Wim Dankbaar

Was David Atlee Phillips not from Fort Worth? Did he live in an apartment building?

That is because part of your work I respect. Other parts I dismiss, like the thesis that Hunt was the old tramp. Also, I have not seen credible evidence for many of your claims of alteration in the Zapruder film. Some of those claims are easily debunked. But what I miss most are the motives of the conspirators? What purpose did it serve them to alter the heights of Zapruder and Sitzman for example? Or put Moorman and Hill on the street? Or make Mrs. Frantzen dissapear? I could imagine they would want to make Kennedy's head move in such a way, that it suggests only shots from the back. But I don't see that either. It goes back and to the left. All I see is evidence for the headshot coming from the grassy knoll. So if they didn't alter crucial things, why did they worry about Zapruder, Morrman and Mrs. Frantzen? I believe your conviction that these theories are correct, is sincere. This is also why I don't beleive you are a disinformationalist, at least not on purpose. However, I regret that you cite your reputation and photographic skills, both of which you undoubtly have, to endorse ALL your work. Because, even if the intention is sincere, it's still disinformation. Now, let me point out some logic arguments for Holt, not Hunt, being the tramp as John suggested I should: - Holt has acknowledged he IS the older tramp. Hunt has denied it. - Hunt was a higher ranking CIA officer. Holt was a mere (expendable) pawn. It is simply unlikely that Hunt would dress up as a worker, tramp, whatever, to participate in an assassination project like this. If caught, he would not even have plausible denial. - Holt has identified the other two tramps as Harrelson and Montoya (Rogers), who prove to have remarkable resemblance with the other tramps, even to Harrelson's own admission. Your hunch for the tall tramp is Frank Sturgis if I am not mistaken. It is a no-brainer to show that Sturgis does not even look like the tall tramp. - Holt, Harrelson and Rogers have been confirmed by renowned facial expert and Houston Police forensic artist Lois Gibson. She does this for a living and is the most respected person in the world for this line of work. You may be a photographic expert, but you're not a facial recognition expert. www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm - Rogers has been confirmed from the tramp photos by at least two witnesses that knew him (Chuck Rolland of the Houston ice skaiting rink and a girlfriend who had dated him) - Holt has (had) a multitude of documents to prove his confession, which by the way he says he made because all the principals were dead now and the american public had a right to know. - There is a record for Harrelson that he admitted to involvement in the Kennedy assassasination. There is none for Sturgis. - Woody Harrelson is pretty sensitive about the subject. James Richards could give us a story on that. Why would Woody be jumpy if the story about his father is so obviously fake? Wim PS: Here's a point of light: We do agree that the photographed tramps were not Doyle, Gedney and Abrams.

Larry, Thanks for the extensive reply. However, I still don't know whether it is your belief that Bishop was Phillips? Wim

Larry, If you say that Phillips was NOT Veciana's CIA case officer, does that mean you believe Veciana was lying when he said he knew his CIA contact as "Maurice Bishop" ? Or do you simply believe that Maurice Bishop was not David Atlee Philips? Wim

John, It seems the only one you can be referring too here, is James Files. If so, why dont you say so? I do not know of any other prisoners, who are unlikely to be released and have made a confession of involvement in the JFK assassination. You state about these confessions that they appear "to have been given in order to obtain some financial reward". Can you offer backup for such a statement, if indeed you were referring to Files? Wim

Lee, FWIW: Here's an email I wrote to Jim Fetzer: On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, wim dankbaar wrote: > Jim, > > I'd like to tell you this up front: I have not read your books yet, but in > eagerness glanced over a few pages. my impression is that you undoubtly > have uncovered a great deal of unknown stuff and I view you as a tremendous > asset to hopefully solve the case some day, or better, get the entire world > convinced there's was a conspiracy and thus expose the government cover up, > still ongoing up to this day. This will rock the foundations of american > consciousness, which is why I think the JKF murder is still a very actual topic. > > However, in a good investigation there are always some errors, which does > NOT mean the rest of its investigation suddenly lost its value. One such > error I found quickly after checking the films and I hope you don't mind me > drawing your attention to it. I read with great interest and amazement your > stuff about people come and go in the Nix and Zapruder film, particularly > the Franzens.. Because first glance you seem to be right. But I found after > studying the moving pictures frame by frame that Mrs Franzen has NOT > dissappaered in the Nix film. In fact the 'unknown' woman' in the Nix film > allegedly not visible in the Zapruder film IS Mrs Franzen herself. She > backs away from her husband in horror after seeing the full extent of JFK's > headwounds. This is why she looks to be a sudden stranger in the Nix film, > since she's no longer next to her husband. In fact she partially blocks the > view of the unidentified man, which is logical, because she is in front of > him (from the NIX viewpoint). Let me state this is my OPINION, based on > what I see on those films. Please check it again and let me know if it > makes sense. Please understand I'm not out to try and nail or discredit > you, because the majority of your work is in alignment with my own thoughts > about the case and I'm already convinced I will learn more from you.. > > I hope you don't mind my critics, if not I'll be back with more, as well as > compliments. > > Thanks, > > Wim FWIW: Jim acknowledged the observation and thanked me for it.

