Jump to content
The Education Forum

Corrections needed for James Files


Recommended Posts

For John Simkin:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfiles.htm

"The confession made by Files was undermined by research carried out by Edward Jay Epstein. He established from telephone records Files was in Chicago, not Dallas, on November 22,1963. "

This is NOT true. If you think it is, then prove it to us and ask Epstein how!

"Files claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the plot but his role was to plant the Mannlicher Rifle and shells in the Texas Book Depository."

Files claims Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the plot, but only as a dupe. He does not CLAIM that Oswald's role was to plant evidence, he just speculated that was his role.

Edited by dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have added the word “speculated”. I am unwilling to remove my reference to Edward Jay Epstein's research into Files. Here is an email sent by Epstein to Barb Junkkarinen on 24th April, 2001.

In brief, NBC retained me as a consultant for their planned story on Files. I hired the detective firm of Jules Kroll. JK established from telephone records Files was in Chicago, not Dallas, on November 22,1963. We then placed a call to Files from Dick Clark's office (DC was producer), and I interviewed Files about Kroll findings. He said he had a twin brother, who no one knew about, and whom he met shortly before November 22, and who he murdered after November 22. He said it was his twin brother in hospital with his wife, not him. His wife, however, said there was no twin, and Kroll confirmed there was no twin. My view then and now is that Files invented the story for the money it would earn him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this is an absolute LIE !! Epstein NEVER interviewed James Files. James Files NEVER said he has a twin brother! Why would he say a thing like that? An easily disprovable fact. Why do you accept Mr. Epstein's word at face value, without even checking with him? Ask Barry Adelman of Dick Clark.

I'll make you a fair deal: Email the honorable professor right here:

http://edwardjayepstein.com/asked.htm

and tell him there is a guy from Holland on your forum calling him an outright xxxx and he should come over here to refute Wim Dankbaar's claims in order to protect his reputation, which in your eyes he obviously still has.

If he does not respond, you are going to remove his LIE from the biography of James Files. Is that fair or not?

Wim

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/letters.htm

The Kroll Agency tried everything they could to discredit me. One story they put out was that I couldnt have been in Dallas that day, as my wife was giving birth to our daughter that day. When I was asked about it, I said yes, I was at the hospital that day. But that means Kennedy was not assassinated until September 26, 1966. I said that is the day my daughter was born, go check the hospital records. That ended that.

A lot of people said I was too young to kill anyone at that time. I told them that I dont remember seeing old men out on the battlefield during combat. In Nam all I saw were a lot of young kids dying, ages between 17 and 21 years of age.

Also, I cannot for the life of me, see a man fire a weapon, a rifle, like the man Ed Hoffman said he saw, throw it to someone else, while he runs off. If they catch this other guy with the rifle, whats keeping him from telling on the one who pulled the trigger? I would never give a weapon to anyone that I had just used, to trust them to get rid of it. That is plain stupid.

Edited by dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the way, John Stockwell (ex CIA) is fabricating too.

Why do you leave his statements uncontested and not post the rebuttals too?

This is also a letter from John Stockwell:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/pdf/Stockwell95.pdf

I'll bet you never saw that, right?

If you must be "balanced" and state different opinions, why not post that letter too? Do you have an explanation for Stockwell's sudden U-turn? Maybe there is no such thing as ex CIA, huh?

Has Stockwell ever answered to the debunkings of his lies? NO! You know why? because he can't !

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/files1.htm

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/files2.htm

I can prove his statements are lies. Do you want to publish lies, even I prove them to be lies? Do you for example want to take Stockwell's word over that of Zack Shelton or any other Chicago based FBI agent or any other organized crime expert that Tony Accardo was the man in charge, just like Files said?

Wim

Edited by dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll keep this thread on top untill I get fair answers on fair questions!

I'll make you a fair deal: Email the honorable professor right here:

http://edwardjayepstein.com/asked.htm

and tell him there is a guy from Holland on your forum calling him an outright xxxx and he should come over here to refute Wim Dankbaar's claims in order to protect his reputation, which in your eyes he obviously still has.

If he does not respond, you are going to remove his LIE from the biography of James Files. Is that fair or not?

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have visited jfkmurdersolved many many times and I think that it is an interesting site. I do not believe in the story of James Files for many reasons. The first one is when I first looked at it years ago 1999 I believe there was alot of talk on how Files never had accsess or read any JFK conspiracy books and now I hear there was a copy of one in his cell but he only read 10 pages and put it down cause it was boring? He claims to have seen everyone ever connected to any conspiracy theories ever. Sturgis, Veciana, Phillips, Alderisio, Giancana, Roselli, Braden. Like others have said this is something he read and inserted himself in the story. As for Files saying most of the men in Vietnam were 17-21 that is probably true, but men that age were grunts not training geurillas for small arms and explosives for an important mission like he claims. Alot of researchers have alot of problems with James Files story they cant all be in the CIA. Stop holding this forum hostage with your attitude and opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll keep this thread on top untill I get fair answers on fair questions!

I'll make you a fair deal: Email the honorable professor right here:

http://edwardjayepstein.com/asked.htm

and tell him there is a guy from Holland on your forum calling him an outright xxxx and he should come over here to refute Wim Dankbaar's claims in order to protect his reputation, which in your eyes he obviously still has.

If he does not respond, you are going to remove his LIE from the biography of James Files. Is that fair or not?

As you already know I do not express my opinions about the various theories in the narrative on my various entries in my JFK assassination website. Unlike, many websites on the assassination, if I am informed that I have made a factual mistake, I will correct it. In the narrative on the entry on James Files I refer to the claims made by Edward Epstein and John R. Stockwell about Files’s story. You might well think that both men are lying, but until I see evidence that this true, I will continue to include their comments.

On my pages I try to show students that people disagree strongly about aspects of the JFK assassination. I do this by having a sources section. For example, on the Files page I include quotations from James Files, Edward Epstein, John R. Stockwell, Martin Shackelford, David B. Perry and yourself. Are you happy with your quotation? Do you want to change it?

I have invited Edward Epstein several times to join this forum. He has not replied to these emails so far. However, he is not alone in refusing to join this forum. Other researchers have also declined the right to join the forum. Some have given me reasons for this decision. In a couple of cases they have claimed that the main reason they have not joined is because of you. They dislike they way you make abusive comments about the people you disagree with.

I am not sure why you do this but I cannot see how it helps your case. My experience of life is that people only resort to these tactics when they run out of intellectual arguments. Anyway, people are unlikely to be bullied into changing their mind about who they believe were involved in the conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer to Skydog, who makes a few wrong claims, is that I will not discuss with people who do not reveal their true identity. One question in general though: How old was Oswald when he was sent to the USSR? Or did he just go because he felt like it?

So let me give an answer to John Simkin:

As you already know I do not express my opinions about the various theories in the narrative on my various entries in my JFK assassination website. Unlike, many websites on the assassination, if I am informed that I have made a factual mistake, I will correct it. In the narrative on the entry on James Files I refer to the claims made by Edward Epstein and John R. Stockwell about Files’s story. You might well think that both men are lying, but until I see evidence that this true, I will continue to include their comments.

Yes, I know that, and that is fine with me. However it is not fine anymore if certain statements have been proven to be lies and you leave these lies standing.In the case of Epstein, you state: "The confession made by Files was undermined by research carried out by Edward Jay Epstein. With the help of private detective, Jules Kroll, Epstein established from telephone records Files was in Chicago, not Dallas, on 22nd November, 1963. "

These are YOUR words, it is not on objective statement. You say it was UNDERMINED and you say it was ESTABLISHED. As if it were fact that Fiiles was in Chicago and if it were fact that such telephone records exist. The whole story of Epstein is an absolute and provable hoax designed to discredit James Files. Why do they need lies to do that? There have been so many wrong theories presented in the JFK assassination on national televison. Why were they so worried about this one?

You know this by now, but are apparently itched by my blunt approach of addressing the issues here, which in my view is a very bad reason for not correcting an error. For an objective forum, dedicated to uncover the truth in this case, emotional or personal issues should be irrelevant, especially for the administrator, no matter how big an asshole you may find me.

On my pages I try to show students that people disagree strongly about aspects of the JFK assassination. I do this by having a sources section. For example, on the Files page I include quotations from James Files, Edward Epstein, John R. Stockwell, Martin Shackelford, David B. Perry and yourself. Are you happy with your quotation? Do you want to change it?

I am fairly satisfied with my quotation and see no need to change it. It is some of the quotation of others that I have a problem with. I can even live with the quotation of others who do not believe or claim not to believe James Files. But when these statements are provably untrue and the makers of these statements refuse to corroborate them or even be available for comments, they should be deleted, or at least the opposing opinions should be qouted.

I have invited Edward Epstein several times to join this forum. He has not replied to these emails so far. However, he is not alone in refusing to join this forum. Other researchers have also declined the right to join the forum. Some have given me reasons for this decision. In a couple of cases they have claimed that the main reason they have not joined is because of you. They dislike they way you make abusive comments about the people you disagree with.

Epstein will not respond, because he knows he can't win. You can't make a lie the truth, you know. What you can do is present a lie as the truth to a big audience, and hope your "authority" on the subject will prevent triggering questions, so the lie will stick. Apparently this is a succesful strategy, since it proves already rather cumbersome to have the lie removed or even challenged by you on this forum. Anyway, that is the SOLE reason Epstein wil not join this forum.

I just sent you an email, proving that Stockwell's very first statement is a LIE. Files military service HAS been corroborated. Tell me, John, will you ignore that and leave Stockwell's statement standing? About the alledged dislike for my so called abusive comments, let them pull up the abusive comments, let them point out the abuse, let them prove what they say. Can you point the abusive comments out yourself? If not, why do you take their words for granted? I can understand they dislike the fact their lies are exposed. Would you care to share the names of the "couple of cases they have claimed that the main reason they have not joined is because of you"? They can't be Allan Eaglesham or Martin Shackelford since they did join this forum.

Or are they exactly these people of whom I claim they are lying? Like David Perry for example. He claimed Joe Granata is dead, that Lee Bowers did not see a stationwagon, that the XP-100 was never chambered for .222 shells and on and on and on. Lies he has refused to correct, hiding behind his hurt feelings by my questioning his integrity.

I am not sure why you do this but I cannot see how it helps your case. My experience of life is that people only resort to these tactics when they run out of intellectual arguments. Anyway, people are unlikely to be bullied into changing their mind about who they believe were involved in the conspiracy.

Well, you are right there, people have a natural tendency to not want to change their position. But whose tactics do you mean? Mine? If so, what is my tactic other than refuting a provable lie and what is unintellectual about that?

As for why I do this, it's very simple. 1) I am sick of lies and disinfo, especially in this case, and 2) I think you are different from the David Perry's of this world. Are you telling me to not even bother? Why this forum then?

I will email you a suggestion to leave everything as it is except for a referral to the webpages where Epstein's, Stockwell's and Perry's claims are opposed.

Wim

--------------------

John Simkin

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/

http://vs.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/index_vs.cfm

Edited by dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...