Jump to content
The Education Forum

What's the point ?


Recommended Posts

Francois:

Because an FBI report says it pertains to Oswald it does not mean that the stuff found there was his.

If you believe the WC, it cannot be since they were Italian boxes, not WCC. A fact you wish to ignore.

You then say that if he bought the rifle then he had to buy ammo.

I hate to tell you but whether he purchased that rifle is very much in doubt,as is whether he ever picked it up.

So it makes perfect sense for him to not buy the ammo for it.

Forgive me, Sir, but didn't Marina acknowledge her husband's having a rifle ?

To go further, who, here, goes so far as claiming that Lee Oswald may not have possesed a rifle, and on what grounds ?

/F.C./

Edited by François Carlier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You wrote :

If you believe the WC, it cannot be since they were Italian boxes, not WCC. A fact you wish to ignore.

No, I do not want to ignore that. If it is a fact, so be it. I admit it. You know better. I agree.

/F.C./

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let it be known that I shall from now on IGNORE ALTOGETHER four people in this forum : Bill Kelly, Dean Hagerman, Lee Farley and Bernie Laverick.

The four of them have proved impolite, disrespectful, sarcastic and empty. I shall never again read even a word they might write.

I still wish to continue debating with the rest of this forum.

/F.C./

Let it be known that I shall from now on IGNORE ALTOGETHER four people in this forum : Bill Kelly, Dean Hagerman, Lee Farley and Bernie Laverick.

Thank the Lord!

The four of them have proved impolite, disrespectful, sarcastic and empty. I shall never again read even a word they might write.

Why break a habit eh Francois?

I still wish to continue debating with the rest of this forum.

Then that just leaves you with Lamson and Colby. Enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To James DiEugenio, or whoever feels like reading my posts :

I wish to go back to the "two empty boxes" topic. The debate on that subject was open a few weeks ago and I had failed to answer you. I wish to answer you today.

First of all, I would like to tell you that your writing (I quote) "You are a sucker for Gary Mack" was very rude and disrespectful.

Well, I guess that's the trend in this forum. I mean, some members here have been very rude to me. Moreover, I have read the "Lifton vs Fetzer" thread and I must say that Jim Fetzer attacked you and smeared you so much that I said to myself "Boy, those CT are very vicious toward each other, they don't need any LN to add anything".

So I shall just try to focus on the essence of my topic.

A few weeks ago, you wrote : "there were no boxes of MC ammo found among Oswald's possessions".

I then wrote that it was a mistake on your part, and provided a link to a message by a Mike Williams on another forum. It showed a document stipulating : Two empty boxes marked "6,5 Italian ammunition".

Then you proceeded to show I was wrong and you had been right all along.

Well, it's time I answered.

OK.

-1. First of all, regardless of what anybody here might think of me, I am a honest person, in that I always speak my mind. I say what I want to say, and NO-one can force me to say anything I wouldn't want to say. My only master is the truth. I am a honest truth-seeker, pure and simple.

-2. Like most people here (if not everybody here) I have spent years of my life studying the Kennedy assassination case (through books, videos, documentaries, visits, interviews, exchanges of letters, etc.). I know all the big names. I have exchanged letters or e-mail messages with most of them (from both sides of the fence). There are some people whom I like (which does not mean that they do). I am honored to count Gerald Posner among the people with whom I maintain an epistolary relationship. He is a person whom I admire. I have also great admiration for Dale Myers. It so happens that I have admiration for authors whom I consider intelligent and reasonable and that I do believe that it is reasonable to admit that Oswald acted alone. Well, I am surely entitled to that, aren't I ? I don't suppose you would want to prevent me from choosing my friends ? So, I have known Gary Mack through documentaries (in the TMWKK series, among others). I have never met him, but I do send him an e-mail message once in a while and he has always been very polite with me and has always answered with honesty. I thank him for that. I have great admiration and respect for him, too. I think he is an honest man, a real truth-seeker, not afraid to change his mind if need be (he will go where evidence leads). Having said that, I want to be perfectly clear : whatever I say or write is independent of him. He has never said that he confirms anything I say or write. He may even disagree with me, for all I know. So please, judge me on my own merits or on my own flaws.

