Jump to content

Veciana & Diaz.


Guest Stephen Turner
 Share

Recommended Posts

Larry could you tell us more about this? “…in at least one other case I recall the person mentioned seeing a spy in a photo in Life magazine. When it was really investigated it just turned to vagueness.”

Truthfully I’ve given up caring about this whodunit, it’s the collaborative communication that’s valuable here, especially since the last chapter on Cuba hasn’t been written. US and Cuba is the best long and winding story I know of in current history.

Tim, Castro didn’t do it. He had no need to. Others were willing to do Dallas for him, same crews that tried to off him perhaps but independents too. Hired hands and sheep dipped soldiers perhaps patriotic renegades. Castro, however, did have every reason not to cry a single genuine tear for Kennedy while keeping what he knows (if anything) a secret. In exchange, he is safe to drum on until he dies. What insane blowback this is. You know he doesn’t have to worry about a bite to eat—that’s a hefty reward in most parts of the world. Now, doesn’t that make a better story?

Larry, your: “The problem of course is that you always have to try to assess the remarks against the source. And a couple of things you can almost always count on is that any exile deeply involved in war against Castro will try to do to things in respect to the subject of JFK.”

The source may be weird: a mental patient, a guy in jail, a drunk, a guy with an agenda, but the fact they are a source is worth noting. Sometimes if I look behind a source I see the essence of why they think the way they do, a worthwhile exercise. The FBI files are frankly, fubar, some Cubans may have an old agenda they rightly deserve after the big eviction of ’59, no thanks to US who aided the revolutionary cause. You see you can excuse anyone if you understand his or her m.o. The fact is many of my sources pan out in the history so they can’t be summarily discounted, no matter how they appear at first. They sometimes interpret differently is all, the facts we both have. The militant anti-Castro folks are also the militant revolutionaries of 26deJulio you can’t forget this fact. It’s a big one. The counterrevolution was guided by a Castro betrayal real and perceived depending on whom you talk to.

For another take on the backfiring of US foreign policy check this out. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GG19Ag04.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Chris, the report I mentioned is one of thousands of documents in the Russ Holmes collection of the segragated CIA files. I made no record of it simply because it was so transparent. An older Cuban exile, a Doctor, reported to the FBI that he had seen a magazine photo of DP which showed one of the people in the plaza to have been someone he remembered as being a Castro "spy/agent/cadre" in Cuba. There are several exchanges in the file trying to tie down the magazine, the exact photo, the name of the person etc and in the end there was nothing concrete at all that could be developed other than the gentleman felt Castro must have been involved. If you slog though the Holmes files you can find other examples of the same. As I've pointed out before, the FBI and CIA were actually pretty diligent about following up on any reports that pointed to Castro or Castro agents, they show much less interest in reports that deal with suspicions about exiles. I provided several concrete examples of that in my book.

Larry could you tell us more about this?  “…in at least one other case I recall the person mentioned seeing a spy in a photo in Life magazine. When it was really investigated it just turned to vagueness.” 

Truthfully I’ve given up caring about this whodunit, it’s the collaborative communication that’s valuable here, especially since the last chapter on Cuba hasn’t been written.  US and Cuba is the best long and winding story I know of in current history.

Tim, Castro didn’t do it.  He had no need to.  Others were willing to do Dallas for him, same crews that tried to off him perhaps but independents too.  Hired hands and sheep dipped soldiers perhaps patriotic renegades.  Castro, however, did have every reason not to cry a single genuine tear for Kennedy while keeping what he knows (if anything) a secret.  In exchange, he is safe to drum on until he dies.  What insane blowback this is.  You know he doesn’t have to worry about a bite to eat—that’s a hefty reward in most parts of the world.  Now, doesn’t that make a better story?

Larry, your: “The problem of course is that you always have to try to assess the remarks against the source. And a couple of things you can almost always count on is that any exile deeply involved in war against Castro will try to do to things in respect to the subject of JFK.” 

