[joke ] Conflicting conspiracy theories

Hello everybody,
As you all know, not all conspiracy theories are alike. Conspiracy theorists each have their own view on the JFK-assassination.
Here's a sample :

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

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

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

What do you think ?

[parody] Proof of conspiracy...

Hello everybody,
As you all know, some conspiracy theorists pretend they can see signs of foul play in some of the images that we have about the Dealey Plaza events. Some pretend to see a so-called "black-dog man", some a "badgeman" : nothing more than blur and shadows.
Recently, fringe conspiracy theorists have claimed that it was Lee Harvey Oswald, and not Billy Nolan Lovelady, who was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository. That's ludicrous, if you ask me. It has been proven beyond any doubt that it was Billy Lovelady (and he himself acknowledged it, as well as his colleagues). To reach such a false conclusion, those fringe conspiracy theorists pretend that the pictures were faked (especially Altgens's fifth photograph).
Among those "researchers" are Ralph Cinque and Richard Hooke, who have showed that they are incompetent, worthless at analyzing pictures.
Working with low-resolution images, they see things that don't exist. They take their own dreams for granted. They misinterpret everything. Such a shame !
Anyway, I'll hereby show that anybody can do what they do. I'll hereby show that what they do is easy but leads nowhere. I'll hereby do the same as they do.
Here is my own Cinque-style "research", to "prove" a conspiracy :

About Bill O'Reilly's new book

Hello everybody,
You all know that journalist Bill O'Reilly has written a new book,"Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot" (Henry Holt and Co., 2012)
O'Reilly writes that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin. Well, you might say, we already knew.
Well, that's true. We already had the Warren report, the HSCA, John McAdams, Gerald Posner, Jim Moore, David Von Pein, Vincent Bugliosi, and a few others.
The official version of the assassination is the truth, pure and simple. Science has proved it beyond all doubt.
Still, it's good to have Bill O'Reilly's take on that case. He brings new light, he brings an interesting perspective, though his book will not change a thing, nor will it add anything to what we already know.
But what is very noticeable is the effect that book has on the embittered, envious, desperate conspiracy theorists. They are annoyed. They are angry. The same happened when Gerald Posner's book came out, and again when Vincent Bugliosi's book came out.
Conspiracy theorists don't like it when people write books saying Oswald did it. They will stop at nothing to try to prevent people from buying and reading Bill O'Reilly's book.
Take one example : Barry Krusch (you know, the guy who invented the now famous "fake challenge" : a challenge that he is so sure he would lose that he will make sure nobody can take it, all the while pretending he is looking for candidates… what a joke !) has uploaded a video on Amazon to review O'Reilly's book.
I watched that video and really, sincerely felt sorry for Krusch. My God ! It's as if he wanted to show everybody that he had no case. You know, as if he wanted to make sure we would see that he is very poor at analyzing evidence, unable to face the facts, very partial, not honest, and totally ignorant of critical thinking (for those who were not aware of it yet).
Well, I, for one, already knew that.
Barry Krusch focused for long moments on the idea that the sniper's nest (which provided the assassin a perfect place to hide from view) was not arranged by Lee Oswald but by other people in the course of their work.
So what ?
Who cares ?
What matters is that there was indeed some book cartons that provided the assassin a place to hide. That Oswald arranged the boxes himself or that he took advantage of the boxes that were already there, or that, maybe, he arranged the boxes that were already there, does not matter a bit.
It proves nothing either way.
Krusch is ducking the real issues.
Then Krusch mentions some sort of sports event where Lyndon Johnson was in the audience. So what ?
Is that the sort of information that makes Krusch believe, as he wrote elsewhere, that Oswald had an alibi ?
"Oh, I saw Johnson at a football game, Oswald must be innocent…"
That's the kind of "logic" Barry Krusch lives with.
Even James DiEugenio realized that Krusch had nothing. Let me quote DiEugenio (from The Education Forum) : "He depicts a photo of Byrd at a UT game. He then widens the photo to reveal LBJ sitting two seats away. (How this shows anything I don't know. Except upper class Texans went to UT games and sat in good seats together.)"
And I don't even want to bother mentioning Krusch's use of the pictures and drawings of Kennedy's wounds. Pretty soon I am sure Krusch will conclude that the assassin was in the trunk... ("trunk" AmE = "boot" BrE)
Well, I guess that when people see the total lack of quality and the absence of any substance in Barry Krusch's video they will understand that the truth must rather be in Bill O'Reilly's book.
The result ? The more Krusch rants about O'Reilly, the more "Killing Kennedy" books will be sold !!
And I am happy about that.
Thank you, Mister Krusch.

