Only one headshot?

[tom jeffers]

i don't think he changed his story about being paid. i think jimmy was the one that placed a price on the job. he got 30 thousand from nicolletti later after doing a few jobs and he just thought 20 thousand was for jfk and 10 thousand for other services.

[neab]

I find it unlikely he was the grassy knoll shooter too, Im not saying he wasnt there, or wasnt involved with people who were right there. But I dont necesarily but he was a shooter either thom. When he said to that informant who tipped off shelton " if people really knew what happened ..etc" when they were passing dealey plaza, he could have just been relaid info from friends in the mob or people he knew tied to CIA. Or maybe he was there, maybe thats why he didnt put his X where he really was to Joe West, and when pressed, then decided to admit to being a shooter. Yes, theres alot of maybes here, but the main one was when he said noyone was behind that fence when we know there was. Thats where I caught him, I looked back at SM Hollands interview other day and he clearly states there was 2 sets of footprints, which corrobrates bowers AND hoffman. And ye, holt says it was like a homecoming or whatever, but wheres the pictures of these men? Just like files said in interview, he says many names that were in the vicinity, go through all the photos you can of dealey plaza that day, tell me where these guys are.

[dankbaar]

But is is such a crime for me to say I don't believe he was the grassy knoll shooter?Who said it was a crime?The worst that can be said about it in your case is that it is irritating to maintain a position, even after it is refuted by the facts. Example: Files planted the shell casing. Fact: Files was in jail, thus the above statement cannot be true (unless he had an accomplice to do it for him) Your position remains: Files planted the shell casing. I close my ears pretending I didn't hear that.Moreover, and especially in light of the above, you are implicitly insulting Files, Bruce, me and everyone else who believes after close scrutiny Files is telling the truth. What you imply is that Files is a huckster and the ones who don't see it, are fools. In this attitude you serve yourself with a misplaced arrogance of mental superiority. Oh Please! you say: Can't you dummies see you are being tricked? Speaking of scrutiny, what films or books on Files did you actually scrutinize? No, it's not a crime. Just unpleasant and annoying.Wim

[dankbaar]

By the way, you also imply that Files refused to work with Oliver Stone because he were afraid he would not survive under Stone's "scrutiny". As if Stone is the great expert who didn't make a fortune based on the knowledge and sacrifices of others, and is now refusing to take the truth to the next level. As if Stone is not able to scrutinize the story of Files now and render his verdict. Why don't you ask him and see what answer you get, if any? At least you would not have to guess and suggest about what Stone thinks. While you're at it, ask him the same about Chauncey Holt. Maybe it's time for Bruce to disclose the real reason why Files refused....... Bruce?Wim

[andries]

Not going in buisinis with oliver stone is a perfect move i can imagine the shooter either files or not, it would look like a perfect circusand we had enough of that.for his credebillity it has been the right thing not to do soeven i agree on that his convesion is spectaculair but even the greatest optimist is left sadly with equel spectaculair quistions

[ThomZajac]

Wim,I don't know if you are deliberately misstating my position(s) or whether you are simply an incredibly poor reader, but it I do expect more of you.Wim wrote:Who said it was a crime?The worst that can be said about it in your case is that it is irritating to maintain a position, even after it is refuted by the facts. Example: Files planted the shell casing. Fact: Files was in jail, thus the above statement cannot be true (unless he had an accomplice to do it for him) TZ: I never wrote that Files planted the shell. From the beginning I said I suspected he had had the shell planted. It's right there in plain English. I chose my words carefully. Wim-Your position remains: Files planted the shell casing. I close my ears pretending I didn't hear that.TZ: Wim, are you really this incredibly dense? Wim-Moreover, and especially in light of the above, you are implicitly insulting Files, Bruce, me and everyone else who believes after close scrutiny Files is telling the truth. What you imply is that Files is a huckster and the ones who don't see it, are fools. In this attitude you serve yourself with a misplaced arrogance of mental superiority. Oh Please! you say: Can't you dummies see you are being tricked? TZ: You obviously have no sense of irony, Wim, or you would see that you are guilty of the reciprocal of your assertion: that you are implying that anyone who doesn't fully believe Files is a fool, and that in this attitude you serve yourself with a misplaced arrogance of mental superiority. Wim-Speaking of scrutiny, what films or books on Files did you actually scrutinize? TZ: I can tell you that whatever I did read and watch over that past45 years I can restate accurately. I did buy and read yours, by the way, and I commend you for it, even though I don't think Files was the grassy knoll shooter. Unlike you, however, I acknowledge that I could be wrong.Wim-No, it's not a crime. Just unpleasant and annoying.TZ: Yes, i see- to disagree with your conclusions is unacceptable. Good luck with that.

