Tosh Plumlee

[Tim Gratz]

Peter, you accept at face value his story about his stolen computer? If so, why did he not contact anyone earlier?

[Dawn Meredith]

Peter, you accept at face value his story about his stolen computer? If so, why did he not contact anyone earlier?

There is clearly way more to this story. Someone posted with Tosh's information information that he was dead. Then he does not respond to any calls to his personal numbers. The numbers were still on, so it can be assumed that someone was accessing messages. His daughter's response is most telling. I hope the intervew clears up this mystery. I am glad he's still with us.

Dawn

[Tim Gratz]

Peter, you either believe what he said or you do not. There certainly was no indication in your post that you thought the man you called your friend was a xxxx. So what doin't you just state outright: did Plumlee tell the truth about someone stealing his computer and making a bogus post, or did he lie about it?

Considering what he has said about his role witting or not in the events of Nov 22nd, it is certainly important to determine whether the man is a truth-teller or a xxxx. That is not creating chaos it is attempting to create order.

Look at the chaos your "friend" created by not returning messages etc and leaving mass confusion whether he was dead or alive. And you have the audacity of claiming that I spread dis-information! That is just incredible!

I do not attempt to make fools of serious researchers. I know who serious researchers are and I admire and respect them even though I often have strong disagreements with their politics.

I also think it the height of irony that a man so gullible to lose a small fortune to a con artist against whom he had been warned would label me an ignorant clown. Peter, I suspect my judgment of people is far more sophisticated than yours, sorry to say.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Peter, what did I lie about? I simply asked you if you believed his story or not and you refuse to answer.

And your scatological references are simply silly and impress no one of any intelligence.

Your definition and mine may differ re what constitutes a small fortune but whatever you paid to this guy he conned you.

[Mark Johansson]

Peter, you either believe what he said or you do not. There certainly was no indication in your post that you thought the man you called your friend was a xxxx. So what doin't you just state outright: did Plumlee tell the truth about someone stealing his computer and making a bogus post, or did he lie about it?

Considering what he has said about his role witting or not in the events of Nov 22nd, it is certainly important to determine whether the man is a truth-teller or a xxxx. That is not creating chaos it is attempting to create order.

Look at the chaos your "friend" created by not returning messages etc and leaving mass confusion whether he was dead or alive. And you have the audacity of claiming that I spread dis-information! That is just incredible!

I do not attempt to make fools of serious researchers. I know who serious researchers are and I admire and respect them even though I often have strong disagreements with their politics.

I also think it the height of irony that a man so gullible to lose a small fortune to a con artist against whom he had been warned would label me an ignorant clown. Peter, I suspect my judgment of people is far more sophisticated than yours, sorry to say.

Kindly stop defecating on this thread with your misrepresenations and lies. I did not loose a 'small fortune' to a con artist...I explained that elsewhere and that is repeating a misrepresentation I have already corrected only to besmirch me. I'm reporting this post. It seems as if you still work for CREEP creating problems for those who really are working on this case.

Peter, it's better to accept the jackals swirling around.

Just ignore them.

Wim

[Tim Gratz]

I am indeed blessed by my enemies most of whose posts contain nothing but tarradiddles.

[Tim Gratz]

Peter wrote:

I will start yet a new thread and if you post on that one I will post a link to your legal past. Get it?

On another thread we had a discussion of blackmail.

This clearly fits the definition: Peter is threatening to publicly reveal derogatory information about me unless I do what he demands: stop posting on his threads.

Is this not a violation of Forum rules as well?

[Courtney Redd]

Thanks for the update, Peter. I'm very glad Tosh is okay.

[Mark Knight]

At what point does "negotiation" become "blackmail" ??

Ever hear of John Peter Zenger, Mr. Gratz? I believe his was referred to as a "landmark case."

Truth SHOULD be what we're all about here...and if you have any skeletons in YOUR closet you'd rather not have exposed, the best defense, IMHO, is to not raise "personal values" questions about your adversaries, lest YOUR "secrets" become public. Y'know, the ol' Golden Rule sort of thing...treat others as you'd expect to be treated.

Or maybe the "people who live in glass houses" adage is a bit more applicable in this case.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Mark Knight

[Evan Burton]

I have set some posts here invisible; they have not been deleted. Some things have been said that give rise to concern, and I'd like one of the regular JFK moderators to look at it.

Please be patient.

Thank you.

[Evan Burton]

Posts released. John S is happy they do not constitute a violation of Forum rules.

[Tim Gratz]

Mr. Knight, there is a big difference between bringing up derogatory information about a person's past that even though true is over ten years old and irrelevant and bringing up the fact that Peter was conned by someone who specifically claimed knowledge about the Kennedy case.

The fact that Peter was conned by this crook says nothing whatsoever about Peter's moral values or veracity. What I think it does say however relates to his gullibility about accepting things at face value about the case. Now I do not consider the gullibility to which I refer any kind of moral failure. Nor does it mean that he is not an ethical person.

Frankly, I do not understand exactly what he claims I misrepresented about the unfortunate incident he had with the con artist. In one post, he claims I am trying to "pillory" him about it. It is in no way a moral failure or weakness or character flaw to lose money to a crook.

My point is simply this, and it ought to be understandable by all: there are persons ought there who are for whatever reason (profit, public attention, deliberate obfuscation, etc.) peddling false information about their involvement in the case. It matters not whether the motive is to spread false information and confuse things or to simply get public attention but the misinformation is the inevitable byproduct. (Most of us agree that Jim Files falls within this category.) If we want to get closer to solving the case we need to attempt to determine who is telling the truth about things and who is not. Peter's incident with R.R. simply demonstrates that he is not always capable of detecting when people are lying to him, even when he has face-to-face dealings with then.

Dr Wecht warned Peter about the con man and he paid no heed to the warning. Again I say that with no reflection on Peter's moral character, only on his judgment. To me, this whole thing about Plumlee disappearing for months, claiming someone "stole his computer", etc raises a lot of red flags about Plumlee, and as much as people are rightly glad Plumlee did not die in a plane crash, I think it should raise red flags in everyone's mind, at least until there is a much more complete disclosure on his part. (By way of full disclosure, most will probably remember that Gerry Hemming with whom I am in regular communication has stated that he is certain Plumlee is not telling the truth about many things, so I may be predisposed to mistrust Plumlee.)

But my assessment, buttressed by this latest incident, is to be wary about what Plumlee states about his involvement in the events of November 22nd--and I say that without having carefullly reviewed what Plumlee claims. Doesn't he talk about flying Rosselli in to Dallas in an effort to abort an assasasination?

Edited December 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

OK, if the personel comments don't stop I shall go back over the thread an delete every one of them, or in extremis, I shall lock down the thread and start another one. I shall report the two above posts to John Simpkin. Pleaase people, cut out the ad homs and speculation.

[Tim Gratz]

.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Stephen Turner
to remove off topic comments.

[Tim Gratz]

a

Edited December 7, 2007 by Stephen Turner
to remove off topic comments