-3. I have no problem whatsoever in admitting my mistakes. I hereby publicly acknowledge that I was wrong in suggesting that the document shown by Mike Williams proved the empty cases had been found in Oswald's belongings, because it did not. It is true that Gary Mack provided me with the link, but I should have checked myself. I have great confidence in Gary Mack, but no human being is above making mistakes, once in a while. So, I repeat, according to the evidence I have seen (and pending further research on my part), the two boxes were not found at Mrs. Paine's house, and so can reasonably be said not to have come from Lee Oswald's belongings. So, to put it simply, Mister DiEugenio, when you said that there were no boxes of MC ammo found among Oswald's possessions, you were right. And I was wrong to say otherwise.

-4. Having said that, I do think we should try to go further. The link

http://reopenkennedy...D-79-pic_13.htm

provided by Greg Parker shows that the two boxes were found in the vicinity of an abandoned gravel pit. Well, that's agreed. But you did notice, didn't you, that the header says "RE: Lee Harvey Oswald".

To be sure, that document pertains to Lee Harvey Oswald. And there is no denying that NO ONE CAN YET SAY FOR SURE that those boxes have nothing to do with Lee Oswald. The boxes were found in Irving. Didn't Ruth Paine live in Irving ?

-5. And let me ask you a question. Are you suggesting that Lee Oswald bought a rifle with no ammunition ? Have you ever heard of anybody, in any country, who buys a rifle but does not buy some ammunition ? Surely, as night follows day, it is obvious to me that if Oswald bought a rifle (and his wife confirms he had a rifle), he must have also bought some ammunition. So to my mind, finding some boxes of ammunition belonging to Oswald would not be of much significance, one way or another. Are you afraid of the idea of Oswald having bought some ammunition ?

-6. OK, I wasn't born in 1963. But let me ask you : were there any regulations then in Dallas, requiring a record of bullet purchases ? I mean, don't you think it was highly possible for Oswald to buy some ammunition ? I am not the least surprised if the clerks did not remember. They deal in cash, not names, not faces either. I don't know what job you do. But I challenge you to remember the face or name of a customer after several months. No one could.

-7. I wonder what D78, D79 and D80 stand for ? Do you know the exact source ? I mean, D78 and D80 were (I quote) "obtained from Mrs. Ruth Paine". So, my question is : are we sure that the boxes which were found in the vicinity of an abandoned gravel pit were the two boxes marked D79 ? It's just a simple question from me. If it is a silly question, please forgive me. But could it be that two boxes were found at Mrs. Paine's house, on top of the two found at the gravel pit ? Am I too far off, here ? If I am, I won't deny.

-8. I do resent your suggestion (or is it an accusation) that the Paines may have had any role in a plot. I think that's absurd. I even think it is outrageous. Please stop accusing people like that. I also think it is an easy way for you to explain away whatever evidence that bothers you. All you have to do is accuse still more people of being in on the plot.

Well I don't think we can ever agree on the extent of the plot anyway…

/F.C./

Thanks for being honest Frnancois,

but what's an "epistoloary relationship" mean?

Is that a French word?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James W. Douglass, author of "JFK and the Unspeakable" ? Give me a break. Don't tell me that's all you have ?

So your book is just what exactly Francois? Simply a rehash of Posner and Bugliosi with a smattering of McAdams for good measure?

Well, sort of. Actually, Bugliosi's book was published after mine, so my book can hardly be accused of being a rehash of his. Still, it is in the same spirit, no question (his being 10000 times better than mine). Add Jim Moore, Dale Myers and Larry Sturdivan as sources of inspiration, and also critical thinkers such as Martin Gardner or Paul Kurtz.

Plus I have added a lenghty discussion, and arguments such as a comparison between the Kennedy assassination and the French Dreyfus case.

And YES, a big yes, I am a "Case closed" fan.

So, if all of that makes you want to discount me, that is perfectly your right.