[dankbaar]

Who said it was a crime?The worst that can be said about it in your case is that it is irritating to maintain a position, even after it is refuted by the facts. Example: Files planted the shell casing. Fact: Files was in jail, thus the above statement cannot be true (unless he had an accomplice to do it for him) TZ: I never wrote that Files planted the shell. From the beginning I said I suspected he had had the shell planted. It's right there in plain English. I chose my words carefully. Okay, Should I apologize for not interpreting your words literally? I said it is one way or the other in your thesis: He planted it himself or he had an accomplice who did it on his instructions. You have now clarified you meant the latter. So there is one unidentified fraudulent accomplice of Files at large, perpetrating this hoax? Is there any other interpretation of your words? And if not, could you clarify how I should not take this as an offense? Wim-Your position remains: Files planted the shell casing. I close my ears pretending I didn't hear that.TZ: Wim, are you really this incredibly dense? In my view, the density is at your end. Let me sustain that further ahead. Wim-Moreover, and especially in light of the above, you are implicitly insulting Files, Bruce, me and everyone else who believes after close scrutiny Files is telling the truth. What you imply is that Files is a huckster and the ones who don't see it, are fools. In this attitude you serve yourself with a misplaced arrogance of mental superiority. Oh Please! you say: Can't you dummies see you are being tricked? TZ: You obviously have no sense of irony, Wim, or you would see that you are guilty of the reciprocal of your assertion: that you are implying that anyone who doesn't fully believe Files is a fool, and that in this attitude you serve yourself with a misplaced arrogance of mental superiority. That's again a false assertion. I am not implying that anyone who doesn't fully believe Files is a fool. I am merely pointing out that your reasoning for not believing Files on this particular point is extremely hard to rhyme with the facts. Basically what you offer, is this: Files did not leave a shell on the picket fence, he lied about at least that part. Instead he instructed an accomplice to plant a shell casing in the ground near the place of where he would assert years later he left a shell casing. That is what you offer. When I point out that your supposed sequence of events does not hold water, are at best extremely unlikely, based on facts that you were obviously not cognizant of, you choose to not address, but ignore those facts. That is what I call dense, and not a fair way of debate. Wim-Speaking of scrutiny, what films or books on Files did you actually scrutinize? TZ: I can tell you that whatever I did read and watch over that past45 years I can restate accurately. I did buy and read yours, by the way, and I commend you for it, even though I don't think Files was the grassy knoll shooter. Unlike you, however, I acknowledge that I could be wrong.How can you commend anyone for promoting the story of a fraudulent liar who went as far as having planted a shell casing in order to more credibly perpetrate the hoax that he may have been the shooter on the grassy knoll? Wim-No, it's not a crime. Just unpleasant and annoying.TZ: Yes, i see- to disagree with your conclusions is unacceptable. Good luck with that.False again, nowhere did I say disagreement is unacceptable. That's your word, not mine. My words were unpleasant and annoying. Not referring to disagreement, but referring to this: When I point out that your alleged sequence of events does not hold water, are at best extremely unlikely, based on facts that you were obviously not cognizant of, you choose to not address and ignore those facts.You put words in my mouth and you resort to the tactic of virtually all adversaries of this story: If you disagree, Wim doesn't accept it.

[Bob]

Gentlemen....gentlemen...gentlemen. I have a huge amount of respect for both of you. While I believe the James Files story, and therefore support Wim's version of things, I also understand Thom's apprehension about becoming a Files believer. Again, I originally thought the story was quite dubious at first. However, I researched it on my own, and like Jim Marrs, can not find any red herrings. Now has Files told the WHOLE truth about 11/22/1963? Absolutely not. But he has his reasons.Now back to this disagreement. Thom obviously comes from the David Lifton camp concerning how things went down with the assassination and the wound altering. That is why both HE and WIM have to get Doug Horne's book soon. It explains a lot of things. The wound altering and WHEN and WHERE it happened. When JFK's body first arrived at Bethesda. The role of Thom Robinson in determining the truth at Bethesda. The Secret Service part of the conspiracy, which includes Roy Kellerman and Bill Greer. The Zapruder film alteration. And on and on.This discussion will be better served after you both read that book.

[ThomZajac]

It's fine that Wim disagrees with me on a number of key issues. What's not okay with me is that Wim constantly misstates my arguments and what I have said. Constantly.Add to that his condescending attitude, and what you have, frankly, is a fool.This is his forum and this will only continue.And I am done.It's been a pleasure conversing with most of you.Thom

[Bob]

Thom, I hope you will reconsider your decision. You add too much to this forum. Things can get a bit emotional in this forum when people say things. I've been there and done that. Wim and I don't agree on everything either, like with my belief that David Atlee Phillips was at Lee Harvey Oswald's midnight press conference. Wim doesn't share that belief. That's fine. I will continue to search for more evidence to indeed prove Phillips was there. Maybe I can convince Wim as well at some point. In terms of your debate with Wim, I would say to both of you...take a deep breath. Just chill for awhile. No reason to call each other out. You are both too GOOD for that.