François Carlier

Apparently, on this forum (whose moderators are conspiracy believers) conspiracy theorists can insult those who disagree with them at will, They can mock whomever they want. They risk nothing. But if I post just a bit of humor, Mister Mark Knight feels the need to block the thread and then threatens to expell me from the forum (so easy to brag through a computer screen !…).OK.I'm leaving.For good.I bet some people will be happy.Good luck to everybody ! I wish you well !

Apparently, on this forum (whose moderators are conspiracy believers) conspiracy theorists can insult those who disagree with them at will, They can mock whomever they want. They risk nothing. But if I post just a bit of humor, Mister Mark Knight feels the need to block the thread and then threatens me to expell me from the forum (so easy to brag through a computer screen !…). OK. I'm leaving. For good. I bet some people will be happy. Good luck to everybody ! I wish you well !

Mister DiEugenio. It is very funny, in a way. You never reply to the logical comments that I write, but you expect me to reply to every single item of comment that you make. Well, never mind. There are three possibilities : - 1. Oswald fired the shots on Kennedy, he is the sole assassin, and in his flight, trying to flee Dallas, he was seen and caught by a police officer and he killed him. That makes sense ! - 2. Oswald is innocent, he has nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination. When he learned that the president had been shot, he just decided to go to see a movie to have a good time, so he left work without telling anybody and on his way there took his revolver and shot a police officer. That does not make any sense ! - 3. Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination. He was chosen by conspirators to be the scapegoat. He was framed. He realised it. So he fled the scene. He was scared. When apprehended by Tippit, he feared that it was all part of the plot so he killed the police officer. OK. That's farfetched, but why not ? The problem is : if he was framed by conspirators, how in the world did those conspirators let him on the loose, running around, watching the presidential parade on the steps of the TSBD ? That does not make sense either ! In other words, only the first proposition makes sense. As I told you, several people saw Oswald on the scene of the Tippit murder. Callaway talked to him. I never said that Callaway saw him fire the shots. I know the sequence of events. David Von Pein gave a few reasonable comments about that on this thread. As I explained in a long post earlier on this thread, all you do is ask questions which, most of the time, are truly irrelevant. Nelson and Jackson were never "silenced" . So if they wanted to volunteer information, why didn't they do that ? Nobody stopped them. There was confusion, no doubt. Maybe disorganisation. Even unfortnate initiatives. But nothing sinister. I say that nobody in their right mind can deny that Lee Oswald killed Officer Tippit. Hence, you'll have a hard time trying to show that Oswald didn't have anything to do with the shooting of President Kennedy. Another note : I am seriously, genuinely surprised at you apparent joining of the "prayer man" group. You seem to follow the trend with enthousiasm. I'm surprised. I thought you were more careful in your positions. In all honesty, I am convinced beyond certainty that the "prayer man" theory is a dead-end, a big mistake, a soon-to-be-forgotten ludicrous theory, a totally erroneous supposition, a delusion. Nothing more. Of course, when I issued my so-called "challenge", I know it was just silliness (the thunderstorm part was funny, though), but, very seriously, I am asking you, when all is said and done, and everybody admits that the "prayer man" theory has to be discarded as a big mistake, you'll come here to publicly acknowledge that you had been wrong and I had been right !

I know. I know. I am going to reply to you. To be honest, I haven't had the time to come back and read seriously and type a serious reply. I have had a tough day. I just felt like having some fun a little bit, for a change. We always argue. We can smile, from time to time. I'll come back later.

Let's face it : it's Lee (Bruce Lee)

Didn't you listen to Billy Lovelady ? I gave a link to his interview a few posts earlier. He specifically says that they talked to each other. He was well aware of who was there with him. And didn't you read my post when I talked about myself and my colleagues outside of our place of work the day of the solar eclipse ? We did watch and focus on the sun (with special glasses) but I can assure you that I was aware of my fellow employees around me ! I know who was there and who was not. Come on, it is ridiculous to pretend that Oswald was there but nobody noticed !

Actually, I would be proud to be called "pathetic" by a man who calls Oswald "innocent" ! 😁

You mean standing up ? Come on ! Your item 7 is weak.

That non-answer by Kamp is very telling ! David Von Pein mentions the Texas School Book employees who were there and said unequivocally that they did not see Oswald. They gave their statements at the time, on the spot. Bart Kamp has no answer for that but can only try to criticize someone who writes in another forum nowadays. What does this have to do with the actual evidence ? Nothing.

I quote : "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time" Yet another person who was there and who says unequivocally that Lee Oswald was not there ! Sadly, I doubt that the Larsen/Kamp group will take that into account. As I wrote yesterday, they don't take those things into account...

Just as I said yesterday. The more I learn about that case, the more I am convinced that Lee Oswald was not "prayer man".

Good morning, Mister DiEugenio, I'll answer you this mornig.

