Well, my opinion that ‘mcadams’ is a disinformation site is base off of years in the past reading it. That would take a long time to explain.
But, I’ll give you one example:
Jean Hill, who was interviewed after the assassination on live NBC coverage that day.
The facts are when asked where the shots came from she said the knoll. This was before the ‘grassy knoll’ term was made into a joke. You have to read the text of it, and hear the audio to get the true effect.
mcadams discredits her on statements she made at later times. But, what she said on tv that day is credible in my opinion.
Check out how mcadams frames her as a discredited witness, and see what you think.
***The site clearly states that it debunks various claims made by conspiracy theories. As far as it being “disinformation”, can you supply an example and what the “truth” really is? Or is “disinformation” the term used for inconvient facts?***
Now as far as how Jean Hill is treated: I don’t read as challenging her claims made in ‘63 as much as how they changed later. For example:
In ‘63, she only heard shots from the knoll and saw a man running from the book depository. Later, she saw Badge Man on the knoll and it was Jack Ruby running from the building. Plus, SS agents tried to pressure into saying that there were only 3 shots - an incident not mentioned at all in ‘63. I’d say, those changes are suspicious