James Files

[Mark Johansson]

And your point is?

[Jörgen Sjölén]

It's 1994 and if you closely listen to the interview, Files says he sees Jackie "through the scope" attempting to retrieve a "piece of (JFK's) skull". Files is able to perform the kill shot and accurately see something laying on the rear hood AND medically discern this to be a skull fragment. Remember, we are told he has not been coached and has not read any JFK related material. He observed this and rendered his medical opinion that it was a skull fragment. All through his scope.

Jason Vermeer

If he saw her grabbing something what would he think it was except for skull fragment?

[Jason Vermeer]

It's 1994 and if you closely listen to the interview, Files says he sees Jackie "through the scope" attempting to retrieve a "piece of (JFK's) skull". Files is able to perform the kill shot and accurately see something laying on the rear hood AND medically discern this to be a skull fragment. Remember, we are told he has not been coached and has not read any JFK related material. He observed this and rendered his medical opinion that it was a skull fragment. All through his scope.

Jason Vermeer

If he saw her grabbing something what would he think it was except for skull fragment?

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Files shoots the president in the head, THEN he continues to look through his scope while a phlanx of SS officers are headed towards his position in the motorcade, and THEN waits until Jackie picks the skull piece off the car? For what reason does he now train the scope from JFK to Jackie? Does he continue to watch the Limo until it goes under the bridge and then finally decide to eject the casing and bite down on it and set it on the fence?

Are you a believer in the Jimminy Files tale?

[John Simkin]

Bob Vernon recently wrote to Len Osanic: "I will also give your listeners some factual information on how the James Files story was PRE-MEDITATED and Files hoax was perpetrated by the FBI and retired agent Zack Shelton."

[Mark Johansson]

Sometimes, when I see posts like these from the administrator, I wonder if this board is really interested in finding the truth about the assassination.

Because Mr. Shelton's view is also known to Len Osanic:

I first was aware of James Files in 1980 because he was a subject of mine while I was working in Chicago. My interest in Files as it relates to the JFK story was a comment he made to an informant. This comment was made in the late 70's. The comment was made in Dallas while driving throught the Dealey Plaza and went like this, " If the American people really knew what happened here, they would not be able to handle it." I gave this information to Joe West in 1993 to and Joe was the person who got Files to talk. My next involvement was in 1998 when I retired from the FBI and the contact was made my Bob Vernon. I had nothing to do with the confession but Bob knew I had discredited a person that was giving information to Joe West and he wanted me to talk to Files for my opinion of his truthfulness.

I did this in December on 1998 and told Vernon that I was 50/50 on believing or disbelieving Files. Based on what I have investigated since then, that percentage has grown toward Files' favor. When Bob Vernon realized that he could not claim full ownership of the core evidence, the 1994 video interview with James Files, as he had always asserted Wim, me and others, Vernon then decided to sell out. Or in fact he forced Wim to buy him out. In essence it went like this: Buy me out or I will discredit the whole story myself and ruin the investment I solicited from you". Thereafter he started saying how everyone was lying. My analysis is that when Vernon realized he could not profit more from the story, he decided to try and ruin it for all his former partners, who had invested either with sweat, personal sacrifice, money or blood. And that includes the late Joe West and James Files. He even had the nerve to file a complaint against me. I think that such a betrayal, disguised as "truth seeking" by Vernon, should give any thinking person enough indication on what Bob Vernon is about.

As Vernon knows, the FBI did not create a hoax , because there is no hoax to begin with, in fact, the FBI tried to disregard Files by sending two agents to interview him in 1993 and the supervisor told the agents before they went to Files," There is a nut in Jiolet that says he shot the President." These agents interviewed Files without knowing that their former partner, Zack Shelton, had anything to do with Files. Moreover, leads that Files gave them were never followed up.

Whoever is corresponding with Wim, needs to find out the truth before making assessments based on Bob Vernon's word. Vernon has lied to me and tried to undercut Wim when he though he had a sale to Dick Clark several years ago. I know this because I prevented it and I was sitting right there in his home when he was talking to Clark's #1 person. Suffice to say that if there has been one person lying in this whole story, it is Bob Vernon.

