Francois Carlier reaches out to forum members

[Greg Burnham]

I am not sure if you're just having difficulty with the written English language, but I can't understand what you are asking.

Glenn Viklund said: Greg,'

"i do not have a pet theory".

Please explain what that mean you are buying into anything you find acceptable and denying the rest. no? You are not cherry picking the reasons for you basic conspiracy beliefs?

Edited June 7, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Glenn Viklund]

I am not sure if you're just having difficulty with the written English language, but I can't understand what you are asking.

Glenn Viklund said: Greg,'

"i do not have a pet theory".

Please explain what that mean you are buying into anything you find acceptable and denying the rest. no? You are not cherry picking the reasons for you basic conspiracy beliefs?

Thanks Greg,

for pointing out this, I'll try again, OK?

Please explain what that means; you are buying into anything you find acceptable as a CT and denying the rest? You are not cherry picking the reasons for your basic conspiracy beliefs?

Heck Greg,

It's been four years and I've yet to see you (the die hard CT) take a clear stand on any specific issue. You find that strange, Greg?

[Greg Burnham]

Glenn,

You seem to be intent on "cornering" me into a caricature you will find easy to sucker punch. Guess what, buddy? It's not gonna happen.

I do not have any "conspiracy THEORIES" and therefore I have none to defend.

I am not sure if you're just having difficulty with the written English language, but I can't understand what you are asking.

Glenn Viklund said: Greg,'

"i do not have a pet theory".

Please explain what that mean you are buying into anything you find acceptable and denying the rest. no? You are not cherry picking the reasons for you basic conspiracy beliefs?

Thanks Greg,

for pointing out this, I'll try again, OK?

Please explain what that means; you are buying into anything you find acceptable as a CT and denying the rest? You are not cherry picking the reasons for your basic conspiracy beliefs?

Heck Greg,

It's been four years and I've yet to see you (the die hard CT) take a clear stand on any specific issue. You find that strange, Greg?

[Glenn Viklund]

Glenn,

You seem to be intent on "cornering" me into a caricature you will find easy to sucker punch. Guess what, buddy? It's not gonna happen.

I do not have any "conspiracy THEORIES" and therefore I have none to defend.

I am not sure if you're just having difficulty with the written English language, but I can't understand what you are asking.

Glenn Viklund said: Greg,'

"i do not have a pet theory".

Please explain what that mean you are buying into anything you find acceptable and denying the rest. no? You are not cherry picking the reasons for you basic conspiracy beliefs?

Thanks Greg,

for pointing out this, I'll try again, OK?

Please explain what that means; you are buying into anything you find acceptable as a CT and denying the rest? You are not cherry picking the reasons for your basic conspiracy beliefs?

Heck Greg,

It's been four years and I've yet to see you (the die hard CT) take a clear stand on any specific issue. You find that strange, Greg?

Not at all Greg.

The thing is quite the opposite; where and why are you in this case? Oh, I've seen your dates with Mantik, Fetzer etc, so even I, over here know that you know these fellas...

But that couldn't be it?

[Greg Burnham]

Glenn,

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and list some of my beliefs. None are based on CONSPIRACY THEORY. I will only name five. They are enough, but there are many more.

They are based on evidence. Some are even based on LACK of INVESTIGATION of the relevant evidence.

1) the SBT is contrived (this shouldn't even need explanation anymore)

2 ) the protection detail broke down in myriad ways and "lost" their client (that FACT is prima facie evidence of their having been compromised)

3) the medical evidence is very suspect, i.e, the autopsy photographs and x-rays don't match each other nor do they match themselves (big problem)

4) some of the film evidence has been tampered with (even though many still are not convinced--and I don't blame them, it is my belief)

5) the "chain of evidence" was compromised regarding EVERY SINGLE piece of vital evidence:

a ) the disposition of the president's body (no autopsy in Texas!!!)

b ) the disposition and treatment of the presidential limo (the immediate scene of the crime!)

c ) the provenance of the Z-film in the hours and days following the crime

The list goes on and on and on.

Glenn,

You seem to be intent on "cornering" me into a caricature you will find easy to sucker punch. Guess what, buddy? It's not gonna happen.

I do not have any "conspiracy THEORIES" and therefore I have none to defend.

I am not sure if you're just having difficulty with the written English language, but I can't understand what you are asking.

Glenn Viklund said: Greg,'

"i do not have a pet theory".

Please explain what that mean you are buying into anything you find acceptable and denying the rest. no? You are not cherry picking the reasons for you basic conspiracy beliefs?

Thanks Greg,

for pointing out this, I'll try again, OK?

