Jump to content
The Education Forum

François Carlier

Members
  • Content Count

    215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About François Carlier

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 11/01/1967

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.facebook.com/Carlier.Kennedy/
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Paris, France
  • Interests
    Science, history, critical thinking, crimes investigations.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,520 profile views
  1. François Carlier

    A question to David Lifton

    Hey, I think that's your most reasonable post so far ! (OK, just joking, no hard feelings)
  2. François Carlier

    A question to David Lifton

    Oh, I see, then please tell us why you think that Robert McClelland said that the wound was the same in Bethesda as it was in Parkland ?
  3. François Carlier

    A question to David Lifton

    That's all very well and good, David, but I suspect that in a few months' time, Ray Mitcham will nonetheless ask you again : "How do you explain the butchery of the President's tracheotomy?" Be prepared ! 😉
  4. François Carlier

    A question to David Lifton

    I'm François and I approve this message ! 😁 Seriously speaking, what Lance Payette has written is exactly what I think. I would have been unable to write such a clear message, since I'm not half as articulate as Lance, but in essence, his post is what I would have answered. To be sure, I do not subscribe to David Lifton's theory that someone purposely enlarged the tracheotomy wound with the aim of making it appear to be an exit wound instead of an entry wound (I believe that it was an exit wound). Besides, I exchanged letters with Doctor Perry some twenty years ago and I seem to remember him saying that he found nothing wrong with the president's wounds as described in the official version. I'm not at home tonight but I'll check Perry's letter on Friday and tell you exactly what he wrote to me about that.
  5. François Carlier

    Who Hated JFK in 1963?

    OK, it was not "intimate", according to your definition of the word and I can accept that. But at least you'll admit they were speaking to each other just the two of them and Robert was able to look into his brother's eyes.
  6. François Carlier

    A question to David Lifton

    Thank you very much for your answer.
  7. François Carlier

    A question to David Lifton

    Thank you very much for your answer, David. I enjoy that type of discussion. I have to say that what you write makes sense. Indeed, if "my scenario" had happened, it is hard to conceive how it is that not even one witness ever said anything about it in fifty-five years ! You are right. I don't have an answer for that.
  8. François Carlier

    THE INHERITANCE: fantastic book on the JFK assassination

    It's easy to have an opinion. Vince Palamara said it's a fantastic book, well-written, with new information ? Hence, I automatically know that it's a bad book, poorly-written and full of old, tired conspiracy foolishness !
  9. François Carlier

    Who Hated JFK in 1963?

    Thank you for your message, Sir. But I think that you miss the point I agree with you that Robert Oswald was not informed about Lee’s activities in detail. I don’t deny that. I also agree to say that Robert Oswald has no authority to say that his brother did it alone. Granted. If Lee Harvey Oswald had assassinated Kennedy with some friends who were able to escape, Robert Oswald would not be in a better position than you and me to determine that or have an opinion on that possibility. But, you seem to forget one important thing : I never said (and no one has ever said), that we rely on Robert Oswald to determine who killed Kennedy ! We already have all the evidence (and scientific evidence, etc.) to determine that Lee Harvey Oswald alone fired all the shots (three) that killed Kennedy. Robert Oswald’s testimony is just an additional argument, some additional information that powerfully confirms and add strength to the official version. That’s a lot ! When you say that « Close family members are often "the worst" witnesses to expect qualified answers from in murder cases » I tend to agree. I mean, when feelings are involved, people are biased, subjective. That’s expected. But it doesn’t apply here. We should expect Robert Oswald, out of bias or subjectiveness, to tell us that his brother was innocent ! But despite his desire to tell the world that his brother was innocent, he had to acknowledge the facts. He had to admit the truth. That’s powerful. Besides, again, I say it, Robert talked to Lee before and after the assassination. Who else did ? He had a personal, intimate conversation with him. Who else did ? And sir, please, be honest, I know my sister better than you do. And I suppose that you know your brother, and your wife better than I do. You get my point.
  10. François Carlier

    Who Hated JFK in 1963?

    Sir, thank you for your answer. OK, in order to try not to get lost in the different directions or the amount of information, let’s stick to specific items. Let’s focus on the number of shots, please. I had asked you this : « Let me ask you a precise question : how many shots were fired that day ? I say three. How many, according to you ? » Your answer to me is (I quote) : « So as many as 5 shots may have been fired in total. » Then, may I ask : -why do you think that only four of the five shots were « heard » on the dictabelt and spotted by the Weiss & Aschkenasy team ? - how is it that people who are supposedly experts on the Kennedy assassination, such as Robert Groden, talk about six, seven, and even more shots ? How is it possible ? I mean, supposedly the acoustics evidence shows four shots. Then you say five. And other conspiracy believers say six or seven. I mean, there’s a problem, somewhere, wouldn’t you think ?
  11. François Carlier

    Who Hated JFK in 1963?

    "Part of a plot" ? Then let me ask you a few questions : when do you think he had the time and opportunity to get his instructions and organize things ? And where did he meet his co-conspirators ? And why didn’t he say anything when he realized that he had been bamboozled and betrayed by them ?
  12. François Carlier

    A question to David Lifton

    Hello again, everybody, This thread started with a question to David Lifton. I don’t know whether he took the time to come and read this thread. At any rate, he never bothered to answer. Still I would love to have some feedback / opinion / comment from people whom I consider both knowledgeable and reasonable, namely David Von Pein, Fred Litwin, W. Tracy Parnell, Paul Baker and Lance Payette. Be honest. Tell me whether my hypothesis might have some probability or validity, or whether it is unrealistic or just plain silly… Here was my question to Lifton : Mister Lifton, you have presented a whole theory in your book "Best evidence", that claims that Kennedy's corpse was taken off its coffin, and then the president's body was altered (wounds were changed), as part of a conspiracy. People such as John McAdams, or Gerald Posner, or Vincent Bugliosi have written articles or books saying that you are completely wrong : the body was never taken off the coffin, and the wounds were never altered. I listened to your Black-Op-Radio 2008 interview in which you complained about Bugliosi's book, because, as you said, he criticized your theory without really addressing important issues. You even said : "Who is he kidding ?". In other words, you were saying that his arguments against your theory were not valid because they were incomplete and he did not really have an answer for some particular and important points that you had raised. Is that a fair description ? Well, I have thought about it for a long time and have a question for you. What if you were both wrong and right ? What if the corpse was indeed taken off the coffin (which would explain the blood evidence and other witness accounts that you gathered) but only for security purposes (which would support Bugliosi's contention that there was never a conspiracy) ? Here is my supposition (and I use the word "supposition" on purpose). We all know how the President's body left Parkland hospital. The Secret Service agents were rolling the casket towards the exit when they were blocked by Dr. Rose. The physician told them that there should be an autopsy performed right there because the homicide had happened in Dallas County. But the Secret Service agents forced their way at gun point. Then they all rushed to the presidential plane, at Love Field. And that's what is important. I can imagine the frantic state they were in. It's a terrible mess. No one knows really what is going to happen. Even the Kennedy party (Jackie and all) didn't know that Lyndon Johnson was in their aircraft and was waiting to be sworn in. I can imagine the Secret Service agents rushing from Parkland, fearing of being followed by the police and who knows, maybe a judge would rule that Kennedy's corpse must be autopsied in Dallas ? So they decide, as a desperate "security" measure, to take the corpse out of the coffin. That way, they figure that if the Dallas police decide to "impound" the coffin, well, by the time they get back to Parkland hospital with the coffin, open it and realize that it is empty, Air Force One, with the Kennedy party and the President's body will have already taken off. So someone in charge, possibly Roy Kellerman, decides to open the coffin. It's only a spur-of-the-moment thing. I mean, he may have vomited at the sheer thought of what he was doing. He decided it offhand, in the heat of action. They figured what mattered was to bring the president's corpse along with them, despite the law by which the Dallas authorities wanted to abide. I mean, it was a crazy situation, arguably the craziest half hour in the history of the United States. At that precise moment, you had zero president, no one knew exactly who was in charge, nor where the danger might come from, nor whom to trust. The picture of Secret Service agents openly going against the law and fleeing from the local Police Department with the dead body of the President of the United States !! I mean, that's totally unique. Therefore, in their frantic state of panic, it might be conceivable that Secret Service agents decided at some point to "hide" the president's body from the local authorities, if only for a few minutes, in order to secure it and make sure it would be taken to Washington with Lyndon Johnson and Jackie Kennedy. I might agree to believe that. That would explain the blood on Kellerman's shirt (if there was blood. I don't know that. I am just going along with what you have said about your upcoming book). And of course, despite all their efforts to be discreet and not tell anybody, they couldn't prevent people from noticing strange activity, which might explain Dennis David's account or other accounts. But there was never any conspiracy. No plot. Nothing sinister. No pre-autopsy surgery at all. Nothing. (Maybe some bones moved a bit when the body was hastily moved around, that's all). Do you understand my point ? Or, rather, my supposition ? In a nutshell, could there have been just a simple (if one could use that term in such a situation) attempt by the Secret Service to temporarily "hide" the body from the Dallas police (after they had fled at gun point), with absolutely no desire to take part in any conspiracy or cover-up, no foul play, no unhealthy move, no malicious intent whatsoever ? It was indeed a bad decision in retrospect, but only that. That might reconcile some of your findings (that can sometimes be hard to explain away) with the arguments of the defenders of the official version (who, you have to admit it, have good reason to doubt your – may I say - farfetched conclusions about pre-autopsy surgery and a we-shall-fire-from-the-front-with-a-patsy-being-behind-and-take-the-body-unnoticed-and-change-the-wounds conspiracy (which even other conspiracists don't believe in). What do you think ?
  13. François Carlier

    Who Hated JFK in 1963?

    OK. Sir, you have to be strict. Let me ask you a precise question : how many shots were fired that day ? I say three. How many, according to you ?
  14. François Carlier

    Who Hated JFK in 1963?

    Unlike you or anybody else, Robert Oswald shared Lee Oswald's blood. Unlike you or anybody else, Robert Oswald knew Lee Oswald very well and had seen him before the assassination as well as after it ! Unlike you or anybody else, Robert Oswald talked to his brother while the latter was in jail and was being accused of having killed JFK ! Unlike you or anybody else, Robert Oswald was able to spend some time with Lee Oswald, calmly, and look at him in the eyes. Robert Oswald repeatedly said that he very much wanted to say that his brother was innocent, but he could not, because he had to admit that Lee was guilty ! Robert Oswald (quote) : "After all these years, I think more than anything else, if I had an opportunity, had the facts that said Lee was innocent, I would be out there shouting it loud and clear. It is my belief, my conviction, no one but Lee was involved, period" (The Kennedy assassination, beyond conspiracy, ABC News, 2003] So, you see, between you and Robert Oswald, I must say that I know whom to choose…
  15. François Carlier

    Who Hated JFK in 1963?

    Sir, please ! I sincerely think that, unlike some members here, you are really a honest person, dedicated to respectfully debate the issues. And within my time constraints, I am willing to have healthy debates with you. So, OK, go ahead ! I'm at your disposal But please, oh, please, stop making a fool of yourself (I'm sorry, I don't know what else to say) by trying to use the totally-discredited acoustics issue. Once and for all, the so-called dictabelt analysis was flawed. Listen to what Charles Rader had to say about it. Study the topic more carefully than you seem to have done so far. Officer McDonald's was nowhere near where he should have been for the hypothesis to have any semblance of probability. I gave you several links and eferences in another thread. Read. Look at the evidence. The HSCA got it wrong, big time ! Whatever evidence for conspiracy you may find one day, it won't be the so-called acoustics from the seventies, that's for sure !
×