François Carlier

Ok. Consider this statement : "I believe that there was a conspiracy to kill John Kennedy, but I do not think that the Zapruder film was altered". That statement could be uttered by whom (among well-known conspiracy advocates) ? I think it would be interesting to see the list. I can safely begin such a list : 1. Robert Groden 2. Josiah Thompson 3. Debra Conway 4. … Who else ? (Do correct me if I'm wrong.) /F.C./

I'll grant you that. OK, I'll try to be more civil in the future. /F.C./

On the other hand, who needs such as test ? Only the fringe of the fringe of conspiracy theorists believe that the Zapruder film was altered. 100% of Warren-Commission defenders believe the film to be genuine. Added to them, the great majority of conspiracy believers still say the Zapruder film is indeed genuine. Only a small percentage of people on the "conspiracy side" claim that the Zapruder film was altered (you have Lifton, Fetzer, White, Livingstone, and that's pretty much all). So it's fair to say that WE ALL AGREE THAT THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS GENUINE AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER TOPICS. /F.C./

Mister Hay, Don't make me laugh. I say that Jack White is beyond help. The guy IS pathetic. I mean, if you have admiration for someone who claims the Zapruder film was altered, Man did not go to the moon, and there were no planes on the Pentagon or the twin towers, .. it's your problem, not mine. He lives in a dream world. And if he really believes that he is better than others at weiging evidence, that's the last straw. He invents impossible theories and refuses to admit that he might be wrong. When intelligent people try to make him realize he's wrong, he has no answer, but is too dishonest to admit the truth. Still, I have to thank him for being very helpful to me (without him knowing it). You know what ? I have a trick. Whenever I want to know the answer to a question, regarding a case I haven't investigated yet, I go to see what Jack White says about it. If he says it's true, then I know it's false. And if he says it's false, then I know it's true. It always works ! As to you, Mister Fetzer, all you can do, all the time, is refer people to articles that YOU have written. Talk of a reference ! I can do the same, you know. I challenge you to read my articles and my book, and to tell me where I am wrong. (rings a bell ? It's your style). Go ahead, read my article on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I proved my case beyond any doubt, which is very easy, since it did happen ! Go ahead, Mister Fetzer, read my article, and then come back. /F.C./

Mister DiEugenio, Thank you for your answer. Let me tell you : NO, I haven't had enough. It's just the beginning. No one sent me here. I know lots of people have asked me some questions or have challenged me in this forum. Thank you. Well, let everybody know that I shall answer every point. I owe it to all those who have spoken to me. I was away for a while and today reading the "Lifton vs Fetzer" thread occupied 100% of the time I had allotted to JFK. But I shall soon reply to you, don't worry. I shall be honest, sincere and frank. I have A LOT to say. /F.C./

Here is the list of my 10 favorite books on the Kennedy assassination: 1. Dale Myers, With malice : Lee Harvey Oswald and the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit, Oak Cliff Press, 1998 2. Gerald Posner, Case closed, Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1993 3. Jim Moore, Conspiracy of one, The Summit group, 1992 4. Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming history, Norton, 2007 5. Larry Sturdivan, JFK myths : a scientific investgation of the Kennedy assassination, Paragon House, 2005 6. Larry Sneed, No more silence, University of North Texas Press, 1998 7. Mel Ayton, The JFK assassination – dispelling the myths, Woodfield Publishing, 2002 8. Hugh Aynesworth, JFK : breaking the news, International Focus press, 2003 9. David W. Belin, Final disclosure, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988 10. Cathy Trost & Susan Bennett, President Kennedy has been shot, Newseum, 2003 Actually, to me Dale Myers's book is the best, but I'm not sure about which order I should sort the nine others out. I do think that by reading those 10 books one can reach the proper conclusion, get rid of farfetched theories, and safely and seriously claim to know exactly what happened in Dealey Plaza. Anyway, I have a question for James DiEugenio. You have included the book "Reasonable Doubt" by Henry Hurt, in your list. Then, let me ask, what do you think of the chapter titled "The Confession of Robert Easterling" ? Do you believe his story ? Just a question. /F.C./

Mister Fetzer, Do you think President Kennedy might have been killed by a laser beam ? That might explain why the Zapruder film was altered... (All right, I'll stop trying to be funny. Couldn't help it, though.) /F.C./

Fascinating thread ! (I've just come back from a trip and have now finished reading the whole thread. What a show !)