Zack Shelton

[David Lifton]

Some of you just don't grasp that James Files was just a spoke in the wheel, not only mob, but also CIA, that he wasn't supposed to shoot, that the his grassy knoll shot was'n't intended to be, that in fact it was one big screwup. Just like the fact that he only knows about his part in this need to know operation. Just like the fact that some of you don't grasp that his shot was the ONLY shot from the front and that the so called throat shot wound , was actually an EXITING fragment from his explosive bullet. In addition, everyone, also us, is a victim of the massive CIA disinformation machine as well as mass psychology. (Wim Dankbaar)

Chapter 3 of Best Evidence --"The Throat Wound: Entrance or Exit?"--sets forth the complete record on the throat wound, starting on "day one", and the evidence that, at Dallas, it was reported as an entrance wound. Included are the key news accounts, the essential quotes from the Dallas doctors reports, etc.

Chapter 11 of Best Evidence--"The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda"--sets forth entire case that, by the time the body reached Bethesda, the throat wound (the site of the tracheotomy) had been considerably enlarged and its entire character changed.

So it doesn't matter what James Files, Dankbar, or anyone else says--these are the facts; and anyone wishing to construct a viable explanation for the assassination must deal with those facts.

This established record proves that someone like James Files--who has inserted himself on the grassy knoll--is off in a fantasy land of his own making. (Moreover, and for entirely similar reasons, it can be shown that Judyth Baker, who has done the same thing with Oswald's chronology, is off in another "fantasy universe.")

Is any of this really worth wasting time on?

I have long believed it myself untill I learned something from the embalmer that nobody is aware of. (Wim Dankbaar)

Good Lord. . From "an embalmer"? You mean--at Bethesda? What data can anyone at the Bethesda end of the line possibly provide other than to establish that the wound, at Bethesda, was no longer in the same condition as it was in Dallas? Case closed.

But now let's turn to the more serious issue you raise:

Dankbar: "Here's another question: Why would you shoot twice from the front if you want to blame a patsy from behind?"

Response: This is completely dealt with in Chapter 14 of Best Evidence, titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception."

The reason shots were fired from the opposite direction than the location of the patsy--and that is a fact proven by the way the body looked at Dallas, versus the way it appeared at Bethesda (again, see Best Evidence)--is that there was a pre-planned separation of two entirely separate activities:

(1) the actual shooting, conducted by a number of concealed sniper's; and

(2) the "Oswald did it movie" (i.e., the Dallas Police investigation, centered on the sniper's nest) carried out (perhaps more precisely stated, "acted out") at the Texas School Book Depository.

The former was the means by which the President was shot; the latter, the means by which a false story was manufactured for the media, the public, and all subsequent investigation.

Only if one believes the Dallas assassination, by conception, was so amateurishly conceived and executed that real assassins were placed on Dealey Plaza at the very same location of what was in essence a movie set does your question make any sense whatsoever.

How were police charging into the building supposed to avoid the real shooters? Were they supposed to flash a special pass? Or hide among the book cartons ("Hey. . Ignore me! I'm a real shooter! The patsy is on the sixth floor!")

Instead, what it shows is that, at this very late date, 43 years after the assassination, and a full 25 years after the publication of the complete explanation of how this disguise worked (yes, see Best Evidence, chapter 14) you still haven't grasped it. And are still persisting in barking up the wrong tree; asking the rather sophomoric question: "Why shoot from the front, if you're going to frame a patsy from behind?"

A disguise is meant to hide something. As an Army manual (quoted in B.E.) states: "Camouflage is the art of concealing the fact that you are concealing something."

Shooting from the back wouldn't conceal anything, but in fact would reveal everything. It would co-mingle two functions which--for this to work--must be kept separate: the shooting, and the false appearance.

Stripped down to bare bones, your question really is: why was a disguise needed in this case? Why couldn't the assassins fire from any ole direction and as many bullets as they want, and still get away with it?

The answer is: because the body is evidence. And it will receive an autopsy. Its that simple. The body is evidence and after the fact--with bullet metal inside and various wounds on its surface--offers a complete diagram of the shooting. Therefore, for any disguise to work, there must be control of the body. This not only means control of the autopsy results, but control of how JFK's body was to be shot, in the first place.

Therefore, JFK's assassination was, in effect, a "designer shooting"--one in which it was planned in advance to alter the diagram of the shooting. And to carry out the shooting in such a way as to make such an alteration possible.

That's the way Dallas worked.

Moreover, what was apparently done in this case (to surmount the problems presented by the inevitable autopsy, and the necessity of a "separation of environments" on Dealey Plaza) was to conceive a plan to shoot from one direction, and then alter the body to fit with the "Oswald did it" story.

That's what "trajectory reversal" is all about. Its the very manifestation of this disguise--on the body, at the time.

