James Files

[Wim Dankbaar]

Gibby,

The "coaching" that you refer to does not change the significance of the information. In the second interview (of 19 november last year) we do it all the time. This is because such an interview is intended to edit for a TV program, in which the interviewers may not even be heard. That is why you need the witness to make clear statements. And this is why we ask things like: Can you say it like this, I need a full sentence on that, give me a complete statement on that. Normally the viewer doesn't even get to see a virtually unedited interview. But in the JFK case there will always be characters who will try and make a problem out of any tiny detail.

Bob Vernon, I could go on and on about him, I have said before I am not interested to start a flame war, I rather ignore him, but the fact of the matter is that his sole reason for saying that Files is a hoax now, is purely because he hates my guts and wants personal revenge, because he believes I owe him money at this time. It consumes him. That is also why he goes after every witness I defend and everyone associated with me (and him before) , like Judyth Baker, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, Zack Shelton, Don Ervin, Jim Marrs, Lois Gibson, etcetera. He has even tried to discredit Chauncey Holt, but he was quickly whistled back by his lawyer, because his lawyer happens to be representing the Holt family too. He uses vile tactics in that endeavour, and if you follow it a little more closely, you would see that quickly. Please note that he has never offered his "irrefutable and absolute proof" for Files being a hoax, despite his numerous promises.

And if you want further confirmation for Vernon's motivations, you can check with any of those people I mentioned and a lot more. I can also send you a lot more on my history with Vernon, but I think you don't want to spend a lot of time on that, and rightfully so.

He wants to make the world believe that I breached a contract with him, but declines to prove it in court. So it's nothing more than expressing his opinion, which you may believe or may not. My partners, my lawyer and I certainly don't. Consequently he is his own unilateral judge in reclaiming "his property" back.

But the best question of all : Why does Vernon care , now that he has declared Files a hoax and has made these materials effectively worthless for himself? That question should show his rage is not only destructive but self-destructive. In the process he even manages to make enemies of people that are skeptical about James Files, like John Simkin and Robert Harris. But to serve his egocentric purposes, he has made his former arch enemies Dave Reitzes and John McAdams his allies. But all his references to them as "disinfo fools" and worse are still on record in the Google groups. Of course McAdams and Reitzes don't care, they eagerly use every disinfo opportunity that comes down the pike.

Enough said.

Wim

[Tim Carroll]

Wim,

I won't bother with my military background as enough already know about it. I also loved how you referred to me as a Motorcycle cop from California. Great research, considering I not only told you my background and department but also gave you the link to the my department website that had a page on me. Never owned a motorcycle and have only visited California. Other than that, you are correct that I am a law enforcement officer. I guess it is consistent with your research that it only has to be partially correct.

Let me know if you want to take up where we left off on the XP-100 issue.

Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have had my share of disagreement with Al and acclimation to our differing social views, but his posts on the ballistics are unmatched. He's the real deal. His South Knoll trajectory analysis is especially relevant to this forum's debate on Tosh Plumlee. Rather than assuming that backgrounds have been covered elsewhere and that the XP-100 be taken up where it was left off, I would ask Al for a fresh opening thread, containing his credentials, overview and substantiation. I know that sounds like a lot to ask, but he should be able to paste together a number of his previous postings elsewhere and give us a singular, trim and comprehensive statement of his position. I know that Al is a busy man, and also that it is too late for him to lead a seminar in a few weeks, but his participation in Tosh's seminar would be a crucial contribution. Here's a photo from my hard drive of Al:

Tim

Edited November 2, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Al Carrier]

Wim,

I won't bother with my military background as enough already know about it. I also loved how you referred to me as a Motorcycle cop from California. Great research, considering I not only told you my background and department but also gave you the link to the my department website that had a page on me. Never owned a motorcycle and have only visited California. Other than that, you are correct that I am a law enforcement officer. I guess it is consistent with your research that it only has to be partially correct.

Let me know if you want to take up where we left off on the XP-100 issue.

Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have had my share of disagreement with Al and acclimation to our differing social views, but his posts on the ballistics are unmatched. He's the real deal. His South Knoll trajectory analysis is especially relevant to this forum's debate on Tosh Plumlee. Rather than assuming that backgrounds have been covered elsewhere and that the XP-100 be taken up where it was left off, I would ask Al for a fresh opening thread, containing his credentials, overview and substantiation. I know that sounds like a lot to ask, but he should be able to paste together a number of his previous postings elsewhere and give us a singular, trim and comprehensive statement of his position. I know that Al is a busy man, and also that it is too late for him to lead a seminar in a few weeks, but his participation in Tosh's seminar would be a crucial contribution. Here's a photo from my hard drive of Al:

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

I have been accused of posting my resume on the Lancer Forum when showing my background so I somewhat reluctant to do this, but it does pertain to the topic and my research.

My original Army MOS was 95B10 which is Military Police. I was trained and certified as a Class 5 Weapons Specialist and also trained in Small Arms Assault, Latin American Cultures and Linguistics, Counterinsurgency and Scout Sniper. I will leave it at that.

In LE, I have been trained in and worked as a CSI. I have been a patrol street supervisor and now watch commander. I ran the Training Unit and Field Training Unit. I am a certified Firearms Instructor through the state Academy for Revolver, Semi-Auto handgun, shotgun and open site rifle. I am also a nationally certified firearms instructor for Glock Handguns. I am an Advanced Armorer for Glock, Armorer for Remington shotguns and rifles and was a certified armorer for Colt Rifles but let it expire. I have attended and taken part in Ballistic Seminars studying ballistic capabilities of both pistol and rifle caliber bullets through various penetration resistant materials, for three of the top ammunition manufacturers. I annually spend considerable time testing a variety of ammunition on the market for handgun, shotgun and rifles to determine what is the best to purchase for the needs of my department. I am a court certified expert witness in weapons and ballistics.

Al

[Al Carrier]

No Al, I did not ran to this forum. I'm still at Lancer at times.  I realized that you will never be convinced the other way, because you're so prejudiced on Files, just like no one will ever be able to make Gerald Posner admit it was a conspiracy. So I see no merit in discussing this any further with you.  The points have been made clear at both sides, so there was nothing left than to agree to disagree.

You describe Files as a punk, a thug, a nobody, a scumbag, I can't remember all of the names, but it is clear that you're locked in into your opinion.

You centered your denounciation of Files around a technical monologue about ballistics, recoil, marksmanship, velocity etcetera, from which we have to conclude that the XP-100 could not have done the job as Files described it. That is your prerogative. Others say that the XP-100 was perfect for the job. But you may believe what you want.

Wim

For example, critics said that the weapon Files claimed to have used was more a pistol than a rifle and would have had an enormous recoil. They said it "kicks like a mule". Therefore, Files could never have seen what he claimed he had witnessed through the scope of his weapon. I sent an email to one of the gun shops I found on the Internet. I acted as a potential customer and asked whether the Remington Fireball was a pleasant weapon to fire. That man stated the weapon was one of the most sophisticated guns ever made, etc. When I inquired about the recoil he said it was nice and steady. Ultimately, I told him why I asked. He was quite amused and said that the alleged murder weapon of Lee Harvey Oswald had a lot more recoil than the Fireball. He added that whoever said that the XP-100 had substantial recoil had a lot to learn about firearms.

Files was also criticized with the allegation that the XP-100 was not available in 1963 and that the rounds used for this weapon were not a .222 caliber but rather .221. I found both accusations to be untrue. The weapon was introduced in 1963 and prototypes were available as early as 1962. The weapon was originally chambered for .222 rounds. To learn more about the Remington XP-100 Fireball click here.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/fireball1.htm

Here are some exchanges from an Internet discussion board:

Is the James Files story true? The weapon in question, a combination pistol-rifle would have been absolutely perfect for the short dimensions of Dealey Plaza. Especially concealment after the Assassination. Many witnesses thought a pistol had been fired/An Explosion had occurred. The location from which Files allegedly fired has been verified by Donald Thomas, the HSCA, and a peer reviewed British Science publication. Clearly there is a figure there in that precise spot in the Moorman Photo just to our right of a large tree the person is crouched with a possible barrel resting between the picket fence line....Jeff

It's possible that James Files story is "close" to the truth. The ammo available for the old 221 fireball was rifle ammo........The barrel of the Fireball pistol was too short to allow the slow burning rifle powder to burn completely. Consequently the unburned powder ignited when it hit the air at the muzzle....creating a hell of a boom and a fireball.... Recall that nearly all of the witnesses said they thought the loud "boom" was a railroad torpedo, a motorcycle backfire, or a cannon they had heard at football games.

