Jump to content
The Education Forum
François Carlier

A question to David Lifton

Recommended Posts

FC keeps on asking about Lifton's reply.  Lifton has not replied FC, why don't you PM him?

But as to how this thread got sidelined, there are two reasons for it.  Someone posted a story about the trajectory of the posterior bullet to the throat.  Then you commented to someone's reply to that with this: "You also write "The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting."
No, that's not true. That's one of the myths of the Kennedy assassination."
  You also then said that you found no indications that anyone interfered with the Parkland doctors' testimony.

I showed why those statements are wrong.  And then DVP came to your aid.  And that is why we are now here.  With you and he still saying, after 55 years of contrary evidence, that somehow, according to Bugliosi,  the WC and the FBI did an excellent investigation into Kennedy's murder. And me quoting FBI witnesses, including Hoover, that such was simply not the case.  

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

The only interesting question is, Who is paying you?

I give David Von Pein and Francois Carlier a great deal of credit for putting up with these type of attacks in order to attempt to bring some common sense to the debate. I know what it is like because I have been the recipient of this type of thought pattern over the years myself. The fact is, there are many individuals on the CT side of things who demonstrably have devoted more time and energy to the JFK case than David and Francois or anyone on the LN side have (which is not to say these two fine gentleman have not spent a great deal of time because they have). But some of these people seem to have an obsession with the case and indeed apparently work full time on it and have found a way to get paid to do so.

One such person is Jefferson Morley who now is writing freelance for left-wing websites and in his spare time writes pro-conspiracy books disguised as biographies that are heavily related to the JFK case. But Mr. McBride, or anyone else here for that matter, doesn't seem too concerned about how Morley makes his living since he is working "for the cause." They also don't seem too concerned that Morley is spreading disinformation as he was when he was promoting Veciana's book and telling everyone that Veciana was a CIA agent when that is demonstrably not the case. At one time, Veciana was approved for use as an asset by the CIA, but was apparently never used in that capacity.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/another-slobbering-love-affair.html

So if anyone is making money from the assassination, it is people like Morley (there are others but I am using him as an example here because he is a public figure and can presumably withstand the criticism). Von Pein has written a fine book on the case but, as I'm sure he will tell you, the market for non-conspiracy books is very small. And the evidence that any LN people are doing their work at the behest of the CIA or the "Deep State" is non-existent. BTW, please keep up the good work David and Francois.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again.

False dichotomy of CT vs LN.  Instead of WC zealot vs critic. You either buy their malarkey  or you don't.

Then this: Morley writes for left-wing web sites.  You mean like Newsweek?  That publication was revived from the dead, and is now edited by Chris Ruddy.   If you do not know, Ruddy was the righting hatchet man who worked for Richard Mellon Scaife to create the Clinton Crazies. He was then rewarded with the rightwing media site Newsmax.

And oh puhlease, with that Veciana was not a CIA agent.  Yeah, Phillips paid him 260,000 bucks because he only did asset work. :please  I mean if you want to read some really hilarious stuff, take a look at what the CIA says about its interactions with the Garrison investigation.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

telling everyone that Veciana was a CIA agent when that is demonstrably not the case. At one time, Veciana was approved for use as an asset by the CIA, but was apparently never used in that capacity.

Tracy, to be sure, which one is it? Demonstrably false or apparently false?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, François Carlier said:

(which has absolutely nothing to do with the thread that I started).

You posted: 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).

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 ?

and you truly expected that your question would be taken seriously... newsflash buddy... we are not talking about “belief” but established fact...

this “thread” you started includes:

Here is my supposition (and I use the word "supposition" on purpose).

sup·po·si·tion
ˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/
noun
  1. an uncertain belief.

So while a theory is offered backed by evidence.. all you do is guess what might have happened and use this guess to do what?.... try and impeach decades of research..

:up

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

FC keeps on asking about Lifton's reply.  Lifton has not replied FC, why don't you PM him?

But as to how this thread got sidelined, there are two reasons for it.  Someone posted a story about the trajectory of the posterior bullet to the throat.  Then you commented to someone's reply to that with this: "You also write "The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting."
No, that's not true. That's one of the myths of the Kennedy assassination."
  You also then said that you found no indications that anyone interfered with the Parkland doctors' testimony.

