nntp2http.com
Posting
Suche
Optionen
Hilfe & Kontakt

BROOKS CAN THO FRAUD -REBUTTAL WITNESSES

Von: DGVREIMAN (dgvreiman@comcast.net) [Profil]
Datum: 06.06.2010 05:02
Message-ID: <sOmdnf8xivZSkpbRnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Newsgroup: alt.politics alt.military.retired alt.military alt.war.vietnam
NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO FRAUD - REBUTTAL


Smear Merchant Disclaimer

I have better things to do than rebut the fraud and false accusations
made by members of the Nigel Brooks smear/hate and con gang.
However, unlike the gang's other smear victims,  I will defend myself
from the gang's obloquy and fraud in each case.  You would think these
pathetic souls would find something to do other than spread their
fraud, hate and smears about people that disagree with them, but alas,
this has become their "pathetic life."


Note that Nigel Brooks  and some of his hate/smear/con gang members
maintain web sites  and a Google Newsgroup designed specifically  to
defame me with fraud, serial lying, outright con man fraud, and of
course libel, which forces me to rebut their fraud with these truthful
rebuttals.

I have offered Nigel Brooks (and/or any of his con/hate/smear gang
members)  the opportunity to take their fraud and false accusations to
the American Association of Arbitrators, or to any legal department of
any University they select, and if either of those entities agree with
Nigel Brooks in respect to his accusations about me, I will pay for
their services.   HOWEVER, if those legal experts  agree that my
rebuttals are correct and accurate, then Nigel Brooks and/or his
smear/hate/con gang members pay for the independent legal analysis.

Nigel Brooks and his gang members run, duck, hide, cower, piss their
pants, and snivel pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse to hide from
and refuse my hundreds of offers to take this issue to independent
legal experts. . . and the reason is obvious - they know they are
lying.


Please be advised further this article (the same as all of my past
articles and exchanges with posters) represents an editorial on
contemporary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in this article
represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical fact, nor is
about, directed toward or against any particular person - other than
those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being posted for
entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post personally
annoying, abusive, offensive,  defaming or otherwise disturbing,
please notify me of your specific reasons for annoyance via email at
legalcoach@comcast.net.

If we find your detailed objections reasonable (considering the
"reasonable person" doctrine and case law) we will then remove this
post, or the offending passages contained therein, from the Google
archive, publicly apologize and retract.

My intent is to entertain, and to present articles to USENET readers
prior to publication to determine interest, and not to annoy, abuse,
humiliate, or in any way cause anyone emotional harm by posting on
USENET or elsewhere.   Please also  note that defending myself from
harassment and obloquy with rebuttal posts has been deemed a "lawful
and legitimate" publication by my legal counsel. If I am not attacked,
libeled, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles not
interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to
respond with a rebuttal.

Please also note that I intend to notify any and all ISP's and web
hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web site or other similar
entity about me after I give the offender an opportunity to retract,
apologize and remove said post from the Google archive.

SMEAR MERCHANT DISCLAIMER TWO: Considering the typical ridiculous,
absurd and obviously false claims about my military service that
originates from the crackpot smear and con gang that operates on
alt.war.Vietnam, I also hereby certify and attest this article is NOT
a secret coded message that only gang members can decode with their
secret Federal Agent/Sp4 draftee/former Junior Reserve Officer/ midget
decoder and mind reading rings.
This means the Brownie crackpots' inevitable accusations and howls
that this article is really me claiming in a special soothsaying code
(a code only crackpots et al smear gang can only read of course which
involves their typical claim the American Heritage Dictionary's
definition's of simple terms, such as "we" "estimated"
"involved"
"retired from" and "not representing any biographical claim" are all
incorrect,  and only their "special interpretations of the English
language can apply to all English terms I use, and of course the gang's
standard nonsensical mind reading and soothsaying  claims that (1) I
was a CIA cross border assassin that sniper killed Ho Chi Minh,
HOORAH - (2) that I personally killed 1803 enemy soldiers in Vietnam
and then feasted on their bodies (burp) (3) that I was a secret member
of the Mi Lai massacre, (let God sort them out) that I hunted down and
murdered unarmed Priests (take that choir boy) (4) that I was trained
by the Martian Army on Mars, and I have green blood, and retractable
fangs (slurp), (5) that the movie "Rambo" was copied after my deeds in
Vietnam and I still live in caves in the northwest (6) and best of
all, I went to the Carlisle War College to study WWII tactics even
before I was born!!!! BWHAHAHAHAHHA.

Needless to say, the smear gang misrepresentations of my past posts
are of course, not true.

I have posted dozens of times on USENET that  I will not post
autobiographical facts about my life on USENET in any detail.  Only a
quip now and then.  And, if anyone wants to know the true facts, or a
clarification of any quip, or  more information and details about an
issue  which are clearly missing in my quips they must first contact
me via email, identify themselves, and then I will determine if I want
to exchange such personal information with them.

Although the above is my standing offer, I should mention that NOT ONE
member of the gang has ever contacted me directly over any one of my
posts.  It is clear the gang does not want to know about obvious
typos, errors, and occasional ambiguities, nor clarifications, nor
corrections, nor do they even want  verification whether I was the
actual author of the post in question.  (Note although the above
statement is as clear as it can be - some smear merchants have
deliberately *averted their eyes* from this key disclaimer paragraph
for years - and ridiculously attempted to claim  did not include all
past, present and future posts in this disclaimer - which of course
clearly is a lie.  But for their fraudulent benefit - I *again*
reiterate this disclaimer applies to all of my posts, exchanges and
USENET writings, past, present and future.  I further reserve the
right to use any type of fiction, non-fiction, hyperbole,
autobiographical fiction, embellishments and quips in my writings as I
see fit, whenever I wish, and I will not be censored by smear/hate and
con gangs).

As experts on Investigations and the US Military have noted, the gang
leaders and their members clearly want to avoid the truth whenever it
contradicts their contrived and conspired defaming parsing and
fraudulent misrepresentations and distortions of what I have written
in the past, or contradicts their lies and fraud in respect to what is
and is not truly contained in my military records, and of course,
their fraudulent use of USENET  posts they know others have written to
use to smear me, defame me, hold me up to public ridicule, stalk me,
and otherwise further their years' long demonizing and vilification
campaign they have been regularly waging against me.

In short, the gang does not want to know the truth, and they are
desperate to stop me from defending myself as they know my truthful
rebuttals, which they cannot defend as they know what I am posting is
true, reveal them for what they really are.

The gang's lies and fraud border on the pathological, and include the
gang' preposterous and goofy fraud that (7) a Purple Heart VA card is
the same as a Purple Heart Medal (I have posted on USENET dozens of
times I did not receive a Purple Heart Medal) (8) Nor that removing
hundreds of typos, errors, misstatements made by typists and I found
so far in about thirty-five THOUSAND extemporaneous posts under
accounts I used, and then replacing the errors with the true intended
context and meaning by the author is somehow "sinister" and the
original discarded post was the correct intended post and the
corrected version is false! (Giggle).
Such glaring preposterous crackpot et al smear and fraud gang claims
about me are, as usual, blatantly false and equally ridiculous. (Ask
the gang leaders for proof of their claims the next time they make
such ludicrous claims and watch them scurry for their rocks or produce
their own forgeries, or perhaps typos, errors and such that have long
been detected and discarded in my waste basket they have dug out of
that trash).

And  regardless of forgeries and discarded posts found in my waste
basket that were thrown there because of an error or typist
misstatement by one of our typist's, I have posted about two dozen
times in the past that my time in South America was spent (other than
an assignment and short visit to Southern Command after I left
Vietnam) exclusively as a Civilian working for Montana Western Oil and
Gas or PCA, which evidence proving such was scanned and posted years
ago.
Also, in response to the smear gang's et al repeated and convenient
outright lie and fraud that I never said that others were using the
same accounts to post on USENET as I did until the smear gang leaders
started their fraud, con and smear campaign against me and thereby
forced me to post on this newsgroup to defend myself, please see the
following proof that of course the gang leaders et al have been caught
lying again:

http://tinyurl.com/6d4aay TYPISTS' GALORE POST proves there were about
71 previous posts prior to the gang's glaring  lie that I never
mentioned others posting under the same accounts I used until after
the gang leaders started to use a few typos, errors and post fragments
written by many different people, years apart, never written on any
military forum, deceptively spliced together with forged words added
into or subtracted from the hodgepodge of different context post
fragments so as to fraudulently alter their meaning or context.


http://tinyurl.com/7kfaqz  Experts on Smear Gangs reveal what the
Nigel Brooks con/hate  and smear gang is all about.

http://tinyurl.com/bu3dwb  Those that Label Others KOOKS suffer a
psychosis named EID  say psychologists - and that so-called "Kook"
votes never occur outside of the smear gang.

http://tinyurl.com/5o59lr  Nigel Brooks' lies about receiving medals
he never received, and lies about serving in war campaigns and in
reactionary forces long after he had already left active duty.

http://tinyurl.com/bxrf2b  US Government Web Site and independent
Experts on the US Military  confirm Nigel Brooks and many of his
smear/hate and con gang lied about my military service and my military
records.  (This read is important as the gang is claiming that my
military records disproved or prove various things they have
fraudulently claimed about me.  However, in truth we find those gang
accusations and claims to be nothing more than outright cons and
fraud.  Brooks and Rau and other gang members have been lying about
the contents of my records for years.  Above represents clear and
irrefutable proof of their fraud and false accusations.

http://tinyurl.com/ddogy4  Proof of just a few of Nigel Brooks
outright forgeries which he has used to fraudulently defame and smear
me - yes *forgeries* - fraud and deception from Nigel Brooks running
rampant.

http://tinyurl.com/otvaph

Purple Heart Defamation from the gang revealed and rebutted.
Irrefutable proof the gang has been using outright fraud, defamation
and forgeries to smear and defame in respect to this issue.

http://tinyurl.com/pomzo7  05/21/09
YET ANOTHER Investigator confirms the smear/hate gang lied about
Purple Heart medal claims.  Also,  all those times I said I did not
have a PH Medal, which the gang has been maliciously  hiding.

