What's the point ?

[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/

[Dean Hagerman]

I would not have said a word about your emails because I dont share emails and as you can see I did not post what you said to me, nor would I post what you said to me because I agree that emails are private

However I recieved 9 of the same email from you, of course its either a bug or you kept hitting send over and over

Bottom line is that you can have any views that you want, but dont come in here guns blazing claiming to know more about the assassination then anyone that posts on this forum

Thats just an insult to pretty much all of us

I would love to debate you just to show you up and make you feel like you know very little about the assassination

Any time my friend

And please debate Jim DiEugenio first because I have no problem with the fact that Jim knows more then I do, so let him spank you first and I will clean up what ever Jim leaves behind (Trust me it wont be much)

[Pat Speer]

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/

My description of Francois as a regular on the McAdams newsgroup is perhaps an exaggeration. While he's been posting over there since 1999 and while he's made 93 posts since July 09, he's only made 10 so far this year. So perhaps he got bored with the same ole same ole over there.

[Greg Parker]

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

François,

I can understand how belief in the Warren Commission Report might drive you to such existential despair, for as admitted by the authorities, all the planning and protective methods used in the world cannot stop a lone nut. That's part of the beauty in the beast. No one is to blame, and no one can stop it happening.

Lone Nuts & Godzilla - preturnatural forces of mayhem, beyond the abilities of the FBI and Secret Service; beyond the destructive forces of Japanese special effects. Tokya should have hired Fritz and his men. But I digress.

Aggh! François. We must discuss these things. Meet me at the Café Torché at 6:00 p.m.

[Frankie Vegas]

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

François,

I can understand how belief in the Warren Commission Report might drive you to such existential despair, for as admitted by the authorities, all the planning and protective methods used in the world cannot stop a lone nut. That's part of the beauty in the beast. No one is to blame, and no one can stop it happening.

Lone Nuts & Godzilla - preturnatural forces of mayhem, beyond the abilities of the FBI and Secret Service; beyond the destructive forces of Japanese special effects. Tokya should have hired Fritz and his men. But I digress.

Aggh! François. We must discuss these things. Meet me at the Café Torché at 6:00 p.m.

Thats some very, very funny stuff you and Pat are monopolising the one liners at the moment. Seamus emailed me Greg to say

"Parks, When you get Jacque Cousteau to the Cafe order him a nice warm cup of 'shut the XXXX up' made with your unique blend of Antipodean beans."

[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/

[François Carlier]

Another mistake, by James DiEugenio.

Yesterday, James DiEugenio wrote (as what he calls "a statement of fact") :

There were no boxes of MC ammo found among Oswald's possessions

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/

[Pat Speer]

Another mistake, by James DiEugenio.

Yesterday, James DiEugenio wrote (as what he calls "a statement of fact") :

There were no boxes of MC ammo found among Oswald's possessions

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/

Francois, I hate to be the skeptic (LOL) but there's nothing there that says those boxes were found among Oswald's possessions. The other two items in that list were collected weeks after the assassination from Ruth Paine, correct? Well, if Ruth Paine found two empty boxes of ammo in her garage weeks after the assassination and gave them to the FBI, wouldn't the FBI have filed a report on such a thing? Of course, they would. And the WC would have had her testify to such a thing, just as they had Frankie Kaiser testify about finding the clipboard.

It follows then that those boxes were boxes related to the assassination in some other way. Perhaps they were the boxes of ammo used to test-fire Oswald's rifle. Hopefully we can clear this up.

[Greg Parker]

Pat:

Its even worse than that.

This is a Mike Williams special.

This is nothing but a handwritten card that the FBI never processed. Probably because the very next evidence card, the one about the Minox camera, is a proven piece of FBI planted evidence. The FBI planted it in the Paine household, with Ruth and Michael's active help, weeks after the fact. (See Carol Hewett's fine essay in The Assassinations)

How bad is bad? It is so bad that the Warren Report never even included it in their over 800 pages!

The FBI canvassed every ammo shop in the Dallas- Irving area. Hardly anyone handled the WCC bullets. The ones that did swore they never saw Oswald or sold the stuff to him. (Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 114)

There is no mail order in evidence either. Which is interesting for obvious reasons.

So Francois, this is what you get for listening to Gary Mack and a flack like Williams. Evidence so bad that neither the FBI nor the Commission would touch it.

But Mack and Williams would. Maybe Gary will next say that the Minox camera was really Michael Paine's? Or that his buddy Hugh Aynseworth is right: Oswald really was going to kill Nixon also?

Here's my question: Does the Sixth Floor pay him to lurk online and then plant disinformation? Or does his buddy Dave Perry ask him to do so?

Report on D-79

Edited July 21, 2010 by Kathy Beckett
removed the word "liar'from quoted part of this post.

[Dean Hagerman]

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,

[Ian Kingsbury]

I would not have said a word about your emails because I dont share emails and as you can see I did not post what you said to me, nor would I post what you said to me because I agree that emails are private

However I recieved 9 of the same email from you, of course its either a bug or you kept hitting send over and over

Bottom line is that you can have any views that you want, but dont come in here guns blazing claiming to know more about the assassination then anyone that posts on this forum

Thats just an insult to pretty much all of us

I would love to debate you just to show you up and make you feel like you know very little about the assassination

Any time my friend

And please debate Jim DiEugenio first because I have no problem with the fact that Jim knows more then I do, so let him spank you first and I will clean up what ever Jim leaves behind (Trust me it wont be much)

Francois

If you are having a dull time you could always turn in and write another book.

Excuse moi but the little bit on the c dropped off I believe you call it the English disease?

etienne

Edited July 22, 2010 by Ian Kingsbury

[Dean Hagerman]

That is very sad.

I'll tell you what's "sad." Getting 17 messages from you over a 16 minute period. I've just had notifications to my private e-mail telling me that you sent 17 messages to me. Don't blame the software because I've messaged people yesterday and today on the forum and it's fine.

In fact the messages have the same content but have two different subject headers, "That's all" and "I'm done", so you're obviously just trying to fill mine and Dean's EF Inboxes.

Please, live up to your message "subjects" and sling your hook away from me? I've had my fill dealing with creepy, weird people on this forum.

17!

This guy is out of control

And im with Lee on this, no way its the forum software sending messages over and over because I recieved two other messages yesterday and they only sent one time and my replies were sent one time

What are you trying to do? Fill up mine and Lee's inboxs so we cant get any important "CT" messages?

This guy is using some backwards tactics for sure

McAdams gave him his mission as follows, find two outspoken CTs and fill their inboxs up so they can not talk with other CTs, if we keep this going we will shut down the CT network!

[Pat Speer]

That is very sad.

I'll tell you what's "sad." Getting 17 messages from you over a 16 minute period. I've just had notifications to my private e-mail telling me that you sent 17 messages to me. Don't blame the software because I've messaged people yesterday and today on the forum and it's fine.

In fact the messages have the same content but have two different subject headers, "That's all" and "I'm done", so you're obviously just trying to fill mine and Dean's EF Inboxes.

Please, live up to your message "subjects" and sling your hook away from me? I've had my fill dealing with creepy, weird people on this forum.

17!

This guy is out of control

And im with Lee on this, no way its the forum software sending messages over and over because I recieved two other messages yesterday and they only sent one time and my replies were sent one time

What are you trying to do? Fill up mine and Lee's inboxs so we cant get any important "CT" messages?

This guy is using some backwards tactics for sure

McAdams gave him his mission as follows, find two outspoken CTs and fill their inboxs up so they can not talk with other CTs, if we keep this going we will shut down the CT network!

FWIW, Francois asked me an apparently sincere question 1x and I tried to respond, but was unable due to some glitch between AOL and his French email provider. AOL said the email address from which I'd received the email did not exist. So it could very well be some technical thing...

[François Carlier]

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/

[Michael Hogan]

Another guy that didn't buy what the Warren Commission was selling.

http://www.milforddailynews.com/features/x699272869/Hopkinton-Library-donor-offers-view-on-JFKs-death