Mark Stapleton

Tim, You're the one on the high horse, aren't you--boring us to death with lofty speeches about the sincerity and purity of your motives. Unbelievable. Then you have the cheek to give yourself a pat on the back for challenging conventional wisdom. Rewriting history to suit your politics is what you should have said. My post was a response to your ridiculous and breathtakingly pretentious "suggestion" to change the rules. What's "adequate evidence", Tim? What's "pure" speculation? You provide neither. The Forum's not your personal plaything. You don't make the rules. As for you're critcism of me for not quoting books or historians, what about Lane, Summers, Garrison, Weisberg, Wise and Ross, Manchester, Dallek and Thomas Buchanan? I have works of all the foregoing and have quoted them in posts, you patronising peanut. I suppose Buchanan doesn't count because you've trashed his book on this forum--he's not to be believed because he was a Communist, remember? Also, if anyone needs to read more and write less, it's you. You've made more posts than anyone except John. The difference is his are interesting, while you just hammer away at the same boring, wrong headed theme.

Tim, Rather than respond to your contemptuous demand that I supply numbers and not make "unsupported statements of fact", I'll note that you don't have the numbers to support your contention that Kennedy was in trouble electorally in '63. The only numbers your "other source" supplies are 55-39 for JFK--which supports MY argument. JFK won in 1960 with the narrowest majority, up to that time, in US history. The starting point for any polling concerning his chances in '64 is the percentage of the vote he recieved in 1960. I don't know what it was but I'm guessing it was around 50%. I can undertake to post the actual numbers--I don't expect they'll be hard to find. But don't try using smoke and mirrors here to bolster a false premise. Don't try to argue that because he was polling 69% on inauguration day, it was all downhill after that. That's rubbish, and another example of selective quotation which you use regularly to support nonsense. Kennedy's trend line begins with the percentage he recieved in the 1960 election. The 1960 election. Clear? If, as your "other source" claims, JFK was polling 55% when he died, the journey from 50% to 55% is one of electoral approval, not impending doom. Talk about making "unsupported statements of fact". I know what you're up to, young Tim. You're trying to assert that Kennedy's electoral fortunes were in decline, hence there was no reason for those in the MIC and Government to whack him--they could just wait for him to lose, or phone the Chicago Tribune or some other rubbish. Every book, news article and expert comment I've ever read on the matter has always said the same thing--JFK was looking very good to win in '64. That's why the conspirators had to act with alacrity. Don't try to rewrite history here. I'll die at this keyboard before I let you get away with it.

Tim, You're asking me to suspend disbelief on this. An eager, enthusiastic supporter of the Republican Party--it's also the party of Barry Goldwater as well as Lincoln--arguing passionately with fellow party members for the cause of civil rights. In 1963?. It's incongruous. It doesn't fit. I don't believe it.

Tim, As you are well aware a TREND LINE is established from a grouping of polls, not just one poll in isolation. If you care to examine JFK's trend line from the time of his inauguration in 1961, you'll find it points upwards not downwards. Just place all polls taken during his Presidency on a graph then draw a line connecting them all, and see whether it slopes up or down. As for your assertion that "most historians and commentators at the time" agreed JFK's popularity was in decline because of civil rights issues, that's selective presentation of the facts at its worst. Tell me the names of commentators who predicted JFK would lose in '64. Civil rights was a difficult issue but JFK was determined to change the public's mindset on this-- and he had the advantage of incumbency to help him. How dopey would the Republicans have looked in an election fought on civil rights policy?--they didn't even have one. They had a no-policy policy. It may have appeared to you at the time that JFK was in trouble, but you were looking at the world through the eyes of an arch Republican. You were just hoping he was in trouble. And I doubt your claim that you supported civil rights legislation in '63--you were a tryhard, arch Republican for heaven's sake.

Suggested rule: All posts from Tim Gratz should contain the following disclaimer, "this post is submitted in furtherance of my ultimate goal to have recent American history rewritten to reflect the world view of a tryhard, diehard Republican and to this end extensive poetic license has been used". It will be helpful, especially for newer members who might mistakenly think that Tim is a genuine researcher.

What crap. Who's this "OTHER SOURCE"? Is this "source" saying that a 55-39 lead in the polls had Kennedy's knees knocking? He had another year for campaigning and he would have murdered either of them. The successful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis gave Kennedy a statesmanlike glow and he would have hammered home the test ban treaty ad nauseum. As you are aware, he was a great debater and he connected to the public. Neutralising the Cold War as an issue and turning the '64 election into a debate about civil rights would have given Kennedy an easy win, despite possibly losing some southern states. If you're as politically astute as I think you are, we agree that JFK was a certainty to win in '64. That much is plain. Unfortunately, his murderers were just as smart as us. They knew and did something about it.

Shanet, I agree with the others. You shouldn't stop posting, especially because of Tim "I'll need fifty upfront" Gratz. The best reason I can submit is that this would be a victory for Tim and his ilk. The victory I refer to is not just this little skirmish but the larger game Tim is involved in---rewriting history. For example, his Castro theory is built on the notion that JFK was a ferocious, snapping cold war warrior who ate raw meat fed to him at the end of a stick. Tim's been busy cultivating this idea on a number of threads. He's now trying to tell us that Kennedy was in trouble electorally at the time of the assassination. Recent docos have all but stated Kennedy's assassination was for the best. It's a rewriting of history. We need your perceptive insights to help counter Tim's disinformation.

Tim, I must confess I hadn't realised this was your interpretation of Shanet's post. From its' reading, I'm not sure you can prove an accusation of murder from those words, but I'm no lawyer. Whether Shanet returns or not (and I hope he will), I don't agree with yours and Pat's criticism of his ideas as 'lies', 'rants' etc. Tim, his prestated model of who he believed was behind the assassination is much closer to the truth than your ridiculous rhetoric about Castro's guilt. I believe a poll of member's views would confirm this. Finally, you've set a dangerous precedent by threatening legal action. It won't win friends.

Tim, I guess you'll have to sue me too. You took money. You've confirmed it. You were involved.

Especially since Tim is always ready to sanctimoniously denounce others.

Tim I have a funny feeling that John knew the dates didnt jive, I have a funny feeling you know that too. Its a joke and a damn good one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Justin, I agree. It was funny. John's gags are improving.

Come on Tim, we're waiting with baited breath here. What about Michigan?

Ron, thanks for that. It's in Lane's "Rush to Judgement"--must have missed it. Sawyer's testimony is pathetic. A police inspector says he can't remember the person who gave him the description, just that he "was there". Ridiculous. Then Sawyer says he's never seen the man again. Therefore anyone can walk in off the street and say they witnessed a crime, supply a description and walk off never to be seen again. Dallas in '63 must have been paradise for ill-intentioned practical jokers. Pat, don't you think it's a little odd that a near-perfect description of LHO was broadcast over the DPD radio at 12.45? That's 25 minutes or so before Tippit was shot. Remember, the reason LHO was arrested was for the murder of Tippit, not JFK. I don't believe Howard Brennan supplied the description either. Brennan's testimony to the WC is fantasy--he stated he saw LHO fire the final shot from the TSBD. He either lied or didn't care if the WC twisted his testimony beyond recognition.

Ron, Looks worth a read. After reading the attachment, it looks like it's not just a snow job. I just hope he doesn't skate around the assassination. There's been so much of that lately that I'm sure it will soon be included as a sport in the Olympics. Have to disagree with Busby on one thing already. Junking LBJ wouldn't have hurt JFK's chances in '64. JFK was so far ahead in the polls he would have won with Castro as his running mate.

Pat, Interesting posts. Never heard of Caster--he sounds worthy of investigation. Re Truly. Do you think it was him responsible for the 12.45 broadcast of Oswald's description over the DPD network? I've read about a hasty roll call which uncovered LHO's absence but I've had doubts it occurred. Also, because many of the building's staff were scattered around the entrance and in DP, it would have been unlikely, IMO, to point conclusively at LHO in such short order. I listened to those tapes again the other day and at 12.54 the operator told Tippit to remain "at large" in the Oak Cliff area, presumably for any eventualities. Out of interest, does anyone happen to know the name of the police radio operator at the time? Is he alive?

James, Thanks for the images. I've said it before, but what a collection. Steve, You might be right about Lemnitzer, although without knowing much about the man it's hard to accuse (or exonerate) him of anything. I'd be interested to know who his friends and associates were outside of the military. Call me suspicious, but the circumstances of his departure and his involvement in Operation Northwoods make him a "person of interest".

No apology required, Robert. Fascinating information.