Apparently, 43 years after the event, you still cannot grasp this central concept--which evolves directly from the way the body looked at two different locations (Dallas and Bethesda) and is an explanation that derives from that demonstrated alteration of wounds.

Everything else you are citing--Chauncy Holt, Nicoletti, etc.--is pure junk; and has no more relevance to this case any more than astrology does to astronomy.

Get real, please. Stop wasting time on frivolities and irrelevancies, and pay attention to the record in this case. The record of the wounds, the record of the body. Not irrelevant statements made by publicity seekers and mentally disturbed people who have nothing to do with anything, and using that as a data base from which to construct a "history" of this event.

Again, see Chapter 14 of Best Evidence for a more detailed discussion of these points.

Edited September 7, 2006 by David Lifton

[Mark Johansson]

Wim Dankbaar asked me to post this:

Some of you just don't grasp that James Files was just a spoke in the wheel, not only mob, but also CIA, that he wasn't supposed to shoot, that his grassy knoll shot was'n't intended to be, that in fact it was one big screwup. Just like the fact that he only knows about his part in this need to know operation. Just like the fact that some of you don't grasp that his shot was the ONLY shot from the front and that the so called throat shot wound , was actually an EXITING fragment from his explosive bullet. In addition, everyone, also us, is a victim of the massive CIA disinformation machine as well as mass psychology. (Wim Dankbaar)

I will gladly defend my position. However, since David Lifton has now taken an email discussion to the public arena, and John Simkin has allowed it, to both of which circumstances I do not object, I do object to the fact I am no member here. If you want to discuss, encourage or discredit the positions of people, you should also allow those persons to engage in the debate, as long as they do not violate forum rules. I have never understood anyway why my membership was terminated, nor was it explained to me, except for John Simkin's statement that he didn't like being critisized on the way he runs this board. Anyway, I take the position that if you really want to debate these issues, John Simkin should re-instate my membership.

Chapter 3 of Best Evidence --"The Throat Wound: Entrance or Exit?"--sets forth the complete record on the throat wound, starting on "day one", and the evidence that, at Dallas, it was reported as an entrance wound. Included are the key news accounts, the essential quotes from the Dallas doctors reports, etc.

Chapter 11 of Best Evidence--"The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda"--sets forth entire case that, by the time the body reached Bethesda, the throat wound (the site of the tracheotomy) had been considerably enlarged and its entire character changed.

So it doesn't matter what James Files, Dankbar, or anyone else says--these are the facts; and anyone wishing to construct a viable explanation for the assassination must deal with those facts.

I agree with Lifton those are facts. I acknowledge that most Dallas doctors thought the throatwound was an entrywound. They were certainly sincere and I don't blame them for their opinion.

After all, the wound was neat, round and very small (the diameter of a pencil). I have long believed it myself untill I learned something from the embalmer that nobody is aware of. It's hard to abandon an opinion cultivated for so long, and I know that this will be very hard to swallow for many. Disinformation does not always have to be on purpose. Because of that unwitting brainwash alone, this is practically a lost battle

before it starts. The point is: the fact that most Dallas Doctors thought it was an entrance wound from a bullet, does not make it fact that it was. The doctors were wrong. In assuming they were right, that's where Lifton goes wrong.

Around which Zapruder frame was JFK hit in the throat and from where? Where is the exit wound from the throat wound? If that bullet it lodged on the spine, what happened to the bullet?

Please be so fair to not ignore these two questions.

Here's another question: Why would you shoot twice from the front if you want to blame a patsy from behind?

This established record proves that someone like James Files--who has inserted himself on the grassy knoll--is off in a fantasy land of his own making. (Moreover, and for entirely similar reasons, it can be shown that Judyth Baker, who has done the same thing with Oswald's chronology, is off in another "fantasy universe.")

Is any of this really worth wasting time on?

I have long believed it myself untill I learned something from the embalmer that nobody is aware of. (Wim Dankbaar)

Yes, you can see my book to see I have long adhered to Lifton's position, see chapter Internet discussions:

Jimmy's thought on the neck would are, that he was shooting Mercury loads, because they purposely explode upon impact. He thinks that pieces from his Mercury load came through Kennedy's neck, and also hit the windshield from the inside.

Answer from Wim:

Jimmy should stay away from speculation. Although his need to know knowledge actually enhances his credibility, and also proves that he is not "well read" on the assassination, there is no way that the throat wound was inflicted by a fragment from his bullet. The throat wound was caused by another bullet from the front (it could only have been from the south knoll in my opinion). It was a neat little round hole, recognised by all the Parkland doctors as an entry wound from a small caliber bullet.

