Bruce, Jimmy's army serial number

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: Bob, Phil Dragoo, Dealey Joe, kenmurray, dankbaar

Bruce, Jimmy's army serial number

Postby dankbaar » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:19 pm

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/armyserial.JPG


Bruce , could you please ask Jimmy if he gave his army sreial number to John Grady? Is that the serial number, the one Grady found a claim file for and the name James E. Files, the serial number that Jimmy confirms to be his? Did he give Grady the number to go and find a record? Or did Grady find the number based on his name name search. Also, what is Jimmy explanation that Grady found this number under James E. Files if Jimmy went into the army as Sutton.

This would be most helpful if Jimmy could answer these questions.

Wim
The allies of evil are ignorance, apathy and the wish to not believe.
User avatar
dankbaar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:27 pm

Response To Mr. Wim Dankbaar:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:02 pm

Dear Mr. Wim Dankbaar, and Fellow JFK Members,

I have just reviewed your above referenced post.

Wim, next week when I have lunch with Jimmy, I will add this to our
Weekly Agenda. I will only pursue this because of you, Wim.

Just a few thoughts, and questions, though, first.

Jimmy and I have always believed that when Jimmy changed his name with CIA and David Atlee Phillips help in 1963, after the JFK Assassination,
that the CIA blended parts of his files, "washed" other parts, and totally deleated some. Obviously, at that point in time there were no computers, no emails, no faxes, and no cell phones, yet. Therefore, the CIA and Military efforts were obviously not complete. Later, after some information was found, shortly thereafter, all of Jimmy's records disappeared under both names. Who had the power to do this on such a broad scope, so completely, after Jimmy's First Interview ?

Obviously, the CIA, and the National Security Claim, indicated to me that anything left is probably not true, or was "washed," if not deleated.

For my benefit, please explain why this is so important, since frankly I don't care. Regardless of the answer, 100 more questions will arise.

Jimmy's positon has been that "I fired the shot from the Grassy Knoll on
November 22, 1963. I have given substantial verification. Regardless of what I say, some will doubt me, and my story."

Jimmy no longer cares who believes, or disbelieves his story. Take it, or leave it.

As I have said before, Jimmy and I have moved way, way, way beyond the JFK Assassination. Other than Wim's questions, which I respect, Jimmy and I go for months never discussing the JFK Assassination.

I invite Responses from Fellow JFK Forum Members.

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 

Postby Paul » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:49 am

Dear Bruce Brychek,

Thanks for your answer and make it more clear for us!
And thanks that you will ask this Jimmy next week, I'm curious what he has to say about all this.

Gr. Paul.
Paul
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:55 am

Postby francois bertrand » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:32 pm

Dear Mr Brychek,

i can understand your point of view (and Mr Files) to not speak anymore about that. That must be overwhelming with time to repeat over and over the same old things. Being close friend of Mr Files, you're in a very good seat. I'm sure you know things we don't know... maybe we are just too curious. Maybe we think, wow... if it was me, I could be part of the History...and it is probably not what Mr. Files thinks... Anyway, i believe him and i look now for a second team of shooters.... reading, searching....
lot of work !
François
User avatar
francois bertrand
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Québec Canada

Postby dankbaar » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:40 pm

Bruce, I agree with you.

The essence is basically that the lack of more information on this issue, is giving me some headache with a few relentless discreditors, now also joined by Tosh.


They focus on this aspect of Jimmy's story specifically. I cannot know whether they will be satisfied about his credibility if Jimmy's military service is proven convincingly to them. Maybe, maybe not. On the other hand I don't see any risk or reason for Jimmy not to answer these questions.

Basically I too want to know if the serial number and claim file number that Grady came up with, is the one Jimmy confirms to be his serial number. And if so, did Jimmy give it to him first? If not, why not?

In simple language the question is: What is Jimmy's army service number according to Jimmy?

Wim
The allies of evil are ignorance, apathy and the wish to not believe.
User avatar
dankbaar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:27 pm

Reply To Wim, Paul and Francois:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:27 pm

Dear Messers. Wim Dankbaar, Paul, Francois Bertrand, and Fellow JFK Forum Members,

Thank You for your responses, which I have just read.

First, some comments that I have made before. I am Jimmy's oldest, closest living friend. And yes, I know many, many other things. I am in a different position than everybody - and note that I am not saying that I am better than anybody. Jimmy is My Best Friend, through thick or thin, good or bad. I have gone through almost the last 40 years knowing much. But today when I see all of the arguing. back stabbing, lying, cheating, deceiving, falsification, dis-information, etc., etc., etc., it only makes me want to protect Jimmy, and his wishes even more.

Simultaneously, I have become Great Friends with Mr. Wim Dankbaar, who I think is one of the greatest, if not the greatest living authority on the JFK Assassination, and matters related thereto. And his knowledge and expertise continue to grow daily. In fact, when I need facts or information on something that Jimmy does not know, Wim, Dan Marvin, and Judyth Vary Baker are my direct authorities and souces that I trust almost as much as Jimmy. And Wim Dankbaar is My Absoulute Greatest Authority on anything that Jimmy does not have direct or indirect knowledge about.

Humbly, I can give Mr. Wim Dankbaar no greater endorsement - and practically speaking, from me, he deserves no less.

Also, I trust Wim. Small words, but powerful. Jimmy and I have both told Wim major confidential information that we have asked Wim to not repeat at this time to protect living sources who want to protect themselves, and their families. And even though often criticized, Wim has never broken our confidences. To me, that makes Wim Dankbaar the quality of a friend that he has been to both Jimmy, and myself.

Within these two philosophies I try to function on the JFK Forum, to assist Wim, and to maintain the integrity of Jimmy's two (2) interviews.

And on my own personal level I have met and communicated with some JFK Forum Members that I would really like to meet, especially if we can create the JFK Forum Annual Meeting, which, by the way, only a few have even expressed an interest in attending.

Also understand the frustration that Wim expresses here, and multiply that by 10,000, and you can begin to understand the frustration that Jimmy faces, and lives with daily.

The Best Times Jimmy and I have had usually is when nothing about JFK comes up. Yet I understand when Francois Bertrand states his sincere interests. And Francois, I Thank You for your sincerity, and therefore I try to show you equal sincerity in my response.

Now, with all of that said, Wim, I of course will talk to Jimmy about all of this. And while I respect everybody else, it is only because of my friendship, respect, trust, and admiration for Wim that I will approach this.

However, I am making no promises to anybody as far as results.

I hope that I make sense. Wim, My Friend, I think you will understand my response.

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 

Re: Bruce, Jimmy's army serial number

Postby Paul » Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:26 pm

dankbaar wrote:http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/armyserial.JPG


Bruce , could you please ask Jimmy if he gave his army sreial number to John Grady? Is that the serial number, the one Grady found a claim file for and the name James E. Files, the serial number that Jimmy confirms to be his? Did he give Grady the number to go and find a record? Or did Grady find the number based on his name name search. Also, what is Jimmy explanation that Grady found this number under James E. Files if Jimmy went into the army as Sutton.

This would be most helpful if Jimmy could answer these questions.

Wim


Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Dear Mr. Wim Dankbaar, and Fellow JFK Members,

I have just reviewed your above referenced post.

Wim, next week when I have lunch with Jimmy, I will add this to our
Weekly Agenda. I will only pursue this because of you, Wim.


Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.


Dear Bruce,

Did you already have lunch with Jimmy and asked him Wim's questions?
Just curious...

Gr. Paul.
Paul
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:55 am

Response To Paul:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:38 am

Dear Paul,

I have lunch with Jimmy 1 - 2 times a week,and spend from 2 - 10 hours
with him weekly.

Please understand that we have from 200 - 300 items on our weekly agenda on matters that we are working on, pirvately and/or confidentially.

I brought the Serial Number question up, and Jimmy just laughed, asking me: "What would that prove ?" "Bruce, if these JFK researchers are so interested, let them request this information from the CIA, DIA, and NSA,
and watch what happens to them ?" "The attention paid to them for the reat of their lives will verify the fact that I am telling the truth."

Paul, perhaps not the answer your wanted, but an answer nonetheless.

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 

Re: Response To Paul:

Postby Paul » Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:14 am

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Dear Paul,

I brought the Serial Number question up, and Jimmy just laughed, asking me: "What would that prove ?" "Bruce, if these JFK researchers are so interested, let them request this information from the CIA, DIA, and NSA,
and watch what happens to them ?" "The attention paid to them for the reat of their lives will verify the fact that I am telling the truth."

Paul, perhaps not the answer your wanted, but an answer nonetheless.

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.


Dear Bruce,

Mustn't Jimmy show some more respect towards Wim, in stead off sharing Wim along with "these JFK researchers"?
And it was Wim (not me) who had the Army serial number-question which made you ask this to Jimmy....

Gr. Paul.
Paul
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:55 am

Postby dankbaar » Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:35 pm

Bruce,

Why would Jimmy not just answer the question? Why would he not give his serial number? What's the risk, if any? I don't understand. Merely by evading the answer, Jimmy is undermining his credibility in my opinion, even if it does not prove anything.

Is his serial number the same number that John Grady found a record and claim number for? What's the problem in confirming that?

Wim
The allies of evil are ignorance, apathy and the wish to not believe.
User avatar
dankbaar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:27 pm

Reply Re: Jimmy's Serial Number:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:09 pm

Dear Mr. Wim Dankbaar, and Fellow JFK Forum Members,

The short version of Jimmy's answer is that he is tired of answering any and all questions anymore. This benefits him in no way, shape, or form.

Believe him, don't believe him.

He has provided more than enough information.

Jimmy is very concerned with his other projects.

He has asked me to answer no more questions, for any reason.

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 

Postby Paul » Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:56 pm

Bruce,

I am a supporter of Wim's work and have always believed James Files is the real deal. But an answer like this : "Believe him or don't" doesn't show the respect that you and Jimmy frequently express about Wim, at least not in my opinion. I think it is vital that Jimmy gives a satisfactory answer to this simple question, and that you help Jimmy see the importance of answering it. If not for any other reason than the truth, then just the circumstance that you are Wim's trusted friend, as you say you are, would be a good enough as a reason.

Gr. Paul.
Paul
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:55 am

Serial #

Postby Jim Thompson » Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:15 pm

Paul wrote:Bruce,

I am a supporter of Wim's work

Gr. Paul.


I believe that most members are supporters of Wim's work. Exceptions are Rick, Cindy & other disinformation birds. In the case of Jimmy's disinclination to reveal his serial number there may be another reason: danger. Remember Jimmy has been advised. Bruce can correct this point as needed.

Of course Wim is simply trying to validate Jimmy's story by refuting certain critics. But aren't those critics the same disinformation bogeys who we have seen? Maybe it is not necessary to force this point. After all, the preponderance of the evidence is convincing enough. For example, is Frenchy really Charles Rogers? Maybe not. So does that destroy Chauncey Holt's info. No.

What say you, Bruce?
Last edited by Jim Thompson on Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jim Thompson
 

Re: Serial #

Postby Paul » Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:57 pm

Jim Thompson wrote:For example, is Frenchy really Charles Roberts?


Hi Jim,

I think you meant Charles Rogers in stead off Charles Roberts?

Gr. Paul.
Paul
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:55 am

Postby dankbaar » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:53 pm

I believe that most members are supporters of Wim's work. Exceptions are Rick, Cindy & other disinformation birds. In the case of Jimmy's disinclination to reveal his serial number there may be another reason: danger. Remember Jimmy has been advised. Bruce can correct this point as needed.




I think it is important. Why would Jimmy assist John Grady with this ("a very nice man") and not me? If he has a good reason, then so be it, but then I would like to know the reason. I remember I have asked the question about 2 years ago and Jimmy expressed concern that the military could revive his court marshal, that he killed two of his own men. I have been thinking about that, but it is inconceivable to me. That would CONFIRM his military service for sure, so this will never be done.


Of course Wim is simply trying to validate Jimmy's story by refuting certain critics. But aren't those critics the same disinformation bogeys who we have seen? Maybe it is not necessary to force this point.


Well, the problem I have, is that this is one piece of tangible information that is easy to give with no visible risk for Jimmy. I would like to undesrtand why Jimmy is reluctant, especially because he has provided assitance on this before, and also because he has expressed gratitude to me for defending his integrity. Therefore, I believe I am entitled to a little more cooperation on this issue.


After all, the preponderance of the evidence is convincing enough. For example, is Frenchy really Charles Roberts? Maybe not. So does that destroy Chauncey Holt's info. No.


It would destroy Chauncey's info yes, if he had said it was Charles Rogers, but that's not what he said. He said he knew that person as "Carlos Montoya", and that he can't guarantee it was in fact Rogers (which I am sure is the case).

What say you, Bruce?
The allies of evil are ignorance, apathy and the wish to not believe.
User avatar
dankbaar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:27 pm

Next

Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron