Tim Gratz's Forum Behaviour

[Tim Gratz]

Peter wrote:

No one here can convice you....you are here to confound us....with disinformation jack-in-o-box techniques.

This sentence clearly demonstrates the paucity of his logic. Disinformation is, I would presume, giving false or misleading information. It can hardly be called "disinformation" when I simply request evidentiary facts to support a theory that there was, in Peter's words, a "huge" conspiracy of "high level" government officials involved in the assassination. Also note that despite repeated requests Peter has failed to answer my very simple question just how "huge" is "huge". We have no idea whether his theory has 50, 100 or 500 "high-level" government officials involved in this conspiracy. It is an important question because it could lead to significant research. Why, depending on how "huge" Peter thinks it is, this group may have had to rent out a meeting room just to hold its planning sessions!

[John Simkin]

Not that it's my job to defend Tim, but I feel compelled to point out that he is not as stuck in his ways as some might believe. A few years ago he was leaning towards Cuba or the KGB. Now he considers the mob a likely suspect. In another few years--who knows--maybe he'll conclude it was the CIA, and then we can all do a little jig.

I met Tim while on vacation in Key West and would be thoroughly surprised if he was involved in any deliberate disinformation campaign. He's just a little--shall we say--enthusiastic.

It was because of your request that I reinstated Tim. I know he has got round you by flattering your own research. He did the same to me when he first joined the forum. He pretends to agree with you and then attempts to graft his “Castro” did it onto the theory.

I would not take too much notice about his willingness to accept the Mafia was involved. Have you not read his posts when he claims that Castro was in league with the Mafia (he ignores the fact that Castro kicked out the Mafia and that is why they were willing to join forces with the CIA in an attempt to overthrow his regime.)

You describe his style as “enthusiastic”. However, I think the term “manic” is more appropriate. I have no trouble him starting his own threads on how Castro or the KGB assassinated JFK. He has been doing this for years and it causes few problems. In fact, except for a few newbies, most members ignore these threads as they aware that Tim is unwilling to discuss these issues in a rational manner.

My problem is with Tim’s insistence in posting jokes and irrelevant material on important threads. He can be guaranteed to do this on any thread that deals with the CIA and anyone associated with the Republican Party. Look at his postings yesterday for example on the thread on one of the Republican largest donors to extreme right-wing causes, Patrick Frawley.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10684

Tim’s tactic is to post immediately after someone has made an important contribution. His theory is that most members ignore threads where his name appears at the end. I cannot allow this to go on and intend to delete these posts when he does it. I have started a thread where Tim can post his nonsense to his heart’s content. Members can then choose to read this thread or any other he starts up himself.

Tim Gratz's Section

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10695

[Dawn Meredith]

Tim, this is my evidence, showing that the Secret Service, or at least some of them, were complicit in President Kennedy's murder. At Love Field, Jackie and the President were eventually put in a limo. The car was full with the Connallys and the 2 secret service men in the front seat. Agent Greer was the driver.

Forgive me if I don't remember their names, but I'm sure I'll learn them: a Secret Service man began to jog next to President Kennedy as the limo started. Suddenly, another Secret Service man in the car behind them yelled something to the first SS. And you see Kennedy's SS man throw his arms up in the air as apparently he was told to stay on the SS car and not jog near Kennedy. Clint Hill on this video tape, made no move to run next to Jackie. I believe the Secret Service were told to stand down Nov. 22, 1963. The night before they were getting drunk. In one photo, it looks to me like Clint Hill, Jackie's SS man, had on a makeshift bullet-proof vest on under his suit jacket.

But the heart of what I am saying, the pantomime at Love Field, done, in my opinion, for the sake of the camera appears on the DVD The Story Behind the Story: JFK - Dallas, Nov.22, 1963. You can also see it on youtube.com. They had to know some camera was trained on that limo, and they made a show of it. Like, It's not my fault. So and So made me get back onto the second car. Clint Hill got on the back of the limo behind Jackie every once and awhile through Dallas. But it wasn't till Kennedy got his head blown off that Clint Hill rushed to Jackie's defense.

On another note: I often wonder what would have happened if Jackie had sat on the right side of the limo.

That is my evidence that it was an inside job. Look at that footage.

Kathy

Kathy

What ever evidence you put forth Tim will find someone like McAdams to debunk it. Now what a credible source he is. I've opted to just ignore him. Like LN nut Purvis, Tim's purpose here is questionable. (And before either you Tim or Purv respond I won't respond further. )

Dawn

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tim, this is my evidence, showing that the Secret Service, or at least some of them, were complicit in President Kennedy's murder. At Love Field, Jackie and the President were eventually put in a limo. The car was full with the Connallys and the 2 secret service men in the front seat. Agent Greer was the driver.

Forgive me if I don't remember their names, but I'm sure I'll learn them: a Secret Service man began to jog next to President Kennedy as the limo started. Suddenly, another Secret Service man in the car behind them yelled something to the first SS. And you see Kennedy's SS man throw his arms up in the air as apparently he was told to stay on the SS car and not jog near Kennedy. Clint Hill on this video tape, made no move to run next to Jackie. I believe the Secret Service were told to stand down Nov. 22, 1963. The night before they were getting drunk. In one photo, it looks to me like Clint Hill, Jackie's SS man, had on a makeshift bullet-proof vest on under his suit jacket.

