François Carlier

You're supposed to think that they had some equipment problem. Was technology so perfect in 1963 that somebody having some equipment problem is so hard to believe ? It could be a mix up too. At any rate, "no picture of Oswald" is not equal to "no Oswald". In some way, you remind me of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who deny that a plane crashed into the Pentagon because there exists no picture of the aircraft approaching the Pentagon.

You mean to say that James DiEugenio confused Lee Oswald's visa application (Mexico City) with Lee Oswald's work application (Dallas) ?

Good. Thank you. (I'm actually in the middle of a removal and my books are in cardboard boxes in a storage place).

Thank you, Ma'am. Actually, I was just joking. I believe that Lee Oswald did go to Mexico City so in no way woud I think that he stayed in New Orleans with Judith Baker (whose story I don't endorse).

Thank you very much, David. However, I own Vincent Bugliosi's book, so I suppose that what you are saying publicly here is that I should have looked up the information myself...😉

😃 The very same day, a conspiracy theorist wants to ban me, and another one wants me to stay. It's going to be difficult to please everybody… More seriously, rest assured, Mister Card, that I intend to debate in a serious, respectful manner with anybody who agrees to play by the rules. And I am neither ignorant nor an idiot. I know my stuff. Those who want to debate with an open mind are welcome. Those who think that I was sent by the CIA can ignore me, with pleasure !

Not at all. I believe it's a honest mistake. A mix up. Nothing more. Don't you make mistakes yourself, sometimes ?

Glad to help. 😁

I wasn't aware of what Larsen wrote since I have him on "ignore", and for good. Since you copied his post, I now know what he wrote and it is such a blatant attempt at disinformation that I see that as confirmation that I was right to decide to ignore him. Neither W. Tracy Parnell nor myself have ever said that (to quote Larsen) : "these four gentlemen are indeed Lee Harvey Oswald". We NEVER said that. We know very well that the third picture (to mention that one) is of someone else. Larsen's post is ludicrous and misleading at best. When I see a picture of Lee Oswald, I say : "it's Lee Oswald". When I see a picture of someone else, I say : "it's someone else". But even that seems too complicated for Sandy Larsen...

Not at all.

Thank you very much. But then again, here is my problem : I already know this : August 17th: Oswald is interviewed on local radio WDSU by journalist William Stuckey. August 21st : William Stuckey invites Oswald to the radio for a debate with Carlos Bringuier and Edward Butler. I have heard the two radio shows and read their transcripts on line. That I know. It is the television interview that I am not sure about. If, as you say, the television interview took place on August 21, then it had to have taken place just after the radio show, since, according to Posner in his book "Case closed", Stuckey took Oswald to a bar that evening. Well, OK, August 21 suits me fine. And you're right, Johann Rush should know ! So I'm satisfied.

Helle everybody, I have a question regarding this video : When exactly was it filmed ? What exact date ? I have read conflicting articles and sources in books or on the Internet. Sometimes researchers just write "August 1963". My question is : do you agree that the camera operator was Mike Lala, from WDSU ? And was is August 21 or August 12 ? (If I am not mistaken -- I might be -- Posner says it is August, 12 and Martin Shackelford says it is August, 21) Thanks in advance to those who can provide solid and acurate answers.

Thanks for providing a copy of that letter from the FBI. Very interesting ! It shows FBI agents making an investigation in earnest and asking legitimate questions and making it a point to check every piece of evidence and wanting to explore every avenue. I can only congratulate them for a good job ! I notice several things. According to that letter, the FBI agreed that Oswald ordered his rifle from Kleins. What do you think ? Were they lying ? I also notice that at that early stage in the investigation, they did not know whether there was another individual involved with Oswald or whether there was a guy named Hidell. They made some research and found the answers later on. No big deal. And being honest, they did not hesitate to put their doubts in writing about the audio bit they heard and the picture that they saw that came from the CIA. Good. What conspiracy can you see there ? They write that they "think" that the person is not Oswald. They are right; It was not Oswald. Due to faulty equipment, the CIA agents watching the embassy missed taking a picture of Oswald. So what ?. Then there was a mix up and the picture of another man who was not Oswald was sent, and when they realized their mistake, they put the picture aside. End of story. Now, please provide me with the phone number of your boss. I'd like to call him. I'll ask him a simple question : "Has Jim Hargrove ever made any mistakes at work ?". I'm sure they'll give me several examples of instances when you were late, or forgot something, or missed an appointment, or lost an item, or took the wrong equipment, and so on. You are a human being. You make mistakes. That's part of life. But you want other people to be always perfect, otherwise you'll accuse them of all kinds of things conspiratorial… Mind you, CIA agents are human beings. And their equipment can sometimes break down. I thought that you would be able to understand that simple point. --> Anyway, more to the point. You are being very dishonest here, with your title about the FBI supposedly "knowing" that Oswald had been impersonated. They say no such thing. They merely write that they "think" that there was another person. They talk about "another individual", but -- how convenient ? -- that part is not highlited in your copy of the letter. You should be ashamed of yourself.

OK. Then, let me ask you : Do you think that the backyard photos are genuine or faked ? Do you think that the autopsy photos are genuine or faked ? Please reply with honesty. I say that they are all genuine.

Sure, it was "phony". You are "funny".

Yes, we know. You see "problems" everywhere ! We all know that whatever evidence we present, you'll find "problems" in it ! Have you ever found something "true" or even just "normal" in your life ?

Mister DiEugenio. I love it when you use David Mantik or David Josephs as sources. And then we are supposed to find answers to imaginary problems that they found in their dreams. I must admit that, after researching the Kennedy assassination case for, what, 29 years, and talking to almost everyone, the credibility I give David Josephs is close to 0 (it's actually closer to -1). I wouldn't use him as a source even if I was making an inquiry about his brother's first name… Anyway, let's get to the point. You want us to reply to statements as if they were true, but they are not, most of the time. I wish you could take some time off and then take a deep breath and then try to come as an outsider and read your own posts. They are full of emptiness and false or nonsensical statements. I wish you would realize it some day and I hope you do before you die. You see "problems" everywhere, "wrong" at every corner, "faked" under every stone, etc. Don't you realize it's a little "too much" ? I read a lot about conspiracy theories. I always find the same kind of flawed reasoning with other subjects. - you find all kinds of "problems" with the Kennedy assassination investigation - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the 9/11 investigation - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the Marylin Monroe simple death - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the nazi death camps shoah (have you read books or articles by people who claim that the gaz chambers never existed ? It's the same kind of James DiEugenio's style of arguments. Go ahead, check for yourself.) - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the moon landing - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the death of Nicole Brown (they even claim that they can "prove" that OJ was innocent. I can assure you, when I listen to them, they talk exactly like you) - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the TWA 800 flight that exploded - etc, and so on, so forth… Yes, it is so easy to find "problems" in any investigation. It is so easy to find discrepancies in witnesses testimony ! We know that. But it takes honesty, and I mean, real honesty and an open mind, to reach a sane conclusion. Throwing all kinds of wild accusations and then being sarcastic toward those who don't answer your imaginary statements is something that you do constantly and you should not be proud of that. When you are old and you look back, it will be too late. You should stop to think about it ! David Josephs has "demolished" nothing at all. Only in your dreams. And I like the way you use the FBI and CIA as sources here. So, the FBI could not find the place where Oswald took his picture ? Do you believe them ? I thought they were co-conspirators, according to most of your writings. Well, never mind. David Von Pein, as always, has remarkably demonstrated here that Oswald was indeed in Mexico City. There can be no question about it. But, sadly, even David Von Pein would be unable to demonstrate to people like you that the White House is in Washington, DC and the Empire State building in New York, City...

That's what I don't like about your posts, James DiEugenio. You lack honesty. What you call "diversionary tactics" is actually common sense, logic, reasoning and the laying out of facts. It is you, in fact, who are using the the "Give your dog a bad name and hang him" tactics.

Wasn't he in New Orleans, sleeping with Judith Vary Baker ? 😁 (Sorry for that)

That would be 35:30 of part 2 on your web page.

Oh really ? Thank you for telling me. I wasn't aware of that. Well, thank you for providing your link, then. I think that the excerpt that starts at 01:02:30 is very interesting and is in relation with this thread.

Hello everybody, Please tell David Josephs not to watch this documentary. It would be too hard for him to bear… Starting at 1:02:30, they talk about Oswald's trip to Mexico City. They have witnesses who remember. That's funny, really : 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 !

Conspiracy theorists who want to deny some event know how to always (dishonestly) win the argument : - if there is no picture, they'll say that it proves it didn't happen - if there is a picture, they'll say that the picture was faked Easy, isn't it ?

Supposedly, unnamed conspirators decided to assassinate President Kennedy in 1963. But in order to deflect suspicions, they had a plan : they used a scapegoat. They killed Kennedy with a shot from the front (or a triangulation of fire, depending on what conspiracy author is talking) and blamed the assassination on an innocent man, who just happened to work in the area. In order to make their plan more convincing, they made it clear that the assassin was a leftists/communist. It was easy for them, as Oswald himself had been on two radio shows some months earlier in New Orleans, saying that he was a Marxist. OK, fine. But why on earth would those conspirators feel the need to complicate their plot further by pretending that their scapegoat had been to Mexico City when he had not ? And why would they be so dumb as to provide pictures of another man, so different-looking from Oswald that anybody, literally 100% of the people who would look at the picture, could immediately say : "That's not Oswald in that picture". Did the CIA want to uncover their own plot ? That does not make sense. Well, to Josephs, it does… 😉

I love it. Even Edwin Lopez, who doesn't want to acknowledge the fact that Oswald went to the Cuban embassy (despite the evidence such as Sylvia Duran's testimony and the visa application bearing Oswald's signature) readily admits that yes, Oswald went to Mexico City !! So EVEN a guy who is called by the defense has to admit that yes, Oswald went to Mexico City. But James DiEugenio and David Josephs still dream that they know better than the whole world and imagine some history in a parallel universe where Oswald would not go to Mexico City. It's really pathetic….