Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tim Gratz

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tim Gratz

  1. I would like to second what Scott wrote about Gerry Hemming. "Gracious" is definitely a word I would use to describe him. If I would call and wake him (he had unusual sleeping habits) he would always be gracious. Noel Twyman also commented in his book on Hemming's intelligence. I would also second that. He was definitely one of the most intelligent people with whom I ever conversed and he possessed a remarkable knowledge of history. It was of course Gerry who revealed who were the visitors at Odio's door. I think that information is very important and may yet lead to the discovery of additional information. So too his revelation of the identityy of the Mexico City mystery man. If Hemming was correct about his identification, that information is also of great importance in the assassination story although it is possible we may never know what was really going on in Mexico City.
  2. I just confirmed the sad news with one of his children. Two different people but that is two friends I made through this Form who have died. Gerry would have been 72 in March.
  3. Merry Christmas to all of you. I am no longer posting substantively here to protest being placed on moderation for, IMO, no valid reason. I think I may do a final post in the Tim Gratz Moderation Section to explain my POV but I do not want to clutter this thread with anything controversial. I just want to take this opportunity to wish each of you a merry Christmas and best wishes for the new year. I am sure we all hope that in 2008, which will mark the 45th anniversary of the assasination, we may yet see some progress in the case, perhaps through revelations in the Jeff Morley suit versus the CIA. The Key West History magazine (an unofficial magazine sold in Key West, not "sanctioned" by any official body) just published a special issue, Key West during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The front cover is JFK in his open convertible (a Lincoln borrowed from a Miami dealership) inspecting HAWK missiles. It is 24 pages in length and includes many vintage photographs. It also includes the full text of JFK's address to the nation announcing the quarantine. I am sure it probably has a few factual errors. For instance, it shows three women casually walking by an armed missile launcher on Smathers Beach, but I suspect the main Key West beach was not yet named after Sen. Smathers who was in office until 1968 as I recall. But it is still a rather interesting piece for those interested in JFK and/or the Cuban missile crisis. I have a limited number of the magazines I'll be glad to give to ANY member who will send me a stamped self-addressed flat envelope. (The magazine is 8.5 by 11.0 inches. I suspect it would take about $1 of postage to send within the continental U.S. If you would like a copy, mail me your stamped and addressed envelope at: Tim Gratz, 1413 Laird Street, #1, Key West, FL 33040. I will post on this thread when my supply has been exhausted. Once more, happy holidays and best wishes to EACH of you for a healthy and happy new year.
  4. Needed: (1) Respected researcher (Prof McKnight perhaps if he would agree) to explain why the SBT is necessary to preclude two shooters. (2) A man as close to JFK's height and weight as possible. (3) A medical doctor or pathologist (Dr Wecht comes to mind of course). (4) A model of the human skeletal system. (5) Photographic enlargements of the following photos: (a) CE399; ( JFK's coat; and © a "bunching photo". As well as enlargements of Burkley's certificate of death and the autopsy face sheet. (6) An excellent videographer. Prof McKnight discuuses (briefly) the controversy over the placement of the nonfatal posterior wound and where Boswell first placed it as confirmed by Admiral Burkley. Dr. Wecht shows on a skeletal model where C6 and C7 are. Professor McKnight asks man to remove his suit coat. Discusses measurement of the hole in the suit coat. For dramatic effect, one could even shoot a hole in the coat either beforehand or on camera. Man redons coat. McKnight and Wecht attempt to move coat up so the hole reaches C6. The bunching issue is discussed with the best available photograph used by advocates of that theory. Has any demonstration like this been performed? I suspect it would show that the suit coat would have to be bunched almost to JFK's ear for the hole to match Boswell's amended version of where the nonfatal posterior bullet hit JFK. Final shot: large colored photo of JFK's coat. McKnight (or whoever) (can get a bit emotional) Ladies and gentlenen, the bullet hole in the bloody coat worn by President Kennedy during that fateful motorcade proves beyond any reasonable doubt that a bullet hit President Kennedy just where the pathologist originally put it--far below the wound in his neck. This precludes any theory that that bullet exited the President's throat and went on to inflict (how many?) wounds on Governor Connally. The necessary corollary is that there were two shooters, at least, in Dealey Plaza. With the correct participants and a carefully worded (and totally accurate script) would you agree that that could be a very powerful video to prove a conspiracy? Do any of you have any suggestions? Criticisms of the idea? How long should it run? Ten minutes or less? Thoughts? Thanks.
