Gerry Hemming Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Ok, Mr. Hemming. I understand what your saying. Personally, I think Veciana was likely sitting in front of a t.v. somewhere in Florida just before, during and after the assassination. He mentions recognizing Oswald on the t.v. but I can't pinpoint the locale or time frame. I'm not trying to implicate Veciana, I'm trying to nullify Dankbaar's hypothesis of Files seeing Veciana in Dealey Plaza. This is in all due respect of him. If someone want's to thump me for that, they better do it from a distance or when I'm not looking. I don't look like your average researcher in all likelyhood. You know where he was and you 'aint gonna say squat about it. Well, I guess I'll live with that. I just can't believe Fonzi never mentions WHERE Veciana was or WASN'T. He HAD to have asked. Veciana claimed Cesar Diosdado visited him too but seemingly didn't ask him "the question" either. Diosdado doesn't talk to anyone. Anyway, thanks for the info. I'm going to put the question up in general to the forum in case anyone else has a drop on this. I'm not going to call the Veciana household just to have his son hang up on me anyway. --------------------- That would be his grandson. Tony's kids, grandkids, and extended family AGREE with your efforts, and don't think that your are pointing an accusatory finger at their hero. JEEZ !! It seems at least one Veciana, et al. is Googling and/or monitoring this Forum every day. Most likely because they want to know more about the true FACTS/EVIDENCE than anybody else. The older Cubans, some of whom had been visiting and supporting their families on the island almost on a quarterly basis -- don't even get near a computer, even when there is one in the house. The younger ones are sternly rebuked by their elders because there is something "mysterious" as to where these new "facts?" and "questions" are coming from. They don't grasp the concept of the internet, and when nothing appears on WQAM, UniVision or in El Nuevo Herald -- they suspect "bola" [rumor] mongering; and this is causing rifts within the families. Now that Bush has tightened the "Helms/Burton Criminal Embargo Crap", they are in a quandary as to if they might hurt those on the island by connecting up with folks who are attacking both the U.S. Government, and themselves !! A majority of Cubans now in the U.S. left the island long after the JFK murder, and were exposed to Castro's propaganda about the Dealey Plaza/Playa Giron nexus. They grew up under the revolutionary regime, and now that they are no longer "latecomers" or "Marielitos" -- they identify more with the pre-BOP exiles. However, here in exile [or new citizenship] they have never heard the first word of a solid nexus with DP & Miami, and the majority haven't a clue about what the WC or HSCA was even about. So that puts them in the same boat as "Joe 6-Pack & Family" !! Recklessly naming names and pointing accusatory fingers willi-nilli reminds them of the CDBs; the Cuban Communist neighborhood snitch committees that surveilled their every move. Compared to that, McCarthyism would be a silly joke. Keep up the good work, maybe the kids will convince the "Patriarchs" ?? Gerry ________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Wim was always a good correspondent. He believes in the Jimmy Sutton Files scenario, but.... his site has a lot of good primary evidence, photos, docs, etc.... Like AJ Weberman, his main thesis may or may not be operative but the value is there, in the evidence, the critical point of view and the willingness to question authority. I always liked Wim Dankbaar and never really thought he should have been barred, but John had his reasons.... Wim reminds me of my other radical buddies in Amsterdam and New York, aggressive hard working government critics, you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 [quote name='Shanet Clark' date='Nov 8 2005, 05:25 AM' post='44490'] I always liked Wim Dankbaar and never really thought he should have been barred, but John had his reasons.... Wim reminds me of my other radical buddies in Amsterdam and New York, aggressive hard working government critics, you know Shan: Wim was banned for protesting the banning of Tim Carroll, who is now re-admitted. I too like WIm and his work, but am NOT interested in FIles. So I just ignore the Files stuff. Dawn ps Where have you been dude??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Wim was always a good correspondent. He believes in the Jimmy Sutton Files scenario, but.... his site has a lot of good primary evidence, photos, docs, etc.... Like AJ Weberman, his main thesis may or may not be operative but the value is there, in the evidence, the critical point of view and the willingness to question authority.I always liked Wim Dankbaar and never really thought he should have been barred, but John had his reasons. I do. I did not mind him posting his views on the JFK assassination despite the fact he appeared to have commercial reasons for promoting the case of James Files. I even defended his right to do this against the threats of legal action made by Bob Vernon. As a result of defending Wim I was barred from another Forum who did not agree about my views on free speech. As you know I allow all sort of characters to post their ludicrous theories (Tim Gratz, for example). However, what I did get upset about was discovering evidence that he was trying to undermine the functioning of this Forum. That is why he was removed as a member. Nor will he be allowed to rejoin. I see he now has his own Forum where he can promote his commercial ventures. He can also ensure that he only has members who are willing to support his theories about people like James Files. The situation clearly suits both of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Johansson Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 (edited) Wim was always a good correspondent. He believes in the Jimmy Sutton Files scenario, but.... his site has a lot of good primary evidence, photos, docs, etc.... Like AJ Weberman, his