Http://tinyurl.com/q6pk56   The smear/hate gang's fraudulent
accusation  "I said I was a Hero" proved the fraud and lie it is:   In
fact - I said the *exact opposite* as these several past posts clearly
prove.  Once again the gang has been exposed lying about something
they have been forging and lying about for years.   Hate and smear
gangs always attempt to paint their smear victims in a false and
defaming light - this is clearly the Nigel Brooks hate/smear and con
gang's purpose and mantra.

Here Nigel Brooks admits that he is not claiming I claimed I had a
purple heart medal - which contradicts not only Nigel Brooks
subsequent false accusations numbering in the hundreds, but including
his gang's fraud on this issue, it also contradicts similar fraud and
false accusations numbering in the *thousands!*

I said as the following URL clearly proves:

1http://tinyurl.com/y3yvb9 In this post I make it clear that I
referenced a Purple Heart Card and not a Purple Heart Medal - and the
difference between the two.

Nigel Brooks said:
2http://tinyurl.com/y3yvb9
In the above URL, Mr. Brooks also provided the following very clear
statement about this issue:

"He's doing the same now - by trying to insert the word "medal" into
the argument. Well no-one is accusing him of claiming to have had a
"Purple Heart Medal" - but the record shows he has claimed to have had
a Purple Heart **(VA service connected ID card)**  and that he
received it in a real war. " (Emphasis added).

Obviously, Nigel Brooks above agreed and confirmed that I never said I
had a purple heart medal.    Strange Nigel and his gang would
conveniently "forget" Nigel's conclusion about this issue after I
started proving they had lied about this issue all along - as the
above posts clearly prove?

Gang Preposterously Claims "Fiction" is "Lying."

When Brooks read my "shoot around little girl" or "shoot little girl"
post (for about the tenth time and counting) he said the following:

http://tinyurl.com/q9r9to  May 22, 2009

"I would hazard a guess that the story is complete bullshit and  that
Reiman never shot a 4 or 5 year old Vietnamese girl, otherwise
such  an admission made in a public forum is astounding.

>>>> Nigel Brooks "

Then *after* I responded to Brooks (see URL above) and told him that
of course it was pure fiction just like my disclaimer states hundreds
of times.  Brooks then reversed himself and wrote:
" he was in fact claiming that whilst he was in Vietnam he was >
forced to shoot a 4 or 5 year old Vietnamese child, who he claims was
attempting to kill him or his compatriots with an explosive device
concealed  in a package of cigarettes.
>
> Now that is the logical interpretation of his post. In that post he
> says
> nothing about it being a fictional account or a debating method. The
> post
> stands by itself."

Nigel Brooks"


We all know, the WORLD knows, that when Fiction is used in any article
or prose  it is NEVER identified as Fiction!  Mark Twain even said
that Fiction has to be more believable than non-fiction or it loses
its effectiveness!  According to Brainless Brooks, each time an author
uses Fiction to embellish or add interest to a story,  he must tell
the reader in that same article he is using Fiction!  This claim by BB
is about the most ridiculous, idiotic statement I have ever heard
about the use of Fiction, and it directly contradicts ALL authors,
prose instruction, and journalism 101 in every University in the
World!

So once again we have another  Nigel Brooks arrogant first, now he is
claiming he knows more about writing Fiction than Mark Twain and all
Universities in the world!

I cannot decide if Nigel Brooks is arrogantly stupid, or just
arrogant?  Or perhaps both?  I will leave that decision up to the
readers.

http://tinyurl.com/madq65  In this post I point out that I have told
Nigel Brooks and his hate/con smear gang members *more than a thousand
times* (evidenced by Google archives) that I *DO NOT* post
autobiographical statements of fact on USENET - and if someone wants
to know whether what I post is Fiction, Non-Fiction, or whatever, they
*must contact me* and ask for more details.

I also posted that I DO NOT post autobiographical statements of facts
about myself on USENET as far back as 2001,  and repeated that general
disclaimer statement in early 2003.  Nigel Brooks and his smear/hate
con gang did not start their smear campaign against me until 2005,
*and Nigel Brooks and his gang even referenced and mentioned the post
in 2003 when I said I do not post autobiographical facts about me on
USENET - so they *knew* all along they were lying about the context
and meaning of quips they removed from my posts.

When an Author tells you MORE THAN A THOUSAND TIMES he is NOT posting
exclusively non-fiction on USENET, you would think that statement by
the author would resonate into even the pea brains of con men, smear
merchants and hate group leaders.  Which of course it did as they
acknowledged this statement (Tom Rau whined and confirmed he read my
disclaimer more than 270 times) - but this fact  had to be hidden by
such people so they could further their obviously fraudulent smear and
con defamation campaigns.



SELF ADMITTED AND SELF ACCLAIMED "TROLLS" OPERATE NIGEL BROOKS SMEAR
GANG'S MOST UNETHICAL FRAUD, SERIAL LYING AND CON MAN FALSE
ACCUSATIONS!

Many of the most vociferous and deceptive  Nigel Brooks' key smear
gang members self-describe themselves as "Trolls."

These self-acclaimed and self-described *Trolls*  have posted
hundreds of defaming statements and libel about me under those very
revealing Troll self-descriptions.  (See alt.war.vietnam troll
section - you will find ALL of the self-described Trolls are connected
to Nigel Brooks and his gang's defamation and smear campaigns).