Hello everybody, I have been quite busy these past few days. I don't have the time to come here as often as I would like so unfortunately I sometimes fail to answer interesting questions (or vicious attacks, as the case my be). That's too bad, since there is soooo much to say. This morning, rapidly, I would like to send a general message to the audience here. I would like to lay the foundations, give the basics of who I am, what I think, where I'm going, so everybody can understand my point before we go on debating specific subjects. I'll address miscellaneous points, in no special order. --> 1. I started my adult life being very interesting in science and critical thinking. In 1994 I was one a seven founding members of a critical-thinking organization in France, very much like the American "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry" (previously called the CSICOP - http://www.csicop.org/). We were skeptics, and organized activities to try to develop an understanding of critical thinking in France. Well, we did try. I personally embarked on a hard-working journey, visiting so-called haunted houses, meeting mediums, sorcerers, seers, parapsychologists, … what have you (everything that has to do with the occult or as I call it pseudoscience). At the same time, I studied magic and conjuring intensely. I have become a fairly good amateur conjuror. My attitude has always been to read as much as possible (I think you can learn a lot from books), and SO, as sure as I have more than a hundred books on the Kennedy assassination alone, I have many more on science and pseudoscience as well as conjuring and magic and linked fields. To give an example, spoon bending now has no secret for me. I give magic shows on a regular basis. (one little video of me, among others, can be found on my ZEC2ZEC YouTube page). So I perfectly know the difference between frauds (the name Uri Geller comes to mind) who can do nothing but cheat and use magic tricks (mostly misdirection) while pretending they are real (what a joke !) and people like me, who do cheat and use misdirection but only to provide entertainment and never claiming anything but the desire go give fun. I have no powers whatsoever and have yet to find anybody who has any paranormal ability (who is not a fraud). Anyway. My point is, I studied the art of critical thinking and how to separate facts from fiction. Among the many books I own (most of them in English) are the following : Antony Flew, How to think straight, Prometheus Books, 1998 William D. Gray, Thinking critically about new-age ideas, Wadsworth Publishing. Company, 1991 Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness testimony, Harvard University Press, 1996 Hy Ruchlis, Clear thinking, Prometheus Books, 1990 Hy Ruchlis, How do you know it's true ?, Prometheus Books, 1991 I really think that EVERYBODY HERE SHOULD READ THEM. There are essential to anyone who wants to really research any serious subject. Indeed, you have to have the tools. It's no use to gather evidence if you don't know how to analyze that evidence that you have gathered. Now, that makes sense, doesn't it ? So I encourage all of you to read those books. And by reading this forum I suspect not everybody has read them yet. Am I wrong ? On top of that, I read a great amount of books by people who used their critical-thinking skills and applied them to pseudoscience and that was very enlightening. Just to give you a few examples : Robert A. Baker et Joe Nickell, Missing pieces, Prometheus Books, 1992 Ronald Binns, The Loch Ness Mystery solved, Prometheus Books, 1984 Bart J. Bok et Lawrence E. Jerome, Objections do Astrology, Prometheus Books, 1975 Kendrick Frazier, Paranormal borderlands of science, Prometheus Books, 1981 Kendrick Frazier, Science confronts the paranormal, Prometheus Books, 1986 Kendrick Frazier, The hundredth monkey, Prometheus Books, 1991 Kendrick Frazier, Encounters with the paranormal, Prometheus Books, 1998 Martin Gardner, Fads & fallacies in the name of science, Dover Publications, Inc., 1957 Martin Gardner, Science : good, bad and bogus, Prometheus Books, 1989 Martin Gardner, The new age, notes of a fringe watcher, Prometheus Books, 1991 Martin Gardner, On the wild side, Prometheus Books, 1992 Martin Gardner, Weird water & fuzzy logic, Prometheus Books, 1996 Terence Hines, Pseudoscience and the paranormal, Prometheus Books, 1988 Paul Kurtz, A skeptic's handbook of parapsychology, Prometheus Books, 1985 Larry Kusche, The Bermuda triangle mystery solved, Prometheus Books, 1995 James Randi, The truth about Uri Geller, Prometheus Books, 1982 James Randi, Flim-flam, Prometheus Books, 1987 Carl Sagan, Broca's brain, Ballantine's books, 1990 Carl Sagan, Cosmos, Ballantine's books, 1993 All those books are "a must read". No question. I love all of them. And they are just a few. By the way, it shows you that I am a great James Randi fan. I have been for years. I share his approach on the so-called paranormal. And I love his critical-thinking way of researching debated topics. Well, in a nutshell, I am a follower of the critical-thinking method of investigating. Oh, please allow me to copy/paste below an extract of an article I wrote in the spring of 1997, for my research journal FACTS, where I told of my previous trip to Dallas to attend Kennedy-assassination conferences. In that article I mentioned just what I am talking about today : "I went to Dallas last November! I was very excited. I had been interested in the Kennedy assassination for years, I had read dozens of books, and there, for the first time, I was going to attend conferences by the best-known researchers in the world, I would have a once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity of listening to them and talking to them. Most important I expected to hear the most convincing arguments against the Warren Commission version. Well, let me tell you very briefly what kind of guy I am. As far as making an opinion goes, I am a follower of the scientific method. To give you a good idea of my approach I read books by authors such as James Randi, Martin Gardner, Paul Kurtz, Joe Nickell, and other people from the CSICOP. I particularly like the way they debunk hoaxers. I am myself an amateur conjurer, and a founder member of a French scientific association that copies the CSICOP. One thing was important for me. I had twice read "Case closed" by Gerald Posner. I had been impressed. Then I had bought and read "Case open" by Harold Weisberg. And I had been very disappointed. I had hoped Weisberg would address the criticisms raised by Posner but he did not do that to my satisfaction, far from it. I was hoping I could ask every researcher what they thought of the book, and what they had to answer to the criticism. I expected to see debates; researchers and experts confronting arguments. Then the assistance could ask questions; I had hundreds of questions to ask. (But soon enough I would discover that that was not to be!). On the plane from Paris to the USA I was reading an American book by William D. Gray "Thinking critically about New Age ideas", a book which teaches critical-thinking skills and among others how to identify arguments, to recognize fallacies and other bad arguments. I wondered how many people in the JFK critical community had read that fascinating book. I had registered to attend the COPA conference and the JFK-Lancer conference. Excitement grew as the JFK-Lancer conference began. I was all ears. I was impressed by what I was showed. The speakers were indeed very good! But the assistance had very little time - if any - to ask questions. And we came nowhere near having any kind of debate! But let me now give you an example that speaks for itself and illustrates the point I want to make. On day one, a researcher called Mark Oakes gave a lecture. It was about the Paschall film and Dallas witnesses. All right, I said, that's interesting. Then the day after, in the same room, under the auspices of the same JFK-Lancer, there was a lecture on the Zapruder film. The Zapruder film symposium, with David Mantik, David Lifton, James Fetzer and Jack White. I talked to Mantik and Fetzer afterwards. They were utterly convinced the Zapruder film was altered. But then, the day after, still in the same room, I saw