The final word on the so-called "acoustic evidence"

Hello everybody,
Today I can't resist the pleasure of sharing with you a very good, interesting, informative documentary on the so-called "acoustic evidence" on the Kennedy assassination.
It is an interview of scientist Charles Rader (on ieee.tv).
It should be mandatory viewing for all researchers, be they beginners or experts.
Charles Rader explains everything with clarity, maturity, experience, knowledge, expertise and wisdom, putting to rest for ever any misunderstanding that might have arisen in the past years, leading to farfetched conspiracy theories.
Nobody should allow themselves to say anything about the acoustic evidence without having first watched that short program (and that applies especially to forum members, most of whom, sadly, are appallingly ignorant and make wild accusations based on their total lack of knowledge of the facts).
Please watch :



And if that was not enough, the final nail on the coffin will undoubtedly be put by Dale Myers, who, on his excellent website "Secrets of a homicide", wrote this article : "Epipolar geometric analysis of amateur films related to acoustics evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination"
Myers proves his point conclusively : the so-called "four shots" never existed.
All of this shows without question, beyond any doubt, that the HSCA's so-called acoustic evidence is invalid.
There were only three shots in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. It is now a certainty.
The conspiracy theorists (and among them Robert Groden, who has never stopped spreading disinformation on that very topic) were wrong.
Let's move on !

World record of nonsense !

Hello everybody,
You are all aware that there are lots of conspiracy theories flying around when it comes to the JFK assassination. Some of them are, say, farfetched, to say the least.
For quite some time we have had the "two Oswalds" theory (Harvey and Lee), the "two autopsies" theory, the "two Johnsons" theory (Lyndon Johnson's look-alike at the so-called Murchison's party on November 21st, 1963), the "two plots" theory (Chicago before Dallas), and probably others.
But, as the great Vincent Bugliosi said, there is no end to the silliness brought by some conspiracy believers.
Guess what ?
(I hope you are seated)
This morning, while I was surfing on the Internet I stumbled on a message posted on "The Education Forum".
That message was written by a man called D. Josephs (never heard of him, and that's all the better !). He came up with something new : the "two sets of Dealey Plaza tramps" theory !
Oh, my Lord ! I can't stop laughing !
Those guys will never stop. According to them, everything is double !
What will the next theory be ? The "two Jackies" theory ? The "two Dallas" theory ? The "two months of November" theory ?
I can't wait...

[parody] The $99,999 Oswald challenge

Hello everybody,
Today let me tell you a story that happened some time ago in an unknown world. A man named Mister Blackberry Cash issued a challenge. Here is what happened :

 

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

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



































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

 

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

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






















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

F.A.C.T.S.

Hello everybody,
Several years ago, from 1998 to 2000, I wrote a JFK-assassination research journal called F.A.C.T.S (Frenchman Against Conspiracy TheorieS). There were three issues completed. I began writing the fourth one and I set it aside, for I had then begun to write my book and was also active on newsgroups and forums. But I kept a few articles in my files and got new ideas so it is very likely that there will be new issues in the future, particularly on the 50th anniversary occasion.
Of course, several of the articles found on the first three issues may now be outdated. Yet I thought it would be a good idea to upload all of them here in my blog, as most of the things I wrote back then are still relevant.
For those of you who might be interested, there is now a F.A.C.T.S. page on this blog. Just click on the link, in the right column.