  5. James, I am not an advocate of the POV that witnesses were murdered but death at an early age in the 1970s does at a minimum raise an eyebrow (or to an advocate, both eyebrows.) Do you have an actual DofD or at least the year?
  6. Michael, right on. I think any one seriously interested in the case should be required to read "Breach of Trust". One must admit that if the note was forged then LHO was framed and Marina lied. I do not think that document examination is of such certitude that possible forgery can be excluded from consideration. Query whether the best document examiner in the US could now evaluate the hand-writing on the note and render an opinion on same? One can argue whether the discovery of the note was suspicious. The absence of fingerprints on the note of EITHER LHO or Marina is "interesting" to say the least, although insufficient to prove a forgery. If the Walker shooting was part of a secret operation in which Oswald was knowingly involved, it is possible he wrote the note and confessed to Marina as part of a "legend" he was creating. But Michael makes a good point that Marina lied about Oswald's trip to Mexico City. Given the possible connection of activities in Mexico City to the assassination her apparent lies about that trip also raise disturbing implications. But when all is said and done, all that remains right now are (unfortunately) suspicions and speculation. Where does Mr. Carroll get the impression that I want to prove Oswald did it? And shouldn't all possibilities be considered and weighed? (Mr. Carroll apparently belongs to the body of assassination researchers that contend that anyone not subscribing to their POV or thesis re the assassination is not seriously interested in its resolution.) But there is cleary abundant evidence to argue Oswald was one of the shooters (of course I think the evidence excludes the possibilty that LHO acted alone). Linking CE399 to the MC which was found in the TSBD and linking its ownership to LHO is by itself evidence of his involvement (need to say I am familiar with the arguments the evidence wes "created" to frame Oswald and itis my opinion that Oswald was made a patsy but may have owned the M-C and even brought it in to the TSBD). The Walker shooting bears close examination IMO because if LHO shot at Walker it IS inculpatory evidence, despite Mr. Carroll's repeated protests to the contrary) but if he did not that is evidence he was being framed for the assassination. I do not exclude the possibility that Oswald shot at Walker (whether intending to miss or really intending to kill him) but was an innocent patsy in the JFK assassination.
  7. To Phil: It is certainly possible an individual agent, the obvious candidate being David Morales, was involved in the assassination itself. The question is what would constitute involvement by the Agency as an institution? I would think one would need approval of and encouragement of the plot (presumably through money and/or equipment) by several high-ranking officers of the CIA. I do not believe Helms was involved but assume for the sake of argument that the plot was carried out by Helms, Hunt and Morales without the knowledge or consent of anyone else. Would that constitute institutional involvement? I don't think so. Had McCone approved, that would be a different story. I think the CIA's involvement in the cover-up began almost immediately after the assassination. Whether or not Castro forces played a role is immaterial to whether the CIA should have immediately informed the investigators of its involvement in plots to kill Castro, both with organized crime and with Cuban exiles. And what if as many think Oswald was involved in some capacity with either the CIA or another US intelligence service? If the CIA had notice of such involvement and failed to disclose it, that would also be part of a cover-up. What to make of the fairly recent disclosure that the CIA's monthly officer reports on the DRE are missing for the period leading up to the assassination and that the DRE was on the list of the HSCA as an exile group worthy of investigation? Unless the disappearence of the records is a mere happenstance, one would think the sensitive information therein was of at least possible relevance to the assassination and should have been revealed. Should the CIA have provided information on all snipers it had trained from at least early 1962 through Dallas to the investigators? One would think so. And one can go on and on about information the CIA either had or probably had that should have been disclosed immediately to the investigators.
  8. It would appear Wim agrees with me--but I think I'm reading his post wrong. I think he really means "They didn't."
  9. John, I admire my intestinal fortitude for taking the abuse I do on this Forum; perhaps I am a masochist. But in one respect I admire you for much the same reason, As much as I disagree with you (obviously) I do respect you for not just unilaterally booting me off what really is your Forum but instead allowing somewhat of a democratic process. Also can you understand that I did not start this dispute to downgrade you or, as you claim, to draw attention to myself. My interest is the truth. In my opinion, we muck up the search for the truth if we add a lot of stuff that is not supported by any historical or other evidence. Moreover, we waste or time speculating on things when we could more profitably devote our attention and research to matters we can support. There is SO much outstanding material in "Breach of Trust" that you could start thread after thread about, that would demonstrate not so much to members (like preaching to the choir) but to non-member readers how scant the evidence against LHO really was and how strong the evidence was that there were more than one shooter. BUT TO MY MAJOR POINT: ON WHAT OTHER FORUM WOULD THE "OWNER" PUT UP WITH BEING CHALLENGED ON ALMOST EVERY POST BY SOME GADFLY WITHOUT BOOTING THAT GADFLY FROM THE FORUM (OR BLOG)?
  10. Let's continue a reasoning process. IF Oswald did NOT shoot at Walker, then Marina is indeed a xxxx, is she not? What are the other possibilities? (1) That Oswald shot at Walker and shot Kennedy. But I think that we would all disagreee with THAT hypothesis. (2) Oswald shot at Gen Walker but not at JFK. Then, per John's hypothsesis (I understand he is only offering it as a hypothesis and not necessarily advocating it) Oswald was a genuine leftist (and thus arguably not an agent of any US intelligence service). Is there a fourth possibility? That the Walker shooting was staged, simulated, but for whatever reason LHO (who must have been witting of the subterfuge) lied to Marina about his involvement. Therefore, although Oswald did not TRY to kill Walker, Marina was telling the truth about what Oswald had told her. I TEND to think the fourth possibility might be closest to the truth. What do you think? Also, did I miss any possibilities?
  11. I sure do not understand Mr. Carroll's post at all. Marina has always told the truth? No wonder if he believes that Mr. Carroll is forced to argue there was no nexus between the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting since per Marina LHO told her he shot at LHO. But someone can correct me if I am wrong but there is PLENTY that Marina said to link her dead husband to the murder of JFK, including her identification of the back-yard photos. Which if I recall correctly was only one of many inculpatory statements she made connecting him to the assassination. Mr. Carroll, I take it that the following is your position: (1) Mr. Oswald indeed had the backyard photos taken AFTER he had shot at Gen. Walker. (2) Mr. Oswald did not kill JFK. (3) Nevertheless, when he was asked about the backyard photos, he claimed they were composites, thus lying to the police. Now either Marina lied or Oswald lied re the backyard photos. It seems that simple. But where or where did you get the impression that I was encouraging anyone to harrass Marina and/or her children? In fact, because of the discussion, I was careful to note that Marina should NOT be contacted by an amateur "researcher".