As just one example, here is the latest FBI forgery direct from a
Nigel Brooks smear/hate gang member that self-describes himself as a
"Troll."   Note the gang member is again fraudulently using the name
of the FBI to smear and defame - which as we all know is a criminal
act.

It is obvious these Nigel Brooks smear/hate  gang members will resort
to and use criminal acts to further the gang's smear and vilification
campaigns:

"Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.alt.net
From: Troll  #351 <Leonardo@sistine.va>
Newsgroups:
alt.war.vietnam,alt.politics,alt.news-media,alt.military,alt.military.retired,alt.usenet.k
ooks
Subject: That Second FBI Phone Transcript  betwixt Mr.Doug Grant-tm
and the FBI
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 23:55:46 -0700"

Considering the self-description of these gang members as "Trolls" and
their propensity to use criminal acts (using the name of the FBI for
nefarious purposes is a criminal act - Federal and Brooks knows it)
to defame Nigel Brook's targeted hate/smear victim, can anyone out
there actually believe anything Nigel Brooks or any of his gang
members say about anyone?

If you do then you are admitting that you are de facto stating that
you believe people  that are *telling you up front they are liars and
con men!* BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Question:

If you actually believe someone that is telling you up front that he
is lying to you, what would best describe you: (1) a moron (2) a
drooling moron (3) a member of the Nigel Brooks smear and con gang -
or perhaps all three?

Lawyers Speak "again"

All should know and be hereby informed that hate messages of any kind,
serial lying, fraud, libel, (which of course includes intentional and
malicious  defamation and libel by omitting key facts) and other
publications of any kind will be recorded and used  against the
perpetrator in a legal action.   This is especially true for those
owners and participants in smear/hate web sites and hate newsgroups
which are used to further and facilitate hate and smear campaigns
against individuals.

Nigel Brooks -con man, hate gang leader and fraud merchant:

Starting in 2005 Nigel Brooks began waging a smear, libel and
defamation campaign against me.  He said that he was "appointing
himself a judge over me" and proceeded to use fraud, false
accusations, outright serial lying, con man jargon and tactics, and
most of all, false light fraud by forging and distorting what he
claims I have said in the past.  Nigel Brooks also claimed that he
wrote the US Army and received, via a FOIA request, copies of my
military records.  After that con man attempt to add credibility to
his fraud and cons, he then claimed that my military records proved I
had lied about various duties I performed or experienced during my
military career.

It turns out that Nigel Brooks, a former two year-draftee that was
*forced* into the military and achieved the highest rank of Sp4, and
elected to take a Village Rat release from active duty in Vietnam, is
nothing more than a con man smear merchant that hates real Vietnam
Veterans, and  has lied so often and so profusely about his military
service that he tries to divert attention to his cons and fraud by
falsely accusing real veterans of lying about their military service.
The only way Nigel Brooks, con man, can bolster his pathetic ego, and
divert attention from his pathetic and "forced" service in the US
Army, is by fraudulently denigrating and defaming real Veterans that
actually served in the regular army and volunteered for duties that
Nigel Brooks apparently hid and cowered from while he was serving in
Vietnam - like I said, he took a Village Rat discharge in Vietnam, and
all Vietnam Vets know what that means.

I have often asked Mr. Brooks to provide, or even name *a single
document* he claims exists in my military records that proves any of
his fraudulent and con man accusations he has posted about me in
respect to my military service.  Nigel Brooks hides, runs, cowers and
ducks this challenge - he knows he is lying and conning, and he knows
he has been caught in mid con.

I have also often challenged Nigel Brooks to provide his claims about
me to any independent legal source, such as the American Association
of Arbitrators, or any University Law Department he chooses, and I
will provide same with my rebuttals to his fraud.  If any of these
independent sources agree with Brooks that I lied about anything, I
will pay for the legal review, but if they agree that Brooks is using
false accusations, then Brooks pays for the legal review.

Nigel Brooks has cowered, hid, run, ducked, danced around, avoided and
lied about the above STANDING challenge for years.  Nigel Brooks knows
that he will be exposed as perhaps the most prolific serial liar and
con man on the Internet if he accepts any of my challenges to get to
the truth.

The con man Nigel Brooks cannot be believed about anything.  He uses
selective analysis, and then in true con man style tries to use his
past employment in the US Custom Service to provide credibility to his
cons, as he did the US Army.  But in truth the US Custom Service does
not condone nor want anything to do with Nigel Brook's cons and fraud,
and neither does the US Army, and both have stated this fact to me in
no uncertain terms.

Whatever Nigel Brooks posts or says about someone typically cannot be
believed, and his demonizing and smearing those that point out his
perpetual use of fraud, forgeries and fraud is glaring and easily
proved.



End Disclaimer - Rebuttal  Begins below:

******************************************************************************

Can Tho Gang Idioms - Rebuttal

http://tinyurl.com/d325zu  This post is yet another example the smear
gang is not really interested in the truth about Vietnam Veterans.
They ignore the fact that officers that were in charge of after action
reports and news articles about battles testified in front of Congress
they were "ordered to lie in those reports!"  That means all of the
newspaper accounts of battles are "bogus" as well as the after action
reports.


