Jump to content

Tim Gratz's Forum Behaviour

Recommended Posts

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.

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

And regarding your post, all of us believe the evidence is all but incontravertible that there was more than one shooter.


As I have asked of others who claim great expertise in "logic":

Is this the same "logic" which dictated that Z313 was the last shot fired?

Is this the same "logic" which dictates that the WC was not telling the facts, yet nevertheless believed that Z313 was the last shot fired?

Personally, that appears, as Mr. Spock would say, "quite illogical"!



(perhaps with one or two exceptions)

Tim, don't be bashful here! State it as fact that Tom Purvis does not believe this BS!

Never did! Never Will! And, please make it in "bold" as above in order that all will readily identify that merely due to my posting here, I do not readily identify with those who chase mythological beings.

Who was the other one????????????

Mark does not count as he is too intelligent to actually be from Planet Earth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dawn. I suspect you will not agree but I find Professor McAdams' views on the Underhill matter rather persuasive:


Underhill really was not in a position to gain the knowledge he claimed. Moreover, unlike Martino's statements, his were made long AFTER the assassination.

So I would not count Underhill as any support for the theory that the assassination was an "inside job".

It seems to me we are left with the "confessions" of Morales, Wheaton and Hunt and the issue of the alleged security stripping that I believe is effectively countered by the security in other cities.

We do have the recent post by Mr. Drago re the book by George Michael Evica--that I still need to research.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, is that all there is to it? (I.e., the theory that the assassination was an "inside job" planned by people within some branch or agency of the federal government.) If I have missed any other evidentiary basis for the theory, I trust someone will point it out to me.


Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still await even ONE evidentiary basis for asserting that any employees or agents of the U.S. power structure were involved in the conspiracy. I suspect the ol' devil may need to get himself a nice warm winter coat before that happens!

One of many, in the form of an author's conclusion reached after researching one of the most important, well-documented, and groundbreaking analyses of the assassination and its larger context: A Certain Arrogance, by George Michael Evica:

"Whoever directed the Oswald [assassination] Game was thoroughly knowledgeable about both the OSS's and CIA's counterintelligence manipulation of Quakers, Unitarians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed clerics and World Council of Churches officials as intelligence and espionage contacts, assets, and informants."

Read the book.

Case made.

And in the spirit of full disclosure: I wrote the Introduction.

I originally posted the above in Tim's "Time's A'Wastin'" thread. He references it here with: "We do have the recent post by Mr. Drago re the book by George Michael Evica--that I still need to research."

In the meantime, perhaps we all would benefit from the definition of the "U.S. power structure" as Tim perceives it.

For the record: Tim telephoned me for the first and, to date, only time earlier this week. The call was unexpected, and other than exchanges on this Forum it represents the only direct communication between us. We chatted about his experiences in Rhode Island, and made what can only be described as "small talk" about the JFK matter. I found Tim to be polite, engaging, and respectful.

Further, and to be blunt, I find Tim's premise for this thread to be almost unimaginably wrongheaded. In order to maintain his position, he must dismiss the scholarship of the likes of Peter Dale Scott, the aforementioned Professor Evica, Gerald McKnight, David Wrone, David Mantik, Vince Palamara, Gaeton Fonzi ...

And no, I am not presenting an argument from false authority. The authorities I cite are beyond reproach.

Simple naysaying, I'm afraid, does not a counter-argument make.

This sort of exchange is, well, problematic. I am not in a position to challenge Tim's motives for instigating it.

Charles Drago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Excellent. What book is this from Peter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also enjoyed my brief chat with Mr. Drago. Everything he said about me I would also say about him.

But it matters not what authors may think about the assassination. The only thing that counts is EVIDENCE. And the evidence for an "inside job" is just not there. To paraphrase a movie quote: "There is no there there."