Mark Oakes again and decided to go and talk to him. I asked him his opinion about the possibility of the Zapruder film being a forgery. His answer startled me, to say the least. He wasn't aware that it was an issue, nor was he aware that some people had talked about that on the previous day, for he was out of town making filmed interviews! I then realized that the speakers were separate and had not met. All that was well, but here I was realizing I was not about to reach certainty on any given issue. It was clear to me that not everybody agreed with each other among the experts invited by JFK-Lancer. More important, some of them were not even aware of what the others were saying. All this showed me that I had overestimated the organizers' grasp of the zetetician way of thinking, the scientific method, the rational, unbiased and foolproof way of investigating. The day after, Mantik and Fetzer had an argument with Robert Groden during one of the COPA lectures, concerning the Zapruder film. It was clear to me that I would go back to France with more questions than I had when leaving. And I had better forget about any chance of having answers; thirty-three years after the assassination, the top experts in the field did not even agree on whether the film of the assassination was forged or not!" (http://zec-world.pagesperso-orange.fr/facts1.htm) So, as you can see, already in 1997 I was a person well-versed in critical thinking methods and being saddened by the fact that I found that knowledge lacking among the Kennedy-assassination community. Things have not changed, it seems, and that's sad. I state that it would be good if "researchers" in the Kennedy assassination community started to do their homework by learning about critical thinking methods. One more thing : I have had the pleasure of finding such qualities as honesty, sincerity, humility and critical-thinking skills in researchers defending the Warren Commission conclusions. Yes indeed. And I sure found the same critical-thinking methods and logic, and common sense in Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History". Oh yes, a big yes ! What a joy ! But bad faith prevented lots of people here from realizing it. --> 2. I used to be a subscriber of The Assassination Chronicles. And here, I would like to mention one thing and again I think I can quote myself. As I wrote on another issue of my research journal FACTS, in1999 "The first time I heard that some people talked of the Zapruder film possibly being altered was when I was at the JFK-Lancer-November-in-Dallas conference in 1996. Prior to that time I had not been aware that it had been an issue. There, two people I had never heard about were scheduled to speak: James Fetzer and David Mantik. On November 22, 1996, Fetzer was the moderator to the Zapruder film symposium. As I was also attending the COPA conference I took the opportunity of asking Robert Groden for his opinion. He was very adamant that the Zapruder film was genuine and had not been altered. I did not share Groden's conclusions regarding the assassination, but I sure considered him to be an authority on the Zapruder film. So I came back to the Dallas Grand Hotel and talked to Mantik and Fetzer. The three of us met across the corridor from the conference room. Fetzer did most of the talking. He looked a very excited man. He talked at length listing all the reasons why he believed the Zapruder film had been altered. At that point, I had no opinion, and although I was approaching the subject with suspicion I had an open mind and was ready to believe whatever was presented before me with sound arguments made by experts. Fetzer was more impressive when he talked about the alteration of the film than when he tried to explain why the film would be altered at all! As I did not consider myself as an expert on this (I was in Dallas to learn and listen, not to teach and speak) I suggested Fetzer and Mantik should accompany me to Groden's lecture that he was to give at the COPA conference. I explained to Mantik and Fetzer that I was attending both conferences and therefore I was aware of all the scheduled lectures in both conferences. I was looking forward to Groden's lecture for COPA, and I advised Fetzer to come and attend it, since Groden had told me that morning that the Zapruder film had never been altered. It was my opinion that it would be a good idea to confront Groden and Fetzer. I was sure the audience would be interested. Fetzer and Mantik told me they would come. I went back to tell Robert Groden that I had seen Fetzer who had assured me that he had proof that the Zapruder film had been altered and that he had given a lecture on that at the JFK-Lancer conference. In the evening, when the COPA conference began, Groden was going to show us some films. I told my neighbor that two men were going to interrupt the lecture. And sure they did. As Groden was saying publicly that even if some people were talking about the alteration of the Zapruder film, that was completely wrong, Fetzer burst and sprang off his chair. He challenged Groden. And then, I was impressed: Robert Groden had the courage, the guts and the intellectual honesty to tell Fetzer to come forward and although it was Groden's lecture, he said he was willing to give his time to Fetzer who was free to talk and give his arguments to prove the Zapruder film was altered. Now, I take my hat off to Groden for that. But Fetzer backed off. He said it would take too long to show the Zapruder film was altered, and he had not enough time. Groden replied that he was open and willing to listen to everything Fetzer would say, and that it would only take one minute, and it would be easy, to prove an alteration of the film; "Just show me the alteration". But Fetzer and Mantik had nothing to say and they left the room. I was disappointed. It took me little time to understand Fetzer can blow a gasket easily but doesn't dare proving his case when he is offered a royal opportunity! So I went back to France not knowing whether the film was altered or not, but willing to read all I could on that issue, because I knew that if indeed the film had been tampered with, that would be proof that there had been a conspiracy. I read all I could, and one day I found an article by Fetzer in The Assassination Chronicles (Vol.2, Issue Winter 1996, p.40) "The Zapruder film and the language of proof". As far as the part of the article about the meaning and the language of "proof" is concerned, I can only say that to anyone familiar with the writings of people such as Martin Gardner, Paul Kurtz, William D. Gray or Terence Hines (see references in the previous issue of F.A.C.T.S.). Fetzer's writing is very low quality. I was surprised, but I felt I was beginning to see Fetzer for what he was. The more this guy talks, the less people will believe him! Anyway, a debate between Fetzer and Martin Shackelford started on the following issue of The Assassination Chronicles. It was very interesting, as Shackelford tore to pieces everything Fetzer said. It was clear that informed researchers like Shackelford were not impressed by Fetzer's research. At that point, at least it was interesting to know that some people knew about Fetzer's research and had listened to his arguments carefully, only to find flaws in his reasoning. It showed that Fetzer's evidence was not as convincing as he wanted us to believe. It soon became clear that it was low quality." (http://zec-world.pagesperso-orange.fr/facts2.htm) Well, that was more than ten years ago. But today, things have not changed at all. Jim Fetzer keeps claiming that the Zapruder film was altered. Well, guess what, I have bought and have read all of Jim Fetzer's Kennedy assassination books. Indeed my attitude has always been to buy all the books I could, in order to have the right to criticize them. I buy the book, I read it, and then I think I have earned the right to give an opinion on it. I try to follow high standards. The same cannot be said of all conspiracy-theorists. While James DiEugenio did read Vincent Bugliosi's book, who else did in the conspiracy community ? Come on, be honest. I seem to remember having read somewhere that Gary Aguilar was quoted as saying that he had not read it (correct me if I'm wrong). It also looks like Len Osanic has not read it either. The list could go on, I'm sure. As for me, I try my best to read ALL POSSIBLE BOOKS thoroughly. Well, to go back to Jim Fetzer, I have a lot to say about his ideas and the theories he puts forward. I now can safely say that he is making the anti-Warren community look bad with all his farfetched theories that don't hold water. As for his "No moon landing" or "No planes in the towers" theories, my God, how idiotic can you be ? Next, he will tell us that Elvis Presley is not dead and the earth is square. Watch out, it won't be long before he will surely shout such outlandish ideas ! Well to cut a long story short, I have much to say about Jim Fetzer and his wrong theories. I will be traveling abroad soon, but I will definitely try to begin posting articles in this forum laying the sound arguments I have against Fetzer's theories. I'll do my best to write good-quality articles, trust me. --> 3. I have not been here long but I already have made "enemies", or people who show they dislike me. Well, so be it. Still, I would like to say a few important things regarding that side of our taking part in this forum. First of all, I want everybody to know that I am here for one reason only : to defend the truth. Indeed I sense that I have a certain knowledge of the facts in this event (the Kennedy assassination) and a few interesting ideas to share. I really believe that I have serious and good things to say. Most of all, after twenty years of studying the case, I have become convinced that the case against Lee Oswald was proven BEYOND ANY DOUBT. So I want to share my convictions. I am here to defend the official version, not because I want to waste my time (out of stupidity), or because I want to bother any of you (out of nastiness), but simply because I really believe in what I write. I really believe that Lee Oswald killed Kennedy. I really believe that facts prove his guilt. I really believe that conspiracy theorists are wrong in their conclusions. I really believe that I am serving the truth by writing messages here. So, what do you all decide ? Do I have the right to say the Warren Commission got it right ? Do I have the right to say that Lee Oswald was guilty and those who do not accept that fact are wrong ? Am I allowed to post messages here ? Or do you all want to prevent me from writing here on the grounds that I don't buy your conspiracy stuff ? Must we believe in a conspiracy in order to be allowed to be a member here ? So, to cut a long story short, and I am asking that question to everybody here : do you agree to debate with me, or do you want to choose to ignore me because I don't share your views ? Shall we try to debate and enlighten each other, or keep on fighting, fueled only by pride ? I have read carefully several threads here. My God. Sometimes it reaches very low levels, EVEN INSIDE THE RANKS OF CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. In this forum, I have learned that David Lifton owes money to Jim Fetzer and still has not paid back… I mean, how low can we get. I don't think this should have been shared by anybody on any forum. I don't want to know what Jim Fetzer and David Lifton do with their money, if you ask me. Next, I have read Jim Fetzer's (and Jack White's) harsh comments on James DiEugenio, saying he is incompetent and should not talk about something he doesn't know. As if James DiEugenio or anybody else in the world did not have the right to say they believe that indeed two aircraft crashed into the twin towers on 09/11. No, we can't say that, because Jim Fetzer is an expert and he knows a lot more than us and he knows what's right and what's wrong, so we should keep our mouths shut ! Mister DiEugenio, I'll tell you what : we are not friends, I know, but in the thread "Lifton vs. Fetzer", you were attacked by Jim Fetzer and I read your posts and I thought you were very good and calm and I was 100% behind you on that ! But you see, Jim Fetzer as the same attitude toward you as you have toward me. He rejects you out of hand, with contempt, just as you are doing against me. So I hope what you have suffered from him will make you realize what you are doing to me, so in the future you may try to show a little more respect for me. A little of the same applies to Pat Speer. He rushed on this thread to accuse me of being a McAdams newsgroup regular. When I said I was not, he posted a message accusing me of having posted 93 messages on McAdams newsgroup since the Summer of 2009. 93 messages in a year ! Boy ! Then, at my request, he checked again and found out that I had sent 82 messages in eleven years, which amounts to around 7 messages a year, on an average. So, I must have sent about seven messages when Pat Speer accused me of sending 93 ! Talk of a difference ! Pat Speer is an honest person so he publicly acknowledged his mistake, without even being asked by me. Thank you, Sir. Still, why the rush to come forward with a "93" number taken out of nowhere ? Was the intent to make me look bad ? Is it fair tactics ? But James DiEugenio had the answer ready. He wrote that well, Pat Speer was almost right after all, for McAdams's newsgroup is kind of the same as alt.conspiracy.jfk (although the latter is NOT moderated). You have a lot of nerve ! Well, allow me to differ. Anyway… At any rate, before I leave for today, let me, again state in the clearest fashion that I do have great admiration for people such as Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, Dale Myers, Gary Mack and David Von Pein. I have never met David Von Pein. But I love reading his articles. I think he is definitely one of the best ! I find it funny when I read accusations of me having been "sent" by McAdams, or things like that. I have never met John McAdams, and I understand he is not very fond of me, if he remembers me at all, for that matter. But that's not important. We are all working independently. I can swear that all authors who defend the Warren Report's conclusions do so out of honesty, and because they REALLY BELIEVE in what the say and write. To us, from Gerald Posner to David Von Pein, is it obvious that the evidence points to Oswald and that conspiracy theories are wrong, so we honestly claim that we believe in Oswald's sole guilt. Is it so hard to understand for you conspiracy-minded people ? We don't do it for the money. We do it because we have studied the evidence and we have concluded that Oswald is guilty. Period. We have the right to say it. We have the right to say you are wrong, when we see the flaws in your theories. Resorting to ad hominem attacks is bad. But conspiracy theorists do that a lot. And they stop at nothing to make Warren-report defenders look bad. For instance, Len Osanic's attacks on Gary Mack and the Sixth Floor museum are vicious, nasty, and completely off the mark. Recently, on this thread James DiEugenio accused Gary Mack of being a xxxx. I did resent that. I do think that Gary Mack is one of the most honest people the Kennedy-assassination community has known. He is interested in the truth, and he wants to go where the facts lead. And he is doing a fine job. Can't conspiracy-minded folks realize that Gary Mack's decisions are made following reason and logic and common sense ? Why always accuse everybody who doesn't share your views as being "manipulated by big money" ? That's being very, very unfair. Mister Len Osanic, please reconsider you position. Even better, please apologize. And I am saying that as a perfectly independent person. As I used to defend Gerald Posner a few years back on alt.conspiracy.jfk, I shall always try to defend honest people against vicious and dishonest attacks by people who should know better. And finally, I had titled the thread "What's the point ?", because I am afraid newsgroups or forums have proved over the years that they do not produce any movement toward consensus or a shared body of sane conclusions, because people are here to talk or shout, not listen. I do wish I were wrong, though… OK. So, I promise to come back soon and try to answer all relevant questions, and go to the bottom of things and present sound and serious and reasonable arguments for the guilt of Lee Oswald and the absence of any conspiracy. Have a good week-end. /François Carlier/

Mister Kelly, I see you have written : "but Francois can't even answer a simple question let alone engage in debate,", which is a completely false and stupid statement. It only proves your bad faith and your dishonesty. It also shows that you are afraid, since you realize that I may be right after all when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. In any case, it shows what kind of person you are. So, while it's clear that I have never had any interest in debating you, I still challenge Jim Fetzer or Jack White to a debate on the Zapruder film, and it would be very easy for me to "destroy" them, as they are as wrong as can be. /François Carlier/

Mister Simkin, I think it is a good idea. I would love a topic on the Zapruder film. I would destroy Jim Fetzer once and for all. /F.C./

That's right, I am not going to answer any of your questions. You don't deserve it. Bye bye. /François Carlier/

Hello Mister Laverick, Guess what ? I am a very busy man. I have lots of things to do, so I was not able to come to this web site during the day, and now it is very late, and as I work very early tomorrow morning I won't have the time to answer you tonight. But listen to me carefully : stop your sarcasm, or I shall not bother to answer you. I am willing to play fair and square, and give you my "lone nutter" answer to your questions, since you complained that no other "lone nutter" agreed to answer you. So, please, respect my positive attitude toward you and stop trying to make fun of me. If you keep playing your game, I may end up concluding that you do not deserve to get your answer. As it turns out, I don't need to go back to my books to answer you, but then again, if someone in this forum takes some time to check his facts in his books, that's good. Why would you try to make fun of that ? So please be patient. I'll be very busy tomorrow but I'll try to come to answer as soon as possible, as I promised. Good night. /F.C./

Hello everybody, I shall be very brief tonight, as I work very early tomorrow morning. I'm sorry I won't have time tonight to answer the interesting questions I have been asked. I'll come back soon to give my opinion. But very rapidly, let me state clearly, that yes, it must be a software problem, maybe added to a mistake by me (clicking too many times), but I swear I never tried to send the message more than one time. That would be ridiculous. Not my tactics, for sure. Whether you believe me or not, I have no control over. Secondly, did James DiEugenio write that I work for KFC ? Was that a joke that I did not understand ? Or is he that misinformed ? Where did he get that from ? Anyway, good night. /François Carlier/

Hello Mister Laverick, I have just noticed your post. That's an interesting question, one that I tried to answer in my book. I will then answer you (I have seen your links, OK, I'll reply in this thread). I will not run away. I promise to be truthful, honest and frank, though I might not be able to satisfy you. I'll come back later today. /F.C./

Another mistake, by James DiEugenio. Yesterday, James DiEugenio wrote (as what he calls "a statement of fact") : Well, he is wrong. Actually, two empty boxes of ammunition were found among Oswald’s possessions. See : http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2808.0.html (see entry number 5) Anyway ... [Thanks to Mister Gary Mack for helping me find that piece of evidence. Let me add here that I have great admiration for Gary Mack's honesty and desire always to be reasonable, fair and objective, as well as helpful, and I am angry at Len Osanic for the unjust and unjustified disinformation he spreads about the Sixth Floor Museum every week) /François Carlier/

Why am I never surprised when I read a message from James DiEugenio ? Always the same underlying mean-spirited sarcasm and distortion of facts. I state again that I never share in public my exchange of private messages. Now, as to your debate challenge of last year, it so happens that you were on Black Op Radio several times challenging "Warren Commission people". I listen to Black Op radio every week. And each time you were on you would claim that you had (I quote) "so far no takers" for your challenge. It was a public statement, made on the radio by you. So I decided to take your challenge, because, as a Warren Commission defender I felt it was my duty to show you that you are wrong in your conclusions. I wrote to you saying that I accepted your challenge. You and Len Osanic refused. You did not want me. Well, that's OK, you are entitled to your choices. So I thought it would be good to let everybody know that I was not accepted to challenge you and that it would be good if someone from the "LN camp" would agree to take your challenge. So, I may have decided to quote you in the most honest fashion, that is, by copying your answer. That's all. It must have been with the intention of trying not to misquote you. In any case, I may have made public a personal message that you sent me, regarding A PUBLIC TOPIC, A CHALLENGE YOU HAD MADE ON A RADIO PROGRAM. Hardly a private matter between you and I !!! My goal was to try to convince someone to go challenge you and eventually McAdams came. So I may have played a role (albeit small) in finding someone to challenge you. That was my purpose. I certainly never tried to make public any message that you would send me in private. So you should thank me, instead of trying to smear me. Anyway. All of this has nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination. In any case, I found you very bad, as usual, in the debates. You really show your terrible lack of understanding what a fact is. For instance, you have the guts to write here that it is "an established fact" that CE399 was planted ? Can you read that again ? "An established fact" … As I said, that's only in your dreams. While the planting theory makes no sense in the first place, all that shows that you do not know what A FACT is. You are confusing things. You think "a fact" is "a conclusion that you have reached". Well, you are very very wrong. You may indeed have reached the conclusion that CE399 was planted, but it just shows that you are incapable of reaching sane conclusions, and do not know how to weigh evidence. It certainly doesn't mean that it's true. Luckily the world is advancing according to better laws than yours. You keep mixing up "a fact" with "a conclusion you have reached". If everybody thought like you, then we would have to say : - it is a fact that the body was altered (since it is a conclusion that David Lifton has reached, and he cannot be wrong, so those of us who disagree must be mad) - it is a fact that the Zapruder film was faked (since it is a conclusion that Jack White has reached, and he cannot be wrong, so those of us who disagree must be mad) - it is a fact that Judith Vary Baker told the whole truth (since it is a conclusion that Jim Fetzer has reached, and he cannot be wrong, so those of us who disagree must be mad) - etc., etc. Likewise, - it is a fact that CE399 was planted (since it is a conclusion that James DiEugenio has reached, and he cannot be wrong, so those of us who disagree must be mad) Well, sorry, Mister DiEugenio, you are wrong. You should be a little more modest and go back to learn what a fact really is, and how you have strayed so much in your thinking ! /François Carlier/

Hello everybody, Boy, I was only away for a few hours, and I now can see that a lot has been written against me. I'll try to answer as well as I can. To begin with, I certainly do not consider myself as a "regular" on the McAdams newsgroup. I have seldom posted there in the past years. I used to write posts on alt.conspiracy.jfk, but I haven't visited either newsgroup for months. And I swear I haven't the faintest idea what Pat Speer is referring to. Since it is now easy to check on old posts, I wish he could go back and see whether he has confused me with someone else ? As for personal messages, it is my understanding that we all should separate private messages and public posts. If I write to someone a private message, I don't expect them to let everybody know. I would never do such a thing. Anyway, I did send a short message (a three-sentence message), with no swear-word nor any rude or incorrect word to two people. I sent it only once, of course. I do not know why one of the recipients talked about 9 messages, or one message sent 9 times ? I do not understand. Is this web site running correctly ? Regarding the language, yes, I confess I am French, born in France and living in Paris. I am not as good in English as you all are. I won't deny it. I am still good enough to be able to debate, discuss, read and write. Don't worry. As for the Kennedy assassination proper, it does seem as if you (and by "you" I mean most of the members who posted on this thread) cannot accept the fact that someone (in this case : me) is of another opinion than yours. What must I do ? Must I agree with James DiEugenio ? Must I say that Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination ? Or can I write what I do believe strongly ? On top of that, let me, once again, state that I have spent years of my life trying to get to the truth, with an open mind. I even started as a Lifton fan, and believed in a conspiracy then (and was even in the newspaper claiming that). Then I learned a lot and realized I had been wrong. I now firmly believe that Oswald was the lone assassin. SO my question to all of you is : can I try to defend my position, or must I say that I agree with you ? In any case, rest assured that I will always speak my mind. I may be seen as arrogant (though I am not), but I sure am honest and frank. Well, it's getting late over here and I have a lot to do. I shall answer Bill Kelly, James DiEugenio and another member tomorrow. /François Carlier/

As I said .... what's the point ?

To Hagerman, yes, you can smile, since in fact, it is not that I know as much as you, but a lot more than you. As to your question, it seems you don't understand so I'll explain for you. I have researched the Kennedy assassination thoroughly for twenty years and have compiled an extensive library, among other things, so I know as much about the case as any other member in this forum. But I do not claim to have better knowledge of the events than the people who actually lived them. And I do not pretend to be more intelligent than the Dallas police or the FBI members who reached the conclusion that Oswald was guilty. Only conspiracy theorists, by essence, pretend to be better, to know better. What braggarts ! But, to make myself very clear : I have the utmost respect for the Dallas police or the Warren commission members or Gerald Posner, all defenders of the truth, but none whatsoever for conspiracy-minded people who can do nothing but spread lies. And to Lee Farley, I am not surprised at all at your giving in. You don't even have the honesty or the courage to acknowledge the truth. You belong to the Fetzer-DiEugenio-White group of people who live in a dream world. In 1963 Lee Oswald killed the President of the United States, and that's a fact, but almost 50 years later you are still unable to understand. My God ... poor men ! /François Carlier/

OK, so you prefer Jim Douglass and I prefer Posner and Bugliosi. You think I'm wrong. And I think you're wrong. That won't lead us, nor anybody else, anywhere. As for Oswald's Mexico City trip, well, don't worry, I have read the conspiracy side (I own 120+ books on the assassination and have read all of them thoroughly, not to mention Internet web sites). Your questions are interesting, I'm not saying they're not. And I'm certainly not suggesting you stop researching the subject. But, again, let's go up and look at the overall picture. What has it got to do with the events of November 22, in Dealey Plaza ? I say, the evidence proves Oswald killed Kennedy. What happened in Mexico City has no bearing whatsoever on the issue. Let me explain. You have to make a distinction between Dallas and Oswald's life in the months before. The evidence of November 22 shows beyond any doubt that LHO was the sole assassin. Now, whether he had ties to the CIA or David Ferrie in his life, who cares ? He may have been Ferrie's best friend for all I care, that does not change the fact that he is guilty. And even if he had been CIA, he is still the sole assassin. He may well have been Ferrie's buddy but he did not tell Ferrie that he was going to kill JFK. He may well have been a CIA agent (although I don't think so), and then, on a spur-of-the-moment thing, have decided to kill the President on his own. Not all CIA agents obey 100%. Ever heard of traitors ? The point is : do you agree that the evidence shows that Oswald alone fired the shots at Kennedy ? If you are reasonable you'll say yes. I think that your "Mexico City questions" won't lead you anywhere, but again, I have no problem with you asking them, but don't count on me to follow you on that trail. /François Carlier/

James W. Douglass, author of "JFK and the Unspeakable" ? Give me a break. Don't tell me that's all you have ? Well, sort of. Actually, Bugliosi's book was published after mine, so my book can hardly be accused of being a rehash of his. Still, it is in the same spirit, no question (his being 10000 times better than mine). Add Jim Moore, Dale Myers and Larry Sturdivan as sources of inspiration, and also critical thinkers such as Martin Gardner or Paul Kurtz. Plus I have added a lenghty discussion, and arguments such as a comparison between the Kennedy assassination and the French Dreyfus case. And YES, a big yes, I am a "Case closed" fan. So, if all of that makes you want to discount me, that is perfectly your right. Well, yes and no. Of course, discussing or debating over History is perfectly honorable and I enjoy it myself. We could talk for months about questions such as : What if Charles de Gaulle had not gone to England in 1940 ? Was Napoleon a great man ? Could the Vietnam war have been averted ? What did Eisenhower exactly mean when he said "The military industrial complex" ? Could Hitler have won the war against Russia if he had not made such big mistakes (as in Stalingrad) ? What can really explain Chamberlain's attitude toward Germany in the thirties ? And ancient Rome, what about their political regime ? And is democra&cy the best regime ? Was Churchill the greatest man of the twentieth century ? And so on, so forth... But Kennedy assassination forums are NOT in the same league. To me debating the Kennedy assassination is like debating obvious facts. It is a waste of time. It is a fact that Oswald was the sole assassin. And conspiracy theorists have uncovered nothing of substance to show otherwise. Asking "Was Oswald really the sole assassin ?", is like asking "Is the Eiffel tower really in Paris ?", "Did Obama really succeed Bush ?", "Is New York City really on the East coast and Los Angeles on the West Coast ?", "Is 2 + 2 really 4 ?", "Is Canada really bigger than Spain ?" etc. That's not debating history, that's wasting one's time. But, again, what's the point in writing that ? I know nobody listens, anyway... /François Carlier/

My thoughts regarding Mexico City ? Well, again, my point is this : the evidence points to Oswald having killed Kennedy alone and the official version being true. Then people choose to adopt the attitude they want : either they accept the truth, or they want to invent a new one. I have chosen, after twenty years of researching the case and reading every possible book (and the rest), to adopt the attitude of a reasonable person. I believe in the official version. Nothing in James DiEugenio's writings has any relevance, in my opinion (and it applies to all conspiracy theorists). And I am quite intelligent and knowledgeable, and most of all well versed in critical thinking. So, if you ask me, what happened in Mexico City is what the Warren Report tells you. Oswald went there on his own, but did not get a visa to Cuba so he came back home with anger. Contrary to conspiracy theorists I have NOTHING NEW to offer. I certainly never claimed to be better at weighing evidence than the Dallas police or FBI agents or Warren Commission members. They dealt with facts. They reached a sane conclusion. I stand by them. But conspiracy theorists want us to believe they are better, in that they discovered the truth by themselves and managed to unearth a conspiracy that we had not been able to see ... for instance, David Lifton found that the body had been altered (and we did not know), Robert Groden found that the autopsy pictures were fakes (and we did not know), Jim Fetzer found that the Zapruder film was altered (and we did not know), DiEugenio found that CE399 was planted (and we did not know), etc. Boy, those men must be very intelligent, to see things we don't see !!!! THEY claim to have found new evidence. Not I. (Well, actually, Groden says that Fetzer is wrong (regarding the Zapruder film), Fetzer says that Lifton is wrong (regarding Judith Vary Baker), Lifton says that Groden is wrong (regarding the body alteration), etc., etc. ... so, are they so good, after all ? But that's another topic. So, if you want to know what I think of Mexico City, then read "Case closed", or "Reclaiming History", or John McAdams web site. I do not claim to know better than them. /François Carlier/

Typical reply from James DiEugenio. The kind I would expect. See your list : can't you see the difference between a FACT and a QUESTION ? 8 out of your 10 items are just questions, that means, things you don't know the answer for, and not hard facts that would prove your point. But as all conspiracy theorists, you deal in questions, not answers. The rest of your post is a rehash of old statements that I though nobody would dare continue to claim. And no, CE399 was not planted. Only in your dreams ! Your post is a very good example of the point I was trying to make. The problem does not lie with the evidence, but with the attitude of "researchers". Your attitude is : "I do not believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I don't care if the evidence points to him. I want to create another reality of my own. I think I am more intelligent than the others. I believe that I know better than those who were there and say that Oswald did it. I make up theories by refusing to face the facts. And the ultimate irony is that I call "facts" my delusions, in the hope that it will make it difficult for defenders of the truth to debate me". By refusing the evidence and creating a false "new reality", you just confuse the issue. That's all. The same applies to Bill Kelly. Mister Kelly, your post would be funny if it was not a sad proof that you too make up your own world. The assassination happened only one way. Things are pretty simple. But conspiracy theorists like to pick witness statements out of thousands of them that appear to show a difference when you purposely leave out the witness testimony that strongly points to Oswald being where the WC said he was.. An honest researcher has to look at the overall picture, but conspiracy theorists just seem to only be able to nitpick, because it suits them. The truth is that Oswald WAS NOT "in the first floor lunchroom at 12:15 pm", as you claim. That has been shown and proven dozens of times. But you still want to believe it ? Fine by me. Keep dreaming ! Your post is just full of sarcasm. And most of all it is false. You wrote : "I am willing to be convinced that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper". Oh no, absolutely not. You are not willing at all. On the contrary, you spend your time claiming you don't believe it, when all the evidence points to him being there. Because all the evidence pointing to Oswald being on the sixth floor is well known. Everything points to him being there, and NOTHING can lead to believe he was not. Unless, of course, you don't want to accept the facts. Which is exactly what you have been doing for years. So there is nothing I could say, because it has already been said elsewhere but you did not want to listen. [Well, if you can read French, then buy my book, and you will find all the answers to your questions, and more] /François Carlier/

Thank you, Mark. What you say in your last paragraph does make sense and I kind of agree. Still, I say that the big problem doesn't lie with the evidence (since, to me, all the evidence clearly points to Oswald's sole guilt and there is no evidence, only theories, for a conspiracy), but in the attitude of people (call them "researchers") in front of the evidence. With people who are subjective (as opposed to objective), you are doomed to failure when trying to debate. /François Carlier/