Nigel Brooks was not even in the US Army when I was assigned to Can
Tho, and he certainly was not present during the January 1969 attack
that I witnessed.  Yet this smear merchant, who has been caught lying
about his and my military service, claims that I did not see what I
saw!  Moreover, Brooks cites some "News account" as evidence of his
preposterous "mind reading claim" which we all know were mostly
fraudulent as the authors of those news accounts have testified and
confirmed in front of Congress.  (See above).

First, consider the complete idiocy of Nigel Brooks' false accusation
that although he admits I was present for the 1969 attack on Can Tho,
Brooks fraudulently claims I actually was describing a lesser attack
that occurred about a year earlier - long before I arrived in Can Tho!

So why in the hell would I want to do that???  Brooks incredibly wants
us all to believe that although I did witness a very major attack, I
refused to describe what I actually witnessed, and instead, described
something that happened a year earlier that I *did not*
witness??????BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Nigel Brooks'
incredible, convoluted bullshit is so goofy, idiotic, strange, and
drooling mad, I am surprised he had the balls to post this obviously
preposterous false accusation in the first place!


There is no logical reason whatsoever that would compel me (or anyone
else for that matter) after witnessing a very major attack on the very
base which I was assigned, to refuse to describe that attack, and
instead, describe a lesser attack that occurred when I was not even
there!   BWHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Note Brooks had to claim I was describing a different attack so he
could save face in respect to his and his gang's initial claim that I
never witnessed any attack in Can Tho.  When my records proved I was
in Can Tho during the 1969 attack, Brooks and gang started their
dancing and conning about this issue -headed with the preposterous and
bizarre claim that I described a battle I never saw, while refusing to
describe a much more deadly and lengthy battle they admit I did see!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Who in the hell would do that?  And why in
the hell would anyone want to do that?  Brooks' claims about me are
about the most idiotic claims I have ever heard in my entire life.

I am sorry for laughing, but you gotta admit, this Brooks and his hate
gang are about the dumbest, moronic drooling idiots I have ever had
the misfortune to encounter - NO ONE in their right mind would believe
the outrageous fraud Brooks is trying to sell in respect to this
issue - NO ONE!  BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Sorry, but each time I think of
what Brooks is trying to pan off as truth, I just need to laugh.

Here are *volumes* of evidence Nigel Brooks has been caught in mid
smear and con once again over an issue dealing with me:


Out of the Gate Brooks Lies

Question: How could Nigel Brooks know what I saw?  How could he know
what I was thinking at the time?  Answer: He could not, he cannot read
minds regardless of how many times this fool references that Crystal
ball he seems to have shoved up his ass.

In short, Nigel Brooks is a con man, fraud and smear merchant.  He
operates with a hate/ smear gang and they jump and do his fraud and
smear bidding at his beck and call.  But in this case, they are making
as big a fool out of themselves as Brooks seems to do on a regular
basis.

Nigel Brooks' Can Tho Con and BS  Examined:

1.  Nigel Brooks claims the version of the 1967 and 1969 attacks on
Can Tho, that  he found in some newspaper, (which the authors of those
newspaper articles told Congress they were mostly lies) is the *only*
correct version of the attack on Can Tho in 1967,  and is the only
correct version of the 1969 attack when I was there.   Can you imagine
anyone  foolish enough  to make such a idiotic and preposterous claim?


We all know that multiple  eye witnesses to such an event  will see
different things during a time of confusion and battle, depending upon
their vantage point and their personal involvement.

Someone standing guard on the Air Field,  as an example, might see the
battle unfold completely different than someone watching the battle
from a distance as I did.   We all know this is true by all the
publications *real* investigators have published stating that even in
traffic accidents or other violent events the *real* investigators can
rarely find two witnesses that agree on the details of the accident or
traumatic event, especially when it involves a battle in a war zone!

2.  Nigel Brooks repeatedly claims to have been a US Custom Worker for
thirty years - and he often attempts to use his past employment as
some basis for his fraud and false accusations.  Yet even with 30
years of Custom Work he apparently does not know that witnesses to a
battle or traumatic event *will see that battle or event  from
different perspectives,  and there is NOT nor never is a single
correct version that would be all encompassing?    Some "Custom
Worker" no wonder our borders are porous - imagine - working for the
Custom Service for 30 years and still *not knowing* that witnesses see
events differently - especially when they witness something from
different vantage points.  Apparently, Mr. Brooks investigated how to
shuffle paper from one side of his desk to the other.  NO ONE is that
stupid!

Either Nigel Books was a piss poor Custom Worker, or he is attempting
to con the readers of this forum into believing  the ONLY version of
what happened during those two attacks is the "Nigel Brooks" version!
Mr. Brooks deliberate fraud and con in this respect is obvious to any
rational person.  There is NO single version that will encompass what
all eye witnesses saw and experienced, especially one coming from
newspaper accounts that we already know are false!  (The authors of
the newspaper articles and after action reports testified in front of
Congress they were ordered to lie in those accounts - and the accounts
were more analogous to propaganda than they were to the truth.  If you
were in Vietnam, and you were ever out on a combat patrol, and then
you read an account of that combat, you would already know they were
lying in those accounts).  (See the URL below for more information in
this regard).

