JFK Lancer
-
R Croxford
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
re
Wim, Screw those people bro! I believe a majority of them are agents and this includes timmy boy. Weaver has the intelligence level of a fourth grader looking at his posting and spelling. I say again I am not a full supporter of files but he does know alot. What are they offering at lancer? same crap we have heard for 40 + years? yada yada yada. If Tim Carrol happens to read this post. Tim you are an ass of major proportions my friend. You sit and talk crap about Wim when over and over again you attacked me for no reason other then trying to discredit my CFR belief. Tim you have no proof nor are you any real help in any investigation. No one has solid proof of anything to sit and talk smack about someone else. For anyone at the lancer forum to think that anything they say or talk about has merit is ridiculous. On the lines of saying that Wim and Files are BS what is not BS about this murder? Almost every fact that anyone has including the government has been proven wrong by 10 people on the other side. Government is wrong, We are wrong! Who the hell is right? Speculation they say Wim has with files case. What is it they have? Dreams? nightmares? fairy tales? Please someone tell me.
You can not say someone has no proof when nothing you say has proof either! Are the people on the lancer forum out of thier minds??
Peace
You can not say someone has no proof when nothing you say has proof either! Are the people on the lancer forum out of thier minds??
Peace
-
john geraghty
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Mr.Croxford,
I usually stand in the wings when it comes to these debates and to an extent I still am, even by posting in this thread. I do not wish to discuss the ongoing debate on the Lancer site, I would, however like to take you to point on some of the things you say in the above post.
The Majority of them are agents? Agents of what? That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have EVER heard. You can disagree with whoever you want over any tpic you wish, but to regard someone as an 'agent' is patently absurd.
What are they offering at Lancer? Try some of the finest research ever seen in the JFK research community. Try Larry Hancocks 'Someone Would Have Talked', Try Ian Griggs 'No Case to Answer', Try William Laws 'In the Eye of History', try annual conferences with speakers such as James Tague, Gerry Hemming, James Hosty, Try Kennedy family member Kerry McCarthy, Aubrey rike, Billy Sol Estes, Jim Marrs, Joan Mellen, Lamar Waldron, Beverly Oliver, Larry Teeter, Hal Verb, Dick Russel, Matthew Smith, Harold Rydberg, George Michael Evica, Peter Dale Scott, Noel twyman, James Fetzer, Karyn- Holt Harcourt, John Ritchson, Craig Roberts, and thats only going back to 2000!
I trust that you don't think any of these people brought by Lancer to speak have anything to say apart from "same crap we have heard for 40 + years? yada yada yada"
I don't care what your problem is with anyone on that particular forum or whatever disagreement you may have with regards to areas of the assassination, but I find your ill founded analysis of JFKLancer as being a majority of 'agents' and not having produced anything of worth as sheer and utter blind ignorance.
In case you might think I am some sort of 'Agent' also for questioning you, My name is John Geraghty, I am a student in Maynooth, Ireland, I live in Dublin, my email address is wereallgointaheavenlads@hotmail.com (if you should wish to question me or make a citizens arrest), I'm 20 , and my favourite food are prawns.
If you have anything to add to this I would be most pleased to hear it.
I trust my tone and wording were acceptable and would not warrant being called 'an ass of major proportions', as using wording such as that would be quite rude and juvenile, don't you think?
All the best,
John Geraghty
I usually stand in the wings when it comes to these debates and to an extent I still am, even by posting in this thread. I do not wish to discuss the ongoing debate on the Lancer site, I would, however like to take you to point on some of the things you say in the above post.
The Majority of them are agents? Agents of what? That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have EVER heard. You can disagree with whoever you want over any tpic you wish, but to regard someone as an 'agent' is patently absurd.
What are they offering at Lancer? Try some of the finest research ever seen in the JFK research community. Try Larry Hancocks 'Someone Would Have Talked', Try Ian Griggs 'No Case to Answer', Try William Laws 'In the Eye of History', try annual conferences with speakers such as James Tague, Gerry Hemming, James Hosty, Try Kennedy family member Kerry McCarthy, Aubrey rike, Billy Sol Estes, Jim Marrs, Joan Mellen, Lamar Waldron, Beverly Oliver, Larry Teeter, Hal Verb, Dick Russel, Matthew Smith, Harold Rydberg, George Michael Evica, Peter Dale Scott, Noel twyman, James Fetzer, Karyn- Holt Harcourt, John Ritchson, Craig Roberts, and thats only going back to 2000!
I trust that you don't think any of these people brought by Lancer to speak have anything to say apart from "same crap we have heard for 40 + years? yada yada yada"
I don't care what your problem is with anyone on that particular forum or whatever disagreement you may have with regards to areas of the assassination, but I find your ill founded analysis of JFKLancer as being a majority of 'agents' and not having produced anything of worth as sheer and utter blind ignorance.
In case you might think I am some sort of 'Agent' also for questioning you, My name is John Geraghty, I am a student in Maynooth, Ireland, I live in Dublin, my email address is wereallgointaheavenlads@hotmail.com (if you should wish to question me or make a citizens arrest), I'm 20 , and my favourite food are prawns.
If you have anything to add to this I would be most pleased to hear it.
I trust my tone and wording were acceptable and would not warrant being called 'an ass of major proportions', as using wording such as that would be quite rude and juvenile, don't you think?
All the best,
John Geraghty
-
Simon West
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Mr. Dankbaar,
I read your JFKLancer page but I think it does you no favours.
The main thrust of it is that certain people offer nothing to the debate because a) some don't believe the story of Files / Baker and or b) some of them haven't bought your book.
You mention that some resort to name calling and that I would agree is unacceptable and as a forum moderator you can ban whoever you want from your own forum. That's your prerogative.
When it comes to posting what you call 'lies' however that's different. Regarding the JFK assassination there is much opinion and if there are people who don't believe Files' story you should see that in part as your failure to convince them.
As long as people don't resort to disrespectful behaviour they should be free to voice concerns or disbelief in the things you are posting on this web site as absolute fact.
Also on your JFKLancer page you reinforce what seems to be a perception voiced by your critics that you demand that discourse is limited to those who buy your book or DVD and that you are guarding the essential facts as intellectual copyright rather than putting it in the public domain for open discussion.
Whilst this information is kept out of the public domain your critics will continue to use this against you, both in terms of factual misrepresentation and suspicion about your motives... i.e. a person motivated toward exposing the truth does not then withold that information.
If the case you are making really can withstand close scruitiny it makes sense (business sense and common sense) to get as much of it out in the public domain as possible in order to stimulate awareness. You are likely to sell more books and DVDs or get the backing of a mainstream publisher if more people get to hear about what you are doing and are convinced by its truthfulness.
Silencing critics or deliberately witholding the information that justifies your version against theirs can only be counter-productive.
Therefore I would, with respect, suggest restraint in dealing with the 'unbelievers' because you have many millions more to convince than the posters on JFKLancer. I would seriously suggest getting as much of your work as possible into the public domain and use viral marketing to get people watching the video and joining the discussion in an informed manner.
The huge financial rewards and opportunities that would certainly present themselves upon your version of the JFK assassination becoming the accepted truth makes it puzzling that you are not doing this already.
Kind Regards,
Simon West
I read your JFKLancer page but I think it does you no favours.
The main thrust of it is that certain people offer nothing to the debate because a) some don't believe the story of Files / Baker and or b) some of them haven't bought your book.
You mention that some resort to name calling and that I would agree is unacceptable and as a forum moderator you can ban whoever you want from your own forum. That's your prerogative.
When it comes to posting what you call 'lies' however that's different. Regarding the JFK assassination there is much opinion and if there are people who don't believe Files' story you should see that in part as your failure to convince them.
As long as people don't resort to disrespectful behaviour they should be free to voice concerns or disbelief in the things you are posting on this web site as absolute fact.
Also on your JFKLancer page you reinforce what seems to be a perception voiced by your critics that you demand that discourse is limited to those who buy your book or DVD and that you are guarding the essential facts as intellectual copyright rather than putting it in the public domain for open discussion.
Whilst this information is kept out of the public domain your critics will continue to use this against you, both in terms of factual misrepresentation and suspicion about your motives... i.e. a person motivated toward exposing the truth does not then withold that information.
If the case you are making really can withstand close scruitiny it makes sense (business sense and common sense) to get as much of it out in the public domain as possible in order to stimulate awareness. You are likely to sell more books and DVDs or get the backing of a mainstream publisher if more people get to hear about what you are doing and are convinced by its truthfulness.
Silencing critics or deliberately witholding the information that justifies your version against theirs can only be counter-productive.
Therefore I would, with respect, suggest restraint in dealing with the 'unbelievers' because you have many millions more to convince than the posters on JFKLancer. I would seriously suggest getting as much of your work as possible into the public domain and use viral marketing to get people watching the video and joining the discussion in an informed manner.
The huge financial rewards and opportunities that would certainly present themselves upon your version of the JFK assassination becoming the accepted truth makes it puzzling that you are not doing this already.
Kind Regards,
Simon West
Simon,
Fair and good intended comments. I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. Besides, it is not always about how to "package" the product. I am just Wim Dankbaar and not Jesus who turns his other cheek. I will just stand up against anonymous cowards and people who are willfully discrediting good witnesses.
Moreover, this is not MY product, it is EVERYONE's product. If you would market it otherwise, then be my guest.
Wim
Fair and good intended comments. I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. Besides, it is not always about how to "package" the product. I am just Wim Dankbaar and not Jesus who turns his other cheek. I will just stand up against anonymous cowards and people who are willfully discrediting good witnesses.
Moreover, this is not MY product, it is EVERYONE's product. If you would market it otherwise, then be my guest.
Wim
john geraghty wrote:Mr.Croxford,I usually stand in the wings when it comes to these debates and to an extent I still am, even by posting in this thread. I do not wish to discuss the ongoing debate on the Lancer site, I would, however like to take you to point on some of the things you say in the above post.The Majority of them are agents? Agents of what? That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have EVER heard. You can disagree with whoever you want over any tpic you wish, but to regard someone as an 'agent' is patently absurd.What are they offering at Lancer? Try some of the finest research ever seen in the JFK research community. Try Larry Hancocks 'Someone Would Have Talked', Try Ian Griggs 'No Case to Answer', Try William Laws 'In the Eye of History', try annual conferences with speakers such as James Tague, Gerry Hemming, James Hosty, Try Kennedy family member Kerry McCarthy, Aubrey rike, Billy Sol Estes, Jim Marrs, Joan Mellen, Lamar Waldron, Beverly Oliver, Larry Teeter, Hal Verb, Dick Russel, Matthew Smith, Harold Rydberg, George Michael Evica, Peter Dale Scott, Noel twyman, James Fetzer, Karyn- Holt Harcourt, John Ritchson, Craig Roberts, and thats only going back to 2000! I trust that you don't think any of these people brought by Lancer to speak have anything to say apart from "same crap we have heard for 40 + years? yada yada yada"I don't care what your problem is with anyone on that particular forum or whatever disagreement you may have with regards to areas of the assassination, but I find your ill founded analysis of JFKLancer as being a majority of 'agents' and not having produced anything of worth as sheer and utter blind ignorance.In case you might think I am some sort of 'Agent' also for questioning you, My name is John Geraghty, I am a student in Maynooth, Ireland, I live in Dublin, my email address is wereallgointaheavenlads@hotmail.com (if you should wish to question me or make a citizens arrest), I'm 20 , and my favourite food are prawns.If you have anything to add to this I would be most pleased to hear it.I trust my tone and wording were acceptable and would not warrant being called 'an ass of major proportions', as using wording such as that would be quite rude and juvenile, don't you think?All the best,John Geraghty
John,
You are correct in my view. Most people at JFKlancer are fair and square, and not "agents" of any kind. That's over the top. There's just a handful that have their pride hurt, by me or others. Which has affected their objectivity in their quest for the truth. To me, Debra Conway falls into this category. Which still is a shame.
Wim
John,
You are correct in my view. Most people at JFKlancer are fair and square, and not "agents" of any kind. That's over the top. There's just a handful that have their pride hurt, by me or others. Which has affected their objectivity in their quest for the truth. To me, Debra Conway falls into this category. Which still is a shame.
Wim
"Cindy"and Debra are such good pals:
Debra and all,
Personally, I could care less what Dankbaar has said about me. Those of you that know me, know it's all lies and speculation. I would however like to thank Dankbaar for putting me in the spotlight and making me a known entity in the JFK research community.
Debra, I have visited a lot of forums over the past year, and I would like to say that I think Lancer is one of, if not the best research forum on the net. Not once have I ever felt pressured to buy anything your forum has to offer. Nor have I felt like a topic was being shoved down my throat and I must swallow it whether I believe it or not.
I have recommended 5 people so far to join Lancer, they have been here reading and are very impressed. I have also given them the link to Dankbaars forum...their comments were:
"It's like The Barnum and Bailey Circus over there"
Guess which forum they will join???
Cindy
**********************
Cindy,
Thanks sincerely. I hope you continue to feel the same about the forum for a very long time.
Best,
Debra
---
Please visit the rest of our website
at http://www.jfklancer.com
****************************
Debra is apparently good friends with fake "Cindy" .
"Those of you that know me, know it's all lies and speculation. I would however like to thank Dankbaar for putting me in the spotlight and making me a known entity in the JFK research community."
Well, who knows you, Cindy? Debra and Uwe are the only ones, right?
Let your so called 5 "friends" join the Jfkmurdersolved forum under their real names! Wanna bet they will stay as fake and anonymous as you are? You're right that you are in the "The Barnum and Bailey Circus" , hosted by Lancer, and you're the clown, and a bad one. Is your pal Paul May going to grab this post and put it on the Lancer forum too?
