Mark Johansson wrote:Wim wanted to put an end to all the criticism regarding the Remington Fireball. Wim proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Fireball did not kick like a mule and the casing was not too hot to bite down on after it had been ejected from the pistol. Johansson
I also enjoyed the program very much. It was made very clear in the program why the test was done: after the first program on jfk many people had responded via email. Among those, people who said that it was impossible to bite the shell since it should have been too hot and too hard. What better than to do the test yourself! And clearly it was proven that the shell was not too hot nor too hard to bite. So that is that. What it implicates further is not the issue here. Only that it was not impossible.
But Mark, I think that the recoil of the gun was quite strong don't you? I wondered why they did not say anything about that. James Files claims that he saw certain things through the scope of the gun after the shot did he not? (the part about that he saw the brains fly around etc) Unfortunately this was not examined. Why not shoot a melon or something and see through the scope?
For those who have not seen the program, you can see Peter R de Vries fire the fireball on the promotion video of the program at 00:29 sec.
http://www.peterrdevries.nl/video/promo06-06-06.wmv
When Peter fires the gun the scopy is not on it. But if it where, would it be possible to look through it after the shot?
Wim=1000 Opposition=0
-
Mark Johansson
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: Wim=1000 Opposition=0
Johan van Leeuwen wrote:Mark Johansson wrote:Wim wanted to put an end to all the criticism regarding the Remington Fireball. Wim proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Fireball did not kick like a mule and the casing was not too hot to bite down on after it had been ejected from the pistol. JohanssonBut Mark, I think that the recoil of the gun was quite strong don't you? I wondered why they did not say anything about that. James Files claims that he saw certain things through the scope of the gun after the shot did he not? (the part about that he saw the brains fly around etc) Unfortunately this was not examined. Why not shoot a melon or something and see through the scope?
I got the privilege to test fire a Remington Fireball myself and felt different recoils each time. The man, who instructed me, told me that the recoil depends on how much gunpowder the bullet consist of. The brand De Vries used could be different from what Files used in 1963.
Although the recoil which are shown on the trailer isn’t powerful according to me. I think Peter easily could have seen the target through the scope.
Johansson
I got the privilege to test fire a Remington Fireball myself and felt different recoils each time. The man, who instructed me, told me that the recoil depends on how much gunpowder the bullet consist of. The brand De Vries used could be different from what Files used in 1963.
Although the recoil which are shown on the trailer isn’t powerful according to me. I think Peter easily could have seen the target through the scope.
Johansson
-
Mark Johansson
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: Wim=1000 Opposition=0
Jim Harwood wrote:Mark Johansson wrote:Jim Harwood wrote:Paul van Beek wrote:Jim Harwood wrote:bobwc wrote:Tonight, on national television in the Netherlands, Wim once again appeared on the nationally acclaimed program, Peter R. de Vries. This time, Mr. Dankbaar put to rest, permanently, one of the lies perpertrated by disinfo agants regarding Mr. Files and the Fireball. Peter live fired the weapon, ejected the shell and Wim immediately picked it up, (in less than a second) and put it in his mouth and bit down on it, leaving an almost exact indentation that was on the bullet shell that fired the fatal headshot to JFK.Of course, a lot of us on the Forum have known about the Fireball and it's accuracy for a long time. Mark Johansson has fired one. The shell is not hot as it is ejected.I cannot post on other Forums because I have been banned because of my support for Wim and Jimmy. So if someone can post this on one of those CIA sponsored sites, I would appreciate it. Of course, I am sure we are being monitored here by 2 of our "ananymous friends" , so I am sure that there will be some disinfo about the program before the morning.Way to go, Wim!!!!!!bobwcWithout any evidence in the case of JFK how would anyone know how many bullets struck the President, where they struck him,the caliber of bullet, etc. Youre leaping from one assumption to the other. The only thing Wim proved is that you could "bite down" on the cartridge shell and leave an impression. Jim H. Nha.... It also proofs that it is a well choosen weapon.It has enough fire power and accuracy to do the job.It is also easy to carry and hide when needed.The position Files took from the front was one of the best choises,aldo there where some risks to it also.(Manny cars attrack people)And when watching tru a scoop u do not see people come from the back.On the other hand on the opposite hill u had the same situation only with less cover,and well on the bridge its just not done... Good things to hear in the story of Files,are things like the shell marks.It shows him as some one that was once young,that would take some risks to make a name.And the remarks he made,on the words that Nicoletti said in the car,shows that he is not someone that did just came up with this story to make some bucks.The crime itself was never investigated therefore there are no leads to follow. Even you can only write things like "it proves that it was a well chosen weapon with good firepower."Now that may be a fact but that doesnt prove James Files fired any shots at JFK let alone the fatal shot. We dont even have an legitimate autopsy in this crime. And it's the fact that the crime itself was never investigated that allows for 40 years of speculation, bravado, provocation and assumption to run rampant.I dont know if James Files is telling the truth or not but proving that a certain weapon is fast, accurate and powerful along with proving you can make a tooth imprint in the ejected shell is a far cry from any proof.Wim wanted to put an end to all the criticism regarding the Remington Fireball. Wim proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Fireball did not kick like a mule and the casing was not too hot to bite down on after it had been ejected from the pistol. JohanssonMark, thanks but you cant put the horse before the cart. How can anyone establish what type of weapon or ammunition was used to assassinate President Kennedy?Jim H.
