Two articles by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Former Forum member Tim Gratz e-mailed me to tell me he had a couple of Kennedy-assassination-related articles printed in his local paper. One on Almeida, and one on some recent developments in the Morley FOIA case regarding Joannides. They're on pages 6 and 7 at the link below if anyone has an interest.

http://www.keysnews.com/weeklys/solareshill.pdf

Edited October 7, 2006 by Pat Speer

[William Kelly]

Former Forum member Tim Gratz e-mailed me to tell me he had a couple of Kennedy-assassination-related articles printed in his local paper. One on Almeida, and one on some recent developments in the Morley FOIA case regarding Joannides. They're on pages 6 and 7 at the link below if anyone has an interest.

http://www.keysnews.com/weeklys/solareshill.pdf

PAT, I THINK IT ODD THAT THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLISHED REPORT ON THE JUDGE'S DECISION ON THE JOANNIDES CASE.

I WOULD THINK THE WASHINGTON POST WOULD AT LEAST REPORT ON THE FACT AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

BK

[Pat Speer]

Former Forum member Tim Gratz e-mailed me to tell me he had a couple of Kennedy-assassination-related articles printed in his local paper. One on Almeida, and one on some recent developments in the Morley FOIA case regarding Joannides. They're on pages 6 and 7 at the link below if anyone has an interest.

http://www.keysnews.com/weeklys/solareshill.pdf

PAT, I THINK IT ODD THAT THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLISHED REPORT ON THE JUDGE'S DECISION ON THE JOANNIDES CASE.

I WOULD THINK THE WASHINGTON POST WOULD AT LEAST REPORT ON THE FACT AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

BK

That was one of the reasons I posted the link. Tim mentioned that he didn't think many people knew about the Joannides ruling, and I realized he was right.

In Morley's What Jane Roman Said article, one of the articles recommended for your compilation, he writes about the difficulties he's faced at his own paper. They just don't care all that much. In recent months, I've contacted a number of papers and news agencies, pretty much begging for the opportunity to sit down and explain to them the findings and discoveries included in my now-600 page presentation. Not one has even responded with a simple "no thank you". The mainstream media has pretty much decided that CTs are all wackos, unworthy of even the least bit of attention. Which is why Gary Mack, who is apparently still a CT, has to act like a LN on TV.

To clarify, by Gary acting like a LN I mean that he has to act in a calm and rational manner. From what I can gather you are not allowed to appear on television today and express outrage over the dishonesty of the Warren Commission or the HSCA et al, unless the program plans to discredit you. This is what happened to Jim Marrs on Bullsh*t; they let him talk about his theories, failed to analyze any of them beyond citing that "experts" disagreed with him, and then threw in that Marrs believes in UFOs and was an assh*le. I'm hoping that in their next season they'll have an episode about how Bullsh*t is bullsh*t.

Edited October 8, 2006 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

Former Forum member Tim Gratz e-mailed me to tell me he had a couple of Kennedy-assassination-related articles printed in his local paper. One on Almeida, and one on some recent developments in the Morley FOIA case regarding Joannides. They're on pages 6 and 7 at the link below if anyone has an interest.

http://www.keysnews.com/weeklys/solareshill.pdf

PAT, I THINK IT ODD THAT THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLISHED REPORT ON THE JUDGE'S DECISION ON THE JOANNIDES CASE.

I WOULD THINK THE WASHINGTON POST WOULD AT LEAST REPORT ON THE FACT AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

BK

That was one of the reasons I posted the link. Tim mentioned that he didn't think many people knew about the Joannides ruling, and I realized he was right.

In Morley's What Jane Roman Said article, one of the articles recommended for your compilation, he writes about the difficulties he's faced at his own paper. They just don't care all that much. In recent months, I've contacted a number of papers and news agencies, pretty much begging for the opportunity to sit down and explain to them the findings and discoveries included in my now-600 page presentation. Not one has even responded with a simple "no thank you". The mainstream media has pretty much decided that CTs are all wackos, unworthy of even the least bit of attention. Which is why Gary Mack, who is apparently still a CT, has to act like a LN on TV.

To clarify, by Gary acting like a LN I mean that he has to act in a calm and rational manner. From what I can gather you are not allowed to appear on television today and express outrage over the dishonesty of the Warren Commission or the HSCA et al, unless the program plans to discredit you. This is what happened to Jim Marrs on Bullsh*t; they let him talk about his theories, failed to analyze any of them beyond citing that "experts" disagreed with him, and then threw in that Marrs believes in UFOs and was an assh*le. I'm hoping that in their next season they'll have an episode about how Bullsh*t is bullsh*t.

re: Gary Mack -- now THAT would be worthy of a new Nigel Turner segment concerning events in Dealey Plaza, post assassination... earth shattering news; Gary is indeed one of the good guys. If that's the case will they be stocking Fetzer's HOAX soon? LOL

btw, Jim Marrs has been ridiculed for years concerning non-mainstream topic reporting/subject matter. Nothing new there

[Pat Speer]

btw, Jim Marrs has been ridiculed for years concerning non-mainstream topic reporting/subject matter. Nothing new there

The point about Marrs was that they deliberately presented him as a typical conspiracy theorist, in order to discredit CTs as a group, and that they never looked at his ideas to see if there was anything there, beyond stating that more reputable people had assured us there was nothing there. Jim has performed a lot of research into the UFO issue. While I'm not convinced one way or the other, it's clear he's not making stuff up. There are documents to support much of what he has to say.

If they'd really given a damn about the truth, they would have presented the more mainstream element of the CT community, men like Hart, Wecht, Blakey, Mack, Kurtz, McKnight, perhaps even our own John Simkin. They picked Marrs on purpose because he's a bit of an eccentric. If they were to do a part 2 they'd probably pick Fetzer and use his 9/11 research to discredit all CTs. While I frequently enjoy his show, I'd like to call Penn Gillette onto the carpet for the idiocy he displayed in his episiode on conspiracies.

Edited October 9, 2006 by Pat Speer

[John Simkin]

If they'd really given a damn about the truth, they would have presented the more mainstream element of the CT community, men like Hart, Wecht, Blakey, Mack, Kurtz, McKnight, perhaps even our own John Simkin. They picked Marrs on purpose becuase he's a bit of an eccentric. If they were to do a part 2 they'd probably pick Fetzer and use his 9/11 research to discredit all CTs. While I frequnetly enjoy his show, I'd like to call Penn Gillette onto the carpet for the idiocy he displayed in his episiode on conspiracies.

I think the way Gerald McKnight’s book “Breach of Trust” was treated is a good example of this. When a book written by an academic historian, that concentrates on the released documents, it is completely ignored.

On Wednesday I am being interviewed by the Times on the JFK assassination. It is going to be part of a long article for the Times Saturday Magazine on British researchers that will be published in November. I suspect the aim is to portray us as a group of “weirdos”. However, the person who is writing the piece is a good journalist so there is a chance it will tell the truth.