Files Had Facts about JFK Assassination

[Jim Thompson]

dankbaar wrote:Last two posts ( Bruce and Steffi Chase) were deleted (but saved by me) for addressing each other in a manner that I can't permit here. Bruce, please try to deal with attacks on Jimmy without riling yourself up too much and try to stay civil. No words like idiot please. Steffi Chase, likewise, please refrain from insults or assumptions that have no basis. I know Bruce personally and call him a friend, your qualifications were plain wrong. WimWim quote: I know Bruce personally...

But you also know Steffi, don't you!... Yep, it's Rick again. All the familiar earmarks are there in spades. Trust me. Better check the IPs again. (Bob, am I right? Am I right, Bob?)

[dankbaar]

You may be right that Steffi Chase is an imposter. I cannot find that name on the Internet. A teacher in New York? You would expect something on the net, would you not?

Wim

[Jim Thompson]

dankbaar wrote:You may be right that Steffi Chase is an imposter. I cannot find that name on the Internet. A teacher in New York? You would expect something on the net, would you not? Wim

Sure, a sleeper. Notice Steffi joined the forum in Oct. '06. Now, he (not she) leaps on the stage with the ditto Modus Operandi as Rick & the others. Goad Wim or in this case Bruce, mainly for sport. Pick a fight. See 'em squirm. Same 'ol, same 'ol. (By the way, if you like persons of interest, note that "myra" joined the list 3 days before Steffi.)

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Mr. Wim Dankbaar, Bob, Jim Thompson, M. Klein, Richard Carter, Francois Bertrand, and Fellow JFK Forum Members,

I apologize to Mr. Wim Dankbaar and Fellow JFK Forum Members.

I was angered that a quote from 1992, and trivial matters , all taken out of context, were used, in my opinion, to discredit.

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[Jim Thompson]

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Dear Mr. Wim Dankbaar, Bob, Jim Thompson, and Fellow JFK Forum Members,I apologize to Mr. Wim Dankbaar and Fellow JFK Forum Members.I was angered that a quote from 1992, and trivial matters , all taken out of context, were used, in my opinion, to discredit.Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.

No apology needed... This (Rick) guy's a master of deceit, and apparently master of the chameleon IP. May I suggest packet sniffing? Wim should have resources & contacts for that. Also, Ed Bishop?

[Steffi Chase]

Mr. Dankbaar:

My apologies for any disruption I may have caused in pursuing my
own defense. Never in my 53 years have I ever been so verbally
attacked. Mr. Brychek may well be a friend of yours Mr. Dankbaar
but that surely does not excuse his behavior. My observations of
Mr. Brychek were purely the result of his discourse. Once again,
my apologies to you. I’ll leave your paranoid friends to themselves.


Steffi Chase

[David Octopus]

Steffi Chase wrote:This is patently untrue. In a letter dated July 30, 1992 to Joe West, Files stated the following, and I quote:...The two items that I know, outside of the movies and the books are, #1. David Phillips perjured himself while giving his testimony during the, "House of Assassinations Committee." And I'm sure that you already know that.


What I've found troubling is where Files could have read about that "story"
- Phillips' notable performance before the HSCA? For one thing, if I'm not mistaken it was an executive closed session, still classified at that time. Moreover, the whole story about the hunt for Phillips was in full rich details published only in Gaeton Fonzi "Last investigation" book in its 1st ed edition 1993.

Perhaps it was mentioned in some earlier P.D. Scott or Mark Lane volume, this could be tracked down relatively easily, but Fonzi was the man who actually confronted even the Phillips family and him in person etc..

So the options are (in no particular order):

1. The entire Files story and also the mail exchange is a hoax

2. Phillips testimony was circulated freely in other JFK literature prior 1992-93 - Files had access to it as any reader - I doubt it

3. Info about Philips testimony was circulated in only selected volumes, i.e. lower probability that average reader would even notice such info

4. Files story/mail is legit for other undisclosed reasons - but why would Files have interest in such a person as Phillips after all those years, when he indicates he had no interest in the old contacts and actions etc.

---

To: Steffi,
in terms of 9/11 the fact is that the "government investigation" into this event has been already severly compromised even in the words by the comm. chairs Kean and Hamilton, that's simply true! Does it mean automatically 9/11 = inside job? No. But the official account is a bad joke, we need new investigation, incl. all the silenced testimonies by gov. officials and first responders - whistleblowers..

[dankbaar]

David,

HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK "FILES ON JFK"?

Have you seen the dvd "Files on JFK"?

Wim

[David Octopus]

Wim,
why don't you pls. address the question about Files and Phillips HSCA testimony in 1992 directly? Btw. I don't own a copy of your book or DVD but have read and seen some parts of those. Can't recall this particular area.

I'm still not 100% convinced about Files, what troubles me about this site are the parts right on the spot like the Bush family, Posada, exile cubans etc. and then you throw appendages like Judyth Baker? Sometimes it makes me wonder about the tactics of Jim Fetzer, he is able to present very solid case and suddenly start talk about the laser beams on 9/11 etc.. Not exactly a credibility per se..

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm just too old school, P.D. Scott, Fonzi, Lane, Garrison, Prouty (to some degree) that's the mainstream in terms of credibility for me on the case..

[M Klein]

Seriously, Octopus, don't waste the man's time if you don't even read his book or watch his movie.

You're questioning the key witness' credibility without even reading the information.

Files puts forth volumes of information, names, places, and dates, which has nothing to do with published accounts.