Files stated that the one he used was modified and had a reinforced barrel. Chauncey Holt stated in 1992 that when he was at Antelope Valley (place where they were running guns) a man wanted to modify a Remington Fireball. He wanted to replace the 222 barrel with a 14â€
Files stated that the one he used was modified and had a reinforced barrel. Chauncey Holt stated in 1992 that when he was at Antelope Valley (place where they were running guns) a man wanted to modify a Remington Fireball. He wanted to replace the 222 barrel with a 14â€
-
Johan van Leeuwen
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: Wim=1000 Opposition=0
Mark Johansson wrote:Johan van Leeuwen wrote:Mark Johansson wrote:Wim wanted to put an end to all the criticism regarding the Remington Fireball. Wim proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Fireball did not kick like a mule and the casing was not too hot to bite down on after it had been ejected from the pistol. JohanssonBut Mark, I think that the recoil of the gun was quite strong don't you? I wondered why they did not say anything about that. James Files claims that he saw certain things through the scope of the gun after the shot did he not? (the part about that he saw the brains fly around etc) Unfortunately this was not examined. Why not shoot a melon or something and see through the scope?I got the privilege to test fire a Remington Fireball myself and felt different recoils each time. The man, who instructed me, told me that the recoil depends on how much gunpowder the bullet consist of. The brand De Vries used could be different from what Files used in 1963.Although the recoil which are shown on the trailer isn’t powerful according to me. I think Peter easily could have seen the target through the scope.Johansson
I looked again on the dvd at the part of the confession where Files talks about the recoil and the fact that many people have critisized him on his claim of seeing all the things he saw through the scope. Only now I noticed that he not says that the weapon has no recoil but he says that the recoil is not so great that you cannot hold the weapon down. Peter R the Vries was not trying to hold the weapon down when he fired it. He is holding it rather clumsy and he let it just bounce up.
So I now think that before it is tested if the weapon can be hold down while looking through the scope etc it can not be said in advance that it is not possible.
Having that said I still regret that Wim and Peter did not shoot a melon or something while looking through the scope and holding the weapon down etc. A missed chance to end the debate on that issue as well.
I looked again on the dvd at the part of the confession where Files talks about the recoil and the fact that many people have critisized him on his claim of seeing all the things he saw through the scope. Only now I noticed that he not says that the weapon has no recoil but he says that the recoil is not so great that you cannot hold the weapon down. Peter R the Vries was not trying to hold the weapon down when he fired it. He is holding it rather clumsy and he let it just bounce up.
So I now think that before it is tested if the weapon can be hold down while looking through the scope etc it can not be said in advance that it is not possible.
Having that said I still regret that Wim and Peter did not shoot a melon or something while looking through the scope and holding the weapon down etc. A missed chance to end the debate on that issue as well.
-
Jim Harwood
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Mellon
What would the shooting of a mellon accomplish? You could shoot a mellon with a bow and arrow. Would that prove William Tell killed President Kennedy?
-
francois bertrand
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Jim,
Please stop all your negative posts, you didn't even see the program!
I saw it and it was amazing!
It proved that what Files said he did (and he was discredited by a lot of people against Wim Dankbaar and against James Files) just could have been done: all he said he'd done backthen behind the picket fence could have been done, that's proven now and also on tape (btw: we already knew that it could be done off course)
This just means that all the critics don't have much against Files anymore to discredit him!
Gr. Paul.
Please stop all your negative posts, you didn't even see the program!
I saw it and it was amazing!
It proved that what Files said he did (and he was discredited by a lot of people against Wim Dankbaar and against James Files) just could have been done: all he said he'd done backthen behind the picket fence could have been done, that's proven now and also on tape (btw: we already knew that it could be done off course)
This just means that all the critics don't have much against Files anymore to discredit him!
Gr. Paul.
-
Bruce Patrick Brychek
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
KUDOS TO WIM DANKBAAR AND PETER R. DE VRIES:
Dear Messers. Wim Dankbaar, Perer R. De Vries, and Supporters of the JFK Forum,
Kudos to Wim Dankbaar, and Peter R. De Vries for their outstanding work.
As some of you know, Wim is my very close personal friend. And as some of you also know, Jimmy Files is my closest personal friend for well over 30 years.
Jimmy has never changed the details of any of his discussions with me.
And for the last 12 years I have heard that the Fireball has recoil, it would not be accurate, the shell casing would be too hot, you can't bite it, it was a lousy choice of weapon, etc., etc., etc.
I thank Mark Johannson, Paul, Bob, BobWC, Nick Whalen, and all of the others for their positive comments about Jimmy, Wim, Peter R. De Vries, and what they have accomplished.
What Wim and Peter proved was that everything that Jimmy has said all along was totally accurate, not one exaggeration, not one missed detail,
on things that transpired over 40 years ago.
Further, if they test the Fireball on a drained coconut, filled to my specifications, or a plaster cast of a head, stuffed with the consistency of brain matter, and cotton, dyed red, with Red Indigo Ink, and then test fire the Remington Fireball with Hollow Point Mercury Tips, filled to Wolfman's specifications, then fire at the same distance, with sequential time lapse photography, and you will see the EXACT SAME SPRAY PATTERN THAT COMES FROM JFK'S HEAD IN BOTH THE ZAPRUDER FILM, AND GRODEN'S FILM.
In Martial Arts, and Martial Science in meditation we are taught to "step outside of ourselves, and evaluate objectively what we have accomplished."
TO ALL OF YOU, I SAY STEP OUTSIDE AND TOTALLY EVALUATE WHAT MR. WIM DANKBAAR HAS ACCOMPLISHED, IN TOTALITY, INCLUDING HIS RECENT TEST FIRING OF THE FIREBALL.
Sincerely look at what Wim has amassed, the totality, and the synergy of his total work is nothing less than spectacular.
To those of you loyal to Wim's effort, whether you totally agree with Wim, Jimmy, and myself, or not, I say to you that you are witnessing a true Genius Effort by Mr. Wim Dankbaar, and all those that assist him.
To those who are Really Serious About Their Study Of The JFK Assassination, and all things related thereto, if you are involved in the JFK Forum, then you are at the Right Place, at the Right Time, with the Right People, with the Right Information. There is no other JFK Forum anywhere, in my opinion, that comes close to what Mr. Wim Dankbaar is accomplishing overall.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
Kudos to Wim Dankbaar, and Peter R. De Vries for their outstanding work.
As some of you know, Wim is my very close personal friend. And as some of you also know, Jimmy Files is my closest personal friend for well over 30 years.
Jimmy has never changed the details of any of his discussions with me.
And for the last 12 years I have heard that the Fireball has recoil, it would not be accurate, the shell casing would be too hot, you can't bite it, it was a lousy choice of weapon, etc., etc., etc.
I thank Mark Johannson, Paul, Bob, BobWC, Nick Whalen, and all of the others for their positive comments about Jimmy, Wim, Peter R. De Vries, and what they have accomplished.
What Wim and Peter proved was that everything that Jimmy has said all along was totally accurate, not one exaggeration, not one missed detail,
on things that transpired over 40 years ago.
Further, if they test the Fireball on a drained coconut, filled to my specifications, or a plaster cast of a head, stuffed with the consistency of brain matter, and cotton, dyed red, with Red Indigo Ink, and then test fire the Remington Fireball with Hollow Point Mercury Tips, filled to Wolfman's specifications, then fire at the same distance, with sequential time lapse photography, and you will see the EXACT SAME SPRAY PATTERN THAT COMES FROM JFK'S HEAD IN BOTH THE ZAPRUDER FILM, AND GRODEN'S FILM.
In Martial Arts, and Martial Science in meditation we are taught to "step outside of ourselves, and evaluate objectively what we have accomplished."
TO ALL OF YOU, I SAY STEP OUTSIDE AND TOTALLY EVALUATE WHAT MR. WIM DANKBAAR HAS ACCOMPLISHED, IN TOTALITY, INCLUDING HIS RECENT TEST FIRING OF THE FIREBALL.
Sincerely look at what Wim has amassed, the totality, and the synergy of his total work is nothing less than spectacular.
To those of you loyal to Wim's effort, whether you totally agree with Wim, Jimmy, and myself, or not, I say to you that you are witnessing a true Genius Effort by Mr. Wim Dankbaar, and all those that assist him.
To those who are Really Serious About Their Study Of The JFK Assassination, and all things related thereto, if you are involved in the JFK Forum, then you are at the Right Place, at the Right Time, with the Right People, with the Right Information. There is no other JFK Forum anywhere, in my opinion, that comes close to what Mr. Wim Dankbaar is accomplishing overall.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
-
Jim Harwood
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Paul wrote:Jim,Please stop all your negative posts, you didn't even see the program!I saw it and it was amazing! It proved that what Files said he did (and he was discredited by a lot of people against Wim Dankbaar and against James Files) just could have been done: all he said he'd done backthen behind the picket fence could have been done, that's proven now and also on tape (btw: we already knew that it could be done off course)This just means that all the critics don't have much against Files anymore to discredit him! Gr. Paul.
Paul,
Proving that a certain weapon has the capability to" kill" is a far cry from proving that it "did kill". If that is being negative then we ought to outlaw all forms of dissent. Is that not fair? I dont know if Files shot and killed JFK so I dont have any axe to grind. I am just repsonding to the information put forth. You can think it through yourself and decide if this is persuasive evidence of proof of anything other than a gun can be used to shoot a hole in another object. And that is a common accepted fact to begin with. The purpose of a gun is to shoot and strike an intended target.
Thats why courts are required to pin a weapon down as the being the "only" weapon which could have been used in a particular homicide.
With the JFK case you dont have the ability to prove even what type of weapon was used in this shooting.
Jim H.
Paul,
Proving that a certain weapon has the capability to" kill" is a far cry from proving that it "did kill". If that is being negative then we ought to outlaw all forms of dissent. Is that not fair? I dont know if Files shot and killed JFK so I dont have any axe to grind. I am just repsonding to the information put forth. You can think it through yourself and decide if this is persuasive evidence of proof of anything other than a gun can be used to shoot a hole in another object. And that is a common accepted fact to begin with. The purpose of a gun is to shoot and strike an intended target.
Thats why courts are required to pin a weapon down as the being the "only" weapon which could have been used in a particular homicide.
With the JFK case you dont have the ability to prove even what type of weapon was used in this shooting.
Jim H.
Jim Harwood wrote:Paul wrote:Jim,Please stop all your negative posts, you didn't even see the program!I saw it and it was amazing! It proved that what Files said he did (and he was discredited by a lot of people against Wim Dankbaar and against James Files) just could have been done: all he said he'd done backthen behind the picket fence could have been done, that's proven now and also on tape (btw: we already knew that it could be done off course)This just means that all the critics don't have much against Files anymore to discredit him! Gr. Paul.Paul,Proving that a certain weapon has the capability to" kill" is a far cry from proving that it "did kill". If that is being negative then we ought to outlaw all forms of dissent.
Gee man, can't you read???
I did NOT say that it proved James Files killed JFK!
I suggest you read it again!
Gr. Paul.
Gee man, can't you read???
I did NOT say that it proved James Files killed JFK!
I suggest you read it again!
Gr. Paul.