3.  In Nigel Brook's "version" of the 1967 and the 1969 attacks, Nigel
Brooks *did not even know about* the attack on the Can Tho POW camp!
He does not even mention it!  Why?  Because those newspaper accounts
he dug up could not mention that attack because the POW camp's
location was classified, and NOTHING was printed in any newspaper
about that element of the January 1969 attack.  You had to be there to
see it. I was there, Brooks admits I was there, and Brooks, of course,
was NOT there!

4.  In Nigel Brook's version of the attack in 1969 (1) there were no
vehicles involved in any manner in the battle, and (2) the only and
exclusive weapons the VC used were Satchel Charges.  Yet as  we see
from other eyewitnesses to that battle presented below, there *were*
vehicles involved in the 1969 attack that I witnessed, and the VC were
using all kinds of weapons and not just satchel charges.  I said it
looked like they were firing M-79's at the Choppers from my vantage
point, but I found out later they were using M-79's and B40 rockets,
and AK's and satchel charges, and probably other weapons as well.  All
those facts from eye witnesses directly dispute and prove false Nigel
Brook's version of events that night, and no wonder, because as usual,
Nigel Brooks was not there, and I was.

5.  Also note the accounts by the other eye witnesses below are very
different from each other's accounts.  Each different eye witness
apparently saw the battle unfold differently than the other - which of
course is common as we all know eye witnesses to a battle, accident,
murder, or other traumatic events ALWAYS   see events differently
depending upon their personal vantage points to the event, and of
course their personal involvement.

So which version is *absolutely true?*  The only thing we can be
positive about in that regard is the Nigel Brooks' version of the 1969
or the 1967 attack on Can Tho  is absolutely not true!

The eye witnesses to the 1969 battle confirm there *were* vehicles
involved which directly contradict Nigel Brooks,  and the enemy also
used many different weapons, and not just satchel charges like Brooks
claimed.  Further eye witnesses also saw the attack on the POW camp
which involved at least *two* enemy vehicles (probably ARVN
ambulances).  But Nigel Brooks *did not even know about that POW camp
element of the 1969 attack!* It just was not in his newspaper - so
Brooks did not know about it.  Which of course, immediately makes
Brooks version - bullshit.

So is Nigel Brooks' claim that his ridiculous version of the 1967 and
1969  attacks, which does not even mention the attack on the POW camp,
is the only correct version of what happened during those battles?
Duh, if you believe that I am sure the Brooks gang has some Bridges to
sell you in New York city.

Here are what other eye witnesses to those Can Tho battles  have to
say about them, and below them, I have again presented what I said
about the attack I did witness.    Any claim that I did not see what I
know I did is nothing more than just more con man fraud and defamation
from Nigel Brooks - typical of him and his gang.  (Here is a bulletin
for the gang - BROOKS CANNOT READ MINDS!  I have tested Brooks several
times in this respect and he has failed every test).


6.  Nigel Brooks said the 1967 attack involved ambulances - but this
eye witness said the VC were attacking the airfield exclusively on
foot.  So how can my sight of vehicles involved in the 1969 attack be
incorrect because according to Brooks the only vehicles ever involved
in any attack on Can Tho was in 1967 and not during the time I
witnessed the attack in 1969?  Of course, Brooks is full of it as
usual.

Can Tho attack 1967 no vehicles, VC on foot:

http://tinyurl.com/ydddq2

2.  This eye witness remembers vehicles involved in the 1969 attack -
which Brooks claims did not exist.  Are *all* eye witnesses to the
1969 attack  lying and only Nigel Brooks, con man, is the truth
teller?  BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

http://tinyurl.com/ygwnvt  This witness remembers ambulances in the
1969 attack.

3.
http://tinyurl.com/ydpsna  This eye witness remembers the Can Tho
attack completely different than what Nigel Brooks has attempted to
claim happened during that attack.  Brooks was not there, this trooper
was.  Only a complete moron would believe Nigel Brooks' "version" of
the 1967 attack, and further, also believe his version of the 1969
attack which I witnessed and know Brooks version is wrong and
incomplete.

Nigel Brooks is delivering only a single version of the 1969 attack,
and we all know there are many other versions that are also accurate,
especially when you add the fact ol Brooks did not even know about the
attack on the POW camp that was located at the end of the runway, and
of course us eye witlessness did watch that POW  attack unfold.

Brooks Lies are to CYA

Consider also, after Brooks said I was lying about the Can Tho attack
then my records proved I was at Can Tho during the January 1969
attack.  Desperate to CYA, Nigel Brooks and some of his pathetic gang
members  then tried to claim my description of an attack *I had* to
experience and witness because I was assigned to Can Tho at the time,
was false, and in fact I was describing an attack that occurred long
before I arrived in Vietnam!    Obviously, Nigel Brooks knows he was
caught in mid con by first claiming I was never in Can Tho during any
attack, and his latter fraud  is just Brooks compounding his initial
fraud with illogical and ridiculous claims that *although I was
located  in Can Tho when a major attack occurred, I actually described
a lesser attack that occurred a year earlier when I was not even
there!* NOW WHY ON EARTH WOULD I DO THAT!

There is absolutely no reason, no logic nor compelling reason why I
would describe a lesser attack a year earlier, while not describing an
attack that I clearly witnessed that was much worse than the previous
attack!  Brooks is, in my opinion, at best, nuts to expect rational
people to believe such illogical and goofy Bullshit.