The title of your thread is "What's the point?" and never has a post lived up to its title on this or any other forum. This is history. History is argued over. That's why people who are interested in history are interested in history. The debate. The argument. The thinking.

Well, yes and no. Of course, discussing or debating over History is perfectly honorable and I enjoy it myself. We could talk for months about questions such as : What if Charles de Gaulle had not gone to England in 1940 ? Was Napoleon a great man ? Could the Vietnam war have been averted ? What did Eisenhower exactly mean when he said "The military industrial complex" ? Could Hitler have won the war against Russia if he had not made such big mistakes (as in Stalingrad) ? What can really explain Chamberlain's attitude toward Germany in the thirties ? And ancient Rome, what about their political regime ? And is democra&cy the best regime ? Was Churchill the greatest man of the twentieth century ? And so on, so forth...

But Kennedy assassination forums are NOT in the same league. To me debating the Kennedy assassination is like debating obvious facts. It is a waste of time.

It is a fact that Oswald was the sole assassin. And conspiracy theorists have uncovered nothing of substance to show otherwise.

Asking "Was Oswald really the sole assassin ?", is like asking "Is the Eiffel tower really in Paris ?", "Did Obama really succeed Bush ?", "Is New York City really on the East coast and Los Angeles on the West Coast ?", "Is 2 + 2 really 4 ?", "Is Canada really bigger than Spain ?" etc.

That's not debating history, that's wasting one's time.

But, again, what's the point in writing that ? I know nobody listens, anyway...

/François Carlier/

So then why are YOU "wasting (your) time here bud? Jim D shows up and boom, the lone nutters come crawling out like some kind of cockroaches. Methinks the purpose is to WASTE HIS TIME, dealing with these Langley wanna bes.

Edited by Dawn Meredith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let it be known that I shall from now on IGNORE ALTOGETHER four people in this forum : Bill Kelly, Dean Hagerman, Lee Farley and Bernie Laverick.

Are you going to ignore yourself for the same reasons that you listed?

Sir, I do think that if YOU ignored me, once and for all, everybody would be happy.

/F.C./

You just said you are going to ignore me altogether (along with Lee, Bernie and Bill)

Why do you keep replying to me?

You cant help yourself can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James W. Douglass, author of "JFK and the Unspeakable" ? Give me a break. Don't tell me that's all you have ?

So your book is just what exactly Francois? Simply a rehash of Posner and Bugliosi with a smattering of McAdams for good measure?

Well, sort of. Actually, Bugliosi's book was published after mine, so my book can hardly be accused of being a rehash of his. Still, it is in the same spirit, no question (his being 10000 times better than mine). Add Jim Moore, Dale Myers and Larry Sturdivan as sources of inspiration, and also critical thinkers such as Martin Gardner or Paul Kurtz.

Plus I have added a lenghty discussion, and arguments such as a comparison between the Kennedy assassination and the French Dreyfus case.

And YES, a big yes, I am a "Case closed" fan.

So, if all of that makes you want to discount me, that is perfectly your right.

The title of your thread is "What's the point?" and never has a post lived up to its title on this or any other forum. This is history. History is argued over. That's why people who are interested in history are interested in history. The debate. The argument. The thinking.

Well, yes and no. Of course, discussing or debating over History is perfectly honorable and I enjoy it myself. We could talk for months about questions such as : What if Charles de Gaulle had not gone to England in 1940 ? Was Napoleon a great man ? Could the Vietnam war have been averted ? What did Eisenhower exactly mean when he said "The military industrial complex" ? Could Hitler have won the war against Russia if he had not made such big mistakes (as in Stalingrad) ? What can really explain Chamberlain's attitude toward Germany in the thirties ? And ancient Rome, what about their political regime ? And is democra&cy the best regime ? Was Churchill the greatest man of the twentieth century ? And so on, so forth...

But Kennedy assassination forums are NOT in the same league. To me debating the Kennedy assassination is like debating obvious facts. It is a waste of time.

It is a fact that Oswald was the sole assassin. And conspiracy theorists have uncovered nothing of substance to show otherwise.

