Dear Mr. Dankbaar,
I first heard about this web site by reading vheadline.com and I was instantly hooked. You seemed to have a watertight case which agreed with mine and many others perceptions that the US government and organised criminals conspired to murder president John F Kennedy.
What has disturbed me since then is what I have found on searching the web for articles and info to corroborate your hypothesis.
With great respect Mr. Dankbaar what I have found on this forum and elsewhere are comments attributed to you and Mr. Vernon that display an extremely arrogant and hostile attitude to any kind of criticism or questions.
Sir, the truth does not have to be wielded like a hammer to bludgeon the public into submission. I now, having initially believed your story, have doubts.
It is a question of credibility. If you seriously want the truth to be known then you have to reach out beyond the tinfoil hat brigade and to a naturally skeptical public. After all you are expecting people to accept a version of events that could lead to a constitutional crisis in the US and has the potential to change the lives of every person on the planet. You can't expect people to do that on faith, there must be debate.
Again with respect, when someone disagrees or has a question it will serve your cause much better if you respond calmly and compasionately rather than accusing people of spreading lies, being liars or CIA agent provocateurs.
A comment posted on this forum that you reply to in agreement by Bruce Brychek states - "I think that you should make it mandatory that JFK Forum Members buy either, or both, the DVD, and the book, Files On JFK." and that "Everyone wants to drink at the fountain of knowledge, but not everybody wants to contribute."
If he were talking about the secret of skincare or car maintenance he might have a point. However, when it comes to the murder of one of the finest and most progressive presidents in US history and one of the greatest injustices of modern times this kind of attitude can only serve to alienate the people you are trying to pursuade.
Uncovering and spreading the truth is surely a vocation and a reward in itself. There seems to be a perception, rightly or wrongly, Mr. Dankbaar that for you this is not the case.
As an aside, if Mr Brychek is correct about the $1million you have invested in this cause, with respect, why does this web site look like it cost less than $1,000? As one of your primary marketing and information tools one would expect something slick, polished and professional rather than home-made if indeed you do have that sort of budget.
A great example of someone spreading views as controversial as yours but, I perceive with greater success, is Alex Jones on infowars.com
Not only does he have a good web site but most importantly he releases long samples and sometimes whole DVDs for free viewing on Google Video, including what he claims is his best work - the documentary Martial Law 9/11: Rise Of The Police State in its entirety.
I don't agree with or believe everything he says, but I have great admiration with the amount of his work he is willing to put in the public domain in order to educate as well as promote himself.
I would like to see you release more of your work, if not all of it, into the public domain and use clips from your DVD to back up points of contention. When it comes to questions of factual credibility, a video clip usually has more weight than the written word.
Coming to the credibility of James E Files himself. The man is a self admitted murdering scumbag, a violent thug who undoubtedly has told his fair share of lies in the past. The public are entitled to question his version of events.
In order to prove his credibility it is important not to stifle debate but rather deal with criticism and genuine skepticism in an objective manner.
His story as depicted on your web site is extremely detailed but does contain certain aspects that caused me to raise an eyebrow, particularly his claims about being a member of the 82nd Airborne and stationed in Laos in 1959. Rather than berate those who have legitimate questions about the truthfulness of this would it not be much better to ask Files for more information about this and pursue testimony from others who can corroborate these events? I am open minded that it could well be true, but it is certainly a remarkable claim.
Even if certain parts of his story are proved to be false, that does not automatically mean that his credibility is therefore destroyed. As a professional career criminal and murderer I would be surprised if he did not lie or exagerate certain aspects of his story in order to boost his ego. His responses in his interview with the FBI agents when he admits erroneously to having heard of various fictional crimeworld figures is an example. I don't believe these responses in any way damage his credibility, they are what you would expect. Likewise there are slips of the tongue where he says the bullet hit the left side instead of the right side of Kennedy's head. Some of your critics, such as Dave Perry, leap upon such things as if they are proof that Files is a fraud when really they are not.
I can understand that this constant nitpicking must be tiresome and perhaps lead you to lose your temper with critics, but I hope you undertand that the truth about the JFK assassination is very important to many people, conspiracy theorists, historians and the public alike.
When you make controversial claims you must expect a wide spectrum of opinion, much of it hostile. With respect Mr. Dankbaar, you are more likely to appeal to a wider audience if you engage with your critics with greater restraint and moderation.
I myself am wary of those who 'protest too much' and I was disappointed to find that sometimes you have been less than courteous to those who have had understandable reservations about Files and his story. As a result I have lost much of my confidence in your version of events.
In general I find the whole 'conspiracy scene' to be a rather difficult one to understand and penetrate. It seems very divided and factional and there appears to be a disproportionate level of hostility and impolite behaviour. This is a shame because it makes it harder for outsiders like myself to engage with some of the theories. When examining evidence I tend to side with those who present the most rational case, those who are courteous and patient and not aggressive or over-emotional.
Mr. Dankbaar, I wish you all the best in your efforts and will be following events from time to time. I hope one day the truth is established and there will be justice for JFK and for us all.
Kind Regards,
Simon.
Tone of the debate - some criticism
-
Jim Harwood
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Simon
Simon you wrote:
You seemed to have a watertight case which agreed with mine and many others perceptions that the US government and organised criminals conspired to murder president John F Kennedy.
Your statement is either true or it is not true. Mr. Dankbaar's research is either true or it is not true. It shouldnt (and doesnt) matter about your personal "perceived feelings" toward Mr. Dankbaar; that doesnt change the truth one iota.
Are you trying to bargain with Mr. Dankbaar? You'll withhold your support for his solution to the JFK murder if Mr. Dankbaar doesn't behave as you think he should?
This doesnt make sense to me. You cant change the truth by changing your "feelings" about the truth. You have to support the truth, if it is really the truth, regardless of your "feelings".
I have heard your argument so many times- "Give me the truth the way I like it or I wont support you".
My response is "who cares". you cannot alter the truth by your support of the truth , or your opposition to it. The truth "always" exists whether "you" support it or not.
You seemed to have a watertight case which agreed with mine and many others perceptions that the US government and organised criminals conspired to murder president John F Kennedy.
Your statement is either true or it is not true. Mr. Dankbaar's research is either true or it is not true. It shouldnt (and doesnt) matter about your personal "perceived feelings" toward Mr. Dankbaar; that doesnt change the truth one iota.
Are you trying to bargain with Mr. Dankbaar? You'll withhold your support for his solution to the JFK murder if Mr. Dankbaar doesn't behave as you think he should?
This doesnt make sense to me. You cant change the truth by changing your "feelings" about the truth. You have to support the truth, if it is really the truth, regardless of your "feelings".
I have heard your argument so many times- "Give me the truth the way I like it or I wont support you".
My response is "who cares". you cannot alter the truth by your support of the truth , or your opposition to it. The truth "always" exists whether "you" support it or not.
Mr. Simon West,
Where have you read all the "critiscism?"
Would you please specify a few occasions and/or persons where you thought I "displayed an extremely arrogant and hostile attitude to any kind of criticism or questions." Maybe we could enlighten you a little on the background and history with certain persons rendering criticism.
I don't blame you for your impressions, but you should know that I distinguish between people rendering genuine questions/criticism, and people who knowingly lie or put out false accusations.
Why do you call James Files a self-admitted scumbag? He is a self admitted murderer, but I don't think he called himself a scumbag.
Wim
Where have you read all the "critiscism?"
Would you please specify a few occasions and/or persons where you thought I "displayed an extremely arrogant and hostile attitude to any kind of criticism or questions." Maybe we could enlighten you a little on the background and history with certain persons rendering criticism.
I don't blame you for your impressions, but you should know that I distinguish between people rendering genuine questions/criticism, and people who knowingly lie or put out false accusations.
Why do you call James Files a self-admitted scumbag? He is a self admitted murderer, but I don't think he called himself a scumbag.
Wim
-
Simon West
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Would you please specify a few occasions and/or persons where you thought I "displayed an extremely arrogant and hostile attitude to any kind of criticism or questions."Various places, particularly between you, Mr. Vernon and Dave Perry. Particularly this unfortunate line:"Dave Perry moved to Texas from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA. Does that give you any clues? COOK THE LYING BASTARD THEN TURN HIM OVER AND RAISE THE FLAME!!!!!! Then throw him out in the pasture to die. He's a total piece of shit and GUESS WHAT...he's worse now than he was in 1993....!!!!"There's really no excuse for that sort of behaviour from adults in a public forum. I know that wasn't you but Mr. Vernon, however he's a spokesperson for your project.Also on JFKLancer you have upset enough posters for them to vote on banning you.You can put your case across more effectively without upsetting people or lowering yourself to their level.I admit that most of the "criticism" I've found is simply petty nitpicking or abuse, but some of it isn't.Maybe in order to address some of these you could put a FAQ page on your site and address those questions that have merit, such as those regarding the 82nd and Laos. Even if you don't have the answer to those questions right now it will add weight to your argument if you accept that they exist and that they deserve further investigation. Like I said before, even if it is proved parts of Files' testimony are false or exagerated will not necessarily destroy the credibility of his central claim, i.e. that he is the grassy knoll shooter.Why do you call James Files a self-admitted scumbag?
To clarify, I said he was a self admitted murderering scumbag. If as he says he served in the despicable 'Secret War' in Laos that is still killing children to this day because of all the mines and unexploded ordnance, if he shot Kennedy in the head and worked with mafia hitmen doing god knows what else... At the very least he's a career criminal who shot two police officers... that makes him a scumbag in my opinion, whether he called himself that or not. Mary Poppins he isn't.
To clarify, I said he was a self admitted murderering scumbag. If as he says he served in the despicable 'Secret War' in Laos that is still killing children to this day because of all the mines and unexploded ordnance, if he shot Kennedy in the head and worked with mafia hitmen doing god knows what else... At the very least he's a career criminal who shot two police officers... that makes him a scumbag in my opinion, whether he called himself that or not. Mary Poppins he isn't.
Various places, particularly between you, Mr. Vernon and Dave Perry. Particularly this unfortunate line:
"Dave Perry moved to Texas from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA. Does that give you any clues? COOK THE LYING BASTARD THEN TURN HIM OVER AND RAISE THE FLAME!!!!!! Then throw him out in the pasture to die. He's a total piece of shit and GUESS WHAT...he's worse now than he was in 1993....!!!!"
There's really no excuse for that sort of behaviour from adults in a public forum.
Agreed!
I know that wasn't you but Mr. Vernon, however he's a spokesperson for your project.
Wrong. He was.
Also on JFKLancer you have upset enough posters for them to vote on banning you.
They can be counted on two hands really, and most of them have just their pride hurt, for they can't stand their picture in the mirror I hold up. With most of them I have had a personal history. Don't forget that people are also social (herd) animals. Hard to vote against the mainstream.
You can put your case across more effectively without upsetting people or lowering yourself to their level.
Indeed, but I think you overlook how many people I really upset. It's the 10/90 rule. 10 % of the peopl cause 90% of the flack.
I admit that most of the "criticism" I've found is simply petty nitpicking or abuse, but some of it isn't.
Maybe in order to address some of these you could put a FAQ page on your site and address those questions that have merit, such as those regarding the 82nd and Laos.
I have done that several times. But if you read time and again I have not, what do you believe. But it's a good idea to make an eternal webpage on Files' military past, so I can just give the link.
Even if you don't have the answer to those questions right now it will add weight to your argument if you accept that they exist and that they deserve further investigation. Like I said before, even if it is proved parts of Files' testimony are false or exagerated will not necessarily destroy the credibility of his central claim, i.e. that he is the grassy knoll shooter.
That's a very correct and fair statement. Still, I hope that despite of all the flack out there, you have deducted that none of what he has said has actually been disproven.
Quote:
Why do you call James Files a self-admitted scumbag?
To clarify, I said he was a self admitted murderering scumbag. If as he says he served in the despicable 'Secret War' in Laos that is still killing children to this day because of all the mines and unexploded ordnance, if he shot Kennedy in the head and worked with mafia hitmen doing god knows what else... At the very least he's a career criminal who shot two police officers... that makes him a scumbag in my opinion, whether he called himself that or not. Mary Poppins he isn't.
No I agree , he's not Mary Poppins. You can call him a scumbag even. My point was that he didn't admit to being a scumbag. And what's a scumbag really? Many agree you have one in the White House !
"Dave Perry moved to Texas from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA. Does that give you any clues? COOK THE LYING BASTARD THEN TURN HIM OVER AND RAISE THE FLAME!!!!!! Then throw him out in the pasture to die. He's a total piece of shit and GUESS WHAT...he's worse now than he was in 1993....!!!!"
There's really no excuse for that sort of behaviour from adults in a public forum.
Agreed!
I know that wasn't you but Mr. Vernon, however he's a spokesperson for your project.
Wrong. He was.
Also on JFKLancer you have upset enough posters for them to vote on banning you.
They can be counted on two hands really, and most of them have just their pride hurt, for they can't stand their picture in the mirror I hold up. With most of them I have had a personal history. Don't forget that people are also social (herd) animals. Hard to vote against the mainstream.
You can put your case across more effectively without upsetting people or lowering yourself to their level.
Indeed, but I think you overlook how many people I really upset. It's the 10/90 rule. 10 % of the peopl cause 90% of the flack.
I admit that most of the "criticism" I've found is simply petty nitpicking or abuse, but some of it isn't.
Maybe in order to address some of these you could put a FAQ page on your site and address those questions that have merit, such as those regarding the 82nd and Laos.
I have done that several times. But if you read time and again I have not, what do you believe. But it's a good idea to make an eternal webpage on Files' military past, so I can just give the link.
Even if you don't have the answer to those questions right now it will add weight to your argument if you accept that they exist and that they deserve further investigation. Like I said before, even if it is proved parts of Files' testimony are false or exagerated will not necessarily destroy the credibility of his central claim, i.e. that he is the grassy knoll shooter.
That's a very correct and fair statement. Still, I hope that despite of all the flack out there, you have deducted that none of what he has said has actually been disproven.
Quote:
Why do you call James Files a self-admitted scumbag?
To clarify, I said he was a self admitted murderering scumbag. If as he says he served in the despicable 'Secret War' in Laos that is still killing children to this day because of all the mines and unexploded ordnance, if he shot Kennedy in the head and worked with mafia hitmen doing god knows what else... At the very least he's a career criminal who shot two police officers... that makes him a scumbag in my opinion, whether he called himself that or not. Mary Poppins he isn't.
No I agree , he's not Mary Poppins. You can call him a scumbag even. My point was that he didn't admit to being a scumbag. And what's a scumbag really? Many agree you have one in the White House !
-
Bruce Patrick Brychek
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: Tone of the debate - some criticism
Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:05.19.2006 - Mr. Simon West Posted this Headline. An unusual discussion was begun,and added thereto in an idiosyncratic fashion.In my opinion Mr. Wim Dankbaar certainly handled it well.Certainly the professional composition of the JFK Murder Solved Forum, both Pro andCon, has improved. And Mr. Wim Dankbaar and his works are still going strong, andever present.But the concluding remark by Mr. David Rees Jones was an all encompassing summaryin my opinion.Comments ?Respectfully,BB.