Jump to content
The Education Forum
François Carlier

A simple question to James DiEugenio

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Paz Marverde said:

Once again, ignorant Paul Baker, who are they? You do not 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.

Ok, let's just try this one more time, using big letters for emphasis: I DO NOT CARE WHO THESE REALLY IMPORTANT PEOPLE ARE.

Jim DiEugenio, as far as I'm concerned, has very little credibility. Tell me, how can 'one of the best researchers ever on the assassination' have systematically failed over the years to produce any compelling argument that diminishes the conclusion of the WC? His dependency on a varied assortment of logical fallacies doesn't really help his case either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Paul Baker said:

Ok, let's just try this one more time, using big letters for emphasis: I DO NOT CARE WHO THESE REALLY IMPORTANT PEOPLE ARE.

Jim DiEugenio, as far as I'm concerned, has very little credibility. Tell me, how can 'one of the best researchers ever on the assassination' have systematically failed over the years to produce any compelling argument that diminishes the conclusion of the WC? His dependency on a varied assortment of logical fallacies doesn't really help his case either.

LOL, LOL, LOL

Share this post


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

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.

You never let me down Jim, thanks for making me smile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To 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? 

 

Share this post


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

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?

 

Absolutely not !
I am not trying to be disingenuous in the least.
Don't worry.
I would never ever try to attribute the wrong quote to somebody, nor deliberately misconstrue anything.
I asked you a question genuinely, explaining to you openly why I was asking you. That's all there is to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

People like you should NOT  be here, frankly. 

Oh, really ? Where should I be, then ? Please tell me. I'll oblige.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paz Marverde said:

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.

Anyone who says that the single bullet theory is (what you write) cannot be an important person ! 😁

Share this post


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

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?

Mister DiEugenio,
Yesterday a conference on the JFK assassination was held in Paris. The speaker was a journalist, owner of a magazine and author of a book on the JFK assassination. There were several journalists in the audience. It was held under the auspices of the French American Foundation and there was a well-known American journalist in the audience, I think he was a former editor for the New York Times but I might be wrong.
It was very interesting. I intend to write a review on my Facebook author page in a few days.
Let me be clear : I was in the audience, I was not a speaker. I did ask a question and at some point I was asked about the HSCA. But at no point did I talk about you, or quote you. Not for one second. I did NOT quote you and I did NOT misquote you. I did not even pronounce your name. Period.
Let me be clear : though I may disagree with you on who assassinated JFK, I have no intention of ever misquoting you, anywhere.

Share this post


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

To 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? 

 

Again, the sentence "At any rate, even you, James DiEugenio were unable to find anything of substance in the documents." is a conclusion that I have reached. It is NOT a quote. It was not intended as a quote.

Share this post


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

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?

I knew Cheerios was asking you questions so he could pretend he did his research and try to appear superior at the conference. He hasn’t answered my questions either. He won’t because his job is not to debate but come here and pretend he hads something original to contribute. He does this with rude comments about others and then pretending the comments were misunderstood. It’s really pathetic. If you want to debate do it if not go back to reading to yourself.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

Mister DiEugenio,
Yesterday a conference on the JFK assassination was held in Paris. The speaker was a journalist, owner of a magazine and author of a book on the JFK assassination. There were several journalists in the audience. It was held under the auspices of the French American Foundation and there was a well-known American journalist in the audience, I think he was a former editor for the New York Times but I might be wrong.
It was very interesting. I intend to write a review on my Facebook author page in a few days.
Let me be clear : I was in the audience, I was not a speaker. I did ask a question and at some point I was asked about the HSCA. But at no point did I talk about you, or quote you. Not for one second. I did NOT quote you and I did NOT misquote you. I did not even pronounce your name. Period.
Let me be clear : though I may disagree with you on who assassinated JFK, I have no intention of ever misquoting you, anywhere.

Why would anyone ask you a question if you have not read the documents?  Lol. 

Share this post


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

Every step of the way the Single Bullet Fantasy collapses under scrutiny.

That's total nonsense, Jim. In fact, when a sensible and reasonable person looks at all of the variables pertaining to the Single-Bullet Theory, it becomes blatantly obvious that the SBT is the only conclusion that makes any sense at all [as I explain in great detail at the link below]. No other (anti-SBT) theory comes even close. And nobody on the "CT" side of the fence has ever come forward with an alternate theory to share with the world that isn't completely laughable. Why don't you be the first, Jim? I'd love to hear your shot-by-shot anti-SBT theory. Give it a shot. I'm overdue for my daily belly-laugh anyway.

XX.+Single-Bullet+Theory+Blog+Logo.png
 

(A "Debate" portion of the above website starts here -----> http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

Unlike WN,  i am actually kind enough to give you the time of day.

The Single Bullet Fantasy never happened.  Its that simple.  When that obviously planted bullet was found, the WC was stuck with it.  Because if they did not use it, then they would have to admit that 1.) not only was there a conspiracy, but 2.)  the cover up was working in hand with the plot;  or why else plant the bullet--albeit on the wrong stretcher.

In every single forensic element, the SBF is simply and completely indefensible.  That is why the story changed three times within two months of the shooting.

If Larry Schnapf ever gets the money to complete his real computer simulation, he is going to utterly humiliate Dale Myers and his cartoon. (Although Bob Harris already has)

Now your side has fallen back to the stance that, well see, its more coherent than anything you guys have.  What shamelessness.  As Bob Tanenbaum once said, this is  like the prosecution saying to the defense, "What have you got?"  See, it does not work like that in the real world.  The defense is not mandated to prove its case. The prosecution has to do that and you cannot. But even with that, I have tried to put together a scenario in Destiny Betrayed, which I think is pretty solid.  But the thing is, the WC screwed up the evidence so badly when the trail was warm, that it makes it that much harder to find out what really happened.  Especially today, after the ARRB did not fulfill its mandate properly and Trump is still on bended knee with the CIA.

So please, that ignorant and smart aleck bluster might make you fell good, (fore hat reason I do not know).  And it may help you score points with the likes of FC, Reitzes and McAdams.  But as far as a real world inquiry into the facts, its just junior high school smart alecky stuff.

 

Share this post


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

Davey:

The Single Bullet Fantasy never happened. [It's] that simple.

[...snipping lots of junk...]

So please, that ignorant and smart aleck bluster might make you [feel] good, (for [what] reason I do not know).  And it may help you score points with the likes of FC, Reitzes and McAdams.  But as far as a real world inquiry into the facts, [it's] just junior high school smart alecky stuff.

OK, "Jimmy". Whatever you say. Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif

Reprise.....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Ultimate In SBT Denial Among Conspiracy Theorists

 

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

×