  12. I wrestled today whether I was being unfair to John in suggesting that he intentionally IMPLIED in his Post # that Professor McKnight's "Breach of Trust" supported his position that LBJ selected members of the WC because they were susceptible to blackmail to do what the government wanted. That statement was made in the first post after I questioned his rather surprising statement. (Post #3.) After all, John said in Post #51 on December 10, 2007: As you can see I did not say that Gerald D. McKnight argued that LBJ used blackmail to select the members of the Warren Commission. However, consider this: On December 1, 2007, in Post # 37 I wrote: In one of the earlier posts John in this thread John suggested I should read "Breach of Trust" by Prof McKnight which he said supports his proposition that members of the WC were selected because they were "susceptible to blackmail." I just received the book on Wednesday. It is as excellent as people have told me. But I have found not a single paragraph that support's John's proposition. Perhaps John can refer me to the passage(s) in the book that he had in mind. In response to that post, John could have simply stated on that date or any date thereafter: I did not say that Gerald D. McKnight argued that LBJ used blackmail to select the members of the Warren Commission. But he never corrected my understanding that McKnight's book offered support for his proposition. In fact, he MADE a post on this thread the very next day after I had mentioned finding no support for his proposition in Prof McKnight's book (Post #41 on December 2, 2007). All he needed to do was add that one sentence to that post to indicate that he was not implying that Professor McKnight supported his position. Rather than correcting MY impression of what he meant, instead, on December 8, 2007 he wrote the following to Professor McKnight: When you were researching Breach of Trust did you find any evidence that LBJ selected the membership of the Warren Commission because he had information that would enable him to blackmail them into producing the report he wanted? Only AFTER Professor McKnight answered in the negative did John state that he never meant to imply that "Breach of Trust" supported the proposition he had advanced. I am a charitable person. I will accept John's word that he never meant to imply that "Breach of Trust" supported his proposition (he now concedes it does not) if he will simply admit that he has no support for the proposition he advanced in Post #1.
  13. At the risk of offending my friend Bill Kelly the recent CIA news raises this question in my mind: if the CIA could not keep its destruction of waterboarding tapes secret for more than--what, two or three years--how could it keep its institutional involvement in the Kennedy assassination a secret for forty-four years? I am not conflicted, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. I am convinced the CIA is hiding SOMETHING about Joannides and/or the DRE and/or LHO, and that someone no doubt destroyed those monthly reports, but I am convinced that what is being concealed is not the CIA's institutional role in the assassination since in my opinion it had none.
  14. I cannot even remember how this thread started but we are no longer discussing the DP eyewitnesses. Instead, we have three different topics under way, and all at the same time: (1) Whether there was security stripping in Dallas. (2) Whether the Z film was altered. (3) Whether JFK ever met Ian Fleming. We have now a marvelous but messy morass! There must be some way to keep these threads on topic.
  15. Bill, my book (and I will check who wrote it) states that Fleming dined with Dulles and (cannot remember) and it was at that dinner that Fleming made his suggestions directly to Dulles re how to deal with Castro. (My book says his real suggestion was to have some patsy linked to Castro assassinate the next President (whomever it might be, blame it on Castro and force an invasion, a plan the CIA employed after the BOP failed--hey I'm kidding!!) The next morning, then Sen. JFK who was as we all know a James Bond fan found out that Fleming was in town and desperately wanted to meet him but Fleming had already left town. The man who wrote that book is a much more respected journalist or historian than Henry Chancellor. There is no doubt that Chancellor's version of the story is more interesting, of course. By the way, I am surpised you failed to mention the name of James Bond's friend in the CIA, Felix Leiter. Since William King Harvey was America's James Bond, can there be any doubt that Fleming modeled Leiter after Harvey? They just got the wrong people to play Leiter in the Bond flicks! ******************************************************************************** ******************** Back to the more serious issue of windows & parades later.
  16. Well I guess BG could paraphrase a famous JFK remark (after the father had stated that before JFK intervened on behalf of his son that he could not vote for JFK because JFK was Catholic): "Well, we all have our brothers!" (My reference of course is to the brother of RMN.)
  17. Thanks, Bill, you proved my point. This also demonstrates that you need to read more carefully before you draw sweeping generalizations. You claimed it was the protocol to check every window on presidential parade routes. My photographs demonstrate that was NOT the case--even after JFK was killed. Did you know that even his brother rode around in open convertibles both when he was campaigning for senator and when he was campaigning for president? I'll post the pictures if you insist. Look at what Howard said: "every floor and window in a tall building facing the parking lot where the President was to speak on Friday morning was thoroughly checked. [My emphasis.] That is far different than checking every window on a parade route, isn't it? It may very well be that windows would be checked if JFK was going to speak in an outside venue and would be exposed for at least a somewhat extended period of time. Should someone have thought that an assassin could shoot at a president in a moving vehicle? Well, one would think so, but obviously they did not do so in all the cities I showed, and in Key West, so Dallas was no different. But incredibly even years after Dallas RMN rode through Cairo in a convertible and with windows open. ******************************************************************************** Your source is wrong on Bond, Bill. Don't read Bond books by popular writers--read Kennedy bios by historians. More on that later.
  18. Peter wrote: It was in some book [drawing a blank now, which - maybe Stockwell's? Agee?] that gave graphic details on how Mitrione would spend all day in torture chambers full of screaming, bleeding, dying persons Where is Mitrione now that we need him? Hey, folks, I'm kidding! A lot of what Peter is talking about is available on the Web. I do not necessarily believe it since one of the main sources is a Cuban communist if I recall correctly. But whether true or false, Mitrione's methods sure makes "waterboarding" pale in comparison.
  19. John wrote: The Tupamaros kidnapped Mitrione on July 31, 1970. They proceeded to interrogate him about his past and the intervention of the U.S. government in Latin American affairs. They also demanded the release of 150 political prisoners. The Uruguayan government, with U.S. backing, refused, and Mitrione was later found dead in a car, shot twice in the head. John's implication is that his kidnappers killed him, and I believe that is probably what happened. But just to show that I do not always post pro-government stuff (well my thread on the missing DRE documents should certainly demonstrate THAT)-- if you Google and read the articles on Mitrione's son, Dan Mitrione, Jr., you will soon learn that his son was covinced the US government had murdered his father.
  20. I had this thought on the "missing" documents. The Court states that in the memorandum to the Executive Director of the ARRB, the CIA discussed the circumstances under which the douments MIGHT have been lost. The reasons proferred by the CIA are not cited in the appellate decision but it seems they were only "possibilities" offered by the CIA. The Court demands that the CIA be more specific. The Court wants the CIA to offer more than speculation. But perhaps the CIA cannot do so. Or, if anyone still there knows who "disappeared" the documents it obviously will not ADMIT to their deliberate destruction. What the Court may want (and how interesting it would be!) is for the CIA to submit an affidavit that states that the documents are missing and admits that it has no explanation for how they disappeared. That would leave the clear inference that someone deep-sixed the documents. Is anyone familiar with the DRE case officer reports that DO exist? Were they, like so many CIA documents, routed to a number of people? If that is the case, as seems likely, it seems odd indeed that there would be no copies left in anyone's file. That would show that a lot of effort was made to santize the files.
  21. I know many are tired of my posts, but if you are interested in history, these points may be of interest: (1) One of the men who took over the Flamingo immediately after Siegel's death was named Gus Greenbaum. There is an amusing reference to this incident in Godfather II. (2) Greenbaum was a friend of Barry Goldwater and Goldwater attended his funeral (there I said it!). (3) At the time of the murder, Greenbaum was no longer running the Flamingo but another mob-controlled resort. The mob wanted him out because he was drinking and apparently pilfering some money. (4) There are reports (I forget where I read it) that the mob had offered Greenbaum a deal: sell your interest in the resort back to the mob and get out of Vegas and all will be well. There are reports that Rosselli was ordered to make this offer to Greenbauum. It was an offer he should not have rejected but he did. (5) Both Greenbaum and his wife were brutally murdered (their throats were cut). Murder of a wife was of course unusual. In Harlot's Ghost, Rosselli states he objected to the wife's murder. Harlot's Ghost does not mention Greenbaum by name and you really need to know your mob history to understand the reference. This shows how carefully Harlot's Ghost was reesearched. Of couse, if one understands that Mailer's reference was to an actual event, one can conclude that every incident in the book is based on fact. Many indeed are, but not all. (6) I am sure James will correct me if I am wrong but I am quite certain no one was ever even arrested for the Greenbaum murder.
