29-07-2017, 11:31 PM
And now we all realize that Holmes vouched for Oswald coming down from the 2nd. Add that to my laundry list of complaints regarding the fractured fairy tale known as the lunchroom hoax hypothesis. And the Holmes testimony- note-aided, mind you- sends the hoax straight into deep batshit crazy.
First, let me remind you that Sean Murphy's hypothesis is not saying that the lunchroom incident was merely misinterpreted, misrelated, misreported. Nope. Sean contends it was completely make-believe. Like Bambi and Tinkerbell. When Baker was interviewed on 1964's CBS Warren Report, the story he imparted to the world was of Disneyesque proportions.
And we have seen that the hoaxers require a sizeable mini-conspiracy to sustain their hypothesis. And now, Holmes has to be painted as an intentional disinformation agent. Just like Truly, who intentionally lied to his wife on Nov. 22 and told her he'd encountered Oswald in the lunchroom.
See, there was a mini-conspiracy inside the mini-conspiracy. Truly & Holmes, the disinformation agents, were right at the center of this thing. With Tinkerbell. And Bambi. Who possibly was Badge Man. All of it hidden from us, right in plain sight, until the laser-sharp Sean Murphy brought it all into focus for us. I'm sure that's the reason they had to act as disinfo agents, since they must have known some Irish kid would come along someday and expose them all.
***********************
Bart Kamp's essay is not so much scholarship as doubletalk. It reeks of the barroom. What he does is an end-around, diverting the reader's attention with his runaway Murphyist spiel about ambiguous evidence indicating Oswald possibly was on the 1st floor during the shooting. Judiciously sidestepping the counter-arguments of his primary adversary- Gilbride- after he had come up empty when debating this topic with him on the EdForum. And DiEugenio, in his epic stupidity, has fallen for it.
What did ROKC do to you, Jim? Mail you an honorary leather trenchcoat? With a complimentary subscription to their weekly newsletter, Hokes A-Plenty?
Without Murphy's fantasies they are done, I mean stick a fork in 'em. They gambled the farm and they lost. And you are too stupid to understand this, or were you throwing up a prayer that by opening this lunchroom topic, maybe someone like me could help straighten it out?
The Australian bully method of pushing propaganda down people's throats doesn't last all that long, does it? And the amoral cesspool they wallow in isn't healthy for us kids of all ages, is it? These are the psycho Clockwork Orange Murphy cultists you've empowered with your endorsement of Kamp's essay.
I invite you to take the following reality-check test. Make a synopsis of Kamp's best arguments. Print up a copy of mine. Get a copy of Baker's 1964 and 1986 filmed interviews. Locate one of Baker's children.
Explain to him that dozens of researchers agree with Kamp that the lunchroom incident was a hoax. But there's this hardcat Gilbride who doesn't go along with them. Nobody likes him because his Mom gave him a copy of Profiles in Courage in 1964 and they're wicked jealous. Show Baker's kid the film, with particular emphasis on the portions where Baker goes make-believe.
When you are laughed out of town, have a good cry. Your credibility as a TSBD analyst is sinking as we speak, down down into the icy waters off the coast of Newfoundland. I strongly recommend that you stick to your strengths, of media analysis and foreign policy. Have a nice heapin' helping of humble pie. We don't need your demagoguery, nor picking specks out of fellow researchers' eyes, when you can't see the titanic log that is in your own.
First, let me remind you that Sean Murphy's hypothesis is not saying that the lunchroom incident was merely misinterpreted, misrelated, misreported. Nope. Sean contends it was completely make-believe. Like Bambi and Tinkerbell. When Baker was interviewed on 1964's CBS Warren Report, the story he imparted to the world was of Disneyesque proportions.
And we have seen that the hoaxers require a sizeable mini-conspiracy to sustain their hypothesis. And now, Holmes has to be painted as an intentional disinformation agent. Just like Truly, who intentionally lied to his wife on Nov. 22 and told her he'd encountered Oswald in the lunchroom.
See, there was a mini-conspiracy inside the mini-conspiracy. Truly & Holmes, the disinformation agents, were right at the center of this thing. With Tinkerbell. And Bambi. Who possibly was Badge Man. All of it hidden from us, right in plain sight, until the laser-sharp Sean Murphy brought it all into focus for us. I'm sure that's the reason they had to act as disinfo agents, since they must have known some Irish kid would come along someday and expose them all.
***********************
Bart Kamp's essay is not so much scholarship as doubletalk. It reeks of the barroom. What he does is an end-around, diverting the reader's attention with his runaway Murphyist spiel about ambiguous evidence indicating Oswald possibly was on the 1st floor during the shooting. Judiciously sidestepping the counter-arguments of his primary adversary- Gilbride- after he had come up empty when debating this topic with him on the EdForum. And DiEugenio, in his epic stupidity, has fallen for it.
What did ROKC do to you, Jim? Mail you an honorary leather trenchcoat? With a complimentary subscription to their weekly newsletter, Hokes A-Plenty?
Without Murphy's fantasies they are done, I mean stick a fork in 'em. They gambled the farm and they lost. And you are too stupid to understand this, or were you throwing up a prayer that by opening this lunchroom topic, maybe someone like me could help straighten it out?
The Australian bully method of pushing propaganda down people's throats doesn't last all that long, does it? And the amoral cesspool they wallow in isn't healthy for us kids of all ages, is it? These are the psycho Clockwork Orange Murphy cultists you've empowered with your endorsement of Kamp's essay.
I invite you to take the following reality-check test. Make a synopsis of Kamp's best arguments. Print up a copy of mine. Get a copy of Baker's 1964 and 1986 filmed interviews. Locate one of Baker's children.
Explain to him that dozens of researchers agree with Kamp that the lunchroom incident was a hoax. But there's this hardcat Gilbride who doesn't go along with them. Nobody likes him because his Mom gave him a copy of Profiles in Courage in 1964 and they're wicked jealous. Show Baker's kid the film, with particular emphasis on the portions where Baker goes make-believe.
When you are laughed out of town, have a good cry. Your credibility as a TSBD analyst is sinking as we speak, down down into the icy waters off the coast of Newfoundland. I strongly recommend that you stick to your strengths, of media analysis and foreign policy. Have a nice heapin' helping of humble pie. We don't need your demagoguery, nor picking specks out of fellow researchers' eyes, when you can't see the titanic log that is in your own.