Discussions with Authors

[Tim Gratz]

John, thank you for the clarification.

You wrote:

As you can see, there is a pattern here. Those authors who believe in the lone gunman or the Castro/KGB theory prefer one way communication. This is understandable given the intellectual battering that people like Mel Ayton and yourself have received on this Forum.

John I am glad you were intellectually honest enough to admit that the above might play a factor in the decision by some authors not to want to participate.

One must accept that intellectual contest, almost like a physical fight, can involve numbers. It can be a daunting process to engage in an intellectual discussion with 100 others when at least 95 are almost rabidly opposed to your point of view.

Dawn herself noted she did not want Professor Mellen to be "outnumbered" in a possible television discussion show.

I do encourage you to continue your efforts to involve those with differing points of view.

[Tim Gratz]

As noted above, John wrote:

As you can see, there is a pattern here. Those authors who believe in the lone gunman or the Castro/KGB theory prefer one way communication. This is understandable given the intellectual battering that people like Mel Ayton and yourself have received on this Forum.

In another thread Mike Tribe wrote:

John, I started contributing to these threads because you asked me to do so. I was under the impression that views which dissented from the "libertarian socialist" norm would be welcomed. Since then, I have had my views belittled and constantly misrepresented here. I think I'll follow Doug's lead and withdraw from the debate.

John doesn't know how close I am coming to the same decision. Perhaps that is what he wants.

The most current example: In the same thread that the Tribe post occured John stated that "Tim's friends" were forced to engage in violence to stop abortions, clearly implying (without any factual basis) that I am associated with people who have commited violent acts against abortion clinics. This is really intolerable and intellectually defensible.

[Dawn Meredith]

John doesn't know how close I am coming to the same decision. Perhaps that is what he wants.

The most current example: In the same thread that the Tribe post occured John stated that "Tim's friends" were forced to engage in violence to stop abortions, clearly implying (without any factual basis) that I am associated with people who have commited violent acts against abortion clinics. This is really intolerable and intellectually defensible.

Tim: For all our disagreements, and there have been many, I hope you will not leave the forum.

I agree with John that we need different viewpoints if this is really to be a debate. I stand by my comment about Joan Mellen, (am anxiously awaiting her book) that she against 3 authors who have gotten it wrong would not be a balanced tv debate.

I know that you are opposed to a woman's right to choose but I do believe that you wold not be associated with morally indefensible acts of violence against those with whom you disagree.

ANd THANK YOU for the birthday greeting. What a nce surprise to wake up too early and see on my computer. Thanx to Steven too...my "buddy in agreement" here on the forum.

Since this is also Stan Willbourne's birthday I wish to extend a most happy one to him as well.

I tried to find him on members but my have the name not properly spelled.

Dawn

[John Simkin]

The latest author to make himself available is Ian Griggs. He will be discussing "No Case to Answer" here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5251

Dale K. Myers (With Malice) is the latest lone gunman theorist to refuse to be questioned on this Forum. It was of course Meyers's computer animation that so much convinced Peter Jennings in his documentary "The Kennedy Assassination — Beyond Conspiracy" (2003). The Guardian reported that the documentary finally answered the critics of the Warren Commission and the case was closed. Despite this, Myers is reluctant to answer our questions.

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn and others:

I am serious that we ought to try to interest a major network in doing a show with conspiracy supported authors. Not sure whether we should try to get a producer first or try to get at least some of the authors to agree. I think Prof Blakey would be a good selling point considering his background and also Professor Mellen because in part of her literary background and also because her book is so recent.

[John Simkin]

As noted above, John wrote:

As you can see, there is a pattern here. Those authors who believe in the lone gunman or the Castro/KGB theory prefer one way communication. This is understandable given the intellectual battering that people like Mel Ayton and yourself have received on this Forum.

In another thread Mike Tribe wrote:

John, I started contributing to these threads because you asked me to do so. I was under the impression that views which dissented from the "libertarian socialist" norm would be welcomed. Since then, I have had my views belittled and constantly misrepresented here. I think I'll follow Doug's lead and withdraw from the debate.

It is true that people who are unable to defend their views on the Forum usually withdraw from the debate. They are of course free to do that. However, I fear that running away from the debate gives a very poor impression of the argument they have been putting forward.

You are fairly unique in being willing to argue your point of view against superior intellects. That is in itself a reflection on your intellectual abilities.

Surely it is plain to see that lone nut and Castro/KGB/Mafia theorists are generally unwilling to defend their views on this Forum. It is no coincidence that authors like Gerald Posner, Gus Russo, Edward Epstein, Dale Myers, Hugh Aynesworth, Dave Perry, Dave Reitzes and John McAdams are unwilling to defend their writings on the Forum. G. Robert Blakey and Joe Trento have made a couple of postings. Blakey has told me by email that he is no longer willing to answer questions. I will continue to nag Joe Trento about answering the questions on his thread (I sent him another email this morning). I do believe that Trento is a genuine investigative journalist and will eventually admit that he was misled by James Angleton and other CIA disinformation agents.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Blakey has told me by email that he is no longer willing to answer questions.