  22. Terry, a very interesting and significant point. I am sure many of us believe that Marina may be the key to shedding a light of light on what was really happening. If she now believes LHO did not kill JFK, what about her statements to the WC implying to the contrary? Were they forced upon her? If so, by whom? The problem is I agree with Bill Kelly that if some individual researcher tries to interview her and get her to tell the tgruth, it might backfire unless done exactly right, presumably by a professional. And the professional should have a complete mastery of at least her testimony, and the Paines and DeMohrenschildt's, before approaching her. I have often wondered if an approach through LHO's daughters might work.
  23. John's use of the word "full" would be another indication that he wanted readers to believe that "Breach of Trust" supported his proposition. If "Breach of Promise" is, as John said, a "full account" of how LBJ selected members of the WC, then, because it does NOT mention the possible susceptibility to blackmail, it proves directly contrary to his proposition. Again, I challenged John for evidence to support his position that LBJ selected members of the WC because they were susceptible to blackmail. In the very next post, after calling ME ignorant, he suggests one read "Breach of Promise" for a "full account" of how LBJ selected members of the WC. Now he tries to argue that he was NOT citing "Breach of Trust" to support his proposition. But his verbiage "a full account" belies that interpretation. And Dawn, the point John was making, if supported by evidence, would be very significant. It is not "nit-picking" for me to ask for his basis for the statement. That is why well-written history books have footnotes. And note that after I read "Breach of Trust" I renewed my question to him just in case I had missed something in my reading of the book.
  24. John, as I noted in my preceding post, any reader would assume that you were citing "Breach of Promise" in support of your proposition that LNK appointed members of the WC because they were susceptible to blackmail. I wish you had the integrity to just admit there was no factual basis anywhere for the statement you made. I would point out to the Moderating Committee that your posts in this thread here violated two of the Rules you yourself established: (1) Not to personally attack a member (your calling me ignorant about the case is such an attack IMO). (2) Attacking the motivation of a member. When I see a ridiculoius statement, or an error of fact (see the two I pointed out above) do I have the right to comment on the error, or to request support for the statement I considered ridiculous? How about when Bill postyed that it was SS protocol to secure all windows on presidential parade routes and I posted that that was not done of JFK's trips in 1961 and 1962 and it was not even done in 1974 when RMN visited Egypt. Don't you think members and readers should have the right to consider other POV especially when my factual assertions are CLEARLY correct and my POV on the SS window issue at least seems correct based on the evidence I found? I would also point out my detailed analysis of the Court of Appeals decision in the Morley case, and my discovery, by carefully reading that case, that the CIA monthy reports on the DRE are missing for seventeen months--a most interesting and significant fact that I do not recall previous comment on, at least re the significance of which months are missing. But I do respect that you recused yourself from the decision.
  25. Note the sequence of events here: John started Post #3 with this statement, addressed to me: Your ignorance about this case never ceases to amaze me. It was in that post that he implied that "Breach of Promise" supported his statement that LBJ selected members of the WC because they were susceptible to blackmail. Then, twelve days later, on December 8, 2007, he writes to Professor McKnight: When you were researching Breach of Trust did you find any evidence that LBJ selected the membership of the Warren Commission because he had information that would enable him to blackmail them into producing the report he wanted? His question to Prof McKnight demonstrates beyond ANY doubt that when he made that November 26, 2007 post he knew full well that there was not a word in "Breach of Trust" that supported his proposition. Note that his Nov 26 2007 post never EXPRESSLY states that "Breach of Trust" supports his position but when he cites it in response to my challenge any reader would believe he is asserting it does. That is, I suggest, disingenuous to put it charitably. Again, if John has integrity he should apologize to me. There are others on the Forum who know far more about the case than I do but I am quite well-read in the literature and normally do not make factual errors in my posts. Consider these two examples where I have spotted factual errors in others' posts: (1) I corrected Bill Kelly's statement that JFK had discussed with Ian Fleming how to deal with Castro. (2) I also corrected Bill when he stated that Alexander Rorke was the nephew of Sherman Billingsley. (He was his son-in-law.)
  • Create New...