Please explain what that means; you are buying into anything you find acceptable as a CT and denying the rest? You are not cherry picking the reasons for your basic conspiracy beliefs?

Heck Greg,

It's been four years and I've yet to see you (the die hard CT) take a clear stand on any specific issue. You find that strange, Greg?

Not at all Greg.

The thing is quite the opposite; where and why are you in this case? Oh, I've seen your dates with Mantik, Fetzer etc, so even I, over here know that you know these fellas...

But that couldn't be it?

[Glenn Viklund]

Thanks Greg.

I appreciate that list and your arguments. I'll digest them. Thank you, Greg.

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks Greg.

I appreciate that list and your arguments. I'll digest them. Thank you, Greg.

You're welcome, Glenn.

[Glenn Viklund]

I think what Greg is saying is that there are some pieces of evidence which indicate--and prove--that there is a conspiracy that he advocates.

There are some things he does not think are sufficiently proven.

If you just saw his go round with CInque, he does not buy that.

I think most of us think the same thing. There are things that have been proven that so destruct the Warren Commission that no objective, rational person--which you are not-- can deny them. For example, the ballistics, CE 543, CE 399, the medical evidence, and how the HSCA and WC lied about that, who Oswald was, the CIA and Oswald's relationship, LBJ's scaring the hell out of Warren, Hoover's massive and instant cover-up, etc etc.

There are other things that are not so solid. But the point is people like Carlier are in psychological denial of even the above. As you are. That is why they are not worth arguing with.

There are other things that are not so proven.

BTW, I am not so much interested in you, since your knowledge base is so limited.

But I disagree with the thing Pat said originally. That is equating Carlier, people like you, and that group with say Fetzer and the EF. As I said, with the Judy Baker thing and this latest CInque thing, you can see that Fetzer was at odds with the vast majority of people here. Carlier, no matter what he says or does, is embraced with open arms over there.

Therefore, that is something I don't buy into. SInce its demeaning. The kind of thing you specialize in.

How come you are talking for Greg? I'm sure he'll do that far better than you.

Whenever I say something, anywhere on any subject you just cannot help yourself. Grow up, Jim.

But. As for the rest of your post:

"I think most of us think the same thing.

Oh, and that's surely the reason why you guys are ripping each others hearts out, twice a week, right? Come on Jim, there are no agreement on pretty much anything but the fact that there was a conspiracy. In my view, this does nothing to strengthen your case, nothing.

There are things that have been proven that so destruct the Warren Commission that no objective, rational person--which you are not--

Oh I see. Do you have the slightest idea about who I am, what I've done and achieved in my life to utter such a demeaning thing? No, you don't. Of course you don't. See Jim, most of the time you never do. You, like Fetzer jump to concusions, make judgment and end up far out in the woods.

Let me tell you Jim. I've had a very successful career, I have a masters degree in economics and I have been rather fortunate economically.

To hear someone like ýou demeaning me as being non-rational places you, not me, in the hall of shame. You are a teacher, right? And you have given some passages that I found interesting, But apart from this I would be very careful in making judgments about you outside of the JFK thing. You don't seem to have such restrictions.Do you know my age? Do you know anything about me in those areas where you re calling judgments on me?

'No, you don't.

And this is why you will never get the respect or the respons to your views, which you find self-evident. One thing I learned at an early age was that a big mouth and a couple of small ears will take me nowhere.

You, on the other hand, never learned that lesson. That's quite obvious.

So. please. Quit the ridiculous teachers role you are doing here, right? And while I certainly have a lot to learn in the JFK case. what I bring with me is rational, logic and reason. For you to question that, makes you the fool, not me.

can deny them. For example, the ballistics, CE 543, CE 399, the medical evidence, and how the HSCA and WC lied about that, who Oswald was, the CIA and Oswald's relationship, LBJ's scaring the hell out of Warren, Hoover's massive and instant cover-up, etc etc.

There are other things that are not so solid. But the point is people like Carlier are in psychological denial of even the above

So, Carlier is in need of psychiatric help? You are way out of your league, Jim. You need to learn that people do not have to have problems to not be a CT. It's fantastic. You've spent the major part of your life to this case.

And still, those who disagree are idiots or psychopaths. Or something similar. There is no one who could just simply from rational reasoning support that Oswald was the assassin?

I'm frankly ashamed of you and your arguments. Here you are, the 50th coming up, and all you do is whining about others??

You need to take a good, hard look at your own behavior before you continue whining about others, thats for sure.

As you are. That is why they are not worth arguing with.

Be my guest. You have nothing to teach me, the way you behave.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Greg Parker]

So, Carlier is in need of psychiatric help?

