Jump to content
The Education Forum
François Carlier

A question to David Lifton

Recommended Posts

Let me add why that is so interesting.  Because, as Bill Davy found out, while prepping his fine book, Let Justice be Done,  the CIA had left a note saying that on some previous occasion they had already destroyed Shaw's "Y # file-33412".

If that is not interesting enough for you, how about the fact that, a few years ago, Joan Mellen discovered that, through the CIA's historical review program,  Shaw had been a highly paid, valuable contract agent for several years.

All of this new information utterly dissipates the  malarkey that Shaw told the public and under oath at his trial. Namely that he had no association with the CIA.  And also the junk that the CIA sold the HSCA that he was only part of their businessman's contact service program.  Because, as CIA analyst Marguerite Stevens wrote, besides those destroyed files, Shaw also had a covert security clearance.  When Bill Davy showed that Stevens document to Victor Marchetti, he told Bill that if you are only a DCS contact, there was not a need for a covert security clearance.  He suspected that this meant that Shaw was involved with the Domestic Operations Division of Clandestine Services.  Which was run by Tracy Barnes and used people like Howard Hunt. (Davy, p. 196)

What makes that so interesting is a letter I discovered many years ago from the late Gordon Novel. He had written to a prominent researcher that  the CIA had sent out an order quite early, that is several months after the assassination, that Shaw's true role inside the agency had to be camouflaged.  Novel wrote that letter in the mid seventies, before any of this newly declassified information had come to light. The declassified record would indicate he was correct.

Now, please add the above into the following new info:

1. The facts of the voluminous declassified record of Shaw being in the Clinton/Jackson area with Ferrie and Oswald in the late summer of 1963, which he lied about. under oath.

2. The overwhelming evidence that Shaw was Bertrand--there are now 14 witnesses on this issue;  and he had called Dean Andrews to defend Oswald, and  Martin Hay found out that Andrews later admitted Bertrand was Shaw. Shaw also lied about this key point under oath.

3. The numerous witnesses that Ferrie knew Shaw to the point he was in his office at the ITM (another issue he lied about).

4. All the discoveries about Permindex/CMC being just as bad as we all suspected--another issue that Shaw lied about.

5. The further eyewitness testimony by Woodrow Hardy that Oswald was seen at Shaw's house with Ferrie. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 216) 

6. Ferrie's two diagrams, one of a plot to kill Castro, one resembling what happened to Kennedy in Dallas, down to the point that Ferrie had written the words "Elm Street" on the diagram. (ibid)

Now, does that brief profile suggest an innocent man to anyone?    It didn't to Garrison and it does not denote innocence to any rational person I think.

People don't perjure themselves, to the point of going to jail for 20 years, nor does the CIA destroy files repeatedly,  if there is nothing to hide.

There was a lot to hide with Shaw, in direct relation to the JFK case. And the CIA knew it.  And Gordon Novel knew it because Allen Dulles himself hired him to infiltrate Garrison's office. (ibid, pp. 232, 33).  This is what I mean about DVP.  He is so ignorant about this stuff that he does not know he is jumping into a whirlpool. And there is no escape.

Then he wonders why people think he is being paid.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dawn Meredith said:

I totally agree.  They will never agree with the truth.  I have long wondered why so many  lone nut advocates come to these forums. I have my own suspicions of course especially about the ones who post all the darn time. 

It is sad to see so many lone nut voices on a forum dedicated to serious discussion about the assassination of JFK.

Last month our 15 year old grand daughter was asked to write a paper on this subject by her lone nut teacher.  She did her own research and  came to the conclusion that her teacher was dead wrong.  She got an A.

Yeah, sure.
Instead of trying to debate with sound arguments -- which you cannot do -- just pretend that : "you are right and those who disagree should not have the right to post here".

It is pathetic, if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Yeah, sure.
Instead of trying to debate with sound arguments -- which you cannot do -- just pretend that : "you are right and those who disagree should not have the right to post here".

It is pathetic, if you ask me.

You came back to this forum touting your superior critical thinking skills. I have yet to see any of that. You rise above no one that can be found on a YouTube comment board with the exception that you are compelled to a certain level of decorum by the forum rules. 

It is too bad; I am an educated observer of such skills, and I keep a look out for that particular set of skills in the area of thought and expression. You sir have not touched beyond the realm of the normative. I am waiting and watching. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2018 at 6:14 AM, François Carlier said:

Hello everybody,....
......before I go on, I must digress a little bit.

People who know me may remember that for years I have been advocating the study of critical-thinking skills. Indeed, that's the key.
........ I know as much as he knows), but he hasn't read the slightest book on critical thinking, or so it seems (meaning that I know a lot more than him in that area, and that's crucial).
As I have always said, what has always struck me in all this Kennedy-assassination debate, is the lack of understanding of critical-thinking rules and laws by most, if not all, conspiracy theorists.
And that's sad.
May I suggest to Jim DiEugenio to read these books :
- Robert Baker et Joe Nickell, Missing pieces, Prometheus Books, 1992
- Michael Barkun, A culture of conspiracy, University of California Press; 2013
- Antony Flew, How to think straight, Prometheus Books, 1998
- Martin Gardner, Science : good, bad and bogus, Prometheus Books, 1989
- William D. Gray, Thinking critically about new-age ideas, Wadsworth Publishing. Company, 1991
- Peter Knight, Conspiracy Culture : From the Kennedy Assassination to the X-Files, Routledge, 2000
- Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness testimony, Harvard University Press, 1996
- Kathryn S. Olmsted, Real enemies, Oxford University Press, 2009
- Hy Ruchlis, Clear thinking, Prometheus Books, 1990
- Hy Ruchlis, How do you know it's true ?, Prometheus Books, 1991
It's a short list, but it will be helpful to begin with.
That's my contention here : conspiracy theorists do not apply logic, nor common sense. Otherwise, they would simply end up admitting that the only truth is the official version.
..... So many "experts" are nothing but ignorant.

...... How many times have I thought : "That member shows bias, that member is using a fallacious argument, that member is so illogical, …" ? As they say on a web site devoted to critical thinking, there are several ways in which arguments can go awry.
For example, who in this forum has ever read "The thinker's guide to fallacies" ?
It can be downloaded for free on line :....


It should be mandatory reading. I mean, every member should be asked to read such a book before beginning to post comments here. The overall quality of the debates would be greatly enhanced and improved.
Fallacies are plentiful here. They should be spotted and members should try all they can to erase them.
That's what I think.
...... It's hard for people to admit that they had been wrong. It shouldn't be. I, for one, would have no difficulty. But to most people, it is hard.
..........

- There are none so deaf as those who will not listen. Indeed I know one thing : I could spend hours, days, weeks, months, years, even decades here, giving all the evidence in the world to prove the validity of the single bullet, backed by all the best scientists in the world, it would be to no avail in front of conspiracy believers, who want to believe and could not care less about the facts.
In this particular thread, I defer to David Von Pein, 100%.

.........

 

Just a refresher on Francois' recent reintroduction....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dawn Meredith said:

It is sad to see so many lone nut voices on a forum dedicated to serious discussion about the assassination of JFK.

Oh, get real, Dawn! There are a whopping TWO (maybe three) LNers posting here. And one of those LNers (Francois Carlier) hadn't posted here in 8 years prior to this month. That's hardly "so many lone nut voices". It's not even close to a level playing field. CTers outnumber LNers 20 to 1 (at least).

And, anyway, why is it "sad" to have a few LNers posting, Dawn? Are you against free speech? We all know you've totally banned all LNers at the all-CTer forum you control at DPF, but that doesn't mean that Kathy Becket, James Gordon, et al, have to exhibit that same kind of censorship here at EF.

"We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time." -- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; Feb. 20, 2014

DPF-Post-February-20-2014.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The idea that Garrison thought Shaw was innocent is nothing but a manifestation of his [DVP's] malignant imagination.

Oh really? Then why do you suppose this occurred?....

  • "Instead of referring to [Clay] Shaw (or "the defendant") a great number of times as he tried to connect him to the conspiracy and murder, as any prosecutor would do if he believed the person he was prosecuting was guilty, unbelievably Garrison only referred to Shaw once in his entire summation [to the jury], and then not to say that the evidence showed he was guilty. Not once did Garrison tell the jury he had proved Shaw's guilt or that the evidence pointed toward Shaw's guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1380 of "Reclaiming History" (2007)
Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever hear of the blind leading the blind?  Perfect example above by DVP.

Even though i went after Bugliosi's book tooth and nail, and especially his chapter on Garrison, somehow DVP makes like the guy on the cover of Mad magazine, "What? Me worry?"  I spent 24 pages exposing the whole circus that was VB's discussion of Garrison in The JFK Assassination: The EvidenceToday.

But there goes DVP using that discredited tree killer as  a source. But in this case you did not need my book to find out the facts.  You could have used Bill Davy's  shorter book.  

The Shaw trial had to be handled by three lawyers: Alcock, Oser and Garrison.  Garrison had severe health problems throughout, including a painfully wrenched back and the Hong Kong flu.  Therefore, generally speaking, Oser handled the Dealey Plaza side, and Alcock the conspiracy side. Consequently, it was Alcock who delivered the summation for Shaw's role in the conspiracy, not Garrison.  

Alcock plentifully referred to Shaw by his name or as the defendant throughout his summation.  For example, 4 times on one page. (See Davy, p. 240)

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Even though I went after Bugliosi's book tooth and nail...

[...]

...there goes DVP using that discredited tree killer as a source.

Bugliosi's book has not been "discredited" in any major way whatsoever. Certainly not with respect to his main bottom-line conclusions, i.e.:

....Oswald killed Kennedy.

....Oswald killed Tippit.

....Oswald shot at General Walker.

....The Warren Commission conducted a very good investigation and reached a proper conclusion based on the available evidence.

....There is no solid evidence for conspiracy in the JFK case at all.

And just because James DiEugenio wrote a book that claims to have "discredited" virtually every last thing uttered by Vince Bugliosi in his 2007 tome, that most certainly does NOT mean that VB's book HAS been "discredited".

"Discredited" obviously has a completely different definition to a CTer like DiEugenio than it does to many other people. I mean, let's face the music here....

The guy who just said Bugliosi's tome has been "discredited" is the very same guy who, incredibly, actually believes that Oswald didn't fire a shot at EITHER Kennedy OR Tippit (OR Walker either)!

And there's also this list of fantastic things that Jim believes (or says he does)....

"[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"A Mauser was the first weapon found and...a Mauser shell was found in Dealey Plaza." -- James DiEugenio; April 3, 2015

"It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing." -- James DiEugenio; August 1, 2015

"I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. .... What's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010

"Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009

"I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." -- James DiEugenio; August 5, 2015

"I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland." -- James DiEugenio; June 4, 2010

"At Bethesda, the military severely curtails the autopsy so that no one will ever know the true circumstances of how Kennedy was killed. Also, the FBI switches the bullet found at Parkland Hospital to fit the second rifle found at the TSBD, a Mannlicher Carcano." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010

"You cannot even prove he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had possession of the handgun." -- James DiEugenio; June 25, 2013

"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010

"JBC [John B. Connally] does not react until around frame 237." -- James DiEugenio; August 2010

"I am not calling [Dallas police officer M.N.] McDonald a xxxx, the evidence is doing it." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015

--------------------------
[End Fantasy Quotes.]
-------------------------

And yet, with beliefs like that laundry list above hanging out there for all to see, I'm supposed to believe that Vincent T. Bugliosi is really the one who has been "discredited", plus every official committee who has ever looked into the JFK murder case. Those committees, via Jim's definition, have also ALL been "discredited" too.

Please, James! Give a reasonable man with a weak bladder a freakin' break for once!

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh really? Then why do you suppose this occurred?....

  • "Instead of referring to [Clay] Shaw (or "the defendant") a great number of times as he tried to connect him to the conspiracy and murder, as any prosecutor would do if he believed the person he was prosecuting was guilty, unbelievably Garrison only referred to Shaw once in his entire summation [to the jury], and then not to say that the evidence showed he was guilty. Not once did Garrison tell the jury he had proved Shaw's guilt or that the evidence pointed toward Shaw's guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1380 of "Reclaiming History" (2007)

David Von Pein evaded all of this.... 

 

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me add why that is so interesting.  Because, as Bill Davy found out, while prepping his fine book, Let Justice be Done,  the CIA had left a note saying that on some previous occasion they had already destroyed Shaw's "Y # file-33412".

If that is not interesting enough for you, how about the fact that, a few years ago, Joan Mellen discovered that, through the CIA's historical review program,  Shaw had been a highly paid, valuable contract agent for several years.

All of this new information utterly dissipates the  malarkey that Shaw told the public and under oath at his trial. Namely that he had no association with the CIA.  And also the junk that the CIA sold the HSCA that he was only part of their businessman's contact service program.  Because, as CIA analyst Marguerite Stevens wrote, besides those destroyed files, Shaw also had a covert security clearance.  When Bill Davy showed that Stevens document to Victor Marchetti, he told Bill that if you are only a DCS contact, there was not a need for a covert security clearance.  He suspected that this meant that Shaw was involved with the Domestic Operations Division of Clandestine Services.  Which was run by Tracy Barnes and used people like Howard Hunt. (Davy, p. 196)

What makes that so interesting is a letter I discovered many years ago from the late Gordon Novel. He had written to a prominent researcher that  the CIA had sent out an order quite early, that is several months after the assassination, that Shaw's true role inside the agency had to be camouflaged.  Novel wrote that letter in the mid seventies, before any of this newly declassified information had come to light. The declassified record would indicate he was correct.

Now, please add the above into the following new info:

1. The facts of the voluminous declassified record of Shaw being in the Clinton/Jackson area with Ferrie and Oswald in the late summer of 1963, which he lied about. under oath.

2. The overwhelming evidence that Shaw was Bertrand--there are now 14 witnesses on this issue;  and he had called Dean Andrews to defend Oswald, and  Martin Hay found out that Andrews later admitted Bertrand was Shaw. Shaw also lied about this key point under oath.

3. The numerous witnesses that Ferrie knew Shaw to the point he was in his office at the ITM (another issue he lied about).

4. All the discoveries about Permindex/CMC being just as bad as we all suspected--another issue that Shaw lied about.

5. The further eyewitness testimony by Woodrow Hardy that Oswald was seen at Shaw's house with Ferrie. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 216) 

6. Ferrie's two diagrams, one of a plot to kill Castro, one resembling what happened to Kennedy in Dallas, down to the point that Ferrie had written the words "Elm Street" on the diagram. (ibid)

Now, does that brief profile suggest an innocent man to anyone?    It didn't to Garrison and it does not denote innocence to any rational person I think.

People don't perjure themselves, to the point of going to jail for 20 years, nor does the CIA destroy files repeatedly,  if there is nothing to hide.

There was a lot to hide with Shaw, in direct relation to the JFK case. And the CIA knew it.  And Gordon Novel knew it because Allen Dulles himself hired him to infiltrate Garrison's office. (ibid, pp. 232, 33).  This is what I mean about DVP.  He is so ignorant about this stuff that he does not know he is jumping into a whirlpool. And there is no escape.

Then he wonders why people think he is being paid.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There goes another pivot by the new millennium's Elgin Baylor.

First, he gets punked on Myers.

Then goes to Garrison.  On which he is utterly ignorant and so lost that he used Bugliosi, of all people, on Garrison.  Now he gets shown the door on that issue and so he comes back and says well, since DiEugenio believes Oswald is innocent, and Buglioisi does not then somehow Bugliosi's gasbag of a book is right.

Davey started praising RH two years before it was published.  He then put up a publicity page for it.  He could not find one serious error of fact in the 2.646 pgs of waste product.  he could not even note that Bugliosi lied in the introduction.  Which he did.

I would wager he had never read my book either.  But he makes value judgments about it. Figure that one out.

:stupid

I showed in excruciating detail the fraud that RH is.  To use this latest example, I do not believe that Bugliosi did not know about the three summations.  Since he did read Bill's book.  He used that in censored form to smear Garrison.  Davey just cannot stomach the fact that his two favorite authors, Vince and Jean Davison are both  cheap hacks.  Bugliosi is a longer hack  than Davison.  That is the main difference.  And that is a proven fact by me, since I reviewed both books.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein evaded all of this...[conspiracy-tinged tripe authored by DiEugenio]...