Note also the above Can Tho witness to the 1967 attack describes it
completely different from Nigel Brook's version, and the witness even
mentions the POW camp which was also one of the main targets during
the January 1969 attack which I witnessed.  The VC used vehicles to
attack the airfield, then they moved those vehicles  to the POW camp,
and when they could not overcome the POW camp at least one of those
vehicles went back  out of the gate.

Meanwhile, there were several other sappers that were attacking the
airfield.  Brooks initially claimed the VC during the 1969 attack only
carried satchel charges, then when I pointed out he was lying, he
changed his story to satchel charges AND B40'S!  Brooks lies, and lies
and lies, and his utterly ridiculous  claim that I would describe an
attack that occurred before I arrived in Can Tho, while Brooks admits
that I had to witness a much worse attack in 1969 when I was assigned
to Can Tho, is about the most idiotic, illogical and goofy claim I
have ever heard, even from someone as unethical and stupid as Nigel
Brooks and his smear gang.

http://tinyurl.com/y5qeh5  This eyewitness and PH medal (medal not the
VA card) recipient received due to the Can Tho  battle *clearly*
proves there were vehicles involved in the attack.  Nigel Brooks said
the 1969 attack did not involve *any* vehicles.  Brooks clearly lied.
Moreover this Vet is suffering from Agent Orange inflictions,  which
Tom Rau (a Nigel Brooks gang leader)  said were all fakes and obese
slugs.

5.
http://tinyurl.com/da9xup  This eye witness to the battle said he saw
fire coming from various places and it took hours to run down all of
the VC.  This first hand account hardly fits the description of the
battle  Brooks is trying to con the readers into believing.  I was
there, Brooks was not.  To rational people that should be the end of
it.  But to con men, they just seem to not realize when their con has
been exposed and they are desperate to try and save face.  Does Brooks
have any face left to save?
6.
http://tinyurl.com/yagbwu  This eye witness to the Can Tho attack
describes a truck that was hit on the airfield, and B40 rockets being
used by the enemy.  But, But Nigel Brooks said there were *no*
vehicles involved in the attack,  and the VC only used satchel
charges!  This guy was there, Brooks was not, I was there Brooks was
not, I saw vehicles, the other witnesses also saw vehicles,  Brooks is
lying and conning the readers again with his standard BS and
fraudulent claim there can be only *one* correct version of a major
attack like the one I witnessed in 1969 in Can Tho.
7.
http://tinyurl.com/t4m85  This Can Tho attack eye witness is
describing what happened during the 1967 attack long before I arrived.
He says the VC used hand grenades tied with rubber bands.  Brooks said
they *only* used satchel charges.    Brooks also lied about the
vehicles involved in respect to the 1969 attack that I witnessed.  My
description of the VC driving down the runway and firing M-79's (or
B40's)  certainly is completely different from what happened during
the 1967 attack, which Brooks is fraudulently claiming I was
describing. (Note the eye witness to the 1967 attack version is
completely different from my description of the 1969 attack).   My
memory is of VC vehicles driving down the runway firing either M-79's
or B40's at the Choppers, and then heading for an assault on the POW
camp, where the VC vehicles  stopped and entered into a major fire
fight with the ARVN's and MP's at the POW camp. I was told by an MP
the next day that one of more of those enemy vehicles later escaped
out of the gate.  I was too far away to see any Red Crosses on the
side of the VC Vehicles, but I was told by an MP the next day the VC
had probably used ambulances again, but in truth those vehicles could
have been any type of vehicles - I was too far away to know exactly
what type of vehicles they were, only that they were, in fact,
vehicles.

Again, Brooks does not even *mention* the POW camp assault, nor how it
occurred,  nor what vehicles or weapons were used in the attack on the
POW camp!  This pathetic fool did not even know anything about that
attack!  Moreover, it is *impossible* to attack the POW camp with only
sappers.  It can only be attacked from the Can Tho runaway by vehicles
as the POW camp was located at the very end of the airfield, and was
completely defended with claymores, towers, wire, and trenches.  The
only way the VC could have attacked the POW camp from the airfield is
with vehicles and heavy weapons.
8.
http://tinyurl.com/ye3bof  This eye witness is confirming the January
1969 attack occurred when I was assigned to Can Tho.  Since I clearly
was there, that was the only attack I could have possibly been
describing and remembering.  Nigel Brooks idiotic claims that  I
described an attack that occurred before I arrived in Can Tho is
beyond illogical and stupid.  Brooks also hides, ducks, ignores, runs
from, the mere fact that I was present during a much worse attack in
1969 than the earlier one in 1967, and the attack that I witnessed was
the one I clearly was describing.  Nigel Brooks had to make up his
preposterous con because long before my records confirmed I was
assigned to Can Tho during the 1969 attack, Brooks and his smear gang
lied to the readers and said I was never in Can Tho during *any*
attack!

Brooks was caught in mid con when I proved I was in fact in Can Tho
during the 1969 attack.  So that is why I believe  he conjured up the
illogical BS that I was describing a lesser attack a year earlier than
the one I actually had to experience.    However, my description of
the 1969  attack DOES NOT CONFORM to any of the eye witness accounts
of that earlier 1967 attack - so either Nigel Brooks has been caught
in mid con yet again, or all of these eye witness Vets to these
attacks are lying.  Pick one.

