Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Researchers: Communists as Sources


Recommended Posts

Throughout this year I have constantly argued with Tim Gratz about the use of “communist” sources to solve the JFK assassination. The latest example is on the Felix Ismael Rodriguez thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4183

This is an important thread and I don’t want it sidetracked. Therefore, I thought it might be a good idea to start a new thread on this important subject. I say that because a lot of the sources available do come from people that could be labelled “communist”. For example, a lot of sources come from the secret services of Cuba and the Soviet Union. In theory, all the individuals behind these sources are “communists”.

It is also clear that Tim is keen to label anyone on the left (or anyone who has ever been on the left) as a “communist”. That in itself creates serious problems. As a result of Operation Mockingbird, the traditional media in the United States acquiesced to the idea that Oswald was the lone gunman. Therefore, the early critics of the “lone gunman” theory tended to come from the left. (A small group on the far right also argued that JFK had been killed as a result of a conspiracy of communists). As the left was unpopular in the United States (mainly because of the Cold War and the impact that McCarthyism had on the American consciousness) it became a common tactic for those involved in the cover-up to label Warren Report critics as “communists”.

This can be seen on the Kenneth Rahn website. Ironically he calls it the Academic JFK Assassination Site.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html

I have invited Rahn to join our Forum so we can discuss his idea that the conspiracy theorists are part of a “leftist” plot. He refuses claiming we are not an academic site and is not “educational”. Rahn has a complete section on the “critics” of the Warren Commission. In a series of biographies Rahn attempts to show that the “critics” are “leftists” with a political agenda. This appears to be the primary source of Tim’s attacks on anyone who attempts to use sources that can be identified with the left.

Tim first raised this issue when I posted about Thomas Buchanan’s book, Who Killed Kennedy? This is an important book for those interested in the history of the cover-up. As far as I can see, Buchanan’s book is the first to claim that Oswald as the lone-gunman theory does not make sense (May, 1964). It has to be remembered that Buchan was writing before the Warren Commission was published. In fact, at this stage, Buchanan, relying on information from within the Warren Commission, is convinced that the report will claim that it was a conspiracy. How wrong he was. Whoever was arguing that on the commission (we now know that three members of the Commission: Richard B. Russell, John S. Cooper and Thomas H. Boggs, did think there was a conspiracy) were persuaded to go along with Dulles and co by the time it was published.

I first posted information about this on the thread “Thomas Buchanan: Did he solve the JFK case” on 9th January, 2205:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2846

Tim’s reaction to this post was very interesting:

John, I assume when you posted you did not know that Buchanan had been a member of the Communist Party since at least 1948 (or you certainly would have so informed us).  Since the Communist Party is an obvious suspect in the assassination, Buchanan is hardly a "disinterested" observor.  As the article notes, he could have written the book under Communist discipline.  We know that the KGB did circulate false information about the assassination, including a cleverly forged letter from Leo Harvey Oswald.  See The Shield and the Sword (based on official archives of the KGB smuggled out by a defector)....

John, you had criticized (without reading) Trento's book claiming KGB involvement because Trento does not cite his sources. (But you have promised to read it.)  I gather that Buchanan does not name his sources either.  Moreover, as I have mentioned, Trento names the KGB agents who he believes were involved.  Yet Buchanan does not apparently name any conspirator other than Ruby (obviously), Oswald and Tippitt (both dead).  He does not name the Texas oilman he claims funded the assassination.  He does not name any of the Dallas police officers who he claims helped Oswald escape from the Texas School Book Depository or helped Ruby kill Oswald.  Why would he not name these names?  Remember, in 1964 these people could still have been interviewed, indicted, convicted and fried. 

This became a common pattern in Tim’s postings. An attack on the credibility of a source if it came from the “left” and the use of books by people like Trento to argue that JFK was assassinated by Castro/Soviets.

But Tim goes further than just questioning the credibility of the witness. He actually believes that once labelled as a communist, that person must never be believed. For example, on 10th January, 2005, Tim, it answering to Shanet’s comments about Buchanan’s claim that JFK was having secret negotiations with Castro in 1963 (something we now know was true), claims:

Quoting Shanet:

Fascinating. The Tom Buchanan book, almost lost to history, now emerges as the Kennedys' own backchannel to the truth from 1964.

Shanet:  Contact Sen. Kennedy.  Find out whether this is true or whether Buchanan was a xxxx.  Remember, not all liars are communists, but all communists are liars (it's their philosophy!).

As a historian you always need to ask questions of the source of information. Therefore, if someone is a communist or a member of the Republican Party, you must take this information into account. However, what you should not do, is to say that because the source has been produced by a “communist” it cannot be believed. That is just as ridiculous as me saying, for example, that anything a Republican says should not be seen as the truth.

There is another problem with this approach to studying the JFK assassination. It relies on the old Joe McCarthy tactic of labelling anyone on the left as a “communist”. Once that is done, according to Tim’s logic, they are clearly lying about what they know about the JFK assassination. This is what Tim said on the 10th January:

John, I assume when you posted you did not know that Buchanan had been a member of the Communist Party since at least 1948 (or you certainly would have so informed us).  Since the Communist Party is an obvious suspect in the assassination, Buchanan is hardly a "disinterested" observor.  As the article notes, he could have written the book under Communist discipline.  We know that the KGB did circulate false information about the assassination, including a cleverly forged letter from Leo Harvey Oswald.  See The Shield and the Sword (based on official archives of the KGB smuggled out by a defector).

The idea that a “communist” is always a xxxx is too ridiculous an idea to even bother to get involved in a debate about. However, the idea that Buchanan is a communist and is therefore an agent of the KGB needs to be looked at in some detail.

The point Rahn makes about Buchanan is that he is obviously lying because he was “fired by the Washington Evening Star in 1948 when they learned that he was a member of the Communist party.” I suppose there are still some Americans who are still so committed to free speech that they believe it is right to sack people because they are members of the Communist Party. Rahn (and Tim Gratz?) probably fall into this category.

Of course most people who were sacked and blacklisted during McCarthyism who were not members of the Communist Party. They had been members during the 1930s when people all over the world thought that the best way to solve the problems of inequality and to fight fascism was to be members of the Communist Party. They were wrong. They later discovered that the Soviet Communist Party was not committed to freedom and democracy (Spanish Civil War) and were willing to deals with fascism (Nazi-Soviet Pact). The vast majority had left the party by the late 1930s. I don’t know if Buchanan had left the party by 1948. I think he should have done but he is entitled to his own political beliefs. What Buchanan probably refused to do, as did all those who were blacklisted, was to refuse to provide information to the FBI and the House Senate Committee for Un-American Activities, about fellow members. I think that was a honourable act on their part. Especially when it meant the end of their careers.

A large number of these blacklisted people came to live in Europe because we still believed in freedom of speech. Buchanan settled in France and wrote freelance articles for L’Express. It was probably here that he met Jean Daniel. I assume that he was the main source for the story. Daniel's information came I expect from Fidel Castro. His information came from the network of spies who had infiltrated the CIA and the anti-Castro groups in Florida. Daniel was actually meeting Castro on behalf of the Kennedy administration on the very day JFK was assassinated in Dallas.

The fact that Buchanan came from the left helps him in his research into the case. It provides him with source material (much of which comes from what the Cuban government knew about the assassination via its ability to infiltrate the anti-Castro groups in America).

Buchanan also understands the complexity of left-wing politics. For example, he examines the contents of the Daily Worker newspaper that Oswald was seen to be holding in the famous backyard photograph. He points out that the newspaper is full of support for the administration of JFK. For the first time in 30 years Communist Party membership had begun to increase. Gus Hall, the leader of the American Communist Party had already announced that he would not stand in 1964. Instead he urged members to vote for JFK. As Buchanan points out, it was completely illogical for a Communist Party member to be involved in the assassination of JFK.

Buchanan also draws attention to the fact that Oswald was holding two left-wing newspapers in the famous backyard photograph. He points out that these newspapers were published by two organizations that were at war with each other. The person who established this phoney picture was unaware that no one on the left would have been a supporter of both newspapers. In fact, Stalinists hated Trotskyites more than they hated the capitalists.

Tim has constantly returned to these theme that all communists are not to be trusted. This has happened it several different threads over the last couple of days. For example, in the What Did JFK Know? When Did He Know It?, The CIA Plots thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4096

In my opinion, the Mafia is about as close to evil incarnate as can be.  I would make no moral distinction between the Mafia and Communists with respect to their total lack of morality and willingness to kill.

I replied that the problem with Tim’s use of language was that it stopped him from thinking logically about what he was saying.

I pointed out that Edgar Ray Killen, a Ku Klux Klan member and part-time preacher, was found guilty this week for taking the lives of three civil rights workers in 1964. You can read more about the case here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4157

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAburning.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAschwerner.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAgoodmanA.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAchaney.htm

When Killen was interviewed in 1999 about the case he justified the killings by describing the civil rights activists as “communists”. This was a common term used by Ku Klux Klan members. After all, they were guilty of lynching trade union leaders as well as civil rights workers.

In many ways James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were communists. They believed in equality. They thought that all men and women should be treated the same. I don’t have much time for the American Communist Party (far too willing to support what was going on in the Soviet Union for my liking), however, they were consistent in their support for civil rights in the Deep South. Several of their members, including Viola Liuzzo, were murdered as a result of their efforts.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAliuzzo.htm

This is of course inconvenient information for people on the far right like Tim who remained silent during the 1950s and early 1960s about the human rights abuses taking place in the Deep South. In fact, these abuses date back to a deal done by the Republican Party and the racists in the Deep South following the end of the American Civil War.

The latest example of these “communist” comments came in the thread on Félix Ismael Rodríguez.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4183

I quoted an article by Granma International by Jean-Guy Allard that argued that there was a link between Rodriguez to both the JFK assassination and George H. W. Bush.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/33alo/30george-i.html

This of course incensed Tim as it illustrated the close relationship between the Republican Party and the assassination. As we found on the recent thread on C. Douglas Dillon, Tim is highly sensitive to anybody mentioning anyone as a suspect who is in anyway associated with the Republican Party. As someone suggested at the time, it appeared that Tim was defending his father against this accusation. As I replied, the only reason for this irrational behaviour was because Dillon was a member of the Republican Party.

The same goes for Félix Ismael Rodríguez. As he is a buddy of George Bush (both father and son) and hates John Kerry, he must be protected at all costs.

Serious researchers cannot allow themselves be so partisan as to want to believe that members of the Republican Party can do no wrong. In fact, the recent record of the Republican Party has been truly appalling. The Democratic Party might have been the party of corruption in the 1940s and 1950s (orchestrated by Lyndon Johnson) but Bush has taken it to new levels. For further information on this read Dan Briody’s The Halliburton Agenda and Robert Bryce’s Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate.

The purpose of this thread is to argue that it is important that JFK researchers look closely at the background of the person who produces any source related to the assassination. However, the fact that a source has been produced by a “communist”, “former communist” or “leftist” should not be in itself a reason to dismiss the source as “worthless”, “disinformation” or the work of “liars”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

John. presumably the essence of what is termed "McCarthyism" is making false or reckless charges against someone.

You wrote:

It is also clear that Tim is keen to label anyone on the left (or anyone who has ever been on the left) as a “communist”.

I highly resent this statement. Based on the information in Ken Rahn's web-site, I stated that Buchanan was a communist. Who else have I ever labeled a communist who was not a self-admitted communist (e.g. Fidel)? Please cite specific instances.

