I HAVE SOLVED THE CASE!

[Charles Drago]

THE THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA

Ali will carry Norton for eight and drop him in nine.

Is it any wonder?

[Steven Gaal]

Nobody apparently did a lot of research to debunk my theory. JFK had announced his opposition to parochial aid BEFORE the 1960 election so his position as POTUS on the issue could hardly be considered a "doublecross". JFK probably had to oppose parochial aid to prove that the Catholic Church would not dictate policies to him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re David Ferrie and the Old Catholic Church of America, there was a man connected to the investigation of the assassination of RFK who had ties to that same group. Most of you probably remember that story.

+++++++++++++

TIM , THe 1963 POPE was a informant for OSS man JJA in WWII. Now the intel services monitored the RAT LINE that got some hot NAZI's out of Europe. Mark AARONS and John LOFTUS both stated (in the later 1998 edition of UNholy Trinity) that the Church ran the RAT LINE for MONEY. JJA was in position to blackmail the Church.... Wasnt 63 POPE part of RATLINE ?? .... so maybe what you call playfull stimulation "is" a diversion . (Willfull or not). Now everything Ive read of the LIMO driver calls him a strong-strong Catholic...maybe the POPE allowed lower Church officials to be recruited by CIA. Gollly TIM who would think CIA-Church could work together ...right ? .... TO recruit limo driver might be an easy job. +++ JFKs playboy nature will destroy the Church (or something similar)+++As you may know TIM , this 63 Pope not really a 'good' guy...he issued order (secret) saying that any Church offical helping a child molestation case with people outside the church would be excommunicated. FOR MANY PEOPLE JJA IS SUSPECT NUMERO UNO in the DALLAS murder case. THANKS PLAYFULL TIM sg

ps I believe this secret order came out because of the recent BOSTON cases.

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

TIM , The 1963 POPE was a informant for OSS man JJA in WWII."

I believe you're referring to Pope Pius XII, Steve. He was the one who squirreled away the works of art, family jewels, and valuable antiquities belonging to the Jews Hitler was "liquidating" in Aushwitz and Bergen-Belsen. He hid them down in the catacombs beneath the streets of Rome until the war was over, after which they could be "laundered" through the banks of Switzerland.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Im talking about Montini AKA , POPE PAUL VI ,Pope from June 21,63 to Aug 6,78 (BELOW FROM Wikipedia)

When in 1944 the Secretary of State died, the role was assumed directly by the pope, with Montini working directly under him.

Some of his work during this period remains shrouded in mystery, with claims and counter-claims, most notably concerning his involvement in the diplomatic activities of the Vatican during World War II. For example, the Vatican's repeated contacts with Count Galeazzo Ciano, fascist Minister of Foreign affairs and son-in-law of Mussolini, remains an issue of some criticism. Montini, who worked as a diplomat, has been accused of having obtained from the Fascists, at the beginning of the war, some promises of unclear advantages for the Vatican, in exchange of its eventual support. However, many other historians dispute this analysis.

The unique complexity of the war-time period saw Montini procure large sums of money to aid European Jews, while he is also alleged to have been involved in enabling some leading Nazi officers to escape the collapse of the Third Reich (see Ratlines). +++++++++++ JJA ran Montini in WWII.

thanks sg

[Tim Gratz]

Daniel, if I can call you that?

I apologize to YOU for my use of the third person.

I note that we DO agree on a few points and I am glad of that.

You wrote:

But that was not my point. We were discussing the issue of types of "operatives/agents" in this forum and what they might be "up to." Given that these kinds of things are a possibility, my point was/is that it seems highly unlikely to me to find some 60s-type, New Left-type radicals who would get along real well with a Bush Republican (dwindling towards non-existence though these may be). Assuming that the Bush Republican is still inclined to be an apologist for the Bush War, and that the Left radical isn't some mere Yuppie in disguise, it's quite incongruous to me to find the supposed radical saying to the ideological conservative, "Yeah! let's get our newspaper ad, and let's get our special prosecutor, and let's get our congressional investigation, and by God we'll show 'em they can't push us around! Where's the bandwagon -- who's with us?!!"

Why would it be incongruous for a Bush Republican to want to solve the assassination? I think every patriotic American of whatever political allegiance should want to solve the case and bring any conspirators who may still be alive to justice. Can we agree on that much, Daniel?

And if that is the case. why would it be incongruous for a Bush Republican to unite with people from the opposite side of the political spectrum to work to solve the assassination? What is your point? That I should be so revulsed by a leftist radical asharing my opinion on the need to solve the JFK case that I would refuse to join forces with him? Or vice-versa? IMO that makes no sense and is plain wrong.

As you may remember i was involved last spring in an effort to bring attention to the Key West community of the horrors of modern day slavery. While working on that effort, I read an interesting article (and I am not going to take the time to find it now) of an alliance, probably far "stranger" than the one you describe, of anti-abortion activists with NOW pro-abortion activists to work to stop human trafficking, one of the great evils that still exist in the world (and more important than solving the JFK case. since as Bobby once remarked, solving the case won't bring JFK "back" while stopping human trafficking will save thousands of innocent victims). The anti-abortionists of course consider abortion to be murder while the pro-abortionists believe the anti-abortionists are infringing on a woman's right over her body. But they have set their differences aside to work on this most important issue.

Let me suggest a side benefit (perhaps unintended consequence because it is not the purpose of the alliance): an encouragement of civility in public discourse, a great benefit to society. When one works with a person of the opposite political stripe, it becomes very difficult to demonize that person, as well as easier to understand where they are coming from, and perhaps even moderate one's views. Let's even take the abortion debate as a case in point. Many pro-abortionists (including the Clintons) while opposing the criminalization of abortion, still decry its prevalence. A dialogue between the two sides may encourage efforts to minimize abortion. And while an anti-abortionist will still lament the death of a single human person, he or she will still applaud the thousands of lives saved through such efforts.

Back to JFK: I think there is a rapidly diminishing window of opportunity to "solve" the case while witnesses are still alive. In order to accomplish that, I think everyone ought to join together. I suggest those who refuse to do so are more interested in feeling themselves important by pontificating on the case than they are in getting something official started that will probably answer some (hopefully many) if not all of the questions of the assassination.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Oops! Sorry!

Edited September 4, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Daniel, you wrote:

I'm equally wary of anyone who makes 5 posts a day, or starts nearly a dozen new threads in one week (that would include John Simkin, in case you're wondering).

Why be wary of either Simkin or me? Be neither wary nor weary.

Moreover, at least some of my new threads make sense. Same thing goes for John's.

By the way, re one of my points, I just listened to Bill Clinton on Larry King making the same point: that when people of differing political philosophies work together on something, they often learn to respect each other and respect the sincerity of their differences.

You also wrote:

I admit to being extremely wary of anyone who would write and post all of that quoted above in less than half an hour after my post. At best, it doesn't seem evidence of much reflection.

To avoid contributing to any further wariness on your part, I had given serious relection to not posting this response for two hours, but then I thought what the heck. . .