I showed why those statements are wrong.  And then DVP came to your aid.  And that is why we are now here.  With you and he still saying, after 55 years of contrary evidence, that somehow, according to Bugliosi,  the WC and the FBI did an excellent investigation into Kennedy's murder. And me quoting FBI witnesses, including Hoover, that such was simply not the case.  

 

Mister DiEugenio,
Thank you for your message.
Allow me to sum up my experience (though I know most people won't care, so I'll be quick) so that you understand one important point.
I started learning about the JFK assassination when I was a student. At age 22, in 1989, I lived in Pennsylvania for a full year. I read David Lifton's book "Best evidence". I was very impressed. Lifton was my hero, no less. Then, in 1990, I met Cyril Wecht in his office in Pittsburgh, who told me that Lifton was completely wrong. Later that Summer I went to Dallas and met Robert Groden (whose book "High treason" I had just read) who also told me that Lifton was utterly wrong. It's not my fault. At least I discovered then that there was no such thing as a "research community" but separate individuals who all had their personal theories. Then I read Jim Garrison's book "On the trail of the assassins". I was impressed. I thought : "he is the guy !" Then David Lifton wrote about his experience with Garrison and you know how he denounced, criticized, or even castigated him. It's not my fault.
Then I had the great honor of meeting Pierre Salinger. I met him three times (in London and in France) and also exchanged letters with him. He was adamant that there had not been any conspiracy. Who better than Salinger knew JFK + RFK + LBJ + Jackie ? I mean, he lived with and among them for several years. He even slept at the White House on the night of November 22, 1963. Let me tell you : I say that he knew them better than you ! He said to me : no conspiracy whatsoever ! It's not my fault. Then I exchanged letters with Doctor Perry. He wrote that he agreed with the Warren commission version of events. It's not my fault. And please, don't tell me that he was afraid of me. Then I exchanged letters with Charles Baxter and Ronald Jones who said the same as Doctor Perry. In other words, they gave support to the official version. It's not my fault.
Then I read Robert Oswald's book and also watched him in several TV documentaries : every time he writes or says that his believes deep in his heart that his brother Lee was guilty of the assassination. He said it. It's not my fault.
All of that is just a tiny, ever so tiny part of my journey into the Kennedy assassination.
My point is : I am not talking through my hat and I am not just writing ideas out of thin air. You may disagree with me, you may think that I am wrong, you may claim that I reached the wrong conclusions, but for Heaven's sake, stop painting me as either ignorant or stupid, because I am neither !!!!!!

P.S. : Well, yes, I could send a personal message to David Lifton but I thought my question to him (and most important : his answer) would interest other people.

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

You posted: 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).

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 ?

and you truly expected that your question would be taken seriously... newsflash buddy... we are not talking about “belief” but established fact...

this “thread” you started includes:

Here is my supposition (and I use the word "supposition" on purpose).

sup·po·si·tion
ˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/
noun
  1. an uncertain belief.

So while a theory is offered backed by evidence.. all you do is guess what might have happened and use this guess to do what?.... try and impeach decades of research..

:up

 

 

 

Mister Joseph,
I don't want to quarrel with you, nor anybody.
Instead of giving me the definition of the word "supposition", which is a waste of time, why don't you tell me what you think of my initial post ? What would you answer be ? Could it have happened that way ? Yes, or no ? Why not ? I'd be interested to know. Give me your arguments. And why don't the other members give me their take on that matter ? Possible, or impossible ? Likely or unlikely ? Why ? Why not ? For what reasons ? etc.

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Tracy, to be sure, which one is it? Demonstrably false or apparently false?

 

There is some debate on this subject, but for the purposes of discussion let's define an agent as a regular employee of the CIA. An asset is someone they used who may or not have been paid. There is evidence that Veciana was chosen as an asset (a sabotage man) for the Bay of Pigs operation although he never was used in that capacity and he admitted he never worked on that. He was paid $500 at one point, but there is no evidence, save for his own assertions, that he was a regular CIA employee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

And oh puhlease, with that Veciana was not a CIA agent.  Yeah, Phillips paid him 260,000 bucks because he only did asset work. 

The only evidence of the $253,000 was Veciana's own story. The HSCA asked him to produce evidence of it and when he protested for alleged fear of income tax prosecution, they advised him that he had been given immunity. He still would provide no proof of receiving that sum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracy:

According to Fonzi, his wife acknowledged the reception of the money.

As per Carlier:

I have heard this story from you a number of times.  I still do not understand what its supposed to mean.

There are some people who believe the thesis of  Lifton's book.  There are some people who do not.   But to me, that is not the point.  The point is that almost everyone thinks today that something went really  wrong at Bethesda.  All one has to do is read the report of the ARRB on that issue.  One which Jeremy Gunn approved.  

Lifton's book, as he will admit, is a radical solution to this problem.  For some he succeeded, for some he did not.  There is a big difference between a private citizen trying to address a serious problem in the evidence in this case, and the government, via the WR, simply covering it up.  Now if you do not think anything went wrong there, then say so.

As per Salinger, how is what he thought representative of what the Kennedy family thought?   We know Jackie and RFK did not think that through the William Walton mission.  Through the Talbot book, we also know that the family had a meeting and at the meeting, RFK asked them what they wanted to do about this problem as he perceived it.  I find it hard to believe that you do not know this stuff FC.  You always brag about how many books you read.  And also your critical thinking skills.  

As per certain doctors at Parkland, this is the same as Alyea.  Alyea's testimony to Larry Hancock clearly denotes conspiracy, but he will not say that.  But people who understand what he is saying, and fit it into the chain of evidence, can understand that in a way he can't.  

Your failure to understand these rather simple points is puzzling.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

Tracy:

According to ....

 

 

I'll have to re-read some of the documents I have read. I could swear that I saw documents stating that Veciana got CIA money on numerous occasions, I think to the point of annoyance. I didn't realize it was a point of contention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I give David Von Pein and Francois Carlier a great deal of credit for putting up with these type of attacks in order to attempt to bring some common sense to the debate.

But they are not bringing common sense to the "debate".

There is no "debate" except for the fallacious back and forth others engage in.

David Von Pein admits JFK's jacket was bunched up "a little bit" on Elm St.

That's the ball game.  Bullet holes in the clothes too low to account for the throat wound.

End of subject since 1966!

Share this post


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

This is what happens when you get into a silly back and forth with these guys.

Then why are you getting into a silly back and forth with these guys?

Did Gaeton Fonzi get into a back and forth with Arlen Specter back in June of '66?  No, he just confronted Specter with the clothing evidence and Specter had an emotional breakdown.

When confronted with the clothing evidence, David Von Pein let down his guard and made a salient observation -- JFK's jacket was bunched up "a little bit" on Elm St.

When confronted with the clothing evidence Dale K. Myers created animation depicting JFK's jacket collar elevated an inch up into the hairline -- an obvious fiction!

We don't have to "debate" obvious things -- we only need observe them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Then why are you getting into a silly back and forth with these guys?

Did Gaeton Fonzi get into a back and forth with Arlen Specter back in June of '66?  No, he just confronted Specter with the clothing evidence and Specter had an emotional breakdown.

When confronted with the clothing evidence, David Von Pein let down his guard and made a salient observation -- JFK's jacket was bunched up "a little bit" on Elm St.

When confronted with the clothing evidence Dale K. Myers created animation depicting JFK's jacket collar elevated an inch up into the hairline -- an obvious fiction!

We don't have to "debate" obvious things -- we only need observe them.

Don't worry, Cliff. I have come to know you by now.
Have no fear.
I know very well that you have never done any research. I am aware that you know very little about the Kennedy assassination. I know that you haven't written a book. I know that you have never written an article. I know that you have not even written the least developed argument, or even a single paragraph of any substance or quality.
I have noticed that you are only capable of throwing single sentences with no relations and most of the time no meaning either.
But I still wonder : are you capable of writing a post without the word "bunch" in it ?
I don’t think so.
I'm sorry. But keep trying !

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...