Chris,  you should know my work well enough by now to know that I don't evaluate sources on who they are,  that always seems silly to me in a crime,  about as silly as the FBI refusing all sorts of sources because they had some sort of stain on their character or legal record.  After all,  the most productive law inforcement informants are people within the context of the crime,  not the local minister or mayor.  My point was not about the source but the need to evaluate and corroborate the source in regard to the time frame in which they are informing and as to whether there is any reason to belive they would have been expected to know/possess the information they claim to know (for example to they claim "big picture" details when their actual role in life at the time of the event was that of a worker,  I'm always suspicious of sources that claim too much high level insider information.  However in this post I was referring to Veciana's comment about a Castro agent in DP.....not to Veicana as an informant,  I consider him an extremely valuable source of information.  Sorry if that sounded like a lecture but I figured I must need to be clearer than I was at first.

The source may be weird: a mental patient, a guy in jail, a drunk, a guy with an agenda, but the fact they are a source is worth noting.  Sometimes if I look behind a source I see the essence of why they think the way they do, a worthwhile exercise.  The FBI files are frankly, fubar, some Cubans may have an old agenda  they rightly deserve after the big eviction of ’59, no thanks to US who aided the revolutionary cause.  You see you can excuse anyone if you understand his or her m.o.  The fact is many of my sources pan out in the history so they can’t be summarily discounted, no matter how they appear at first.  They sometimes interpret differently is all, the facts we both have.  The militant anti-Castro folks are also the militant revolutionaries of 26deJulio you can’t forget this fact.  It’s a big one.  The counterrevolution was guided by a Castro betrayal real and perceived depending on whom you talk to.

For another take on the backfiring of US foreign policy check this out.  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GG19Ag04.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry wrote:

Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.

The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is falsified, then Castro did it.

Not that I necessarily believe in UFOS, but if 100 people reported seeing UFOs, and 99 were delusional, but one was not, and correctly reported what he saw, then UFOS do indeed exist.

But I will add to what Larry said. There could be reports linking Castro to the assassination which were not deliberately false but were simple cases of mistaken identity. So I will amend my reply to the following:

The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is either falsified or mistaken, then Castro did it.

Now Stephen had tried to belittle Veciana's report by implying that Veciana made it up because he hated Castro and had tried on more than one occasion to murder him. If Veciana hated Castro enough to kill him, Stephen argues, why would he not lie about him? A fair enough question. But we have to remember that Veciana first made this report in 1975. It was clearly not an attempt to prompt an invasion of Cuba in the aftermath of the assassination. Nor did Veciana even go to the media about it. In other words, it has the "ring of truth" about it. Is it possible that Veciana was simply mistaken? Certainly is.

Stephen also wonders why there is no photographic evidence of all these DGI agents in Dealey Plaza. Come on, Stephen, use the brain God gave you (oops! excluse the religious reference). I suspect the DGI agents were in Dealey Plaza to kill Kennedy, not to wave at him. I do not suspect they were standing around on the corner of Elm and Houston smoking cigarettes.

Many peope think there was a shooter on the grassy knoll or behind the picket fence. Some even think they can make out images of a shooter. If I am right about my scenario, that shooter could have been a DGI agent. Same thing with respect to mysterious images in the TSBD photos.

Can I, as Stephen suggests, identify the operational role of every DGI agent in Dealey Plaza? Of course not. But surely Stephen does not think this disproves my scenario, does he? For if he does, then I guess no one killed Kennedy--because no advocate of any assassination theory has been able to identify by name and operational status every shooter. Therefore, by Stephen's "analysis" all theories advanced to date must be false.

I think Larry impliedly acknowledges there is more evidence pointing to Castro than to anyone else. Larry believes each and every such piece of evidence must be falsified. But I suspect Larry would admit there are some reports that he cannot PROVE to be false. And, as I noted above, even if only ONE such report is true, then Castro did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim. Get some cold water. Wet face. Slap face. Wake up!!!!

Now you're claiming Larry's book, which compiles a ton of information linking the assassination to your Cuban neighbors--not the ones 90 miles away--the ones down the street--is an argument for your Castro did it theory??? If so, I'm afraid you owe Larry an apology. Before he sues you for libel. His book says no such thing and you're insulting him by implying as much.

Secondly, you really need to take a look in the mirror. While you and your friend Gerry theorize that all kinds of people were lured to Dallas to muddy the waters, you assert that if even one DGI agent was in Dealey it's proof that Castro did it. That's weaker than a Karl Rove "I never said her name!! excuse." Please! If you're gonna make that argument you HAVE TO play fair and say that if even one CIA agent was in Dealey the CIA did it, in which case you should be trying to prove Rip Robertson WAS NOT at Houston and Main. Similarly, you HAVE TO acknowledge that there was indisputably a man with MOB ties in the Dal-Tex Building--a man whose loyalty was apparently to Lansky, not Trafficante. If he was there by your rationale it means the mob did it, perhaps with Castro, perhaps without. And yet you CHOOSE to ignore these men and focus on DGI phantoms. Can there be any doubt you're blinded by an agenda? Can there be any doubt your abilities as a researcher/historian have been crippled by your political slant?

Wake up, buddy! It seems your brouhaha with Shanet has knocked the sense OUT of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I enjoy your writing so much--even when you are slamming me.

And I respect you sufficiently that I always do take a deep breath, reread your post, and ask myself: Is Pat right?

I did not say that Larry's book argues that Castro did it. Indeed, it does not. But Larry has stated (to me privately and now on this Forum) that there are lots of "facts" pointing toward Castro. My point was simply that if Castro is innocent Larry must be correct that every single one of those "facts" is FALSE evidence.

Do I think that the DOCUMENTED presence of a single DGI agent in Dealey Plaza damns Castro? Yes, I think I do. For one thing, if there was one agent whose presence was documented there were likely others whose presence was undetected. Also, what is a nonsinister explanation for the presence of a DGI agent?

You seem to think it inconsistent for me not to be concerned with the possible presence of Robertson in DP. Well, in one sense I AM. On the other hand, I think you must admit there are possible non-sinister explanations for Robertson's presence (if indeed it is Robertson in the photo). I mean, it is even possible he was just there to watch the parade.

Catch this difference. If Castro had been shot to death on the steps of the Presidential Palace in Havana, and had Robertson's image been caught in a photograph, I would probably conclude he was waiting for his friend David Morales who had just killed Castro. On the other hand, if Diaz or some other DGI agent been photographed on the scene, I would not jump to the conclusion that the DGI had killed Castro.

I do not ignore the presence of Braden/Brading in the Dal-Tex Building. Far from it. But if I am concentrating on DGI agents rather than Braden/Brading it is because Braden/Brading has been covered quite extensively. Not so the DGI agents. But I certainly do think the Mafia played a significant role in the assassination and Braden's presence in DP is probably significant.

P.S. I love the word "brouhaha"; any word that ends with "haha" has to be worth using!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I'm trying to make, Tim, is that you have to look at the body of evidence, not just one aspect. There are those who think if one autopsy photo is fake that proves the CIA did it. They then stare at autopsy photos and convince themselves they're fake. It seems you're doing the same with the Castro evidence. If there's one hundred CIA agents and one DGI agent, you'll focus on the DGI agent and ask yourself "what was he doing there...my GOD...this proves CASTRO DID IT!!!" I'm suggesting a DGI agent could have been lured there as easily as any CIA agent, maybe even to stop Oswald...how about that scenario???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

. But I suspect Larry would admit there are some reports that he cannot PROVE to be false. And, as I noted above, even if only ONE such report is true, then Castro did it.

JUST ABOUT SAY'S IT ALL REALLY,DONT YOU THINK........................................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try to parse some of this out with the following:

1) There is an identifiable pattern of activities which were intended to frame Oswald and Ruby as being associated with Castro. A good deal of this was done by impersonation and association prior to Nov. 22, more of it was done immediately afterwards. What was done before hand was well thought out and pretty well executed and some of it may have had nothing to do with the conspiracy but rather with Oswald's intelligence dangle to the Cubans as a fervant Castro supporter.... which of course is what made Oswald the most attractive patsy the plotters had found up to that point. What was done after the assassination (when the plan to fully frame Oswald after the murder fell apart) was iterative, catch as catch can and not nearly well enough put together to match Johnson's clout in driving the cover-up. Some of it, such as the Pedro Charles letters and the Gilberto Alverado incident was really badly done and even Hoover and Phillips respectively had to give up on Castro after a few weeks of investigation - even though Hoover had told Johnson he really wanted to hold in the possiblity of conspiracy in the FBI report and Phillips had strongly endorsed the Alvarado story (didn't seem to be a real black mark in his career file though).

2) There is also a pattern of exiles who sincerely felt that Castro was behind it since he was behind pretty much anything evil going on (which easily leads to the temptation of identifying DGI agents in photos as much as we tend to see our favorite suspects in DP).

3) There is also a pattern which includes virtually all the "secret warriors", exile and fellow travelers at least being suspicious of Castro and open to the suggestion he did do it (let's list Mann but again its easy to demonstrate that both FBI and CIA were far more receptive to leads that Castro agents were involved than exile Cubans...think I pretty well document that in the book). Plus the real secret Cuban warriors are going to blame Castro whenever they can reasonably do so - sort of a knee jerk reaction (why does this make me think of red and blue states and party politics?). I would be as skeptical of Veciana inserting a DGI agent into a DP photo as I am of Escalante reading assassination books and throwing in any name tied to the CIA. Works both ways.

Seems to me that the only way to deal with it is to list out the incidents and suspects and then study them individually rather than talk in general terms. Tim, that takes you back to analysing the source, timing and credibility of your Castro agents suspects in the same manner I did the other side. And when I say credibility, you need to dig up enough background on your Castro agents to at least demonstrate they have some background or experience that would make them credible as running some sort of conspiracy or some tactical participation. As an example, an FPCC member who is a U.S. resident and has been trying to travel to Cuba for a considerable time, gets permission and transits to Mexico City via Dallas .....well I'd just like a little more detail before seeing how he makes a very credible assassination participant since the only way to get to Cuba was to go via Texas to Mexico.

What would be really interesting would be to see you do a detailed presentation of the people and at least a strawman theory of how Castro thought he was going to pull it off. Until we get to that point we are still up at a super high level arguing motive and opportunity. Which you can obviously do forever. How about taking it down a few levels if you want to do it justice?

-- Larry

Larry wrote:

Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.

The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is falsified, then Castro did it.

Not that I necessarily believe in UFOS, but if 100 people reported seeing UFOs, and 99 were delusional, but one was not, and correctly reported what he saw, then UFOS do indeed exist.

But I will add to what Larry said.  There could be reports linking Castro to the assassination which were not deliberately false but were simple cases of mistaken identity.  So I will amend my reply to the following:

The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is either falsified or mistaken, then Castro did it.

Now Stephen had tried to belittle Veciana's report by implying that Veciana made it up because he hated Castro and had tried on more than one occasion to murder him.  If Veciana hated Castro enough to kill him, Stephen argues, why would he not lie about him?  A fair enough question.  But we have to remember that Veciana first made this report in 1975.  It was clearly not an attempt to prompt an invasion of Cuba in the aftermath of the assassination.  Nor did Veciana even go to the media about it.  In other words, it has the "ring of truth" about it.  Is it possible that Veciana was simply mistaken?  Certainly is.

