Critique of John McAdams
Subject: Reply to John Mcadams slander of Col. Prouty
No one seems to question his having been the AF liaison with the CIA -- where one would think interesting things happened, but in order to tell "interesting" stories, he has to fabricate things? Must have been a surprisingly boring job.
And his record in the Pentagon and overall demeanor would suggest that he desperately seeks attention? I wonder just what moment it was that this decorated AF Col. who worked and advised in the highest circles in the DOD and CIA became the pathetic, attention-seeking, bozo certain persons try to make him out to be. On the other hand, if he were right, I would expect his character to be attacked, including exaggerations of associations with other mentally unbalanced persons and groups.
Kind of begs another question: What are the possible motivations for persons who attack persons like Prouty? Prouty describes circumstances and events, and sometimes points fingers at possible conspirators, but is attacked by persons who are unrelated to the events he describes. They are certainly not trying to clear their own names. Would it really be worth the attackers' time and effort if Prouty were wrong? But it would be worth their time and effort if they were part of a campaign to preserve the status quo. Status quo seekers are often quite rich and powerful. If there were a conspiracy in Dallas, and elsewhere, wouldn't those in potentially threatened positions consider it a good investment to support a few persons in discrediting anyone who appeared to pose a threat? After all, who knows how this "Internet" alternative to the official press could be a threat? And would the "agents" be on the official payroll of the government? I think not. But they would have to have some position of respect, in a respected institution. The media? No, they're not allowed to say the word - "conspiracy." Military - No, kinda like government. Intelligence? A little too obvious. Perhaps academia...
He must be one of the nicest men on Earth. And what a world-class storyteller! We should really be celebrating this man. Though it's remarkable that anyone could fabricate the amount and depth of detail he does, and weave it all into a theme, without frequent contradictions that one would expect from such a fiction meister. But then again, much of the specific criticism has to do with his "lack of sources for his claims - which is a bit silly to require, unless news reporters or a camera crew happens to be on the spot. Maybe the tangled web he describes may be true. To weave such a thing would be incredibly difficult to do well.
And in the big picture, the "lack of sources" criticism is not nearly as impressive as the fact that Prouty's information WOULD much of what otherwise appears to be a tragic sequence of unrelated and curious events.
Why not direct readers to Prouty's site to see what a nut he is? Unless you think they might be impressed by his military record, staggering volume of insights and experiences, noble and credible manner of presentation, etc.