Hey Debra, when are you going to share with us what you "know" that we don't know, about Judyth Baker and Anna Lewis ? So we can all know that you are right, that you are "dedicated to the truth" and Judyth and Anna are hoaxers and liars like you say they are!
Wim
PS: Debra's "Rules":
We love having all of you here but please use your real name, first and last, or your registration will be deleted along with your posts.
Thanks sincerely,
Debra
Personally, I could care less what Dankbaar has said about me. Those of you that know me, know it's all lies and speculation. I would however like to thank Dankbaar for putting me in the spotlight and making me a known entity in the JFK research community.
Debra, I have visited a lot of forums over the past year, and I would like to say that I think Lancer is one of, if not the best research forum on the net. Not once have I ever felt pressured to buy anything your forum has to offer. Nor have I felt like a topic was being shoved down my throat and I must swallow it whether I believe it or not.
I have recommended 5 people so far to join Lancer, they have been here reading and are very impressed. I have also given them the link to Dankbaars forum...their comments were:
"It's like The Barnum and Bailey Circus over there"
Guess which forum they will join???
Cindy
**********************
Cindy,
Thanks sincerely. I hope you continue to feel the same about the forum for a very long time.
Best,
Debra
---
Please visit the rest of our website
at http://www.jfklancer.com
****************************
Debra is apparently good friends with fake "Cindy" .
"Those of you that know me, know it's all lies and speculation. I would however like to thank Dankbaar for putting me in the spotlight and making me a known entity in the JFK research community."
Well, who knows you, Cindy? Debra and Uwe are the only ones, right?
Let your so called 5 "friends" join the Jfkmurdersolved forum under their real names! Wanna bet they will stay as fake and anonymous as you are? You're right that you are in the "The Barnum and Bailey Circus" , hosted by Lancer, and you're the clown, and a bad one. Is your pal Paul May going to grab this post and put it on the Lancer forum too?
Hey Debra, when are you going to share with us what you "know" that we don't know, about Judyth Baker and Anna Lewis ? So we can all know that you are right, that you are "dedicated to the truth" and Judyth and Anna are hoaxers and liars like you say they are!
Wim
PS: Debra's "Rules":
We love having all of you here but please use your real name, first and last, or your registration will be deleted along with your posts.
Thanks sincerely,
Debra
-
Jim Harwood
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
RJ Smith
Wim:
I would like to add that so-called JFK expert and Files "debunker" Richard J Smith is not the most reliable when it comes to the facts.
I can still recall him "introducing" "Vernon John Ritchson" to the Lancer membership as one of the foremost ballistics experts in the country. Now if that doesnt show how "lazy" this guy is in his research then nothing will.
He claims that he's checked out James Files and concluded him a faker. Apparently he should have done the same thing with the late "hoaxster" Vernon John Ritchson . Had RJS bothered to check he would have found an entirely different person "lurking" behind the computer key board. In a simply check RJS would have found that there no "Black Eagle" Gun Works, No Vietnam special ops (no Vietnam duty at all in fact) training or experience and a violent criminal record that would make James Files blush.
RJS introduced Ritchson as an "legitimate expert" simply because Ritchson's internet persona appealed to the bias already held by RJS. Otherwise as was proven, RJS was wrong once again.
And it is the same thing with James Files but in reverse.
Being wrong is RJS's most prominent trait; but ironically this is why he too is considered an expert by the Lancer membership.
I would like to add that so-called JFK expert and Files "debunker" Richard J Smith is not the most reliable when it comes to the facts.
I can still recall him "introducing" "Vernon John Ritchson" to the Lancer membership as one of the foremost ballistics experts in the country. Now if that doesnt show how "lazy" this guy is in his research then nothing will.
He claims that he's checked out James Files and concluded him a faker. Apparently he should have done the same thing with the late "hoaxster" Vernon John Ritchson . Had RJS bothered to check he would have found an entirely different person "lurking" behind the computer key board. In a simply check RJS would have found that there no "Black Eagle" Gun Works, No Vietnam special ops (no Vietnam duty at all in fact) training or experience and a violent criminal record that would make James Files blush.
RJS introduced Ritchson as an "legitimate expert" simply because Ritchson's internet persona appealed to the bias already held by RJS. Otherwise as was proven, RJS was wrong once again.
And it is the same thing with James Files but in reverse.
Being wrong is RJS's most prominent trait; but ironically this is why he too is considered an expert by the Lancer membership.
-
saracarter766
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: JFK Lancer
at this moment and time i am seriously considering going back to the JFK lancer board that way mr pennyworth won't be able to give me grief and put me through such hell like he has. all i want is peace and i guess that is so much to ask for i'm just tired of being bullied around here by mr pennyworth i've just had enough of it. sorry to be off topic there and sorry for that rant.