E-mail
Correspondence with Bob Vernon
22 January 2001
This first message from Bob Vernon appeared from out of nowhere. He had been reading my site, evidently.
***************
20 December 2000
From Bob Vernon, bobkat2000@home.com
I found it interesting that your coverage of James Files ends with
mention of a CIA influenced disinfo piece in the gossip rag known as the NY Post
from 1993.
You fail to acknowledge the clear truths
of the professional, non-biased investigation of James Files. www.jfkmurdersolved.com
You also fail to mention that Files is the
ONLY person ever confessing to participation that has withstood professional
scrutiny.....and passed two VSA [Voice-stress analysis—KAR] tests with
flying colors, I might add.
You also fail to mention that our lead on
Files came from the FBI.
If you're planning on teaching young
people the truth about the murder of JFK, I suggest you be a bit more diligent
with your research on James Files. We have never accepted hearsay and neither
should you.
Otherwise, you will not be telling the
truth to your students, as is the case of John McAdams.
********
KAR replies, same day:
Bob,
Thanks for your note. Although the idea of
Files as a shooter conflicts with the physical evidence and must be rejected on
those grounds, I will be pleased to beef up my information with the things you
mentioned. This will have the net effect of emphasizing the question about why
people continue to push explanations that conflict with the physical evidence.
As
for your comments on "the truth," please don't forget the provisional
nature of knowledge that is built into this course. Our minds have to be open to
any explanations that are in accord with the (physical) evidence.
RV: I found it interesting that your coverage of James Files ends with
mention of a CIA influenced disinfo piece in the gossip rag known as the NY Post
from 1993.
You fail to acknowledge the clear truths
of the professional, non-biased investigation of James Files. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com>www.jfkmurdersolved.com
You also fail to mention that Files is the
ONLY person ever confessing to participation that has withstood professional
scrutiny.....and passed two VSA tests with flying colors, I might add.
You also fail to mention that our lead on
Files came from the FBI.
If you're planning on teaching young
people the truth about the murder of JFK, I suggest you be a bit more diligent
with your research on James Files. We have never accepted hearsay and
neither should you.
Otherwise, you will not be telling the
truth to your students, as is the case of John McAdams.
************
Vernon replies, same day:
KAR: Bob,
Thanks for your note. Although the idea of
Files as a shooter conflicts with the physical evidence and must be rejected on
those grounds, I will be pleased to beef up my information with the things you
mentioned. This will have the net effect of emphasizing the question about why
people continue to push explanations that conflict with the physical evidence.
James Files' confession does not, in any
manner, conflict with the "physical evidence." Any rejection of our
investigation, which is based on HARD EVIDENCE, as in no conjecture and no
hearsay (factual evidence and information gathered and verified by some of the
top professional investigators in the world) is absurd. We've never cared where
Oswald went to grammar school or about some jerk who ran into Ruby in a bar or
was his shineboy and wrote a book, we focused clearly on the murder itself,
something that was never properly investigated.....by anyone.....particularly
the alphabet agencies.
And please don't "beef up" your
information with just the few tidbits of truth I shared with you this morning,
try reviewing the www.jfkmurdersolved.com
site SERIOUSLY and with a honest open mind and you may well learn some things of
which you may not be presently aware. If you're sincerely interested in
education, don't "cheat on the truth"....tell it all.....every single
shred, positive or not.
You may also want to check out www.toshplumlee.com
and review that site, too. Mr. Plumlee is the second of three actual
participants in the murder of JFK that we have uncovered. Plumlee is also going
to be the subject of some rather intense scrutiny by some of the leading
scholars in the USA in the next few months, so I urge you to share his info with
your students. You will receive a lot more when these scholars complete their
due diligence, I assure you. It will astound you, as it has me, who these
scholars are.
KAR: As for your comments on "the truth," please don't forget
the provisional nature of knowledge that is built into this course. Our minds
have to be open to any explanations that are in accord with the (physical)
evidence.
"Our".......or any
minds....should be in accord with only one simple question: Who fired those
shots and why? Anything else is pure bullshit.....like 99% of the garbage that
has been shoved down our throats by gossipers, rag journalists, folks with
computers that have word processors and the those sorry SOBs with hidden
agendas.
When I busted Jimmy Swaggart, I learned
one thing.....the truth is hard to digest but it sure goes down easy.
**********
KAR replies, same day:
Bob,
First, I must warn you that strong words
like "absurd" and "b-----t" will get you nowhere with me. In
fact, they have the opposite effect, of making me suspect that you are using
them to buttress an argument that you can't support any other way. Ditto for
"some of the top professional investigators in the world," which is so
general as to be meaningless. I assume that the web sites you referenced offer
the specifics that I need, and I look forward to examining them.
Second, I'm not sure what material on
Files you were referring to from my site. I checked just now, and found only
something in Tony Marsh's material, which I have included without comment from
him. Please tell me what you found.
Third, I would like to add you to my
"Critics" section if you don't mind. Could you please provide some
information about yourself? Thanks in advance.
Fourth, it will probably be at least 10-14
days before I can looks at your Files stuff in any detail. I will be away 24
Dec. to 1 Jan., and then again 5-12 Jan. Our spring semester begins four days
after that.
Fifth, I'm not sure of your definition of
physical evidence. It means a physical object accompanied by expert
interpretation, i.e., something that is objectively falsifiable. It includes
photos, film, bullets, wounds, documents, etc. It is my distant impression that
you may have the alleged weapon but no other physical evidence. I will check
that from your web site.
Sixth, the question of who fired the shots
is not the most important question for the JFK assassination. The question of
type and amount of evidence available is. In other words, the first question
should be "How close can we come to the answer, given the available
evidence?" This is what I call the "epistemology of the JFK
assassination." Everybody flounders around because they skip this step.
Again, thanks for writing.
**************
Vernon replies, same day:
KAR: Bob,
First, I must warn you that strong words
like "absurd" and "b-----t" will get you nowhere with me. In
fact, they have the opposite effect, of making me suspect that you are using
them to buttress an argument that you can't support any other way.
I call'em like I see'em. And obviously,
you haven't reviewed our findings and you should. I can support anything I
ever say.
KAR: Ditto for "some of the top professional investigators in the
world," which is so general as to be meaningless.
I call'em like I see'em. And I would call
28 year FBI Special Agent (retired) Zack Shelton, former Organized Crime Task
Force for Chicago and Kansas City (one of the men who busted the Mob in Vegas -
as in the movie "Casino"), the same man who solved the infamous James
Byrd truck dragging vase and the Stardust robbery...........Gary Cornwell, from
the HSCA, Don Ervin (one of the top criminal lawyers in the US), the Kroll
Agency, Lois Gibson, the sketch artist for the FBI, DEA, ATF and other law
enforcement agencies around the world, and others too numerous to
mention....yes, I refer to them as some of the top professional investigators in
the world. And I always will. There is also a gentleman from the Secret Service
involved but I have not met him personally yet.
KAR: I assume that the web sites you referenced offer the specifics that
I need, and I look forward to examining them.
A great majority.....but since our
investigation is still on going....more information floats in daily. We post it
as fast as we can.
KAR: Second, I'm not sure what material on Files you were referring to
from my site. I checked just now, and found only something in Tony Marsh's
material, which I have included without comment from him. Please tell me what
you found.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Conspiracy_theories/Texas_Monthly/Texas_Monthly_The_Consp_Theories.html
KAR: Third, I would like to add you to my "Critics" section if
you don't mind. Could you please provide some information about yourself? Thanks
in advance.
I appreciate that but there has never been
a statue erected for a critic and I respectfully decline. All I ask is for a
fair and honest representation and understanding of what we've accomplished.
We're not fly by nights. This has been hell and it continues to be more so each
day. If you'd like to review my background, I'll be glad to send an Acrobat file
for your review, however, again, I really am not a critic and don't desire to be
one.
KAR: Fourth, it will probably be at least 10-14 days before I can look at
your Files stuff in any detail. I will be away 24 Dec. to 1 Jan., and then again
5-12 Jan. Our spring semester begins four days after that.
No problem. Enjoy your holidays. I come
from a family filled with teachers and I know what you folks endure.
KAR: Fifth, I'm not sure of your definition of physical evidence. It
means a physical object accompanied by expert interpretation, i.e., something
that is objectively falsifiable. It includes photos, film, bullets, wounds,
documents, etc. It is my distant impression that you may have the alleged weapon
but no other physical evidence. I will check that from your web site.
We investigated the crime. And what we
discovered has been investigated - not to be compared with the additional
research - investigated to the fullest and the investigation continues. We have
all of the above...taking up two rooms and some dozen or so file cabinets, not
to mention the trunks and multimedia info. And that's in California. There's
much more in Houston, Dallas, Beaumont, Colorado, Chicago and Washington. We do
NOT have the weapon but we have been very close to it. We have traced it and
verified it but we are still a step or two away. We do have the shell
casing, however.
KAR: Sixth, the question of who fired the shots is not the most important
question for the JFK assassination.
I disagree. Who fired the shots and why is
the only question.
KAR: The question of type and amount of evidence available is. In other
words, the first question should be "How close can we come to the answer,
given the available evidence?"
www.jfkmurdersolved.com
www.toshplumlee.com
After you study the evidence presented,
please be so kind as to vote yes or no for the grand jury while you're on site.
KAR: This is what I call the "epistemology of the JFK
assassination." Everybody flounders around because they skip this step.
I particularly liked:
"Although nearly all researchers of the JFK assassination focus on evidence and theories, the classical minutiae of the case, a small but growing body of scholars are beginning to examine the assassination from very different perspectives. These scholars are much less interested in who did it and how we can know, and most interested in aspects such as how this major twentieth-century event interacted with the rest of our postmodern culture. They are concerned with question such as the kind of discourse that has spring up around it, how its knowledge is organized (relative to knowledge of earlier major historical events), the role of the media in reporting the assassination and its aftermath, how postmodernism and conspiracy theory interacted, and how knowledge about the assassination was (and is being) produced."
In order to truly achieve such understandings and receive this knowledge,
one must study every intelligence issue, the alphabet soup agencies, global
history dating back to Isis, have a definitive understanding of the New World
Order, research the banking and oil industries since their beginning, study
several ethnic groups that are pertinent, totally understand and have
experienced politics on a first hand basis, grasp the control of the media that
is given to us in capsules each night, know the truth about what just happened
in FlorCIAida and that's just to have a basic layman's knowledge. But, hey,
don't all scholars know these things already?
The scholars can create their abstracts of
the effect on post modern culture but they will never have their final
perspective to publish until the case is solved and closed....for real, and not
by some two bit punk lawyer like Posner, who was motivated into writing Case
Closed by the CIA. Then the question will become will our wonderful justice
system, you know the one, the one that O.J. and George Bush appeared
before......do it's job and convict the true criminals. Probably not. LBJ's
sealing all the records for 75 years - particularly the ones we (the public)
have never seen that were transported to Quantico before ARRB convened - pretty
much cinches that. The main culprits are dead anyway although Helms and Maheu
are still breathing, sadly.
FYI - there is a group of scholars
preparing to grill CIA pilot Tosh Plumlee like a cheap hamburger in Feb 2001 in
SF. I am not at liberty to disclose their names but you will recognize
every single one of them I assure you.
KAR: Again, thanks for writing.
My pleasure, Sir.
Hey......do you have a law school up
there? Your JFK class could present the Trial of James Files to your legal
department in a mock trial if you'd like. I could probably get major TV coverage
of that event if you're so inclined. It would be great for your students and
their learning process and it would be a positive PR job for your University.
Maybe even get your Alumni Fund a new donation or two or three. In fact, last
time I talked to Posner, he told me he would represent the Warren Report and
Government stance. Try that one on for size. Your students would be in heaven.
Merry Christmas
************
KAR replies, same day:
KAR: Ditto for "some of the top professional investigators in the
world," which is so general as to be meaningless.
BV: I call'em like I see'em. And I would
call 28 year FBI Special Agent (retired) Zack Shelton, former Organized Crime
Task Force for Chicago and Kansas City (one of the men who busted the Mob in
Vegas - as in the movie "Casino"), the same man who solved the
infamous James Byrd truck dragging vase and the Stardust robbery...........Gary
Cornwell, from the HSCA, Don Ervin (one of the top criminal lawyers in the US),
the Kroll Agency, Lois Gibson, the sketch artist for the FBI, DEA, ATF and other
law enforcement agencies around the world, and others too numerous to
mention....yes, I refer to them as some of the top professional investigators in
the world. And I always will. There is also a gentleman from the Secret Service
involved but I have not met him personally yet.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Conspiracy_theories/Texas_Monthly/Texas_Monthly_The_Consp_Theories.html
OK. I missed the short reference to Files
when I was skimming earlier today.
KAR: Third, I would like to add you to my "Critics" section if
you don't mind. Could you please provide some information about yourself? Thanks
in advance.
BV: I appreciate that but there has never
been a statue erected for a critic and I respectfully decline. All I ask is for
a fair and honest representation and understanding of what we've accomplished.
We're not fly by nights. This has been hell and it continues to be more so each
day. If you'd like to review my background, I'll be glad to send an Acrobat file
for your review, however, again, I really am not a critic and don't desire to be
one.
I want to put you in there anyhow. You are
a critic because you criticize the WC and its Report. At a minimum, it would be
a good way to introduce the material on Files. Please send that Acrobat file. If
I write anything wrong, you tell me and I fix it. Thanks.
KAR: Fifth, I'm not sure of your definition of physical evidence. It
means a physical object accompanied by expert interpretation, i.e., something
that is objectively falsifiable. It includes photos, film, bullets, wounds,
documents, etc. It is my distant impression that you may have the alleged weapon
but no other physical evidence. I will check that from your web site.
BV: We investigated the crime. And what we
discovered has been investigated - not to be compared with the additional
research - investigated to the fullest and the investigation continues. We have
all of the above...taking up two rooms and some dozen or so file cabinets, not
to mention the trunks and multimedia info. And that's in California. There's
much more in Houston, Dallas, Beaumont, Colorado, Chicago and Washington. We do
NOT have the weapon but we have been very close to it. We have traced it and
verified it but we are still a step or two away. We do have the shell casing,
however.
I'll check it out. I am unmoved by sheer
volume of material, especially since very little of the core physical evidence
is needed to get as close to the answer as possible.
KAR: Sixth, the question of who fired the shots is not the most important
question for the JFK assassination.
BV: I disagree. Who fired the shots and
why is the only question.
KAR: The question of type and amount of
evidence available is. In other words, the first question should be "How
close can we come to the answer, given the available evidence?"
BV: www.jfkmurdersolved.com
www.toshplumlee.com
After you
study the evidence presented, please be so kind as to vote yes or no for the
grand jury while you're on site.
OK.
BV: Hey......do you have a law school up there? Your JFK class could
present the Trial of James Files to your legal department in a mock trial if
you'd like. I could probably get major TV coverage of that event if you're so
inclined. It would be great for your students and their learning process and it
would be a positive PR job for your University. Maybe even get your Alumni Fund
a new donation or two or three. In fact, last time I talked to Posner, he told
me he would represent the Warren Report and Government stance. Try that one on
for size. Your students would be in heaven.
URI has no law school. The nearest one is
at Roger Williams University, across the bay. Before I try anything like this, I
must be persuaded that there is something to the Files business, which I am not
yet. I'll let you know more after I check out the web sites.
****************
Vernon replies, same day:
KAR: Bob,
Ditto for "some of the top
professional investigators in the world," which is so general as to be
meaningless.
BV: I call'em like I see'em. And I
would call 28 year FBI Special Agent (retired) Zack Shelton, former Organized
Crime Task Force for Chicago and Kansas City (one of the men who busted the Mob
in Vegas - as in the movie "Casino"), the same man who solved the
infamous James Byrd truck dragging vase and the Stardust robbery...........Gary
Cornwell, from the HSCA, Don Ervin (one of the top criminal lawyers in the US),
the Kroll Agency, Lois Gibson, the sketch artist for the FBI, DEA, ATF and other
law enforcement agencies around the world, and others too numerous to
mention....yes, I refer to them as some of the top professional investigators in
the world. And I always will. There is also a gentleman from the Secret Service
involved but I have not met him personally yet.
KAR: I'm not yet convinced. Gary
Cornwell's recent book on the HSCA was disappointing to me. We'll see what your
web site has to say.
Don't be "convinced" by Gary
Cornwell. He was recently brought into the picture by former FBI special agent
Shelton. I spoke with him at the request of former Agent Shelton and I answered
his questions with Mr. Shelton as a witness. The most important part of his
questioning, according to Mr. Shelton, was when he askled me to clarify where
Files said he was standing behind the fence. When I told him (Cornwell), Shelton
said his eyes got real big and his face lit up. Is Mr. Cornwell important to our
story? No. Is he credible? You tell me. Your personal opinon doesn't matter.
Back up data showing Mr. Cornwell is not sincere does. For now, I'll side with
Agent Shelton until you show me the hard evidence that Cornwell can't be trusted
or is bogus. I found the gentleman to be very straightforward in our
conversation.
BV: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Conspiracy_theories/Texas_Monthly/Texas_Monthly_The_Consp_Theories.html
KAR: OK. I missed the short reference to
Files when I was skimming earlier today.
No problem.
KAR: Third, I would like to add you to my "Critics" section if
you don't mind. Could you please provide some information about yourself?
Thanks in advance.
BV: I appreciate that but there has never
been a statue erected for a critic and I respectfully decline. All I ask is for
a fair and honest representation and understanding of what we've accomplished.
We're not fly by nights. This has been hell and it continues to be more so each
day. If you'd like to review my background, I'll be glad to send an Acrobat file
for your review, however, again, I really am not a critic and don't desire to be
one.
KAR: I want to put you in there anyhow.
You are a critic because you criticize the WC and its Report. At a minimum, it
would be a good way to introduce the material on Files. Please send that Acrobat
file. If I write anything wrong, you tell me and I fix it. Thanks.
We introduced the material on James Files
in 85% of the USA media market almost 7 years ago. We were in the Blockbuster
Top 20 most popular videos in 1996 until the CIA visited our distributor and the
video disappeared – in the middle of a PR campaign with Hard Copy and others -
I might add.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear before
- I do not wish to be included in your web site. You do NOT have my permission
to use my name or likeness or any material of information I have chosen to
provide to you and I want to make that perfectly clear. I am not a critic of the
Warren Report at all. I have read it - in it's entirety - and I agree with noted
criminal attorney Don Ervin who stated, and I quote....."Only a person with
an IQ of 40 or less can believe the Warren Report."
If you want to put something about James
Files on your site, be aware that all - as in ANY AND ALL - of the information
on our site is copyrighted and is the protected intellectual property of Truth,
Truth, Truth, Inc, Robert G. Vernon and dick clark productions of Burbank, Cal.
Providing a link to our www.jfkmurdersolved.comn
site is fine. Anything else is not. Whatever you want to print out of the
"rags" in the media is your business but I would make sure I have
their permission if I were you.
KAR: Fifth, I'm not sure of your definition of physical evidence. It
means a physical object accompanied by expert interpretation, i.e., something
that is objectively falsifiable. It includes photos, film, bullets, wounds,
documents, etc. It is my distant impression that you may have the alleged weapon
but no other physical evidence. I will check that from your web site.
BV: We investigated the crime. And what we
discovered has been investigated - not to be compared with the additional
research - investigated to the fullest and the investigation continues. We have
all of the above...taking up two rooms and some dozen or so file cabinets, not
to mention the trunks and multimedia info And that's in California. There's much
more in Houston, Dallas, Beaumont, Colorado, Chicago and Washington. We do NOT
have the weapon but we have been very close to it. We have traced it and
verified it but we are still a step or two away. We do have the shell
casing, however.
KAR: I'll check it out. I am unmoved by
sheer volume of material, especially since very little of the core physical
evidence is needed to get as close to the answer as possible.
I agree. And while we have a tome of
evidence, the clear simple truth is in a mere handful of documents and various
actions of the US government that we have carefully and clearly documented.
KAR: Sixth, the question of who fired the shots is not the most important
question for the JFK assassination.
BV: I disagree. Who fired the shots and
why is the only question.
KAR: The question of type and amount of
evidence available is. In other words, the first question should be "How
close can we come to the answer, given the available evidence?"
Ask a grand jury. We have a man who
confessed to murder. In living color in stereo sound. He has withstood scrutiny
and a professional non-biased investigation. End of story. The axe hits the log
when a jury of 12 men and women hear the evidence and render their decision.
Anything else is bull manure.
RV: www.jfkmurdersolved.com
www.toshplumlee.com
After you study the evidence presented,
please be so kind as to vote yes or no for the grand jury while you're on site.
KAR: OK.
RV: Hey......do you have a law school up
there? Your JFK class could present the Trial of James Files to your legal
department in a mock trial if you'd like. I could probably get major TV coverage
of that event if you're so inclined. It would be great for your students and
their learning process and it would be a positive PR job for your University.
Maybe even get your Alumni Fund a new donation or two or three. In fact, last
time I talked to Posner, he told me he would represent the Warren Report and
Government stance. Try that one on for size. Your students would be in heaven.
KAR: URI has no law school. The nearest
one is at Roger Williams University, across the bay. Before I try anything like
this, I must be persuaded that there is something to the Files business, which I
am not yet. I'll let you know more after I check out the web sites.
Fair enough. After these scholars finish
with former CIA pilot Plumlee in Feb, they'll probably want to do the trial in
Cal anyway. Don't fret.
****************
11 January 2001
Vernon replies again, after he had read my expanded treatment of him on the web site.
You do not have my permission to use my name, image or likeness on your
website. I have previously informed you of this fact in the past. Take my name
off of your web site or you and your school will be sued.
I am also enclosing the lies about James
Files that you told on your site. I have responded to them. Let's see if you're
man enough to post my response for that is all you have permission to use that
applies to me.
LIES BY KEN RAHN ABOUT THE JAMES FILES CONFESSION
Ken Rahn says: "It is easy to show that James Files is lying by noting multiple violations of the physical evidence. Here are the most important of the violations." LET'S SEE WHO THE LIAR IS: My responses - the truth - follow each of Rahn's falsehoods.
He fired the XP-100 from behind the picket fence on the knoll and hit JFK
in the right temple, just behind his right eye. [There are several
reasons why Kennedy was not hit by a frontal right shot, including the pattern
of backward movement, lack of damage to the left side of the brain, lack of an
exit wound on the right, an entrance wound in only the rear, and a patter of
fragments in the brain connecting an entrance wound in the right rear to an exit
wound in the right center.]
Response: All speculation and will never
be solved until JFK's body is exhumed and examined by non-parital forensic
pathologists of which Ken Rahn is not qualified to render any opinion. There is
clear evidence of a frontal shot. The embalmer's testimony alone backs this up
and the embalmer's testimony is posted at www.jfkmurdersolved.com
for all to see.
That shot blew out 60% of his brain via the lower left rear of his head. [The
left side of Kennedy's head and brain were undamaged.]
Response: This means Ken Rahn has JFK's
brain and can display it to prove his point. Where is it Rahn? Let's see it.
It's been missing for three decades.
He watched the whole thing happening through the scope on the XP-100. [The
XP-100 has such recoil that it flies upward after each shot, making it
impossible to continue looking through the scope.]
Response: The XP-100 has a very powerful
scope and in the hands of a strong, trained assassin, such as Files, there is no
evidence to support Rahn's hearsay based theory.
He watched JFK's body lurch twice from body shots before he or Nicoletti
fired into his head. [Kennedy lurched only after the head shot. Bullets do
not contain enough momentum to lurch a body.]
Response: Gee that's funny, I saw the
Z-film and the body lurched forward when JFK grabbed his throat. I guess you
could say the body moved forward but I would call it a lurch. Guess Rahn didn't
see it.
He saw JFK's head start forward from Nicoletti's shot from the Dal-Tex
Building, then 1/1000 of a second later saw it pitch rearward from his forward
shot. [Superhuman feat, since the eye can't record movement faster than about
1/30th of a second. Files is claiming to have been 30 times faster
than that.]
Response: Mr. Files did not state that he
"saw" Nicoletti's shot. Read the confession. Here Rahn puts words in
Files' mouth. A lot of people try to do that but they are always wrong. The FBI
tried this phony stuff too and we set them straight real fast.
He saw matter and skull being blown out onto the trunk. [Matter was
deposited in the limousine ahead of the Kennedy's, not behind them-Secret
Service.]
Response: What did SS agent Hill pick up
on the trunk?
Motorcycle policemen took fully ten seconds to respond to the shots. [Obvious
nonsense, since the whole thing was over in less than ten seconds, and the
motorcycle policemen had responded well before it was over.]
Response: Files never made a specific
statement of time: He said that "The police officers on the motorcycles, it
took them, I'm going to say maybe ten seconds before they even responded to what
was happening." Note Files said MAYBE.....he was not specific.
Also: In the 1990 View, Inc. documentary
JFK: The Day the Nation Cried, a dismounted motorcycle patrolman can be seen,
moments after the shots were fired, looking toward the knoll and giving every
appearance of trying to spot an armed adversary. He seems to have his pistol
drawn, and he is crouched down and weaving back and forth as if to present a
difficult target. During this time he is intensely scanning the area of the
knoll.
Nobody fired from the sixth floor of the Depository. [Multiple
eyewitnesses to a man with a rifle either standing there or firing. All
ballistic markings on the bullets and fragments match the sixth-floor rifle to
the exclusion of all other rifles.]
Response: James Files never said that
"Nobody fired from the sixth floor." This is a lie from Ken Rahn. Rahn
is putting words into Files' mouth. What Files said was:
"Q: Somebody had to fire from that
6th floor according to the trajectory. Was there anybody else up there with him
or do you know?
A: As far as I know there was nobody up
there. I did not even know Lee Harvey Oswald was up there. Now when you're
standing at a place like that...it's hard to tell where the noise is coming
from...you've got echoes...you've got all these people...your sound is being
muffled....but at this point, I don't even know Lee Harvey Oswald is in the
Texas Book Depository Building there...I have no even knowledge of that at that
point....the last time I saw him was the day before."
He saw Jack Ruby, Frank Sturgis, and Eugene Brading in Dealey Plaza just
before the assassination. [Jack Ruby was by multiple accounts at the offices
of the Dallas Morning News; none of the three are shown by photos of the site to
have been there.]
Response: Again, Rahn puts false words
into Files' mouth: Files saw Ruby earlier that morning before the assassination
and he also saw him in Ft. Worth when he took Rosselli to meet him. Frank
Sturgis was seen by Files and for what it's worth, the FBI interviewed Sturgis
about Files before Sturgis died. Files saw Brading TALKING to Rosselli in front
of the hotel at about 7:30 am that morning. Ken Rahn is a liar.
He saw Lee Harvey Oswald the day before
the assassination. [He could not have-Oswald worked at the Depository that
day and drove to Irving with Buell Wesley Frazier right after work.]
Response: We checked the time line on Oswald
with Mary Ferell. It is possible that Files and Oswald could have seen each
other on that day. We also make note of page 588 of either vol 25 or vol 26 of
the WCR where it is reported that Oswald was seen in a field firing guns with a
teenager. Go look at the picture of James Files at the web site. At age 21, he
certainly looks like a teenager.
He met Jack Ruby at a pancake house in Ft. Worth the morning of the
assassination. [Serious studies of Ruby's movements show that he did not go
to Ft. Worth that morning.]
Response: That is not true. Ruby was out
of pocket between 7 and approximately 9 AM when he was seen in the area by a
Dallas policman. This has been verified. Again Rahn lies to you.
The route of the motorcade was changed at the last minute to include the
leg on Elm Street that would slow it down and make it vulnerable to
assassination. [The route was not changed at the last minute. It was approved
on Monday the 18th of November and published in the newspaper the next day.]
Response: Ruby met Rosselli to give them
the accurate map of the route. I doubt if these hitmen stood around reading
newspapers. Rosselli had just gotten to town and DID NOT see the previous week's
newspapers anyway. It's that simple.
Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill Patrolman Tippit. [The evidence that he
did, both direct and circumstantial, physical and testimonial, is even stronger
than for him killing the president.]
Response: Not true again. This guy does
nothing but lie. The Tippit murder is even more confusing than JFK's.
Eyewitnesses stories don't jive and the evidence on the 38 casings and bullets
in Tippit are puzzling and not conclusive at all.
He did not see Zapruder. [Impossible to miss a man and his secretary
standing so near his. His line of sight to the motorcade as it rounded the turn
onto Elm Street would have intercepted Zapruder and his secretary.]
Response: Not true. Zap would have been to
Files' left rear shoulder and back of it. It is highly possible that Files
didn't notice Zap.
He called it the XP-2100.
Response: Another blatnat lie. James Files
has never referred to the Fireball as the XP-2100 in his confession or
otherwise. Ken Rahn is a liar.
Oswald knew how to drive. [He didn't know how-Ruth Paine was giving
him driving lessons.]
Response: We have docmentation of Oswald
having a driver's license. Files also had earlier encounters with Oswald in
Louisiana where Ozwald transferred rifles onto a military truck and drove off.
Oswald had top secret clearance from the military. [His clearance was
only "confidential," the lowest possible, and that was revoked when he
was sent to the brig for a month.]
Response: What Files said was:
"there's no way this country is going to give them a visa to go anywhere
near Russia...they photograph every man going in and out of the embassy in
Mexico...all your embassies are watched....we watch them they watch us....back
then...even today...they've never stopped watching each other. Nobody runs into
another embassy without being spotted right away. They're under constant
surveillance. And if you had a top secret clearance like Lee Harvey Oswald did,
you just don't jump on a plane and fly off to a foreign country especially to a
communist country unless somebody engineered it and set it up for you to go to
give disinformation. Why Lee Harvey Oswald went to Russia, I'll never know and
personally I never asked him when I knew him. They used to have an old saying
curiosity killed the cat. All my life, I've never been curious. I've never asked
people who they're dealing with or what they've done."
So what.....James was
speculating........he makes it clear he didn't know and he didn't ask. Unlike
Ken Rahn, James Files didn't lie.
The ironic part of this false
disinformation by Rahn is that he is supposed to be a teacher of children like
"Professor" McAdams. Is it truly possible that we have our children
being taught lies by their college professors? I believe it is.
*******************
14 January 2001
KAR responds:
Bob,
BV: You do not have my permission to use my name, image or likeness on
your website. I have previously informed you of this fact in the past. Take my
name off of your web site or you and your school will be sued.
You either are kidding or don't know much
about the law. I am legally free to use your name, to link to your site, to
write about you, and to comment on your work just as long as I don't defame you
or infringe upon your copyrights. I trust you will agree that I have done
neither of these last two things, nor will I. If you don't believe this first
sentence, I will be happy to have the university's lawyer contact you directly
and spell it all out. But if I were you, I wouldn't take this course because he
can be very direct about these things. He and our university hold academic
freedom near and dear. Anyone who enters the public arena, as you have, must be
prepared to be the subject of legitimate public comment. Anyhow, where are your
suits against Dave Perry and John McAdams, both of whom mention you and your
efforts numerous times on their sites?
I also note with interest your liberal use
of my name on your site. Evidently what's good for the goose is not good for the
gander. I further note that you refer to me far more harshly than I refer to
you. Again, consider the continuing effect on your reputation.
BV: I am also enclosing the lies about James Files that you told on your
site. I have responded to them. Let's see if you're man enough to post my
response for that is all you have permission to use that applies to me.
You really don't know much about me, do
you? Time permitting, I post all comments pro and con on my web site. I am not
afraid of what other people say, because most of it is wrong. If they are right,
I admit it, fix the site, and move on. So I have already posted your comments in
their entirety. Unfortunately, the version you sent me was hard to read, so I
used the colored version from your site. This will be much easier for the
students to follow, and that's what we want, right?
I have also posted a list of differences
between your transcript of the interview and the videotape of it. Very
interesting, indeed. I will be happy to post any response you care to make. I
went through this exercise because you challenged Files's use of XP-2100, which
is very clearly on the tape but is altered in the transcript. Denying what is on
the tape will further erode your credibility in the long run.
********************
Vernon responds, same day:
KAR: Bob,
BV: You do not have my permission to use
my name, image or likeness on your website. I have previously informed you of
this fact in the past. Take my name off of your web site or you and your school
will be sued.
KAR: You either are kidding or don't know
much about the law. I am legally free to use your name, to link to your site, to
write about you, and to comment on your work just as long as I don't defame you
or infringe upon your copyrights. I trust you will agree that I have done
neither of these last two things, nor will I. If you don't believe this first
sentence, I will be happy to have the university's lawyer contact you directly
and spell it all out. But if I were you, I wouldn't take this course because he
can be very direct about these things. He and our university hold academic
freedom near and dear. Anyone who enters the public arena, as you have, must be
prepared to be the subject of legitimate public comment. Anyhow, where are your
suits against Dave Perry and John McAdams, both of whom mention you and your
efforts numerous times on their sites?
I also note with interest your liberal use
of my name on your site. Evidently what's good for the goose is not good for the
gander. I further note that you refer to me far more harshly than I refer to
you. Again, consider the continuing effect on your reputation.
BV: I am also enclosing the lies about
James Files that you told on your site. I have responded to them. Let's see if
you're man enough to post my response for that is all you have permission to use
that applies to me.
KAR: You really don't know much about me,
do you? Time permitting, I post all comments pro and con on my web site. I am
not afraid of what other people say, because most of it is wrong. If they are
right, I admit it, fix the site, and move on. So I have already posted your
comments in their entirety. Unfortunately, the version you sent me was hard to
read, so I used the colored version from your site. This will be much easier for
the students to follow, and that's what we want, right?
I have also posted a list of differences
between your transcript of the interview and the videotape of it. Very
interesting, indeed. I will be happy to post any response you care to make. I
went through this exercise because you challenged Files's use of XP-2100, which
is very clearly on the tape but is altered in the transcript. Denying what is on
the tape will further erode your credibility in the long run.
I'm not a liar. You are.
[The following paragraphs are one of Bob Vernon’s messages to alt.conspiracy.jfk—KAR.]
KAR: One of the things I have learned in life is that the more somebody
howls, the closer my remarks are to the mark.
One of the things I've learned in life is
that the guilty dog barks first....and loudest. You barked first and loudest. I
don't even know Rahn nor do I know anything about Rahn other than he deals with
oceans.
You created a private rapport with me and
asked me to be one of your "critics." I told you that I was not
interested in doing that and I told you, in writing, that you did not have
permission to use my name, image or likeness in any way on your website. You did
so anyway.
