Anybody know anything about this book?
http://www.booksamillion.com/bam/covers ... 882236.jpg
I noticed Wim has quoted Pam Ray.
Is this book worth getting?
What's This?
That picture is a year or older. The book isn't available, due to an agreement Pam Ray signed with me. Apart from Jimmy's story , which is in "Files on JFK", it offers a lot of personal conjecture on the New World Order, Illuminati, religion and other philosophies on Mrs Ray's part. Which takes away from the factuality of Jimmy's story.
Wim
Wim
-
Bruce Patrick Brychek
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Response To Mr. Jim Thompson:
Dear Mr. Jim Thompson,
To Kill A Country was a book ORIGINALLY envisioned by Jimmy Files to deal with Chile, Pinnochet, and Allende, the U.S. Military Industrial Complex, and the CIA.
The atrocities committed in Chile by the U.S. Military Industrial Complex and the CIA make the assassinations of JFK,MLK,RFK, and the Viet Nam War look like the work of Boy Scouts.
Additionally, are you aware that Venezuela threw the U.S. D.E.A., (Drug Enforcement Administration), out of Venezuela about six (6) months ago, for being the front for the CIA and the U.S. Government, as the largest drug smugglers in Venezuela, and South America. This may come as a shock to Americans who missed the testimony of Oliver North, and the CIA Drugs and Guns Cartel, and the Nicaraguan - Contra hearings which were on American T.V. for weeks, years ago.
Result: Business as usual.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
To Kill A Country was a book ORIGINALLY envisioned by Jimmy Files to deal with Chile, Pinnochet, and Allende, the U.S. Military Industrial Complex, and the CIA.
The atrocities committed in Chile by the U.S. Military Industrial Complex and the CIA make the assassinations of JFK,MLK,RFK, and the Viet Nam War look like the work of Boy Scouts.
Additionally, are you aware that Venezuela threw the U.S. D.E.A., (Drug Enforcement Administration), out of Venezuela about six (6) months ago, for being the front for the CIA and the U.S. Government, as the largest drug smugglers in Venezuela, and South America. This may come as a shock to Americans who missed the testimony of Oliver North, and the CIA Drugs and Guns Cartel, and the Nicaraguan - Contra hearings which were on American T.V. for weeks, years ago.
Result: Business as usual.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
-
uwe leybold
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
-
uwe leybold
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
In other words, Pam Ray's personal conjecture and life philosophies do not add to the factual knowledge of James Files on the events he was personally involved in, which indeed also included the CIA coup in Chili.
I have stated before I find you an underhanded weasel, which opinion you re-affirm time again. My mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt once more.
Wim
That brings me to Debra Conway and Uwe Leybold. Let's take a look at why Debra Conway is not so fond of me. It has to do with Judyth Baker. When Mary Ferrell was still alive, she had become intrigued with the story of Judyth, Lee Harvey Oswald's girl friend, who had just gone public with her story. Judyth had been invited to appear on "60 minutes" of CBS. They had been researching her story and background for 18 months. For reasons unknown, and still not understood by anchor man Don Hewitt, the program was canceled last minute, much like the 1995 NBC program on James Files. Interference of diehard Warren Commission supporter Edward Epstein caused the cancellation of that program. You can read more on that here.
Anyway, Mary Ferrell was also in contact with Judyth and researching her story and evidence. Where Mary Ferrell is, is Debra Conway. So Debra has taken an active part in corroborating Judyth's story. And she has corroborated it. But she rather keeps that a secret!
One such powerful corroboration is an interview with a strong witness for Judyth. Her name is Anna Lewis, widow of David Lewis, who worked for Guy Banister. Anna Lewis knew both Judyth and Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans and CONFIRMS that Judyth and Lee were lovers.
You can see this interview with your own eyes here.
Guess who the interviewer is? None other than Debra Conway! Read on and you will catch my drift. We interviewed Judyth in Dallas on video in January 2003. That interview is available on DVD here.
My friend, retired FBI agent Zack shelton, a prudent investigator who wants to hear all sides, was there. And he proposed: "Let's call the opposition and talk to Debra Conway." I said that would be a good idea. So Zack calls Debra from the hotel room. He asked her several questions. The first questions were about James Files. If she believed that Files could have been the grassy knoll shooter? I remember her response clearly. "He could very well have been, Zack. We need people like you to sort it out". When the conversation was brought to Judyth, Debra made it clear she did not believe Judyth: "I really have no need to get Judyth Baker back in my life."
Then Zack asked: "Do you believe the evidence that Judyth worked at the Reily Coffee Company at the same time Oswald worked there?" Debra's response: "Yes, but that is all she has!"
Duh? Why did Debra leave out the other evidence, like the interview with Anna Lewis?
Let me give you the point. There is no doubt that Debra Conway has an intense dislike of Judyth Baker. In fairness, Judyth and I can quarrel too, but this has never affected my judgement on whether she is telling the truth or not. The point is: Debra Conway KNOWS Judyth is telling the truth! Yet her public opinion is that Judyth is a liar who made her whole story up. This is why all the Judyth discussions on Lancer are quickly moved to a special folder, where few people will read them. Originally this folder was called "weird stuff".
It's not so difficult to discredit a story if there is only one source. It's already harder when there are two. That's why Debra must stay silent about her interview with Anna Lewis. That's also why she never mentions Edward Haslam and Mac McCullough, two more corroborating witnesses for Judyth. You can see the interview with Edward Haslam here.
Therefore Debra has also developed an intense dislike of Wim Dankbaar. Because first of all, I am a major proponent of Judyth's veracity, secondly Debra knows I can expose her lies. People have a natural tendency to not like the messenger, if they don't like the message. Thus it is no surprise that Debra has changed her opinion on James Files too. Likewise it is no surprise that discussions on James Files also land in a special folder.
Why do you need to know all this? Very simple: To be able to form a more balanced judgement on the mission of JFKLancer, which is in short "Educating a new generation" and "dedicated to the truth of the assassination of John F. Kennedy".
Now let us have a look at Uwe Leybold, alias David Weaver. Uwe started out as a normal member at Lancer. Since he has helped ironing out some computer and server problems, he was appointed an assistant administrator for Debra. As such he has been very protective of Debra, as well as rejective of both Judyth Baker and James Files. Uwe's favourite tactic is to ignore the preponderance of the evidence for James Files and Judyth Baker. He simply refuses to address it when asked. Instead he concentrates on less relevant details, which he knows are harder to prove. When the answers to his demands do not satisfy him, he believes it justifies doubts on the rest of the evidence. Good examples can be found in this discussion.
Uwe likes to tell everyone how honest he is. He also frequently states he has no problems with me, that he considers me honest too and respects me.
In this regard it is remarkable that both he and Debra gave known "lone nutters", "Cindy Targus" and Paul May, a home to crank out their revengeful smears after they were booted from the JFKmurdersolved forum. Remarkable, because Lancer has booted members in the past for just being "lone nutters" (like David von Pein and Nick Kendrick). But even more remarkable because Cindy Targus is admittedly posting under a false identity, in direct violation of Lancer's own forum rules. Uwe's excuse: He deems it necessary to protect "Cindy" from me. He doesn't want me to know her real identity. Why? Because he is afraid I would "harrass" her.
So now we know where Uwe priorities really are, and what his "honesty"and "respect" are worth. He is also conveniently forgetting that "Cindy" has been posting under a false name always and everywhere, also before the perceived and non-existent threat of me harrassing her. It is ofcourse true that I would like to know the real identity of this person. Why? Because I believe that people with strong and negative opinions should also take responsibility when they are asked to defend or prove their claims. Like we did with Mr. Epstein, who refused to comment when we called him for a dutch TV special on James Files. Furthermore the identity and background of a person can be quite revealing for his motivations. In that regard, the background of Mr. Epstein is also quite interesting. You can read about it here.
Anyway, although Mr. Epstein is an outspoken adversary of the James Files confession, he is not cowardly hiding behind anonymity like "Cindy", who can therefore never be held accountable for her claims. Of course I wonder what she needs to hide about her identity and background.
But this doesn't bother Uwe and Debra, who gladly seem to protect her identity, as long as she rants against James Files, Judyth Baker, Wim Dankbaar and JFKmurdersolved.com. To give you just one illustration of Cindy's smears, allowed by Lancer, just click here.
Neither does it bother Uwe and Debra that Cindy's partner Paul May resorts to name calling and outright insults, even comparing me with a Nazi and a jew chaser. Just have look at these postings here.
To which Debra eventually replied this.
Apparently this conversation got Uwe quite worried, for he jumped in with this
Needless to say, we never heard from Debra again. But Uwe became so stressed out over all this frankness, that he prepared for his next move. He decided to launch a poll to ask the membership whether I should be booted. He had already booted two of my supporters for no good reasons and realized it would not shine off very nicely to boot me also. After all, I had not violated any forum rules and you can't boot someone for telling the truth, even if you don't like the truth. But maybe he could sell the idea if he mobilized enough support in a poll.
So here it is:
"Poll question: Should Wim Dankbaars membership on this forum be cancelled ? "
I ask members to consider his overall behaviour on this forum,as known to them, since he entered this forum.
This is an anonymous voting.
No new members votes will be counted in the final result.
The poll is open for voters until Sunday.
Poll result (27 votes)
Yes (12 votes) Vote
No (15 votes) Vote
The original thread can be found here: here.
Note there are only 27 votes , while Lancer has over 1000 members. Note further that there are 15 No votes and 12 Yes votes. Deduct the votes of Tim Carroll, Debra Conway, Paul May, Richard Smith, Cindy Targus and you already have a fairer result.
The result as it is, is probably not what Uwe had hoped for, despite his efforts to influence the results to his advantage:
Attention all members,
the voting numbers shown before sunday do not reflect the opinion of members, having registered before the poll was started, alone.
They do include,thanks to guess who, quite a number of newly registered members from the Netherlands and also other countries, which did enter the forum today.
This and other underhanded things was excpected to happen and will continue over the next days most likely, but will not muddy the true result displayed on Sunday,as new members votes will be subtracted also double votings will not count.
Someone is very desperate at the moment, and you can bet, that it is not me.
Thank you
To which I replied:
Uwe,
You really think I'm desperate, do you?
Why don't you show your "true results" right now, you underhanded weasel!
I have the truth on my side, and nothing is gonna change that! Not you, not Lancer, not the proven fake and anonymous lone nutters Paul May and Cindy Targus of this world, that you and Debra protect, call me a Nazi, Jew chaser and whatever, and freely let them vote against the truth.
The truth is that you and especially Debra have betrayed at least TWO important witnesses, who once trusted Debra and risked their lives telling the truth. And you and especially Debra don't even have the guts to admit it, hiding behind hints you know more than any of us, but not prepared to share it. If Judyth and Anna Lewis are hoaxes, why can't you share the evidence? That would be in the interest of the truth. I know why. Because you can't!
You really think I care how your little poll is going to end?
Keep dreaming! All you have to know is this: As long as you don't have me banned with your little setup, I'll keep defending the truth. Here or anywhere else.
You're so appauled I call you dishonest? You bet I call you that! And Debra too. You and she have CHANGED your opinions on both Files and Judyth. I can prove that. And why? Just because you can't stand Judyth and/or me. It's purely personal. That's why you applaud and welcome proven deceivers and slanderers like May and "Targus". As long as they help your agenda to try and discredit Files, Judyth, me and other witnesses that contradict the Lone Assassin Lie, you don't care, because no goal is higher than that for you. You are even closing your eyes for the fact that they are liars with fake names and anonymous cowards.
Whay are you further dishonest? Because you keep focusing on Files' military past, while you know the CIA has purged his files. Because you keep suggesting I haven't answered your questions on that. Because you keep saying there is no evidence for his military past, while I have given you plenty. Because you keep saying I am "selling" hoaxes for money. Because you keep ignoring the rest of the evidence, like the ATF documents proving him a covert CIA operative and because you fail to address the challenge to point out how Files is a hoax, how he could have known there was dentmark in that casing, how he could have known that Nicoletti was there, when that was confirmed LATER by Chauncey Holt, etcetera, etcetera.
Furthermore, you keep citing Vernon's allegations, while you know, by your own admission, what his agenda was. Do I think you are dishonest and underhanded? You bet!
Wim
After this post, the whole topic was hastily moved to a special folder. I guess Uwe could not handle so much truth.
Meanwhile I had also informed my subscribers of Uwe's poll. To read a few of the comments I received back click here.
But the final drop in Uwe's bucket of deceit, arrived in the form of this email.
So I wrote up my last post on the JFKlancer forum. You can read it here:
Source: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/jfklancer.htm
I have stated before I find you an underhanded weasel, which opinion you re-affirm time again. My mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt once more.
Wim
That brings me to Debra Conway and Uwe Leybold. Let's take a look at why Debra Conway is not so fond of me. It has to do with Judyth Baker. When Mary Ferrell was still alive, she had become intrigued with the story of Judyth, Lee Harvey Oswald's girl friend, who had just gone public with her story. Judyth had been invited to appear on "60 minutes" of CBS. They had been researching her story and background for 18 months. For reasons unknown, and still not understood by anchor man Don Hewitt, the program was canceled last minute, much like the 1995 NBC program on James Files. Interference of diehard Warren Commission supporter Edward Epstein caused the cancellation of that program. You can read more on that here.
Anyway, Mary Ferrell was also in contact with Judyth and researching her story and evidence. Where Mary Ferrell is, is Debra Conway. So Debra has taken an active part in corroborating Judyth's story. And she has corroborated it. But she rather keeps that a secret!
One such powerful corroboration is an interview with a strong witness for Judyth. Her name is Anna Lewis, widow of David Lewis, who worked for Guy Banister. Anna Lewis knew both Judyth and Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans and CONFIRMS that Judyth and Lee were lovers.
You can see this interview with your own eyes here.
Guess who the interviewer is? None other than Debra Conway! Read on and you will catch my drift. We interviewed Judyth in Dallas on video in January 2003. That interview is available on DVD here.
My friend, retired FBI agent Zack shelton, a prudent investigator who wants to hear all sides, was there. And he proposed: "Let's call the opposition and talk to Debra Conway." I said that would be a good idea. So Zack calls Debra from the hotel room. He asked her several questions. The first questions were about James Files. If she believed that Files could have been the grassy knoll shooter? I remember her response clearly. "He could very well have been, Zack. We need people like you to sort it out". When the conversation was brought to Judyth, Debra made it clear she did not believe Judyth: "I really have no need to get Judyth Baker back in my life."
Then Zack asked: "Do you believe the evidence that Judyth worked at the Reily Coffee Company at the same time Oswald worked there?" Debra's response: "Yes, but that is all she has!"
Duh? Why did Debra leave out the other evidence, like the interview with Anna Lewis?
Let me give you the point. There is no doubt that Debra Conway has an intense dislike of Judyth Baker. In fairness, Judyth and I can quarrel too, but this has never affected my judgement on whether she is telling the truth or not. The point is: Debra Conway KNOWS Judyth is telling the truth! Yet her public opinion is that Judyth is a liar who made her whole story up. This is why all the Judyth discussions on Lancer are quickly moved to a special folder, where few people will read them. Originally this folder was called "weird stuff".
It's not so difficult to discredit a story if there is only one source. It's already harder when there are two. That's why Debra must stay silent about her interview with Anna Lewis. That's also why she never mentions Edward Haslam and Mac McCullough, two more corroborating witnesses for Judyth. You can see the interview with Edward Haslam here.
Therefore Debra has also developed an intense dislike of Wim Dankbaar. Because first of all, I am a major proponent of Judyth's veracity, secondly Debra knows I can expose her lies. People have a natural tendency to not like the messenger, if they don't like the message. Thus it is no surprise that Debra has changed her opinion on James Files too. Likewise it is no surprise that discussions on James Files also land in a special folder.
Why do you need to know all this? Very simple: To be able to form a more balanced judgement on the mission of JFKLancer, which is in short "Educating a new generation" and "dedicated to the truth of the assassination of John F. Kennedy".
Now let us have a look at Uwe Leybold, alias David Weaver. Uwe started out as a normal member at Lancer. Since he has helped ironing out some computer and server problems, he was appointed an assistant administrator for Debra. As such he has been very protective of Debra, as well as rejective of both Judyth Baker and James Files. Uwe's favourite tactic is to ignore the preponderance of the evidence for James Files and Judyth Baker. He simply refuses to address it when asked. Instead he concentrates on less relevant details, which he knows are harder to prove. When the answers to his demands do not satisfy him, he believes it justifies doubts on the rest of the evidence. Good examples can be found in this discussion.
Uwe likes to tell everyone how honest he is. He also frequently states he has no problems with me, that he considers me honest too and respects me.
In this regard it is remarkable that both he and Debra gave known "lone nutters", "Cindy Targus" and Paul May, a home to crank out their revengeful smears after they were booted from the JFKmurdersolved forum. Remarkable, because Lancer has booted members in the past for just being "lone nutters" (like David von Pein and Nick Kendrick). But even more remarkable because Cindy Targus is admittedly posting under a false identity, in direct violation of Lancer's own forum rules. Uwe's excuse: He deems it necessary to protect "Cindy" from me. He doesn't want me to know her real identity. Why? Because he is afraid I would "harrass" her.
So now we know where Uwe priorities really are, and what his "honesty"and "respect" are worth. He is also conveniently forgetting that "Cindy" has been posting under a false name always and everywhere, also before the perceived and non-existent threat of me harrassing her. It is ofcourse true that I would like to know the real identity of this person. Why? Because I believe that people with strong and negative opinions should also take responsibility when they are asked to defend or prove their claims. Like we did with Mr. Epstein, who refused to comment when we called him for a dutch TV special on James Files. Furthermore the identity and background of a person can be quite revealing for his motivations. In that regard, the background of Mr. Epstein is also quite interesting. You can read about it here.
Anyway, although Mr. Epstein is an outspoken adversary of the James Files confession, he is not cowardly hiding behind anonymity like "Cindy", who can therefore never be held accountable for her claims. Of course I wonder what she needs to hide about her identity and background.
But this doesn't bother Uwe and Debra, who gladly seem to protect her identity, as long as she rants against James Files, Judyth Baker, Wim Dankbaar and JFKmurdersolved.com. To give you just one illustration of Cindy's smears, allowed by Lancer, just click here.
Neither does it bother Uwe and Debra that Cindy's partner Paul May resorts to name calling and outright insults, even comparing me with a Nazi and a jew chaser. Just have look at these postings here.
To which Debra eventually replied this.
Apparently this conversation got Uwe quite worried, for he jumped in with this
Needless to say, we never heard from Debra again. But Uwe became so stressed out over all this frankness, that he prepared for his next move. He decided to launch a poll to ask the membership whether I should be booted. He had already booted two of my supporters for no good reasons and realized it would not shine off very nicely to boot me also. After all, I had not violated any forum rules and you can't boot someone for telling the truth, even if you don't like the truth. But maybe he could sell the idea if he mobilized enough support in a poll.
So here it is:
"Poll question: Should Wim Dankbaars membership on this forum be cancelled ? "
I ask members to consider his overall behaviour on this forum,as known to them, since he entered this forum.
This is an anonymous voting.
No new members votes will be counted in the final result.
The poll is open for voters until Sunday.
Poll result (27 votes)
Yes (12 votes) Vote
No (15 votes) Vote
The original thread can be found here: here.
Note there are only 27 votes , while Lancer has over 1000 members. Note further that there are 15 No votes and 12 Yes votes. Deduct the votes of Tim Carroll, Debra Conway, Paul May, Richard Smith, Cindy Targus and you already have a fairer result.
The result as it is, is probably not what Uwe had hoped for, despite his efforts to influence the results to his advantage:
Attention all members,
the voting numbers shown before sunday do not reflect the opinion of members, having registered before the poll was started, alone.
They do include,thanks to guess who, quite a number of newly registered members from the Netherlands and also other countries, which did enter the forum today.
This and other underhanded things was excpected to happen and will continue over the next days most likely, but will not muddy the true result displayed on Sunday,as new members votes will be subtracted also double votings will not count.
Someone is very desperate at the moment, and you can bet, that it is not me.
Thank you
To which I replied:
Uwe,
You really think I'm desperate, do you?
Why don't you show your "true results" right now, you underhanded weasel!
I have the truth on my side, and nothing is gonna change that! Not you, not Lancer, not the proven fake and anonymous lone nutters Paul May and Cindy Targus of this world, that you and Debra protect, call me a Nazi, Jew chaser and whatever, and freely let them vote against the truth.
The truth is that you and especially Debra have betrayed at least TWO important witnesses, who once trusted Debra and risked their lives telling the truth. And you and especially Debra don't even have the guts to admit it, hiding behind hints you know more than any of us, but not prepared to share it. If Judyth and Anna Lewis are hoaxes, why can't you share the evidence? That would be in the interest of the truth. I know why. Because you can't!
You really think I care how your little poll is going to end?
Keep dreaming! All you have to know is this: As long as you don't have me banned with your little setup, I'll keep defending the truth. Here or anywhere else.
You're so appauled I call you dishonest? You bet I call you that! And Debra too. You and she have CHANGED your opinions on both Files and Judyth. I can prove that. And why? Just because you can't stand Judyth and/or me. It's purely personal. That's why you applaud and welcome proven deceivers and slanderers like May and "Targus". As long as they help your agenda to try and discredit Files, Judyth, me and other witnesses that contradict the Lone Assassin Lie, you don't care, because no goal is higher than that for you. You are even closing your eyes for the fact that they are liars with fake names and anonymous cowards.
Whay are you further dishonest? Because you keep focusing on Files' military past, while you know the CIA has purged his files. Because you keep suggesting I haven't answered your questions on that. Because you keep saying there is no evidence for his military past, while I have given you plenty. Because you keep saying I am "selling" hoaxes for money. Because you keep ignoring the rest of the evidence, like the ATF documents proving him a covert CIA operative and because you fail to address the challenge to point out how Files is a hoax, how he could have known there was dentmark in that casing, how he could have known that Nicoletti was there, when that was confirmed LATER by Chauncey Holt, etcetera, etcetera.
Furthermore, you keep citing Vernon's allegations, while you know, by your own admission, what his agenda was. Do I think you are dishonest and underhanded? You bet!
Wim
After this post, the whole topic was hastily moved to a special folder. I guess Uwe could not handle so much truth.
Meanwhile I had also informed my subscribers of Uwe's poll. To read a few of the comments I received back click here.
But the final drop in Uwe's bucket of deceit, arrived in the form of this email.
So I wrote up my last post on the JFKlancer forum. You can read it here:
Source: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/jfklancer.htm
-
uwe leybold
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Wim,
Jimmy and Pam wrote that book together, is that statement wrong ?
You did not want this book to be published, is that statement wrong ?
You now say, it was because of what Pam wrote, but isn't
it true, that Jimmy Ok'd her input ?
Now I am (once again) the weasel when I let members here,
who might not be in the known about that book, look at
what James Files and his girlfriend had to tell about the book
and you.
She posted that, not me.
Could it be that you have a big problem with facts Wim, I mean
when they show things in a light that doesn't suit you ?
You know exactly where I stand, yet always play the surprised one
and kick like a mule when I tell things how they are.
Why is that ?
Jimmy and Pam wrote that book together, is that statement wrong ?
You did not want this book to be published, is that statement wrong ?
You now say, it was because of what Pam wrote, but isn't
it true, that Jimmy Ok'd her input ?
Now I am (once again) the weasel when I let members here,
who might not be in the known about that book, look at
what James Files and his girlfriend had to tell about the book
and you.
She posted that, not me.
Could it be that you have a big problem with facts Wim, I mean
when they show things in a light that doesn't suit you ?
You know exactly where I stand, yet always play the surprised one
and kick like a mule when I tell things how they are.
Why is that ?
-
uwe leybold
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Jimmy and Pam wrote that book together, is that statement wrong ?
Yes and no. Pam Ray wrote it to describe "the world according to Pam", utilising Jimmy's story as a part of it. My book is Jimmy's story (and others) without "the world according to Pam".
You did not want this book to be published, is that statement wrong ?
Yes and no, I financed it to conditions that weren't met. She still owes me 55 grand plus interest because of it. If the conditions were met, she could have published it. I am tired of wasting my time on a weasel like you. You can vent your suggestive disinformation somewhere else. You're a visitor in my house, who keeps telling the host he is appauled with the interior. That's just one of the reasons I'm kicking you out.Bye now.
Yes and no. Pam Ray wrote it to describe "the world according to Pam", utilising Jimmy's story as a part of it. My book is Jimmy's story (and others) without "the world according to Pam".
You did not want this book to be published, is that statement wrong ?
Yes and no, I financed it to conditions that weren't met. She still owes me 55 grand plus interest because of it. If the conditions were met, she could have published it. I am tired of wasting my time on a weasel like you. You can vent your suggestive disinformation somewhere else. You're a visitor in my house, who keeps telling the host he is appauled with the interior. That's just one of the reasons I'm kicking you out.Bye now.
-
Bruce Patrick Brychek
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
What's This?
11.08.2013Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:03.03.2007 - Mr. Jim Thompson Posted this vague Headline.A short discussion evolved covering a wide variety of facts, points ofinformation, and opinions that very few are aware of today.Today I am only interested in information about Debra Conway, a fewof her supporters named here and elsewhere, and JFK Lancer. What are their positions and statements today as we approach 11.22.2013, about JFK and related subject matters, along with the Big JFK Event of 50 years after 11.22.1963 ?Any more recent analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research,studies, thoughts, or writings on any aspect of this subject matter ?Comments ?Respectfully,BB.