That is a far cry from what Jim said. But again, you get benefit of the doubt because of the language barrier.

But I'll try and be perfectly clear. The following two posts alone should be enough to indicate that Francois has issues best dealt with by a psychologist.

In this first one, he is full of praise for Lifton:

Francois Carlier, Jan 5, 2012

Hello everybody,

It is very sad to see researchers like David Lifton waste their time

with nobodys like Lee farloser en the Education Forum.

Indeed, we would prefer to see Lifton use the amount of time he spends

on forums to share his knowledge with us, or debate his body-

alteration theory.

His posts are always well-written and informative.

Alas .... Lifton has been caught in the net of useless morons like Lee

Farley, or Greg Parker, or Martin Hay, who have contributed NOTHING to

the JFK-assassination research and have absolutely NOTHING interesting

to say but can only waste people's time by throwing insults and low-

level attacks on well-known people, of whom they are jealous.

Lifton should not give them even one second of his time. They do not

deserve it.

Let those three little guys know that NOBODY cares what they think or

write. We come to the Net to read posts by people like Lifton, NOT

THEM.

As a sane person who believes that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin,

and as someone who has spent twenty years battling conspiracy

theorists, I still feel sorry when I see what is happening to the

conspiracy-theorists world : they are fighting one another all the

time, and little nobodys like Lee farley are destroying their world

from the inside.

Well, come to think of it, that's good news !

Come on, Farloser, keep destroying the conspiracy-theory community

from the inside. Good job, poor man !

/François Carlier/

In the second, Lifton is cast as a purveyor of nonsense - someone to be despised and then forgotten about.

Conspiracy theorists have got one more year.

Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.

The world will have to acknowledge that after 50 years conspiracy theorists have proved completely unable to prove their case.

They have no evidence at all. Zero. Zilch.

Then it will be clear that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin.

Conspiracy theorists will have lost.

Then they will fade into oblivion.

People will forget them, their nonsense, their theories, their fights among one another.

We will have no more of Lifon [sic], Fetzer, DiEugenio, White, Kingsbury, Brown, Griggs, ...

Those people will be forgotten, for ever.

Good riddance!

(Francois Carlier, April 30 2012, emphases added)

If you cannot see that these posts have a schizoid quality, then maybe you should tag along with Francois when he books his appointment.

[Greg Parker]

So, Carlier is in need of psychiatric help?

That is a far cry from what Jim said. But again, you get benefit of the doubt because of the language barrier.

But I'll try and be perfectly clear. The following two posts alone should be enough to indicate that Francois has issues best dealt with by a psychologist.

In this first one, he is full of praise for Lifton:

Francois Carlier, Jan 5, 2012

Hello everybody,

It is very sad to see researchers like David Lifton waste their time

with nobodys like Lee farloser en the Education Forum.

Indeed, we would prefer to see Lifton use the amount of time he spends

on forums to share his knowledge with us, or debate his body-

alteration theory.

His posts are always well-written and informative.

Alas .... Lifton has been caught in the net of useless morons like Lee

Farley, or Greg Parker, or Martin Hay, who have contributed NOTHING to

the JFK-assassination research and have absolutely NOTHING interesting

to say but can only waste people's time by throwing insults and low-

level attacks on well-known people, of whom they are jealous.

Lifton should not give them even one second of his time. They do not

deserve it.

Let those three little guys know that NOBODY cares what they think or

write. We come to the Net to read posts by people like Lifton, NOT

THEM.

As a sane person who believes that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin,

and as someone who has spent twenty years battling conspiracy

theorists, I still feel sorry when I see what is happening to the

conspiracy-theorists world : they are fighting one another all the

time, and little nobodys like Lee farley are destroying their world

from the inside.

Well, come to think of it, that's good news !

Come on, Farloser, keep destroying the conspiracy-theory community

from the inside. Good job, poor man !

/François Carlier/

In the second, Lifton is cast as a purveyor of nonsense - someone to be despised and then forgotten about.

Conspiracy theorists have got one more year.

Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.

The world will have to acknowledge that after 50 years conspiracy theorists have proved completely unable to prove their case.

They have no evidence at all. Zero. Zilch.

Then it will be clear that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin.

Conspiracy theorists will have lost.

Then they will fade into oblivion.

People will forget them, their nonsense, their theories, their fights among one another.

We will have no more of Lifon [sic], Fetzer, DiEugenio, White, Kingsbury, Brown, Griggs, ...

Those people will be forgotten, for ever.

Good riddance!

(Francois Carlier, April 30 2012, emphases added)

If you cannot see that these posts have a schizoid quality, then maybe you should tag along with Francois when he books his appointment.

Oh, I see. And why am I not surprised that you - "a high school drop out with an attitude" as you phrased it, are chipping in here?

Try and get it right, please Glenn. Yes, I dropped out of high school at age 14. But the "attitude" was in specific relation to something that I was going through at the time. I am quite content these days. Any "attitude" you see now is just bluntness, sometimes purposeful, sometimes just due to being in a rush, or else real attitude in reaction to bullying or lack of fair play or to lies being told.

Farley came back to the EF - and you followed.

I stopped posting while I was working on the first chapter of my book. It's done and I'm taking a short break before starting the next chapter - at which time, I'll be gone again. Do you see something conspiratorial in the timing?

Your arguments about JVB did you no favors,

You'll need to refresh my memory.

and I had been warned about your attitude, so I'll just leave it at that.

Cop out because you know you cannot beat me on logic.

One thing that was perfectly clear from the startout on this site was that there's no point in arguing with you. The way you and someone else behaved vs Lifton last fall, made the argument perfectly clear and valid.

Self-validation is no recommendation. What is illuminating here is that you have a problem with me, but apparently none whatsoever with Francois. But then, Francois is a Lone Nutter whose disturbed, hysterical screeds, you need not concern yourself with. On the other hand, you cannot afford to debate me on the evidence. You know how bad you'd come out of it, so you latch on to any excuse you can to opt out of such discussions.

You can't even comprehend how Cyclopean your own vision is.

You chastise Jim with "Here you are, the 50th coming up, and all you do is whining about others??" while remaining silent about Francois' never-ending and stupendously psychotic whines about every CT he comes across.

When you find the time, prove me wrong - show me you can find a little courage and debate me on the evidence. I'll keep it non-personal, if you will.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Don Jeffries]

Glenn,

What is it you are after here? Those of us who dispute the official story of the JFK assassination cannot be expected to name assassins and provide their addresses to you. We have no subpoena power, and most of the witnesses are long gone now, anyway. But we've studied this case for a long time and have concluded Oswald couldn't have done it.

In an honest courtoom, the "evidence" against Oswald couldn't even have been entered into the record. Legally speaking, the rifle found on the sixth floor was a German Mauser, because the only men who found it signed sworned affidavits to that effect. Because the Carcano was never legally "found," there is no chain of possession for it. Thus, a real defense attorney would have objected to its admissibility and an honest judge would have thrown it out. Even beyond that, there are a myriad of questions about WHAT model rifle Oswald ordered, and a great deal of doubt that Oswald ever ordered any rifle at all. Read up on the subject.

As Greg pointed out, the crime scene was the limousine itself. It was taken over after JFK's body was carried into Parkland, and all evidentiary value compromised and destroyed. Anything found in the limo would have subject to the same kinds of objections noted above. There is nothing more basic about a murder than a crime scene, and this one was rendered legally worthless.

Oswald was tested twice in the Marines for shooting proficiency. On the his last test, the one which would have reflected most closely on his ability on November 22, 1963, he barely made, by one point, the lowest classification the Marines have. He was, in the government's own words, "a rather poor shot." Real marksmen have been tested, under far more favorable conditions, with guns that worked properly (Oswald's alleged weapon had a defective scope and had to be repaied before the experts would dare to fire it), and they couldn't duplicate his supposed feat.

There are questions about everything in this case, because no one ever really investigated it. The government told us, in Katzenbach's November 25, 1963, that "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, and that he had no confederates at large." An honest government would have said, "with the death of the primary suspect, we must explore all avenues and leave no stone unturned to find the truth about the assassination of President Kennedy." The Warren Commission neglected to call critical witnesses like Admiral Burkley, the recipient of all the medical evidence, yet did track down and depose Anne Boudreax, a woman who knew someone who had been Oswald's babysitter. She had never even met the Oswalds. She had no relevance to this case whatsover, and yet the "honest" officials "investigating" this crime called HER as a witness, but not some of the most obviously important true witnesses.

Every aspect of JFK's sham autopsy is up for debate. It was a disgrace, what Harold Weisberg rightfully called "unworthy of a bowery bum." You need to educate yourself on the basic facts of this case, and stop being distracted by the personalities, on this forum and elsewhere, who gravitate to this issue. Yes, a lot of believers in conspiracy can be bombastic, overbearing, nasty and unwilling to admit fault. The same can be said for most every lone nutter I've ever encountered. Personalities don't determine the truth; the facts do. The evidence in this case clearly and unequivocally proves that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy.

[Greg Burnham]

Good stuff, Don. Welcome home!

[David Von Pein]

The evidence in this case clearly and unequivocally proves that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy.

The above statement by Don Jeffries is nearly as absurd as this one by the late conspiracy icon Mr. Weisberg.