Stephen also wonders why there is no photographic evidence of all these DGI agents in Dealey Plaza.  Come on, Stephen, use the brain God gave you (oops! excluse the religious reference).  I suspect the DGI agents were in Dealey Plaza to kill Kennedy, not to wave at him.  I do not suspect they were standing around on the corner of Elm and Houston smoking cigarettes.

Many peope think there was a shooter on the grassy knoll or behind the picket fence.  Some even think they can make out images of a shooter.  If I am right about my scenario, that shooter could have been a DGI agent.  Same thing with respect to mysterious images in the TSBD photos.

Can I, as Stephen suggests, identify the operational role of every DGI agent in Dealey Plaza?  Of course not.  But surely Stephen does not think this disproves my scenario, does he?  For if he does, then I guess no one killed Kennedy--because no advocate of any assassination theory has been able to identify by name and operational status every shooter.  Therefore, by Stephen's "analysis" all theories advanced to date must be false.

I think Larry impliedly acknowledges there is more evidence pointing to Castro than to anyone else.  Larry believes each and every such piece of evidence must be falsified.  But I suspect Larry would admit there are some reports that he cannot PROVE to be false.  And, as I noted above, even if only ONE such report is true, then Castro did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry wrote:

Tim is going to be able to find many sources pointing to Castro. Problem is that they will either be cases of generic exile hatred of Castro or they will be cases of planted stories with just that intent. Some as part of the conspiracy and some as part of the cover-up.

The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is falsified, then Castro did it.

Then perhaps you should turn out the nightlight, put away the abacus and FIND ONE REPORT THAT IS TRUE! 

Seems simple enough if there's an abundance of such reports.  But then, based on the mischaracterization of evidence and false assertions indulged in by you and Winslow, what you cite as evidence may just prove to be more of your inspired wishful thinking.   

Not that I necessarily believe in UFOS, but if 100 people reported seeing UFOs, and 99 were delusional, but one was not, and correctly reported what he saw, then UFOS do indeed exist.

Larry and I have both repeatedly pointed out to you that the overwhelming majority of such nonsense reports stem from two overlapping sources: Mexico City's CIA station and the anti-Castro exile community.  Now, if you could find a single report of Castro complicity that doesn't originate with either, you might be off to a promising start, if not necessarily your desired ending.  If you're going to find something that doesn't crumble under the slightest scrutiny, eschew reports from Cuban exiles and CIA, because they all crumble when investigated.  Which, of course, raises questions about how and for what purpose those false reports originated, and why people falsely proclaim them as evidence of anything today.   

But I will add to what Larry said.  There could be reports linking Castro to the assassination which were not deliberately false but were simple cases of mistaken identity.  So I will amend my reply to the following:

The problem is that unless Larry is correct that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of these reports is either falsified or mistaken, then Castro did it.

By allowing that some "reports" might be mere mistaken identity, rather than all being deliberately false, Tim attempts to insert a more human and random factor to what was otherwise a series of clearly prefabricated propaganda "reports."  This is entirely unnecessary.    All such reports proved false when investigated, and having all come from Cuban exiles and CIA, one needn't labour long to determine why they were made. 

What should concern us here is why a Forum member would insist that such reports have validity, when he cannot cite a single instance in which such a report proved correct.  Tim, you keep saying, "But if only a SINGLE REPORT.... blah blah blah."  Yet you've never given us a single report that wasn't false.  What are we to make of the way you spend your energies, spinning your wheels, all the while claiming to have made great progress that only you can see? 

Now Stephen had tried to belittle Veciana's report by implying that Veciana made it up because he hated Castro and had tried on more than one occasion to murder him.  If Veciana hated Castro enough to kill him, Stephen argues, why would he not lie about him?  A fair enough question.  But we have to remember that Veciana first made this report in 1975.  It was clearly not an attempt to prompt an invasion of Cuba in the aftermath of the assassination.  Nor did Veciana even go to the media about it.  In other words, it has the "ring of truth" about it.  Is it possible that Veciana was simply mistaken?  Certainly is.