The second edition of my book "Elm Street"

Hello everybody,
I am happy to inform you that the second edition of my book (revised and expanded) is now out. See my author's site.
So far only the French version is available. Its new title is : "Elm Street. L'assassinat de Kennedy expliqué". It can be bought on line in a .pdf digital version directly on the publisher's web site. The paper version will be out in a few weeks. It will then be available on Amazon.
As for the English version, the title of which will be "Elm Street. The Kennedy assassination explained", it is due by the end of 2012, beginning of 2013.
This second edition is definitely an improvement on the previous one. The book is a comprehensive study of the conspiracy theories of the last 49 years. It leaves no stone unturned. Plus it now has book reviews and also video reviews. And critical thinking from cover to cover. Most of all, it's up to date.
I hope you'll enjoy reading it.

Marina Porter interview, NBC, 1993

Hello everybody,
In August of 1993 I was briefly in the United States and was able to tape an interview of Marina Porter (ex Marina Oswald, wife of Lee Harvey Oswald), by Tom Brokaw, for the NBC program "Now". Marina Porter is sitting next to Larry Howard, at the JFK Assassination Information Center, in Dallas. This took place in August of 1993.
I'm sorry the image quality is not good at all. It was first recorded on a VHS (NTSC) cassette. Then converted to a DVD years later, but by then the cassette was in poor condition for it had been poorly handled (and had gone through several removals).
Still, I thought that this document might interest JFK-assassination researchers.
Here it is :
--- --- --- --- ---

CIA files made public, 1993

Hello everybody,
In August of 1993 I was briefly in the United States and was able to tape (on an old VHS cassette) an extract of NBC News, with Tom Brokaw. They talked about the release of Kennedy-assassination CIA files. For those of you who might be interested, here it is :
--- --- --- --- ---

My favorite quote

Hello everybody,
There is something I would like to share with all of you.
After more that twenty years of reading as much as I could on the Kennedy assassination, I think the BEST OF THE BEST of all the quotes I have ever read is this one :
"There is almost as much evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy as there is evidence that Kennedy got shot."
[by Bud; July 21, 2010, on alt.assassination.jfk]
So very well said !!!
You can't beat that one.

Doctor Ronald Jones's answers to my questions, in 1997

Hello everybody,
In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent to Doctor Ronald Jones the very same letter that I had sent to Doctor Perry, asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied.
I am hereby copying/pasting Doctor Jones's answers.
I think it is interesting.
I will only upload some extracts of Doctor Jones's letter, as the rest does not provide any really useful information.
I have to say that though I received several replies, some doctors did not reply, which I found unfortunate. One of them even wrote to me to tell me that he did not have the time to write !!! (what a joke !). I won't show his letter here, of course. In fact, I shall not upload any more such documents, as I do not think a blog is really adequate for such uploads. A regular web site would be a better place.
Anyway, I hope visitors of my blog will find some interest in this document.

Craig Roberts's answers to my 1997 inquiry

Hello everybody,
As I explained at length in one of my previous messages, I sent an inquiry in 1997 to several well-known researchers as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, asking a lot of precise questions in tabular form with the space needed to answer.
Some time ago I uploaded Harold Weisberg's answers and then Jim Marrs's answers, and then Gerald Posner's answers. Today is Craig Roberts's turn (as you will notice, he chose to write a letter with a computer instead of directly writing on my table, but that's fine, he was answering the same questions as the other researchers. I thank him for having replied to me). I hope visitors of my blog will find some interest in this document.

It's obvious...