I am absolutely convinced from viewing photos of JFK's other trips, including his trip to Key West right after the CMC (and Key West has a very heavy Cuban population) that there was no secuirity stripping in Dallas. McAdam's essay on Underhill convinced me that Underhill was not in any circle to know anything about CIA people planning the assassination. So we are left with the "confessions" of David Morales (which could have been Morales taunting his pro-JFK friends); Gene Wheaton (who apparently says his statements were just a joke) and E. Howard Hunt, whose verbal statements contradict what he wrote in his book. And I suppose we also have the fact that there is a photo in DP of someone who looks like Hunt.

I am an admirer of Mr. Fonzi's work but he has stated that the Odio incident is itself proof of a conspiracy and in my perspective that is flat wrong because there are innocent explanations of what happened with Odio, including the theory (I know a lot of you accept it) that LHO was a goverrnment "dangle" who was attempting to look Cubans (of whatever persuasion) who had violent thoughts about JFK. And that could very well be why he made his remark to Leopoldo, or Leopoldo made the remark to Odio.

If the theory that it was an "inside job" is so compelling, it seems to me that one of the intelligent people on this forum ought to be able to easily recite four evidentiary bases for it. A list of authors "of impeccable integrity" who buy into the "inside job" theory gets us no place. Surely if it is so "open and shut" someone can regurgitate four FACTS or EVIDENCE upon which they base that belief and so assert in their books.

If it were as EASY as you people say, methinks it should be a lot easier to just list the steps: One, Two, Three, Four. What is so hard about that (unless they are not there)?

Peter said: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." (It's actually not a Biblical quotation but let's not quibble.) So just tell me in a few VERY SIMPLE sentences: What should I see?

I think I can assure you if these pages were read by an intelligent person not into this case that person would have just as hard a job seeing what you all seem to think is so obvious.

Just tell me what the evidence is. My ears and eyes are open, ladies and gentlemen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I take it that Peter is asserting that the fact (perhaps) that there was someone in DP with false secret service credentials means those credentials must have been created by people inside our government. Now without saying for certain that a person with secret service credits was working for Casstro, from what i know of the operations of the DGI, the DGI was capabl;e of creating such false credentials had it wanted to do so. Whether such false documentation could have been created by persons not associated with an intelligence service may be a different question but even that is not beyond probability (I mean as I understand it it was just a quick flash of "credentials" to someone).

So even if we accept that someone was impersonating a secret service agent in DP, I do not think that is prrof of an "inside job".

And note Peter's last post. Rather than rising to my challenge and citing evidence, all he can do is call me names. That all Peter can do is stoop to name-calling is, I submit, is only further proof that "there is no there there".

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.



Gotta agree; that was well said Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter wrote:

"It was a huge multi-pronged group at the highest inside levels. . ."

And not a single member of this group ever talked, not even a death-bed confession to clear his conscience. Strikes me as rather incredible.

Tell me, Peter, just how large a group are you talking about? Since you call it "huge" I assume you mean there were at least 50 high-level conspirators? Or was it 100?

It also strikes me that if this large a group was assembled, there would have been at least one person of sufficient moral integrity to refuse to get involved who would have reported the plotting to law enforcement authorities. All it would take would be a single person of consciense. I think that is one important reason why I cannot accept a "huge" conspiracy of "high-level" people within the government.

And please remember there was talk from mafia-related sources, including John Martino before the assassination (the very morning of that dark day in Dallas) and Trafficante and Marcello after the assassination.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems this has all been gone-around, complete with a denial from Tim before


I read through it all quickly. Since that time Bill Turner a few times posted on this Forum. Was he ever asked about his sources on this matter?

Yes, I asked Bill about this when I originally posted this information on the forum. However, Tim had already contacted him and as a result Bill refused to talk about the case. I assume Tim had threatened him with legal action, his usual tactic. Whatever happened, Bill said it was a very unpleasant phone-call. He had already threatened Shanet Clark and myself for raising this issue. Tim was never able to explain why he never sued Richard Sprague for the original claim about Tim's relationship with Bremer.