I'll make an important announcement tomorrow. Stay tuned !

What I wrote is both true and sad. But I have to add that Andrej Stancak has always been very disciplined, factual, respectful, neat. Thank you for that !

I don't know whether Lee Oswald is "prayer man", but I already know that Bart Kamp is "player man" !!!! 😁

What bothers me with the "prayer man" crowd is not that they are trying to do some research in that area, trying to find the name of the shadowy figure. That is fine. I support any research. What bothers me is that they are arrogant and not only refuse to listen to other people's opinions, they downright call them idots if they "dare" disagree with them. That's the problem.

Important list of guidelines to follow for members of the "prayer man" club : Buell Frazier said he didn't see Oswald there ? --> no problem, just don't take it into account Billy Lovelady also said he didn't see Oswald there ? --> no problem, just don't take it into account Oswald said he was in the building ? --> no problem, just don't take it into account Roy Truly, who knew Oswald very well, said he talked to Oswald on the 2nd floor ? --> no problem, just don't take it into account Marrion Baker also said that he talked to Oswald on the 2nd floor ? --> no problem, just don't take it into account Oswald, accused of murdering the POTUS, never said to anyone that he had an alibi ? --> no problem, just don't take it into account It would make absolutely NO SENSE for conspirators to try to frame Oswald, all the while letting him be on the loose, outside of the building ? --> no problem, just don't take it into account Just don't take anything into account. Just insult Carlier. Say that he is an idiot. Ask people to ignore him. That's what's important !

As in all private societies, if you want to belong to the "prayer man" club, you must follow the rules : ignore the facts discard logic and reason call everybody "a l-i-a-r-" insult those who try to debate you shout that you are right wear blinkers and a black, thick blindfold avoid reading the reasonable people's posts at all costs read only what you like rely on a few gullible followers to applaud you

My level of certainty that "prayer man" is NOT Oswald, last month = 100%. My level of certainty that "prayer man" is NOT Oswald, today = 120%.

If you are so sure that you are right, it should be easy for you to accept the challenge.

=> The Carlier challenge to James DiEugenio : If you can prove that "prayer man" is Lee Oswald, I'll eat my book live on line, naked under a thunderstorm. If you fail to prove that and realize that you had been wrong all along and Oswald was actually inside the building, I challenge you to do the same : eat your last book live, naked under a thunderstorm. Deal ?

When you have something interesting to say, let us know !

Somehow I find a difference between your posts and those of John Butler ! 😁 You're talking sense. OK. Well, I'll tell you something : if "prayer man" is indeed Lee Harvey Oswald, then the Warren Commission, myself, Vincent Bugliosi, David Von Pein, Gerald Posner, John McAdams and others are completely wrong. Granted. But you see, it's not only a question of "François believes Marrion Baker who says that LHO was on the 2nd floor" and "Andrej believes the Hosty's note that shows that Oswald was outside watching the presidential parade". It's a lot more than that. As I have constantly said, the Marrion Baker / Roy Truly story fits the rest of the overwhelming evidence perfectly. And I mean, the whole body of evidence and events (a whole mountain). It fits Oswald's actions afterwards (among them, the murder of officer Tippit). Oswald being "prayer man" fits nothing and goes against all the rest. You would have a lot more to prove and to discover after that. A whole mountain. That's a good sign that I am right. What about Tippit's murder ? What about Oswald's claim that he was bringing curtain rods ? What about Oswald's rifle ? What about everything else ? Why did Oswald NEVER said anything about being outside to the press or to his brother or wife ? Sooner or later, you'll have to think about that. In all honesty, I am not shaken the least bit by the Hosty's note. Anyway, I have said all that I have to say. All I can do now is wait. Wait until something new comes up, as you say. Wait until new documents are found. Wait until better-quality films and pictures are produced. And I am saying this in earnest : good luck to you ! As I said this morning, if somebody is able to prove in the future that "prayer man" is Lee Oswald, then I'll eat my whole book live on line, naked in a thunderstorm. What will you do ? What will James DiEugenio do ? I'm not asking much : I'm only asking that if it turns out that I was right all along and you were wrong, you acknowlege that fact right here, on this forum. Deal ?

Hello Andrej, Why not do all of that ? I certainly don't mind. Any attempts at knowing more and answering questions is a good thing. Of course, I personally believe that it is a waste of time. Again, I would like to remind you that Buell Wesley Frazier was there and Billy Lovelady was there too. We already have their statements : they categorically say that they did not see Oswald there, and Lovelady said that he was chatting / talking to the other employees there. (Have you listened to the Lovelady interview ?) Any statement made 55 years later would have less impact, but as I said, I would be happy to ask the question to Buell Frazier, as I would love to see high-quality films or pictures of that area. To me the question is already settled. You seem to be a calm and honest researcher. I sincerely wish you good luck !

And I am not allowed to tell you what I think of you