François Carlier

If I may. Every assassin when caught by the police will lie and refuse to admit their guilt. Like every assassin, Oswald : - lied about the evidence against him and anything that would point to him as being guilty - told the truth about all the rest, especially trivial things or things that could help him show he was innocent. That's very simple. Can't you understand that ? Oswald's best interest at that point was to give all possible information that could exonerate him. Of course, if he had been outside at the time of the shooting, he would have said so. He didn't. He didn't say that he was outside, because he was inside. Period.

Hello Sir, Without having too much time right now (I'll come back at the end of the week). First of all, I have visited Kamp's website and have seen and read Hosty's notes. Unlike what most conspiracy theorists do when they see a document that they don't like, I do not claim that it is a fake. Not at all. I agree to say that it is a genuine document, with no hesitation. If it turns out that I am wrong, I will admit it, again with no hesitation. Moreover, I am not bothered at all by that document. So, Hosty scribbled notes, jotting down what Lee Oswald was saying ? Great. We already knew that. Then what ? First of all, as Oswald was the assassin (it has been proven again and again) he kept lying to the police (we already knew that too). Therefore, at the very least, you must be very cautious. Besides, Hosty scribbled notes quickly. He didn't have the time to write everything. Therefore, there were things that Oswald said that Hosty didn't write. That's why all documents have complementary information. You understand my point. Fritz's notes have this : "Claims second floor Coke when officer came in". There you have the second floor encounter in someone's notes. But wait. Are you telling me that you all want to disbelieve Fritz"s notes and believe Hosty's notes ? On what grounds ? I don't understand conspiracy theorists who keep claiming that the FBI was corrupt and part of the cover-up and are now using some information written by an FBI agent !!!!!! You can't have it both ways, can you ? And let me tell you : of course I agree to say that Oswald went outside at some point. He left the building. We all know that. Therefore he went out. Yes, he did. So if he told the police that he got out of the building, I believe him. The key to that is when ? I say that Lee Oswald went out of the building well after the shots had been fired. He was NOT outside when the shots were being fired Try as he might for the next centuries, Kamp will never be able to prove otherwise !

👍

Yeah, bring your tsunami. I challenge you. I hereby publicly state that you are wrong. We'll see who wins in the end...

I'm sorry, I wasn't there at the beginning. I am not privy to the latest details of the discussion / research in this field. But if you are asking me to answer yes or no to the question of whether there is a difference between a good-quality image and a bad-quality image, my answer is clearly : YES. (of course !)

What would be the reason for Marrion Baker (a policeman) and Roy Truly (a manager) who did not know each other and had never met each other, to lie to an official, presidential investigation into the assassination of a president (what could be higher or more important ?) with everything to lose in the process ?

One question : if I understand you correctly, you are claiming that : - Oswald told the truth - Marrion Baker and Roy Truly lied. Is that it ?

Mister Stancak, Thank you for your serious message, again. I must say that you are really a decent member here. (though I disagree with you) I have read your post. Now, I'm not sure I understand your point anyway. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Oswald told the truth and did not kill JFK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if your statement was true, Oswald still said that he went outside well after the shots had been fired. Yet, the "prayer man" figure was outside before Marrion Baker entered the building. So it cannot be Oswald anyway.

To all, One thing is sure, the shadowy, blurry figure that you call "Prayer man" is NOT Lee Oswald. I say that with 100% certainty. Hens will write philosophical books before you could even begin to prove otherwise. It's hard to believe that anybody in their right mind would waste their time on such a wild goose chase. It's an utter waste of time. It reminds me of the imaginary "Malcolm Wallace finger print" : some conspiracy theorists thought they had found evidence of a conspiracy. The truth was, they were totally wrong and just made fools of themselves (there was never any print from Wallace). It's the same kind of mistake here. Some conspiracy theorists are deluding themselves into thinking that they have found evidence. But they'll soon disappear, when they themselves understand that they are stuck in a dead end. (Now, I must admit that not all conspiracy theorists believe in such nonsense. Robert Groden, for instance, is adamant that Oswald was inside the building.)

Of course not, but it looks like YOU do !

Hello Mister Mitcham. Just passing by. I'm sorry, I have been away for a while, because I have so much work to do. But I intend to come back soon, since I have some interetsing things to say, indeed. Now, just what is your question ? You want to know what I have to say about the document uploaded by David Josephs that stipulates that Oswald acknowledged that he did have an encounter with Marrion Baker et Roy Truly on the second floor ? Well, that's nothing new. Lee Oswald was inside the building and therefore cannot be the so-called "prayer man". That's an absolute fact. The rest is just a waste of time.

Let's face it : those white lines are proof that Oswald didn't go to Mexico City ! 😁

👍 Thank you very much !

Hello everybody, On December 17, 2015, Pat Speer was interviewed on Black Op radio. By any chance does any of you has the audio file for that interview ? I would be interested in listening to it. As a matter of fact, I did download the file at the time but can't find it anymore on my computer. Thanks in advance.

In 2014, the JFK-Lancer conference had, among its speakers, James DiEugenio and Buell Frazier. I wonder if the former dared call the latter a l-i-a-r to his face ? I don't think that Debra Conway would have been too pleased...

-

Mister James DiEugenio, Hello. Listen. Critical thinking tells me that Buell Frazier was telling the truth when he talked about Lee Oswald having a long brown bag in his car that morning. If you want to deny it, and claim that Frazier is a l-i-a-r you're wrong. You're making a big mistake ! You can either learn about critical thinking (what it means, what it entails, what it requires) and reconsider your position (that's my advice to you) or you can call me an idiot and pretend that I know nothing about thinking critically. It's up to you. At any rate, if you want to stick to your guns (which, again, would be a mistake), then I would love to see you take the stand, at the next JFK-Lancer conference, and call Buell Frazier a l-i-a-r- in front of his face and in front of the audience.... If you dare, that is. As for me, I will die saying that Buell Frazier was a decent man, as was Ruth Paine. And for that you'll probably call me an idiot for a long time... How sad !

Inconsistencies ? Of course. Inconsistencies in testimony are common and should be expected, especially over the years.

Hello everybody, I've been very busy lately. I intend to answer the "Prayer man" thread tomorrow. But I have one question : are there really people here you believe that Buell Frazier was a l-i-a-r ? I mean, really ? That can't be true ! I have heard a lot of ludicrous claims over the years, but come on, calling Buell Frazier a l-i-a-r is definitely going way over the top !!!

I'm saying that it's exactly what James diEugenio and David Josephs do. They spend their whole life spitting on the Warren report and accusing honest people such as Ruth Paine of being CIA agents and l-i-a-r-s, and then, all of a sudden, when it suits them, they quote the Warren report and Ruth Paine to support one of their claims... Of course, they have no shame, we already know that.

Don't you know that Mrs. Paine was a CIA agent and a l-i-a-r ? Don't you know that Mr. Rogers was a CIA agent and a l-i-a-r, too ? (Ask James DiEugenio). Do you really believe them ? If so, then you are gullible. You should know that the two of them were co-conspirators. If they say that they didn't see Oswald with a rifle, that means that they DID see him with a rifle ! Therefore, it proves that Oswald had a rifle ! That's conspiracy thinking. It looks like you still have a lot to learn ! 😁

Don't tell me that you believe what's in the Warren report...

"David Josephs said…", "David Mantik said…", "Greg Parker said…", etc. The sources you always use… I'm disappointed in you. And please, stop focusing on that documentary. The witnesses who claim to have seen Oswald and talked to him (for God's sake) have told their stories several times, and officially (not only in that documentary). So, as I myself was not in Mexico City then, I have to rely on all those witnesses (who did not know each other, by the way, so I know they did not conspire to tell lies to law enforcement officers). They saw Oswald. They talked to him. They remember him. They have no reason to lie. Their stories fit the available evidence. That's fine by me. I do not fall into the conspiracy trap, namely : "Consider yourself more intelligent than everybody else, accuse everybody of being a xxxx, put all evidence aside, and claim you know better and you have seen the light and the truth is the total opposite of what was known so far". No, I'll definitely never say such things.

"If you don't like the message, kill the messenger"... Apparently that's the way you work, Mister DiEugenio. Did I talk about Dale Myers ? No. Did I talk about Gus Russo ? No. I simply, and accurately, and reasonably mentionned the witnesses who saw Oswald in Mexico City. I talked about people who saw and recognized Oswald and even talked to him. I should remind everybody that you were not there, Jospehs was not there and Larsen was not there. That's all I have to say. So I'll repeat : David Josephs was not in the bus, but he thinks that he knows better than the people who were in the bus ; He was not at the Cuban embassy, but he thinks that he knows better than the woman who was there ; He was not at the Soviet embassy, but he thinks that he knows better than the men who were there. They all say that they saw Oswald ? To Josephs, it means that Oswald was not there… Go figure ! "Come see the great magician, David Joseph, the man who knows what happens when he is not there !!!!!!!!!!!!"

WHAT ? WOW ! Every morning, when I get up, I turn my computer on and have a look at The Education forum. By then American members (i.e. all of you) have spent the night writing posts (night for me, evening for you) and have gone to bed. I can enjoy reading… This morning, I was astonished to see all those posts about 9/11. I certainly never tried to change the subject. I won't talk about 9/11. Suffice it to say that I am 100% with David Von Pein on this. I myself wrote an article in one of my blogs at the time, stating in no uncertain terms that I believed that there was indeed a plane that crashed into the Pentagon and that conspiracy theorists about 9/11 are totally wrong ! https://raison-et-espritcritique.blogspot.com/p/un-avion-sur-le-pentagone.html Anyway. That's all I'm going to say. As to the topic of this thread, well, Mister DiEugenio, I want to reply to you. I'm not done. I also want to reply about the medical evidence. But I'll be away for two days.