Hello everybody,
As I wrote in an earlier post it is time to reflect on the documents I scanned on this blog.
Granted, the fact that I exchanged letters or messages with witnesses or doctors or researchers is by no means special. Other people had done that before me and some experts have worked ten times as much as I have. Gerald Posner, for one, probably conducted more interviews than I could ever dream of. In his life David Lifton certainly met ten times as many witnesses as I would ever dream of meeting. Therefore I should not brag about the few interviews I did of some Parkland doctors. Well, actually, I don't.
I am not here to show off. I know my place.
But I most certainly have interesting things to say.
Tonight I want to stress that, contrary to what people like Len Osanic would like you to think, it is very possible to believe in the official version (Warren - Posner - Oswald-did-it...) with no strings attached, no influence from any side, and with only honesty and the use of common sense.
Let me give you two examples :
1. David Lifton (second-hand report) spent his life writing that Doctor Perry had said that the throat wound was a wound of entrance. And yet when I wrote Doctor Perry he himself (first-hand account) made clear that the throat wound might very well have been a wound of exit, which it was. Lifton has distorted his sources and upon verifying we see that the official version is a very likely possibility, nowhere near the physical impossibility that conspiracy theorists falsely try to paint.
2. Robert Groden (second-hand report) spent his life writing that the medical evidence proves conspiracy. And yet when I wrote Doctor Baxter he himself (first-hand account) made clear that the medical evidence is very compatible with the official version and that the best person to have presented the case is precisely Gerald Posner, a man who defends the Warren commission's version of events (and shows Groden to be wrong).
So an independent researcher conducting independent, rational, unbiased, objective research, will, much to his surprise (in some cases) find out that the information he was fed by conspiracy theorists (second-hand reports) was wrong and distorted.
We, so-called "lone-nutters" don't believe in the official version because we are blind or scared or paid by the CIA, but because when we check first-hand sources we discover that we have always been misinformed by conspiracists, and that the Warren Commission did tell us the truth.
By going straight to the sources, we discover the truth.
It's that easy.
Conspiracy theorists would like us to read only their distortions. But when we go to the source, we can find out the truth.
Yes, folks, the Warren report was right.

Jack White (1927-2012)

JFK-assassination researcher Jack White passed away on June 18, 2012.
I did not know him personally. I never met him. I didn't know him as a man, only as a Kennedy-assassination researcher.
As a man, he seems to have been a very nice guy. Most people who knew him have nothing but praise for his kindness and his willingness to help those who asked for his opinion or observations regarding some topics of research. He was a generous man.
One thing is also sure : he was famous among the JFK-assassination research community. He was a "big name".
Well, good for him.
And I pray God Almighty welcome him in His Kingdom.
Having said that, sadness for a departing soul should not prevent us from trying to remain objective and truthful.
I am willing to grant that Jack White was a nice man, but as as researcher, it is fair to say that there is good scientific evidence to show that most of his claims were wrong.
I am now reminded of this sentence written by the great David Von Pein (in a reply to conspiracy theorist David Lifton) : "What makes you think that conspiracy authors (such as yourself), who have distorted history and the true facts surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy for decades on end, deserve the SLIGHTEST bit of respect...or deserve to be treated "nice"?"
And today, when a conspiracy theorist leaves us, I wonder how to react. In a way I agree with David Von Pein, and there is no denying that distorting history is bad.
In my book published four years ago I have harsh words for Jack White and his theories. But respect and compassion are in order when a man dies.
Still, I believe it is important to remind the reader that the Zapruder film is genuine. Even conspiracy theorist Robert Groden knows that it is genuine, and NOT fake. Anybody who claims otherwise is wrong, utterly wrong.
Likewise, it is wrong to claim that the Oswald backyard photos were fake, or that we did not go to the moon, or that the 9/11 events were a conspiracy. It goes against all evidence, against science, against common sense, against reality,
With all the respect that I owe Jack White as a human being, and with all the good prayers that I am sending him, I still want to stress that there was no conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination.
Mister Jack White, I guess we'll agree to have disagreed.
Rest in Peace !

Charles Baxter's answers to my questions, in 1997

Hello everybody,
In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perry, asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied.
I am hereby copying/pasting Doctor Baxter's answers.
I think it is interesting.
As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I have scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy the image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.
I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles Crenshaw's claims, and also what he thinks of David Lifton's work.
I would also like to underline what Baxter says of Gerald Posner. Let me quote : "Posner did a most thorough job. […] Posner is truly a scholar who, to my mind, is the one person who did a thorough job of collecting facts".
Charles Baxter also wrote (I quote) : "As long as there's money to be made, the conspiracy will continue"…
Next time I'll write an article about what can be learned from my documents.