Jefferson Davis Tippit is not "coincidence". His family tree goes straight back to Louisiana as well. When I come across it in my boxes, I will post it, and although there are those who will claim that his name was only "J.D.", this too is disproven as somewhere, I have the documents which demonstrate that his name was in fact Jefferson Davis Tippit. Either his father or Grandfather was U.G. (Ulysses Grant) Tippit, and so on. They liked those type names in his family. Tom Jeff. Davis Caught At Last. Hoop Skirts & Southern Chivalry. Philadelphia, J. L. Magee [1865] <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thomas, The coincidence I was referring to was that Tippit, whose real role in the JFK/LHO scenario is still a matter for speculation, shared his first two names with the chief conspirator in the Lincoln assassination. Until I read Buchanan's book I hadn't realised that Lincoln's assassination was a conspiracy for which four people were hanged and several others recieved long sentences. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Somewhere, I have something which provides at least one "link in the chain" as regards J.D. Tippit & his role. When I come to the Tippit stuff in these boxes, I will provide it. Your are of course aware that John Wilkes Booth starred in plays in New Orleans, LA during the occupation of the city by Federal troops. Many are not aware of the attack on the Secretary of War (if recalled correctly) which occurred at the same time and was a part of the overall conspiracy plan. Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tom, According to Buchanan, the Secretary of State, William H.Seward and the Vice President, Andrew Johnson, were supposed to be assassinated in conjunction with Lincoln. The man assigned to murder Seward was Lewis Powell, who had fought with the southern army. Powell's attempt, which bordered on being comical, was foiled by the presence of Seward's son, daughter and a male nurse being present in the Secretary's home at the time. Powell was captured and revealed details of the conspiracy. He was hanged on July 7, 1865. The man assigned to murder Johnson simply failed to summon the necessary courage on the day. His name was George Atzerodt, a spy for the Confederacy.

James, Thanks for that. Not exactly the side of Lem's personality I was interested in exploring, but a great photo all the same . Any more?

Jefferson Davis Tippit is not "coincidence". His family tree goes straight back to Louisiana as well. When I come across it in my boxes, I will post it, and although there are those who will claim that his name was only "J.D.", this too is disproven as somewhere, I have the documents which demonstrate that his name was in fact Jefferson Davis Tippit. Either his father or Grandfather was U.G. (Ulysses Grant) Tippit, and so on. They liked those type names in his family. Tom Jeff. Davis Caught At Last. Hoop Skirts & Southern Chivalry. Philadelphia, J. L. Magee [1865] <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thomas, The coincidence I was referring to was that Tippit, whose real role in the JFK/LHO scenario is still a matter for speculation, shared his first two names with the chief conspirator in the Lincoln assassination. Until I read Buchanan's book I hadn't realised that Lincoln's assassination was a conspiracy for which four people were hanged and several others recieved long sentences.

C Douglas Dillon was also on the Rockefeller Commission. According to Tim, he's the man who would have "laid down his life" for his friend, JFK. Sure he would have, Tim. Sure. Back to Lemnitzer, he is easily the most obscure of the former Joint Chiefs. Except for his well known desire to oust Castro and his hatred for JFK's tendency to find negotiated settlements to foreign policy problems, all we know is that JFK didn't renew Lemnitzer's Chairmanship of the JCS in 1962 and he left to become chief of European operations. A biography was in written in 1997 by L James Binder entitled "Lyman Louis Lemnitzer--A Soldier for his time". I haven't read it but from the reviews I've read, it draws mainly on the official historical archives, while saying very little about the how and why of the man behind the soldier. If anyone can fill in some of the blank spaces about this obscure individual, it would be greatly appreciated.

Interesting history. Jefferson Davis was one of the ringleaders in the coup which removed Lincoln, according to Thomas Buchanan in "Who killed Kennedy?"(1964). Drawing parallels between the two assasinations, he describes how Davis, with Northern troops and imminent capture on the horizon, aided by his wife and her sister, emerged from his tent dressed as an old lady. Sadly, his army boots gave him away. He might have been Hoover's role model. Another coincidence--Jefferson Davis Tippit.

Cut it out, you guys. Even the Castro theory has more legs than this.

Steve, FWIW, I haven't scratched Lemnitzer off either. There's no reason why a man of his power and influence couldn't pull strings after leaving office. In fact, it could be argued that this makes his involvement more likely.

Mark, The SS-dictated change in the DPD's motorcycle plan, removing motorcycles from the front and sides, was made in a meeting of the SS and DPD on the night of 11/21. That means whichever of the three SS agents at the meeting imposed this change was preparing on 11/21 for the real thing, not a staged attempt. (Of the three agents present, David Grant was the last to arrive in Dallas, having worked the Florida trip.) Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Ron. You're right of course, although it could be argued that the night of November 21, only 12 hours or so prior to the assassination, still qualifies as a "last minute" change. Others involved at a lower level may still not have been aware of the security withdrawal, unless trained in security protocols. However, the SS agents must have smelt something. This would be a great time to take all the guys down to the bar for a drink, eh?