Jump to content
The Education Forum
François Carlier

A simple question to James DiEugenio

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Every step of the way the Single Bullet Fantasy collapses under scrutiny.  Its a matter of data, not opinion.  The reason people like Baker hang on to it is because without it, you have a conspiracy.

Of course, Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twelve hours ago I asked FC to please show me where I said that there was nothing  of substance that was released in the new documents from October.

This is what he says I said in an interview.

I am still waiting for his reply to that query.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

Can you please show me where I said what you write that I did say?

That is there was nothing os any substance in the new documents.

I would like to hear someone ask me the question and I replied as you just said I did.

Because I do not recall saying that.  I did say that many should not have been withheld, and many are still redacted.

But when asked if there was anything substantial in there, I do not recall saying there was nothing there.

Now, if you listened to everything I said on this subject since last October, can you please show me where I said that?

There's a misunderstanding, there.
I do not claim that you said anything of the sort.
I say that, to the best of my knowledge, there was no "smoking gun", nothing of substance in the newly-released documents.
I have listened to all that you have said about it on the radio and it is my conclusion that you have not unearthed anything that might alter the Warren Commision's conclusions in any way, shape or form.
But that was expected. As I said -- and as Vincent Bugliosi has perfectly underlined -- no document could possibly show anything that would change the facts about Oswald's already well-proven guilt. But I understand that you disagree with me.
[I did sort of quote you when I said that you talked about a document about an interview with the redaction of the name of the person interviewed. And I do agree with you : it must be very frustrating for a researcher to discover such redacted documents !]. But, as John Wayne would say : that don't change the truth none ! 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James DiEugenio said:

Twelve hours ago I asked FC to please show me where I said that there was nothing new of substance that was released in the new documents from October.

This is what he says I said in an interview.

I am still waiting for his reply to that query.

This is sad. But even sadder is to see how much ignorant Carlier and Baker are ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carlier, once again: two really important people – and I do mean really important – said that the so called magic bullet theory was total crap. Who are they? Just tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what FC said that I said:

Quote

At any rate, even you, James DiEugenio were unable to find anything of substance in the documents.

This is not what I said on any shows.  I was asked several times to mention some of the new revelations in the declassified documents from October 2017.  I mentioned several new documents that had new information in them that were of substance to the case.

These dealt with the CIA's reporting on Mexico City, the relationship between Ruby and Oswald, that the CIA destroyed Clay Shaw's 201 file, and the ultimate revealing in 2017 that Earle Cabell was a CIA asset since 1959.  And those are just some of the important documents.  I have not been through all of them as of now.  

Each one of those are of impact to the case. No one who understands the JFK assassination to any wide degree would say that they were not.  The only way one could dismiss those revelations is if one had an MSM type agenda and was being paid to do so.  Or if one had such an emotional attachment to the WC that they had to do so.

Now this all started when FC asked me for some information on what was in the files.  When I was reluctant to do so, he continued to ask me.  I referred him to a show I did.  He then quoted me as to the above.  I am still trying to locate where I said that, because I do not recall doing so.

Did FC ask me this question so that he could deliberately misconstrue what I said at that conference yesterday and then attribute the wrong quote to me and not to him?

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Paz Marverde said:

Baker, same question: do you know who these really important people are? 

I think you're missing the point. I don't care who these 'really important' people are. I care more about a better explanation that fits the available facts. Why don't you share that? Then I can decide whether it really is a better explanation, and in turn even perhaps adjust my position.

Share this post


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

This is not what I said on any shows.

That is not what you said. That is what I concluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Paul Baker said:

Why don't you share that?

Just showing how much ignorant you are, Baker. You do not know it. It is that simple 

Share this post


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

PB:The single bullet (or 'magic bullet' as conspiracy theorists tend to describe it) theory remains the most coherent interpretation of the established facts.

 

It is not coherent at all.  And I showed why in those pages I referenced for FC.  

Those pages are full of  facts, pure and simple.  Every step of the way the Single Bullet Fantasy collapses under scrutiny.  Its a matter of data, not opinion.  The reason people like Baker hang on to it is because without it, you have a conspiracy.  Even the WC admitted this. And they realized that quite early in the proceedings.  

According to Pat Speer it was in January.

Excuse me, Jim. I'm not hanging onto anything. I don't care whether there was a conspiracy or not, I just don't believe there was one. So let's have a look at how the single bullet theory collapses under scrutiny. Everything I've read about it suggests that the WC must have got it right. But, I am a sentient human being with a functioning analytical brain, and am able to be persuaded otherwise.

Share this post


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

That is not what you said. That is what I concluded.

No FC.

As I said,  you wrote that I said the following:

At any rate, even you, James DiEugenio were unable to find anything of substance in the documents.

I am now asking you:  Is the italicized phrase above what you quoted me as saying at that conference yesterday? 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Paz Marverde said:

Just showing how much ignorant you are, Baker. You do not know it. It is that simple 

I can't bring to mind a single thing you've ever written that shines any light in the dark corners of this forum of general ignorance. All you seem to do, and indeed have just done, is resort to the kind of argument that might get you a win in the school playground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

I can't bring to mind a single thing you've ever written that shines any light in the dark corners of this forum of general ignorance. All you seem to do, and indeed have just done, is resort to the kind of argument that might get you a win in the school playground.

Once again, ignorant Paul Baker, who are they? Do you know it? No, you do not. Carlier does not know it as well, but you are both still here trying to smear the reputation of one of the best researchers ever on the assassination: DiEugenio.

 

Edited by Paz Marverde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PB: But, I am a sentient human being with a functioning analytical brain,and am able to be persuaded otherwise.

LOL :please

This from the guy who was still trying to confuse the process of NAA with CBLA in order to keep the NAA alive as a way of imputing Oswald's guilt.

And then he says he is not hanging onto anything!

I mean please Baker.  Do you ever go back and read some of the things you place on this forum to see how silly and hypocritical you sound?

PS Thanks Paz.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still waiting for an answer to my question from FC:

 Did you quote me at that December 10th conference as saying that I have been through the declassified files and concluded that there was nothing of substance in them?

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

×