Jump to content
The Education Forum

In defense of "lone nutters"


Recommended Posts

TO THE MODERATORS :

I submit to you this message written by me, François Carlier.

I honestly see no reason why you would want to apply censorship to it.

I promise never again to use any impolite word in this forum.

I just hope you will always try to be fair in your decisions to apply moderation to members.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

This is a serious, reasonable, humble message, meant only to fuel a mature debate. I hope it will be read by those interested in thinking seriously about the Kennedy assassination. Please, no insults here, no "anti-Carlier" hysterics, for a change. Thank you.

I've got a lot to say, but not enough time to write a message as long as I would like it to be. Let's begin.

First of all, I want to make something very clear. I came to this forum with only one goal : to defend the official version. Yes, I am convinced that Lee Oswald killed Kennedy. I think all the available evidence shows it beyond any doubt.

So why did I want to come here ? Because I have the feeling that people who say that there was a conspiracy to eliminate President Kennedy are wrong, or, to be more blunt, spread disinformation and lie to the American public. Which is bad.

Now, do I have the right to say that ? Do I have the right to defend my convictions ?

I really think that my knowledge in critical thinking can help refresh the overall debate.

But I can only say, sadly, that I was received in this forum with anger and should I say "hate" ?

I was used to newsgroups such as alt.conspiracy.jfk or alt.assassination.jfk where you can find about half of the members who believe in a conspiracy and the other half who believe in Oswald's guilt.

But in this forum, you all gave the impression that everybody takes it for granted that there had been a conspiracy and it is forbidden to say otherwise.

In the Education Forum, as I remarked previously, it seems it is perfectly OK for conspiracy theorists to call Gary Mack "a xxxx", or David Von Pein "a fraud", or insult fine authors such as Gerald Posner or Vincent Bugliosi, or Dale Myers.

Over and over again, you all show contempt on all those great men, who are honest and carefully try to defend the truth by presenting the facts. I have read countless wrongful, unjust and disrespectful attacks on fine men (such as Gary Mack or David Von Pein, both whom I admire) by members here.

And I was treated as if I know nothing about the case.

Well, I won't bother you again with my presentation, but suffice it to say that I have spent twenty years researching the case, and reading about 150 books. Well, I think it is fair to say that anybody reading 150 books on a specific event can be said to know a lot about that event, don't you think ?

[ see this page : http://zec-world.pagesperso-orange.fr/jfkfoto.htm]

Well, to cut a long story short, what I am saying is that you've got to admit that it is quite possible for a man to honestly believe that Lee Oswald did kill Kennedy. I don't say that for money. I don't say that out of fear of the CIA. I don't say that because I am ignorant. I say that because I have reached that conclusion, pure and simple.

Briefly speaking, I started my journey in the Kennedy assassination believing in a conspiracy.

I had the chance of going to the United States in 1989 for a full year, at age 22. I took advantage of it. The first book I bought was "Best evidence", by David Lifton. Needless to say, it was hard for me to read (I had to use a dictionary, for at the time I did not master the technical vocabulary). I worked a lot. I was impressed by Lifton's research. I was convinced. He was right, he was an expert, he was a hero. There had been a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination.

Then I bought his video. Then Robert Groden's (with Livingstone) book "High treason". Then I met Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh, and he was kind enough to allow me to visit him in his office and he gave me some documents he had. I then drove to Dallas, Texas, where I met Robert Groden and had a conversation with him. At the time, I was only a beginner. I did not know much about the whole case. Then, I don't remember how, I succeeded in having David Lifton's phone number and I left a message on his answer phone and he called back and we had a long conversation.

David Lifton was a hero to me, at the time.

He asked me on the phone to help him distribute his video cassette "Best evidence" in France. I tried to help him. Back home, I sent the cassette with a letter to a producer in Paris. I got no answer, and was never given the cassette back. So I ordered a new one, received it, and sent it to another producer in Paris. Again, I got no answer and no tape back. So I ordered a new one again, and lent it to someone who wrote an article for a History magazine, and again was not given the cassette back. So I ordered the "Best evidence" video cassette a fourth time, and I still have it with me, at home.

When I was a student at university, I even tried to organize a big conference, and wanted to invite David Lifton to speak. Unfortunately, I never found the money (no bank would offer me any grant).

Anyway, that shows how eager to help the cause of David Lifton I was at the time. At the time, I was even in the newspaper for my statements against the Warren report.

But in the following years, still spending much of my time learning about the Kennedy assassination, I became interested in science and critical thinking. I was the founding member of a critical-thinking organization, the aim of which was to debunk quacks, much like the American "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry", which promotes (I quote) "science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, science education, and the use of reason in examining important issues". I was and still am an admirer of people such as Martin Gardner or Paul Kurtz, or James Randi.

I spent years researching "the paranormal", and visited haunted houses, met sorcerers, magicians of all kinds, attended lectures by all the quacks that came by, etc. I learned a lot.

I also learned a lot through books that I think conspiracy believers should be well advised to read :

Robert Baker et Joe Nickell, Missing pieces, Prometheus Books, 1992

Antony Flew, How to think straight, Prometheus Books, 1998

Martin Gardner, Science : good, bad and bogus, Prometheus Books, 1989

William D. Gray, Thinking critically about new-age ideas, Wadsworth Publishing. Company, 1991

Peter Knight, Conspiracy Culture : From the Kennedy Assassination to the X-Files, Routledge, 2000

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

And then I applied that critical-thinking education to the Kennedy assassination case.

And I have realized that I had been wrong in believing conspiracy theorists. When I realized it (after trying, for instance, to confront Lifton's arguments to their rebuttals and finding that he had no answer for what was said against him – and I had an actual taped conversation with Lifton in Dallas in 1996 where I found out he had no answer for my precise questions), I acknowledged it. I had been wrong. It was hard to admit it in front of my friends, but truth and honesty must always be our guides in life.

I was growing up mentally.

So, today I am a "lone-nutter"; I believe Oswald acted alone. Again, I came to that conclusion through work, thinking, and trying to separate facts from fiction. I am not the only one to have followed that path. It seems Dale Myers, Dave Reitzes, Pat Lambert, Norman Mailer have changed their minds too, becoming convinced that Oswald was the only assassin, after years of research and seeing what, to them, became obvious. And Gary Mack, somewhat, in a way, though I understand not completely, have followed that path too.

And no money is involved. Len Osanic seems to always think that we say that in exchange for a position or money, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Why can't you accept the fact that lone-nutters can also be sincere ?

Anyway, if I say that I believe that Oswald was the sole assassin, or that conspiracy theories are not based on facts but on speculation, I don't say that for fun. I say that because I have good reason to say it.

OK, allow me a digression here. I am married to an African woman who works for different non-governmental organizations. She is trying to promote peace in countries that are experiencing post-war conflict and tension. I myself am the president of a charity organization who distributes books and computers in schools or poor areas in Africa. It is a time-consuming activity. I often travel to Africa.

Apart from that, my wife and I are dedicated, and we visit hospitals in our spare time and I also am an amateur conjuror who gives magic shows, either in hospitals for ill patients, for free, or in birthday parties or weddings, for a fee.

Well, do you believe it is important for us who, in a foreign country, decades ago, killed the leader of that country ?

I mean, it is sad that President Kennedy was assassinated. But whether he was killed by someone named Oswald, or Wallace, or whatever, I mean, that won't change my life a bit.

The only reason I am here to write this message is that my wife and I are convinced it is a matter of duty to try to fight disinformation everywhere. To us, defending the truth, whatever it is, is serving God, no less. Whatever happens is the will of God, so it is the duty of every man to describe reality, to tell the truth, and not to invent stories.

As my critical-thinking education has taught me what I believe is the right conclusion, it is only natural that I go about trying to defend that conclusion.

That's all there is to it.

Now, let get down to business.

First of all, I would like to focus on the accusation against Lyndon Johnson, and in doing so I particularly think of Robert Morrow, who has accused Johnson in this forum.

First of all, what do I think of Johnson's relations with John Kennedy ? Well, this is what I believe.

I have met Pierre Salinger three times (in the nineties), and each time had a conversation with him, on top of exchanging letters with him over a period of time. Most of all, I went to his office in London and had a lengthy tape-recorded conversation with him (ABC News studios, 1993). Here is an extract :

François Carlier : "What was his [Lyndon Johnson] relation with president Kennedy ?"

Pierre Salinger : "Very good. Excellent. I mean, that was interesting because we had lots of discussions during the time I worked with him at the White House, and he had nothing but praise for John Kennedy".

To sum up what Salinger then told me, Johnson was very good friends with, and an admirer of John Kennedy.

Well, you also all know what conversations took place on board Air Force One on November 22, 1963.

Lyndon Johnson : I wish to God there was something that I could do and I wanted to tell you that we were grieving with you.

Rose Kennedy: Yes, well thank you very much, thank you very much. I know. I know you loved Jack and he loved you.

Well, you are beginning to see my point. A good friend of JFK and White-House press secretary, Pierre Salinger + the mother of JFK + the brother of JFK (who had access to all the information he wanted, being at the time the Attorney General and knowing Washington, DC and the politicians) + JFK's wife NEVER said a word against Johnson, or even better, said good things about Johnson.

That's a powerful argument. It is not François Carlier who invents that.

But apart from that, how in the world could anyone argue that Lyndon Johnson, then Vice-President, could think of killing the President and get away with it ?

I mean, is that what they do in the United States ?

If Johnson wanted to become President, all he had to do was wait. See, Georges Bush Senior was Vice-President under Reagan, and after eight years, he became President. That's only natural.

Johnson could have done the same, or at least hoped he would be elected.

But you, Robert Morrow, claim that he could not wait and decided to Kill the President and no-one intervene ? No one said anything ? No one realized it ?

And Johnson could not find a better way to assassinate Kennedy than to have shots fired at him in a motorcade where he, Johnson, was too (and he could have received a bullet himself) ?

And he asked Malcolm Wallace to do the job ? Didn't he think that might be hard for him to explain, should Wallace be caught ? And what did he give Wallace, in exchange for the tremendous risks he took ? A job ? A ranch ? Nothing ? And Wallace said OK all the same ? He sure was a very good friend !!!

And by the way, as Bugliosi proved in his book, there can be no way the palm print found was Wallace's finger print. You agree, I hope.

And since Walt Brown's press conference of 1998, twelve years later, I think this theory is dead, now.

If you have read the book "Taking charge : The Johnson White House Tapes 1963 1964", you know that Johnson himself asked to be recorded. You can hear audio files, and discover that he was in no way part of any plot.

Anybody remembers Dan Quayle ? I do. I was in the United States in 1989/1999 and registered at a "political science" class at Penn State University.

I remember my teacher saying : "I hope Georges Bush doesn’t get ill and dies, because then Dan Quayle would replace him and that would be a catastrophe."

Now, Dan Quayle must have realized he had NO chance of ever being elected President. Why didn't he decide to have the President assassinated, then ?

Yes, why didn't Dan Quayle decide to do what Johnson is supposed to have done before, namely kill the President and take his seat ?

And why didn't Dick Cheney do that, too ?

This makes no sense, really.

As to Billie Sol Estes, I met him in Paris in 2003 and sat at a table with him and a journalist. I had some time to ask him a few questions. I asked him why Johnson had Kennedy killed (according to him). I will always remember what he answered. One word : "immunity".

So the Vice-President is afraid of the police because of his previous wrong-doings, so all he can think of is to actually have the President killed ? And then everything is going to be all right ?

I mean, is there no end to nonsensical beliefs ?

Billie Sol Estes is the guy who claimed that Johnson went to the Murchinson party, and he had a look-alike in Fort Worth !!! Do you believe that ?

And should I remind you that even conspiracy-theorist Walt Brown says with authority that the Murchinson party didn't happen and Madeleine Brown is lying. (reference : Walt Brown, interviewed on Black Op Radio, show n°356, January 2008, with Len Osanic)

And do you believe William Reymond, Billie Sol Estes French friend, who talks about John Liggett, who is supposed to have performed plastic surgery on JFK, or David Lifton, who said on Black Op radio that there had been no such thing as plastic surgery ? Whom do you believe ?

But I digress, here.

Mister Morrow, please pause for a minute. Think : pupils and students around the world learn that the United States is a free country, a democracy, where its leaders are elected in free elections.

But YOU say to the world : "We have a crooked government, the President can be assassinated, and our corrupt politicians keep lying about it, the police took part in the plot, the judicial system did nothing about it."

What a awful description of your own country !

Well, I say you are wrong. I love the United States and I say the United States is NOT as you describe it.

OK. Then Steve Duffy asked me (I quote) "what official version I am defending?"

Well, as if there were several versions. There is only one, and you know it, namely :

Lee Harvey Oswald is the sole assassin of John Kennedy. He fired three shots. One bullet passed through both Kennedy and Connally. .. and the rest, which you know as well as I do.

As for the acoustical problem and the HSCA, it is quite simple. The HSCA tried to verify the Warren report conclusions and see whether conspiracy theories had any basis in fact. The did try to do a thorough job.

They concluded that the official version, namely that Lee Oswald had indeed fired the three shots at Kennedy was true and scientifically proved.

THEN, at the eleventh hour, an audio recording surprised everyone. It seemed we could hear impulses on a Dallas Police Dictabelt tape and some people thought those impulses were sounds of shots and one of them came from the Grassy Knoll.

It didn't change any fact, since even they concluded that shot from the Grassy knoll had missed. So Oswald was still the lone assassin (the official version did not change), but he seemed to have an accomplice who was a poor shot, incidentally.

But now, let me quote this sentence taken from the McAdams web site : "But this supposedly "scientific" evidence of conspiracy didn't survive the scrutiny of the best scientists, who gathered under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, and declared the acoustic analysis to be bad science."

Well, there you have it. It has now been proven that there was no shot from the grassy knoll. This so-called "audio evidence" lead nowhere. End of the story.

If need be, I can also give you this quote (from Bobby Joe Dale, in Larry Sneed, "No more silence").

Bobby Joe Dale : "…In the late 70’s, there was speculation that a stuck microphone on one of the motorcycle radios in Dealey Plaza picked up the sounds of the shots. At that time, we had two channels on the radio : one channel was for Oak Cliff and the other for the rest of Dallas. But that day, they cleared one channel, but you could flip the switch and go to the other channel.

…In fact, I think he said two or three times that there was a mike stuck open and to check it. You could pretty well identify what the sound was on the radio. It seemed at the time, and it’s still in my mind, that it was a three-wheeler. They had a flat-head engine with a distinctive noise, so you could tell them from a solo motorcycle. Stuck mikes were a fairly common occurrence, especially among three-wheelers. With the solo, you didn’t turn on your transmitter until you got ready to talk ; three-wheelers left theirs on all the time due to the fact that they had bigger batteries.

…Usually the problem would be located and quickly corrected if it were a solo motorcycle. However, had a three-wheeler been on assignment in a parking area with his mike stuck, he might go an hour with it stuck. Of course, he’d have no knowledge of this unless somebody told him to check his mike. Again, if your mike’s stuck, you don’t hear it.

…In 1975 I became an instructor at the Police Academy at the pistol range. By coincidence, that’s when the acoustical test was being run to check for shot noises on the tapes. The pistol range personnel reenacted it with one of the instructors using the same type of weapon firing the same distance into sandbags. It was sort of interesting just sitting there watching the technicians and so-called brains attempting this reenactment. …It was absurd because, in my mind, the stuck mike was never anywhere in the area of the assassination, so they were basing all these tests on a false assumption.

…I’ve heard the tapes of the radio traffic and could even hear a train which was in the vicinity of Market Center. You can hear the motorcade with the sirens going by the stuck mike which indicates that the mike was on a stationary vehicle, most likely a three-wheeler at market Center.

…I could hear the mike stuck. I could hear all these sounds coming over the mike and therefore concluded at that time that it was a three-wheeler at Market Center.

…A lot of these people who are gifted with words have made quite a bit of money on their ideas and theories, not the facts of the case…"

So there still is ONLY ONE official version. If it is not clear to you, what can I do ?

You can play with the words and say that (quote) "it's still an open investigation", if you want, but that won't change the facts.

All right.

You see, during my research for my book, I exchanged letters with lots of people.

Some extracts are worth reading.

For instance :

Anthony Summers (the author of "Not in your lifetime", previously titled "The Kennedy Conspiracy") answered a letter from me (June 1997). I quote him :

"…I have always deliberately avoided expressing firm opinions one way or the other on the case. My book on the matter, originally entitled Conspiracy, will be republished later this year under the title Not in your lifetime …I am pleased about the change, as I was never happy to be linked firmly to the notion of conspiracy. My view is that, for a number of reasons, the original enquiry was incomplete – a fact that in large part explains why so many questions remain. Thanks to that failure, it is impossible to offer firm answers on many areas of the case. For my part, I respect those who remain agnostic on the case more than those either claim to be sure there was or was not a conspiracy"

Interesting, don't you think ?

And what about doctor Charles Baxter, who answered a letter from me (December 1998). I quote him :

"Posner is truly a scholar who, to my mind, is the one person who did a thorough job of collecting facts."

And what about doctor Malcolm Perry, who answered a chart of questions I had sent him (October 1997) :

Doctor Perry : …My sworn testimony is in the records, and has not changed. Many people have misquoted me, and more often taken my comments out of context…

François Carlier : After seeing the wounded body, did you make an opinion at that time as to where the shots came from ?

Doctor Perry : No – speculation only"

Something else.

When I began studying the Kennedy assassination, there was one particular point which made me think was the crux of the matter : that amount of lead still in Connally's body. I mean, I know science. We can always argue about trajectories of bullets, or witness testimony, but not about hard scientific facts.

To me, the amount of lead in Connally's body could resolve the case and prove a conspiracy beyond any doubt.

So in 1997 I wrote doctor Cyril Wecht. Here is an extract from our correspondence (which lasted for several years).

Question (F. Carlier) : Is it true that the total weight of the metal fragments which were removed from Connally‘s wrist plus those that remained in his body (thigh) is superior to what is missing from CE 399 ?

Answer (C. Wecht) : …Unfortunately, the removed fragments were not actually weighed, and therefore, we are unable to set this forth as an unequivocal conclusion.

See ? I did try to know the answers. I did my research. Unfortunately, it never goes in the direction of a provable conspiracy, sorry.

OK, I still have a lot of things to say but I'm afraid this might be a waste of time since I have no guarantee the moderators will allow my message to be seen in the Education Forum.

So, I'm not sure I feel like writing for hours, for nothing.

Therefore I mention one last point.

As I said earlier, the people who were closer to the events, or even close to the victim or the culprit (family members) ALL agree with the official version.

That is very important.

You see, you can't always blame the so-called "lone-nutters", saying they are "ignorant", or frauds, or lying for money, etc.

We say what we say because we have grounds to says so. Admit it.

For instance, I will quote, again.

Robert Oswald :

"After all these years, I think more than anything else, if I had an opportunity, had the facts that said Lee was innocent, I would be out there shouting it loud and clear. It is my belief, my conviction, no one but Lee was involved, period"

"He had problems at home. He was completely frustrated by what was going on around him. This is not excusing what he did, this is understanding what he did. He wanted to be somebody, and this opportunity came about. Coincidental. Nothing planned. Nothing organized. It happened that way. It’s one of those happenstances of History "

[The Kennedy assassination, beyond conspiracy, ABC News, 2003]

He is Lee Oswald's brother, and he talked to him that day !!

What about Lee Oswald's wife ?

Chairman STOKES. Now again you know Priscilla Johnson McMillan, don’t you ?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes, sir.

Chairman STOKES. That is the lady who wrote the book "Marina and Lee."

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Chairman STOKES. And you talked with her with reference to what she was writing about the book, didn’t you ?

Mrs. PORTER. Sure.

Chairman STOKES. You have read that book ?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes ; not recently but a year ago.

Chairman STOKES. I beg your pardon ?

Mrs. PORTER. A year ago, yes.

Chairman STOKES. A year ago, right.

Let me read this passage to you from the book. I am reading at page 436.

"Marina was now certain that Lee was guilty. She saw his guilt in his eyes. Moreover, she knew that had he been innocent, he would have been screaming to high heaven for his rights, claiming he had been mistreated, and demanding to see officials at the very highest levels, just as he had always done before. For her, the fact that he was so compliant, that he told her he was being treated all right, was a sign that he was guilty."

Did you tell Miss Johnson that ?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Chairman STOKES. Now in addition to it, you told Miss Johnson, did you not, about the police coming and taking away many possessions, and one of the possessions that they left was a small demitasse cup, and when you looked and discovered the fact that they had not taken the cup, you also found in there Lee’s wedding ring. Did you tell her about that ?

Mrs. PORTER. Well, I do not--I remember the demitasse, but it is missed. I don’t know where it is.

Are you asking me did I find Lee’s ring ?

Chairman STOKES. Did you find his ring ?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes, sir.

Chairman STOKES. And then did you tell Miss Johnson this :

"‘Oh, no, ‘ she thought, and her heart sank again, ‘Lee never took his ring off, not even on his grimiest manual jobs.’ She had seen him wearing it the night before. Marina suddenly realized what it meant. Lee had not just gone out and shot the President spontaneously. He had intended to do it when he left for work that day. Again things were falling into place. Marina told no one about Lee’s ring."

Did you tell Miss Johnson that ?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Pretty powerful, coming from the suspect's wife !

And what about Jack Ruby's brother, Earl ?

He said :

"When he saw Oswald come out, with a snigger on his face, as though he was proud that he killed Kennedy, it just ticked my brother off… You don’t assassinate anybody by shooting him in his stomach… He told me he just wanted to hurt him and make him suffer a little bit… I know my brother, he loved Kennedy… It’s ludicrous that they try to involve him in a conspiracy. I know better. He was sorry he shot him. He never thought he would die."

Well, I could go on, and on, but that will do for today. What I mean is that you can't deny that we, defenders of the Warren Commision's conclusions, have good reason to believe what we believe.

Accusing us of lying for the money, as Len Oswanic or others often do, is very easy and most of all very wrong.

At the very least, you can acknowledge that there are lots of signs, reasonably convincing signs, that Lee Oswald might very well have been the lone assassin after all !

/F.C./

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: "At the very least, you can acknowledge that there are lots of signs, reasonably convincing signs, that Lee Oswald might very well have been the lone assassin after all !

"

No, none, not a chance. He failed a GSR test, what more do you need to know? If you want more, there are thousands of reasons, all available if you look for them.

Have you ever met Donald Segretti?

Were you ever disbarred from practicing law?

Did you ever manage a hotel in Key West?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

This is a serious, reasonable, humble message, meant only to fuel a mature debate. I hope it will be read by those interested in thinking seriously about the Kennedy assassination. Please, no insults here....

...people who say that there was a conspiracy to eliminate President Kennedy are wrong, or, to be more blunt, spread disinformation and lie to the American public...

That didn't take long.

The back wound was too low for a single shooter. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the very least, you can acknowledge that there are lots of signs, reasonably convincing signs, that Lee Oswald might very well have been the lone assassin after all !

Ok I promise wont laugh at nor insult you any more from now on if you can acknowledge one thing for me...

At the very least, you can acknowledge that there are lots of signs, reasonably convincing signs, that there might very well have been a conspiracy after all !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....Accusing us of lying for the money, as Len Osanic or others often do, is very easy and most of all very wrong.

Please see the first paragraph, page xv of the introduction to Reclaiming History

http://books.google.com/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&pg=PR15&lpg=PR15&dq=1964+poll+warren+commission&source=bl&ots=WktLcDM3ho&sig=THDUk27hG3BljsjHyOeOm_5N4FQ&hl=en&ei=qpiOTPuFDYH7lwfN1s3IAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=1964%20poll%20warren%20commission&f=false

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: "At the very least, you can acknowledge that there are lots of signs, reasonably convincing signs, that Lee Oswald might very well have been the lone assassin after all !

"

No, none, not a chance. He failed a GSR test, what more do you need to know? If you want more, there are thousands of reasons, all available if you look for them.

Have you ever met Donald Segretti?

Were you ever disbarred from practicing law?

Did you ever manage a hotel in Key West?

What? Francois and Tim Gratz are most definitely not the same guy. Tim Gratz, for one, is a conspiracy theorist.

Tim Gratz rubbed people wrong not because he was a LNer like Francois, but because he strongly suspected Castro was involved.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

François,

Because you quoted me, I believe it's polite to give you an response. I asked you what official version are you defending? I never pretended, stated or claimed "As if there were several" Adding a statement like that, about me, doesn't show critical thinking. It shows someone being dismissive toward a genuine question. It was obvious I was asking about the 2 investigations. If this was unclear, It's your fault. The official version, as I stated, was the HSCA. It ruled, "The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, That President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."

You have stated that this was because of the last minute inclusion of the acoustic evidence, and that that evidence is flawed and the content of the official version remains. That's fine. It doesn't sway the fact that it is an "open Investigation" as I claimed. How that is a play on words is beyond me.

I have a lot of questions about the methodology of your critical thinking, however. How does your belief in God side beyond your belief in "science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, science education, and the use of reason in examining important issues". To me one excludes the other. Mr Dawkins would agree.

You have great trust in Politics and people, it seems. I Don't. I watched an interview yesterday with Colin Powell's chief of staff. He described the Warren Report as a "Whitewash", a statement that I find fascinating from a man in his position. He also laughed about the idea of American democracy, stating that is no longer so. He said it was a Corporatocracy. So it isn't just Mr Morrow claiming these awful things. It's the people in positions whom know.

Mr Bush, by the way, had his chance at being President a lot sooner than his eight years.

I understand your thinking better now, I thank you. But I will say, man you are really, naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyndon Johnson : I wish to God there was something that I could do and I wanted to tell you that we were grieving with you.

Rose Kennedy: Yes, well thank you very much, thank you very much. I know. I know you loved Jack and he loved you.

The sarcasm dripping from Rose Kennedy's voice on that tape could eat through steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"First of all, I want to make something very clear. I came to this forum with only one goal : to defend the official version. Yes, I am convinced that Lee Oswald killed Kennedy. I think all the available evidence shows it beyond any doubt. So why did I want to come here? Because I have the feeling that people who say that there was a conspiracy to eliminate President Kennedy are wrong, or, to be more blunt, spread disinformation and lie to the American public. Which is bad.

Ok Frankie--should I believe you? LOL -- OMG -- not in a hundred years!

Why do you really do this? Huh? Are we really to believe it is because you are the "guardian of American Truth" ??? Is that right? [Moderators please note: He "opened the door to this line of inquiry" -- and therefore, just like in a court room, he can't claim these questions are inappropriate].

Frankie,

Just like I asked John (Paul Nolan) McAdams when I debated him a decade ago: "Why do you really do this?" Frankie, are you really claiming that the reason you spend any of your precious time on this subject is because you want to make sure that the official version remains the official version? Is your French interest in American History sufficient to justify your almost obsessive preoccupation with preserving our government's official story? WHY WOULD YOU EVEN CARE TO PROMOTE A THEORY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN NEARLY SET IN STONE? After all, it's already the "official history" so -- WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE?

Answer:There is no innocuous justification for such behavior. Perhaps you simply have no hobbies, no interests, no friends, no integrity, or no life? I don't know the answer...nor do I care.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norman T. Field wrote :

Have you ever met Donald Segretti?

Were you ever disbarred from practicing law?

Did you ever manage a hotel in Key West?

I do not understand a single word of that paragraph.

Whatever do you mean ? Is that supposed to be an answer to my questions regarding the evidence at hand in the Kennedy assassination case ?

Or are you confused about who I am ? Maybe Pat Speer set the record straight, then (though I don't know the guy he mentions).

In any case, my answers to you three strange questions are : No, no, and no.

/F.C./

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyndon Johnson : I wish to God there was something that I could do and I wanted to tell you that we were grieving with you.

Rose Kennedy: Yes, well thank you very much, thank you very much. I know. I know you loved Jack and he loved you.

The sarcasm dripping from Rose Kennedy's voice on that tape could eat through steel.

Wait a minute. What are you saying, here ?

Are you trying to say that, since you hear "obvious sarcasm" in Rose Kennedy's voice, when she says that her son, John F. Kennedy, loved Lyndon Johnson, in actuality he didn't like him at all ? And therefore my point is not valid. And in fact Johnson did not like JFK and was very possibly willing to have him killed. Is that what you are saying ?

Well, it very easy for you, then, to prove whatever point you have. Just twist the facts, or pretend you hear something that is not there in the first place. I say you have no right to pretend that Rose Kennedy is using sarcasm here. At least you CANNOT prove it, admit it.

If I used the same tactics as you, I could pretend :

When Lee Oswald said "I'm just a patsy", it is obvious he is using sarcasm. I can hear sarcasm in his voice, and it is also obvious in his tone that he is saying that as a joke. That means he was really saying that he was not a patsy at all. He meant to admit he had indeed shot at Kennedy.

Would you agree with me there ?

/F.C./

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO THE MODERATORS :

I submit to you this message written by me, François Carlier.

I honestly see no reason why you would want to apply censorship to it.

I promise never again to use any impolite word in this forum.

I just hope you will always try to be fair in your decisions to apply moderation to members.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

This is a serious, reasonable, humble message, meant only to fuel a mature debate. I hope it will be read by those interested in thinking seriously about the Kennedy assassination. Please, no insults here, no "anti-Carlier" hysterics, for a change. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I've got a lot to say, but not enough time to write a message as long as I would like it to be. Let's begin.

First of all, I want to make something very clear. I came to this forum with only one goal : to defend the official version. Yes, I am convinced that Lee Oswald killed Kennedy. I think all the available evidence shows it beyond any doubt.

So why did I want to come here ? Because I have the feeling that people who say that there was a conspiracy to eliminate President Kennedy are wrong, or, to be more blunt, spread disinformation and lie to the American public. Which is bad.

Now, do I have the right to say that ? Do I have the right to defend my convictions ?

I really think that my knowledge in critical thinking can help refresh the overall debate.

But I can only say, sadly, that I was received in this forum with anger and should I say "hate" ?

I was used to newsgroups such as alt.conspiracy.jfk or alt.assassination.jfk where you can find about half of the members who believe in a conspiracy and the other half who believe in Oswald's guilt.

But in this forum, you all gave the impression that everybody takes it for granted that there had been a conspiracy and it is forbidden to say otherwise.

Nonsense. There are a number of LNers on this forum. There have been others in the past. But they mostly quit when they realize no one's buying what they're selling.

In the Education Forum, as I remarked previously, it seems it is perfectly OK for conspiracy theorists to call Gary Mack "a xxxx",

You realize, of course, that newsgroups like aaj are filled with tirades against men like Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, and Mark Lane, and similar declarations that they are liars.

or David Von Pein "a fraud", or insult fine authors such as Gerald Posner or Vincent Bugliosi, or Dale Myers.

Over and over again, you all show contempt on all those great men,

Holy smokes! While Bugliosi has taken some strong positions in his career--speaking truth to power--I can not fathom why or how you came to the conclusion Gerald Posner--whom Bugliosi villifies--or Dale Myers--who deliberately deceived the American public on the viability of the single-bullet theory--are GREAT MEN.

who are honest and carefully try to defend the truth by presenting the facts.

Read Chapter 12C at patspeer.com before you try to claim Myers is an honest man only interested in defending the truth.

I have read countless wrongful, unjust and disrespectful attacks on fine men (such as Gary Mack

I was the resident Mack defender until he lost me with Inside the Target Car, in which he revealed himself capable of flat-out lying. (See chapter 16c at patspeer.com).

or David Von Pein, both whom I admire) by members here.

And I was treated as if I know nothing about the case.

It sounds like you stopped learning about the case a dozen years ago. Catch up.

Well, I won't bother you again with my presentation, but suffice it to say that I have spent twenty years researching the case, and reading about 150 books. Well, I think it is fair to say that anybody reading 150 books on a specific event can be said to know a lot about that event, don't you think ?

[ see this page : http://zec-world.pagesperso-orange.fr/jfkfoto.htm]

Well, to cut a long story short, what I am saying is that you've got to admit that it is quite possible for a man to honestly believe that Lee Oswald did kill Kennedy. I don't say that for money. I don't say that out of fear of the CIA. I don't say that because I am ignorant. I say that because I have reached that conclusion, pure and simple.

Briefly speaking, I started my journey in the Kennedy assassination believing in a conspiracy.

FWIW, I started out suspicious of the official story, then became suspicious all this talk of conspiracy was bs. When I attempted to use forensics text books and journals to back up the official story, however, I realized that it was the official story that was bs, and that numerous experts had lied through their teeth to prop up the single-assassin scenario.

I had the chance of going to the United States in 1989 for a full year, at age 22. I took advantage of it. The first book I bought was "Best evidence", by David Lifton. Needless to say, it was hard for me to read (I had to use a dictionary, for at the time I did not master the technical vocabulary). I worked a lot. I was impressed by Lifton's research. I was convinced. He was right, he was an expert, he was a hero. There had been a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination.

Then I bought his video. Then Robert Groden's (with Livingstone) book "High treason". Then I met Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh, and he was kind enough to allow me to visit him in his office and he gave me some documents he had. I then drove to Dallas, Texas, where I met Robert Groden and had a conversation with him. At the time, I was only a beginner. I did not know much about the whole case. Then, I don't remember how, I succeeded in having David Lifton's phone number and I left a message on his answer phone and he called back and we had a long conversation.

David Lifton was a hero to me, at the time.

He asked me on the phone to help him distribute his video cassette "Best evidence" in France. I tried to help him. Back home, I sent the cassette with a letter to a producer in Paris. I got no answer, and was never given the cassette back. So I ordered a new one, received it, and sent it to another producer in Paris. Again, I got no answer and no tape back. So I ordered a new one again, and lent it to someone who wrote an article for a History magazine, and again was not given the cassette back. So I ordered the "Best evidence" video cassette a fourth time, and I still have it with me, at home.

When I was a student at university, I even tried to organize a big conference, and wanted to invite David Lifton to speak. Unfortunately, I never found the money (no bank would offer me any grant).

Anyway, that shows how eager to help the cause of David Lifton I was at the time. At the time, I was even in the newspaper for my statements against the Warren report.

But in the following years, still spending much of my time learning about the Kennedy assassination, I became interested in science and critical thinking. I was the founding member of a critical-thinking organization, the aim of which was to debunk quacks, much like the American "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry", which promotes (I quote) "science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, science education, and the use of reason in examining important issues". I was and still am an admirer of people such as Martin Gardner or Paul Kurtz, or James Randi.

I spent years researching "the paranormal", and visited haunted houses, met sorcerers, magicians of all kinds, attended lectures by all the quacks that came by, etc. I learned a lot.

I also learned a lot through books that I think conspiracy believers should be well advised to read :

Robert Baker et Joe Nickell, Missing pieces, Prometheus Books, 1992

Antony Flew, How to think straight, Prometheus Books, 1998

Martin Gardner, Science : good, bad and bogus, Prometheus Books, 1989

William D. Gray, Thinking critically about new-age ideas, Wadsworth Publishing. Company, 1991

Peter Knight, Conspiracy Culture : From the Kennedy Assassination to the X-Files, Routledge, 2000

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

And then I applied that critical-thinking education to the Kennedy assassination case.

And I have realized that I had been wrong in believing conspiracy theorists. When I realized it (after trying, for instance, to confront Lifton's arguments to their rebuttals and finding that he had no answer for what was said against him – and I had an actual taped conversation with Lifton in Dallas in 1996 where I found out he had no answer for my precise questions), I acknowledged it. I had been wrong. It was hard to admit it in front of my friends, but truth and honesty must always be our guides in life.

I was growing up mentally.

This is a false dichotomy. The majority of CTs never subscribed to Lifton's theory, so your rejection of his theory should not have led you to become a LNer. It was something else. Perhaps you had a child and realized you didn't want to live in a scary world where American Presidents are murdered and the American government lies about it.

So, today I am a "lone-nutter"; I believe Oswald acted alone. Again, I came to that conclusion through work, thinking, and trying to separate facts from fiction. I am not the only one to have followed that path. It seems Dale Myers, Dave Reitzes, Pat Lambert, Norman Mailer have changed their minds too, becoming convinced that Oswald was the only assassin, after years of research and seeing what, to them, became obvious. And Gary Mack, somewhat, in a way, though I understand not completely, have followed that path too.

And no money is involved. Len Osanic seems to always think that we say that in exchange for a position or money, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Why can't you accept the fact that lone-nutters can also be sincere ?

I do. But you should also accept that it's not a coincidence when men like Posner and Bugliosi get huge advances to write Oswald did-it books, and that there's no way in hell they would have written these books before receiving their huge advance.

Anyway, if I say that I believe that Oswald was the sole assassin, or that conspiracy theories are not based on facts but on speculation, I don't say that for fun. I say that because I have good reason to say it.

OK, allow me a digression here. I am married to an African woman who works for different non-governmental organizations. She is trying to promote peace in countries that are experiencing post-war conflict and tension. I myself am the president of a charity organization who distributes books and computers in schools or poor areas in Africa. It is a time-consuming activity. I often travel to Africa.

Apart from that, my wife and I are dedicated, and we visit hospitals in our spare time and I also am an amateur conjuror who gives magic shows, either in hospitals for ill patients, for free, or in birthday parties or weddings, for a fee.

Well, do you believe it is important for us who, in a foreign country, decades ago, killed the leader of that country ?

I mean, it is sad that President Kennedy was assassinated. But whether he was killed by someone named Oswald, or Wallace, or whatever, I mean, that won't change my life a bit.

The only reason I am here to write this message is that my wife and I are convinced it is a matter of duty to try to fight disinformation everywhere. To us, defending the truth, whatever it is, is serving God, no less. Whatever happens is the will of God, so it is the duty of every man to describe reality, to tell the truth, and not to invent stories.

As my critical-thinking education has taught me what I believe is the right conclusion, it is only natural that I go about trying to defend that conclusion.

That's all there is to it.

Now, let get down to business.

First of all, I would like to focus on the accusation against Lyndon Johnson, and in doing so I particularly think of Robert Morrow, who has accused Johnson in this forum.

First of all, what do I think of Johnson's relations with John Kennedy ? Well, this is what I believe.

I have met Pierre Salinger three times (in the nineties), and each time had a conversation with him, on top of exchanging letters with him over a period of time. Most of all, I went to his office in London and had a lengthy tape-recorded conversation with him (ABC News studios, 1993). Here is an extract :

François Carlier : "What was his [Lyndon Johnson] relation with president Kennedy ?"

Pierre Salinger : "Very good. Excellent. I mean, that was interesting because we had lots of discussions during the time I worked with him at the White House, and he had nothing but praise for John Kennedy".

To sum up what Salinger then told me, Johnson was very good friends with, and an admirer of John Kennedy.

Brutus admired Caesar. So?

Well, you also all know what conversations took place on board Air Force One on November 22, 1963.

Lyndon Johnson : I wish to God there was something that I could do and I wanted to tell you that we were grieving with you.

Rose Kennedy: Yes, well thank you very much, thank you very much. I know. I know you loved Jack and he loved you.

His wife was beside him and he was acting Presidential. You ignore that General McHugh said Johnson's behavior aboard AF1 was "obscene," and that White House photographer Cecil Stoughton said the wink exchanged between Congressman Thomas and Johnson as he was sworn in was "sinister." Do you really expect villains to walk around with signs saying "Hi, I'm a villain?"

Well, you are beginning to see my point. A good friend of JFK and White-House press secretary, Pierre Salinger + the mother of JFK + the brother of JFK (who had access to all the information he wanted, being at the time the Attorney General and knowing Washington, DC and the politicians) + JFK's wife NEVER said a word against Johnson, or even better, said good things about Johnson.

That's a powerful argument. It is not François Carlier who invents that.

But apart from that, how in the world could anyone argue that Lyndon Johnson, then Vice-President, could think of killing the President and get away with it ?

I mean, is that what they do in the United States ?

Yes. Read about Nixon. Read about Bush. It's all about power. People will say or do anything to get it and whoever has it will do almost anything to hold onto it...and almost everyone plays along. Read your history and you will discover that a number of elections have been stolen. Read your tea leaves and you'll see that we're about to have another tainted election, one in which the Dems will lose power because the Reps have successfully convinced a third of the population that Obama is a secret Muslim.

If Johnson wanted to become President, all he had to do was wait. See, Georges Bush Senior was Vice-President under Reagan, and after eight years, he became President. That's only natural.

Wrong. Historically speaking, the VP slot is a road to nowhere...UNLESS the President dies. Everyone, including LBJ, assumed RFK was gonna run in 68.

Johnson could have done the same, or at least hoped he would be elected.

He knew he'd have no chance against RFK if JFK was around to back him.

But you, Robert Morrow, claim that he could not wait and decided to Kill the President and no-one intervene ? No one said anything ? No one realized it ?

And Johnson could not find a better way to assassinate Kennedy than to have shots fired at him in a motorcade where he, Johnson, was too (and he could have received a bullet himself) ?

The shots were nowhere near Johnson, and his being in the motorcade gave him some semblance of cover.

And he asked Malcolm Wallace to do the job ? Didn't he think that might be hard for him to explain, should Wallace be caught ? And what did he give Wallace, in exchange for the tremendous risks he took ? A job ? A ranch ? Nothing ? And Wallace said OK all the same ? He sure was a very good friend !!!

I also have my doubts that Wallace was the trigger-man. But that doesn't mean he wasn't up on the sixth floor scouting out the location.

And by the way, as Bugliosi proved in his book, there can be no way the palm print found was Wallace's finger print. You agree, I hope.

NO, I don't. I pointed this out some time ago, and Jim reported it on his website. Darby did not ID a palm print as a finger print. Darby IDed a finger print previously IDed (in a letter written by Hoover with no supporting exhibits) as a Studebaker print as a Wallace print. Bugliosi would have known this if he'd actually read McClellan's book.

And since Walt Brown's press conference of 1998, twelve years later, I think this theory is dead, now.

Wrong. I'm skeptical the print is Wallace's but the issue is still very much alive.

If you have read the book "Taking charge : The Johnson White House Tapes 1963 1964", you know that Johnson himself asked to be recorded. You can hear audio files, and discover that he was in no way part of any plot.

If you read the transcripts and listen to the tapes, you will discover that there are many references to other phone calls which were not recorded. There is also the question of the 14 minute gap on the tape of Hoover talking to Johnson. Who knows what was said?

Anybody remembers Dan Quayle ? I do. I was in the United States in 1989/1999 and registered at a "political science" class at Penn State University.

I remember my teacher saying : "I hope Georges Bush doesn’t get ill and dies, because then Dan Quayle would replace him and that would be a catastrophe."

Now, Dan Quayle must have realized he had NO chance of ever being elected President. Why didn't he decide to have the President assassinated, then ?

Yes, why didn't Dan Quayle decide to do what Johnson is supposed to have done before, namely kill the President and take his seat ?

Dan Quayle was no Lyndon Johnson.

And why didn't Dick Cheney do that, too ?

Dick Cheney was not interested in being President. Too many eyes on you. He was interested in being the power behind the throne.

This makes no sense, really.

As to Billie Sol Estes, I met him in Paris in 2003 and sat at a table with him and a journalist. I had some time to ask him a few questions. I asked him why Johnson had Kennedy killed (according to him). I will always remember what he answered. One word : "immunity".

So the Vice-President is afraid of the police because of his previous wrong-doings, so all he can think of is to actually have the President killed ? And then everything is going to be all right ?

I mean, is there no end to nonsensical beliefs ?

Billie Sol Estes is the guy who claimed that Johnson went to the Murchinson party, and he had a look-alike in Fort Worth !!! Do you believe that ?

And should I remind you that even conspiracy-theorist Walt Brown says with authority that the Murchinson party didn't happen and Madeleine Brown is lying. (reference : Walt Brown, interviewed on Black Op Radio, show n°356, January 2008, with Len Osanic)

And do you believe William Reymond, Billie Sol Estes French friend, who talks about John Liggett, who is supposed to have performed plastic surgery on JFK, or David Lifton, who said on Black Op radio that there had been no such thing as plastic surgery ? Whom do you believe ?

But I digress, here.

Mister Morrow, please pause for a minute. Think : pupils and students around the world learn that the United States is a free country, a democracy, where its leaders are elected in free elections.

But YOU say to the world : "We have a crooked government, the President can be assassinated, and our corrupt politicians keep lying about it, the police took part in the plot, the judicial system did nothing about it."

What a awful description of your own country !

Well, I say you are wrong. I love the United States and I say the United States is NOT as you describe it.

OK. Then Steve Duffy asked me (I quote) "what official version I am defending?"

Well, as if there were several versions. There is only one, and you know it, namely :

Lee Harvey Oswald is the sole assassin of John Kennedy. He fired three shots. One bullet passed through both Kennedy and Connally. .. and the rest, which you know as well as I do.

As for the acoustical problem and the HSCA, it is quite simple. The HSCA tried to verify the Warren report conclusions and see whether conspiracy theories had any basis in fact. The did try to do a thorough job.

They concluded that the official version, namely that Lee Oswald had indeed fired the three shots at Kennedy was true and scientifically proved.

THEN, at the eleventh hour, an audio recording surprised everyone. It seemed we could hear impulses on a Dallas Police Dictabelt tape and some people thought those impulses were sounds of shots and one of them came from the Grassy Knoll.

Blakey and Stokes both claimed that they'd long suspected there'd been a conspiracy, based on Ruby's ties to organized crime, but that they were looking for some scientific evidence to support their belief. So the oft-repeated claim that the dictabelt evidence led the HSCA astray is not entirely true.

It didn't change any fact, since even they concluded that shot from the Grassy knoll had missed. So Oswald was still the lone assassin (the official version did not change), but he seemed to have an accomplice who was a poor shot, incidentally.

The HSCA claimed Oswald fired the fatal shots based in part on the testimony of Vincent Guinn and Thomas Canning, both of which have been thoroughly debunked.

But now, let me quote this sentence taken from the McAdams web site : "But this supposedly "scientific" evidence of conspiracy didn't survive the scrutiny of the best scientists, who gathered under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, and declared the acoustic analysis to be bad science."

Well, there you have it. It has now been proven that there was no shot from the grassy knoll.

While I don't believe the fatal shot came from the knoll, one can not honestly state the refutation of the dictabelt evidence proves no shot came from the knoll. Re-read your critical thinking books if you don't believe me.

This so-called "audio evidence" lead nowhere. End of the story.

If need be, I can also give you this quote (from Bobby Joe Dale, in Larry Sneed, "No more silence").

Bobby Joe Dale : "…In the late 70’s, there was speculation that a stuck microphone on one of the motorcycle radios in Dealey Plaza picked up the sounds of the shots. At that time, we had two channels on the radio : one channel was for Oak Cliff and the other for the rest of Dallas. But that day, they cleared one channel, but you could flip the switch and go to the other channel.

…In fact, I think he said two or three times that there was a mike stuck open and to check it. You could pretty well identify what the sound was on the radio. It seemed at the time, and it’s still in my mind, that it was a three-wheeler. They had a flat-head engine with a distinctive noise, so you could tell them from a solo motorcycle. Stuck mikes were a fairly common occurrence, especially among three-wheelers. With the solo, you didn’t turn on your transmitter until you got ready to talk ; three-wheelers left theirs on all the time due to the fact that they had bigger batteries.

…Usually the problem would be located and quickly corrected if it were a solo motorcycle. However, had a three-wheeler been on assignment in a parking area with his mike stuck, he might go an hour with it stuck. Of course, he’d have no knowledge of this unless somebody told him to check his mike. Again, if your mike’s stuck, you don’t hear it.

…In 1975 I became an instructor at the Police Academy at the pistol range. By coincidence, that’s when the acoustical test was being run to check for shot noises on the tapes. The pistol range personnel reenacted it with one of the instructors using the same type of weapon firing the same distance into sandbags. It was sort of interesting just sitting there watching the technicians and so-called brains attempting this reenactment. …It was absurd because, in my mind, the stuck mike was never anywhere in the area of the assassination, so they were basing all these tests on a false assumption.

…I’ve heard the tapes of the radio traffic and could even hear a train which was in the vicinity of Market Center. You can hear the motorcade with the sirens going by the stuck mike which indicates that the mike was on a stationary vehicle, most likely a three-wheeler at market Center.

…I could hear the mike stuck. I could hear all these sounds coming over the mike and therefore concluded at that time that it was a three-wheeler at Market Center.

…A lot of these people who are gifted with words have made quite a bit of money on their ideas and theories, not the facts of the case…"

Not that it matters, but Bobby Joe Dale is one of the least credible witnesses to the shooting. While he was riding six or more car lengths behind Courson and Haygood, who were only approaching the plaza when the first shot was fired, Dale told the Dallas Morning News in 1978 that he'd been riding "five vehicles behind the presidential limousine," and then later told author Larry Sneed that he was 40 feet north of Main on Houston Street when the first shot rang out. In other words, he was a bald-faced xxxx.

So there still is ONLY ONE official version. If it is not clear to you, what can I do ?

You can play with the words and say that (quote) "it's still an open investigation", if you want, but that won't change the facts.

All right.

You see, during my research for my book, I exchanged letters with lots of people.

Some extracts are worth reading.

For instance :

Anthony Summers (the author of "Not in your lifetime", previously titled "The Kennedy Conspiracy") answered a letter from me (June 1997). I quote him :

"…I have always deliberately avoided expressing firm opinions one way or the other on the case. My book on the matter, originally entitled Conspiracy, will be republished later this year under the title Not in your lifetime …I am pleased about the change, as I was never happy to be linked firmly to the notion of conspiracy. My view is that, for a number of reasons, the original enquiry was incomplete – a fact that in large part explains why so many questions remain. Thanks to that failure, it is impossible to offer firm answers on many areas of the case. For my part, I respect those who remain agnostic on the case more than those either claim to be sure there was or was not a conspiracy"

Interesting, don't you think ?

And what about doctor Charles Baxter, who answered a letter from me (December 1998). I quote him :

"Posner is truly a scholar who, to my mind, is the one person who did a thorough job of collecting facts."

And what about doctor Malcolm Perry, who answered a chart of questions I had sent him (October 1997) :

Doctor Perry : …My sworn testimony is in the records, and has not changed. Many people have misquoted me, and more often taken my comments out of context…

François Carlier : After seeing the wounded body, did you make an opinion at that time as to where the shots came from ?

Doctor Perry : No – speculation only"

Something else.

When I began studying the Kennedy assassination, there was one particular point which made me think was the crux of the matter : that amount of lead still in Connally's body. I mean, I know science. We can always argue about trajectories of bullets, or witness testimony, but not about hard scientific facts.

To me, the amount of lead in Connally's body could resolve the case and prove a conspiracy beyond any doubt.

So in 1997 I wrote doctor Cyril Wecht. Here is an extract from our correspondence (which lasted for several years).

Question (F. Carlier) : Is it true that the total weight of the metal fragments which were removed from Connally‘s wrist plus those that remained in his body (thigh) is superior to what is missing from CE 399 ?

Answer (C. Wecht) : …Unfortunately, the removed fragments were not actually weighed, and therefore, we are unable to set this forth as an unequivocal conclusion.

Thanks for sharing these letter excerpts. If you ever find the time to post them all online, it would be appreciated.

See ? I did try to know the answers. I did my research. Unfortunately, it never goes in the direction of a provable conspiracy, sorry.

OK, I still have a lot of things to say but I'm afraid this might be a waste of time since I have no guarantee the moderators will allow my message to be seen in the Education Forum.

So, I'm not sure I feel like writing for hours, for nothing.

Therefore I mention one last point.

As I said earlier, the people who were closer to the events, or even close to the victim or the culprit (family members) ALL agree with the official version.

Not true at all. LBJ always suspected a conspiracy. There is evidence RFK did as well. Over time, moreover, DeMohrenschildt, Marina, and Kennedy's top aide Sorensen all came to suspect there was a conspiracy.

That is very important.

You see, you can't always blame the so-called "lone-nutters", saying they are "ignorant", or frauds, or lying for money, etc.

We say what we say because we have grounds to says so. Admit it.

For instance, I will quote, again.

Robert Oswald :

"After all these years, I think more than anything else, if I had an opportunity, had the facts that said Lee was innocent, I would be out there shouting it loud and clear. It is my belief, my conviction, no one but Lee was involved, period"

"He had problems at home. He was completely frustrated by what was going on around him. This is not excusing what he did, this is understanding what he did. He wanted to be somebody, and this opportunity came about. Coincidental. Nothing planned. Nothing organized. It happened that way. It’s one of those happenstances of History "

[The Kennedy assassination, beyond conspiracy, ABC News, 2003]

He is Lee Oswald's brother, and he talked to him that day !!

So freaking what? If I was accused of committing a political crime, my very conservative brother might very well assume I was guilty. It doesn't mean anything. If you read Robert's book, you'll see that he had grave doubts that his brother could pull off the shooting. Did LNs care what he had to say then? So why should CTs care what he has to say now?

What about Lee Oswald's wife ?

Chairman STOKES. Now again you know Priscilla Johnson McMillan, don’t you ?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes, sir.

Chairman STOKES. That is the lady who wrote the book "Marina and Lee."

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Chairman STOKES. And you talked with her with reference to what she was writing about the book, didn’t you ?

Mrs. PORTER. Sure.

Chairman STOKES. You have read that book ?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes ; not recently but a year ago.

Chairman STOKES. I beg your pardon ?

Mrs. PORTER. A year ago, yes.

Chairman STOKES. A year ago, right.

Let me read this passage to you from the book. I am reading at page 436.

"Marina was now certain that Lee was guilty. She saw his guilt in his eyes. Moreover, she knew that had he been innocent, he would have been screaming to high heaven for his rights, claiming he had been mistreated, and demanding to see officials at the very highest levels, just as he had always done before. For her, the fact that he was so compliant, that he told her he was being treated all right, was a sign that he was guilty."

Did you tell Miss Johnson that ?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Chairman STOKES. Now in addition to it, you told Miss Johnson, did you not, about the police coming and taking away many possessions, and one of the possessions that they left was a small demitasse cup, and when you looked and discovered the fact that they had not taken the cup, you also found in there Lee’s wedding ring. Did you tell her about that ?

Mrs. PORTER. Well, I do not--I remember the demitasse, but it is missed. I don’t know where it is.

Are you asking me did I find Lee’s ring ?

Chairman STOKES. Did you find his ring ?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes, sir.

Chairman STOKES. And then did you tell Miss Johnson this :

"‘Oh, no, ‘ she thought, and her heart sank again, ‘Lee never took his ring off, not even on his grimiest manual jobs.’ She had seen him wearing it the night before. Marina suddenly realized what it meant. Lee had not just gone out and shot the President spontaneously. He had intended to do it when he left for work that day. Again things were falling into place. Marina told no one about Lee’s ring."

Did you tell Miss Johnson that ?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Pretty powerful, coming from the suspect's wife !

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that the "Lee didn't get laid so he went out and shot the President" theory makes sense to a Frenchman, LOL.

And what about Jack Ruby's brother, Earl ?

He said :

"When he saw Oswald come out, with a snigger on his face, as though he was proud that he killed Kennedy, it just ticked my brother off… You don’t assassinate anybody by shooting him in his stomach… He told me he just wanted to hurt him and make him suffer a little bit… I know my brother, he loved Kennedy… It’s ludicrous that they try to involve him in a conspiracy. I know better. He was sorry he shot him. He never thought he would die."

So Ruby's brother was more loyal than Oswald's brother... It doesn't mean a thing. You know, of course, that one of the detectives--I think it was Leavelle--said Ruby was worried that his attempt on Oswald was unsuccessful, and that he totally relaxed when he was told Oswald had died.

Well, I could go on, and on, but that will do for today. What I mean is that you can't deny that we, defenders of the Warren Commision's conclusions, have good reason to believe what we believe.

Accusing us of lying for the money, as Len Oswanic or others often do, is very easy and most of all very wrong.

At the very least, you can acknowledge that there are lots of signs, reasonably convincing signs, that Lee Oswald might very well have been the lone assassin after all !

/F.C./

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore I mention one last point.

As I said earlier, the people who were closer to the events, or even close to the victim or the culprit (family members) ALL agree with the official version.

Not true at all. LBJ always suspected a conspiracy. There is evidence RFK did as well. Over time, moreover, DeMohrenschildt, Marina, and Kennedy's top aide Sorensen all came to suspect there was a conspiracy.

Then there were the blockbuster revelations by President Kennedy's close friends, David Powers and Kenneth O'Donnell. They were there.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7330&view=findpost&p=67619

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francois,

My vote had nothing to do with your LN beliefs. Whether we agree or not, this forum was designed for debate. That is its purpose.

What my problem was is that you repeatedly name called, and when Simkin edited your post, and told you that any further would get you moderated, you said "I don't care about Simkin".

For me, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. That man allows you to post here.

He told you, and you disregarded it. This is the result.

I don't know why you don't take the high road. I know that there are alot of folk here who disagree with the people you think alot of. It's the same with me. I think very highly of Gary Mack, but I wouldn't call someone a moron with the excuse that it was because they said something bad about him. (BTW, I believe the "xxxx" comment was deleted by the moderation team, and if you see one that has been overlooked, let us know.) If I were him, the last thing I would want is for someone to say they admire me, and then turn around and do this stuff. You would do well to be more reasonable and rational.

There are alot of people that don't post,and spend their time reading here. They would probably put more credence into well though out posts, rather than a tidbit, and a put down.

And another thing, and I can't believe I even have to type this, but just because someone does something, doesn't mean you have to.

The charity thing doesn't take away the other. Neither does the life quest. If you are that much of an humanitarian, why don't you demonstrate it in your dealings with the forum members? And, IMO, you owe Simkin an apology. Of course, he would never ask for one. He doesn't do that. He's a good man, and I think he deserves it.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...