Jump to content
The Education Forum

Great new clip on Youtube.


Recommended Posts

Wim, the "hatman" position does not correspondent with the Holland position as seen in the video, we agree on that.

I was not aware that you have changed Files location to that to the left of the tree (Hollands) from Moormans picture until

today.

Files is and was aware of that moorman picture and the location he was placed in for years, but did not correct you (that is jfkmurdersolved past and present).

******************

The Holland position corresponds exactly with the Files position. You point it out incorrectly on Moorman, it's closer to the tree than your arrow. The view from the Moorman picture is very different from the clip image that you posted. Therefore the tree appears to be much more to the right than it was on the Moorman picture. Whether Files was right or left or the three , he isn't 100 % sure. As he says, it had to be to HIS right, as he didn't want the tree to be in the way. That corresponds with the blob over the fence on the Moorman picture. It's about 8-10 feet from the corner, exactly where Holland and Lane stood in that clip.

Someone shot from there, but in your mind it may not be Files. It has to remain some mysterious figure that never came forward.

If you watch "Files on JFK" again, the 2003 interview, he is asked about it by me, and you can see exactly what he said about it.

W - You’ve got the Moorman picture there? Or do you want to get that later?

J – No. Let’s look at this right here (putting Moorman picture before James Files). Is that the tree you were talking about?

JF - Yep, you can see the branches from back over here coming right down over the wall.

W – And that’s the vicinity where you were standing?

JF – Right there!

W – In this picture there is a uuh .. an object visible if you blow it up. Right here next to that tree. And if you blow it up it looks … it may look like a hat, or a fedora.

J – Do you remember which side of the tree you were on? Was it to your left or your right?

JF – (Thinking) ........ I could be mistaken, I believe ..... no, the tree was to my right. It had to be to my right. The tree was to my right because I didn’t want to have the tree in the way to my left. ….. And you can’t see the sign here, but the sign is right on down here.

W – Yes, the sign is here … This is the blowup. This is sky and this is sky and this is the shape. Yeah …. Do you see a hat in there?

JF – Do I see what?

W – A hat.

JF – Not to me! You’re asking the wrong man. I’ve got a hard time seeing with these glasses, believe me.

W – Okay, but this spot is right next to the tree

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In observing the Mark Lane's tape of Sam Holland, I noticed that Sam states..

That he heard the shot from approximately "20 to 30 feet from the far corner of the little picket fence."

When stating this information he also points to the far end of the fence, near the steps...closest to where

Zapruder was situated...

..not the corner closest to them..on the overpass.

......not 8 to 10 feet from the corner,

by the steps...

He also only mentions mud being seen to have been wiped off on car bumpers...

Also he says that he and his four friends, went around within a very short time frame...and that by the time

he reached the area, he mentions eventually there were approximately 50 people mulling around...

As also Zapruder mentioned, there were police running behind him immediately, before he stepped

down from the pedestal.........there would it seems to have been many behind the fence, almost immediately

after the shooting...

Sam also recalls the footprints, but most important here perhaps is the fact that Mr.Holland also mentions

how they examined the area looking around for empty shells, but found none...

B......

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Wim, big Deal, maybe I was off by a one or two feet with my arrow, since I have not

used, because I don't have it, the hatman picture you used, so what ?

Your story is off miles from being proven that is the bigger problem.

What proven and previously unknown information did Files tell the world when

he "confessed" ?

The mud, the butts,the dented casing,or that JFK was killed ?

In other words, what proven facts of James Files "confession" were not

previously known and could not have been gathered by him through

books,films,newspapers or his criminal surrounding (mob,prison stays,other associates he had or has).

So, if you say that I can't accept Files as being the shooter on the

knoll, you are both right and wrong.

Based on the presented evidence, I can not accept him, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt

I would have no problem with him being the knoll shooter.

Do I doubt you can prove Files story, yep,since you (that is jfkmurdersolved) claim it proven already for the last 13 or so years,

can I be wrong nonetheless, sure, but the burden is on you Wim.

It is as easy as that, everything else, comes only from your imagination and results in personal attacks towards me and my

character.

But, you are forgiven.

Edited by Dave Weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You always make the thinking error that I have to prove Files story. Not my task. I provide information and try to corroborate the information where it can be.

The mere circumstance that information was previously known doesn't mean that Files must have invented his confession.

However, there's also information that was not previously known and corrorated later. For example the teethmark and Nicolleti's being in Dallas.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You always make the thinking error that I have to prove Files story. Not my task. I provide information and try to corroborate the information where it can be.

The mere circumstance that information was previously known doesn't mean that Files must have invented his confession.

However, there's also information that was not previously known and corrorated later. For example the teethmark and Nicolleti's being in Dallas.

Come on Wim,

of course you have to prove it, or you change your website name to jfkmurdersolvedtheory,change the premise of the whole website and change your adverticement to point out, that you market a theory.

Jfkmurdersolved claims for 13+ years that it has solved the assassination of JFK, for almost as long, jfkmurdersolved has ignored proof that at least parts of James Files confession and part of the results of the jfkmurdersolved investigation results are wrong.

Now, obviously you have no problem ignoring that.

I was right with Grady, wasn't I ? Yet you bitterly attacked me, when I posted that on forums, and to this day are not willing to admit in public, that Grady never found Files/Suttons military ID or any information about him serving in the army from 1959 to 1960, and to this day, as far as I am aware, continue to give wrong information to your readers about that in the beginners section of your website.

Your approach in regard of proof was choosen by Vernon as a net he tried to prevent himself from landing flat on the nose with that story,you are not like him, aren't you ?

The dent may or may not have been made by human teeth, the guy who made the expertise isn't at all sure anymore, plus the casings were seen by many before Files ever spoke about the dented one.

I don't say Files must have invented things, I say, based on the lack of proof, it can not be ruled out.

In essence, although I am neither a researcher nor an investigator nor a policeman nor a (state) attorney, and I mean those who realy do their job proper, my approach to the case in general and the different claims is, check the claims, if they are not proven, it is a theory at best.

I think that is the only way to go, if you want to achieve anything that has substance and is able to change how the case is regarded all over the world.

By doing what you do, you only create confusion and the impression that we are a bunch of wackos.

Jfkmurdersolved's approach is that of the tabloid press and others, create artifical reality by using selected information in a manner that it looks like they are connected and therefore can be used by you as evidence to support your claim.

Now, how bad is that ?

Edited by Dave Weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

Please stay on topic. There are Files threads available for your discussion.

Here is the Rush To Judgement video in its entirety. Enjoy!!!!

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e125022YS5aT4WW

This is wonderful footage. Thank you!

Can anyone identify ALL the speakers? Who for instance is the guy asked to sum up Oswald based on his knoweldge of criminal types? Who was the reporter who posed the question?

Also, I can't work out one of the comments directed at Oswald by a reporter.

What does he say - prompting Oswald to shrug? The sentence starts "You have been..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid,

I believe you are referring to an unknown (at least to me) reporter who shouted out "You have been charged with that," in response to Oswald's claim that "I have not been charged with that" (the assassination of JFK). Oswald's shrug and nonresponse to this is one of the most frustrating video clips from this case, imho. You can tell that he is visibly disturbed by the fact that he has been publicly identified as someone charged with the assassination, and his expression appears to be something like "wtf- this is the first I've heard about this." Still, he kind of lets the matter drop and is quickly escorted away (why- were they afaid of what he would say next?) I would love to know what was really discussed in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid,

I believe you are referring to an unknown (at least to me) reporter who shouted out "You have been charged with that," in response to Oswald's claim that "I have not been charged with that" (the assassination of JFK). Oswald's shrug and nonresponse to this is one of the most frustrating video clips from this case, imho. You can tell that he is visibly disturbed by the fact that he has been publicly identified as someone charged with the assassination, and his expression appears to be something like "wtf- this is the first I've heard about this." Still, he kind of lets the matter drop and is quickly escorted away (why- were they afaid of what he would say next?) I would love to know what was really discussed in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions.

Thanks Don.

I agree with what you say.

However, in Oswald's first interview on the vid, it seems to me not the reaction of a guy who is a stranger to shenannigans. In the first interview, Oswald seems to be trying to size up what's happening and guage his options. A cool dude, given the circumstances. Not an everage guy off the street, who'd be cracking up with shock and disbelief.

I'd still like to know the identity of all the other participants in the video... especaially the guy who was so certain of Oswald's guilt and his interviewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting footage. Never seen most of it.

At 1:24 you see what I think is Jack Ruby on the back. He's on the left of the screen. He appears to bring up something with his right arm (a gun under a cloth?) and aims it as Oswald? Was he practicing? Or did he not fire because someone got in the way?

Does anyone see what I see? Am I mistaken?

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid Walker Posted Mar 12 2007, 06:06 AM

QUOTE(Don Jeffries @ Mar 12 2007, 06:05 AM)

Sid,

I believe you are referring to an unknown (at least to me) reporter who shouted out "You have been charged with that," in response to Oswald's claim that "I have not been charged with that" (the assassination of JFK). Oswald's shrug and nonresponse to this is one of the most frustrating video clips from this case, imho. You can tell that he is visibly disturbed by the fact that he has been publicly identified as someone charged with the assassination, and his expression appears to be something like "wtf- this is the first I've heard about this." Still, he kind of lets the matter drop and is quickly escorted away (why- were they afaid of what he would say next?) I would love to know what was really discussed in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions.

Thanks Don.

I agree with what you say.

However, in Oswald's first interview on the vid, it seems to me not the reaction of a guy who is a stranger to shenannigans. In the first interview, Oswald seems to be trying to size up what's happening and guage his options. A cool dude, given the circumstances. Not an everage guy off the street, who'd be cracking up with shock and disbelief.

I'd still like to know the identity of all the other participants in the video... especaially the guy who was so certain of Oswald's guilt and his interviewers.

Sid, if you mean the white haired fellow, he's probably Dallas DA Henry Wade, he is also in the beginning of the same 3 minute video. At one point there is Chief Curry, who says something like he's been very arrogant about Oswald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You always make the thinking error that I have to prove Files story. Not my task. I provide information and try to corroborate the information where it can be.

The mere circumstance that information was previously known doesn't mean that Files must have invented his confession.

However, there's also information that was not previously known and corrorated later. For example the teethmark and Nicolleti's being in Dallas.

Wim

Speaking of corroboration, Wim ... I believe that Bowers said that man was heavy set and that Hoffman pretty much agreed with that description. Files was a scrawny 20/21 year old punk at the time of the assassination as I recall. I might also add that Hoffman said the shooter turned away from the fence and walked towards the steam pipe and tossed the gun to someone else. Files story does not corroborate what the witnesses have said. It seems that if you believe in Files so much, then maybe you should have to address the descrepencies here.

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
×
×
  • Create New...