This question that I posed yesterday is worth repeating again today --

Why do so many conspiracy theorists fight the "Oswald Did It" evidence so vigorously?

The only possible way to make Oswald an "innocent patsy" is to either totally ignore the evidence against him (for two murders, not just one)...or for the CTers to fall back on the lame claim of "All the evidence is fake". Because the only way that Oswald can be innocent of killing both JFK & Tippit is for all of the evidence to be manufactured. And just exactly how likely is that (even in a CTer dream world)?

Edited June 8, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

While Francois is an ardent believer Oswald acted alone, IMO he is no more ardent and "bonkers" than some of the current and former members of this forum. He BELIEVES, and shows little respect for those who fail to share his belief. Now, we don't know any CTs like that, do we?

You must mean Fetzer here right? SInce he is you and Glennie's favorite whipping boy right now.

The thing is this: There are some reasons to suspect the Z film has been altered. To deny that is to deny what is right in front of your eyes. Plus, Pat, have you been up to see the Hollywood group's digital scan?

OTOH, no objective person can argue today that the SBT carries any credibility at all. It is simply untenable by any number of means . ANd without that, the WC is kaput.

Yet McAdams, Carlier, Von Pein, Duncan, Williams etc all uphold this piece of silliness. Which would be utterly destroyed in a court of law.

What about Oswald's horrendous marksmanship? Just rading Oswald: Russian Episode last night. TItovets said the same thing about Oswald in Russia. He saw him shoot five shots at a target, every one of them missed.

Yet, we are to believe in one magic six seconds that he did what the greatest sniper of the Vietnam era could not.

I could go one and on, but there is a qualitative difference here.

Secondly, whereas these odd positions are not embraced here, the truly psychologically and evidentiary bizarre belief systems are right in the strike zone there.

I, for one, would have no problem sitting down and talking with any LN. Well, scratch that. There was a fanatical gun enthusiast who kept trying to get me to meet him back in the hills so he could show me how easy it was to rapid fire a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

There is a difference between someone who does not know the case well and has been propagandized by the MSM; versus someone who has a vested economic or psychological reason for what he does.

McAdams does what he does KNOWING that he is either lying or his evidence has been discredited many times over. Chris Matthews does what he does since he wants the millions to keep on coming in. You will never convince either type of anything else.

It's unfair, Jim, to describe Fetzer as my "whipping boy." While I have had my arguments with him, I made repeated efforts to keep his latest thread on Lovelady alive and heading in a positive direction. When I said Carlier was no more "bonkers" than some CTs, believe it or not, I wasn't even thinking of him. I was thinking of "Greer did it" theorists and a fella I used to have fights with--who was quite articulate in his belief the Kennedy assassination and Watergate were connected through the Church of Scientology and remote viewing.

As far as your basic point, I disagree. I feel that many CTs, while correct in their impression the evidence points to a conspiracy, are CTs for the wrong reason. I talk to non-buffs all the time. Most of the people I know are non-buffs. And yet, when I ask them why they think there was a conspiracy, they usually point to some tidbit they saw on Tv once, or heard from a friend, that I have long since concluded was hogwash. Like the Greer-did-it videos on Youtube.

As far as your last paragraph, I don't think you understand McAdams or Matthews any more than they understand you. A lot of people believe a lot of crazy crap. Most continue to believe it even when the proof it's crazy is right before their eyes. It's called faith. And in some circles it's encouraged, and even cherished.

[Pat Speer]

What's with all the hostility?

I started this thread so a few members might find out that Carlier wants to talk to them. I thought one or more might want to talk to him.

And somehow that opened the floodgates of hostility, with a number of members seeing this as an opportunity to pretend they can read other people's minds, or are expert psychoanalysts, and are therefore qualified to denounce other members, etc...

I have hidden a number of posts. Some of them had some value, but my fellow moderators have asked me to no longer remove offending passages (we can't call our fellow form members "fanatics" or "lunatics" or claim they've used this word or that because they're trying to play some Jedi mind trick on everyone DUH) and so I was forced to make entire posts invisible. Sorry. Maybe some of you should restrict your personal flame wars to your personal messages? Just a thought.

I'm not unaware of the irony, however, in my hiding so many posts in which forum members are insulted, but allowing the most insulting comments by Carlier to survive. I did so because I felt his comments, brought here to show his erratic and often insulting behavior, were at least somewhat pertinent to the topic. if anyone on the receiving end of his insults, however, wishes them to be removed, they can report the posts in which they are repeated and request that one of the moderators do so.

As for me, i'll be gone for a few days. Play fair and be nice.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Pat Speer