Also, the logic behind someone describing a lesser attack that
occurred when he was not in the area, and NOT describing the more
involved and more major attack that he actually did witness, is beyond
belief by anyone with an IQ above "6."  There is no possible reason
why anyone would do what Nigel Brooks and his gang are claiming I did.

9.
http://tinyurl.com/y45m4w  This eye witness to the January 1969 attack
which I described mentions there was a tremendous amount of confusion
during the attack.  No shit!  Ergo, Nigel Brooks' goofy  claim that
his version of that attack is complete, correct and the only version
that is accurate  is about as ridiculous as it comes.

I doubt if you organized five different eye witlessness to that attack
together they would all remember the same details of the attack.  So
Nigel Brooks con that *everyone* must remember that attack precisely
how the newspaper article described it, (even considering the authors
of those newspaper accounts testified before Congress they were
ordered to lie in those accounts - and the fact the Newspaper account
does not even mention the attack on the POW camp) is beyond con man
BS, it is outright fraud.

Not to mention the false newspaper account Brooks likes to reference
*could not even mention*  the attack on the POW camp due to all POW
camps in Vietnam being classified.  The way I remember the 1969
attacks was the VC used their vehicles to drive down the runway,
firing at the Choppers, and then arrived at the end of the run way to
attack the POW camp.  Pathetic Brooks did not even *know* about the
attack on the POW camp until I told him about it, and we also note an
eye witness presented above to the 1969 attack *ALSO* mentions the POW
camp.

Nigel Brooks obviously does not have a clue about what he is posting
about this attack, and his gang echoing Brooks fraud and lies are
worse -Ward Attendants were not in Can Tho either when the 1969 attack
occurred so how in the hell would they know what I saw??? Mind
reading?  Crystal ball up ass?  Obviously, we are dealing with con men
and smear merchants when it comes to Nigel Brooks and some members of
his smear gang.
10.

http://tinyurl.com/cvhuq3  This is another eye witness that remembers
an attack on the POW camp at Can Tho -which Brooks clearly knew
nothing about.    He also is suffering Agent Orange related maladies,
you know, those people that Tom Rau called "obese slugs and another
Nigel Brooks gang member claimed such vets were manipulating the VA."
I guess this guy's family might disagree with the Nigel Brooks gang
about the effects of Agent Orange.  I know I do.

Summary:

So if Nigel Brooks did not even know about the attack on the POW camp,
how could he claim I was not describing it correctly?  And considering
all of the confusion and chaos during the attack I witnessed, can
Brooks' "newspaper"  version be the only correct version of that
attack?  Of course not.

Nigel Brooks' absence of knowledge about the use of the VC vehicles
during the 1969 attack on the airfield, and on the POW camp, and his
lack of knowledge about the weapons and tactics the enemy used,
clearly proves that Nigel Brooks is lying in respect to Brooks' claim
that his newspaper versions of the attacks are the only true and
correct versions of the 1969 and 1967 attacks on Can Tho.  Moreover,
Clown Brooks s claiming he knows more about what I saw than I do, and
he was not even there and I was!

Not to mention Sp4 Nigel Brooks and his Sp4 clown gang are
contradicting several other eye witnesses to both the 1967 and the
1969 attacks on Can Tho.

So do you believe Nigel Brooks and gang have been caught in mid con
YET AGAIN!!!??? Of course they have.

Below is an URL presenting my post on what I saw that night.  I stand
behind it completely, and it is *my* memory that is at work here, and
Nigel Brooks, nor any of his gang members, as usual, were not even
there.

http://tinyurl.com/delrhr  Expose Nigel Brooks "heresay" about the Can
Tho attack - which of course is completely contradicted by the actual
eye witnesses to the attacks.  I also provide evidence  of the authors
of the newspaper accounts Brooks uses to support his "version"
stating in front of Congress "they were ordered to lie in those
accounts."    I also point out in this post that Nigel Brooks lied
about my assignment to the 51st Maintenance Company while I was
assigned to Can Tho.  I never, NOT ONCE, ever worked in or for a
"maintenance company" in my entire military career.

Also note the nearest personnel office to my Can Tho duty station was
more than 300 miles away.  Obviously, I could not have been operating
as a "personnel sergeant" exclusively while I was assigned to Can Tho
as Nigel Brooks has also been fraudulently claiming for years.

http://tinyurl.com/d4zx6e  Here is precisely what I saw and when I saw
it, in much more detail.  I posted this on May 5, 2008, about a year
ago, and still Nigel Brooks is lying about this issue.  He and his
gang also claim that whenever I "add details or clarify" anything I
have ever said I am "altering or changing" what I said.  Yet I see ol
Nigel and gang members adding details and clarifying all kinds of
things in their previous posts - oh well, we all know this gang is
completely dishonest and I should not need to point out the gang's
hypocrisy as well as their fraud - I am sure those that have been
reading my truthful rebuttals already know all about the ethics of
Nigel Brooks and his gang.

I have better things to do than to rebut Nigel Brooks fraud and cons
about me, but as long as he and his gang keep posting their false
accusations and fraud about me, expect me to defend myself with the
truth until the cows come home.


Doug Grant (Tm)


[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]

Antworten