main thesis may or may not be operative but the value is there, in the evidence, the critical point of view and the willingness to question authority. I always liked Wim Dankbaar and never really thought he should have been barred, but John had his reasons. I do. I did not mind him posting his views on the JFK assassination despite the fact he appeared to have commercial reasons for promoting the case of James Files. I even defended his right to do this against the threats of legal action made by Bob Vernon. As a result of defending Wim I was barred from another Forum who did not agree about my views on free speech. As you know I allow all sort of characters to post their ludicrous theories (Tim Gratz, for example). However, what I did get upset about was discovering evidence that he was trying to undermine the functioning of this Forum. That is why he was removed as a member. Nor will he be allowed to rejoin. I see he now has his own Forum where he can promote his commercial ventures. He can also ensure that he only has members who are willing to support his theories about people like James Files. The situation clearly suits both of us. Mr. Simkin Why is Carroll back on this forum. I tought you banned him? If Carroll is back why hasn´t Wim got the opportunity to rejoin? Wim got banned because he defended Carroll and questioned you. Wim appeared on national TV last tuesday. Please check: http://dewerelddraaitdoor.vara.nl/terugkijken.php?id=32 Mark Edited November 10, 2005 by Mark Johansson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Mr. SimkinWhy is Carroll back on this forum. I tought you banned him? If Carroll is back why hasn´t Wim got the opportunity to rejoin? Wim got banned because he defended Carroll and questioned you. That is not true. He was banned for a wide variety of different offences. Tim's case was different and that is the reason why he has been allowed to rejoin. You are also free to post as much as you like about Wim's theories as long as you don't do anything to undermine the Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Johansson Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Mr. Simkin Why is Carroll back on this forum. I tought you banned him? If Carroll is back why hasn´t Wim got the opportunity to rejoin? Wim got banned because he defended Carroll and questioned you. That is not true. He was banned for a wide variety of different offences. Tim's case was different and that is the reason why he has been allowed to rejoin. You are also free to post as much as you like about Wim's theories as long as you don't do anything to undermine the Forum. Mr Simkin What did Wim do to undermine the forum? Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Mr SimkinWhat did Wim do to undermine the forum? The methods he used were fairly effective and so I don’t plan to go into details. After all, his followers might start imitating his methods. You can go on all you like about Wim, he will not be readmitted. If you don’t like it, I suggest you leave the Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Johansson Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Mr Simkin What did Wim do to undermine the forum? The methods he used were fairly effective and so I don’t plan to go into details. After all, his followers might start imitating his methods. You can go on all you like about Wim, he will not be readmitted. If you don’t like it, I suggest you leave the Forum. Mr Simkin I just wanted to know why you treat someone different then the other one? If Carroll got the opportunity to rejoin the forum. Why can´t Wim get that 2nd chance? Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Mark, offences are not given the same weight in law, if I shop lift I can expect a fine, if I commit an armed robbery, I can expect a jail sentence. As in law so in life. Please let the matter drop. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Wim's activities transcend what he believes or what he writes. In the past he has actively sought to disrupt forums such as this by using electronic means to close them down, a nefarious activity that borders on criminal. Fortunately, the internet leaves an invisible electronic trail which can be traced to Holland. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Johansson Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 (edited) Wim's activities transcend what he believes or what he writes.In the past he has actively sought to disrupt forums such as this by using electronic means to close them down, a nefarious activity that borders on criminal. Fortunately, the internet leaves an invisible electronic trail which can be traced to Holland. Jack White, Do you have evidence for such a extraordinary and serious accusation? Mark Edited November 10, 2005 by Mark Johansson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Bollschweiler Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Mark, no one here seems to be interested either in the "Files story" nor to let Wim post again. I don't want to sound rude but I think John's message was clear enough. You can go on all you like about Wim, he will not be readmitted. If you don’t like it, I suggest you leave the Forum. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Johansson Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 (edited) Mr. Simkin Can you still be a member on this forum after the false accusations Jack White just did? White, can you prove or have a backup to what you just said? Mark Edited November 10, 2005 by Mark Johansson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Wim's activities transcend what he believes or what he writes. In the past he has actively sought to disrupt forums such as this by using electronic means to close them down, a nefarious activity that borders on criminal. Fortunately, the internet leaves an invisible electronic trail which can be traced to Holland. Jack White, Do you have evidence for such a extraordinary and serious accusation? Mark Yes. This is no place to discuss it. Jack 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