Speaking of false charges, and referencing the Rodriguez thread in which you posted an essay in a paper that is the official organ of an ADMITTEDLY Communist state accusing Rodriguez of being an assassin, here is what Larry Hancock had to say about that:

We know absolutely nothing of Rodriquez activities in 1963 (he avoids that period as well as comment on Kennedy or the assassination in his own book) and I have seen nothing that would tie him to the operation against JFK.

On the Rodriguez thread I asked you to state whether you agreed that there was no evidence to label Douglas Dillon and Sam Papich as assassins. You failed to answer that question. Why are you unwilling to answer this question? You know those charges are baseless and reckless. For you to fail to admit that (thereby impliedly endorsing the validity of those charges) lessens your reputation as a historian. And that is not just my own opinion.

Reckless charges are indeed being made on this Forum. But they are not being made by me.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

And John I believe you are wrong again.

You wrote the following:

For example, on 10th January, 2005, Tim, it answering to Shanet’s comments about Buchanan’s claim that JFK was having secret negotiations with Castro in 1963 (something we now know was true), claims:

QUOTE(Tim Gratz @ Jan 10 2005, 03:11 AM)

Quoting Shanet:

Fascinating. The Tom Buchanan book, almost lost to history, now emerges as the Kennedys' own backchannel to the truth from 1964.

Shanet: Contact Sen. Kennedy. Find out whether this is true or whether Buchanan was a xxxx. Remember, not all liars are communists, but all communists are liars (it's their philosophy!).

I rechecked. This reference had NOTHING whatsoever to do with JFK having secret negotiations with Castro in 1963. Rather it had to do with a claim made by Buchanan that Sen. Kennedy had personally contacted Buchanan and arranged for Buchanan to contact Nicholas Katzenbach, a claim I found to be preposterous on its face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John I pointed out to you that there was no evidence whatsoever in the Allard article to link Rodriguez to the assassination. Yet you afain quote the article even after Larry Hancock advised you and the other members of this Forum that there was no evidence to link Rodriguez to the assassination.

Now you argue without any basis that the Republican Party was linked to the assassination. You did not even qualify it to say "members of the Republican Party"; your statement is that the Party itself was linked to the assassination.

Let me suggest that while Dillon being dead cannot sue Shanet for his reckless charges, Rodriguez is still alive and he could very well sue you. Prudence itself would suggest that if you want to alllow this forum to denigrate into making basaeless charges against people, best to confine it to dead people such as Dillon who cannot sue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
John I pointed out to you that there was no evidence whatsoever in the Allard article to link Rodriguez to the assassination.  Yet you afain quote the article even after Larry Hancock advised you and the other members of this Forum that there was no evidence to link Rodriguez to the assassination.

Now you argue without any basis that the Republican Party was linked to the assassination.  You did not even qualify it to say "members of the Republican Party"; your statement is that the Party itself was linked to the assassination.

Let me suggest that while Dillon being dead cannot sue Shanet for his reckless charges, Rodriguez is still alive and he could very well sue you.  Prudence itself would suggest that if you want to alllow this forum to denigrate into making basaeless charges against people, best to confine it to dead people such as Dillon who cannot sue.

Tim, you're right and you're wrong. John is fully within his rights to question Felix Rodriguez' involvement. In order to prove John guilty, Felix would have to show that John had NO REASON to believe his assertions were true, a loophole, you may recall, that helped Liddy avoid losing to Ida Wells when he spouted on the radio that she'd run a call girl ring from the DNC. If character assassination is in itself a crime, Castro could sue you on the same grounds, and have a much better case than Rodriguez.

I think John did take your comments about Buchanan and Kennedy out of context, but I think you're wrong to call Buchanan's statements ludicrous. As I recall he tried to contact Ted Kennedy and Kennedy arranged for him to talk to Katzenbach, or some such thing. If I remember correctly, John gave the implication the book was written with Kennedy's permission, when I gathered no such implication from reading my copy.