Ha, this is an issue I wholeheartedly agree with Jack White. The backyard photos can be proven fakes on many accounts. Here is one (courtesy of Bill Miller) showing the varying size of the body, while the size of the face remains the same. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Oswaldbackyardfake.gif Also the shadow under the nose remains the same, even if the head is tilted in one of the photographs. Here is another, showing the square chin, opposed to Oswald's pointed chin. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/oswaldchin.jpg There are many more, but one is enough to prove Oswald right when he said these pictures were fakes, it was his head pasted on another body, and in time he would be able to prove it. Wim

How am I personally attacking Jack White? I am only challenging him to produce his evidence and arguments for finding the Holt story not credible. It is HE that does not want to do this, but it is all right to claim Holt is not credible, period? And now I am being accused of attacks and less than impecable behaviour? This is the world upside down. Please specify where I have not been impecable and which other well respected researchers I have personally attacked. I don't take it lightly that YOU attack ME, since you are the administrator, who should be objective. Your guidance of logic argument, which I follow and Jack White not, apparently does not apply for Mr. White. You put me in one sentence with T. Folsom, who indeed I have accused of being a dishonest man, not using his own identity. Just like you have done yourself, in much harsher words I might add. So now I didn't have a right to do that? Tell me, which other forum member have I attacked, apart from this one member that you called a "rogue poster" too? And as my behaviour on other forums, I have had a clash with Mr. Rich della Rossa of JFKResearch for virtually the same reasons as are developing here. He was protecting Mr. White, giving him the floor for attacks on Judyth Baker and denying me the answers. As I protested this kind of censorship, he denied me further access claiming that I had "resigned" (despite my contribution of 25 bucks, I might add). I don't think you are familiar with that history and have been unilaterally informed. If you want to do the same and give the floor to Jack White and others, attacking other people's testimonies, without the opportunity for others to challenge (or provoke as he calls it), at the same time leaving a false impression about me, painting me as a pain in the neck, then I'll leave this platform to you and the rest Wim PS: You did correct New Orleans into Clinton now, thanks. I was indeed looking every day. Last time was yesterday and it had not been done. PS2: Chauncey's daughter still has all the documents to prove her father's story, including the note from Pete Licavoli to pick up Nicoletti and Moceri at the Grace Ranch, the instructions from Philip Twombly to produce the SS ID's and George Reynolds to come to New Orleans with Leroy Young, letters from Meyer Lansky and William King Harvey and on and on and on. Jack White and others don't know ZIP about this. Maybe it is just more covenient to keep claiming Chauncey is a hoax, as well as his documents, without even having seen them. It is THAT and the detail of Chauncey's testimony and the new unknown names and roles that he adds, like George and Bob Reynolds, Lloyd Cobb, Leroy Young, Paulino Sierra, Frank and Bud Belcher that convinces me of his credibility. Chauncey is the strongest witness you will ever get and THAT is why his story is not known to the world and why some "researchers" must claim he is a fraud, although I believe in Jack White's case it is just lack of information and an inclination to cling to his own false theories on the three tramps. If that hurts Mr. White's feelings, that is just too bad. He has shown no reservations in attacking others and he has a chance to defend his views here and now. Instead he seems too good to be "provoked". Jack White should have a long sitdown with Jim Fetzer, for whose book he wrote chapters (on which I pointed out some grave errors as well, particularly on his theory that people "come and go" in the Zapruder film, like Mrs. Frantzen) And if he still must insist Chauncey is a fraud, let him take his photographic skills and prove that it is NOT Bud Belcher and Leroy Young in the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pamplhets in front of the Trade Mart. See picture here: www.jfkmurdersolved.com/holt1.htm These are things that are easily verifiable for good researchers, for example by locating witnesses who knew these two men, or even these men themselves. It would also be easily verifiable if Chauncey's documents are fakes. It has already been verified by handwriting experts that those letters of Meyer Lansky match Lansky's handwriting of other known letters. What a fraud Chauncey must have been, to imitate complete handwritings, signatures and letterheads, as well as inventing all these names and facts that can be verified if checked (and have been to a great extent). And for what? Just to leave his family with the legacy of being a "fraud"? The truth of the matter is that people who "have found it unconvincing" do not know the extent of his testimony, cannot produce ANYTHING in his story that can be disproven, or have another reason to say so.

James, Would you expect RFK to CONFIRM he or JFK was having an affair with Monroe? Wim

John, I think ít's pretty obvious that you don't like me very much. That is okay, except if it brings you to false and prejudiced statements. There is NOTHING rude about my statement that Mr. White chooses the easy way out. Discussing the evidence is EXACTLY what I offer to Mr. White. It is HE who does not want to discuss it. You are twisting the FACTS. Additionally, I have never been concerned with the rejection of the "vast majority", which I don't believe is true anyway in the case of Chauncey Holt. The truth is the truth, even if it has a minority of one. That is the only thing that matters to me. Neither have I ever seen credible arguments to discount Chauncey's past and story. All I have seen is flat denials without arguments,like the cheap joke of Jack White. Let him or any other member of the "vast majority" dare expose the holes in his story, and I'll answer them. Only then we can argue logically. Wim PS: On another note. Can you correct New Orleans into Clinton?

I repeat my post from the RFK discussion: It is possible that the conspirators had "the goods" on the Kennedy's, enough to force Bobby to keep his mouth shut. For example, I am convinced Marilyn Monroe was pregnant from JFK, refused the abortion that Giancana would arrange in Chicago, just like with Judyth Exner, then fell victim to JFK's request to Giancana to solve the problem. Giancana sent a private plane with his men to the west coast on the early morning of August 4, 1962, and RFK was there personally to make sure the evidence would suggest suicide. I'd say that's enough to make sure Bobby won't call for an investigation (into his brother's death). Wim

According to Chauncey Holt, Harrelson was connected to John Masen, the gunsmith of Dallas, where Holt had to send ammunition. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/holt1.htm I believe there is evidence Masen that was involved with Ruby in gun running, but I don't have it readily available now. Masen is still holding shop by the way. Authorities could still question him. Nobody does of course (what else is new?). Except perpaps me, but predictably, he just said: "Friend, don't ever call me again!" This is from Dave Perry's website (of all people ) http://home.flash.net/~dperry2/elrod.html The LaFontaines claim proof of a link between Ruby, Miller and Oswald by stating "Oswald, according to Elrod's account, was acquainted with Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby and a man (Lawrence Miller) arrested in Dallas while transporting stolen weapons on Nov. 18, 1963. Those guns, according to the sworn testimony of a federal agent, were intended for a Dallas gun dealer named John Thomas Masen." Masen is important because he owned "The only store in the Dallas area that sold the type of ammunition used in the shooting of President Kennedy." We also find Ruby and Miller were obtaining their stolen weapons from Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas. An agent for Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) named Frank Ellsworth visited Fort Hood in October 1963 and asked Army and FBI investigators about the thefts. In 1978 Ellsworth related to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) the investigators ". . . told me somebody was stealing them blind." Ellsworth discovered a Captain George Nonte Jr. was responsible for ordnance at the base. "Nonte, who died in 1978, had a top secret clearance and was one of the world's leading experts on firearms, eventually authoring many books on guns." So it seems Ruby was involved with Masen in some sort of gun running operation. They worked through Nonte using criminals like Miller to provide weapons for their nefarious activities. You might try this Google search: http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&ie=UTF-8...ing+%2Bruby&lr=

The clip(s) you are talking about are on my website http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm There is a third clip out there, that I don't have yet, where Ruby tells a reporter it was a vast conspiracy. Wim

South knoll. Douglas Weldon did a good chapter on that in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" of James Fetzer

What an easy way out! If Jack does not want to debate and speculate about identities, he should also refrain from downplaying jokes about Chauncey Holt, an heroic man who was one of the first insiders with courage enough to give the American public what it is entitled to: The truth ! But okay, here is a question about Jack's research: Jack, please show us how you arrived at the conclusion that the old "tramp" is E. Howard Hunt, and how your research precludes it is Chauncey Holt? Wim

For what it's worth, James, I think 2 cents is way too low. Wim

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it of course. However I do not agree. I 'd say the identitties of the gunmen are largely known: James Files and Charles Nicoletti, Johnny Roselli as Nicoletti's backup. With less certainty I have David Morales and Richard Cain in the TSBD. Charles Harrelson and Luis Posada Carrilles at unknown locations, most likely at the north and south knoll. Both of these last two men are still alive and availble for questioning, as are Posada's compadres Felix Rodriguez and Orlando Bosch, who is also placed in Dallas by two separate witnesses. What is being done? Nothing!

That is interesting ... So who do you believe where the actual shooters, killed within weeks after the assassination? Or don't you have a hunch as to their identites and is this just a theory you favor? Wim

Question of the month: The American mainstream media is wary of conspiracies. It is almost a dirty word and it is often argued that vast conspiracies like most people see for example behind the Kennedy assasinations are too monstrous to cover up and that people would have talked before and after the fact. Actually this happened on many occasions, but let's ignore that .... Why is the mainstream press so gullible on such a huge conspiracy as Osama Bin Laden and allies pulled off on 9/11/2001, involving 19 hi-jackers, four planes and god knows how many more backup people and infrastructure?

Quote from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKturnerN.htm In another episode, Charles Harrelson, who some investigators believed was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, told Turner that "on November 22, 1963, at 12.30, I was having lunch with a friend in a restaurant in Houston, Texas." Dave Perry and Gary Mack also use this alibi for Harrelson, apparently taking the suspect's word at face value. Shall we bet that this alibi has not been proven? Wim

On this topic, one should know about the investigative work of Daniel Hopsicker. http://www.madcowprod.com/ Wim

Okay, no one has ever disputed the genuinity of this document, including the FBI, the ARRB, The Nation, the VP office and even Bush himself. Yet now we have to accept it is probably false, just because John and Larry think so. Well sorry, but that is just not good enough for me. Bush is right in the middle of all the Operation 40 Cubans. He is still friends with Orlando Bosch and Felix Rodriguez. He has released Bosch and Luis Posada Carrilles, both convicted terrrorists and both present on Dealey Plaza. He has also helped get the Novo Sampol brothers off the hook for the Orlando Letelier assassination. But Larry needs documented proof for Bush's CIA and Operation 40 connection in the early sixties. Oh well, I guess that's why this case will never be solved. By the way, Valenti had no need to jump all over it. It did not attract a whole lot of attention and went by virtually unnoticed. Bush was simply elected President. Jumping all over it would only have attracted that attention. Valenti and Ford had to act on the History Channel, because that HAD attracted attention and did NOT go by unnoticed. Damage control. But the Bush memo hat not even produced damage. Why bother? Wim "I guess the public gets the government it deserves" Rodney Stich, author of Defrauding America

http://www.koodata.com/coupsample.pdf

Thanks Ron, that's good information. Larry, I don't know if there is a release number for it, I expect there is, whether from NARA or not. As the article says, it was declasiified and buried in a BIG batch of FBI files: "Hoover's memo, which was written to the director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, was buried among the 98,755 pages of F.B.I. documents released to the public in 1977 and 1978 as a result of the Freedom of Information Act suits." On another note, if the document was not genuine, don't you think Bush, the FBI , and or the CIA would have carnked out a challenge to it? Come on! Ignoring is the better strategy, and so far it seems pretty succesful. Wim

Jack, I don't know whether to respect you or laugh at you. After all, my friend Jim Marrs speaks highly of you. Obviously Ron and you don't know what you're talking about and prefer to speak and have an opinion before you have the facts. Chauncey's story is NOT known to you. Do you know who Philips Twombly was? Frank Belcher? Joe Ball? Leroy Young? George Reynolds? Bob Reynolds? I guess not half, nor do you know how they were connected. Let's have a debate first on whether Hunt and Sturgis where the tramps, as you you believe. You want to take me on ? Let's do it! At least your friend Rich can't kick me off, to come to your rescue here! Wim