Some folks say there is a fireball visible in some photos and several witnesses said they saw smoke on the G.K,

The wound on JFK's head is typical of the damage a Fireball pistol would inflict on a human head....

All of this tends to support James Files story that a Fireball pistol was one of the weapons used.

Walt

And here is an opinion of a gunstore-owner:

If as the official records claim, Lee Harvey Oswald is the shooter of JFK, the rifle that was "recovered" in the depository was a Manlicher bolt action rifle. It shoots a 6.5 mm cartridge, more powerful than the .223 win/5.56 NATO or the .221 Rem Fireball. Recoil from that rifle with the military loading is slightly less than the .308 win/7.62 Nato. Never have I seen in print (anywhere) that JFK was shot with a handgun. Whomever is telling you that a .221 fireball kicks "like a mule" and "harder than any rifle", apparently is regurgitating information that he/she has heard somewhere.

The fireball was introduced in a bolt action hand gun in 1962 (not a pistol), and propelled a 50 gr bullet in the 2600-2700 fps range. I'd even be picky enough to tell you that someone who calls an Remington XP100 a "pistol" has a lot more to learn about firearms than they are going to by reading internet conspiricy theories. Felt recoil from a typical 4lb6oz handgun will be in the 5 to 7 lb range. Compare this to a typical 30-06 rifle (180 gr bullet) at 19 lbs, and you'll wonder how big this person's mule really is.

Dan

And the view of another gun-expert:

I found the .222 version to be quite manageable with one hand, having no more recoil than my .44 magnum, and in a 2 handed combat stance it can thread a needle at 150 yards. Up to those ranges, the Fireball would by a perfect choice for an assassination weapon if portability and concealability were at issue.

With Regard,

John Ritchson (SSGT. 499th TC USATC HG US Army Class of 69) (GunSmith/Ballistician,Black Eagle Gun Works) (Survivor, SE Asian Games, 11BRAVO7,Tet 1970) To read a more extensive and excellent article by John Ritchson click here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wim,

It is difficult to discuss this with you as you clearly have no background on weapons and ballistics and the way you approach your so-called experts is tainted because of this. I have no respect for Files and have never believed in him because I am convinced this was a professional operation, far from an operation where you put a handgun to ones head and then stuff them in a trunk. I term professional as one would see in a true military extermination op as was seen as Tosh stated "It got bloody in '81" in Nicaragua. I believe he knows what I am talking about.

Now to address the XP-100 and your so-called experts. You approached a salesman on-line about being interested in purchasing the XP-100 and he gave you a line. You then was frank with him and told him your intent and he was locked into telling you what you wanted to hear, and I doubt he knew what he was talking about to begin with.

Another tells you that the recoil felt is in the 5-7lb range in comparison to the 7.65mm in the 19lb range and tries to compare the two. The XP-100 is a hand held (extended to get an LOS through the scope) in comparison to a shoulder mounted 7.65mm rifle. I know you are not capable of seeing how this closes down the managable recoil, but I trust there are those out there who have fired both handguns and rifles to note the difference in controlling one from the other. And then you have your other expert who compares a minimal recoil to a .44 magnum. I actually compared it prior to this to a .41 magnum handgun. The .44 magnum handgun is second highest in recoil to the .50 action express. A shoulder mounted weapon forced recoil into the should and body of the shooter who mounts the weapon. A hand held firearm's recoil is released by muzzle flip and one of that is extreme as described above is on the high end. Files could not follow his shot through the scope after firing at that range, nor would he follow it over it as he could not see the target due to flinching (blinking) and the weapon would be in the way due to muzzle flip. Files is a xxxx and your experts are filling you with a line if they tell you otherwise.

The XP-100 was a novelty weapon regardless that it was designed for varmits (Prairie doge, coyotes, etc.) which would be fired on stationary and not panned. It is front heavy and the scope mounting forces the shooter to maintain a locked arm distant hold to try and pan on a moving target and still try and keep an LOS through the optics without creating an overshadow that would block out the target. It is a bolt action single shot that those who read "One Shot, One Kill" would believe that is all that would be needed, and is simply clueless to this scenerio in DP, as they are only handicapping themselves.

You have also given others the false sense that the .221 is nothing more than a .22 and that is how they relate the recoil. You fail to point out that the .221 has muzzle velocity of roughly 2700fps in comparison to the hottest .22lr of 1600fps. Do you think that would make a difference on recoil. Also, many confuse this type of recoil with the recoil of a .223 in an AR-15/M-16. The AR15/M16 has a 18-22" recoil spring and buffer that absorbes the recoil. Fire the some load in a Remington 700 or similar rifle that does not have the buffer and spring and you will see the 60% increase in recoil energy.