Where's the photo?  Enough with your rhetoric and semantical gymnastics.  If either Veciana or Abella saw Diaz in a photo in LIFE or elsewhere, then forget about their motives and just show us the photo.  But you can't do that because your own so-called witnesses, late-arriving and full of hot air, refer to a photo that nobody else has ever seen, and insist it contains a face that you don't have a photo-match for anyway.  And this is the level of rubbish you insist we take seriously as "evidence" and "proof."  Little wonder you're no longer a lawyer. 

Stephen also wonders why there is no photographic evidence of all these DGI agents in Dealey Plaza.  Come on, Stephen, use the brain God gave you (oops! excluse the religious reference).  I suspect the DGI agents were in Dealey Plaza to kill Kennedy, not to wave at him.  I do not suspect they were standing around on the corner of Elm and Houston smoking cigarettes.

In other words, "You can't see them because they were hiding.  However, others have seen them in photos... but now the photos are hiding.  Now, why do you people balk at accepting such damning proof?" 

Many peope think there was a shooter on the grassy knoll or behind the picket fence.  Some even think they can make out images of a shooter.  If I am right about my scenario, that shooter could have been a DGI agent. 

In the absence of something more substantial than your non-existent "evidence," the shooter might have been a Martian, a Girl Guide, a transvestite, or the Chairman of the Young College Republicans.  Or all of the above. 

Same thing with respect to mysterious images in the TSBD photos.

Can I, as Stephen suggests, identify the operational role of every DGI agent in Dealey Plaza? 

So now there's not just one purported shooter, but a whole phalanx of DGI types in the Plaza, all of them hiding from the cameras, of course.  Or burning every copy of LIFE magazine that contains a photo showing them, lest they fall into the hands of Veciana, Abella, Gratz, et al.  One wonders how Tim can be so oblivious to the comedy he renders here.

Of course not.  But surely Stephen does not think this disproves my scenario, does he?  For if he does, then I guess no one killed Kennedy--because no advocate of any assassination theory has been able to identify by name and operational status every shooter.  Therefore, by Stephen's "analysis" all theories advanced to date must be false.

I think Larry impliedly acknowledges there is more evidence pointing to Castro than to anyone else.  Larry believes each and every such piece of evidence must be falsified.  But I suspect Larry would admit there are some reports that he cannot PROVE to be false.  And, as I noted above, even if only ONE such report is true, then Castro did it.

Then, again, turn out the nightlight, put away the abacus and go FIND one.  Without that, or something to bolster your otherwise groundless assertions, you're merely a blowhard who misleads and misdirects based on a pathological obsession, not actual evidence.  And you'll continue to be treated as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another great post, Robert. However, it's become obvious to me that it's pointless arguing with Tim. He's just wasting everybody's time. In addition to yourself, Tim's theory has been dismissed for lack of evidence by Stephen, Pat, Larry and Chris on this thread alone but still he won't concede a yard. You might as well argue with a brick wall. The man's just running interference, trying to sidetrack and stymie genuine research into this disgusting crime. Tim doesn't want it solved, despite his holier than thou statements to the contrary. Instead, like the Pied Piper, Tim leads this forum on a merry dance to nowhere. Anyone with an ounce of tact or decorum would, after so many comprehensive rebuttals, begin to entertain the idea that they may be wrong. Not Tim. It's such a shame to witness pointless debates such as this where distinguished researchers--with enough collective knowledge of the case to fill a medium sized library--waste their time trying to talk reason with a person who just won't listen, and will never listen.

I know Tim didn't start this thread, but there are so many threads on this forum which have degenerated into shambolic, vitriolic and pointless debates on Castro, courtesy of Tim, that it makes one wonder whether there'll be anything to show for John's efforts in creating the forum in the first place.

Apologies for the depressing tone of my post, but that's the way I feel.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Tim didn't start this thread, but there are so many threads on this forum which have degenerated into shambolic, vitriolic and pointless debates on Castro, courtesy of Tim, that it makes one wonder whether there'll be anything to show for John's efforts in creating the forum in the first place.

