Question to John Hughes, author of JFK and Sam:
Why would the press, the government and even the Kennedy family not want it publicly known that the mob had been part of Kennedy's Assassination?
Answer:
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/whyfilestalked.wmv
Why did Files talk?
-
Tim Carroll
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: Why did Files talk?
dankbaar wrote:Question to John Hughes, author of JFK and Sam: Why would the press, the government and even the Kennedy family not want it publicly known that the mob had been part of Kennedy's Assassination? Answer: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/whyfilestalked.wmv
The title of this thread asks the question: "Why Did Files Talk?" I watched the clip, and what I heard John Hughes say is that James Files talked in order to make some money for Joe West's family. Is that not precisely correct?
Tim
The title of this thread asks the question: "Why Did Files Talk?" I watched the clip, and what I heard John Hughes say is that James Files talked in order to make some money for Joe West's family. Is that not precisely correct?
Tim
-
Tim Carroll
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
What Ignorance?
dankbaar wrote:A typical ignorant negative Carroll answer! Ignorant by will, for he would have known by reading the book.
This personal attack doesn't make sense. Wim posted a thread asking, "Why Did Files Talk?" There was a link provided, implicitly to provide the answer. John Hughes' answer to the question, "Why Did Files Talk?" was given as follows:
"Only when Joe West died from a heart operation, leaving his poor widow with a bill of about $179,000 did Files decide that maybe he could help make some money and turn it over to Mrs. West. And only then would he talk."
How is that incorrect? Or does the answer to that simple question require $50?
Tim
This personal attack doesn't make sense. Wim posted a thread asking, "Why Did Files Talk?" There was a link provided, implicitly to provide the answer. John Hughes' answer to the question, "Why Did Files Talk?" was given as follows:
"Only when Joe West died from a heart operation, leaving his poor widow with a bill of about $179,000 did Files decide that maybe he could help make some money and turn it over to Mrs. West. And only then would he talk."
How is that incorrect? Or does the answer to that simple question require $50?
Tim
-
Tim Carroll
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Why Did Files Talk? Hughes' Answer = Money
Tim Carroll wrote:The title of this thread asks the question: "Why Did Files Talk?" I watched the clip, and what I heard John Hughes say is that James Files talked in order to make some money for Joe West's family. Is that not precisely correct?Wim responded to such a straightforward question:dankbaar wrote:A typical ignorant negative Carroll answer! Ignorant by will, for he would have known by reading the book.Tim Carroll wrote:John Hughes' answer to the question, "Why Did Files Talk?" was given as follows: "Only when Joe West died from a heart operation, leaving his poor widow with a bill of about $179,000 did Files decide that maybe he could help make some money and turn it over to Mrs. West. And only then would he talk." How is that incorrect? Or does the answer to that simple question require $50?Wim's explanation for his irrational reaction to a post in which I merely sought reassurance that I was correctly understanding the answer provided by Wim to the question posed by Wim is as follows:dankbaar wrote:It is not incorrect, nor did I say it was. But the interesting question is: What do you want to imply with your question?
What was implied, other than establishing that I was understanding the context of Wim's posted link correctly, is that his own answer to his own question, "Why Did Files Talk?" is "Money."
Tim
What was implied, other than establishing that I was understanding the context of Wim's posted link correctly, is that his own answer to his own question, "Why Did Files Talk?" is "Money."
Tim
-
Clemens Lowenstein
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Principally I go with Mr. Carroll on that one.
However, he might agree, that the simple answer "Money" is misleading in this case. Let's say "Good Will", heh? Money would implicate "for himself", which doesn't seem obvious to me.
And if he'd talked for money, I wouldn't care as long as he's credible - and he is.
However, he might agree, that the simple answer "Money" is misleading in this case. Let's say "Good Will", heh? Money would implicate "for himself", which doesn't seem obvious to me.
And if he'd talked for money, I wouldn't care as long as he's credible - and he is.
-
Tim Carroll
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Money
Clemens Lowenstein wrote:Principally I go with Mr. Carroll on that one.However, he might agree, that the simple answer "Money" is misleading in this case. Let's say "Good Will", heh? Money would implicate "for himself", which doesn't seem obvious to me.
I do agree with the term, "Good Will." I first made an effort to accurately quote Mr. Hughes, only to have Wim personally attack my "ignorant" purchasing practices. But to stipulate to good will, it becomes relevant to wonder what percentage of revenues from Files' story go to the "poor widow" of Mr. West.
Tim
I do agree with the term, "Good Will." I first made an effort to accurately quote Mr. Hughes, only to have Wim personally attack my "ignorant" purchasing practices. But to stipulate to good will, it becomes relevant to wonder what percentage of revenues from Files' story go to the "poor widow" of Mr. West.
Tim
And what do you want to imply with "money"? Money meant for the widow of Joe West. Do you want to imply that it is less than a good or sincere reason to talk? Or do you want to imply he made up a story just to help West's widow? Do you have a clue, if you can't spend the 50 bucks, why he wanted to help her? Why don't you be specific?
BTW one more thing: next time you will allude to me or any other member as "prostitute", "silly" or "irrational", you are exit. This time foregood. No second chances.
Frankly, I don't understand what you're doing here anyway. It's the old saying of Bob Clemens: Why go to the steakhouse if you like McDonalds?
Wim
BTW one more thing: next time you will allude to me or any other member as "prostitute", "silly" or "irrational", you are exit. This time foregood. No second chances.
Frankly, I don't understand what you're doing here anyway. It's the old saying of Bob Clemens: Why go to the steakhouse if you like McDonalds?
Wim
-
Tim Carroll
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Agree, Or Else!!
dankbaar wrote:BTW one more thing: next time you will allude to me or any other member as "prostitute", "silly" or "irrational", you are exit.Didn't Wim just call me "ignorant" in this very thread? If the recent history of this forum demonstrates anything, it's that it doesn't matter what one says, it only matters whether or not you are on Wim's team.dankbaar wrote:Frankly, I don't understand what you're doing here anyway. It's the old saying of Bob Clemens: Why go to the steakhouse if you like McDonalds?
The analogy is backwards. Why go to McDonald's if you like steak? The answer is that fellowship with the relatively few people who recognize the assassination as having current relevance is worth some effort.
You would think that the man who claims to know all the answers about one of the greatest mysteries in human history could handle discussion of that issue. The McDonald's analogy raises questions about anyone who doesn't grovel at Files' feet participating herein. Foolish me; I believed Wim when he said that you don't have to be a Files devotee to participate here.
Since Wim initiated a thread asking, "Why Did Files Talk?" and the provided reason was money for the "poor widow" of Joe West, is it being denied that James Files' daughters received $50,000 from Mrs. West? Is it denied that Files, however indirectly, has received money for talking?
Wim has now clearly demonstrated that he cannot uphold his historical position with facts and critical reason, and that he lacks the disposition necessary to handle dissent. He has now clearly said that people who don't buy his Files package don't belong here, and that he desperately needs to drive away any scholarship that gets in the way of his agenda.
As I asked Tosh Plumlee so long ago, I would ask James Files now, are his interests well-represented by Wim? Fascism is fascism, whether it be in a government or an individual. Wim is Files' worse enemy.
Tim
The analogy is backwards. Why go to McDonald's if you like steak? The answer is that fellowship with the relatively few people who recognize the assassination as having current relevance is worth some effort.
You would think that the man who claims to know all the answers about one of the greatest mysteries in human history could handle discussion of that issue. The McDonald's analogy raises questions about anyone who doesn't grovel at Files' feet participating herein. Foolish me; I believed Wim when he said that you don't have to be a Files devotee to participate here.
Since Wim initiated a thread asking, "Why Did Files Talk?" and the provided reason was money for the "poor widow" of Joe West, is it being denied that James Files' daughters received $50,000 from Mrs. West? Is it denied that Files, however indirectly, has received money for talking?
Wim has now clearly demonstrated that he cannot uphold his historical position with facts and critical reason, and that he lacks the disposition necessary to handle dissent. He has now clearly said that people who don't buy his Files package don't belong here, and that he desperately needs to drive away any scholarship that gets in the way of his agenda.
As I asked Tosh Plumlee so long ago, I would ask James Files now, are his interests well-represented by Wim? Fascism is fascism, whether it be in a government or an individual. Wim is Files' worse enemy.
Tim