I will leave it at that, because it is far more than you can comprehend to begin with. If you show that you can follow what I am saying, I will explain my tests with the XP-100 on a mover at the range of 30-40 yards.

Al

[Tim Carroll]

Wim,

I have no respect for Files and have never believed in him because I am convinced this was a professional operation, far from an operation where you put a handgun to ones head and then stuff them in a trunk....

The XP-100 is a hand held (extended to get an LOS through the scope) in comparison to a shoulder mounted 7.65mm rifle. I know you are not capable of seeing how this closes down the managable recoil, but I trust there are those out there who have fired both handguns and rifles to note the difference in controlling one from the other. And then you have your other expert who compares a minimal recoil to a .44 magnum. I actually compared it prior to this to a .41 magnum handgun. The .44 magnum handgun is second highest in recoil to the .50 action express. A shoulder mounted weapon forced recoil into the should and body of the shooter who mounts the weapon. A hand held firearm's recoil is released by muzzle flip and one of that is extreme as described above is on the high end. Files could not follow his shot through the scope after firing at that range, nor would he follow it over it as he could not see the target due to flinching (blinking) and the weapon would be in the way due to muzzle flip. Files is a xxxx and your experts are filling you with a line if they tell you otherwise.

The XP-100 was a novelty weapon regardless that it was designed for varmits (Prairie doge, coyotes, etc.) which would be fired on stationary and not panned. It is front heavy and the scope mounting forces the shooter to maintain a locked arm distant hold to try and pan on a moving target and still try and keep an LOS through the optics without creating an overshadow that would block out the target. It is a bolt action single shot that those who read "One Shot, One Kill" would believe that is all that would be needed, and is simply clueless to this scenerio in DP, as they are only handicapping themselves.

You have also given others the false sense that the .221 is nothing more than a .22 and that is how they relate the recoil. You fail to point out that the .221 has muzzle velocity of roughly 2700fps in comparison to the hottest .22lr of 1600fps. Do you think that would make a difference on recoil. Also, many confuse this type of recoil with the recoil of a .223 in an AR-15/M-16. The AR15/M16 has a 18-22" recoil spring and buffer that absorbes the recoil. Fire the some load in a Remington 700 or similar rifle that does not have the buffer and spring and you will see the 60% increase in recoil energy.

I will leave it at that, because it is far more than you can comprehend to begin with. If you show that you can follow what I am saying, I will explain my tests with the XP-100 on a mover at the range of 30-40 yards.

Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Al,

Glad to see you here. I too occasionally peek at Lancer, and really wanted to respond to Richard J. Smith's recent humorous post, but like you, will not support the likes of, nor waste my time on Jim Harwood and/or David Von Pein.

Recently, on the Triple Underpass thread, the South Knoll trajectory became very relevant, despite Bill Miller's position that a shot could not have struck the windshield prior to Zf-255, thereby ruling out the throat wound. I will be doing photo studies there in a few weeks. I have tried to propose to Bill Miller that he lend his considerable photo skills to exploring this issue, along with Tosh's presence in that area. It would be a contribution to the discussion as well as a more positive outlet for his bloviation. Here are a couple of the key photos:

This is why I believe a South Knoll thread needs to be started. Bill has some good work on the windshield photos, which would make for a good basis in reality for the Tosh Plumlee narrative, to be posted and explored in his on-line seminar on 11/22/04. By the way, while always admitting that I've learned most of what I know about ballistics and weaponry from your posts, it is still my own commonsensical instinct that says that enlisting some punk like Files, two hours prior to the shooting, and having him choose his location and weapon at that time, is ridiculous. That the same salesmen peddling the Files story have also peddled the diluted, altered and contradictory (to Files) Plumlee story without shame or explanation is a classic example of the kind of thing that undermines the credibility of JFK assassination research generally. I am glad that Tosh is working so hard here to rehabilitate the misinformation of others, and that effort will be helped by your input.

Tim

Edited November 3, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Wim Dankbaar]

Al,

I know you find it difficult to discuss with me and in general dealing with people who don't marvel you to high heavens. But it appears you want to do it anyway.

I am satisfied with the understanding there will always be people who will not believe Files no matter what. It almost seems you did not read my previous post to you. I have nothing to add to that.