Cannot agree with this Mark. This thread alone has seen great postings from Pat, Larry, Robert, Chris and Mark. This alone was worth Stephen starting this thread. You must remember that the vast majority of people who read the threads are not members. They also can see what Tim is up to. It is clear we cannot educate Tim on these matters. However, his faulty reasoning is helping educate others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Tim didn't start this thread, but there are so many threads on this forum which have degenerated into shambolic, vitriolic and pointless debates on Castro, courtesy of Tim, that it makes one wonder whether there'll be anything to show for John's efforts in creating the forum in the first place.

Cannot agree with this Mark. This thread alone has seen great postings from Pat, Larry, Robert, Chris and Mark. This alone was worth Stephen starting this thread. You must remember that the vast majority of people who read the threads are not members. They also can see what Tim is up to. It is clear we cannot educate Tim on these matters. However, his faulty reasoning is helping educate others.

Yes, I guess reading this thread was making me a bit depressed. The thing is, how many times must a point be proven before it is acknowledged? I agree with you about the quality of the aforementioned postings, that's why I find it so exasperating--they will never be acknowledged as conclusive by the person to whom they are directed. Like Groundhog Day, we'll be forced to relive endless reenactments of these exchanges, with Tim perpetually maintaining that the flat-earth theory is the way to go. You can escape to other threads, but (surprise, surprise) Tim's there too--carrying that stinking dead-cat theory under his arm, wherever he goes.

Maybe I need a break. Is it possible to be haunted over the internet? I'd better not say anymore, Tim might sue me for implying he's a voodoo master or something. :)

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take heart, Mark. All is not in vain.

Tim's merely regurgitating the original CIA handout of the crime, with very few amendments. I'll leave it to each Forum member to decide for themselves whether he is motivated by a true belief, or something more dark.

In the meantime, however, John Simkin is entirely correct in pointing out that the vast majority of those who read the material here are not necessarily Forum members, and may not have the "nose" to discern the true scent of Tim's posts. It is for their benefit that I post my rebuttals to Tim's non-sequitirs; it is certainly not because I anticipate Tim will suddenly have a dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus, nor do I care, quite frankly.

Unfortunately, despite an aura of collegiality and jocularity [in fact, in part because of it], the danger Tim poses is that he may cause entry-level students of the case to spend precious energy pursuing something unworthy of their time and effort. I will always leave open the possibility, no matter how remote, that Tim may actually cough up something substantive here, in which case we'll have something that merits debate. To date, I've been disappointed, but hope springs eternal.

For those who are well-versed enough in this case to see through the charade, my efforts are redundant and superfluous, which is fine. But for those who do not or cannot distinguish what is really taking place here, based upon a lack of personal knowledge of the case, I hope to be the purgative that counteracts the overblown hype. If I can do that much, I am satisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:

Yes, I guess reading this thread was making me a bit depressed. The thing is, how many times must a point be proven before it is acknowledged? I agree with you about the quality of the aforementioned postings, that's why I find it so exasperating--they will never be acknowledged as conclusive by the person to whom they are directed. Like Groundhog Day, we'll be forced to relive endless reenactments of these exchanges, with Tim perpetually maintaining that the flat-earth theory is the way to go. You can escape to other threads, but (surprise, surprise) Tim's there too--carrying that stinking dead-cat theory under his arm, wherever he goes.

Maybe I need a break. Is it possible to be haunted over the internet? I'd better not say anymore, Tim might sue me for implying he's a voodoo master

Mark, although of course I disagree with you, I wanted to complement you for the humour in this post, even if it is directed toward me. Humour like this can, I think, be a part of an intelligent debate, and it is certainly different from calling someone names. I got a good laugh over it!

But why don't you take a break? I suggest you spend it reading "Live By the Sword".

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...