I assume Bill Turner had found out about Tim's activities when he was investigating the Young Americans for Freedom. They had a reputation for carrying out dirty tricks. See "Big Brother and the Holding Company: The World Behind Watergate" (edited by Steve Weissman)


See also the research of Donald Freed on this subject.


It was not surprising when Nixon recruited Anthony Ulasewicz to do the really nasty stuff, he would have got his soldiers from the YAF. Ulasewicz testified that he met Tim after the dirty tricks campaign had been brought to an end. I do not believe this. I suspect Ulasewicz recruited Tim for the Arthur Bremer operation.



I suspect Nixon took the fall for Watergate in order to avoid a full investigation into his involvement in taking out Edward Kennedy and George Wallace, the two men who could have denied him the presidency. The CIA knew about this via Richard Ober and this allowed them to get rid of Nixon who posed a threat to the power of the agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Why do you 'hang out' here?

Eager to enlighten us? You don't offer any enlightenment.

Try to convince us of something?...doesn't seemed to have worked one iota.

Into S&M?

Or is it you are here to confuse and confound, made topics loop back and not proceed....that's my bet!

An open challenge to Tim Gratz. We will both allow someone to file FOIA requests for all agency documents on us [separately] and allow them to be made public on the Forum. Anything to hide?

To wind us up and waste our time and sabatoge threads.

Obviously he's succeeding with many.

I propose a strategy of totally ignoring him and letting the mods do what they think is best.

Over and out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John has stated that he was upset that I had threatened to sue him.

Now he posts stating I was never able to explain why I did not sue Sprague for his original statement linking me to Bremer.

I absolutely know I have posted this before: Sprague was long dead when I first read the remark in his book. It is one of the first things I learned in law school that you cannot sue a dead person!

So, John, tell me, do I have to sue you to prove my innocence? That's what you seem to imply when you wonder why I did not sue Sprague. Understand this is not a threat or a promise to sue you, John, I just need you to explain your reasoning why you attribute some significance to the fact that I did not sue Sprague.

And I also know this was posted before. I did not consider my conversation with Mr. Turner unpleasant in the least nor did I ever threaten to sue him (for what? he had never written anything about me.) He told me he had never discussed this matter with Sprague and he had no idea what Sprague was talking about. He also said he had never heard my name before I introduced myself to him.

I had never even heard of Arthur Bremer until he was arrested for shooting Wallace.

I do not believe Ulasewicz testified he only met me after the dirty tricks operation ended. It is my understanding (from Ulasewicz's book) that CREEP found out that Segretti was being run by Dwight Chapin out of the WH precisely because I had reported Segretti's attempt to recruit me to CREEP. But Segretti's dirty tricks campaign continued even after Ulasewicz met me in Wisconsin. In fact, Segretti and some of the other people he recruited outside of Wisconsin went to jail for participating in his operation.

The fact that I protested about Segretti to CREEP is also reported in Theodore White's book about the fall of Richard Nixon.

I was the good guy who tried (unsuccessfully as it turned out) to STOP the dirty tricks operation in part because I reasoned that whoever was running Segretti, the operation would one day bring disgrace to Richard Nixon. Of course, I had no idea of the other things that were being run out of the White House!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking back at the original thread, I reread the passage in Ulasewicz's book. While it is generally accurate, it is wrong about one important point. Ulasewicz came to my folk's house and set up a tape recording to record Segretti's call to me (I had set a specific time for the call). But Segretti never called. I am certain of that. I think Segretti had been told to get away from me BEFORE that. It is also my recollection that Ulasewicz used his real name with me, but I could be wrong about that. Obviously I saw him identified when he was testifying before the Watergate Committee.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

I'm working on a project with Dick Tuck, legendary Democratic prankster and all-round bon vivant, still vibrant in his 80's. One thing that is striking is the difference between Tuck's antics, annoying though they were, and Segretti's is that the former had a certain joy about them and the latter was full of cobwebby, crawly dark things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...