You may recall that I also told you that
you could link our site if you so desired. Any other usage of our proprietary
information by anyone without our expressed written consent is in violation of
Federal law and be ye so advised.
You do not have our written consent and I
reserve all rights therein.
KAR: By that standard, my very brief list of ways in which James Files's
"confession" violates the physical evidence in the JFK case must have
hit really close, for Bob Vernon has posted a reply full of bombast and little
else. He bobs (no pun intended), he weaves, he screams, he answers questions
with questions, he addresses questions other than those asked, but the one thing
he doesn't do is present physical evidence to counter any of my remarks.
I answered your questions and the manner
in which I provided those answers to you is solely at my discretion. Our
physical evidence is very complex and massive and it will take more than a
single web site to comprehend, which leads me to wonder why you would go off
"half-cocked" in the first place WITHOUT having reviewed all the
evidence or by even addressing the questions to me so that I could provide you
with the answers. You did not do that.
You are the one that lurched forward, not
I. I merely addressed your questions, no matter how false, uneducated or honest
they were. I leave it up to you and your "degrees" to comprehend.
KAR: I'm not going to bother with a detailed reply to his comments,
either here or on my site, because it isn't worth the effort. Trust me that his
comments are nonreplies.
Your question, and the comments/statements
which were attached, to the greater extent were lies. If anything, your
questions were non-questions. You became an attack dog based on the premise of
something of which you know nothing about nor have you reviewed all of our
evidence as I have pointed out to you. If you were "responsible" - as
journalists like to say – you would have acted as I stated above. You did not
do so.
I also question Rahn's use of the term
"trust me." My 54 years of life have proven to me, time and time
again, to seriously doubt ANYONE who says "trust me." Rahn is
certainly no exception.
KAR: One of his answers is worth commenting on, however. I had written
that Files called the Fireball the XP-2100, and Bob responded vigorously (to put
it mildly) that Files had done no such thing, either in his
"confession" or elsewhere. He then accused me of lying (which seems to
be his favorite word these days). In so doing, he smoked me out. Bob, I recently
took the time to check every word of your transcript of the
"confession" as it appears on your site by following along while
playing the tape. I found all sorts of discrepancies in the transcript, of which
"XP-2100" is one of the more interesting. The first time Files
discussed the weapon, and the only time he referred to it by number, he called
it the XP-2100, but the transcript reports it as XP-100, which is the correct
designation. So, Bob, I'm not wrong, and I'm not lying. You are either
inadvertently wrong (having forgotten what's on your own tape), or lying with
bombast. Which is it?
To provide you with an example of our
degree of integrity and honor, after I read your statement above, I took the
time to take James' confession from the archives and screen it for the first
time in 4 years. You are correct that he said "2100" at the beginning
segment of my questions on the Fireball.
As a professional producer of
entertainment for over 40 years, I then asked myself how could we (or I) have
missed that in the many times we had viewed and made notes on the confession. I
then rewound the tape to the beginning of that segment and stood in front of my
fireplace, eyes closed, head down and listened very closely to the entire
dialogue and the sequence of the conversation, just as I would on a music master
recording for marketing or voice over work, as I have done on hundreds if not
thousands of recordings throughout my life.
I noted that there is a long string of
numerical references to the .221 and .222 Fireball, with regard to shell size,
barrels, model, make, etc in approximately a 30 second time period....I did not
have a stop watch so I did not time it. I have no reason to doubt that James
Files knows that it is a XP-100 and I have no idea whatsoever why he would say
2100 instead of 100. He possibly could have simply made a speaking error and
said 2100 because the weapon fired 221 shells. I also noted that several gun
experts refer to the Fireball as a 22-250 and I do not know what that means
either, I do not know why Files said it and I wont, and never have, put words
into Files' mouth.
The most important point here is that the
oversight is unintentional. I am the one that proof read the transcript against
the taped version, It is my error, not Files'. It is also unimportant. You will
also note that Files talked extensively about the Remington Fireball and several
of its numerous attributes. You may also note that his knowledge of the Fireball
is highly accurate and all the arms experts that we have interviewed have
concurred including world champion Fireball shooters, Army and government
intelligence officers who utilized the weapon, snipers, the inventor of the
Fireball and others.
Here's just one shooter's newsgroup
response that may provide readers with further information and also answers one
of Rahn's false statements about the Fireball scope and recoil:
Date: 11/20/00-17:28
Who: Vapor Trail
Reply to this message
View This Topic
90012: Remington xp 100
Sagerat: I have had 4 XP100's over the years, a 221 fireball a
.223,a7mmBr and the one I currently have in 22-250. If you put a good scope on
it and practice with it, it will outshoot any 35 Rem rifle you'll ever come up
against. If it is an XP 100R that means it is a repeater and has the rear grip.
The XP100R also has a trigger that adjusts the same as a model 700. The older
XP's with the center grips were single shots and had a trigger with linkage
attached to it.I never shot a 35 REM in an XP 100 but as heavy as they are,
recoil won't be much of a problem. 5 shot groups of under 1 inch are not
uncommon for a out of the box XP and an experienced shooter.
VAPOR
KAR: Since he challenged me so strongly on this issue, I have decided to
go ahead and report some of the other discrepancies that I found. I hope to post
the points on my web site, and probably here as well, within a couple of days.
Post anything you want as long as you
don't use my name, image or likeness without my expressed written consent (which
you already have done) or you don't infringe upon our copyrighted materials for
which you will be sued. If it's a lie, then you will be called on it and
confronted with the truth. If it's a honest question, it will be answered.
Also be advised that since you have chosen
to confront me publicly as opposed to privately, which is what a professional
with any integrity whatsoever would have done, I may not be able to provide you
with all of our evidence for much of it is considered classified by us and by
the authorities until such time as we make such classified evidence public.
KAR: Other points that I suspect readers will find interesting is where
Mr. Vernon coaches Files on what to say. These "hints" also do not
appear in the transcript. If anyone doubts my accuracy, they are welcome to
compare videotape and transcript for themselves.
This is perhaps Rahn's most blatant lie
but certainly not his only one. James Files was not coached in any manner, shape
or form by me or anyone else. I am a producer. I think in studio terms such as
edit points, fade points, FX inserts, cutaways, that sort of thing. For readers
not aware of edit points, be advised that when any good producer or director is
shooting what we call "acquisition footage" - the producer/director is
mentally aware of how the product will be edited and presented in its final
form. Again, I am a producer/director.
Many times during the interview, Files
would start an answer before I finished my question and I would stop him and ask
him to start over, simply because I am aware of edit points. And very much so.
When I interviewed Files the first time
there were two cameras going, a left position and a right position. The majority
of the footage in the released interview is from the right position camera. Even
when we paused or Files asked for a pause, the left position cam remained on to
document what was said during the pause.
As a producer, I viewed the final edit and
the edit points as being clean....or in professional terms......good clear edits
that were clear to the viewer as to what Files was talking about. Several times,
Files' answers did not reflect what the question topic was and I stopped him and
told him to start the sentence over, even giving him the question topic so it
would be clear what his answer was about.
James Files was not coached or led. His
interview was honest and let me point out that two witnesses were present, the
cameraman and a clinical services man from the prison. They were present at all
times and can verify what I'm telling you now if you so desire.
For Rahn to imply or even insinuate mildly
or in an form that Files was coached is false and is a lie. It did not happen.
It also brings Rahn's motives and personal credibility into serious question. If
Rahn's motive is honesty, he falls short...way short. If his intent is to prove
Files to be a liar or a hoax, he has accomplished even less. If he is attempting
to discredit Files, he has failed, as have dozens of others.
To further present my point, let me add
that my questions were never intended to be in the final edit. We put no
emphasis whatsoever on the quality of my voice on the tape, we set a mic in
front of Files and put a lavelier (lapel) mic on him. During the course of the
final production we decided to include the entire unedited interview - and we
did - so that viewers could see and hear for themsleves every single word that
was said.
Another point which Rahn did not bring up,
and I can certainly understand why, is that I seriously questioned Files on his
stating he received $15,000 when he told us earlier that he had received
$30,000. If I was "coaching" Files or if I was fabricating a
"hoax" I would never have brought this question to public light. Were
I dishonest, I would have let it slide and never posed the confrontation to
Files. Think about that folks, that's a very important issue. We examined Files
two different statements here at great length. There is one simple conclusion:
bring one person forth that will tell the truth about the amount of cash he or
she receives/received when there are no records, receipts or evidence and when
they are involved with Mafia and CIA related activities. If and when you find
such a person, I will personally take them over to the local IRS building and
then to the U.S. Senate so they can tell the IRS and the Senate the truth. Any
takers? Anyone? I didn't think so.
We demand honesty in our investigation and
we also demand honesty in people who question or criticize our investigation.
Rahn is no exception and he has been much less than honest in his allegations
and assertions and we will continue to hold his feet to the fire whenever we so
desire.
There are other parts of Rahn's ramblings
that concern us greatly. If he were sincere in his research of Files, why would
he not have contacted me personally and addressed his questions to me as opposed
to coming out publicly in an effort to make James Files look like a liar. That's
a man with a hidden agenda, folks.
My point here is further exemplified by
his "bio" on me which was provided to Rahn through the ramblings of
former CIA case officer John Stockwell. John Stockwell does not know me nor does
he know anything about me. Stockwell trashed us to McAdams at Marquette becasue
Stockwell was upset that we would not let him "write the book" due to
the fact that Stockwell had problems with the CIA censoring the contents and
seizing any profits. McAdams also posted this same stuff which I have answered
many times without McAdams posting my answers. Were Rahn (and McAdams for that
matter) sincere and a professional, he (they) would have asked me for a bio on
myself and I would have given him (them) one. Instead, he (they) posts info on
me provided to a third party by another party who just happens to be a CIA case
officer in collusion with a known CIA funded think tanker ....PLEASE! That's
called hearsay, folks. It doesn't even hold up in a court of law. It is also
referred to in certain circles as "disinfo."
Rahn continuously uses the term
"physical evidence." Does his term imply the Warren Report, the HSCA,
What? The evidence in the government reports on JFK's public execution is so
mired by controversy, changes, recanting, confusion, medical improbability, etc.
that I don't think anyone really knows what the "physical evidence"
is. Certainly not Rahn. If he means that we are to look at the Warren Report to
compare it to what we've found, I would advise him to seek mental aid for he is
in need of it. Our evidence is new and unique and has taken many years at great
expense to uncover. It is not controlled by any government nor is it fabricated
in any manner. Our findings are totally impartial. We seek only the truth. It's
there, it's what it is and it stand until it is disproved.
Of even greater importance is that our
evidence is in video, document, and testimony forms so until it is all clearly
presented and clearly understood by any or all people or authorities that review
it, it is impossible to be a critic or to suggest anything at all, particularly
whether it is true or false. It must be examined, it must be evaluated but above
all it must ALL be presented.
That fact alone, disqualifies any of the
critics or opinions that we've seen thus far and until a Grand Jury hears ALL of
our evidence, and that is clearly our goal, no conclusion is valid nor can it
be. That alone is troubling with Rahn's false allegations and lies and with
anyone else's false allegations and lies. Think about that. For that's the real
bottom line.
One last two-part question for Ken Rahn:
Part 1: Have you ever been involved with,
or accepted money, from any project directly involved with or funded by the US
government or the FBI/CIA/NSC?
Part 2: Will you provide me with your
notarized permission to gain access to any files that the CIA, FBI and NSC have
on you through the Freedom of Information Act? (Note: I will be happy to provide
you with my notarized permission to seek any files on me in the possession of
the FBI/CIA and NSC under FOIA).
******************
From here, the discussion moved completely to the newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk.