Talk:James Files

message: All references to Oliphant (the OSS Keeper of Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby) Files Boss are off limits, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.49.27 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Files Boss Oliphant 

message: Interesting article that does what you suggest it does - present CLAIMS.
However - what possible authentication is there for the photo allegedly taken by Oswald of Files in the Dallas motel? Can an irrefutable chain of evidence create such a link? No doubt it is Files where he claims to be, but the photographer could have been anyone. What ties it to Oswald?Sensei48 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well....That photo is supposed to be part of a set taken by Oswald. Unfortunately, just the one has been available publicly. Until we see whats available in the other pictures (from the SAME ROLL OF FILM mind you), there really is no way to tell who took it. Goldwings 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Files Photo By Oswald? 

message: Well, its looking like no one wants this article on Wikipedia anymore. So, I'm going to keep the article up until May 1st 2007, after which time I will permanantly delete  and redirect to Kennedy Assassination theories. If Mr Wim Dankbaar, or anyone else wishes to step up and take over afterwards, be my guest. Until then, this is your friendly neighborhood author....signing off ;-) Goldwings 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, after thinking it over...I've decided NOT to delete this page. I will simply no longer monitor it, nor edit it. It's now wide open for anyone who wishes to take over, can now edit, add, and delete as they please! Goldwings 13:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of Deletion

message: I've tagged this with a disputed-neutrality tag, because I don't think it gives a particularly accurate view of how people see Files and his testimony.  Certainly many people believe him, but the article presents it as if it's universally believed, while it appears to be a minority view---no official government body does, of course, and even among "alternative theories" explanations, the view that Files killed Kennedy is a minority. --Delirium 06:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do have a point, but there are some things I would like to point out. You will find, throughout the article, that I've put "Files claims...." or "Files states...." before a statement, to prevent any arguments about the point of view. This tells the readers that those are his claims, and his claims only. That does not mean that it's 100% true. If I had a time machine to go back and see those events, then we could say its 100% true or false. Another thing I will point out, is that I've included links to pages that show the opposing arguments. Some opposing arguments are completely made up (such as Files was in Chicago that day, or the twin brother story), and it would be criminal of me to leave those in as if they are fact. However, there is always room for improvement. I'm going to leave the tag up for now, and I'll refine the article in a more neutral manner later tonight. Goldwings 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I've looked over the article 3 times. I don't know where to make a more neutral stance. As far as I can tell, I've put "According to..." or "Files states...." and references to back it up in every section. Could you point out to me where there is a dispute over neutrality? One thing I would like to make clear is...I do not care how people see Files and his testimony. Some people may think he's an honest John, and some may think he's the biggest jerk they've ever known. I'm not trying to please the people (majority or minority), I've put the article together as a collection of statements and facts, and any areas of controversy. If it happened to look like I'm leaning one way or another, thats a result of the evidence, I do not attach my opinions. I'd also like to know where the evidence is that you came to the following conclusions: "the article presents it as if it's universally believed" & "the view that Files killed Kennedy is a minority." I'll keep the tag up a little while longer. Goldwings 00:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: |

message: Recently, this artice has come under fire accusing me of: Bias, no mainstream sources, and the fact that this is conspiracy nonsense. I am going to make several things crystal clear:
1. This article is NOT intended to please the anti-conspiracy crowd, nor is it intended to please the majority or minority of JFK researchers. I could care less what the majority or minority thinks of James Files. 
2. The purpose of this article is intended for those who are diligently and legitimately researching the JFK assassination, and what to know what Files "claims" (there's that word again) to have said or done, such as for a school project. In no way are any of his claims presented as 100% fact. The only way to know Files' story is by his claims. Who else am I going to ask...his mother? 
3. I am NOT going to shadow the article with doubt, or make speculative claims that his story is not accepted by the majority or whatever, because I believe that would be dishonest for the readers.
4. There are very few sources about James Files available on Google. That is why it appears that there are very few sources, because that's all I have to work with. 
5. Last but not least, I am NOT going to be deleting this article, or moving it around to a conspiracy theory topic. There is already a small paragraph in Kennedy assassination theories about his claim. This article is a supplement to his claim, by letting readers know a little bit about him as a "subject" (kind of like a mini-biography). 
6. If anyone has any constructive criticism, I am keeping an open ear and willing to listen. However, if all you intend to do is slander and label the article as conspiracy guff, you will be laughed at and ignored. 
7. Please direct all disputes here to the discussion page. Thats what it's here for. Goldwings 19:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of accusation

message: This article is biased since it doesn't mention the biggest problem (and only speaks of "support) with the subject's confession - the headshot came from behind.  GreatGatsby 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think that is fair to recieve mention. I never thought I would be getting an intelligent response, but here it is....the first one! Before I do a major edit, go ahead and list any more "legitimate" problems you have. Keep in mind, I WILL NOT be shadowing this bio with doubt. So, if that is your intent, save your breath. Goldwings 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't it be put under doubt?  It's quite obvious this man has made this "confession" to gain fame.  The type of projectile he describes wouldn't have worked, and no shots came form the knoll (none of the traejctory lines up).  His whole story is if Oswald didn't get the kill shot the first time he was to end it.  But both shots that hit Kennedy came from behind, and the knoll was to his side when the headshot came.  GreatGatsby 00:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Both headshots came from behind"-My ass. How can you be so stupid as to come up with that bullshit when the Zapruder film clearly indicates otherwise? Put out that joint, pull up your pants and sober up....Busceda (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Under the section regarding Files' military service, there is discussion of Files' apparently confused military record, referencing the Office of Strategic Services, which was obsolete at the time Files claims he served, makes no references at all to sources for these claims and includes the following line: 
"Unfortunately this affects almost all the officers that participated in the Kennedy Assassination serving under Jack M Oliphant."
This statement seems to be by fiat, supporting the notion of participation by the intelligence community in assassinating JFK, an assertion that has thus far, little demonstrated credibility.
Its has far more credibility than the warren report, discredited by the house committee, who "officially" supported the second shooter, i.e. conspiracy, actuality. Apparently the intelligence "community" is no. one prime suspect for the jfk assassination, as of course they are in every other major or not so major dirty deed committed from time immemorial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.254.51.226 (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Files/Sutton seems to be an attention-seeker and pathological liar, rather than the money-snatcher mentioned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Files etc. 

message: The article on Files is mostly spamming from Dankbaar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dankbaar's book costs $37.95.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: The site www.bop.gov says that a James Earl Files, with the #89287-024, a white man, 69 years old at some point, was released on 28/2/1988.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See www.manuscriptservice.com/Headstamp/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Inexplicably, the spartacus source given was deleted by the party producing it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am referring to Digby scallops.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

text: See www.idoc.state.il.us, which does have a James Files.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I stupidly over-looked the fact that the manuscriptservice site is already mentioned in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: James Files is now said to have been paroled in the May of 2016. I can't get www.idoc.state.il.us to work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.175.165 (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Headstamp-2/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.175.165 (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzle 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Wim Dankbaar has been mentioned several times on this talk page. Here is his research on James Files: 
*JFK MURDER SOLVED - Is James Files telling the truth. 
*Wim Dankbaar : Biography. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a reliable source per previous discussion. Location (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wim Dankbaar  

message: I removed the John McAdams claim referenced to John McAdams. It's not a secondary source and can be considered 
original research. (McAdams website on McAdams.) Also what's the point of telling the reader that according to John McAdams Files has changed his story if the article doesn't even tell us what Files story is except for the vaguest summary? In short there is more "critical analysis" than factual exposition in this entry. Moreover the spirit of this analysis is already well reflected in what remains of the section. Detmcphierson (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: John McAdams Research

message: The Vincent Bugliosi critique is inappropriate. As per Wikipedia policy, the existence of this page constitutes scholastic and ethical basis that Mr. Files contentions should be presented and precisely articulated accurately, objectively, unprejudiced, sans your personal bias, or omission. You people, whoever you are, are acting in collusion, wantonly misusing the Wikipedia, to suppress the meat of Mr. Files contentions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.39.22.190 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree that "the meat of Mr. Files contentions" is nowhere to be found here. One specific (the biting of the shell-casing) is presented, seemingly only to be disproved. Otherwise, there is NOTHING about his contentions. I'm not about to accuse anyone of a "conspiracy" (which would be supreme irony), but the dearth of relevant information is odd, to say the least. Jororo05 (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased; lack of objectivity

message: The box on the top right has the word "Killings" in it. This seems not to be in the Wikicode. As far as I can see, the two police were not killed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.50.217 (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw that too and have no idea how to fix the template.--77.7.19.226 (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "killings" seems to have vanished from the box now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.212.20.241 (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James Files. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609031601/http://www.playboy.com/playground/newsroom/politics/how-the-outfit-killed-jfk to http://www.playboy.com/playground/newsroom/politics/how-the-outfit-killed-jfk
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The assassination work performed for the CIA, the US military and his Vietnam success as a sniper needs to be added to his history. The testimony James gives about sighting in a rifle with a silencer for one of the other JFK shooters makes sense about why there were more shots fired than were recorded on the open mike at the time. James Sutton Files turned his life over to Christ 10 years ago which adds to his truthfulness. It appears that the two officers he fired at in 1991 were trying to assassinate him for what he knew about the JFK assassination. This needs to be investigated !  Fredvincent7 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  JFK assassination and James Earl ( Sutton ) Files