What's the point ?

[François Carlier]

Hello everybody,

After all these years, I ask myself : "What's the point ?"

Indeed, here we are in 2010 and it seems nothing has changed since 1963.

There are those who believe in Oswald's guilt, and those who think there was a conspiracy.

And nobody listens to anybody. Everybody clings to their beliefs.

I myself believe in Oswald's sole guilt. And after more than twenty years of researching the assassination, and being myself an author, I know as much as anybody here.

Indeed, the more I listen to James DiEugenio, the more I realize that Oswald really did it.

The more I read Jim Fetzer's nonsense, the more I realize that conspiracy theorists have NOTHING of substance.

To me, conspiracy theorists have failed to prove their point, which is understandable, since Oswald killed JFK alone, and facts show that.

But it is also clear that so-called "lone-nutters" have failed too in their endeavor. I mean, excellent books by authors such as Jim Moore, Gerald Posner, Dale Myers, Mel Ayton, Larry Sturdivan or Vincent Bugliosi have failed to put an end to the heated debate, and have failed to "silence" believers in a conspiracy.

There are still forums such as here where people keep writing posts after posts.

And it is a war. I mean, recently Jim Fetzer was at war against David Lifton. But everybody knows that no two conspiracy theorists agree on anything. Each theorist has his own theory. Groden doesn't agree with Lifton, who doesn't agree with Fetzer, who doesn't agree with anybody else, etc., etc.

It has lasted for almost fifty years !

So I ask myself : "What's the point in writing posts here ?" I already know that whatever I write won't change a thing.

Sadly enough, facts don't matter here. Personal theories are all that so-called "researchers" care about.

That is very sad.

/François Carlier/

[Frankie Vegas]

Hello everybody,

After all these years, I ask myself : "What's the point ?"

Indeed, here we are in 2010 and it seems nothing has changed since 1963.

There are those who believe in Oswald's guilt, and those who think there was a conspiracy.

And nobody listens to anybody. Everybody clings to their beliefs.

I myself believe in Oswald's sole guilt. And after more than twenty years of researching the assassination, and being myself an author, I know as much as anybody here.

Indeed, the more I listen to James DiEugenio, the more I realize that Oswald really did it.

The more I read Jim Fetzer's nonsense, the more I realize that conspiracy theorists have NOTHING of substance.

To me, conspiracy theorists have failed to prove their point, which is understandable, since Oswald killed JFK alone, and facts show that.

But it is also clear that so-called "lone-nutters" have failed too in their endeavor. I mean, excellent books by authors such as Jim Moore, Gerald Posner, Dale Myers, Mel Ayton, Larry Sturdivan or Vincent Bugliosi have failed to put an end to the heated debate, and have failed to "silence" believers in a conspiracy.

There are still forums such as here where people keep writing posts after posts.

And it is a war. I mean, recently Jim Fetzer was at war against David Lifton. But everybody knows that no two conspiracy theorists agree on anything. Each theorist has his own theory. Groden doesn't agree with Lifton, who doesn't agree with Fetzer, who doesn't agree with anybody else, etc., etc.

It has lasted for almost fifty years !

So I ask myself : "What's the point in writing posts here ?" I already know that whatever I write won't change a thing.

Sadly enough, facts don't matter here. Personal theories are all that so-called "researchers" care about.

That is very sad.

/François Carlier/

The more I read of you Francois the less hope I had for humanity.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Frankie Fortune

[François Carlier]

Thank you. You've just proved my point !

[Mark Knight]

I still find value in the discussions here. When seeking pearls, you have to go through some oysters...and some of the theories here ARE merely oysters. But occasionally you'll find a pearl [of wisdom, or of fact] in the places you least expect them.

I'm not an evangelist; I'm not out to "convert" anyone to my particular theory of the assassination. If you ARE an evangelist of the assassination variety, you probably don't belong here. I am seeking truth, and not the "truth" that fits my particular theory; but the truth that will solve the mystery,and answer the unanswered questions about the JFK assassination.

Truth is, as police chief Jesse Curry stated it, that NO ONE can undeniably place Lee Harvey Oswald in the southeast window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand and his finger on the trigger at the time the shots were fired at John F. Kennedy. Therefore, there remains REASONABLE DOUBT that Oswald is the assassin.

I am convinced that a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was indeed capable of making the shots claimed. And I am convinced that Oswald had the ability to make three shots in eight seconds at a range of less than 100 yards. I am NOT convinced that Oswald was the man firing the rifle. I am not convinced that Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD that Friday morning. I am not convinced that the MC "short rifle" recovered from the TSBD was the same "shortened rifle" it appears that Oswald/Hidell ordered. And I believe the evidence regarding the Dallas post office box rented by Oswald is suspect, as is the money order allegedly used to purchase the MC rifle.

You plead that the problems with the CT's and the LN'ers are insurmountable, and that this is all an exercise in futility. I contend that while finding the complete truth may indeed be futile, it most CERTAINLY would be futile if we just throw up our hands, say it's not worth the effort, and go sit in fromt of our TV's and let our brains atrophy. I choose not to embrace that futility. If you choose to do so, that is YOUR choice, and YOURS ALONE.

[Peter McGuire]

You plead that the problems with the CT's and the LN'ers are insurmountable, and that this is all an exercise in futility.

He says that then shows his real agenda.

Ignore it, and it will go away.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[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/

[William Kelly]

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/

Francois,

If you belive Oswald was the Sixth Floor Assassin, I have four questions for you.

1) Do you believe that DPD officer Marion Baker saw Oswald thru the window of the door of the Second Floor lunchroom within two minutes of the assassination?

2) If you believe the above is true, then can you tell me who the court clerk from across the street saw in the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest window four to five minutes later, a person we now know moved boxes around as can be seen in the comparison of photos taken within minutes of the assassination? If Oswald was the assassin from that window, and made it to the Second floor in order to be seen by Baker, then who was in the Sniper's Nest two minutes later, and a half hour before the Dallas County Sherriff deputy discovered the Sniper's Lair?

3) Do you believe that the TSBD secretary who says she saw Oswald in the First Floor lunchroom at 12:15 pm, where Oswald said he was before the assassination? And if so, then who was the person seen on the west end of the Sixth Floor at 12.15, standing at port arms with a rifle?

4) If Oswald was indeed the Sixth Floor Sniper, and deposted the rifle and ran down the stairs in time to be seen by Baker through the Second Floor Lunchroom door window, then how come he wasn't seen by his co-worker Dougherty, who was standing by the stairs next to the elevator on the fifth floor, or by the two secretaries who descended the stairs from the fourth floor at the same time?

I am willing to be convinced that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper, but these minor obsticals must be overcome.

Can you overcome them?

I would appreciate it if you could.

You would set a lot of things straight if you could.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

[Greg Burnham]

I find it interesting that most of those who vilify “conspiracy theorists” do so by first constructing a straw man argument. For instance, by definition a conspiracy involves more than one person. That’s it. It does not necessarily involve 3 nor 3,000 participants. It only requires more than one. Given that fact, in the case of JFK’s murder, it is in the interest of the guilty parties and in the interest of any party with something to gain from a cover-up, to inappropriately cast the word “conspiracy” in a light that obfuscates its true meaning and cast “theorists” into a category which limits their ranks to those who subscribe to a belief in a massive plot that encompasses not only the individual theorist’s pet scenario, but perhaps even includes every other theory ever postulated by anyone, anywhere, at anytime…

It is interesting, albeit tragic, to see the agency’s signature in what I like to call: domestic perception programs. Long before the revelation of the violations of law that are contained in the recently released CIA Family Jewels, we have the agency’s own prescription on “how to” discredit critics of the Warren Report. If you recall, the majority of the recommendations were designed as methods of debunking dissenting arguments without any regard for the validity of the argument being debunked nor the veracity of the facts being offered in rebuttal.

Unfortunately, there are times when individuals pick up on those same tactics; individuals who probably have no super sinister interest in further obstructing justice…they just have a micro-management issue with their own personal paranoia; a fear that they may not be living in a world within their neat little vision after all.

A pity.

[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/

[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/

[François Carlier]

James W. Douglass, author of "JFK and the Unspeakable" ? Give me a break. Don't tell me that's all you have ?

So your book is just what exactly Francois? Simply a rehash of Posner and Bugliosi with a smattering of McAdams for good measure?

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.

The title of your thread is "What's the point?" and never has a post lived up to its title on this or any other forum. This is history. History is argued over. That's why people who are interested in history are interested in history. The debate. The argument. The thinking.

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/

[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/

[Dean Hagerman]

I know as much as anybody here.

[Dean Hagerman]

I do not claim to know better than them.

Well which is it Francois?

[Dean Hagerman]

The way the evidence proved the guilt of Sacco & Vanzetti. The way the evidence proved the guilt of 'The Guildford Four.' The way the evidence proved the guilt of 'The Birmingham Six.' The way the evidence proved the guilt of Abraham Bolden. The way the evidence proved the guilt of Elmer Pratt.

The way the evidence proved the guilt of Joan of Arc?

Hey Lee have you ever looked into "The West Memphis 3"?

If you have not then please do, if you think Sacco and Vanzetti and the rest of the people you posted about got railroaded just wait until you read about the WM3 (unless you already know about them)