Francois Carlier reaches out to forum members

[Glenn Viklund]

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.

Don,

The answer to your first question should be obvious, I hope: to learn. Simply.

I appreciate your approach here Don. I've certainly not, in my adult life, been called so many demeaning things as I have in this forum in a couple of years. Having my views, it's pretty much like swimming in a shark tank. Every single day and as a result of every single post I make.

"The evidence in this case clearly and unequivocally proves that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy." While I strongly disagree, I respect your position.

I'll have to leave for now, but will be back tomorrow. Let's have a look at your statements about the Warren Commission. OK?

And again, thanks for the way you conduct yourself here. It's a rare commodity, being civil.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Greg Parker]

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

I'm sorry. Wasn't trying to insinuate you had that kind of mental dexterity. No need in fact for anyone to flatter you when you can do it yourself at any given opportunity as your ps to Francois shows P.S. My own research would be of a lot more current than that of many of those you mention. As Bob Hudson sang, don't you ever let a chance go by... I'm glad for you that though Francois deems you to be not as "big" a name as, say, David Lifton or Jim Marrs, he nevertheless sees no reason why you wouldn't be in the list of people we shall interview. I did call it that you'd put your hand up.

Francois, for those interested in facts, called his thread a request to help for a documentary. Pat deliberately chose not to follow that self-explanatory title and dumped any indicator as to what was in the body of the message. He instead, deliberately used the rather quaint term "reaches out" in relation to a person whose vitriol when it comes to those he seeks to have in his documentary, is simply way out there. The term "reaching out", as I explained in the now "free speeched" post, is usually used in conjunction with charitable and social work, or work involving community education and awareness (thus the term "outreach").

Pat can cry all he wants, but the term was deliberately chosen by him and has NOTHING to do with trying to sign "big names" up for a supposed documentary. It was what I previously said - though I'll add an extra descriptor - it was a SLY provocation.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Sean Murphy]

Pat, the guy's strictly pour les oiseaux. Care to know what he really thinks of your good self? Here it is, and I quote verbatim: "Pat Speer is a nut, a moron, an idiot, and he eats crap in a lunchbox!".

[Robin Unger]

This thread reminds me of one of those nigerian email scams.

Those of us in the know, are wise enough to not be taken in by the scam artist.

[Greg Parker]

This thread reminds me of one of those nigerian email scams.

Those of us in the know, are wise enough to not be taken in by the scam artist.

Francois has now deleted the request - though all replies remain. It is no surprise that the only other volunteer eager to participate is also a person of immense self-opinion.

[Greg Parker]

This thread reminds me of one of those nigerian email scams.

Those of us in the know, are wise enough to not be taken in by the scam artist.

Francois has now deleted the request - though all replies remain. It is no surprise that the only other volunteer eager to participate is also a person of immense self-opinion.

My mistake. Not all replies remain. Francois not only deleted the initial post, but all his replies. Hmmm... wonder why he did that?

[Greg Parker]

Pat, the guy's strictly pour les oiseaux. Care to know what he really thinks of your good self? Here it is, and I quote verbatim: "Pat Speer is a nut, a moron, an idiot, and he eats crap in a lunchbox!".

Glenn is so outraged at the language, he is speechless. Luckily for Francois he did not push it to the limit of decent behavior by (gasp!) wanting to actually debate the merits of the case. Something like that could send Glenn over the edge.

[David Josephs]

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)?

Evidence that can be AUTHENTICATED does not support that conclusion David.

Evidence that CANNOT BE AUTHENTICATED does support that conclusion.

If you want to conclude "Oswald did it" you have to present supporting evidence which could pass the requirements a court of law would expect and demand.

You fail to do so repeatedly... the "commissions" and "committees" which have presided over these "investigations" did not have anywhere NEAR the evidentary expectations

even your local traffic court would expect.

So David, as you seem to be asked in most every case and discussion... present and authenticate the evidence that the WCR used to reach its 12 conclusions, that the subsequent investigation used to reach their conclusions....

and just present a case that is not so easily refuted by the same evidence you use to make it...

[David Lifton]

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.

I couldn't agree more with Greg Parker.

I spent about 15 minutes, perhaps more, with Carlier, when he pigeon-holed me at the 1996 Lancer Conference.

My advice: steer clear. And its not because of any disagreement over ideas. Its that he's anything but wyswyig.

DSL

Edited June 9, 2012 by David Lifton

[Greg Parker]

http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/1/post/2012/06/the-logic-of-a-lone-nutter.html

[Christopher Hall]

Time is running out?

For what?

If the CT position is so absurd, the government should be all too happy to release the hoards of documentation relating to the assassination that it still refuses to release.

If time is indeed running out, that is only the case with respect to the government's excuse that it cannot release such documentation because doing so would compromise national security interests.

Ask the physician in Pakistan who was recently sentenced to 33 years in prison for aiding US special forces determine whether the Bin Laden family resided at the compound it raided last year, exactly how closely our government protects national security-related secrets.

I wouldn't participate in an interview with someone who is only trying to advance an agenda and who has ridiculed people with an opposing viewpoint - as opposed to ridiculing his own government for withholding evidence from its citizens for 49 years.

The 2 most problematic facts that the LG crowd has to dispel are the aforementioned withholding of evidence for almost half a century and believing that a sleazy strip joint operator (redundancy noted) would risk his life or choose to spend the rest of his life in prison to prevent the First Lady from having to testify in a LHO trial or, alternatively, to prove that he needed to do so to prove that Jews could be courageous citizens, forces for societal good, etc.

[B. A. Copeland]

My word, the LN theory is the greatest conspiracy theory of all time. Let us move on towards the actual (and proven beyond an absolute and reasonable doubt) to uncovering more. 50 years of the PTB running people in circles.......In fact I'd probably go so far as to say that the mere fact that such evidences (in most cases) are no longer with us is proof of a conspiracy.

This.....Mr Carlier is simply spitting out the same, tired and old company line (pun intended)...

Mr DeEugenio, if there was a shot to the front temple

Edited June 11, 2012 by B. A. Copeland