Wim Dankbaar

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

Can someone post a better copy (higher resolution) of this Rickerby photo?

TIA

Wim

Could someone post a higher resolution copy of this Rickerby photo?

If Oswald is innocent of murdering President Kennedy, I wonder why he smuggled his rifle into work that day. I'd be interested to hear a reasonable explanation for that behaviour. Or is it a mere (and extremely unfortunate) coincidence? Or were they really curtain rods?

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

5. What was the primary purpose of any meetings with Bob Vernon?-----To officially set the record straight as to exactly who and what Daniel Marvin, LTC, United States Army Quartermaster Supply Corps (retired) actually is and exactly how full of BS he also is.

6. Was this in association with any other associations to Daniel Marvin?-----YES! It was a result of my having previously provided considerable information to Alan Eaglesham in regards to Daniel Marvin's line of BS.

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

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:

What matters is the truth, something Dave Perry has never approached nor is he near now. His limited knowledge of insurance investigations are no comparison to the over 250 years of combined FBI professional investigative expertise assembled by retired agent Shelton and his associates. Dave can’t carry their shoelaces, let alone walk on the same street with them.

I have never seen an investigative mind like Zack Shelton. He is phenomenal. He has a way after 28 years with the FBI; he has a way of getting to the facts. He is a no bones, no BS guy. He is straight out! He has not told me one thing that has been untrue, and I don't think he ever will! I trust Zack Shelton with my life! ... And you should too!

It appears that Mack and Perry made the Discovery Channel production for the flattering objective of discrediting James Files:

for the sake of the discussion, I ask you to agree with the Wim Dankbaar assertion that James Files was the “Grassy Knoll” assassin. Files indicates he killed Kennedy with a single shot from a Remington XP-100 prototype. However, it would appear after viewing the Discovery Channel’s JFK: Inside the Target Car experiments from the knoll shooter position, Mr. Files' story is flawed. It will be interesting to see how Mr. Dankbaar refutes the physical evidence provided by sharpshooter Michael Yardley. Two shots produced 1] a violent explosion and 2] a small entry wound on the right side and a massive exit wound on the left. As the Discovery Channel did it might behoove Mr. Dankbaar to provide his scientific video analysis to counter the Discovery Channel conclusion.

Dave Perry

November 15, 2008

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.

Duncan,

You made Gordon Arnold visible in that right picture!

I guess we owe Bill an apology

It is most unlikely that anyone who would be sufficiently foolish to actually believe, and then pay Bob Vernon for the purported answers to the JFK assassination, would either recognize or understand the correct road, even were it to jump up and hit them in the face.

Lastly, the email was provided for those who are most assuredly begining to grasp the full extent of the WC duplicity.

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:

What kind of a "researcher" posts his own fan mail. LOL Tell me Dankbaar, are you going to have that printed in this years xmas cards on top or below your photograph? ROTFL

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.

And let me remind you that Arnold never said Badge Man took his film ... was that supposed to be a trick question or have you not read carefully???

Bill Miller[/b]

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

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

Gary, online again? No rebuttal still? Are your valets doing a good enough job?

Wim

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

Ah Bill , I will believe that Wecht and Specter are "friends" if Cyril sends me an email that you are right. Okay?

Wim

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

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.

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,

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

Over on Lancer, a very fine researcher named Jerry Logan has independantly produced the same results in his studies of Gordon Arnold's size which I produced 16 months ago. I don't know Jerry, and I have never had any communication with him, but I would like to congratulate him on his independant verification of my study.

Judge the results for yourself.

Duncan MacRae

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!

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

I thought it pretty much started out as 'mudslinging' ... is it only when the mud splatters back some folks way is when the thread feels like its gone south?

Bill Miller

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

New clip added

Antonio Veciana on Frank Sturgis, Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-2988440640033094393

Now now boys. Lets keep things civil and get back on topic please.

Where were we...oh yeah Gary Mack.

I have had numerous "discussions" where he expressed his views and I stood my ground and was not persuaded by his arguments. He has a right to his opinions and I mine, Tippit being a major one.

If your easily flummoxed by one person trying to steer you one way or the other then your skin is much too thin for the likes of The Mack.

As for Denis saying he is "...undoubtedly the most knowledgeable researcher on this forum, arguable in the world. Because he only deals in facts and not wild theory..." I do not agree.

Gary tried to convince me the Medium Grey jacket was Oswald' and he might have picked it up at a second hand store or garage sale, as it was getting cold and he may have needed a warm coat. Sounds not only like wild speculation but a non sequitur, he already had a warm jacket for winter. Maybe in the spring he would have bought a size small windbreaker with all that cash he was carrying ($184+) , and with that kind of dough he would be able to buy new retail! Gary would say he was to cheap or frugal to buy new clothes, so Gary why buy it at all if you already have a nice warm coat and are so tight with money you can't buy your kid shoes but your buying extra jackets.

So yeah Gary does not always make a convincing argument.

Our ideas on what a reporter would/should do have clashed too with regards to seeing a rifle pointing out of a window and not even snapping a photo or trying to get a scoop on a sniper shooting at a Presidential Motorcade, or perhaps pointing this out to a cop. If you know there is a shooter in a window of a building but did nothing personally or professionally about it I find that hard to believe. So your choice would be to not follow the cop running to the building or take even a single photo of the exterior? Gary say's yes a good reporter would not deviate and stick with your assignment, to which I say then why get out of the car and run around the knoll? Why not stay in the car which will take off and possibly leave you with nothing but pictures of people lying on the grass and miss going to the Trade-Mart for a (YAWN) speech. NO, a good reporter goes where the story takes him. The baloney about other reporters will be coming along soon enough doesn't cut it. Your there, the story is there, you jumped out of a car to chase that story but ignore the very thing that makes the story, the shooter, and the cop about to confront said shooter. Let the next reporter go to the Trade-Mart and get the reaction there, whats the difference. Difference is the next reporter wouldn't know what you know about the rifle/which window/sixth floor/ etc. and would be less effective at that scene. Whereas both you and the next reporter along would be equal when it comes to the Trade-Mart story. Get it.

About the wallet, he made it seem the reporter could never make a mistake about its ownership. As if he was infallible.

I had to point out all the news reports which, in the heat of the moment, were without substantiated facts reported and later found to be wrong. Seems Gary always wants his cake and to eat it too. People are wrong only when it is convenient for him, and not vice verse.

The fact is he is very knowledgeable about all these things, yet has some strange quirk that doesn't let him believe his own eyes at times.

Sorry Gary but I needed to come clean here in this confessional about what I perceive to be your underlying faults.

I can't sit quietly and be jabbed with a SFM stick and not develop a strong opinion about such prodding. If he has some secret knowledge about this case and still speculates like a novice then I have to question why??

I do thank him for his help (be it asked for or not) and have, I hope, returned the favor when I can, seems the decent thing to do.

I don't think too many of us here agree on all the minutia or even some of the larger aspects, but at least we can see that it only takes one fact to go from conspiracy theory to a conspiracy.

You with us on that Gary?

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

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

... My question only seeks to find where Duke Lane stands on the JFK assassination in terms of a conspiracy versus the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald. So far I don't have an answer.

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