You don't actually expect me to fall at the feet of DiEugenio when it comes to ANYTHING he says about the JFK murder case, do you Michael?

Get real. (And take a glance at the litany of things [quoted in my last post] that Jimmy has gotten COMPLETELY WRONG when it comes to evaluating the facts in this case.)

With a laundry list of absurdity like that one (and this one) staring everyone in the face who cares to look, the only question that remains is:

Why would anybody who considers themselves to be a reasonable person ever take James DiEugenio of Los Angeles seriously about ANYTHING relating to the events of November 22, 1963? (Which is not just a smart-ass or smart-alecky remark on my part.....it's a truly valid and legitimate question from my point-of-view.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You don't actually expect me to fall at the feet of DiEugenio when it comes to ANYTHING he says about the JFK murder case, do you Michael?

Get real. (And take a glance at the litany of things [quoted in my last post] that Jimmy has gotten COMPLETELY WRONG when it comes to evaluating the facts in this case.)

With a laundry list of absurdity like that one (and this one) staring everyone in the face who cares to look, the only question that remains is:

Why would anybody who considers themselves to be a reasonable person ever take James DiEugenio of Los Angeles seriously about ANYTHING relating to the events of November 22, 1963? (Which is not just a smart-ass or smart-alecky remark on my part.....it's a truly valid and legitimate question from my point-of-view.)

I know that you did accuse a NOLA DA abnd elected judge of maliciciuos prosecution, and fail to address the salient points in the case of Clay Shaw. Furthermore,  your defense of al your other positions is... “ but, but , but ...... the Warren Commission said....”

 

NISM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey,

You ignored each and every item in that bill of indictment for Clay Shaw.  Michael is absolutely correct on that.

Every part of that list is made up of evidence that was rolled out by the ARRB.

I did not originate this, it is all in documents and/or testimony.  Some of the points I footnoted, some I did not.  I could have footnoted them all, but I think I have a reputation on this site for honesty and scholarly discipline. That is why people source me and interview me.

You were not able to answer any of it in a coherent way.  Why can't you just man up and admit that?  You do not know jack about New Orleans.  Why is that so hard to admit?

You then doubled down on that by using the fraudulent volume RH by the hack Bugliosi.  And you get more custard pie on your face. You did not have the barest idea about what happened at Shaw's trial. You then trusted Bugliosi and  he ended up being untrustworthy.

  You never get tired of falling on your face do you?   And we are supposed to ignore that because you do?

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

There is no solid evidence for conspiracy in the JFK case at all.

EOP wound.

 

Dude, have you ever come up with an answer to the brain removal problem? Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed from the top of the skull, and yet he always stated that he could examine the EOP wound as an unbroken perforation in the occipital bone. Apparently you think this same situation happened but with the hole in the parietal bone 4-5 inches above the EOP, right beside the large defect.

Not only does a brain removal procedure involve making a large skull cavity, but the entire area of Kennedy's skull around the large defect was also shattered. How on earth did they get the brain out without disturbing your "upper entry wound"?

 

Of course, this is all perfectly explained if the wound was in the lower head area as reported.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

You do not know jack about New Orleans.  Why is that so hard to admit? 

I know enough to know that there was NO SOLID EVIDENCE against the man that Garrison was prosecuting.

 

25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

  You never get tired of falling on your face do you?

Well, Jim, with a trail of purely laughable quotes like the ones I cited in a previous post --- like "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction" and "Baker never saw Oswald" and "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit" --- do you REALLY think that YOU are the one who should be talking about someone ELSE "falling on [their] face"?

And, I say again, with such unbelievably wrong beliefs in your hip pocket (beliefs that are NOT supported by the actual EVIDENCE at all!), why should anyone take seriously ANYTHING you have ever said regarding the JFK case? If you can't even figure out the really easy ones---like Oswald ordering the C2766 rifle and Oswald shooting J.D. Tippit four times---then how can anyone expect you to get ANYTHING right at all? (Seems like a sensible question to me.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
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...