But Professor Blakey just answered a question by Pat Speer, John!

[Pat Speer]

John, I agree that you have done a great job in getting these writers to visit the Forum. I also agree with Tim's point that we haven't exactly made this place a comfortable place for non-conspiracists to express themselves. You, in particular, seem to be getting increasingly irritated by American intellectual slackness. I totally understand your viewpoint, but also feel that at a certain point you should back off. I seem to remember your going on the offensive when Mel Ayton implied the Mary Pinchot Myer murder was a non-issue. It seems that Tim is now the repository of your wrath. If you think he's dumb, fine, but to constantly belittle him only lessens your otherwise quite impressive standing.

The American mind is like an iceberg. It takes a freakin' long time to melt. After months and months of pounding, Tim is finally able to see how Oswald may have been set up by someone other than Castro or the KGB. This is about as much as we can hope for.

Edited October 27, 2005 by Pat Speer

[John Simkin]

John wrote:

Blakey has told me by email that he is no longer willing to answer questions.

But Professor Blakey just answered a question by Pat Speer, John!

So has Joe Trento. As I pointed out I am constantly trying to persuade authors who are lone-gunman, KGB/Castro/Mafia theorists to join our debates. I rarely take no for an answer and use all my social interaction skills to persuade them to post. Although he did stay he would stop posting, he has obviously changed his mind. A clue to this behaviour concerns the question he decided to answer.

[John Simkin]

John, I agree that you have done a great job in getting these writers to visit the Forum. I also agree with Tim's point that we haven't exactly made this place a comfortable place for non-conspiratists to express themselves. You, in particular, seem to be getting increasingly irritated by American intellectual slackness. I totally understand your viewpoint, but also feel that at a certain point you should back off. I seem to remember your going on the offensive when Mel Layton implied the Mary Pinchot Myer murder was a non-issue. It seems that Tim is now the repository of your wrath. If you think he's dumb, fine, but to constantly belittle him only lessens your otherwise quite impressive standing.

The American mind is like an iceberg. It takes a freakin' long time to melt. After months and months of pounding, Tim is finally able to see how Oswald may have been set up by someone other than Castro or the KGB. This is about as much as we can hope for.

This is a serious charge and one that must be answered. First of all, I agree that I was too hard on Mel Ayton concerning Mary Pinchot Meyer. I allowed my lack of respect for his research to show. That was wrong of me and was probably the reason why he stopped posting on the JFK assassination thread. However, he still contributes to the Martin Luther King section (I have restrained myself from posting comments about his “research” of this case).

Tim is of course the other person who I have been highly critical of over the last few months. This of course started after he chased Shanet off with his “legal” threats. He also threatened me with legal action. I thought this behaviour was unacceptable and definitely changed my views on Tim at this point. I am not alone in this and several members have given him a rough time since then. I was also appalled by his treatment of Nic Martin in the abortion thread. This more than any other topic showed what kind of man he is.

The problem is that I don’t respect Tim’s intellect. Some time ago he committed intellectual suicide and can now only repeat the comments of his mentors. As other members have found, when he has been intellectually challenged, he runs away.

Nor do I take him seriously as a researcher. All he does is selects quotes from books that suggest that a combination of Castro, KGB and the Mafia, organized the assassination of JFK. All these authors have relied on information told to them by James Angleton. They have all been exposed by Cleveland C. Cram study completed on behalf of the CIA. Yet, that does not matter to Tim as he constantly continues to post this nonsense.

I am of course rude to Tim on purpose. I always do it on threads and at time when I have asked him an important question about his opinions. I know that he is unlikely to answer this point and will therefore leave the thread. My rudeness is an attempt to get him to reply. I am aware that other members who have sussed Tim out use a similar strategy.

It seems to me Pat that you have succumbed to Tim’s flattery. He used to try to do that to me. He is desperate to find other members of the Forum to agree with him. Over the years a couple of members have defended him but they don’t stay long as they realize that it is intellectually embarrassing to be linked to Tim.

It might interest you to know that I actually find you abrasive in your comments about some of my postings. However, I have not allowed it to upset me. After all, it is all about perceptions.

[Pat Speer]

It seems to me Pat that you have succumbed to Tim’s flattery. He used to try to do that to me. He is desperate to find other members of the Forum to agree with him. Over the years a couple of members have defended him but they don’t stay long as they realize that it is intellectually embarrassing to be linked to Tim.

It might interest you to know that I actually find you abrasive in your comments about some of my postings. However, I have not allowed it to upset me. After all, it is all about perceptions.

Not my intent to be abrasive. I just have a bit of Bill Buckley in me. Been trying to kill it my whole life... As far as Tim, I was greatly annoyed by his threats against you, as well as his behavior towards Shanet and Nic. I just have an easier time separating his ideas from his occasionally embarrassing behavior. To me, his theory is not in itself offensive, it's just wrong. When it comes to the assassination, we agree on a number of points...one, that Oswald was not a lone assassin and probably not an assassin at all, and two, that the mob was somehow involved.

If I were to be as disturbed by Tim as you seem to be I couldn't live in the U.S. anymore. He is, unfortunately, the face of the United red States circa 2005. I've known red, white, and blue men like him my whole life. We mostly talk about sports.

Edited October 27, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

I posted a lengthy reply which took me an hour and somehow it disappeared into virtual space!

Just means I need to put more thought and less emotion into my reply.

Find it curious that John brags about his rudeness to me. I have never considered rudeness a sign of either a great intellect or of a gentleman.

[Gerry Hemming]

I posted a lengthy reply which took me an hour and somehow it disappeared into virtual space!

Just means I need to put more thought and less emotion into my reply.

Find it curious that John brags about his rudeness to me. I have never considered rudeness a sign of either a great intellect or of a gentleman.

------------------------

SHOCKING !! One of the Forum's renowned wannabe xxxxheads has been offended ??!! Seri-assly, Gratz -- you might follow John's instructions. Type the goddamn posting up first as an e-mail, and then copy and paste same while on-line for 37 seconds -- plus send the original as an e-mail to John or Andy as back-up. We sure wouldn't want to miss out on any serious neo-con rants now, would we ??

Moreover, as far as that Winslow e-mail -- where "I stammered" during the 1996 Nov. in Dallas "set-up"!!

They paid my way... but when they failed to preview the "panel" subject matter the night previous, I knew it was going to be a "sandbag-job". "Stammered-my-ass" -- I was livid, and pulled out my wallet and laid out a couple of $100 bills, inviting them to call the Nov. 18th 1963 MIA participants. Garman in Bowling Green, Dempsey in Kitchener, ONT. and others -- save for Whatley [then in Saudi], HKD [who wouldn't give out the time-of-day except to Oliver Stone in '91]; nor "Fat" Ralph G. Edens, and of course not the late Jim Lewis, Eddy Collins. Czukas may have blurted out, same with de Torres, as both had admitted their presence at the MI briefing on Sunday, and presence near Air Force One -- all to Epstein.

Winslow confessed that it was "all theater" during coffee shortly thereafter. Winslow's prime JFK "sources" over the years ?? Marty Casey, who was NEVER in a training camp, and was invited by Davis on the Papa Doc" Palace bombing only as an afterthought And this after he had whined in a letter to judge "Smiling Clyde" C. Atkins that he believed it to be a "Company-approved Op" [which it was !!] "because he had met with WerBell at my "crib" earlier. How quickly he forgot that I went to our ex-private JBS lawyer, Robert Rust [by then appointed as MIA US Attorney by Nixon] and threatened to expose ALL if the guys got more than 90 days at a "Club-Fed Country Club -- Eglin Air Force Base FCI]. Plus I got my SF "First Sgt.", the Hialeah P.D. Jailer -- to arrange for phone calls and contact family visits before they were shipped-out !! [and NOT to the "max-pens" at Atlanta nor Lewisburg, which were their original destinations !!]

Another Winslow insider source was Tony de la Cova, who, because he hung with Miami terrorists, was labled same.

Cereal,

GPH

________________________

[John Simkin]

As Joan Mellen's book has been published she is now available to answer questions on Farewell to Justice:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5015

I have just had this email from Gerald Posner:

John,

Got waylaid on answering email from Hurricane Wilma – just returning to normal. Going to pass for now on discussing Case Closed on the IEF only because we’re doing mag work and a new book – financing of Vatican – that is keeping up busy up to our eyeballs. Maybe when things slow down here.

Best

Gerald

[Mark Stapleton]

As Joan Mellen's book has been published she is now available to answer questions on Farewell to Justice:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5015

I have just had this email from Gerald Posner:

John,

Got waylaid on answering email from Hurricane Wilma – just returning to normal. Going to pass for now on discussing Case Closed on the IEF only because we’re doing mag work and a new book – financing of Vatican – that is keeping up busy up to our eyeballs. Maybe when things slow down here.

Best

Gerald

Ah yes. The old "we're doing mag work and a new book about the Vatican--maybe sometime later" routine. An oldy but a goody. Gerry's still got all the skills.