Tim Gratz's Forum Behaviour

[Chuck Robbins]

Myra:

Please cite when I have ever ridiculed the "mere idea that there could be a conspiracy". I believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK as fervently as any member does. We simply disagree on who the probable conspirators were.

You wrote that I "demand explanations of the previously explained"; well, look at my thread, times a'wastin' where I asked members to post any evidentiary basis that the assassination was an "inside job". No one yet has been able to post a single evidentiary basis--except the one suggestion I made for a theory ("security stripping") that I believe is discredited. What troubles you I think is that there you know there is no explanation for 90% of the assertions posted here. Why don't you go to "Times a'wastin'" and post your evidentiary basis for believing the conspiracy was an inside job.

Greg Parker, whose intelligence and logic I admire even though I oft disagree with him, posted on that thread that he has never taken the position that the assassination was an inside job. Mr. Parker I find to be a person who does not engage in wild speculations and whose postings are based on careful research and always merit careful study.

Call me paranoid if you like, but, I firmly believe that any HARD evidence of culpability was destroyed a very long time ago.

What is left is a maze of conflicting evidence contained in mostly GOVERNMENT controlled documents.

If you like to pretend that our government did not have the power to control the evidence produced by it's own investigations that is fine, by all means, continue to live in a self-induced fantasy.

[Kathleen Collins]

Myra:

You wrote that I "demand explanations of the previously explained"; well, look at my thread, times a'wastin' where I asked members to post any evidentiary basis that the assassination was an "inside job". No one yet has been able to post a single evidentiary basis--except the one suggestion I made for a theory ("security stripping") that I believe is discredited. What troubles you I think is that there you know there is no explanation for 90% of the assertions posted here. Why don't you go to "Times a'wastin'" and post your evidentiary basis for believing the conspiracy was an inside job.

Where is Times a wastin?

Kathy

[Peter McGuire]

Myra:

Please cite when I have ever ridiculed the "mere idea that there could be a conspiracy". I believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK as fervently as any member does. We simply disagree on who the probable conspirators were.

You wrote that I "demand explanations of the previously explained"; well, look at my thread, times a'wastin' where I asked members to post any evidentiary basis that the assassination was an "inside job". No one yet has been able to post a single evidentiary basis--except the one suggestion I made for a theory ("security stripping") that I believe is discredited. What troubles you I think is that there you know there is no explanation for 90% of the assertions posted here. Why don't you go to "Times a'wastin'" and post your evidentiary basis for believing the conspiracy was an inside job.

Greg Parker, whose intelligence and logic I admire even though I oft disagree with him, posted on that thread that he has never taken the position that the assassination was an inside job. Mr. Parker I find to be a person who does not engage in wild speculations and whose postings are based on careful research and always merit careful study.

Call me paranoid if you like, but, I firmly believe that any HARD evidence of culpability was destroyed a very long time ago.

What is left is a maze of conflicting evidence contained in mostly GOVERNMENT controlled documents.

If you like to pretend that our government did not have the power to control the evidence produced by it's own investigations that is fine, by all means, continue to live in a self-induced fantasy.

Well put. And this

from a review on Amazon:

Some of you - please grow up. People engaged in conspiratorial conduct - political murderers and assassins - aren't in the habit of leaving hard evidence of their complicity lying around for others to find.

It's bad for one's health in the event that the person is sent to prison for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. I cannot remember the last time when an Oswald-did-it-alone proponent was willing to step out of their childish, fairy-tale naivety and take this hard truth into account, that is if the thought ever occurred to them in the first place. Instead of setting aside their naive demands, they say, "Where is the HARD evidence?" Kennedy's brain was hard evidence to show conspiracy - that there was more than one shooter - but, gee whiz, it seems to have disappeared - imagine that? - and so on with the other hard evidence conspicuously missing in this case. There's also the hard evidence of the bullet fragments in Governor Connelly's wrist that couldn't possibly have come from a bullet as perfect as number 399.

What the rest of us have done is to review the available film evidence (movies and stills), the ample eye-witness testimony from honest citizens, the blatant sins of omission and evidence of a cover-up perpetuated by the so-called honorable members of the Warren Commission, and come to our own conclusions. And the verdict isn't pretty.

There's been too much evidence that's been destroyed or suppressed that might have confirmed conspiracy, to justify the single-bullet theorists demanding anything other that they themselves begin to educate themselves in common sense, critical thinking, and learn to be a better judge of human nature. They have let the worst scoundrels off the hook and discredited the honest citizen witnesses who tried to tell us that something terribly wrong took place in Dallas more than 40 years ago, and that more than one shooter had to be involved. The legitimate HARD evidence of complicity has been destroyed.

[Tim Gratz]

One cannot deduce that anyone involved in the "cover-up" was involved in the assassination. Ny gosh, do you think Earl Warren was a conspirator? And of course there is legitimate evidence that RFK himself for reasons of his own helped to cover up certain things.

Moreover it is no proof that the assassination was an "inside job" to argue that IF it was an inside job then those inside the government who were responsible could have destroyed any evidence of their complicity. Never have I argued that the government did not have the ability to do this. On the other hand, depending what the evidence was, any destruction might have necessarily involved sufficient witnesses that someone would have come forward re the destruction. The Hosty note is a pretty good example of my point, don't you think.

I reiterate: one cannot use the absence of evidence of government complicity to PROVE government complicity. That is more than illogical; it's just plain silly.

[Peter McGuire]

I reiterate: one cannot use the absence of evidence of government complicity to PROVE government complicity. That is more than illogical; it's just plain silly.

If you say so, Tim.

[Tim Gratz]

Thank you, Peter. I accept your statement as being sincere. It has to be since my logic is impeccable.

[Tim Gratz]

Peter, I accept with gratitude your comment that I am probably a "nice guy" and I am sure you are also and that we would get along famously if we ever have an opportunity to meet. But our world views are certainly different.

I do not think the cover-up was nearly as extensive as you think nor do I believe that participants in the cover-up were necessarily complicit in the assassination. If the cover-up was as extensive as you believe, then surely someone would have talked.

We all know that LBJ persuaded Earl Warren to chair the Cover-Up Commission by telling him the risk of the death of forty million Americans should a foreign conspiracy be discovered. LBJ may or may not have believed it but by all accounts Warren did. That Warren then participated in a cover-up does not mean that the conspiracy extended all the way to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

It is superficially appealling but logically fallacious to assume the cover-up was planned by those who planned the assassination. The planners of the assassination may have known they had a "get out of jail free card" if, for instance, they knew that their designated patsy was working for the U.S. government, or if they planted evidence to suggest a foreign conspiracy.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Peter McGuire]

If the cover-up was as extensive as you believe, then surely someone would have talked.

Tim, hundreds of people "talked", where have you been?

The problem is that no one in an official capacity listened.

Just posted on 1963 Secret Service:

Attorney Mark Lane and Dallas Police officer Roger Craig discuss how security was stripped away at all levels.

This is not a theory, it is a FACT.

For those who say " someone would have talked" well my friend , someone , actually many, did just that.

Did anyone listen?

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Edited August 9, 2007 by Peter McGuire

[Tim Gratz]

Of course a lot of people talked, Peter. From John Martino to James Files.

That was not my point.

Who talked about being directed to participate in a government-initiated cover-up? The only thing that I recall that comes close is the Finck testimony in the Shaw trial.

No one talked about an assasination conspirator directing a cover-up.

[Dawn Meredith]

Thank you, Peter. I accept your statement as being sincere. It has to be since my logic is impeccable.

From a different Peter...no personal offense meant Tim, but your logic is impeccably illogical and self-blinding. Castro couldn't manage the cover-up; the Mafia couldn't manage the cover-up; even the CIA alone - nor the FBI could. It was a huge multi-pronged group at the highest inside levels [minus Castro...but insert anti-Castro forces]; no Russians; no Martians. Grow-up. Live with it. You don't live in a democracy nor in a legal state - you live in a oliarchical, tyrannical, thugocracy. You are either self-delusional (of the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome) or complicit and mocking us for Mockingbird.

You might be the nicest person, as a person....but your theories are [to me] nearly insane and blind. You keep saying there is no proof of x or y. The Forum is full to bursting with it, and the books we read more so. Read what you want; think what you want...but you live in a different country than I do - it only shares the same name...but had/has a different history and motives and secret movers behind that history.

Bravo, Peter. This sums up my view of Tim. I do think he is personally a nice guy, but his views on the assassination are another matter. He's -to quote author David Brock- "Blinded By the Right".

Dawn

[Peter McGuire]

Of course a lot of people talked, Peter. From John Martino to James Files.