Asking "Was Oswald really the sole assassin ?", is like asking "Is the Eiffel tower really in Paris ?", "Did Obama really succeed Bush ?", "Is New York City really on the East coast and Los Angeles on the West Coast ?", "Is 2 + 2 really 4 ?", "Is Canada really bigger than Spain ?" etc.

That's not debating history, that's wasting one's time.

But, again, what's the point in writing that ? I know nobody listens, anyway...

/François Carlier/

So then why are YOU "wasting (your) time here bud? Jim D shows up and boom, the lone nutters come crawling out like some kind of cockroaches. Methinks the purpose is to WASTE HIS TIME, dealing with these Langley wanna bes.

Over the years conspiracy theorists have come up with all kinds of excuses for not debating but you have no doubt reached the top !

/F.C./

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've learned one thing : this forum is filled with bad-faith people who would believe any ludicrous conspiracy theory they are told, and do not tolerate reasonable people who debunk their claims.

Well, too bad for you all. Truth-seekers and defenders have the duty to debunk your claims and counter your disinformation. I shall endeavor to defend the truth and do all I can to help the American people against the lies you spread.

/F.C./

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mister DiEugenio, I've known you for years.

I perfectly know that you are not in the "debating" business. You are in the "nonsense accusations" business.

You never "debate" with anyone. You throw your would-be, false "arguments" in the hope their quantity will hide their lack of quality.

One thing you never talked about is my list of critical-thinking books. I bet you have NEVER read any one of them. That's your problem. You have lots of evidence, but you don't know what to do with it. You don't have the tools.

The result is, you accuse all kinds of people of all kinds of wrong-doings. That's called scandal mongering.

Your ranting on Black Op radio is not open-minded, nor reasonable.

You think you are good, but to my mind, YOU ARE NOT.

The more I listen to you, the more I see you for what you are : a failure.

You can keep on accusing everybody, Lee Oswald still is the lone assassin.

You spread lies. That's all you do. And that's bad.

/F.C./

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Francois should leave, or those who disagree with him should hound him out.

I think he has an important role in the debate, as do DVP and DR and John McAdams, and if those who promote the idea of a conspiracy can't handle their objections then that's their falt.

It does seem however, that the Lone Nutters are the first to be frustrated with the intensity of the debate sometimes, and degenerate into name calling and crass generalizations about all Conspiracy Theorists and taking legitimate objections and making them appear absurd.

What I don't understand is why Lone Nutters don't apply the same standards of evidence to the official version of events as they do to conspiracy theories?

It can be demonstrated that the official version of events just couldn't happen the way it is described in the Warren Report, but instead of trying to determine how it really happened, the facts must be bent so that the missing evidence fits the contrived scenario of Oswald's guilt, which is like fitting a square block into a round hole.

While what Lone Nutters say is true, and 90% of the conspiracy theories advanced can be shown to be wrong, that is also true of the official story, but instead of trying to determine the way it really happened, the arguments usually boil down to bull xxxx, and nobody wins.

I'm against those who bang the drum to rid the forum of Lone Nutters, as their objections can and will be overcome, but only if they are given the chance to voice them.

Bill Kelly

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm out of here !

/F.C./

Francois, to make an analogy, you wandered into a bar and accused the patrons of being a bunch of alcoholics, and then grew upset and belligerent when they told you to get stuffed. Most all LNs make the same mistake--they assume they are inherently more reasonable than CTs. I don't believe your behavior on this thread has been particularly reasonable, and suspect most reading this will agree.

Now, that said, I respect you for admitting you were wrong about the ammo boxes, and hope you stick around on the forum. While threads such as this usually end up leading us nowhere, there are many threads on this forum filled with valuable information. Unfortunately, IMO, many of these same threads reflect a clear CT bias, and contain occasional bits of misinformation. If you and the other LNs to recently join this forum, e.g. Reitzes, Von Pein, could add factual corrections or alternative viewpoints to these threads--free of vitriol, and claims of cognitive superiority--it might yet prove helpful to those reading these threads in the future.

By way of example, I, and I believe most of us on this forum, would have no problem with the following scenario:

CT "A" writes: "But we know there was a shooter on the knoll because Jean Hill saw him!"

LN "A" responds: "Yeah, but we also know her story changed over the years. If you CTs are gonna doubt Brennan because his story changed over time, you should also doubt HIll, whose story also changed."

Such an exchange, IMO, could prove useful and informative to those reading this forum with a relatively open mind. I know I have learned a lot from reading LN arguments, and suspect others could as well.

But it should also be a two-way street. LNs need to show more independence of thought, IMO. I mean, it's obvious McAdams was wrong about this,

McAdams

thenutterprof2.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7codFA-_vAy5C-AGJuVy_NNI5yLTCAez52y0NQ-3qkIpo7x6nQIoTljldWYNOLwzEDeWzXTVx7OvPfueo7Kf6zEN_ZrHxh0I4IwcemIdPAIdCEtfJoA1FD4KVECfndnbeeLo-YaBoi6m0yPBexJeHmtpg2Es_YWCeNtFWZD2Pbcm3t0zqm33g-0FqQKQQuc2ujxrzS5-&attredirects=0

but has a single LN admitted as much? No.

And it's also obvious Myers was disingenuous about the jump seat location,

A Tale of 2 1/2 Inches

thenutterprof2.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7codFA-_vAy5C-AGJuVy_NNI5yLTCAez52y0NQ-3qkIpo7x6nQIoTljldWYNOLwzEDeWzXTVx7OvPfueo7Kf6zEN_ZrHxh0I4IwcemIdPAIdCEtfJoA1FD4KVECfndnbeeLo-YaBoi6m0yPBexJeHmtpg2Es_YWCeNtFWZD2Pbcm3t0zqm33g-0FqQKQQuc2ujxrzS5-&attredirects=0

but has a single LN admitted as much? No.

Will you be the first? If not...what's the point?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against those who bang the drum to rid the forum of Lone Nutters, as their objections can and will be overcome, but only if they are given the chance to voice them.

Bill Kelly

Can and will be overcome? Chance to voice their objections?

You already stated that it can be demonstrated that things couldn't have happened the way the

Warren Report described it. Sounds like your mind is already made up. What is the point of debating it?

Are they going to offer something new that convinces you Oswald did it by himself?

Their objections were overcome more than forty years ago. I suppose some still will be wasting

their time attempting to overcome objections from Warren Report believers a hundred years from now.

As far as I'm concerned it is a slight to the memory and brave efforts of the first generation critics

to believe today that the veracity of the Warren Report is still debatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mister DiEugenio, I've known you for years.

I perfectly know that you are not in the "debating" business. You are in the "nonsense accusations" business.

You never "debate" with anyone. You throw your would-be, false "arguments" in the hope their quantity will hide their lack of quality.

One thing you never talked about is my list of critical-thinking books. I bet you have NEVER read any one of them. That's your problem. You have lots of evidence, but you don't know what to do with it. You don't have the tools.

The result is, you accuse all kinds of people of all kinds of wrong-doings. That's called scandal mongering.

Your ranting on Black Op radio is not open-minded, nor reasonable.

You think you are good, but to my mind, YOU ARE NOT.

The more I listen to you, the more I see you for what you are : a failure.

You can keep on accusing everybody, Lee Oswald still is the lone assassin.

You spread lies. That's all you do. And that's bad.

/F.C./

François, it is too bad that you have decided to leave. John Simkin recently said that he allows all points of view for better or worse. Free speech. I believe in that too. I am a CT'er in so far as I don't believe in the single/magic bullet theory. Beyond that I am still learning. I appreciate the opinion of anyone who has spent years researching the various aspects of this case despite what conclusions they have made. Why not stick to the facts instead of worrying about who is telling lies? The above quote only makes it seem as if you are obsessed with an individual, not that facts. I have been a lurker in this forum for years and it's disappointing (though not surprising) to read the petty insults both sides sling at each other. It's amazing to me that someone can spend so much time researching and then be reduced to melodramatic childish banter when confronted with an opposing view. Perhaps it's human nature.

Good luck to you -

Otto.

Edited by Otto B Cornejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...