Mike Williams
-
Posts
1,023 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mike Williams
-
-
Charles,
It would seem to me that authorship is not the most important thing. The information provided is.
If one were to post something you did not agree with you are of course free to prove those facts wrong, no matter who penned them.
Is that not what research is all about?
The analogy to man and rank was made not in an attempt to list this as a military operation. Apparently you missed that all together, as did Rigby. It is no surprise Rigby missed it, but I am surprised you did.
The point I was trying to make simply is Respect, or reject the information, not the person.
When one can not refute the information given, then it seems some resort to bashing the poster.
You say that debate and exchange with the likes of some is impossible, always has been, always will be. My question is, why is that? Is it just because some lack to ability to refute the information they provide? IS that why you called what I had to say schoolyard pablum? You could not dispute what was said, so you try and belittle it? Not a very upright debate tactic Charles.
I also notice in the post you called me G.I. Joe. Another attempt at an insult? Why would that be Charles, had I insulted you in any way? No I did not. It is but another of the tactics some resort when they can not answer the statements made directly.
So it would seem in the end when faced with information there are some options involved:
1) Dispute the information and debate it with facts.
2) Pick up ones ball and go home.
3) Disrespect the poster in hopes that those watching will not notice that you cant refute there posts.
To those who chose option one, my heartfelt respect. To those who chose option 2, it is a shame you don't have the heart to carry your conviction. And to those who chose 3, I wish you had chosen option 2, and simply left.
I would like to thank you Charles for correcting a few of my literary mistakes. I have never been a professional assembler of words. I chose instead to insure that those who do assemble words would always have the right to speak them.
Best,
Mike
-
Of course all the things you mention hold weight, but, they do not remove the possibility, they remove probability. Bullets can often be unpredictable creatures. The only thing that would rule out possibility is to show that the physics and ballistics do not work.
Again the projectile and cartridge were capable of the task.
I actually saw a human hit in the shoulder with the exit wound behind the right knee......So by your logic it would be impossible and yet it was possible.
Mike, your comment indicates to me I've been less than cogent in the
presentation of my argument, and for that I apologize.
The problem with the SBT is not the behavior of the bullet in the body,
it's in the behavior of the bullet in mid-air.
If a bullet exits a body on an upward trajectory it cannot travel a couple
of feet and then make a 90 degree turn downward in mid-air.
And yet this is what you are claiming to be "possible."
For instance: take out a compass, a medium powered rifle, and a 6.55mm
FMJ round.
Load the round into the rifle and point to due West.
Keeping the rifle pointed due West, fire.
Is it possible for the bullet to travel a couple of feet and then take an
abrupt mid-air right hand turn 90 degrees and proceed to fly due North?
Of course not.
But in trying to square the SBT with the physical evidence this is what
you are claiming to be "possible."
Every time you make this claim Sir Isaac Newton turns in his grave.
Cliff,
I sent you a PM in regard to this. Hope to hear from you.
I would contend that IF the targets were aligned then the mysterious alteration in trajectory would not be required. It is this that limits the probability.
Some issues we face are the 3 degree drop of Elm, the posture of the President, and the unpredictable nature of the wound path itself, and the position of Connally.
Im not saying I believe it DID happen, and in fact, I believe it did not.
I think Sir Isaac would certainly understand that understanding a falling apple is a far cry for understanding the variables involved with a medium velocity rifle bullet.
-
I would think that in 1963 Dallas, if that is in fact when and where he obtained them, ammunition purchases would be about as common as chewing gum.
The rifle evidence and the revolver evidence are of different orders of magnitude.
Even without his fingerprints we KNOW he ACTUALLY possesed ammo for the revolver.
THe original question on this thread pinpoints why the rifle is in a different category from the revolver. If he had truly bought a box of M-C ammo why was there no trace of M-C ammo in his belongings.
We do not know, and cannot prove, that he EVER had ammo for that Carcano, but we DO KNOW and can prove that he did have ammo for the revolver.
And the way we do know, and can prove he had handgun ammunition is because he was caught with it. There are no receipts, eyewitnesses, or any other indication that he purchased that ammo.
There is no evidence that he ever bought Carcano ammo either, but that does not mean he did not posses any.
So here is the point, if he acquired ammo for the pistol, which he obviously did, in an undetected manner, then there is no reason to believe that he could not have done the same for the Carcano.
-
It was in part due to posts of Jan and David being made invisible-unfairly so, where as Len gets preferential treatment for his blather and anti- conspiracy nonsense.
Dawn - Rubbish. Jan was offered a reasonable compromise - one which made the intention of his post clear - but chose to take offense and leave. His choice.
Jack refused make a simple effort to comply with the Forum rules - rules which applied to everyone. Instead he acted like a petulant child. His choice.
Thus far I have refrained from comment, but I do have something to say.
Does it really matter what or whom any of us are?
In the military its a matter of respect the rank, not the person. Something similar could be said here.
If Len is Len, and entity, a conglomerate, whatever, should it not be the information he posts that concerns us?
I mean after all is this not a forum for debate, and exchange and examination of ideas? Who really cares what Len is, what should matter is the information he supplies. If its good, great, if its bad, debate him.....sounds simple enough to me.
Is the real issue here that some disagree with him, but can not refute his information, and such leads them to look for alternative ways to discredit him?
Or is it possible that since some can not refute him, they simply want him silenced?
People are leaving, being put on moderation etc etc....and that does NOTHING constructive for the debate and exchange......its just a shame.
Mike
-
Mike, this stuff about the '67 CBS tests leads me to wonder which Carcano they used: the accurate 40-inch "short rifle" [model 91/38] or the less-accurate 36-inch "shortened" rifle [model 91/24]. Might've made a BIG difference in the accuracy part of the tests.
BTW: Wasn't Howard Donahue the man behind the Bonar Menninger book, Mortal Error ? That would be the book that accused SS agent Hickey of accidentally firing the fatal headshot from the SS follow-up car from his AR-15...for which, IIRC, Hickey sued Menninger...is that not correct?
Mark,
Im not convinced that the differences in rifles would have made a major change in such a short distance shooting event.
I believe that is the same Donahue. It also seems, if I recall correctly, there was some conflict between them after the book. what I suspected was that Donahue was less than impressed with the way Menninger portrayed the information.
Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that Donahue actually completed the event.
Best,
Mike
The Model 91/24 to which Mark refers is the old Long Rifles of the period from when these weapons were placed into service in 1892 until the year 1924 when a modification began in which literally thousands of the old Long Rifle which had the progressive gain twist were converted to Model 91/24 Carbines by having the front 32.8 cm/12.79 inches of the rifle barrel cut off.
Dependent upon exactly how much wear the weapon had prior to "cut-down", at a hundred yards, some of them may have difficulty in repetetively hitting between the two end-zone goal posts.
Which weapon is of course responsible for much of the "lore" in regards to the inability to hit anything with the weapon, as well as the unsafe nature of the weapon.
Both of which have considerable merit for that specific weapon, which also happens to be the weapon in the Klein's add that LHO ordered.
http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/9124ts.html
Barrel Length Model 91 Long Rifle:---------------------------------------78cm
Barrel length Model 91/24 Carbine:--------------------------------------92.1cm
12.79 inches of the barrel, which also contained the final full-gain twist of the rifling, now gone.
So the longer rifles of course would be more accurate, and the shorter "modified" rifles a crap shoot dependent upon wear before the modification began. Makes sense.
So if in fact a carbine were in place during the shooting event, its accuracy would have been great to lousy.....
Nothing comes easy do it?
The Klein's add was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, (cut-down Long Rifle) which by it's very nature is extremely inaccurate.
The Order number of LHO's order form was for the Model 91/24 Carbine, which only a complete fool would attempt to utilize in an assassination attempt.
LHO, as demonstrated by his discussion with Adrian Alba, clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the potential effect that shortening a rifle into a carbine, could have on accuracy.
Then, LHO is shown holding a Model 91/38 Short Rifle.
And lastly, a Model 91/38 Short rifle, which was utilized in the assassination of JFK, is recovered on the sixth floor of the TSDB.
Me thinks that Mark is merely attempting to get a "second" informed opinion as to the viability of utilization of a Model 91/24 Carbine in the shooting event, and exactly why one would not want to attempt to utilize such a weapon.
These old 91/24's demonstrated considerable internal wear also. The progressive gain twist obviusly cut down on some of this initial wear, but the early day highly corrosive powder did it's damage quite effectively.
Actually, Tom, the point I was attempting to raise was...if CBS attempted the recreation with the 91/24 that Oswald ordered from Klein's, instead of the 91/38 that was found in the TSBD, it might explain why their experts had trouble with accuracy, as well as why thry might've had trouble with the operation of worn bolts and such. Whereas, if CBS attempted their recreation with the 91/38 short rifle, the degree of difficulty would, IMHO, be quite different.
Anyone know if there's a record of what variety rifle CBS used?
Mark,
It has been awhile since I watched the show. Im due
I will watch it again tonight and let you know. There is actually a rather lengthy segment where they show the tests.Mike
-
But it nevertheless remains a fact that no purchase of ammunition of any sort - not for the rifle or for the revolver - was ever connected with Oswald,
There are important distinctions between the rifle evidence and the revolver evidence. Lee Oswald did not dispute owning and possessing a fully loaded revolver in the Texas theatre. It is true that we have no sales receipt for his revolver ammo purchases, but since .38 Special ammo must have had fairly high-volume sales (I think the .38 Special was the favorite handgun) in America at the time, such a sale to a young man like Lee Oswald might have gone unremembered. The fact that he had ammo on his person when he was arrested proves he either bought, begged borrowed or stole the .38 Special ammo. Since he was neither a thief nor a begger I think we have to conclude that he bought the revolver ammo himself.
The situation regarding rifle ammo, I think we all agree, is entirely of a different order.
The one thing that we know for sure is that Oswald did in fact obtain pistol cartridges, of two different brands to boot, in an undetected manner. There is no reason to believe that he could not have done the same regarding rifle cartridges.
I would think that in 1963 Dallas, if that is in fact when and where he obtained them, ammunition purchases would be about as common as chewing gum.
-
I saw adverts on the TV in the US about this. Homes for as low as a few hundred dollars - whatever it took to pay off the rates owed on the property.
I thought it just a con. My motto remains "If it sounds too good to be true, then it is likely not true".
It seems, however, there are cases where the low prices are actually true.
Detriot.....ugh the lady should have asked for a discount.....I think a quarter would do the trick.
Mike
-
Mike, this stuff about the '67 CBS tests leads me to wonder which Carcano they used: the accurate 40-inch "short rifle" [model 91/38] or the less-accurate 36-inch "shortened" rifle [model 91/24]. Might've made a BIG difference in the accuracy part of the tests.
BTW: Wasn't Howard Donahue the man behind the Bonar Menninger book, Mortal Error ? That would be the book that accused SS agent Hickey of accidentally firing the fatal headshot from the SS follow-up car from his AR-15...for which, IIRC, Hickey sued Menninger...is that not correct?
Mark,
Im not convinced that the differences in rifles would have made a major change in such a short distance shooting event.
I believe that is the same Donahue. It also seems, if I recall correctly, there was some conflict between them after the book. what I suspected was that Donahue was less than impressed with the way Menninger portrayed the information.
Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that Donahue actually completed the event.
Best,
Mike
The Model 91/24 to which Mark refers is the old Long Rifles of the period from when these weapons were placed into service in 1892 until the year 1924 when a modification began in which literally thousands of the old Long Rifle which had the progressive gain twist were converted to Model 91/24 Carbines by having the front 32.8 cm/12.79 inches of the rifle barrel cut off.
Dependent upon exactly how much wear the weapon had prior to "cut-down", at a hundred yards, some of them may have difficulty in repetetively hitting between the two end-zone goal posts.
Which weapon is of course responsible for much of the "lore" in regards to the inability to hit anything with the weapon, as well as the unsafe nature of the weapon.
Both of which have considerable merit for that specific weapon, which also happens to be the weapon in the Klein's add that LHO ordered.
http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/9124ts.html
Barrel Length Model 91 Long Rifle:---------------------------------------78cm
Barrel length Model 91/24 Carbine:--------------------------------------92.1cm
12.79 inches of the barrel, which also contained the final full-gain twist of the rifling, now gone.
So the longer rifles of course would be more accurate, and the shorter "modified" rifles a crap shoot dependent upon wear before the modification began. Makes sense.
So if in fact a carbine were in place during the shooting event, its accuracy would have been great to lousy.....
Nothing comes easy do it?
-
Duncan,
Being mostly Irish myself (tho' I've got a fifth of Scotch in me!), I knew that. I only supposed you were Scottish because you don't know how to spell your last name correctly!
Hey that makes me a fifth scotch as well!
-
I'd think it's highly unlikely that the Paines dumped the boxes in question anywhere, if only inasmuch as the pair seemed more than willing to aid in providing anything to the authorities that wouldn't help Oswald. Instead, I'd think they'd have walked them downtown if that's what it took to get them to the FBI; I don't for a moment envision either of them hiding anything that would incriminate Lee.
Duke, I agree that they were'nt solicitous of Lee's interest, but, how would Italian cartridges incriminate Lee, since it was determined that the cartridges he used were made by the Western Cartridge Company?
Roy
I think Duke is correct that If ANY TYPE of ammo for the Mannlicher had been found at the Paine address that fact WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUMPETED to the world by the police, the FBI and the Warren Commission. Ruth Paine would certainly have been asked about it in her Warren Commission testimony. The FACT that no evidence exists that Lee Oswald ever bought, begged, borrowed or stole ammo. for the rifle has always been -- and still remains -- one of the glaring ANOMALIES in the official account of the assassination.
At the very least, the Warren Commission would have used this evidence to argue that Lee Oswald had the MEANS to PRACTICE his marksmanship with the weapon
Some wise man once said (I forget the source) that in figuring out an assassination one should not ask who pulled the trigger, but WHO PAID FOR THE BULLETS?
Raymond,
I would agree. Had these boxes been found at the Paines they would have been made prime evidence. Now having said that, it takes us no closer to where they were found....and by whom.....and why did we NOT hear about them?
I believe that by learning who pulled the trigger, it may lead to who bought the bullets. You have to start someplace.
Mike
-
Relate the hole then align it back on the horizontal plane, it struck at 4 degrees. From here we can then get a general measurement to the SS follow up car, figure in the 4 degrees and realize that it would not have cleared the ss car windshield.
In your theory only, look at the vertical plane and you will see a shot from the right of the limo totally missing the SS follow up car.
Ok then at what frame do you suspect this happened? And where do you place your shooter?
You do realize of course that this could not have been a direct impact, and was likely caused during the head shot sequence right?
Duncan MacRae
Ok Duncan,
So when did this fellow take his shot and where did it go?
-
Relate the hole then align it back on the horizontal plane, it struck at 4 degrees. From here we can then get a general measurement to the SS follow up car, figure in the 4 degrees and realize that it would not have cleared the ss car windshield.
In your theory only, look at the vertical plane and you will see a shot from the right of the limo totally missing the SS follow up car.
Ok then at what frame do you suspect this happened? And where do you place your shooter?
You do realize of course that this could not have been a direct impact, and was likely caused during the head shot sequence right?
-
What physical properties (re trajectory, etc) preclude the Dal-Tex bldg as a "sniper nest position?
For which shot? As well as from what position/location.
Last time that I looked, it was a pretty big building.
knowing what's currently known concerning (the autopsy and trajectory) wounds on Kennedy and Connally's body. Would the current SBT work, if say 3 rifle shots as described in the SS/FBI reenactments and/or Mr. West plats, have originated from, say, the 3rd floor on up in Dal-Tex building?
Fair & logical question!
Shot#1: Had this shot been fired from the approximate SW corner of the building, then the bullet could have gone through JFK and thereafter struck JBC in the right shoulder.
However! Due to the slight left-to-right trajectory, the bullet would not have exited from JBC's right side mid-chest/under the breast nipple.
Instead, it would have exited farther to the right side of the arm (from the point of entry) as looking at JBC's back.
(assuming JBC sitting and facing forward.
Were JBC turned to his far right for some unknown reason, then yes, the bullet could have struck in the rear armpit area and exited below the nipple in the front chest.
If one moved farther North in the building, along the west wall, then the JFK/JBC wound alignment becomes considerably more in correct alignment with JBC sitting and facing forward.
Questions on #1?
"If one moved farther North in the building, along the west wall, then the JFK/JBC wound alignment becomes considerably more in correct alignment with JBC sitting and facing forward."
vicinity of the fire escape?
Correct!
But with my "credibility problem", what would I know about it??????
P.S. One could not move too far up the North Wall, as well as they would have to be high enough to avoid this, the overhead street light which most seem to have forgotten about.
Which by the way has a relationship with "Point A"!
Tom,
If this were the case would not the shooter be firing directly over the SS follow up car? From that 3rd floor what would the declining angle of the rifle be?
Interestingly, if we replicate JBC wounds at 223 our shooter is about 8 inches over the county records roof......Give or take 1/2 degree. And accepting the standard that the wound declines at 25 and right to lefts at 20-23.
The reason I ask about the angle for the 3rd DT is the SS follow up car windshield height is minimum 54". Can we clear a shot from there. I know the second floor hits the glass about 8" below the top.
Oh yes and I will be writing an apology for the credibility crack shortly. Your ideas are far more sound than they appeared once I sorted out the explanations.
Mike
The variables for a potential shot from the Dal-Tex building can not be made to eliminate the possibility of a shot having eminated from there.
Problem being that for a single position, what would potentially work for one of the shots, would have some form of interference for at least one, if not both of the other shots.
Then of course there is the problem with the wounds in correlating any specific location to the downward angle associated with the wounds.
Nevertheless, this building can not be ruled out merely because one is of the opinion that all three shots came from the sixth floor of the TSDB.
Just that there is zero evidence of any shot having been fired from the Dal-Tex bldg.
Oh yes and I will be writing an apology for the credibility crack shortly.
Most assuredly not necessary on my end, and it would ultimately come down to who/which may have been the biggest offender.
As you are no doubt aware, we have both encountered a whole lot of "wannabe's".
On these forums as well as elsewhere in life.
In only a few days, you have demonstrated far more grasp and understanding of the factual evidence than virtually anyone else on any of these forums.
Call it a "draw" between two who by all appearances, have been there--done that, and now recognize that they both have and continue to serve the same cause with a somewhat mutual respect for each other's contributions as well as capabilities.
And, rest assured that there are others, however limited in numbers, who are climbing onto this train as well and they are also true "researchers".
Then a draw it is. Thank You.
Mike
-
Just that there is zero evidence of any shot having been fired from the Dal-Tex bldg.
The windshield trim shot may have come from the Dal-Tex building.
No Don it could not have.
Relate the hole then align it back on the horizontal plane, it struck at 4 degrees. From here we can then get a general measurement to the SS follow up car, figure in the 4 degrees and realize that it would not have cleared the ss car windshield.
Mike
-
Yet typical of your con artist way you only posted a small portion of the conversation....Your portion, and not the portion where I proved what a ridiculous load of crap you and Files are trying to sell.
How typical of you.
Obviously the word honor means little to you, nor does the damage your ilk do to the rest of the community. I hope your total loss of credibility and self respect was worth the dime.
You really should have done some research before you wrote the check, have you considered stop payment? Obviously you stopped logic, stopped common sense and stopped having any sense of honesty....
Mike
Look who's talking. You were given the opportunity to prove how Files is a load of crap, and you failed miserably. You can try to hide it by lying that you "proved" anything. Dishonesty? Con artist? No self respect? Look in the mirror!
You take pleasure in "yanking my chain", right? You're too weak to even lift it. My chain is yanked daily by far more
significant and non-pathetic people. For crying out loud. And now we have you claiming that the single bullit theory IS possible, too proud and stubborn to admit a blunder. You know, if I didn't know better I would think you're a disinformation asset, but since you're so meaningless, I know it's just stupidity. The only thing you deserve , is a complete ignore.
Here's to yanking your chain:
By Tony Stewart "Crimewriter/author" (Bloomington, IN United States) - See all my reviews
Wim Dankbaar's book "I SHOT JFK" is truly a fascinating piece of history, reviving the reality of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, while disproving the Warren Commissions "so called" one gunman theory. There have been many mythological theories of what supposedly happened on that dreadful November 22, 1963, but Dankbaar has bought the facts to the table, financing the greatest investigation of all time to crack the case.
Confessed killer-assassin James Files, and a member of organized crime may have been the shooter on the grassy knoll, or was he? The facts are all here! Although officially declared "not credible," by the FBI, thorough research and video taped interviews presented in Dankbaar's , unsurpassed book may have proven otherwise.
What did James Files have to gain by confessing to the murder of our beloved President? He was already rotting away in prison serving time for attempted murder of an Illinois police officer. Confessing would have only added more time to his sentence. Unless his confession was indeed true, and he wanted to get it off his chest. After all, if his story was correct, he had been living with the guilt for many years. A remorse that would be unbearable for anyone with a conscience.
And the world already knows that even if new facts arose the FBI wouldn't want to open old wounds after all these years, especially on the death of a President. As a Kennedy research of over 30 years, and the forthcoming author of a new book on John F. Kennedy, I say let the evidence speak for itself. I highly recommend Dankbaar's masterpiece "I SHOT JFK." In my professional opinion, this may be perhaps the finest evidence ever bought to light on the Kennedy assassination.
Review by 7ony Stewart, author of Dillinger, The Hidden Truth
JohnnieDillinger@aol.com
By Spike Stewart (Los Angeles, California United States) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Files on JFK (Paperback)
Facinating read! I've read many accounts re: Nov. 22 conspiracy. This story rang true to my gut. It's simple, direct and believable. I'm not going to delve into specifics here, but I think if one has an informed backround of information pertaining to the events of that time, this tale translates a credible scenerio. I enjoyed it and concidered it a gift.
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
Better Believe It, March 12, 2007
By Gman (Somewhere in kansas) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Files on JFK (Paperback)
I don't know what Vince's problem is unless he's a disinformation tool--that could well be--but this one (Files on JFK) is, with all its disjointed syntax, goofball proofreading errors (a rash of (sic)s in a bunch of letters, but whoever sicc'd 'em on that portion of the book missed about 500 more in the same area), mangled English, is one of the most interesting of all the books since the start of this whole JFK industry. It rings true. And is supported by a lot of other outside documentation.
Net: it's very hard to dismiss this one. And I've read many hours of the kind of crap that gives JFK research a dopey name. (Much of it by those whose reason is just that)
It's non-linear in its presentation, jumps around, has many unexplained "interviews" and conversations, and jumps from a letter exchange between Joe West and JF that shows both sides, to a lot of letters to Vernon which leave out all of Vernon's. One thing I found disturbing was the fact it left in social security numbers in one case, plus exact addresses including zip codes and phone numbers for people who should be protected from that. Sloppy stuff.
Bottom line: it belongs in any serious researcher's library. It. Is. Believable.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Very thorough, well documented, gives not just solid info of who did it, but who ordered it and why., December 22, 2007
By M. Hulsebos - See all my reviews
What gives this book weight is it's thoroughness, and how well it is documented. The author actually interviewed James Files and videotaped it, one of only 2 video interviews Files has given. Seeing the video was an eye-opener, and the clincher for me as to whether or not his story is real. In my mind, it is. But this book tells the story of not just the operatives on 11-22-1963, but the background of what and who motivated it. There are pieces of the puzzle in this book that are not found elsewhere. This may be the most complete and convincing documentation that the assassination was a conspiracy. The book points out that the cover-up continuing to this day is evidence that the government still acts in shady ways. That is why this story is still relevant.
15 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
Most probable book on JFK murder I ever read, July 24, 2006
By Han Pfann "Han" (Den Helder Netherlands) - See all my reviews
It took me some time to read this extensive research-journal sometimes having to get back and forth re-reading parts. But boy, these people went to a lot of trouble, trying to get to the bottom of this dramatic event. In fact I consider their efforts as heroic, as they would not be the first to die of too much knowledge. Everything in the book is well documented, in combination with the web-site www.jfkmurdersolved.com everything can be extensively self-researched. They do not claim to know it all, but just the part of the operation that they researched. I certainly hope this book and the DVD will help to make people realize that conspiracies do exist, and things often are very different from what they appear to be. Our elected representatives need to be checked over and over again because they are precisely what we ourselves are: people with our own agenda's, needs and greeds.
Han Pfann
Den Helder
Netherlands
13 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
Awesome, January 8, 2006
By Fatjack "Jack" (Saginaw, MI USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Files on JFK (Paperback)
This book is super great and to me very truthful about the JFK assassination and the people behind it. It is to bad that the high officals in the U.S. don't take the time to really show the general public the real truth of the assassination. Mr. Dankbarr has spent alot of time in bringing this truth to the world. He should be given some kind of an award for this. The DVD of James E. Files confession is also a work of art and should not be over looked. I have been trying to follow the JFK assassination and find the real truth of what really happened that day in Dallas on November 22, 1963 since the day it happened. I, back then had a strong feeling that JFK's fatal shot was from the front. Even though I was only 16 years old, I did alot of hunting and knew how a bullet would throw JFL's head back from a front head shot. Like most people I beleived what they (Warren Commission, FBI, CIA) where tekking us and wanting us to beleive until this book and DVD became available. This book has created in my mind,without a resonable doubt, that there was a conspirancy to assassinate JFK. Thank you very much Mr. Wim Dankbarr for being truthful and taking time to let the general public and the world know the truth of what happened on November 22, 1963 in Dallas Texas.
Jack Almy
10 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
A must read..., November 19, 2005
By Nicholas Whalen (San Francisco, CA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Files on JFK (Paperback)
Being familiar with the story of James E. Files for years now, I had always wondered about his motivations for confessing to being one of the shooters on the grassy knoll. What kind of crazy man would do such a thing I asked myself?? When I read Wim Dankbaar's Files on JFK this past month, many of my burning questions were answered. For example, Dankbaar demonstrates who Files really is through detailed correspondence with the late Joe West and later Bob Vernon, wherein the reader learns that James Files never intended his story for the media, that the lead on James Files came from the FBI of all sources and not from Files himself (for all those skeptics who think that Files is just some sick prankster who is just seeking attention), and that Files is sorry for ever revealing his role in the assassination and that his life has only grown more difficult as a result. Apart from excellent primary sources like the correspondence, the book is jfkmurdersolved.com in book form, which anybody who has visited the site can attest, is loaded with a gigantic amount of relevant and sometimes new information on the assassination. Kudos to Wim Dankbaar for compiling such a well researched book.
Nick Whalen
San Francisco, California
13 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
Buy the book and READ it..., August 30, 2006
By R. Mertens "Rachje" (Rotterdam, Netherlands) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Files on JFK (Paperback)
I don't have to waste a lot of words on it; buy it and read it. Better yet, buy the dvd as well and watch the interview with James Files for yourselves. There's no way someone could make this up and act naturally like he does in front of the camera. And then there's all the evidence that substantiate his claims. LN'ers WANT to believe LHO did it, sane people add up the factual evidence.
Two thumbs up for this one !
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
ATTN: Gerald Posner - Finally it is Case Closed!, September 15, 2007
By S. V. Orsi "SVO" (Chicago, IL) - See all my reviews
I am convinced James Files is recalling events and not telling a story, especially after viewing the companion DVD. Either that, or he is the best xxxx I've ever heard. There is no way he could've manufactured the things he said or have even known about some of the details. After viewing both you simply have to believe Oswald was exactly what he said he was... a patsy.
And just think, the so called "experts" like Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner actually believe in the "Single Bullet Theory" and a "Lone Nut" assassin, despite all the evidence to the contrary and what has been uncovered in the 44 years since 11/22/63. It's amazing how those with no credentials or expertise whatsoever in criminal investigation, forensics, or pathology can be so sure of what they say while overlooking the eyewitness testimony of the numerous people who heard a shot from the Grassy Knoll, and the opinions of actual experts in forensics and pathology like Cyril Wecht. Of course The Warren Commission also dismissed eyewitness testimony as well as any evidence that didn't fit their predetermined outcome, so none of us capable of critical thinking should be surprised.
What is really disturbing is the fact that the national media endorsed the books from Bugliosi and Posner while work such as this gets no coverage. Here's hoping this book and the companion DVD will acquire some major distributorship and national media attention soon!
10 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
A Must-Have JFK book, June 28, 2006
By David R. Wayne - See all my reviews
This review is from: Files on JFK (Paperback)
This is one of the most under-rated books out there and a must-have for serious students of the JFK assassination and I've read most of them. Just the interviews with Tosh Plumlee and Chauncey Holt are well-worth the price of the book; they are very well-researched and provide extremely valuable information from well-documented sources.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
FILES ON JFK, August 7, 2008
By RON L. MILLER "RON MILLER, TENNESSEE DIVER" (ATHENS, TENNESSEE) - See all my reviews
AS A FORMER HOMICIDE DETECTIVE AND IN CHARGE OF A HOMICIDE DISTRICT TEAM IN MY STATE , I HAD MANY QUESTIONS ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION. READING THE BOOK ON FILES ANSWERED 99% OF MY QUESTIONS. ANY ONE WHO WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN DALLAS NEEDS OT READ THIS BOOK, IT IS A BOMB SHELL FOR SURE.
RON MILLER
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Files on JFK, December 22, 2007
By Lynda M. Woodall "Patriot" (USA) - See all my reviews
Astounding confession and intriguing information. The book answered alot of questions for we seekers of the real truth. James Files came across convincingly candid with an amazing amount of substantiated facts. This knowledge should be loudly proclaimed in the mainstream of our public media and our history books should be changed, once and for all, to reflect the truth about the JFK murder. The fact that a US agency, the CIA, contracted hired assassins from the mob as well as using George Bush Sr's own CIA Operation 40 group to carry out this unthinkable dark deed is something the American people have a Constitutional right to know. To think that a majority of our presidents since that day and many of our trusted agencies have used blood and our tax dollars to cover up their coup de tat is unacceptable and shameless. They should be exposed for who they are and those who are still alive punished not pardon! I hope that this book becomes common knowledge amongst the American people and the world as well. Only then will we be able to again call ourselves a free nation and not an international party joke. Signed a Patriot of the United States that used to be.
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
author Dr. Hughes on Wim's Files, June 18, 2007
By John R. Hughes "neurologist" - See all my reviews
This review is from: Files on JFK (Paperback)
Wim Dankbaar has devoted his entire professional life to exploring Files and his role in the JFK assassination ever since he sold his computer company. Therefore, there is no one who knows more about this important assassin than Wim. Furthermore, Wim has spent hundreds of hours on the relationship between the Files assassination of JFK and all other relevant matters. He has become very popular in the Netherlands where he appears frequently on TV and the Dutch people have tuned in because they recognize his great wealth of information.The book is highly recommended.
Wim,
Thats just what I expected. If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle em with BS. Your in denial Wim, I would be to if I bought that load of worthless bunk!
Then please by all means give me a complete ignore, that is also typical of how you deal with issues you can not answer.
Does not mean Ill go away Wim, it just means I will keep pressing you to prove your evidence. Which we both know you cant.
Were not on your forum now, where dissension is met with removal.
You need to stand up and play like a big boy.
My single bullet theory???? Can you show me just one place I said it DID happen? Show just one place I stated that Wim. Of course you wont, and cant, another representative statement.
Guess what Wim the Files hoax is about to come unraveled.
I think those who aren't laughing at you already will be soon.
Enjoy,
Mike
-
Interesting subject and responses…
Question: Are these two different manufactures of the 6.5mm ammunition capable of producing two different metal materials such as lead cores and copper jackets?
The lead core bullet fragments in the attached photo seems to differ from each other and do not match.
Don
Unless they were made of different metals, such as copper and steel, there would be no way to know without testing them.
Mike
-
Mike, this stuff about the '67 CBS tests leads me to wonder which Carcano they used: the accurate 40-inch "short rifle" [model 91/38] or the less-accurate 36-inch "shortened" rifle [model 91/24]. Might've made a BIG difference in the accuracy part of the tests.
BTW: Wasn't Howard Donahue the man behind the Bonar Menninger book, Mortal Error ? That would be the book that accused SS agent Hickey of accidentally firing the fatal headshot from the SS follow-up car from his AR-15...for which, IIRC, Hickey sued Menninger...is that not correct?
Mark,
Im not convinced that the differences in rifles would have made a major change in such a short distance shooting event.
I believe that is the same Donahue. It also seems, if I recall correctly, there was some conflict between them after the book. what I suspected was that Donahue was less than impressed with the way Menninger portrayed the information.
Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that Donahue actually completed the event.
Best,
Mike
-
Then!
One might want to compare the outline of the base of CE399 with the outline of the hole that was "punched" into the back of JFK.
Seem to have it all covered Tom nice work on this one!
And again many thanks for sharing it with me. Im sure this is not the first time you have gone through this.
Mike
-
Trying to make my old "mechanical drawing" professor look as if he actually taught us something.
Gotcha!
Tom this is interesting stuff indeed. The only issue I would have with this whole first shot scenario is the tree deflection allowing the projectile to remain on target, but, since I can not say it would be impossible, I have to conclude this could certainly be a viable answer to the first shot.
Thanks for spending the time to run me through this theory. It sure is food for thought.
Mike
-
WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet base after having merely been fired.
Even the "tightness" of the barrel can cause the 4.5mm width lead core to begin to protrude out the bullet base.
Ok now the base in your unfired photo appears intact, and in the single fired photo is appears intact.
In looking at the photo of 399 in the archives this "lip" which we see in the other photos appears to be intact as well.
Now I know that the MC bullets did not have the complete base covered with jacket, but just a lip portion as portrayed by your unfired photo.
Does not this Archives photo show that lip as well?
Mike
-
Recovered weight of CE399:---------------------------------------------158.6 grains
Weight of CE840 cone-shaped/flat-based/disappearing fragment:------0.9 grains
Weight loss to bullet from merely having been fired:---------------------0.63 grains
Total accounted for weight:--------------------------------------------------160.13 grains
Roger That!
Fits the tolerances well. Nice.
Now this is the projectile that in your ideas you have striking JFK in the back after clipping a tree limb? Am I correct in this or have I been at the airport awaiting a boat?
Now this is the projectile that in your ideas you have striking JFK in the back after clipping a tree limb? Am I correct in this or have I been at the airport awaiting a boat?
I do believe that you got onto the correct carrier!
One might not want to ignore that the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel were relatively certain that some of the opaque indicators at the right transverse process of the C7/T1 vertebrae appeared to be miniscule metallic fragments/residue.
And if one will take the neck anterior/posterior X-ray to a qualified radiologist, they just may find that he will inform one that the spinal column is deviated slightly to the left as well.
Ok so we have CE399 leaving the muzzle striking a limb, which diminishes its velocity, and striking JFK "backwards" . At this point it expels CE840 out of the base of the bullet which causes the wound in the Presidents throat.
The main body of the projectile penetrates to about 2" consistent with the autopsy reports, and the wound is accounted for, as is the lack of metalic residue.
Does that seem to have it summed up for this projectile and this shot?
Mike
-
Recovered weight of CE399:---------------------------------------------158.6 grains
Weight of CE840 cone-shaped/flat-based/disappearing fragment:------0.9 grains
Weight loss to bullet from merely having been fired:---------------------0.63 grains
Total accounted for weight:--------------------------------------------------160.13 grains
Roger That!
Fits the tolerances well. Nice.
Now this is the projectile that in your ideas you have striking JFK in the back after clipping a tree limb? Am I correct in this or have I been at the airport awaiting a boat?
-
Question answered thank you!
The 158.6 grains then would have INCLUDED this base portion.
Now question number 2.
Unless I missed the boat somewhere this is the projectile that your theory would have striking the President in the back?
-
Bernice,
I do not dispute the fact that the tests were not exact. However the CBS 67 tests were about as close as you can get. Yes their track was straight, but then again the limos path from the time it clears the tree to 313 is rather straight as well. It is angled, but rather straight.
Also in the 67 tests the shooter was limited in time, trying to squeeze the shots into 5.6 seconds, another WC error. I also find it odd that the WCR does tell us that the event could have taken up to 7.9 seconds, yet none of the test allow this time.
During those tests it may also do well to note that not only were rifle failures not counted, many times they did not count the round simply because it failed the time frame.
Why is it do you suppose that so much of this comes back to the time frame? How could anyone ever say that a shot of 100 yards could be difficult, thats preposterous.
The difficulties of the event and recreating the event lay in the timing. That should be fairly clear to anyone.
As for the Carcano being junk, and all that rubbish, one need to realize that it was in fact as accurate as our American m-14 rifle. Check out Simmons testimony for further accuracy tests of this rifle.
I may also note that none of this related to the topic of the hole in the glass.
Mike
The Case of Len Colby
in Political Conspiracies
Posted · Edited by Antti Hynonen
Oh where to begin?
If your inference was to enlisted rank, then yep, I was enlisted and reached the top of that chain. However, I doubt you know enough about me to state my views as militaristic.
Was it militaristic to state that one should debate the issues rather than discredit the poster? Hardly.
Of course I would not expect Mr. Rigby to understand such distinctions.
Where in your definition Paul does it add beastly minded? Where does it add militaristic? Are those just little add ins that you try to associate to the base definition of an enlisted man?
Of course what is apparent is that you were unhappy with just the base definition of an enlisted man, so you try to add something to that in an attempt to slide in an insult.
Nice try.
However this does show that you have contemptible views towards the military. That is of course your right. But it also makes you by definition XXXXXX.
A contemptuous person.
So I will with pride be called a ranker, and given your contempt for the military you should be proudly called a xxxxxxx.
Mike