Guest Mark Valenti Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Valenti, you're a prime and fine example of a discreditor. Thanks for showing. I wonder: Is there any relation with Jack Valenti? In addition to your "general direction" of the shadows, why don't you deny some more facts: Are the shadows in the tramp photos longer than at the time of the shooting? Yes or no? Wim Dankbaar, you're a prime and fine example of a ghoulish entrepeneur. I believe you will stand proudly in history next to the man who displayed the Elephant Man's skeleton. And for the 100th time, no, there's no relation to Jack. Do you have any relation to P.T. Barnum? The shadows question will have to wait until November 22, 2007. See you in Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Avoiding the question, Mark? Tough one, not? "If you can't answer honestly, don't answer, but ignore." http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&c2co...oeken&meta= http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&c2co...oeken&meta= Need I say more? Wim PS: "The shadows question will have to wait until November 22, 2007. See you in Dallas." So you need to be in Dallas to determine that shadows grow longer after noon? What school did you go to, if any? Edited January 26, 2007 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Hey Wim, there are over a half-million Google hits for "money hungry" - over 200,000 hits for "necrophiliac" - that's somebody who screws dead people - and almost two thousand hits for "shameless huckster." I acknowledge that you have spent a lot of time, effort and money in the search for information about the JFK murder. You have managed to parlay that energy into some truly invasive web sites. Good for you! I'll bet there are still a few senior citizens out there with stories to tell - and I'll bet you're looking for them. I also realize that it is Very Very Important that you are correct in your assessment of those darn shadows, otherwise your whole story goes to hell and your DVD sales will surely plummet. Bad for you! That's why I say: let's get this right, for the sake of history and your bank account. You don't want to run around half-cocked, making wild claims without one hundred percent proof, do you? That would make you seem like a...well, you get the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 Okay, Mark Valenti, you may have the last word. You won anyway. I'm still dizzy from the knock-out. Bye now. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 (edited) Okay, Mark Valenti, you may have the last word. You won anyway. I'm still dizzy from the knock-out. Bye now. Wim I'm somewhat confused by this strange thread. In order to see the matter in question for myself, I bought & looked at Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite . It seems to me that Chauncey Holt was simply telling the truth from memory. What he says does not contradict anything I've seen in the canon of JFK literature & analysis. It seems to me that Holt's recollections throw a very bright light into areas of JFK assassination research which have been hidden & obscure for a very long time. This being said, I can't but wonder why Valenti & Weaver, who apparently have not seen Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite , should be at pains to discredit Holt's interview. There seems to be personal animosity toward Dunkbaar for his sale of the Holt interview. Why? I paid a small fortune for a copy of Bloody Treason. By the time you've bought Ultimate Sacrifice & Someone Would Have Talked & a raft of other books, you're bankrupt. Still, there's value to be had for the money, no? IMO, Holt's interview, produced by Dunkbaar or by Mahatma Gandhi, stands independently as a tremendous source of otherwise unavailable information & insight. Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite is well worth a look see! Edited January 29, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Weaver Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 (edited) Okay, Mark Valenti, you may have the last word. You won anyway. I'm still dizzy from the knock-out. Bye now. Wim I'm somewhat confused by this strange thread. In order to see the matter in question for myself, I bought & looked at Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite . It seems to me that Chauncey Holt was simply telling the truth from memory. What he says does not contradict anything I've seen in the canon of JFK literature & analysis. It seems to me that Holt's recollections throw a very bright light into areas of JFK assassination research which have been hidden & obscure for a very long time. This being said, I can't but wonder why Valenti & Weaver, who apparently have not seen Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite , should be at pains to discredit Holt's interview. There seems to be personal animosity toward Dunkbaar for his sale of the Holt interview. Why? I paid a small fortune for a copy of Bloody Treason. By the time you've bought Ultimate Sacrifice & Someone Would Have Talked & a raft of other books, you're bankrupt. Still, there's value to be had for the money, no? IMO, Holt's interview, produced by Dunkbaar or by Mahatma Gandhi, stands independently as a tremendous source of otherwise unavailable information & insight. Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite is a well worth a look see! Hi Miles, I have no personal anymosity towards Wim Dankbaar, never had and most likely never will have. My Life's going to be too short in the end, to waste my time creating artifical enemies for non important reasons (if at all). Wim sells his theories, that is fine, I have no problems with that,others do too, but then, he doesn't call them theories, he calls them the truth. Sadly he has no proof. Oh yes, he has evidence, so much evidence, but if one takes a closer clock at it, that's when the problems start. I do indeed question his believe system in regard of what proof is meant to be and considering the lack of proof (in the sense someone with a normal share of brains left would accept it) in his presentation of the James Files story, the Judyth Baker story and now (this is not a new one) the Chauncey Holt story. Lack of proof in regard of the center claims of each story I must add of course, because some of the claims are true and proven. That is: James Files was a criminal Judyth Baker killed mice while in school and worked at Reily Coffee Company Chauncey Holt was a good artist (both at the trapez and as painter) But I have yet to see proof for claims made by those three and repeated by Wim Dankbaar, for example: James Files was in the military James Files was in Dealey Plaza on 22/11/1963 James Files shot and killed JFK that day amongst some other things. Judyth Baker was Oswalds lover Judyth Baker was working on a secret cancer project Judyth Baker knew David Ferrie,Jack Ruby amongst some other things Chauncey Marvin Holt shot and killed Bugsy Siegel (claimed by Wim Dankbaar to me) Chauncey Marvin Holt provided fake ID badges to persons in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 Chauncey Marvin Holt was the old tramp amongst some other things. I am not talking about (circumstancial) evidence in the broadest imaginable way (remember some wrongfully received the death penalty for such evidence) , I am talking about proof, like it is proven that the earth isn't a flat disc, in that sense, if you can follow me. So, unless Wim Dankbaar or anyone else can show me proof that those 3 persons did what they claim in connection with the JFK assassination and or Lee Harvey Oswald or in connection with a secret cancer weapon, I take my freedom of doubting both them and Wim's judgement. I do that, because neither Wim nor anyone else was ever able to show me proof in the past, although promises were made more than once. I do not doubt that Wim believes in his own words, but I can't. And I realy don't care who solves the JFK assassination, but if someone knocks on my door saying he/she has done it, he/she better shows me proof for his/her claim or else I regard it as a theory at best or maybe even regard him or her as a weirdo, depending on the claims made. Anything wrong with that approach ? Edited January 28, 2007 by Dave Weaver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 (edited) Okay, Mark Valenti, you may have the last word. You won anyway. I'm still dizzy from the knock-out. Bye now. Wim I'm somewhat confused by this strange thread. In order to see the matter in question for myself, I bought & looked at Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite . It seems to me that Chauncey Holt was simply telling the truth from memory. What he says does not contradict anything I've seen in the canon of JFK literature & analysis. It seems to me that Holt's recollections throw a very bright light into areas of JFK assassination research which have been hidden & obscure for a very long time. This being said, I can't but wonder why Valenti & Weaver, who apparently have not seen Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite , should be at pains to discredit Holt's interview. There seems to be personal animosity toward Dunkbaar for his sale of the Holt interview. Why? I paid a small fortune for a copy of Bloody Treason. By the time you've bought Ultimate Sacrifice & Someone Would Have Talked & a raft of other books, you're bankrupt. Still, there's value to be had for the money, no? IMO, Holt's interview, produced by Dunkbaar or by Mahatma Gandhi, stands independently as a tremendous source of otherwise unavailable information & insight. Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite is a well worth a look see! Hi Miles, I have no personal anymosity towards Wim Dankbaar, never had and most likely never will, at least not in regard of anything said or done in connection with the JFK assassination in the broader sense. He knows that for years, but he likes to make others believe that, when it's fitting him,me thinks. My Life's going to be too short to waste my time creating artifical enemies for non important reasons (if at all). I do indeed question his believe system in regard of what proof is meant to be and considering the lack of proof (in the sense someone with a normal share of brains left would accept it) in his presentation of the James Files story, the Judyth Baker story and now (this is not a new one) the Chauncey Holt story. Lack of proof in regard of the center claims of each story I must add of course. Because some of the claims are true and proven. That is: James Files was a criminal Judyth Baker killed mice while in school and worked at Reily Coffee Company Chauncey Holt was a good artist (both at the trapez and as painter) I have yet to see proof for claims made by those three and repeated by Wim Dankbaar, for example: James Files was in the military James Files was in Dealey Plaza on 22/11/1963 James Files shot and killed JFK that day amongst some other things. Judyth Baker was Oswalds lover Judyth Baker was working on a secret cancer project Judyth Baker knew David Ferrie,Jack Ruby amongst some other things Chauncey Marvin Holt shot and killed Bugsy Siegel (claimed by Wim Dankbaar to me) Chauncey Marvin Holt provided fake ID badges to persons in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 Chauncey Marvin Holt was the old tramp amongst some other things. I am not talking about (circumstancial) evidence in the broadest imaginable way , I am talking about proof, like it is proven that the earth isn't a flat disc, in that sense, if you can follow me. So, unless Wim Dankbaar or anyone else can show me proof that those 3 persons did what they claim in connection with the JFK assassination and or Lee Harvey Oswald or in connection with a secret cancer weapon, I take my freedom of doubting both them and Wim's judgement. I do that, because neither Wim nor anyone else was ever able to show me proof in the past, although promises were made more than once. I do not doubt that Wim believes in his own words, but I have stopped believing in them. I don't care who solves the JFK assassination, but if someone knocks on my door saying he has done it, he better shows me proof for his claim or else I regard him as a weirdo at best, when his evidence is of the Wim Dankbaar quality Anything wrong with that approach ? Hi Dave, I can easily agree with you. I remain neutral myself. However, there are some recently published books & interviews which, taken in aggregate, begin to present a complex & intricate case. The case is extensive in detail & in self verifying elements. Have you examined these? http://www.amazon.com/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-As...TF8&s=books http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Marys-Monkey-Canc...0338342-8361756 http://www.amazon.com/Zenith-Secret-Inside...TF8&s=books If you carefully examine these, for starters, I believe you will be in for a sea change in your views, regardless of your final conclisions. I even hazard that you will borrow some Dutch gulden for, to you, an admittedly distastful business contact with Dunkbaar! Even you will want to closely examine Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite just out of curiousity if for no other reason. Bon voyage! Edited January 28, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Dear Miles, I appreciate your opinion - and I would agree with you, it would seem that personal animosity is driving the tone of the messages. But it can't be - because I do not know Dankbaar personally. I only know the product he tries to sell - repeatedly, ubiquitously, forcefully. He has expended a great deal of energy toward his enterprises - good for him. As I said before, I hope he gets rich from them. But if he's going to posit them as holy writ, I have the right, as a potential consumer, to make a judgement about them. And I don't believe it's blasphemy to suggest that there are flaws in the product. What I would love to hear from Dankbaar is that his theses are his best guess - nothing more, nothing less. But people have different thresholds of truth, and he has the right to peddle whatever he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Weaver Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Okay, Mark Valenti, you may have the last word. You won anyway. I'm still dizzy from the knock-out. Bye now. Wim I'm somewhat confused by this strange thread. In order to see the matter in question for myself, I bought & looked at Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite . It seems to me that Chauncey Holt was simply telling the truth from memory. What he says does not contradict anything I've seen in the canon of JFK literature & analysis. It seems to me that Holt's recollections throw a very bright light into areas of JFK assassination research which have been hidden & obscure for a very long time. This being said, I can't but wonder why Valenti & Weaver, who apparently have not seen Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite , should be at pains to discredit Holt's interview. There seems to be personal animosity toward Dunkbaar for his sale of the Holt interview. Why? I paid a small fortune for a copy of Bloody Treason. By the time you've bought Ultimate Sacrifice & Someone Would Have Talked & a raft of other books, you're bankrupt. Still, there's value to be had for the money, no? IMO, Holt's interview, produced by Dunkbaar or by Mahatma Gandhi, stands independently as a tremendous source of otherwise unavailable information & insight. Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite is a well worth a look see! Miles, first it is Euro not Gulden anymore, as far as I know, and no, I don't need to borrow money from Wim or anyone should I want to buy the DVD. Maybe I have it already, who knows ... . Chauncey Holt may have been a tremendous source and may have had otherwise unavailable information, but was he the old tramp in Dealeay Plaza ? I have seen nothing that can convince me yet, quite to the contrary. Karl May was a tremendous source to and had otherwise unavailable information for, the common man of his time, yet he was a hoaxter. Then there was this guy talking about having worked at the area 51, reverse-engineering UFO's, and he talked about what I, being a person very much interrested in propulsion technology, found interresting to hear about, yet all he did was talking, there was no proof presented. So, I have to say, sorry, you can not prove it, and you are not my best friend, so I don't believe you. There's also this guy Bearden, who for decades invented or recreated the most astonishing overunity devices, and can talk for hours and hours and hours about scalar technology, motionless magnetic generators and so on and so on, yet the world has yet to see something that actually works in front of the common man in the audience. So, I have to say, sorry, you can not prove it, and you are not my best friend, so I don't believe you. There are those televangelists, those psychics, there is Uri Geller, and there is even the catholic church and the pope claiming a lot of things. And I have to say, sorry, you can not prove it, and you are not my best friend, so I don't believe you. And quess what, I've had also "best friends" who lied to me. But that is not to say, that I do not believe in things I have not seen proof for (yet), but I never would run around claiming it is the truth and down others when they don't believe in the same as I do. Would I start a fight over it ? Never ever !!!!!!!!!! If I go to the market, I am most sceptic about the products and claims by those who cry the loudest, that is my market rule number one, learned it from my grandma, try it, it works. He who makes the claims in front of me, must show the proof to me, that's how it is, and not the other way around. And since Wim in all those years, never was able to do so, I say sorry Wim, I like you realy (well there are some points I see as very problematic), but I don't believe in the claims of the persons you believe in. Simple as that, and it has nothing to do with him making a buck out of it, his advetizement may be questionable, but hey, he/she who buys his products it is old enough to make whatever they want with the money they earn and it is none of my bussiness. Now, since you have seen the DVD, care to tell the members here, about proof that Chauncey Holt was the old tramp and did deliver fake ID badges that day ? Or did you just came her because ... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 Uwe, You wrote: "Maybe I have it already, who knows ... ." You know, so why the slick secrecy? Wim Oh, by the way, you may really like me (or say so) but your love is unresponded. In fact, I find you patheticly transparent. Here's another film (geez, it's for free) for you to put your teeth in. http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-678503303319704937 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Okay, Mark Valenti, you may have the last word. You won anyway. I'm still dizzy from the knock-out. Bye now. Wim I'm somewhat confused by this strange thread. In order to see the matter in question for myself, I bought & looked at Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite . It seems to me that Chauncey Holt was simply telling the truth from memory. What he says does not contradict anything I've seen in the canon of JFK literature & analysis. It seems to me that Holt's recollections throw a very bright light into areas of JFK assassination research which have been hidden & obscure for a very long time. This being said, I can't but wonder why Valenti & Weaver, who apparently have not seen Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite , should be at pains to discredit Holt's interview. There seems to be personal animosity toward Dunkbaar for his sale of the Holt interview. Why? I paid a small fortune for a copy of Bloody Treason. By the time you've bought Ultimate Sacrifice & Someone Would Have Talked & a raft of other books, you're bankrupt. Still, there's value to be had for the money, no? IMO, Holt's interview, produced by Dunkbaar or by Mahatma Gandhi, stands independently as a tremendous source of otherwise unavailable information & insight. Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite is a well worth a look see! Miles, first it is Euro not Gulden anymore, as far as I know, and no, I don't need to borrow money from Wim or anyone should I want to buy the DVD. Maybe I have it already, who knows ... . My apology to Mr. Dankbaar for misspelling his name. Dave says: " Maybe I have it already, who knows ... ." Dave, this is pretty silly. Obviously you have not seen Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite. Sorry to say, but until you have viewed this interesting & highly credible video interview, which is verified & corroborated by various other independent references easily available to a studious & serious review, then you are thrusting a dagger into thin air. This also applies to Mr. Valenti's slander: if you don't know your subject, then your personal animosity predisposition becomes pretty obvious & silly. Anybody, everybody, will see the vacuity of your position! You have not seen the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Weaver Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Okay, Mark Valenti, you may have the last word. You won anyway. I'm still dizzy from the knock-out. Bye now. Wim I'm somewhat confused by this strange thread. In order to see the matter in question for myself, I bought & looked at Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite . It seems to me that Chauncey Holt was simply telling the truth from memory. What he says does not contradict anything I've seen in the canon of JFK literature & analysis. It seems to me that Holt's recollections throw a very bright light into areas of JFK assassination research which have been hidden & obscure for a very long time. This being said, I can't but wonder why Valenti & Weaver, who apparently have not seen Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite , should be at pains to discredit Holt's interview. There seems to be personal animosity toward Dunkbaar for his sale of the Holt interview. Why? I paid a small fortune for a copy of Bloody Treason. By the time you've bought Ultimate Sacrifice & Someone Would Have Talked & a raft of other books, you're bankrupt. Still, there's value to be had for the money, no? IMO, Holt's interview, produced by Dunkbaar or by Mahatma Gandhi, stands independently as a tremendous source of otherwise unavailable information & insight. Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite is a well worth a look see! Miles, first it is Euro not Gulden anymore, as far as I know, and no, I don't need to borrow money from Wim or anyone should I want to buy the DVD. Maybe I have it already, who knows ... . My apology to Mr. Dankbaar for misspelling his name. Dave says: " Maybe I have it already, who knows ... ." Dave, this is pretty silly. Obviously you have not seen Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite. Sorry to say, but until you have viewed this interesting & highly credible video interview, which is verified & corroborated by various other independent references easily available to a studious & serious review, then you are thrusting a dagger into thin air. This also applies to Mr. Valenti's slander: if you don't know your subject, then your personal animosity predisposition becomes pretty obvious & silly. Anybody, everybody, will see the vacuity of your position! You have not seen the evidence. Wim, was Chauncey Holt realy the old tramp in Dealey Plaza and did he deliver fake ID badges that Day ? Lois Gibson, made her presentation based on wrong/incomplete information about Holts facial parts on 11/22/63, that's how it looks, and Gibson is all you've ever had. So based on the evidence, I continue to doubt he had any involvement that day. What you do, is play smoke and mirrors and continue your lame advertizement. Beside of that, I have you on remote control, I know exactly how you react when I press those little buttons in my posts (Maybe I have it already ... ) . Miles, you are part of Wims advertizement, nothing more, so it is a waste of time argueeing with you. Sorry to say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Dave, this is pretty silly. Obviously you have not seen Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite. Sorry to say, but until you have viewed this interesting & highly credible video interview, which is verified & corroborated by various other independent references easily available to a studious & serious review, then you are thrusting a dagger into thin air. This also applies to Mr. Valenti's slander: if you don't know your subject, then your personal animosity predisposition becomes pretty obvious & silly. Anybody, everybody, will see the vacuity of your position! You have not seen the evidence. Miles, What is the new information that you gained from the video? Exactly how did it shine a bright light on your understanding of the murder of JFK? Surely the list must be breathtaking. I look forward to your comprehensive report. You've stuck your nose into this, so perhaps you'd care to do more than hit-and-run? Unless...ya know...there's no "there" there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Dave, this is pretty silly. Obviously you have not seen Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite. Sorry to say, but until you have viewed this interesting & highly credible video interview, which is verified & corroborated by various other independent references easily available to a studious & serious review, then you are thrusting a dagger into thin air. This also applies to Mr. Valenti's slander: if you don't know your subject, then your personal animosity predisposition becomes pretty obvious & silly. Anybody, everybody, will see the vacuity of your position! You have not seen the evidence. Miles, What is the new information that you gained from the video? Exactly how did it shine a bright light on your understanding of the murder of JFK? Surely the list must be breathtaking. I look forward to your comprehensive report. You've stuck your nose into this, so perhaps you'd care to do more than hit-and-run? Unless...ya know...there's no "there" there. Mark, Just get the video, Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite . You will be very pleasantly surprised & rewarded. You'll be doing yourself a favor. I would give this advice to anyone. If you're prejudiced against Dankbaar for personal reasons, then there's another author & researcher who interviewed Holt & thought he was the real deal: James Fetzer. Also, Holt was interviewed & video taped in 1991 by John Craig & Gary Shaw, who found Holt completely credible. These are, were veteran researchers. Jim Marrs is another believer. Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite is new. Most folk have not had a chance as yet to pick up on the new information & insights this Holt interview offers. Just my opinion, of course, but I should say that in time this interview will become accepted as an important addition to the canon. Now you don't have to accept my opinion, naturally. Simply see & critique for yourself. The way I found out about this was by coming across this web page: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/spooks.htm Check it out. There's even a sample. A bon bon. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 Jim Fetzer is another one. http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Fetzer.rm The difference between these researchers and the Uwe Leybold's / Mark Valenti's of this world, is that they have actually met with Holt and have seen his story and evidence in more detail. Valenti or Leybold will never change their position because they would regard it as loss of face. It's a sign of character to come back on an ill conceived prejudice, but it's a waste of time expecting such qualities from them. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now