Wim

[Shanet Clark]

When considering the confessions of Charles Harrelson, Jimmy Sutton/Files, Tosh, Chauncey Holt, Arce, etc., please give a thought

to some recent psychological experiments on memory...

Journal of cognitive MEMORY 1/2004 :

”Where a lie becomes the truth:

The effects of "self-generated misinformation" on eyewitness memory “

[Excerpt of Research Paper by K. L. Pickle,Ph.D.]

Dr. Pickle writes:

This research investigated whether generating misinformation impairs memory for actual information….

Experiment I.

Those who fabricated a description … remembered fewer correct derails than did truthful witnesses or those who fabricated about another person. Witnesses who fabricated about robber also reported more incorrect details than did truthful or non-interviewed witnesses….

Experiment 2.

Witnesses who fabricated about the robber also reported as poorly on the memory test as did witnesses who answered questions using false information prepared for them. …In both experiments deceptive witnesses sometimes reported invented details on the memory test. This is suggesting that they may have come to believe some fabrications, or misinformation.

‘People lie to us eight hours a day.

Evervbody lies to us: offenders, victims, witnesses. They all lie to the police.”

(Chicago police officer interviewed by Fletcher. 1991, p.255)

In her behind-the-scenes examination of the work lives of Chicago law enforcement personnel, journalist Connie Fletcher found that police are aware that the people they interview during crime investigations may deliberately give them false information. …

There is a psychological term known as the ‘misinformation effect” (e.g.. Bekeñan & Powers, 1983; Beth, 1989: Ccci, Ross. &Togha, 1987; Loftus, Miller, & Burns. 1978; McCluskey & Zaragoza. 1985).

Witnesses first observe some event, which may be presented either on videotape, as a slide sequence, or as a live, or staged event.

At some point afterwards, witnesses in the “Misled” condition (but not in the control condition) are exposed to misleading information related to the event.

The final step in the procedure is to test witnesses’ memory for the original event.

Usually, some proportion of the witnesses given misleading information will report details consistent with that information on the memory test.

One interpretation of these results is that misled witnesses sometimes commit a ‘source monitoring error (Lindsay, 1990, 1994; Lindsay & Johnson, l9S9 Zaragoza & Lane, 1994. 1998). That is, a memory derived from one source (the postevent information provided by the experimenter) is misattiributed to another source (the witnessed event) or is attributed to both sources.

Errors can occur even if the post-event data clearly refers to a separate incident rather than the witnessed event, at least as long as two accounts are similar and contain similar details… (Allen & Lindsay, .1998). This interpretation is based on the work of Johnson and her colleagues (see Johnson. Hashtroudi. & Lindsay. 1993). who proposed that memory representations include perceptual, contextual, emotional, and semantic information that reflects the nature of the encoding environment and that may be used by the rememberer to determine the source of a memory. Source attributions are usually made swiftly and without conscious awareness, although systematic or strategic processes

such as judging whether a source attribution seems plausible in light of other knowledge may also be used. Many times the attribution will be accurate.

Sometimes however, errors will occur, especiallv if the source cues are not clearly

remembered. Or if the cues related to two different source sources, are similar, or if the source attribution is made hurriedly. A monitoring framework can explain how witnesses might confuse information provided to them by two different external sources the witnessed event, and the “researcher”. “monitoring errors” Johnson, Foley, and Leach’s (1988) finding that participants where a confederate say some words and imagine that confederate saying other words may be unable to determine whether a particular word was actually heard or merely imagined. In another study, participants’ estimates of the number of times they had seen a picture increased with the number of times that they had imagined the picture, especially for participants who were classified as “good imagers” (Johnson, Raye. Wang. & Taylor, 1979). Other research shows that when adults imagine in detail childhood events that they initially said they probably never experienced, their confidence that the events actually occurred inflates (Garry, Manning. Loftus, & Sherman, 1996). Similarly, adults instructed to create mental images of fictitious childhood events sometimes eventually “remember” these events (e.g., Hyman & Pent- land, 1996; Porter, Yuille, & Lehman, 1999).

Hyman and Pentland suggested that the process of imagining a false event may lead to the creation of plausible and vivid details connected with the event, which in turn increases the chance of a reality monitoring error.

This hypothesis meshes with the finding that inducing witnesses to visualise a post-event narrative enhances the misinformation effect (Carris, Zaragoza. & Lane; Cited in Lindsay. 1994).

And never-experienced events can also be “remembered” and colleagues invented.

K. L. Pickle, Ph. D. 2004 MEMORY (excerpt from the introduction)

(((some recently published psychology on lies, lying and remembering.)))

Edited November 9, 2004 by Shanet Clark

[Richard J. Smith]

"Have you already posted your biographical information?"

I will when you post yours.

"Why are you ignoring my earlier questions in this thread?"

Because I'm sick to death of the Files' fraud. I spent enough time on it. You and Files were thoroughly debunked a year ago. Al was right. You split from Lancer because no one bought the bogus Files story. Do you recall posting a thread there some time after the thrashing, then when no one responded, you asked why? Since you've probably invested over a million bucks into it, I can't say as I blame you for continuing to press the issue, even if there is no actual proof.

"Can you give us your quick take on:"

"Chauncey Holt": IMO he wasn't one of the tramps as you suggest. If I find the threads at Lancer, I'll post a link.

"Judyth Baker": complete and total BS. Has more holes in her story than Files does.

"Tosh Plumlee": Tosh is very interesting. He knows a great deal, but has made many conflicting statements over the years. I don't think the CIA would have sent an abort team to Dallas. I'm very interested in Tosh's info on Central America, cocaine smuggling, and the death of Kiki Camerena. I would, however, like to see Tosh post a complete up to date account of November 22, 1963, including any facts he has pertaining to Files, Roselli, etc. I don't think Tosh can place Files anywhere near Dallas on 11/22/63.

By the way, I'm sure you read the statement made here that Files was at one time married to Joe Bonnano's daughter. Care to give us your quick take on that?

RJS

[Wim Dankbaar]

"Have you already posted your biographical information?"

I will when you post yours.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdankbaar.htm

You may also google for "Wim Dankbaar" to find out I am not a mystery man like you are.

"Why are you ignoring my earlier questions in this thread?"

Because I'm sick to death of the Files' fraud.

Running from and ignoring the evidence, as expected. If you are so sick of it, why do you care to emphasize it again and again? are you maybe concerned it isn't so obvious as you would like it to be?

I spent enough time on it. You and Files were thoroughly debunked a year ago. Al was right. You split from Lancer because no one bought the bogus Files story. Do you recall posting a thread there some time after the thrashing, then when no one responded, you asked why? Since you've probably invested over a million bucks into it, I can't say as I blame you for continuing to press the issue, even if there is no actual proof.

There's ample proof, but you avoid discussing it, rather leave the opposite impression. I trust you as far as I can throw you, RJS, or whoever you are. The absence of a biographic info is typical. Untill you post that, I don't blame anyone calling you "shakey".

"Can you give us your quick take on:"

"Chauncey Holt": IMO he wasn't one of the tramps as you suggest. If I find the threads at Lancer, I'll post a link.

"Judyth Baker": complete and total BS. Has more holes in her story than Files does.

"Tosh Plumlee": Tosh is very interesting. He knows a great deal, but has made many conflicting statements over the years. I don't think the CIA would have sent an abort team to Dallas. I'm very interested in Tosh's info on Central America, cocaine smuggling, and the death of Kiki Camerena. I would, however, like to see Tosh post a complete up to date account of November 22, 1963, including any facts he has pertaining to Files, Roselli, etc. I don't think Tosh can place Files anywhere near Dallas on 11/22/63.

Good to see all of the above confirmed by you.

By the way, I'm sure you read the statement made here that Files was at one time married to Joe Bonnano's daughter. Care to give us your quick take on that?

Yeah, it's total bullxxxx, just like the other the baloney you 'd like to spread about the subjects above. Did the Bonnano's daughter allegation not come from Nancy Eldreth, the one you're having a flame war with and say she's crazy? You never mind to use her to your advantage when it suits you, do you? Well, you're indeed beginning to sound like Bob Vernon.

RJS

Edited November 3, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar

[William Plumlee]

"....The bad thing about it is, some of the things that were eliminated were errors on Files' part and what appeared to be your predecessor coaching him in what to say or how to say it..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gibson: Nov. 3, 2004

I too have been victimized by changes in my story by others who have been more interested in money than history. I have been coaxed with leading questions and outright manipulations. I have been encouraged to speculate on matters which were later published as factual statements. In one interview, which was mislabeled a "confession," I repeatedly had to correct the interviewer who tried to get me to say that someone had been on my aircraft who in fact was not. Despite this, the interviewer proceeded to misstate this fact because of how it supported his agenda with regard to his money-making project.

Now it is claimed by this same interviewer that I have changed my story. My life story has and is currently being used to sell products, using transcripts never reviewed or authorized by me. Just today I received information that I am being called a xxxx on another forum. I have resisted having the truth about that day in Dallas manipulated, to no avail. This problem has persisted for years, becoming increasingly strident. I have consistently refused to support a version of my story which makes claims, in my name, with which I do not agree.

From JFK Lancer posted today:

Excerpt from my testimony to Joe West, 1992:

"...Houston International which was the main airport there. And, I think it was a Hilton Hotel was were the people had stayed. We'd used that airport and the Hilton had just been built and the parking area where we used was on the Trans-Texas side and it was a National Guard...."

From a Robert G. Vernon post today:

"Houston Intercontinental Airport was opened in 1969.... Tosh, you can't lie your way out of this one. You said that on 11/21/63 the 'people' stayed in a Hilton Hotel by Houston International (that's what a lot of people call Intercontinental or IAH) and there was NO HILTON there, Tosh, for there was NO AIRPORT THERE."

Mr. Vernon posted this with full knowledge of his own attempt to deceive and confuse the reader, mixing up Houston International with the later Houston Intercontinental, now named after former President Bush. I sympathize with the researchers who are confused by these disinformation tactics. Perhaps I should be used toiMr. Vernon's tactics by now, but I'm not.

In a few weeks I will lead a seminar on this forum, beginning with a comprehensive and detailed declaration of my involvement in the events leading up to and including November 22, 1963. This declaration will be certified by me and will be sworn under penalty of perjury. It will be written by me, issued under my name, and will supersede any and all previous interpretation's or statements attributed to me by others.

Prior to this upcoming seminar declaration, I have never signed any statement being supplied to the public as a confession, or interview. I was never allowed to even see the transcript of the interview ("confession") before it was posted on a website and released to the public in 1992. At that time, when I voiced my objections to all involved parties, I was told "We will take care of it." The product was allowed to be sold to the public without my input or approval.

This situation has been going on for over 12 years. The original interviewer, Joe West, died before I could see the original transcribed transcript. I never saw, signed or dated the transcribed transcript or approved the videotape that I know was spliced by others. Various subject matters discussed off camera were explained in detail, then not recorded or transcribed correctly before being published in 1992.

I am posting the following only to prove how deliberate and malicious this ongoing disinformation campaign is:

"Houston International Airport is now commonly referred to as William P. Hobby Airport (or simply "Hobby"). In 1950, the name of the airport was Houston Municipal Airport, but when they started having service to Mexico City, (1961) it was changed to Houston International Airport, then finally becoming William P. Hobby in 1967. In the meantime, because they couldn't expand Hobby, all of the commercial flights were then moved to Intercontinental, which was built in 1969, and later became George Bush in 1997. So, it's perfectly reasonable (and truthful) that a private aircraft (DC-3) could have, and did, land at Houston International in 1963. Trans Texas Airline and Braniff Airline both had maintenance shops there in the late fifties and early sixties. Trans Texas had their main office at Houston International until 1964.".

Additional Referenced information on Houston International Airport:

http://www.airtimes.com/cgat/usc/texasintl/gal/tigal60.htm

http://www.braniffinternational.org/history/routes.htm

"...In 1950, the CAB awarded Mid-Continent the hotly contested North Central routes, consisting mainly of Route 106 between Sioux City and Chicago. That same year. Mid-Continent also inaugurated service with new 40-passenger Convair 240’s. At the time of the merger with Braniff in 1952, Mid-Continent was operating a fleet of 23 Douglas DC-3's and four Convair 240's over its 6,241 miles of routes, serving, 35 cities from Minneapolis/St. Paul and the Dakotas on the north to the southern termini of Houston and New Orleans. .."

1960’s

"Beginning in the mid-1960's, the company expanded rapidly. Company officials attributed this to recognition by the CAB of its need for "route strengthening. "Braniff's expansion was spectacular during the Johnson administration. Among the more important developments of this period were (1) the takeover of Panagra's routes in Latin America in 1967, (2) direct entry for its international routes into additional major U.S. gateways, such as New York, (3) a Houston-Seattle route and (4) direct routes between the Southeast and Hawaii that bypassed the U.S. west coast. The last case was decided by the CAB and President Johnson in 1968, although the award did not become final until 1969.".

