Deleted Thread

[Tim Carroll]

John,

I don't understand your fuss about a mistake I made by relying on a bad source (in this case Paul Kangas).

I retracted the statement that Rodriguez was convicted for Watergate. We all make mistakes. Even Tosh, you and Tim do.

If it is allright on this forum to say that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin and quote your sources as Posner, Peter Jennings and John Mcadams, then I fail to understand why you're upset with one mistake by me, even to the point of deleting a thread.  Is that because you can't stand the Files story and I'm one its messengers?

Wim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wim,

I would be very surprised if John has been making a "fuss" privately to you for spouting unsubstantiated history. Rechecking your thread about the "Good Terrorists," I see that he hasn't weighed in at all in the seminar.

As for your assertion that we all make mistakes, and then including me in your list, I take that as an invitation to respond here. It appears, of course, that you're not actually grateful for my correction, and that you would really prefer to kill the messenger. Your equation between your assertion and subsequent retraction is not analogous to other lone nutters who cite sources such as Posner, Jennings, and McAdams. If you were citing Jim Marrs, and it was he that was incorrect, then the analogy would hold water. But I doubt that he made that error. Your other source, Lord High Drug Commissioner Kangas, is another matter. His assertion that the misstatement "is easy to verify in any book on Watergate" arrogantly compounded the error.

I offered my personal explanation for why I made such a "fuss," only to find here this morning that you are grumbling about being shown to be practicing bad history, with no regard to my providing you with a simple explanation for what could have been a reasonable error: the grammatical error of mixing up Virgilio Gonzales with Felix Rodriguez. As for why the error particularly mattered, you also seem dismissive of my deeply held feelings on this subject. As I noted in your seminar:

"But when it comes to FELIX, he walks with presidents, dammit, and I cannot abide misinformation disseminated about him that will be useful to his own purposes."

I would assert that I value my input and work on your seminar, and believe that it would be wrong for John to delete your seminar on the basis that you wound up looking bad. Your comment, "If you want to delete my seminar, go ahead, I don't care," reflects badly on your commitment to getting history right, especially for our children's children. I had hoped that you learned a lesson and am disappointed to learn otherwise.

Tim

[Nancy Eldreth]

Mr. Simkins,

I do apoligize for all of the problems this has caused you I am truely sorry for that.

It would not be fair if I didn't add this.

Mr. Simkins clearly stated that the total end reason was because of the last postings that was put up on the thread that caused him to finally decide to delete the thread of Pam Ray. Pam Ray did not post at any of the last postings.

I saw the very last post up to the best of my knowledge. I also saw where Tosh Plumlee posted in with a very sweet note message. Not meant to be taken any other way. He was trying hard to calm the storm.

To what it was about is best not to be stated now at this time. It is over and done with. Let's put it this way, to much excess baggage from long gone past.

Just a note in case of any inside person seeing this. I meant never to bring any person down I am afraid they did that on their own. I am restating one of my statements. In fact if anything it was to clear the air.

In general ALL IT TAKES IS ONE PERSON TO HASSLE ANOTHER and then the whole chips fall down. One has only to defend themselves. So, I aired it out and gave the person a chance to defend herself. She didn't. It got worse. That is just about it. TO MAKE A SUM UP OF THE EVENTS. The other sad part is that when ever the subject of James Files is aired there are those to trample it under fast and always causing frustrations on the forum director to delete which in the end is neither a benifit to the real story about Files. This has occured to often and always is done in the same like manner. Steps that certain persons do act out. IF a person tried to defend themselves it drowns out the entire thread. Then the attackers goes back to it again. Causing a person to either look bad when they are not or defend their statements. Only this time I went further, and I have never done this before in my life. I did give the person a dose of their own medican. I wish they had defended themselves. They didn't. I wish they did prove and defend themselves because it was the other person that had began the attacking steps in the first place. To make it clear I didn't start the attack. The worse of it I was threatened.

I feel very bad for Pam Ray. It went hard on her. She did put work to it and i wish she thought of more of a manner to bring facts out not so much like a novel and a blend of Christian policies but more to a understand of James Files more for what the subject was to begin with.

I still hold I am so grateful for the chance to have communicated with Pam Ray and for our exchange of notes to learn more.

That in the end is what a seminar is about the total over all of education. That in itself never can be measured by any one persons standards for the simple reason it is to the beholder of the newly gained knowledge.

I also feel that Mr. Simkins acted out in the best interest for all concerned and I do thank Mr. Simkins for actions that he felt best and went accordingly.

Again, I am sorry for this to have happened and also at the same time, I am grateful that it took place; at the same time perhaps there is a deeper beneifit to it all. That being that no one attacks people who come forward to try to open any door of knowledge that so many choose to not try to understand or do not understand and or do not believe in. James Files story as it stands is very hard to believe in. When I even first viewed the film myself I shook my head NO NO NO. NO WAY. What made me look into it wasn't even James Files himself. NO it wasn't. It was the date that it was done. The timing of his confession. That was all it was to make me question him and his story.

Plus I took it to my attorney and let him view the film. Mind you my attorney was a State Policeman prior to him becoming an attorney of law. HE KNEW the wrongs in the film and we discussed them. What he said to me while handing the film back to me was this. "We want you to write to him, we hope you get from him." That was the real reasons why I do what I do.

No one should fear the truth from coming out, but someone does I am sorry to say. James Files story IS A COVER STORY for the real story is underneath.

[Wim Dankbaar]

As for your assertion that we all make mistakes, and then including me in your list, I take that as an invitation to respond here. It appears, of course, that you're not actually grateful for my correction, and that you would really prefer to kill the messenger.

Tim, you misinterpret me. I am of course grateful for any correction of anything that proves erroneous or false. You seem to think I have difficulty admitting an error. I'm sorry if you take the listing of your name as "killing the messenger". Quite the contrary was my intent. The fact that I mentioned you and Tosh has no meaning at all, other than the notion that even the most respected researchers and witnesses (like you and Tosh) can make mistakes, just as myself. The "list" could have included any human being, including my wife and friends. It's just to point out that humans are not infallable, and somehow it looked like John could not accept an error on my part, that's how I read that by calling it "not acceptable behaviour".

I offered my personal explanation for why I made such a "fuss," only to find here this morning that you are grumbling about being shown to be practicing bad history, with no regard to my providing you with a simple explanation for what could have been a reasonable error: the grammatical error of mixing up Virgilio Gonzales with Felix Rodriguez.

I think the error stems from Kangas' article and has led its own life since because nobody seems to have corrrected it untill you. Whether it is a reasonable error, does not really matter. An error is an error.

As for why the error particularly mattered, you also seem dismissive of my deeply held feelings on this subject. As I noted in your seminar:

"But when it comes to FELIX, he walks with presidents, dammit, and I cannot abide misinformation disseminated about him that will be useful to his own purposes."

Tim, I did not write that, so I can't take any responsibility for it.

I would assert that I value my input and work on your seminar,

absolutely

and believe that it would be wrong for John to delete your seminar on the basis that you wound up looking bad.

I agree, but that was not John's basis as I understood it. This was the reason quoted:

I also came close to deleting your seminar as it did not include notes and references. Passages such as the following is not acceptable behaviour in an academic seminar:

Father Bush is still friends with Orlando Bosch and Felix Rodriguez, the latter also convicted for his role in Watergate and in 1967 the head of the CIA team that tracked down and murdered Che Guevara in Bolivia. Felix is also a key figure in Iran-Contra, alongside Luis Posada Carrilles. He reports directly to George. Get the facts: +"Felix Rodriguez" +Bush. Do the search click here.

Your comment, "If you want to delete my seminar, go ahead, I don't care," reflects badly on your commitment to getting history right, especially for our children's children.

I said that, because I did not agree with John, but I accept that I can't control what people write about me or whether they want to delete a thread because of "not acceptable behaviour", no matter how much I disagree with it. That is why I said that, meaning that I can't stop John from deleting it. I stand by every single statement in that paragraph, except "the latter also convicted for his role in Watergate", which I retracted based on your appreciated input. The only issue I had with that is that you wanted me to retract it immediately, while I first wanted to doublecheck the validity of my sources for it (Marrs and Kangas). The piece I wrote is an endeavour in finding the quotes and references yourself by doing the kind of google searches suggested in it. Specific references and sources are qouted here:

www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm

I had hoped that you learned a lesson and am disappointed to learn otherwise.

Neither can I control how you interpret my messages or character. I consider you an ally, an intelligent and honest mind, and someone I can confide in. hope that helps.

Wim

Tim

Edited December 1, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar