Matt Cloud Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: Cute, but I’m sure you are aware that the point was that service in WWII and the Reserves hardly makes Mr. Tippit of Connecticut—or may father—a spy. You seem so suspicious of the CT Tippits that you said, “I would not have put any faith in Tina Tippet explaining to you John Kowalski any more than what was already in the 1963 FBI report.” How do you know that? Do you really want to discourage original research. Tina Tippit told John Kowalski that her mother had taken notes of several sessions with the anonymous caller. You really want to discourage an attempt to find those notes, even if it is a long shot? UPDATE -- I see you've addressed the issue of John Kowalski's research while I was posting. I'll get to that when time permits. The suspicions surrounding J.D. Tippit of CT are not based on mere military service. At all. I do not in any way imply that your father or all of the other over 1 million plus members of the armed services are spooks. This point is pathetic. Edited February 27 by Matt Cloud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 4 hours ago, Matt Cloud said: The statement that the Tippits were not involved in the conspiracy is a conclusion without support to the very question at issue. Oh brother. They are innocent unless you or someone else can prove they are guilty, which is a concept deeply ingrained in our system of justice and our sense of common decency. As for the rest of your post, nothing in it persuades that the call was anything other than what it appeared to be. Someone, probably Elizabeth Bentley, witnessed a young boy going by the name Lee Harvey Oswald, or perhaps even Harvey Lee Oswald, under the care of people who appeared to be his Hungarian father and uncle, probably Emil Gardos and Fred Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 (edited) 4 hours ago, Matt Cloud said: And next time you respond, if you respond, address me directly. Don't write about me in the third-person as though I am not here. Are we clear? How’s this for clarity: I’ll address you as I see fit and not as you command! OTOH, I do hope you can help Geo Kozma. I have a hard time understanding him. Edited February 27 by Jim Hargrove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Oh brother. They are innocent unless you or someone else can prove they are guilty, which is a concept deeply ingrained in our system of justice and our sense of common decency. As for the rest of your post, nothing in it persuades that the call was anything other than what it appeared to be. Someone, probably Elizabeth Bentley, witnessed a young boy going by the name Lee Harvey Oswald, or perhaps even Harvey Lee Oswald, under the care of people who appeared to be his Hungarian father and uncle, probably Emil Gardos and Fred Blair. This is not a trial, Jim. This is an investigation. Any and all leads should be pursued. Anyone may be a suspect. The rest of your comment is neither here nor there. You're not persuaded? Fine. To quote Pat Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not there own set of facts." Edited February 27 by Matt Cloud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: How’s this for clarity: I’ll address you as I see fit and not as you command! Jim, that's better. At least it's direct. Let's just say "we'll work on it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 Just now, Matt Cloud said: Jim, that's better. At least it's direct. Let's just say "we'll work on it." Now, do you have anything have substance to add? Anything at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 10 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said: What tripe. 7 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said: This point is pathetic. 1 minute ago, Matt Cloud said: Now, do you have anything have substance to add? Anything at all? The insults go on and on. Of course, I brought up this topic based on John A's research in the first place, here and in other threads dating back years. You've been here for three days pontificating ad nauseam and putting out posts by the scores. I've never seen anyone post half as much as you do every day. Remarkable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said: The insults go on and on. Of course, I brought up this topic based on John A's research in the first place, here and in other threads dating back years. You've been here for three days pontificating ad nauseam and putting out posts by the scores. I've never seen anyone post half as much as you do every day. Remarkable! I know the subject. And in rare cases where I don't, I know how to find what I need. I know what the story is about; I'm closer to it than you can "possibly fathom." "Please tell me you have something. ... Please tell me you haven't pinned their hopes to a phone bill." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kowalski Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 23 hours ago, Matt Cloud said: Well, I'm not so sure. That's the point. My readings indicate that no birth record has ever been located and there are essentially two stories about the name: yours, which is the initials don't stand for anything, and some early perhaps propagandistic attempts to claim the initials stood for "Jefferson Davis." The census record shows JD, why would his parents provide a first name that was not his real one? I believe that JD was his real name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Coleman Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 (edited) On 2/27/2024 at 10:38 PM, Jim Hargrove said: The insults go on and on. Of course, I brought up this topic based on John A's research in the first place, here and in other threads dating back years. You've been here for three days pontificating ad nauseam and putting out posts by the scores. I've never seen anyone post half as much as you do every day. Remarkable! That’s why he wins a………. (applause….whistles…..crying….a few boos…) Edited April 10 by Sean Coleman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 (edited) 26 minutes ago, John Kowalski said: The census record shows JD, why would his parents provide a first name that was not his real one? I believe that JD was his real name. Well, to get to your conclusion we would have to take the document as legitimate. It may or may not be. Then we'd have to ask whether if J.D.'s parents called him that, as a nickname, that's all they conveyed to the census taker. Census forms are often filled with nicknames. I note at the top of that form there is an entry for another family with a son who also has only initials as an entry too. Then if we really want to pursue the is J.D. Tippit, the slain officer, really the J.D. Tippit on that census form, line, we'd have to look into that family in Red River some more. Could be something; could be nothing. I don't know. But assumptions should be checked, wherever possible and, in this story, always. That's my view. Edited February 27 by Matt Cloud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said: That’s why he wins a………. (applause….whistles…..crying….a few boos…) All is not lost. Jim has helped, in his own inadvertent way, to bring to light important facts of an important story. He is really to be thanked. That's to you, Jim. Edited February 27 by Matt Cloud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kowalski Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 23 hours ago, Matt Cloud said: President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Office of Strategic Services in 1942. Bloomfield was recruited and given the rank of major. In 1947, the OSS evolved into the Central Intelligence Agency, and Bloomfield continued doing contract work for the new organization. The only evidence that Bloomfield was involved in intelligence work is his own admission that he did some work in Mexico during WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 (edited) 1 minute ago, John Kowalski said: The only evidence that Bloomfield was involved in intelligence work is his own admission that he did some work in Mexico during WWII. John, I never brought up Bloomfield. You did. I have nothing to say on the matter. The quote from me above is in response to you having brought him up out of the blue. I didn't get the reference then, or now. I only clipped the spartacus link by John Simkin for my and others' edification. Edited February 27 by Matt Cloud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kowalski Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 23 hours ago, Matt Cloud said: A successful lawyer he worked for years at the law firm of Phillips and Vineberg in Montreal. He was also a major stockholder of Permindex, a corporation based in Switzerland. He was not a stockholder in Permindex. His role was to represent some of its shareholders. In the appendix to a book review I wrote I discuss Bloomfield;s role with CMC. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/the-canadian-archives-michele-metta-and-the-latest-on-permindex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now