Tim Gratz Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 It goes without saying that I do not share John's politicial philosophy or agree with many of his assassination theories. But John certainly deserves plaudits and appeciation for putting this forum together. Just think: we have one of the Watergate burglars answering questions; we have the contributions of Gerry Hemming, clearly a player in the events of the early sixties; we have many, many distinguished authors; and, of course, the many regular members from throughout the world who devote significant amounts of time to researching the evidence and testimony in an attempt to find new perspectives and fresh leads. I think the Forum was also blessed by the contributions of Nathaniel Weyl before his death. My primary concern with the Forum relate to the posts that implicate or hint at participantion in the assassination conspiracy by Americans most of whom are probably as pure as the driven snow (at least with respect to assassinations). Members who claim to be civil libertarians should, I believe, share this concern. I submit it is as inappropriate to label someone a Kennedy killer without evidence as it was to brand someone as a Communist in the fifties (absent evidence the person was indeed a Communist). But my main purpose in this post is to congratulate John for his work in developing the Forum for it is its development that has attracted these diverse contributors. I don't want to recognize individual members here because there are so many great minds at work here that I would be sure to miss some. And I also want to add that I appreciate and gain insight even from contributors from different political perspectives and world views than my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 And I also want to add that I appreciate and gain insight even from contributors from different political perspectives and world views than my own. _____________________________ Miracles never cease... _____________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 It goes without saying that I do not share John's politicial philosophy or agree with many of his assassination theories. But John certainly deserves plaudits and appeciation for putting this forum together. I would like to point out that I run this Forum with Andy Walker. Without him this would not be possible. Thank you for the praise but I suspect this "new" you will not last too long. Especially when I begin exposing the corrupt activities of George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan in my thread: "Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: The Contracting Out of U.S. Foreign Policy: 1940-1990". I am afraid the first section of this has been delayed a few days as a result of discovering that John McCone was part of this network. This has resulted in the need for more research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I would like to point out that I run this Forum with Andy Walker. Without him this would not be possible. I agree he is a wonderful fellow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Although this thread is straying dangerously close to becoming a love-in, I echo Tim's gracious comments. Sincere thanks to John and Andy. All bets are off next summer, though--the Ashes are coming home. You guys should head down under to watch the slaughter. Warning: it won't be one for the faint hearted!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 All bets are off next summer, though--the Ashes are coming home. You guys should head down under to watch the slaughter. Warning: it won't be one for the faint hearted!! Maybe. However, I think we will do slightly better than you in the World Cup in Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 All bets are off next summer, though--the Ashes are coming home. You guys should head down under to watch the slaughter. Warning: it won't be one for the faint hearted!! Maybe. However, I think we will do slightly better than you in the World Cup in Germany. You're on safe ground there John but remember we have Supercoach Hiddink. And two years ago we made mincemeat out of Fiji. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 All bets are off next summer, though--the Ashes are coming home. You guys should head down under to watch the slaughter. Warning: it won't be one for the faint hearted!! We would if the Australian Cricket Board would allocate us some tickets http://cricket-online.org/news.php?sid=4813 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 All bets are off next summer, though--the Ashes are coming home. You guys should head down under to watch the slaughter. Warning: it won't be one for the faint hearted!! We would if the Australian Cricket Board would allocate us some tickets http://cricket-online.org/news.php?sid=4813 Yes, I've heard they're extremely hard to get. I believe there's an army of about 50,00 Poms coming down to watch the carnage (and flaunt their economic imperialism). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I concur with the praise for John and Andy. That said, I'm still having trouble dealing with the (involuntary?) departure of our Mat Wilson connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I concur with the praise for John and Andy. That said, I'm still having trouble dealing with the (involuntary?) departure of our Mat Wilson connection. Ron, damn now youv'e gone and broke the spell, if Ms Foster returns it will be all your fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I concur with the praise for John and Andy. That said, I'm still having trouble dealing with the (involuntary?) departure of our Mat Wilson connection. She has not be banned, only put on moderation (I read her posts before letting them through). It seems that as this restricted her opportunities to push her website, she left on her own accord. Spammers have become a popular problem recently. Two other members have had their posts deleted for this in recent weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) I think the Forum was also blessed by the contributions of Nathaniel Weyl before his death. I find it fascinating that the only person to connect Weyl with the "Ware Group" is Weyl himself. Not even Whitaker Chambers mentioned him. Ditto with Lee Pressman (who also refuted Chamber's allegation that Hiss belonged to this group). My primary concern with the Forum relate to the posts that implicate or hint at participantion in the assassination conspiracy by Americans most of whom are probably as pure as the driven snow (at least with respect to assassinations). Members who claim to be civil libertarians should, I believe, share this concern. I submit it is as inappropriate to label someone a Kennedy killer without evidence as it was to brand someone as a Communist in the fifties (absent evidence the person was indeed a Communist). The key word here is "evidence," isn't it? There is indeed a good deal of evidence of *American* involvement (you mention the fact that these people are Americans, as if it is somehow more okay to accuse non-Americans of the crime, i.e. Castro). Edited January 13, 2006 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Root Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Owen Tim Gratz wrote: "My primary concern with the Forum relate to the posts that implicate or hint at participantion in the assassination conspiracy by Americans most of whom are probably as pure as the driven snow (at least with respect to assassinations). Members who claim to be civil libertarians should, I believe, share this concern. I submit it is as inappropriate to label someone a Kennedy killer without evidence as it was to brand someone as a Communist in the fifties (absent evidence the person was indeed a Communist)." You replied: "The key word here is "evidence," isn't it? There is indeed a good deal of evidence of *American* involvement (you mention the fact that these people are Americans, as if it is somehow more okay to accuse non-Americans of the crime, i.e. Castro)." Thank you Owen for this response. A day or two ago Tim replied to a post I had made about my three primary suspects in the assassination of JFK, John J. McCloy, Maxwell Taylor and Edwin Walker (although I do not consider Walker in the same league as McCloy and Taylor). Qouting Tim: "It seems your entire thesis comes down to the fact that McCloy met Walker during WW II and McCloy had a major policy difference with JFK. That seems scant evidence upon which to besmirch the reputation of a very well-respected member of the Washington "establishment" who provided yeoman service to his country. Perhaps you should consider what your grandchildren would think if years after your death some one claimed you were a murderer on essentially no evidence whatsoever. If someone claimed my father was a murderer, I'd be pretty tempted to deck him for such slander." My question would be, "how do we consider anyone as a suspect without suggesting that they may have committed the crime?" I agree with Tim that it is improper to make an accusation without evidence and that we should all consider the fact that, well, we might be wrong about where our research has led us. With some 400 + posts I would challenge anyone to find a situation where I said that "X" did it. I have gone to great lengths over the past year and a half to say things such as "may have," could have," "in my opinion," "it intrigues me that.." etc. On the other hand I would challenge anyone to prove the opposite question about certain people in a position to have committed the crime. Can anyone prove to me that McCloy, Taylor or Walker were, without a doubt, not involved in the assassination of JFK? On the other hand, once again, to suggest that a person could not have committed this heinous crime for the simple reason that they were "a very well-respected member of the Washington "establishment" who provided yeoman service to his country" might well be an attitude that would keep us from ever establishing the truth. Sorry to ramble, I too enjoy this website to a fault! Jim Root Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 John wrote: Thank you for the praise but I suspect this "new" you will not last too long. Especially when I begin exposing the corrupt activities of George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan in my thread: "Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: The Contracting Out of U.S. Foreign Policy: 1940-1990". Not sure why I cannot simultaneously respect your accomplishments while at the same time disagreeing (often vociferously) with your opinions. I do not think this post represents a "new" me (not a new year's resolution). I have disagreed with much of your postings since I joined the Forum while always praising your accomplishments in setting it up and maintaining it. As you know last year this time I made some ultimately unsuccessful efforts to get coverage of the Forum in USA Today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now