But the heart of what I am saying, the pantomime at Love Field, done, in my opinion, for the sake of the camera appears on the DVD The Story Behind the Story: JFK - Dallas, Nov.22, 1963. You can also see it on youtube.com. They had to know some camera was trained on that limo, and they made a show of it. Like, It's not my fault. So and So made me get back onto the second car. Clint Hill got on the back of the limo behind Jackie every once and awhile through Dallas. But it wasn't till Kennedy got his head blown off that Clint Hill rushed to Jackie's defense.

On another note: I often wonder what would have happened if Jackie had sat on the right side of the limo.

That is my evidence that it was an inside job. Look at that footage.

Kathy

Kathy

What ever evidence you put forth Tim will find someone like McAdams to debunk it. Now what a credible source he is. I've opted to just ignore him. Like LN nut Purvis, Tim's purpose here is questionable. (And before either you Tim or Purv respond I won't respond further. )

Dawn

Since you have quite obviously been completely ignorant of the facts of the assassination for this long, then rest assured that "LN nut Purvis" not only could care less if you continue in this mode for the remainder of your life, it is fully expected.

Suprise us all! Do some factual research into the subject matter.

[Shanet Clark]

Good

Keep him isolation,

a virtual quarantine,

where one has to truly WANT to read the TG POV

[Myra Bronstein]

I don't understand why someone who is only here to heckle is allowed to remain on the forum.

He seems to be the only forum member who is not expected to comply with the rules.

[Tim Gratz]

This is called the "JFK Assassintion Debate", Myra. A debate means an argument on both sides of an issue. But of course when I point out that one of your "theories" is completely devoid of evidence to support it, you consider that "heckling". I do not get upset when someone calls one of my theories a "fantasy". It is part of the give and take and discourse of ideas.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

I can't understand the depth of feeling Tim has evoked in some forum members. I'm aware there is some 'previous' with other contributors, but I've seen little to provoke the kind of outrage on display at Tim's current postings.

He also provides other viewpoints for consumption, which help me at least, to better understand the broader political picture surrounding the events in DP and beyond.

Even if you totally disagree with everything Tim posts, surely you can take solace in the fact that his presence allows you to reinforce your own views, which many seem to do anyway.

For me and for the most part, I think Tim (deliberately at times) presents checks and balances through provision of materials which are all too readily dismissed. Sometimes he misses with his humour, but then I've been guilty of that also; sometimes things just don't appear as funny in writing as they so when spoken, and when you type with your own voice (like me) it compounds things.

My 2 cents, euros, pence...etc. FWIW

[Mark Stapleton]

I can't understand the depth of feeling Tim has evoked in some forum members. I'm aware there is some 'previous' with other contributors, but I've seen little to provoke the kind of outrage on display at Tim's current postings.

He also provides other viewpoints for consumption, which help me at least, to better understand the broader political picture surrounding the events in DP and beyond.

Even if you totally disagree with everything Tim posts, surely you can take solace in the fact that his presence allows you to reinforce your own views, which many seem to do anyway.

For me and for the most part, I think Tim (deliberately at times) presents checks and balances through provision of materials which are all too readily dismissed. Sometimes he misses with his humour, but then I've been guilty of that also; sometimes things just don't appear as funny in writing as they so when spoken, and when you type with your own voice (like me) it compounds things.

My 2 cents, euros, pence...etc. FWIW

It's not just the substance but the style, Gary. If you read the threads Tim inhabits, you find that Tim often belittles opponents, declaring they are not entitled to participate as their knowledge is inadequate or they haven't read a certain book. It's an irritating style, with flowery praise and flattery for those who agree, and haughty dismissal of those who don't.

Because of this, Tim has a way of provoking candid responses. I'm surprised you can't see that.

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Even if you totally disagree with everything Tim posts, surely you can take solace in the fact that his presence allows you to reinforce your own views, which many seem to do anyway.

...

Your assurance is misplaced. I take no solace in his presence or antics. Furthermore I don't need a perpetual devil's advocate to bolster my views.

And don't call me "Shirley."

[Tom Kutzer]

I find it slightly amusing that a board full of "dissenters" would try to muzzle "dissent".

[Michael Hogan]

I find it slightly amusing that a board full of "dissenters" would try to muzzle "dissent".

I find it more amusing that you think that is what is happening.

[Tom Kutzer]

well....what exactly do you think is happening?

TG is a disinfo plant?

if that's the case, let him ride....

friends close, enemies closer.

[Charles Drago]

friends close, enemies closer.

That would make Tim ... Turk Salozzo? Johnny Ola?

Nah. Insufficient gravitas.

I've got him as one of the Rosato brothers.

Or later, maybe Joey Zaza.

[Myra Bronstein]

I find it slightly amusing that a board full of "dissenters" would try to muzzle "dissent".

I find your presumptiousness amusing.

You don't have a clue what the issues and problems are with Gratz, and that's evident in your little snipe.