Good Lord. . From "an embalmer"? You mean--at Bethesda? What data can anyone at the Bethesda end of the line possibly provide other than to establish that the wound, at Bethesda, was no longer in the same condition as it was in Dallas? Case closed.

Yes, Thom Robinson, the last of the three embalmers still alive. A very nice, pleasant, unpretentious man who has been extremely quite about this. He was also present at the autopsy and told me that he always has chukcled about those researchers that claim JFK was hit in the throat from the front. Because he was there when they probed the wounds in the brains from INSIDE the skull through the gaping headwound in the back of the head. And one of those trajectories ended up in the throat wound. Case closed.

Now, Lifton will probably start saying that the man is a disinformation plant and must be lying. It's fine with me for him to decide which witnesses are right or wrong. As long as I know for myself he isn't Jesus and what he preaches isn't the gospel.

Robinson also made note of tiny perforations in the face.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/EMBALMER.htm

He calls them "small shrapnel wounds, packed with wax". David Mantik speculates these were caused by glass splinters from the bullet through the windshield. Something I found intriguing initially. However I am now positive that these too were caused by exiting fragments from the explosive bullet, possibly even droplets of mercury, which is extremely heavy.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Mark Johansson

[Daniel Marvin]

Wim Dankbaar asked me to post this:

Some of you just don't grasp that James Files was just a spoke in the wheel, not only mob, but also CIA, that he wasn't supposed to shoot, that his grassy knoll shot was'n't intended to be, that in fact it was one big screwup. Just like the fact that he only knows about his part in this need to know operation. Just like the fact that some of you don't grasp that his shot was the ONLY shot from the front and that the so called throat shot wound , was actually an EXITING fragment from his explosive bullet. In addition, everyone, also us, is a victim of the massive CIA disinformation machine as well as mass psychology. (Wim Dankbaar)

I will gladly defend my position. However, since David Lifton has now taken an email discussion to the public arena, and John Simkin has allowed it, to both of which circumstances I do not object, I do object to the fact I am no member here. If you want to discuss, encourage or discredit the positions of people, you should also allow those persons to engage in the debate, as long as they do not violate forum rules. I have never understood anyway why my membership was terminated, nor was it explained to me, except for John Simkin's statement that he didn't like being critisized on the way he runs this board. Anyway, I take the position that if you really want to debate these issues, John Simkin should re-instate my membership.

Chapter 3 of Best Evidence --"The Throat Wound: Entrance or Exit?"--sets forth the complete record on the throat wound, starting on "day one", and the evidence that, at Dallas, it was reported as an entrance wound. Included are the key news accounts, the essential quotes from the Dallas doctors reports, etc.

Chapter 11 of Best Evidence--"The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda"--sets forth entire case that, by the time the body reached Bethesda, the throat wound (the site of the tracheotomy) had been considerably enlarged and its entire character changed.

So it doesn't matter what James Files, Dankbar, or anyone else says--these are the facts; and anyone wishing to construct a viable explanation for the assassination must deal with those facts.

I agree with Lifton those are facts. I acknowledge that most Dallas doctors thought the throatwound was an entrywound. They were certainly sincere and I don't blame them for their opinion.

After all, the wound was neat, round and very small (the diameter of a pencil). I have long believed it myself untill I learned something from the embalmer that nobody is aware of. It's hard to abandon an opinion cultivated for so long, and I know that this will be very hard to swallow for many. Disinformation does not always have to be on purpose. Because of that unwitting brainwash alone, this is practically a lost battle

before it starts. The point is: the fact that most Dallas Doctors thought it was an entrance wound from a bullet, does not make it fact that it was. The doctors were wrong. In assuming they were right, that's where Lifton goes wrong.

Around which Zapruder frame was JFK hit in the throat and from where? Where is the exit wound from the throat wound? If that bullet it lodged on the spine, what happened to the bullet?

Please be so fair to not ignore these two questions.

Here's another question: Why would you shoot twice from the front if you want to blame a patsy from behind?

This established record proves that someone like James Files--who has inserted himself on the grassy knoll--is off in a fantasy land of his own making. (Moreover, and for entirely similar reasons, it can be shown that Judyth Baker, who has done the same thing with Oswald's chronology, is off in another "fantasy universe.")

Is any of this really worth wasting time on?

I have long believed it myself untill I learned something from the embalmer that nobody is aware of. (Wim Dankbaar)

Yes, you can see my book to see I have long adhered to Lifton's position, see chapter Internet discussions:

Jimmy's thought on the neck would are, that he was shooting Mercury loads, because they purposely explode upon impact. He thinks that pieces from his Mercury load came through Kennedy's neck, and also hit the windshield from the inside.

Answer from Wim:

Jimmy should stay away from speculation. Although his need to know knowledge actually enhances his credibility, and also proves that he is not "well read" on the assassination, there is no way that the throat wound was inflicted by a fragment from his bullet. The throat wound was caused by another bullet from the front (it could only have been from the south knoll in my opinion). It was a neat little round hole, recognised by all the Parkland doctors as an entry wound from a small caliber bullet.

Good Lord. . From "an embalmer"? You mean--at Bethesda? What data can anyone at the Bethesda end of the line possibly provide other than to establish that the wound, at Bethesda, was no longer in the same condition as it was in Dallas? Case closed.

Yes, Thom Robinson, the last of the three embalmers still alive. A very nice, pleasant, unpretentious man who has been extremely quite about this. He was also present at the autopsy and told me that he always has chukcled about those researchers that claim JFK was hit in the throat from the front. Because he was there when they probed the wounds in the brains from INSIDE the skull through the gaping headwound in the back of the head. And one of those trajectories ended up in the throat wound. Case closed.

Now, Lifton will probably start saying that the man is a disinformation plant and must be lying. It's fine with me for him to decide which witnesses are right or wrong. As long as I know for myself he isn't Jesus and what he preaches isn't the gospel.

Robinson also made note of tiny perforations in the face.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/EMBALMER.htm

He calls them "small shrapnel wounds, packed with wax". David Mantik speculates these were caused by glass splinters from the bullet through the windshield. Something I found intriguing initially. However I am now positive that these too were caused by exiting fragments from the explosive bullet, possibly even droplets of mercury, which is extremely heavy.

This is Dan marvin.. I need to have each entry above identified as to who wrote it... Then I will be able to responsibly remark on the whole of it. It does discuss important information. What and who is right and what and who is wrong is extremely important to this entire matter of the JFK assassination.

Whoever is opposed to what Wim Dankbaar has put together at great expense and incredibile honesty should speak to Dennis David and learn what he SAW in ACTUAL photographs of the REAL JFK autopsy - and what he was ordered to NOT SAY about bullet fragments given to him by an FBI or Secret Service man the day of the assassination at the hospital.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Thank you, John Simkin, for re-installing my membership.

I would like to add that when we did the video with Thom Robinson he also told me that a small tube with bullet fragments was retrieved from the head. He said that bullet exploded "into a thousand pieces", and he was explained by one of the FBI people there that "that is what bullets sometimes do".

Robinson never talked us to the mouth. In fact he said he has never had a problem with the Warren Report (although he has friends who believe it was "one big cover-up") He actually believes that the small wound in the right temple was caused by a piece of exiting shrapnel too.

However, when I showed him this picture, he said that was not how he remembered it:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE4_HI.jpg

On the same page there was this drawing:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/headwounddrawing.jpg

And his hand went there, and he said: "That's more like it".

Wim

[Ron Ecker]

I'm thinking of buying one of those Fireball guns like Files used, just so I can look through the scope. I'm hoping that it will help improve my vision. Apparently you can see things going on a lot better with the scope than without it, even while firing the gun!

[David Lifton]

Wim, for your information: I do not think the grassy knoll was built out of paper mache (and never did). I have always thought some kind of sophisticated camouflage was used to conceal shooters in the area--and I said just that 40 years ago. So what?

Do you have an objection to the notion that shooters were somehow concealed? Or that photographs may have been altered, after the fact, if the concealment, however it was accomplished, failed?

While pressing on with various irrelevancies, you continue to ignore the most important fact of all, the one that would be, should be (and is) of central concern to any lawyer or historian: that the President's wounds were altered between Parkland and Bethesda, and that is the heart of the disguise.

All your money and all the time you have invested is for naught--really, it is a complete and utter waste that will end up in the dustbin of history--if you will not face the implications of this central fact, which is at the heart of this case. (And instead talk of people who can and cannot be "saved"--is this a religious exercise?)