Point being: In November, 1963 The Houston Texas, airport was known as "Houston International". Trans Texas Airline had a Hub there from 1957-64 as well as Dallas Love Field.

I am working diligently to produce the declaration to be posted for the seminar this coming November 22nd. At that time I will be available to answer any forum members' questions as to the truthfulness of my statements and declaration, with as much detail and precision as I am able to provide. I look forward to the opportunity to clarify these matters in an orderly manner during the seminar on this forum. I welcome any and all questions from sincere researchers and students. Until then, I remain,

Tosh Plumlee

Edited November 4, 2004 by William Plumlee

[Nancy Eldreth]

Tosh,

Don't even know how to ask or phrase this question.

Will try anyhow.

This is an opinion question not anything to do with JFK or politics for that matter.

Ok. Former Pres Bush I feel has done a lot of things that he shouldn't have done.

This is a serious question. In your opinion what do you think Former Pres. Bush does hide he is the only pres. to ever conseal his own documents and was made clear that he will never let them out not even for the FOIA inposed onto it. What do you feel this maybe about?

Could it be something to do with the drug trades?

Could it be some operations he was involved in?

Good thing this is out of the courtry asking this.

It could be a hard question. Somehow, I think you might know.

Thanks if you can help out any on this.

[Richard J. Smith]

"I am working diligently to produce the declaration to be posted for the seminar this coming November 22nd. At that time I will be available to answer any forum members' questions as to the truthfulness of my statements and declaration, with as much detail and precision as I am able to provide. I look forward to the opportunity to clarify these matters in an orderly manner during the seminar on this forum. I welcome any and all questions from sincere researchers and students. "

Tosh,

Most excellent statement. If you missed it, this is what I said to Wim in part of an earlier post:

"I would, however, like to see Tosh post a complete up to date account of November 22, 1963, including any facts he has pertaining to Files, Roselli, etc. I don't think Tosh can place Files anywhere near Dallas on 11/22/63."

I'm anxiously awaiting your piece on the seminar. Your story needs to be told from the horse's mouth, not from someone out to make you a part of THEIR story, and not altered by editing and such. That said, and with what you have said here now, are you in agreement with the interviews, statements, and other information pertaining to you as posted at jfkmurdersolved.com? You are being represented as a witness(as such) in the Files story. In your opinion, have you been represented fairly in the Files saga?

Thanks,

Richard

[Richard J. Smith]

RJS: By the way, I'm sure you read the statement made here that Files was at one time married to Joe Bonnano's daughter. Care to give us your quick take on that?

WD: Yeah, it's total bullxxxx

Only asking you to confirm something someone claims came directly from Files, and on apparently numerous occasions. There is a method to the madness. There are only 2 ways to look at this. Files did tell her that, or she, as so often happens, misstated, misunderstood, and misrepresented what was said. Perhaps if Ms Eldreth has this information in a letter she got from Files, she can post just that pertinent part. She is, as you know, a vociferous Files believer. I'd almost bet that after you read that, you fired off an email and told her again to stop helping Files, because she's making his case look bad.

RJS

[William Plumlee]

Question to Plumlee previous post by Richard J Smith:

"... are you in agreement with the interviews, statements, and other information pertaining to you as posted at jfkmurdersolved.com? You are being represented as a witness(as such) in the Files story. In your opinion, have you been represented fairly in the Files saga?...".

Thanks,

Richard

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

REPLY to above post of RJS: Nov. 04, 2004

(1) Absolutely Not.

(2) I have never been a "whitness" in the Files matter, nor do I support the story as presented.

(3) I have never been represented fairly. That is the reason for my upcoming declaration to be posted on this Forum.

Thanks for the questions. Tosh

[Wim Dankbaar]

Nowhere on jfkmurdersolved is Tosh presented as a "witness" to the Files story.

The only extent of corroboration for each other's stories is that both Tosh and Files place Roselli in Dallas that day. I have said nothing more, nothing less.

That's typical of RJS to leave wrong and misleading impressions.

And Tosh, I 'm getting somewhat annoyed with your satements that you're not represented fairly on my site. We talked everything over and I corrected the things that you felt were incorrect, like "testimony"and "confession" should be "interview" and such.

Why take your anger with a jerk from the past out on me? If there's something you feel uncomfortable with, then why not say it to me first?

Wim