John is right, however, in his basic point. You are extremely unnerved whenever anyone accuse the Repubs of wrong-doing, yet are extremely eager to denounce all communists, and to hint that noted leftists are in fact communists. And not just Buchanan. Specifically, you have made repeated comments about Averill Harriman being a secret communist, or some such thing. Which is absolute garbage. Harriman's family helped fund the Nazis and he was the boss and business partner of Prescott Bush. While Harriman favored the Diem coup he did so under the apparent belief that Diem's weakness and feuding with the Buddhists was helping to build a communist opposition within South Vietnam. Roger Hilsman and Henry Cabot Lodge felt the same way, and were even more adamant about Diem's removal. And yet you singled out Harriman as somehow deliberately forcing the coup in order to throw South Vietnam into disarray and to help the cause of worldwide communism. Malarkey! If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Harriman was a blue blood elitist of the first order--a champion polo player--to paint him as a communist is far more absurd than painting Dillon as a murderer. I can only conclude that your doing so was motivated by Harriman's being a prominent backer of the Democratic party in the 80's, against the son of his former partner. Since Harriman's wife was formerly married to one of Reagan's agents at MCA, and knew him for what he was, she was right there beside her husband, and carried on his work after he died. In 1992, I believe she was the largest single donor to the campaign of a relative unknown: Bill Clinton. But this couldn't have been a factor in your calling Harriman a communist, could it? If you think others should refrain from implying Dillon killed Kennedy then you should set an example by refraining from callling Harriman a traitor and a communist.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat I believe you are right and wrong as well.

Angleton, I understand, suspected Harriman of being a communist (of course Angleton had similar suspicions of many people, including Kissinger (always had my doubts about him!).

I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to state categorically that Harriman was a communist. Inasmuch as I have criticized others for branding people as assassins with little if no evidence, I should certainly practice what I preach!

My withdrawal has nothing to do with Harriman being associated with Prescott Bush. There were certainly communists who practiced capitalism in this country, and communists who allied with Nazis when it was in their interest. There is just not evidence in the public record to fairly call Harriman a communist.

But I want to reread the history of the coup in Vietnam. I am confident Vietnamese "regime change" was consistently "pushed" by Harriman, Hinsman and Henry Cabot Lodge.

Which raises another point. When people think I defend every Republican, I believe I have previously posted strong criticism of Lodge for his role in the coup against Diem.

I hope you as a fair man will agree that I do not brand every leftist as a Communist or a Communist-sympathizer, contrary to John's charge against me. Nor do I believe that I have "hinted" that prominent leftists were Communists.

I do disagree with you that there is more evidence linkling Rodriguez to the assassination than Castro. As Larry pointed out, there is NO evidence that he is aware of linlking Rodriguez to the assassination. So, unless you know something about Rodriguez that Larry does not, any evidence at all linking Castro to the assassination is more evidence than there is against Rodriguez.

Thank you, however, for the post and for you correctly chastising me for calling Harriman a Communist with insufficient evidence to support the charge.

Now I am still awaiting John to chastise Shanet for his equally reckless charges against Dillon and Papich.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

It should also be remembered that the Communists are suspected by several intelligent observors as orchestrating the assassination. The theory may be dismissed by most members of this forum but the intelligence of people such as Michaal Kurtz and Joseph Califano cannot be dismissed.

Which is another reason, of course, to take what a Communist writes about the assassination with the proverbial grain of salt. Forget political ideology: the words of any murder suspect that diverts attention from the suspect must be suspect.

I would analogize to the Simpson case since everyone is familiar with it. If OJ made a statement that his wife was involved with Columbian drug dealers who might have murdered her, it would be a lot less credible than if the report was made by a third person who had nothing to do with Simpson.

If I recall correctly there is even a jury instruction to the effect that careful scrutiny should be given to statements made by persons who have an interest in the outcome of the trial.

And on the Rodriguez thread, it was that reason as much as any that I found it ironic that John would use the official organ of the Cuban government to brand Rodriguez an asssassin, particularly since if you read the article the author offers no evidence to support his charge.

PS It is of course for the same reason I discuss above that people such as Robert Charles-Dunne view CIA documents with skepticism, since they consider the CIA at the minimum a suspect with possible reason to prevaricate. Does not seem too difficult to understand the concept that statements by the Cuban government or its representatives should be treated with at least as much caution as CIA documents.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, I believe you're wrong and you're wrong. No matter how you dress it up, you believe Communists are evil, hence must be behind the assassination. I believe other researchers, having discovered this, give your opinions a lower value. I give them none. It's an unsolved crime ("the" crime) that's being researched here--you have to be objective or you can't get anywhere.

I'm no advocate of Communism, the number of benevolent Communist Governments have been vastly outnumbered by repressive, tyrannical ones. However, when you look at the evidence pertaining to this unsolved crime you discover that it doesn't make any sense for the Soviets or Cuba to kill JFK. Are you doubting that the Communists learned why the BOP failed? Or that they knew JFK was unpopular with the CIA? JFK's shaking up the very sectors of the US elite whom Communists despise, so the Communists then devise an audacious plot to kill JFK? That doesn't even half make sense.

You should be debating the evils or otherwise of Communism in a political forum, not this one. This crime will never be solved by forcing political parameters onto its solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does not seem too difficult to understand the concept that statements by the Cuban government or its representatives should be treated with at least as much caution as CIA documents.

Tim, there is a distinct difference between treating statements with caution and dismissing them outright simply because of the source. For example, any of YOUR statements that I have questioned have been due to the content, and not due to the source. Yet you constantly dismiss the statements of others based solely upon the source, rather than any basis in fact.

I don't have a particular axe to grind against Republicans...I think the Democrats are inept and corrupt as well, and I don't hesitate to say that. But I believe we need to reexamine ALL the evidence if we are to properly understand the JFK assassination. If evidence points to witting or unwitting cooperation by a department under the Secretary of the Treasury, then it is only fitting that we examine any evidence that may--or may not--point in the secretary's direction. To do so is the baisi of a fair and unbiased investigation. To automatically insist that the secretary is exempt from scrutiny is to investigate in the flawed manner of the Warren Commission.

Again, I state that my personal belief is that Dillon is not merely "not guilty," but is "innocent"...based upon the information I DO know. However, to say that Dillon should be "above" scrutiny takes us away from the examination of evidence...evidence that just MIGHT lead us to a guilty person, even if it's NOT Dillon.

But the overwhelming evidence on this forum, Tim, is that your political bias influences your judgement as to who may or may not be guilty, and what evidence may or may not be examined. Since I don't have any pro-ANYBODY biases [as I stated before, I believe that BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats are inept and corrupt...but that doesn't indict ALL members of EITHER party], I tend to think that ALL the evidence should be examined, and then conclusions reached based solely upon the evidence.

While I personally think Richard M. Nixon was a vile, petty, and vindictive man, I will also concede that statements by Nixon are not to be dismissed out-of-hand simply because of any personal bias I may have. Yet I see, time and again, a willingness on your part, Tim, to dismiss statements by certain individuals based upon their affiliations:

...not all liars are communists, but all communists are liars (it's their philosophy!).

This is an exercise in self-deception. So if ALL communists are liars, then do we DISbelieve Nosenko, and argue that Oswald WAS working for the KGB [or another Soviet agency]? Of course not, unless we have evidence to that effect. But when it suits your purposes, you DO make such arguments, Tim.

I suppose it's your inconsistency that makes folks tend to scrutinize what you say so closely. Example:

...not all liars are communists, but all communists are liars (it's their philosophy!)., and:

In my opinion, the Mafia is about as close to evil incarnate as can be. I would make no moral distinction between the Mafia and Communists with respect to their total lack of morality...

Yet you believe the statements of Trafficante, Giancana, Rosselli, and other Mafioso in one breath while telling us that the communists are not to be believed. If there is "no moral distinction," as you state above, then why do you dismiss the statements of communists out-of-hand but believe the statements of Mobsters? It is precisely this lack of consistency, I believe, that draws so much fire your direction, Tim....well, either that, or the fact that you are prone to making such sweeping generalizations without considering the potential repercussions upon your own previous arguments.

I realize that this is a long post, but I also wanted to demonstrate that some of us whose intelligence you have questioned in the past can actually sustain a train of thought and articulate an idea every now and then...in your view, I'd suppose, possibly--but not likely--as often as a blind squirrel finds an acorn. [Oh, if only my intelligence could be favorably compared to that of Joseph Califano, that it "cannot be dismissed"!!]

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me elucidate.

Clarence Douglas Dillon had a similar background to Prescott Bush and Allen Dulles. International banking with plenty of contact with German corporate interests, intelligence and highest level financial privateering, war profiteering.

I introduced him as a possible conspirator based on his STRUCTURAL location in the chain of command, and because of the outlandish failures of his employees in the Secret Service.

I have named THOMAS KARAMESSINES, MARSHALL CARTER, MAXWELL TAYLOR and RICHARD HELMS for similar reasons.

The executive sanction model, based on incapacity or loss of clearance, is a common sense approach and should be viewed as a synthesis of reasonable difficulties with the AUTOPSY, WARREN REPORT, HSCA 1978 REPORT, etc.

The theory that Castro and the KGB murdered Kennedy is based on the statements of ALEXANDER HAIG, RICHARD HELMS and JAMES JESUS ANGLETON.

Tim Gratz theory is not credible by any stretch of the imagination.

It is not coherent, coherent or compelling. It is false and in fact, disinformation.

While I believe John Simkins, Larry Hancock and James Richards have identified the TACTICAL agents responsible for the assassination, I have reason to believe my theory of EXECUTIVE SANCTION is the STRATEGIC and closely held source of the tactical ambush.

When Barr McClellan gained notoriety for his theory implicating Lyndon Johnson, I decided (at great personal risk) to disclose my conclusions concerning the intelligence findings, incapacity findings and removal of JFK by Cabinet Level executives within the government.

Tim Gratz presence on the FORUM is disruptive and comically inept.

His point of view is typical of the Neoconservative and right wing mindless authoritarians who are now in power in Washington.

Tim Gratz failure to engage critical thinking or use rational approaches is obvious.

He is in fact a simple foil, and a straw man.

He is like the simpleton who writes angry patriotic letters to the local paper.

Those of us who have broken through our indoctrination and socialization to question authority see Tim Gratz's material for what it is:

Right wing propaganda which shows a laughable lack of critical thinking.

It is obvious that this individual is out-numbered and pathetically incompetent in pushing his outlandish and unsatisfactory hypothesis.

I saw G. Gordon Liddy give a speech once, and he defended the burglary of the Democratic Headquarters because the McGovern people were "Communists"

Gratz is fatuous and intellectually impotent, and his disinformation campaign should be heartily ignored as the work of an amusing reactionary...........

:ph34r::hotorwot:o:hotorwot:ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shanet wrote:

When Barr McClellan gained notoriety for his theory implicating Lyndon Johnson, I decided (at great personal risk) to disclose my conclusions concerning the intelligence findings, incapacity findings and removal of JFK by Cabinet Level executives within the government.

I shall pray for your safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Stapleton wrote:

No matter how you dress it up, you believe Communists are evil, hence must be behind the assassination.

Mark this statement just demonstrates you are not reading what I am writing at all, or if you are, your comprehension level must be decidedly low.

If Castro did it, I have repeatedly posted that he did so because the U.S. government had for four years plotted to kill him and was continuing to do so, even after his September 7, 1963 warning. If Castro acted, he did so almost in self-defense. His back was to the wall.

And the US continued to encourage and support acts of war against his country, e.g. acts of sabotage.

I have posted that our country's acts to murder Castro were evil, reprehensible and illegal. In my opinion, they probably produced a "blowback" that resulted in the death of our president. That is true regardless of Kennedy's knowledge or lack thereof of the plots.

This analysis has nothing to do with whether Castro or communism is "evil". If a person kills someone who is poltting to kill him (because law enforecement is unable to help) I would not condone the act but neither would I call the perpetrator "evil".

Do you understand now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Knight wrote:

Again, I state that my personal belief is that Dillon is not merely "not guilty," but is "innocent"...based upon the information I DO know. However, to say that Dillon should be "above" scrutiny takes us away from the examination of evidence...evidence that just MIGHT lead us to a guilty person, even if it's NOT Dillon.

Mark, I agree with you that no one should be above scrutiny. The problem I had was that Shanet and Mark S were labeling him as an assassin.

But there is such a thing as ordering priorities. There is no evidence, as you point out, to even make Dillon a suspect. To solve the crime, we are far better off investigating people who may be linked to it, e.g. deMohrenschildt, the Paines, Albert Osborne, etc. I suggest, as I have before, that determining if the Paines and Osborne have connections to the left or to the right should show us who was orchestrating the assassination.

Investigating Dillon, Powers and a bunch of jealous husbands will, in my opinion, simply waste precious time when, as Sherlock Holmes once said "The game's afoot!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
I highly resent this statement.  Based on the information in Ken Rahn's web-site, I stated that Buchanan was a communist.    Who else have I ever labeled a communist who was not a self-admitted communist (e.g. Fidel)?  Please cite specific instances.

A recent example involved the case of Jean-Guy Allard. His article on Félix Rodriguez was dismissed with the argument that it appeared in a communist journal. How would you react if someone on the left dismissed the contents of an article because it appeared in a newspaper or magazine that supported the Republican Party?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4183

I note you are still not willing to defend your statements that all “all communists are liars (it's their philosophy!)” and that there is “no moral distinction between the Mafia and Communists with respect to their total lack of morality and willingness to kill”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I fail to understand your answer.

You asserted that I labeled leftists as communists. I denied that I had done so. Pat pointed out that I had called Averall Harriman a Communist. I did not recheck my posts but if I did (based on Angleton's theory) then I withdrew the remark. I do not believe I have labeled anyone else a communist.

I do not believe I said Allard was a communist, although I suspect he may be an admitted communist.

Your statement that I said Allard's comments should be dismissed because tey appeared in the official organ of one of the chief suspects in the case says nothing at all about me making false accusations of communist status against non-communist liberals. Again I challenge you to support or withdraw that assertion.

You wrote:

How would you react if someone on the left dismissed the contents of the article because it appeared in a newspaper or magazine that supported the Republican Party.

Since it has been suggested I address only the substance of a post and not its grammatical correctness, I shall do so? Do you then condemn Robert Charles-Dunne for routinely dismissing statements made by the CIA, as he always does? I quote an old English saying: What is fit for the goose is fit for the gander.

You wrote:

I note you have still are not willing to defend your statements that all “all communists are liars (it's their philosophy!)” and that there is “no moral distinction between the Mafia and Communists with respect to their total lack of morality and willingness to kill”.

John, I believe it is classic Communist theory that "the ends justifies the means". There have been mass murders in every country in which the Communists took over. Let's look at Fidel. Shortly after he took over his forces murdered 59 Batista supporters, a mass murder that made the St. Valentine's Day Massacre by the boys from Chicago look like choir practice. I understand Fidel has killed tens of thousands of Cubans since he took over, again putting the mafia to shame.

The communists' record of murders and atrociticies throughout the world are so horrific I suspect I owe the mafia an apologu for putting them in the same category.

I will not label you a Communist but it certainlly appears you are a defender of Communists. I think you just need more education. Have you ever read Robert Conquest?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
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...