That was not my point.

Who talked about being directed to participate in a government-initiated cover-up? The only thing that I recall that comes close is the Finck testimony in the Shaw trial.

No one talked about an assasination conspirator directing a cover-up.

Let's try again. And then I am done with this idiot:

People engaged in conspiratorial conduct - political murderers and assassins - aren't in the habit of leaving hard evidence of their complicity lying around for others to find.

It's bad for one's health in the event that the person is sent to prison for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. I cannot remember the last time when an Oswald-did-it-alone proponent was willing to step out of their childish, fairy-tale naivety and take this hard truth into account, that is if the thought ever occurred to them in the first place. Instead of setting aside their naive demands, they say, "Where is the HARD evidence?" Kennedy's brain was hard evidence to show conspiracy - that there was more than one shooter - but, gee whiz, it seems to have disappeared - imagine that? - and so on with the other hard evidence conspicuously missing in this case. There's also the hard evidence of the bullet fragments in Governor Connelly's wrist that couldn't possibly have come from a bullet as perfect as number 399.

What the rest of us have done is to review the available film evidence (movies and stills), the ample eye-witness testimony from honest citizens, the blatant sins of omission and evidence of a cover-up perpetuated by the so-called honorable members of the Warren Commission, and come to our own conclusions. And the verdict isn't pretty.

There's been too much evidence that's been destroyed or suppressed that might have confirmed conspiracy, to justify the single-bullet theorists demanding anything other that they themselves begin to educate themselves in common sense, critical thinking, and learn to be a better judge of human nature. They have let the worst scoundrels off the hook and discredited the honest citizen witnesses who tried to tell us that something terribly wrong took place in Dallas more than 40 years ago, and that more than one shooter had to be involved. The legitimate HARD evidence of complicity has been destroyed.

[Tim Gratz]

Peter, with all due respect (and humility) I am quite sure my IQ exceeds yours so stop with the name-calling!

And regarding your post, all of us (perhaps with one or two exceptions) believe the evidence is all but incontravertible that there was more than one shooter. But that does not mean that any of the shooters was shooting on orders (directly or indirectly) of someone inside the government.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Dawn Meredith]

Of course a lot of people talked, Peter. From John Martino to James Files.

That was not my point.

Who talked about being directed to participate in a government-initiated cover-up? The only thing that I recall that comes close is the Finck testimony in the Shaw trial.

No one talked about an assasination conspirator directing a cover-up.

The CIA guy-Gary Underhill- who told associates CIA was implicated, then was found with a bullet through his head. (With the wrong hand, of course). Dr. Charles Crenshaw said he received a call from LBJ telling him to get deathbed confession from LHO. Many people talked and you know it. It did not take much to get you dead.

Sure you throw in Files. Tim, you're just so d*** full of it.

[Tim Gratz]

So Dawn what is conspiratorial about LBJ being prescient enough to ask a doctor to try to get a death-bed confession from LHO? If anything that indicates to me that LBJ had no concern that LHO would in his dying declaration proclaim a conspiracy, at least not a conspiracy in which LBJ was involved!

The Underhill story deserves separate consideration. Of course I am familiar with it but have not looked at it for a while. You are correct however that Underhill's story if true would be indicative of an "inside" job. But if Underhill is the only such evidence??

[Jack White]

Thank you, Peter. I accept your statement as being sincere. It has to be since my logic is impeccable.

From a different Peter...no personal offense meant Tim, but your logic is impeccably illogical and self-blinding. Castro couldn't manage the cover-up; the Mafia couldn't manage the cover-up; even the CIA alone - nor the FBI could. It was a huge multi-pronged group at the highest inside levels [minus Castro...but insert anti-Castro forces]; no Russians; no Martians. Grow-up. Live with it. You don't live in a democracy nor in a legal state - you live in a oliarchical, tyrannical, thugocracy. You are either self-delusional (of the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome) or complicit and mocking us for Mockingbird.

You might be the nicest person, as a person....but your theories are [to me] nearly insane and blind. You keep saying there is no proof of x or y. The Forum is full to bursting with it, and the books we read more so. Read what you want; think what you want...but you live in a different country than I do - it only shares the same name...but had/has a different history and motives and secret movers behind that history.

Peter...how can you dispute Gratz? I read where his logic is impeccable and his IQ is higher

than yours. Those sound like great credentials. Now where did I just read that?

Jack