The JFK Files: Rhetoric vs. Truth

[Bill Chapman]

And another temper tantrum from a nobody.... keep 'm coming.

Btw, next time when you ask a question, don't forget the question mark!

A) No temper tantrum necessary. Just the observation that you lot still cannot produce names to back up your claims
B) I wonder why you think a statement — not a question — needs a question mark..

keep 'm coming
Try 'keep 'em coming' next time you try to be clever, Bubba

[Martin Weidmann]

A) No temper tantrum necessary. Just the observation that you lot still cannot produce names to back up your claims
B) I wonder why you think a statement — not a question — needs a question mark..

keep 'm coming
Try 'keep 'em coming' next time you try to be clever, Bubba

No temper tantrum necessary.

Then why throw one?

I wonder why you think a statement — not a question — needs a question mark..

So, you don't know the difference between a statement and a question?..... The "do you now" part at the end is the give away.

[Bill Chapman]

No temper tantrum necessary.

Then why throw one?

I wonder why you think a statement — not a question — needs a question mark..

So, you don't know the difference between a statement and a question?..... The "do you now" part at the end is the give away.

Then why throw one?
A temper tantrum requires the presence of emotion. Point out the emotion in 'you lot still cannot produce names to back up your claims.'
The fact is, you lot always pull the 'temper' thing out when you cannot defend your claims, or even just attempt to form a sensible answer.

The "do you now" part at the end is the give away.
_TIP: Try 'giveaway' next time you want to pretend to be educated
_The ellipsis at the end of 'do you now' — rather than a question mark — indicate that I am not asking a question... rather, it's used in mockery in this case.

[Martin Weidmann]

Then why throw one?
A temper tantrum requires the presence of emotion. Point out the emotion in 'you lot still cannot produce names to back up your claims.'
The fact is, you lot always pull the 'temper' thing out when you cannot defend your claims, or even just attempt to form a sensible answer.

The "do you now" part at the end is the give away.
_TIP: Try 'giveaway' next time you want to pretend to be educated
_The ellipsis at the end of 'do you now' — rather than a question mark — indicate that I am not asking a question... rather, it's used in mockery in this case.

Your desperate need to reply to everything and your vain, comical, attempts to "prove" your superiority would be hilarious, if they were not so pitiful.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

We may never find the truth about who killed JFK but I think Morley, John Newman and others are onto something with their research into how much James Angelton and others knew about Oswald prior to 11/22/63.

I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument let's say Angleton was closely monitoring Oswald's activities. Since all the credible evidence points to Oswald, all that proves is that (in a perfect world) the CIA could have warned the FBI or Dallas police that Oswald was a potential threat. Then we could add the CIA to the list of agencies (along with the FBI and Secret Service) that could have averted the tragedy if they had acted "properly." But that's in a perfect world and we don't live in one.

In any case, the likelyhood is that Angleton had Oswald's file but paid little attention to it. And after he realized Oswald killed JFK, he obviously wasn't anxious for his "knowledge" of the assassin to get around.

[Jon Banks]

I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument let's say Angleton was closely monitoring Oswald's activities. Since all the credible evidence points to Oswald, all that proves is that (in a perfect world) the CIA could have warned the FBI or Dallas police that Oswald was a potential threat. Then we could add the CIA to the list of agencies (along with the FBI and Secret Service) that could have averted the tragedy if they had acted "properly." But that's in a perfect world and we don't live in one.

In any case, the likelyhood is that Angleton had Oswald's file but paid little attention to it. And after he realized Oswald killed JFK, he obviously wasn't anxious for his "knowledge" of the assassin to get around.

It seems plausible that some government agencies are covering up their knowledge of and/or relationships with the President's alleged assassin.

But it also seems plausible that the CIA suspects that some agents or contractors that they employed in the early 60s might be connected to the JFK assassination. No smoking gun in the files but maybe more smoke surrounding some of the deceased agents whose files are still being kept secret.

The former seems less politically problematic than the latter...

[Bill Chapman]

Your desperate need to reply to everything and your vain, comical, attempts to "prove" your superiority would be hilarious, if they were not so pitiful.

No need to prove anything: You lot are still writing cheques that you can't cash.

And when someone comes at me the way you do, they will face severe push-back.
AND I'm not about to stand down regarding your failure to attach names to your claims

_You and Freeman started the 'nobody likes you' thing, to which I responded in kind
_Failure to attach names to your claims, your desperation led you to bring up what you claim was a punctuation error... while at the same time committing your own punctuation errors. Now that's what I call hilarious.
_Your issues with superiority come as no surprise, given your (failed) attempts to bully everybody who disagrees with you. 

[Martin Weidmann]

No need to prove anything: You lot are still writing cheques that you can't cash.

And when someone comes at me the way you do, they will face severe push-back.
AND I'm not about to stand down regarding your failure to attach names to your claims

_You and Freeman started the 'nobody likes you' thing, to which I responded in kind
_Failure to attach names to your claims, your desperation led you to bring up what you claim was a punctuation error... while at the same time committing your own punctuation errors. Now that's what I call hilarious.
_Your issues with superiority come as no surprise, given your (failed) attempts to bully everybody who disagrees with you.

No surprise that you couldn't resist to reply, again.....

You and Freeman started the 'nobody likes you' thing, to which I responded in kind

You can respond all you want. It doesn't alter the fact that nobody likes you.

Btw, I have no issues with superiority and have never claimed or even insinuated to be superior. It's all in your paranoid mind.