Jump to content
The Education Forum

Wim Dankbaar

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wim Dankbaar

  1. J - How about Frank Sturgis? JF - Frank Sturgis, he was there. J - How did you know Frank Sturgis? JF - I knew Frank Sturgis from the Bay of Pigs and from the SAO. I also knew Orlando Bosch. He was on scene. Orlando Bosch, I don't know if you are familiar with his name or not, but he was also present. Ah . there was a few other faces I recognized, I just don't remember the names for them, because it's so long ago. ************************ J - Were you aware that Roselli was working together with the government in anti-Castro activities. JF - Yes, I was well aware of that . J - Make a statement. JF - I was well aware that Johnny Roselli was involved in the government actions. He was like the liaison between CIA and organized crime. And he was heavily involved in the invasion of Cuba, the Bay of Pigs, Chianos Bay, whichever you prefer to call it. But he was also very tight with Frank Sturgis. Frank Sturgis headed up the S.A.O., which is the Secret Army Organization, what this is all about. And they had so many different codenames for wanting to kill Castro, I wouldn't even, I couldn't even name half of them. But every time you turned around, somebody had a new operation going. *********************** 3 years ago I asked in this thread about for evidence that Frank Sturgis was connected to the (rather unknown) SAO (Secret Army Organization). During my vacation I have been reading the excellent book Death in Washington (1980) by Donald Freed and was pleased to find the confirmation of what James Files said. Page 34 reads: Three weeks later, Callejeas was able to tell Michael about an exiting offer. The Townley family was to move to Miami. Michael was to study electronics and secret warfare skills with a Cuban exile group that would be in charge of their careers in Miami. Their sponsor, they were told, was the Secret Army Organization (SAO). Its chief was a flamboyant soldier of fortune named Frank Sturgis. Wim
  2. Can someone post a better copy (higher resolution) of this Rickerby photo? TIA Wim
  3. Dear Paul Baker, Are you just nuts, or ignorant or do you have another agenda? Where did you get the information that LHO smuggled a Mannlicher Carcano into work that day? Try to rest a disassembled Carcano on the palm of your hand and have the other end under your armpit! Wim
  4. Thanks for that Thomas H. Purvis. Now I know for sure who is the one full of BS! Daniel Marvin is a member of this forum. Moderators? Don't tell me that I cannot call Gary Mack a xxxx for stating that the single bullet theory is possible, while allowing THP to call fellow members full of BS. Members that won a lawsuit against the Association of Special Forces for telling the truth at the cost of 200,000 USDollars! Or do at least prove me wrong by pointing out that the single bullet theory IS possible! Wim
  5. Gary Mack's pal Dave Perry was part of Discovery channel production. He played the part of Kellerman. And low and behold, he has become friends with Bob Vernon! Quite a feat in view of Vernon's quotes below: It appears that Mack and Perry made the Discovery Channel production for the flattering objective of discrediting James Files: And on Vernon's propaganda, I only have to counter with the facts, if I would deem it worthwile. In one lie, through the misuse of an 80 plus lady, he claims that Files never used the name Sutton. Strange that the 1958 yearbook of Proviso East Highschool lists him as "James Sutton". Even stranger that his later wife Faith got to know him under that name at age 16.
  6. Duncan, You made Gordon Arnold visible in that right picture! I guess we owe Bill an apology
  7. You're funny, Thomas H. Purvis. First you don't answer my question, then you paint Bob Vernon as an irreliable jerk, but then you use his lies to "prove" your point about Files. That's called picking witnesses and evidence how it suits you ...... like the Warren Commission did. I am most assuredly beginning to grasp a duplicity here. Here's at least one statement from Files that you propably find credible:
  8. More fanmail: Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:09 PM You are right to start a thread about him except I see others object to slander. They don't see the big picture that it's not that we disagree about evidence etc. Mack and the Sick Floor are deeper Deception. He represents all that is wrong with American values.
  9. Huh? Are you sure? Arnold never said he gave "badgeman" his film? Then maybe this film is altered like the Zapruder film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn1-dy5-Ebs Wim
  10. I have a question. Why is Antonio Veciana considered an important and credible witness by so many? Don't get me wrong, I am of the same opinion, and I like him a lot, as his hard working family. But I can't deny that he lied under oath to a congressional committee. He told the HSCA that Maurice Bishop was NOT David Atlee Phillips. What if he had told the truth back then? Why is the CIA oath above truth? Why do we forgive Antonio Veciana for lying under oath? Isn't that an interesting question? Wim
  11. Gary, online again? No rebuttal still? Are your valets doing a good enough job? Wim
  12. Yes Thomas H. Purvis, I have question: What is your objective with starting this thread and posting that letter? I am still not able to "decipher your ramblings" (not my words, just your quote). And could you please guide me to the "correct road"? I don't know what that is in your world. Wim
  13. Ah Bill , I will believe that Wecht and Specter are "friends" if Cyril sends me an email that you are right. Okay? Wim
  14. I guess Paul May does not appreciate I am calling Senator Arlen Specter what he is. Maybe some day Vincent Bugliosi and I could work together! Haha! I am at least as unsympathetic to Bush as he is. And on that we agree! Wim
  15. A contributing reaction to this thread from confessed "lone nutter" Paul May: ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul May To: dank@xs4all.nl Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:42 PM Subject: A good chuckle Wim old boy, you are truly giving the CT's of this world a bad name. You're losing it Dankbaar. And everybody knows it.
  16. Bill, John Simkin is correct that many more people than the members read this forum. I receive the evidence every single day: Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:27 PM Subject: James Files Dear Wim Dankbaar, I am a sometime student of the JFK assassination and I follow the topics found on the various forums, such as Lancer and the Education Forum, without being a posting member of any. I have carefully examined your website on James Files. A striking brief in my view. Well done! I'm prompted to drop you a line just now because of what I've just seen on the Education Forum with regard to Gary Mack. I wonder if it has occurred to you that if Badgeman is eliminated as a possibility, and I share your opinion that he has been, then one must look about for another sniper if one agrees that shots originated from the grassy knoll. If one is prejudiced against Files, then abandoning Badgeman is a real effort because then Files gains in stature as a possibility. This line of reasoning eventually leads to the thought that if Files is accepted as the real sniper, then so called researchers are deprived of a livelihood. For example, if Gary Mack excepts that Files is the sniper, then the 6th Floor Museum becomes a circus sideshow, so to speak. This is to be avoided at all costs apparently! Well, I'm sure you looked at this in this way, so enough said. Finally, I'd like congratulate you on a tour de force website and also on your research which continues to move the JFK assassination question forward to new discoveries, such as the Death in Washington revelations which I noticed. I don't see Mack doing any research moving ahead; it's rather the opposite in his case, a retrogression. If you would care to post this email as from one of your supporters, please feel free. Best regards & good luck,
  17. No Supreme appeal for Wecht By Jason Cato TRIBUNE-REVIEW Monday, December 1, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to consider an appeal by Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, who had hoped to avoid a second federal public corruption trial. The former Allegheny County coroner is accused of using his public office for private gain. U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab declared a mistrial in April after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict on any of the 41 counts of fraud or theft. Wecht, 77, of Squirrel Hill argued Schwab erred in the way he ended the trial, and that a second trial would amount to double jeopardy. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument in October, although it did assign a new judge to preside over the case. The U.S. Supreme Court offered no explanation for rejecting Wecht's appeal. Wecht's remaining chances of avoiding a second trial will rest with U.S. District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. No date has been scheduled for a new trial. A grand jury indicted Wecht in January 2006 on 84 counts. The U.S. attorney's office dropped more than half of those charges in January 2008 in an effort to streamline its case prior to trial. Last month, prosecutors again reduced the number of charges to 14. Jason Cato can be reached at jcato@tribweb.com or 412-320-7840. ----- Original Message ----- From: Wim Dankbaar To: jcato@tribweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:14 PM Subject: letter to the editor Wecht trial: Why is Cyril Wecht on trial with fake charges and not that treacherous lying sob Arlen Specter that refuses to debate the single bullxxxx theory with him? Wim Dankbaar www.jfkmurdersolved.com
  18. Duncan, would you mind giving the forum at least a couple of general references that make you believe that Arnold was proven to be a ghost. Thanks! Gee, Bill, don't you read or do you refuse to read? Do you have eyes? Do you have any clue to human dimensions? Can you compare? To me it's very very clear! Gordon Arnold is a ghost, even more than Badgeman (if that's possible)! And you talk about smoke and mirrors? May I tease you some more? Point out Gordon Arnold and Badgeman stealing his film in these pictures: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/knoll.htm And give me ONE witness who testified to the little quarrel between Badgeman and Arnold! Wim PS: Duncan, please make me a picture of Bigfoot behind that retaining wall! Maybe I will believe that!
  19. Smoke and mirrors and publicity is Mack's specialty, Bill. Now, let me know your opinion, so I know what to make of you: Is the single bullet theory possible? Yes or no? Wim
  20. If I accuse Gary Mack of lying about one of the most crucial issues in the JFK assassination (the single bullet theory) and I can prove it, that is no mudslinging, nor is it slander. It's pointing out a fact. Maybe a fact that you don't like, but still a fact. If Gary Mack would sue me for libel, he would lose......... Also, I believe that everyone who would file a charge challenging the statement that the single bullet theory is possible, would win. The judge and jury would have to dismiss the Warren Commission's and FBI's OWN evidence in order to dismiss that charge. They would have to acknowedge that Sibert's and O'Neill's recorded obversations were wrong. Is it any wonder that Specter tried to say that they did not make any notes, nor a report? Wim
  21. New clip added Antonio Veciana on Frank Sturgis, Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-2988440640033094393
  22. Gary Mack knows enough to be dangerous. He knows what to hide and what to exploit. However, he seems to have too many agendas to be able to be consistent. He has no qualms about misusing evidence to prove a false point, as in the case of the SS color limo photos, which he falsely claimed were taken at 1 a.m. 11.23.63 during the FBI forensic exam of the limo when he knows perfectly well they were not taken until late the following afternoon. His assertions cannot be trusted if you are interested in knowing what really happened. Ed and Pamela, Sensible contributions. Yes, Gary will be pleased that "his" thread is developing in a mudslinging contest between individuals. Wim
  23. Yes James, that's the one. Thanks ! I recalled th picture was of bad quality. Indeed it is. I wonder if the original is better. I think it came from the Garrison papers? Wim
  24. Right. But you could have if you'd used the time you've been waiting for one more constructively by reading any of my posts. If you don't want to, you don't have to, but that's where your answer lies. Why send me on a wild goose chase if you can give the answer in two sentences ? Why beat around the bush? Reading your posts so far, I get the impression you are everything except what John McAdams labeled you. Do you profess a "neutrality" like Gary Mack? Wim
  • Create New...