Who is the best JFK expert?

[Thomas Graves]

James,

Why the hyperbole, and couched in a rhetorical question, at that?

(You, like most CTers, seem to excell at that.)

Regardless, did I imply that Jumbo Duh and Morley are two peas in a pod?

If so, my bad.

CTers tend to be affected by different variations of KGB disinformation and propaganda in different, but still woebegone, America-destroying ways.

Haven't you noticed?

--  MWT 

Edited

--  MWT 

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy doesn't know what hyperbole means since there's nothing remotely hyperbolic in my innocuous reply. As usual, Tommy fails to answer any of my questions...

James,

More hyperbole (or should I say "gaslighting"?) on your part.

The indefinite article "a" (in "a mistake") and the word "everything" (in "everything you say") were exaggerations in the context and sentence it was used, wouldn't you agree?

Regardless, what question was that?

Would you care to rephrase it, now?

How about this:  "Tommy, if you make oodles and gobs of mistakes, shouldn't I be skeptical of almost everything you say"?

My answer:  "YES, OF COURSE!"

LOL

--  MWT 

What questions in the past are you still hankering to get an answer from me on?

Wanna give 'em another shot?

[Jim Brunsman]

Sorry Tommy, I too reserve my contempt and sarcasm for the Warren Commission and folks like Specter and Belin. Private researchers have made plenty of mistakes, but what's Hoover's excuse for such a pathetic and totally unbelievable report? Remember, the Warren Commission used the FBI almost exclusively as their investigative body and it was Dulles who was the prime commissioner. Dulles has culpability as a master cover-up agent at a minimum and he could have had a more sinister role as well. He's too smart to get involved without plausible deniability but researching who visited Dulles in '63 is pretty interesting. But Tommy, apparently some kind of CIA stooge, always mocks anyone who says a word about the Criminal Intelligence Agency. Not saying all agents are criminal or that any more than a few are suspects in JFK's death. However, there are many CIA folks who bear serious investigation. No problems with Morales or their ilk???

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy doesn't know what hyperbole means since there's nothing remotely hyperbolic in my innocuous reply. As usual, Tommy fails to answer any of my questions...

.......

James B.,

More hyperbole (or should I say "gaslighting"?) on your part.

The indefinite article "a" (in "a mistake") and the word "everything" (in "everything you say") were exaggerations in the context and sentence it was used, wouldn't you agree?

Regardless, what question was that?

Would you care to rephrase it, now?

How about this:  "Tommy, if you make oodles and gobs of mistakes, shouldn't I be skeptical of almost everything you say"?

My answer:  "YES, OF COURSE!"

LOL

--  MWT 

What questions in the past are you still hankering to get an answer from me on?

Wanna give 'em another shot?

[edited]

[Jim Brunsman]

Tommy has a reading comprehension problem. I looked at my posts carefully and don't see the word "everything" used. Then you accused me of additional hyperbole. Please look up the word "hyperbole." Again, nothing hyperbolic there. If I was really exaggerating, I would say, "Tommy is certainly a CIA agent." But I don't know that's true. It would be hyperbole if I made that accusation. Get it now? What about another example of hyperbole? "All lone nutters are brainwashed by corrupt government reports that are 100 percent bullshit." See? That's easy to say, but it's not true. People have a variety of ways to look at the evidence, and a variety of reasons they ignore what they don't like. It's human nature. I'm not immune from it either.

Not going to ask questions a second time since you're busy making insults instead of replying to serious questions. Besides, your answers make no logical sense. Like trying to discuss non-violence with a Trump supporter...

[Thomas Graves]

Sorry Tommy, I too reserve my contempt and sarcasm for the Warren Commission and folks like Specter and Belin. Private researchers have made plenty of mistakes, but what's Hoover's excuse for such a pathetic and totally unbelievable report? Remember, the Warren Commission used the FBI almost exclusively as their investigative body and it was Dulles who was the prime commissioner. Dulles has culpability as a master cover-up agent at a minimum and he could have had a more sinister role as well. He's too smart to get involved without plausible deniability but researching who visited Dulles in '63 is pretty interesting. But Tommy, apparently some kind of CIA stooge, always mocks anyone who says a word about the Criminal Intelligence Agency. Not saying all agents are criminal or that any more than a few are suspects in JFK's death. However, there are many CIA folks who bear serious investigation. No problems with Morales or their ilk???

James,

Do you really think I'm some kind of ""CIA stooge"?

What does that mean, anyway?

Agent?

Officer?

Hmm ... Contract hit man?

(I guess it's the word "stooge" I object to, punk.)

If not, why then are you insinuating (against the rules, I believe) that I am?

Sounds as though James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio, David "Rude" Josephs, and Michael "Run Away" Clark, et al., have rubbed off on you.

Nope, although when an American friend of mine in the Czech Republic was getting ready to quit teaching "English Conversation" lessons at Dukovany nuclear power station there, I considered applying for that postion, and was thinking that IF I got it I would volunteer to "spy" for The Agency, but someone else got position before I could apply for it.

The position at the nuclear power station, that is.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Bummer, huh?

All I've done is read Epstein's Legend and Deception, and Tennent H. Bagley's books Spy Wars and Spy Master and his 35-page PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars (see below), and Mark Riebling's fine book Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

You?  What have you read?  Tom Mangold's execrable book Cold Warrior, and Jeff Morley's laughable Ghost (read my one-star review of it at Amazon), etc?

Pity that.

Btw, how long have you been like this?

Ever since you saw the movie [sic] JFK, a big money-making malignant outgrowth of the "case" against the "evil, evil, evil" that the mobbed-up, glory-seeking district attorney of New Orleans cooked up after starting out claiming that the assassination of JFK was some kind of a HOMOSEXUALTHRILL-KILL CONSPIRACY, until, that is, he was swayed (pardon the pun) by some KGB disinfo that had been placed by that humanitarian organization in a pro-Communist newspaper IN ITALY?

Pity that.

--  MWT 

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy has a reading comprehension problem. I looked at my posts carefully and don't see the word "everything" used. Then you accused me of additional hyperbole. Please look up the word "hyperbole." Again, nothing hyperbolic there. If I was really exaggerating, I would say, "Tommy is certainly a CIA agent." But I don't know that's true. It would be hyperbole if I made that accusation. Get it now? What about another example of hyperbole? "All lone nutters are brainwashed by corrupt government reports that are 100 percent bullshit." See? That's easy to say, but it's not true. People have a variety of ways to look at the evidence, and a variety of reasons they ignore what they don't like. It's human nature. I'm not immune from it either.

Not going to ask questions a second time since you're busy making insults instead of replying to serious questions. Besides, your answers make no logical sense. Like trying to discuss non-violence with a Trump supporter...

James,

Did you look at everything?

Oops, did you say, "... I shouldn't [or can't, or whatever] trust ANYTHING you say", instead?

If so, ... what's the diff?

--  MWT 

PS  Do you always get so confused when you're losing?  The desperation kinda messes you up, makes it hard for you to focus and not skip around, chasing your rhetorical tail from subject-to-subject-to-subject, and ... gasp ... round and round amongst the sub-subjects therein, perennially on "the wrong page," both figuratively and literally?