Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tim Gratz's Forum Behaviour


Recommended Posts

And Turk knew what he was doing and Segretti was, IMO, an idiot. That was also the impression of Woodward (or was it Bernstein?) when they first met him. My thought was: He;'s pretending to be James Bond but he's really Woody Allen (or maybe Maxwell Smart).

Ulasewicz was, however, clearly a well-trained professional intelligence officer. He was shaped a bit like Bill Harvey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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!

What can you tell us about Ulasewicz at Chappaquidik and in the OJ case? He seems

to show up where the "action" is.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, this is my evidence, showing that the Secret Service, or at least some of them, were complicit in President Kennedy's murder. At Love Field, Jackie and the President were eventually put in a limo. The car was full with the Connallys and the 2 secret service men in the front seat. Agent Greer was the driver.

Forgive me if I don't remember their names, but I'm sure I'll learn them: a Secret Service man began to jog next to President Kennedy as the limo started. Suddenly, another Secret Service man in the car behind them yelled something to the first SS. And you see Kennedy's SS man throw his arms up in the air as apparently he was told to stay on the SS car and not jog near Kennedy. Clint Hill on this video tape, made no move to run next to Jackie. I believe the Secret Service were told to stand down Nov. 22, 1963. The night before they were getting drunk. In one photo, it looks to me like Clint Hill, Jackie's SS man, had on a makeshift bullet-proof vest on under his suit jacket.

But the heart of what I am saying, the pantomime at Love Field, done, in my opinion, for the sake of the camera appears on the DVD The Story Behind the Story: JFK - Dallas, Nov.22, 1963. You can also see it on youtube.com. They had to know some camera was trained on that limo, and they made a show of it. Like, It's not my fault. So and So made me get back onto the second car. Clint Hill got on the back of the limo behind Jackie every once and awhile through Dallas. But it wasn't till Kennedy got his head blown off that Clint Hill rushed to Jackie's defense.

On another note: I often wonder what would have happened if Jackie had sat on the right side of the limo.

That is my evidence that it was an inside job. Look at that footage.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always assumed that Rybka was jogging at Love Field to get onto the back of JFK's moving limo, till told to refrain.

If he thought he was going to jog beside the limo all the way to Dealey Plaza, I'm sure he was relieved to be left behind at Love Field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He hijacked my thread yesterday, on Bush.

He emailed me a full libel threat a while back, to sue

me in Federal Court (altho dis barred? )

I think he is not a

legitimate colleague

but more of a shill/harassment rat.

I have him on IGNORE: USER

so I dont' see his posts........................................

ADMINISTRATORS are encouraged to remove TIM G from these boards,

and I deeply regret his return to the active posting

membership in this ED FORUM system.

I am a professional historian and it is difficult to correspond with

JOKERS

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clark admitted he posted a statement about me which was libelous and which he simply made up. In other words, he lied. After I threatened suit, he admitted the lie and retracted the statement and I was, I submit, gracious to forgive him and take no action against him.

Clark writes that he started a thread to the effect "What Will Historians Think About George Bush" and he claims I "hijacked" it. Members can refer to that thread. All I did was post that I thought how history records POTUS 43 will most likely depend on what the final outcome is in Iraq. That post was clearly responsive to the question he asked. No way was it "hijacking". Moreover, my answer was one that I think we can all agree upon, regardless of our view on the war in Iraq. The better the outcome in Iraq, the more favorable will be historians' judgment on POTUS 43. Conversely, if the outcome is bad, the verdict on POTUS 43 will also likely be bad. His presidency is now closely linked to the decision to invade Iraq. In any event, in no event did my response "hijack" the thread he started.

Now this man who claims to be a professional historian calls me a "rat". I think members can evaluate that I do my best to never ever sink to name-calling. And I always attempt to respect those with whom I disagree.

Enough said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a harassment rat ........

Sure don't believe in any conspiracies!

Maybe it was the KGB, hyuck hyuck hyuck....

I comment on everything !!!!!!!!

I am the harassment rat, hyuck hyuck hyuck........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter you never seem to be able to construct a rational argument.

It was Clark who claimed I hijacked his thread.

It is clear I did not do that.

******************************

I notice that others have posted some rational arguments for an "inside job" that merit discussion; you have not.

You claim there was a "huge" conspiracy of "high level" government officials but you haved refused to answer my question re just how huge you think it was. Nor have you responded to my objection re how could such a huge conspiracy be created without running into even one person of conscience who would object and report it.

Nor have you commented on my reasoning re the Bishop matter and what that means.

Well, IMO, it just bothers the heck out of you that there is so little (if any) evidence for this "huge conspiracy" that you are so certain existed and killed JFK. That is why you are annoyed by me--because you have no answers to my questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it's my job to defend Tim, but I feel compelled to point out that he is not as stuck in his ways as some might believe. A few years ago he was leaning towards Cuba or the KGB. Now he considers the mob a likely suspect. In another few years--who knows--maybe he'll conclude it was the CIA, and then we can all do a little jig.

I met Tim while on vacation in Key West and would be thoroughly surprised if he was involved in any deliberate disinformation campaign. He's just a little--shall we say--enthusiastic.

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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...