As for Connally, I do not believe he was shot from behind--and in my new work, you will see laid out in some detail why I believe there was a medical coverup in his case--at Parkland, either via pre-planning or the Governnment stepping in shortly after the fact. But even that is not central to what is wrong with your entire approach.

The true barometer of nuttiness, sir, is not whether Connally was shot from the front, or speculations as to where shooters were hidden. The true barometer of nuttiness and bad judgment is the notion that Judyth Baker, an obvious screwball, is worthy of belief. You impeach your own credentials as any kind of rational analyst by continuing to push witnesses who are clearly not credible, while avoiding the major issue at hand, and the one at the very heart of this homicide: the covert alteration of the wounds, prior to autopsy.

[Jack White]

Wim, for your information: I do not think the grassy knoll was built out of paper mache (and never did). I have always thought some kind of sophisticated camouflage was used to conceal shooters in the area--and I said just that 40 years ago. So what?

Do you have an objection to the notion that shooters were somehow concealed? Or that photographs may have been altered, after the fact, if the concealment, however it was accomplished, failed?

While pressing on with various irrelevancies, you continue to ignore the most important fact of all, the one that would be, should be (and is) of central concern to any lawyer or historian: that the President's wounds were altered between Parkland and Bethesda, and that is the heart of the disguise.

All your money and all the time you have invested is for naught--really, it is a complete and utter waste that will end up in the dustbin of history--if you will not face the implications of this central fact, which is at the heart of this case. (And instead talk of people who can and cannot be "saved"--is this a religious exercise?)

As for Connally, I do not believe he was shot from behind--and in my new work, you will see laid out in some detail why I believe there was a medical coverup in his case--at Parkland, either via pre-planning or the Governnment stepping in shortly after the fact. But even that is not central to what is wrong with your entire approach.

The true barometer of nuttiness, sir, is not whether Connally was shot from the front, or speculations as to where shooters were hidden. The true barometer of nuttiness and bad judgment is the notion that Judyth Baker, an obvious screwball, is worthy of belief. You impeach your own credentials as any kind of rational analyst by continuing to push witnesses who are clearly not credible, while avoiding the major issue at hand, and the one at the very heart of this homicide: the covert alteration of the wounds, prior to autopsy.

Excellent, David. Everyone forgets that the assassination was a well planned SECRET OPERATION.

It was so secret that parts of it may never be found. I would like to see more done relating

to the large silver van parked in front of the DalTex Building. I believe it housed the OPERATIONS

CENTER for the assassination...but NOBODY has ever studied it...despite the army man that said

"headquarters were in a van"....I can't remember where I read that.

As for Judyth, you are right....Loony Toons all the way.

Jack

[Paul Choor]

Leaving aside all the factual disconnects, there may be a cultural explanation as to why some people swallow the Jimmy Files story.

Maybe some Europeans, who didn't grow up immersed in the diverse patois of the US, can't recognize obvious con-man patter. Maybe to their ear, it all seems street-tough, savvy and genuine.

I guess in a country where officially by the government and written in the school historybooks the opinion is that LHO was the lonenut assassin of JFK, there is indeed a HUGE cultural difference....

I guess in a country where they can just have a "coup d'etat" and a big coverup after the fact, they can also easily make the truth into a lie, meaning making James Files a xxxx, which I truly believe he is not.

But let me ask this: why is it that a confessed assassin is NOT properly investigated?

Gr. Paul.

[Dawn Meredith]

Bob Vernon recently wrote to Len Osanic: "I will also give your listeners some factual information on how the James Files story was PRE-MEDITATED and Files hoax was perpetrated by the FBI and retired agent Zack Shelton."

I wonder if Vernon knew this story was bogus when he sold it to Wim. I hope Len does not give BV a stage for his bs. Wim is heavily invested in this story and it clouds his thinking on the case, imo. I think it is great that he has done so much valuable work on this case. I am in agreement with Wim on most things and consider him a friend. But we will never see eye to eye on Files.

(I agree with what Terry Mauro wrote in an email to Wim yesterday, that the shooters were hired mechanics and would never live to tell such a tall tale.) Files has a great imagination. But he did not shoot JFK. No more than did Easterling (Reasonable Doubt). His 15 minutes of fame were up long ago.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Wim Dankbaar' date='Sep 7 2006, 04:42 PM' post='74245']

Thank you, John Simkin, for re-installing my membership.

Wim:

Opps. I posted before I saw that you are reinstated. Welcome back. I think you can add a lot to this discussion IF you can write about something/one other than James Files.

Your work on the Bush connection is most commendable.

Dawn