.
Had LHO been allowed to live to stand trial, Marina would not have been able to testify against him.
Marina was sequestered by the SS and threatened with deportation until she gave the WC what it wanted. 
When she read the 26 vols of H+E she changed her mind and recanted the thesis of the WCR.
The WCR has lost its star witness.  What validity does it have today?

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

McAdams refuses to address these substantive issues

1 -- McAdams will not discuss the fact that he uses an hypothesis in his JFK class at MU. He starts with the hypothesis that there *was* a conspiracy and then tries to take it apart.  But he does not take the opposite hypothesis, namely that LHO acted alone, and tear that apart.

2 -- McAdams refuses to discuss the use of hypothesis in the study of the JFK assassination on aaj.

3 -- McAdams refuses to discuss the use of historical process in the study of the JFK assassination.  He has attempted to attack the fact that I am a trained historian instead. 

4 -- McAdams refuses to discuss the implications of the Alvarez article confirming an anomaly consistent with an additional shot fired at app. Z285.

5 -- McAdams refuses to discuss the fact that the star WC witness, Marina Oswald, recanted.  The unavoidable consequence of this fact is that the WCR has been rendered invalid.  Marina Oswald lied to the WCR.  She was threatened with deportation if she did not give them what they wanted.  Nothing that she said can be used against LHO with any validity as she has since seen the error of her ways.  McAdams would rather have us going around in circles about Judyth than deal with this issue that is critical to the research community.

So many strawmen...another reply aaj (maybe this won't be rejected)

On Dec 7, 8:36 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> This post could be titled "Pamelaplaysthevictim."
>
> On 7 Dec 2011 21:19:16 -0500,PamelaBrown
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 6, 9:00=A0pm, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> On 6 Dec 2011 19:08:34 -0500,PamelaBrown
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >For one, your posts are not moderated. =A0You may speak your mind, as
> >> >you have done here. =A0If I were to say anything along these lines about
> >> >you, my posts would be and have been rejected.
>
> >> Nope. I don't post anything that I would not approve for anyone else
> >> to post, and there is nothing in what I said that should have been
> >> flagged for moderation.
>
> >Really?  That is a case of the fox watching the henhouse.  My
> >statement stands.
>
> PoorvictimPamela!

What do you mean by that?
>
> She is attached to playing thevictim.

Au contraire. 
>
> She attacks people constantly, but then bitches that she doesn't have
> moderator privileges.(1)

False.  I speak about a slanted field.  What is wrong with that?
>
> Barb earned her status,Pamela.
>
On Team McAdams?
>
> >You act as though you can make a snap judgment and decide what others are
> >to think.  That is not effective.  Provide the information without
> >commentary and let everyone decide for themselves what to think.
>
> No,Pamela, you act as though nobody is allowed to come to any
> conclusion about Judyth until *you* decide they are allowed to.

False.  I don't care what you think about Judyth. 
>
> That's a lot of chutzpah on your part.
>
>
>
> >> ... and it has been the downfall of several, including
> >> you. She is smart, she is charming, she can pour it on. Not a good
> >> methodology, imo, but there are still people doing it and turning
> >> blind eyes to everything else as you did.
>
> >False.  I don't reach conclusions in the same way you do.  I am using
> >a process that works with Judyth and I believe it will work with
> >others as well.
>
> But it hasn't worked with Judyth.  You've been suckered by her.(3)

False.  I kept an open mind.
>
> And you can't admit that.(4)

False.  I had an agreement.  I used a process.
>
>
>
> >False.  I kept an open mind and learned to understand her.  It was a
> >valuable experience.  It must bug you because you just can't seem to
> >let me be.
>
> Barb could "let it be" if you would cease your attack posts.(5)
>
Since when is correcting false statements an 'attack post'?
>
> >> You called several of us liars and frauds and dishonest and rumour
> >> mongers and careless, etc. Constantly.
>
> >False.  Anything like that would be censored.  You can post whatever
> >you choose.  Not the rest of us.
>
> Poor, victimizedPamela!

Anyone can read the threads and decide for themselves.
>
> It's true we moderators have let her get away with a fair amount of
> stuff we should have rejected.(6)

False.  Everything about my posts is scrutinized. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >. You ran your
> >> own smear campaign on Judyth's behalf. That hasn't worked out very
> >> well for you,Pamela... as I would think you can see, especially now
> >> that you say you've seen the light about Judyth's story. So one has to
> >> wonder why you keep beating the same drum.I do not deny that there are
> >> some who said quite cruel things about Judyth over the years. I have
> >> focused on her story...her claims, and have said more than a few times
> >> that I feel sorry for her. I do not believe her story .... whether she
> >> believes it or not, I cannot say. There is a difference between
> >> attacking the claims one makes and attacking them as a person. You do
> >> not seem to grasp the difference.
>
> >There certainly is a difference between attacking the person and attacking
> >the claims and I sincerely hope you will focus on issues and not me. 
>
> ROFLMAO!!

Wouldn't that be a nice change?
>
> Pamelais constanting attacking people who don't believe Judyth.  She
> in fact won't address any issues about Judyth, since they virtually
> all show that Judyth is a fraud.(7)

False. Strawman.  I don't tell people what to think.  I ask that they think for themselves.
>
> >In
> >fact, I am starting to wonder if it is I you want to target now and not
> >Judyth?  I certainly hope I am mistaken.
>
> This fromPamela, who for a decide has been targeting people who don't
> believe Judyth.(8)

False.  I don't care what you think about Judyth.
>
> >I have done nothing to warrant such lengthy posts.  I have not claimed to
> >know LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963.  I have not claimed to be a
> >witness in Dallas to the assassination.  I cannot imagine what there is to
> >focus on about me at all.
>
> Because you are constantly attacking people who don't believe Judyth.(9)

False.  I correct false statements. 
>
> If you don't want the focus on you, cease the attacks.(10)

False.  A reply correcting false statements is not an attack.
>
> > Negative rambling simply gives credence to the fact that the one posting
> >in such a manner is not happy with where they are at.  Anyone can see
> >that.
>
> It's you who were suckered.  It's you who were thrown under the bus by
> Judyth.(11)

False.  Strawman.  I kept an open mind. 
>
> Barb and I and virtually everybody else here were right about Judyth a
> decade ago.

Your opinion.  You are entitled.
>
> I think you are profoundly unhappy about your role, but you take it
> out in aggression directed at those of us who figured Judyth out while
> you were dilly-dallying.

Seems my process is enough of a problem for strawman to have to be tossed out right and left.  What better confirmation can I have that I am on the right track?
>
>
>
> >You have no idea of how many of my posts were rejected.  Your posts
> >are never rejected.  Apples and oranges.
>
> PoorPamela! 

Such empathy!
>
> >> >I want nothing to do with Team McAdams and their campaign against Judyth.
> >> >I have made that clear. =A0There is no solution in the Team McAdams camp.
> >> >I want to understand Judyth; Team McAdams wants to destroy her. Can you
> >> >perceive the difference?
>
> >> No. Because there is no "Team McAdams" ... that is your invention. I
>
> >Let's let the readers decide that.
>
> I suppose I should be flattered thatPamelathinks I have a "team."

There is a team.
>
> But in fact, we probably should reject posts where she implies there
> is some nefarious conspiracy against Judyth.

Anyone can read the threads for themself. 
>
> >> have no campaign against Judyth .... I have pursued verifying the
> >> claims she makes. That's research into her story. Can you perceive the
> >> difference? Anyone who finds Judyth's story lacking, for whatever
> >> reason, does not mean they are part of some team or some campaign.
> >> People with like interests and like conclusions communicate, comment
> >> on posts suportively, etc all the time. The issue of Judyth's story is
> >> no different. Why should it be?
>
> >You might want to check with McAdams.  He seems quite comfortable with the
> >campaign against Judyth and appears to think she deserved it.
>
> If "campaign" means vetting and check her story, she did.
>
> And you hated that!
>
> You had some emotional attachment to her.
>
> You could not *stand* that people didn't believe her.
>
> And you still can't.(12)

False. Strawmen.  I don't care what you think about Judyth.
>
> >But what is the objective of a propaganda smear campaign if there is no
> >election?  How do you measure success or failure?
>
> You are the one conducting the smear campaign,Pamela.(13)

False.  I correct false statements. 

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

AAJ Reject -- McAdams won't let me compare him to Posner re Mark Lane...

http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2011/12/aaj-reject-mcadams-wont-let-me-compare.html

HD reply on aaj

On Dec 4, 1:56 pm, HistorianDetective wrote:
> OnDec4, 9:17 am, timstter wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > OnDec4, 3:18 pm, Pamela Brown wrote:
>
> > >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18462&pid=23992...
>
> > Hi Pam,
>
> > Say, I bet ol' Judyth Vary BakerjustHATES McAdams.
>
> > Didn't she recently hold a birthday party in Toronto for Lee Harvey
> > Oswald?
>
> > Isn't her most strident advocate of late FULL Professor Jim Fetzer, he
> > of the *9/11 Scholars For Truth* fame?
>
> > Ever heard of that book A Confederacy Of Dunces, Pam?
>
> RE:
>
> > By his ENEMIES shall we know McAdams, Pamela!
>
> Good one, Tim!
>
> I've noticed Pamela has increased her vicious attacks, as of late.

False. 

Even If that were so, that would be inconsistent with the hypothesis I am testing, so please provide some details so that I can make corrections.
>
> Whatever happened to her "Let's Level the Playing Field"?

Do you mean I am not pretending that is likely here?
>
> Pam, is McAdams' book the reason?
>
Why would that be the reason? 

BTW, hasn't he written half a book?  Still waiting for the half where he starts with the hypothesis that LHO acted alone and takes that apart. :-)

Pamela Brown
http://mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com/

Anyone a target of a Team McAdams smear campaign is not allowed to complain of censure abuses on aaj

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John McAdams <aajfk@panix.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: McAdams still just doesn't get it...
To: Pamela Brown <pamelajfk1@gmail.com>
Cc: Moderators -- Moderators Backup <jmcadams@datasync.com>, pfokes@rogers.com


All you are doing here is complaining about moderation.

.John



On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Pamela Brown wrote:

On Dec 7, 8:36 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:

This post could be titled "Pamela plays the victim."

On 7 Dec 2011 21:19:16 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Dec 6, 9:00=A0pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barb...@comcast.net> wrote:

On 6 Dec 2011 19:08:34 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
wrote:

For one, your posts are not moderated. =A0You may speak your mind, as
you have done here. =A0If I were to say anything along these lines about
you, my posts would be and have been rejected.

Nope. I don't post anything that I would not approve for anyone else
to post, and there is nothing in what I said that should have been
flagged for moderation.

Really?  That is a case of the fox watching the henhouse.  My
statement stands.

Poor victim Pamela!

She is attached to playing the victim.

Translation:  McAdams is a mod; Barb is an ex-mod.  They can post
anything they choose.  The rest of us are censured.  We are not
supposed to discern this.

She attacks people constantly, but then bitches that she doesn't have
moderator privileges.

My posts are censured.  Yours are not.  Barbs are not.

Barb earned her status, Pamela.

Barb can say whatever she chooses.  The rest of us cannot.

You act as though you can make a snap judgment and decide what others are
to think.  That is not effective.  Provide the information without
commentary and let everyone decide for themselves what to think.

No, Pamela, you act as though nobody is allowed to come to any
conclusion about Judyth until *you* decide they are allowed to.(1)

False.  Everyone should decide for themselves what to think.

That's a lot of chutzpah on your part.(2)

False attribution.  I don't care what anyone thinks about Judyth.

... and it has been the downfall of several, including
you. She is smart, she is charming, she can pour it on. Not a good
methodology, imo, but there are still people doing it and turning
blind eyes to everything else as you did.

False.  I don't reach conclusions in the same way you do.  I am using
a process that works with Judyth and I believe it will work with
others as well.

But it hasn't worked with Judyth.  You've been suckered by her.(3)

False.  I got to know her.  She demonstrated who she is to me.

And you can't admit that.(4)

False.  My experience was valuable. The process I developed works with
Judyth and it works with others.

False.  I kept an open mind and learned to understand her.  It was a
valuable experience.  It must bug you because you just can't seem to
let me be.

Barb could "let it be" if you would cease your attack posts.(5)

False. Asking to agree-to-disagree and focus on issues is a reply, not
an 'attack post'.

You called several of us liars and frauds and dishonest and rumour
mongers and careless, etc. Constantly.

False.  Anything like that would be censored.  You can post whatever
you choose.  Not the rest of us.

Poor, victimized Pamela!

Anyone whose posts are censured can become a victim in aaj to those
who can post freely.

It's true we moderators have let her get away with a fair amount of
stuff we should have rejected.(6)

False. Nothing got through.  My posts were rejected.  Only the mods
and ex-mod can speak freely.

What value can the repetition of false statements possibly have? Is
that some sort of tactic?

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

Tools of a Propagandist

There seem to be a number of different tricks in use on aaj by Team McAdams.  Here are some of them:

Repeating false statements -- long after they have been corrected, they will continue to repeat a series of false statements regarding the target's position on any issue.  The intent seems to be to create some sort of rut, where a casual reader of the threads will be fooled into thinking these are the target's actual positions.

Doublespeak -- they will be appearing to speak on one level while actually conveying ad homs.  The rhetoric will appear to be chatty and informative, but in fact, is negative and vicious.

Reversespeak -- Whatever underhanding trick they are trying to pull they will immediately blame on the target.  They do this repeatedly and attempt to instigate a dogpile effect by getting those who have been suckered into considering the propogandists 'credible' people to dive in with them to attack the target.  Reversespeak is also used to try to get themselves out of a mess, or when they are unmasked.

False attribution -- they will create an "argument" out of a false statement, using false logic, and then come to a false conclusion which they will claim to be "true".

Blame the victim -- they will claim that the victim deserves to be the target of a propaganda smear campaign, that the victim is really the accuser and they are, in fact, the victims.  This is done even if it is obvious to anyone with a reasoning mind that they are operating on a slanted field where the target has no voice and Team McAdams can say anything they want.

Vague threats and curses -- they will throw in odd statements that do not seem to have a connection to anything, but are nebulous and unnerving.  The point seems to be to frighten the target and to consider the possibility that they are (or are pretending they are) referencing a larger network than that which is visible on aaj, which has the ability to cause actual harm to the person. This strategy may even include trying to pinpoint the physical whereabouts of the target.  An example of this might be the outrage expressed by Team McAdams when JVB turned up in Sweden under the protection of the Swedish govt.  It may be that a propaganda smear campaign works best when focused on the dwelling place of the target.  If so, that would be highly unethical.  But then, so is a smear campaign.  Perhaps nothing should come as a surprise.

Hypothesis currently being tested on aaj...especially with McAdams and BJ

On Dec 3, 10:20 pm, John McAdams wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2011 00:15:45 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
> >Per the MU website, info on his course on the JFK assassination:
>
> >4191. The Logic of Social Inquiry: The Kennedy Assassination 3 sem. hrs.
> >The Kennedy Assassination. The question of who killed President John F.
> >Kennedy, and whether there was a conspiracy. The physical evidence;
> >eyewitness testimony; Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, and suspected
> >conspirators. The logic of social inquiry, and how we can approach
> >"conspiracy" as anhypothesisto be tested. Offered annually. Prereq: POSC
> >2201 or Jr. stndg.
>
> And your point is?
>
> I don't think you know what anhypothesisis, Pamela.

You may not want to know that I do.

An hypothesis I am currently testing is this: if you do your best to treat people fairly, will they then demonstrate to you who they really are.

Current assessment

Based on the level of vitriol in the replies of BJ and McAdams, it appears that I myself may be a target of their propaganda smear campaign.  I am not allowed to discuss this, as the rejected posts show.  I am not allowed to call attention to the fact that I am under attack, for they then ridicule my statements and claim I am playing the *victim* card. 

Every attempt to stay in the present, agree-to-disagree and move on is met with attack and ad homs. 

There may have been a mysterious *call to arms* in a post of BJ's, where she nonsensically rambles on about 'karma'.  Nobody seems to have responded, however. If this were to be true, then the ultimate objective of a propaganda smear campaign would be to literally destroy the person.  If so, it might clarify to some extent the process involved in the deaths of JFK, MM, LHO, Princess Di and even Mozart.  In all cases, there seemed to be a vortex of negativity surrounding the person prior to their death.  It seems as though a 'vortex of the evil eye' was created, a cattle call instigated, and all involved focused their ill intent on that person.  Could this be possible?

It is part of my hypothesis that a propaganda smear campaign only works when the attackers can get the target to *engage* on an emotional level.  If that does not happen, the negative energy created by the attackers might move in a different direction than to the target.  Is that possible?  We will see.

McAdams repeats false statements again...

On Dec 5, 8:04 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2011 09:01:30 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 4, 8:32=A0pm, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 4 Dec 2011 21:30:33 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 4, 2:37=A0pm, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> >> On 4 Dec 2011 14:56:42 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Hope your post is not representative of the LNT mindset, Tim.
>
> >> >> >BTW, how would you feel about anyone who conducted a ten-year smear
> >> >> >campaign against you?
>
> >> >> Well, I can only speak for my personal experience, of course .... but
> >> >> your personal campaign to smear anything and everything you thought
> >> >> you could throw at the wall about me was really stupid. And backfired
> >> >> not just on you, but on Judyth too, imo. Karma, and all that.
>
> >> >Isn't a smear campaign when you call someone a liar and a fraud? =A0When
> >> >would I ever be allowed to do that here? Your posts are not moderated;
> >> >mine are.
>
> >> It's not a "smear campaign" if they really are a liar and a fraud.
>
> >> And Judyth doesn't post here. =A0So she gets on protection. =A0Just like
> >> Arelen Specter gets no protection, and Gerald Posnter gets no
> >> protection, and anybody else who *doesn't* post here gets no
> >> protection.
>
> >At least you are not denying what happened or pretending you are the
> >victim.
>
> What happened is that some of us were willing to tell the truth, and
> you could not handle the truth.(1)

False.  You are entitled to your opinion. 
>
> So you bitched about every post questioning Judyth.  You  harassed and
> dogged every post questioning Judyth.(2)

False. I do what I can to correct the lies.
>
> And now she's kicked you to the curb.(3)

False.  I was sitting on the sidelines.  I could not be *kicked to the curb.*
>
> But instead of admitting you were wrong, you continue to be hostile to
> those of us who understood from the very beginning.
>
False.  I am trying to find common ground.

McAdams considers any reply of mine an *attack* on Barb

On Dec 7, 8:41 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2011 21:19:37 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 6, 11:25=A0am, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> On 6 Dec 2011 09:45:55 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> wrote:
>
> First, note that Pamela attacks Barb:
>
> >> >I am a bit disappointed that you seem to be taking a personal turn in
> >> >your posts with me at all. =A0I thought we were doing better last week.
> >> >Maybe moving in a new direction.
>
I am stating a fact.  How is doing that an "attack"?  Barb and I had been chatting about band a few weeks ago.  A congenial comraderie is my preference.  At the very least, we should be able to agree-to-disagree and move on, don't you think?

> Now Barb replies:
>
> >> Actually, I have hoped so many times, Pamela, but alas, it never seems
> >> to move forward. One of your posts seems to be moving a new direction,
> >> the next is back to the same old poop. I said what I think., what I
> >> see, what I experience. Just when I think there seems to be a real
> >> change, you go back to the personal smears. Tired of it, just a waste
> >> of time. All I can do is call them as I see them at the time. It can
> >> change, but do you really want it to, or is it just more game playing?
> >> It's difficult for anyone to tell.
>
> >Why another post complaining about me?  What can I possibly have done to
> >be worthy of such attention?
>
> Pamela plays the victim, when she attacked Barb first!(1)

False.  I stated the fact that Barb had used me as a topic. 
>
> >I hope we can start to move forward and focus on issues instead.  What do
> >you say?
>
> We have all tried, Pamela, and in return gotten attacked in your
> posts.(2)

False.  My preference is to discuss issues.  When will that begin?

>
> Really want to move on?  Don't post any more attacks on people who
> don't believe Judyth.(3)

False.  Stating a fact hardly constitutes an *attack*.  However, heightening rhetoric might, don't you think?
>
> If you do make more such posts, it's a clear sign you don't *want* to
> move on.(4)

False.  If I define the current scenario and request a change, I do want to move on.
>
> We'll keep pounding you as long as you keep attacking.
>
Translation:  any reply to you or Barb is an *attack*?

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

McAdams won't let you call a spade a spade on aaj

After conducting a decade-long propaganda smear campaign against Judyth Baker, evidenced by thousands of attack posts by McAdams and his Team, he refuses to allow this to be called what it is, and has rejected my post defining what it is. 

In additional irony, McAdams is an assoc prof at MU and teaches Poli Sci -- he teaches about propaganda tactics and how to use them.  He teaches his students about the different strategies and techniques.  But on aaj, no such discussion is permitted.

This lapse is almost as serious as his refusing to discuss an historical process using an hypothesis, even though this is what he claims to do in his JFK class.

It is hard to imagine a world where someone like McAdams could actually get away with pulling the wool over peoples' eyes in this manner. 

But then, we're dealing with someone who thinks they wrote the dictionary too. :-0