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

Doctor Perry's answers to my questions, in 1997

Hello everybody,
In 1997 I sent a letter to Doctor Perry, asking him all kinds of questions about the medical evidence in the Kennedy assassination. He was very kind and obligingly replied. He chose to write by hand directly on the letter I had typed to him. (Doctor Perry was a good man. May he rest in Peace !)
Just as I did with some answers to my table that I had gotten from a few researchers in 1997, I am hereby copying/pasting Doctor Perry's answers.
I think it is interesting. Well, for one thing, I like the part when he writes "NO - speculation only", when I asked him whether he had an opinion as to where the shots came from. A far cry from what conspiracy theorists would like us to think...
On top of that, I am amazed that Doctor Perry wrote that he did not know Lifton's claims. Wow ! That was in 1997, a good sixteen years after "Best evidence" had been published. Does that mean that David Lifton never went to see Doctor Perry to show him his book and talk about his theory ? I wonder.
And if that's the case, then, I'm very surprised. Lifton SHOULD have done that. I mean, it was almost mandatory. How could he have a theory based on his interpretation of the medical record and not go and submit it to Doctor Perry ? I sure would like to know what Lifton has to say about that.


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

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

Gerald Posner's answers to my 1997 inquiry

Hello everybody,
As I explained at length in a previous message, I sent an inquiry in 1997 to several well-know researchers as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, asking a lot of precise questions in tabular form with the space needed to answer.
A few days ago I uploaded Harold Weisberg's answers and then Jim Marrs's answers. Today is Gerald Posner's turn. I hope visitors of my blog will find some interest in this document.

Jim Marrs's answers to my 1997 inquiry

Hello everybody,
As I explained at length in yesterday's message, I sent an inquiry in 1997 to several well-know researchers as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, asking a lot of precise questions in tabular form with the space needed to answer.
Yesterday I uploaded Harold Weisberg's answers. Today I am uploading Jim Marrs's answers. I hope visitors of my blog will find some interest in this document.

Harold Weisberg's answers to my 1997 inquiry

Hello everybody,
In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination complex case, I sent an inquiry to several well-know researchers, asking a lot of precise questions in tabular form with the space needed to answer.
Several researchers were kind enough to reply and write down their answers on my table (or in a separate letter).
I believe some current researchers might be interested in knowing what answers I got at the time by well-known people, some of whom have now departed this world, as it was God's will.
What is interesting is not only the big difference between the answers from defenders of the Warren Commission's conclusions on the one hand and conspiracy theorists on the other hand. That's expected. But what's most interesting is that there are huge differences among conspiracy theorists themselves !
Today, I will start by uploading Harold Weisberg's answers to me. I know I may do that because each and every person whom I sent my inquiry to had to sign it to allow me to quote them. I scanned the table but erased their signatures in the images I will upload, out of respect for them, but I still have the originals and can prove they did sign.
(Though I exchanged letters with quite a lot of researchers in the 1990's I do not intend to upload any of that correspondance, as I feel it is private. However I was surprised to see that some of the letters that Harold Weisberg and I exchanged at the time were now on line at The Harold Weisberg Archive)
A side note : contrary to what "extreme" conspiracy theorists such as Robert Morrow would claim, you'll note that Harold Weisberg was adamant Lyndon Johnson had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.

Finding the truth

Hello everybody,
I could very well have titled today's post "Why I'm no longer a conspiracy buff", but someone else used that title well ahead of me (see Michael Beck's 1998 article at John McAdams's web site).
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 cassette ("Best evidence. The research video"), which I watched over and over again, to the point of really knowing almost all of it by heart. Then I bought 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. Around that time, I was even in the local newspaper for my statements against the Warren report (see picture of the article).

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 (especially books that help increase one's knowledge of critical thinking, such as Missing pieces, by Robert Baker and Joe Nickell, How to think straight, by Antony Flew, Science : good, bad and bogus, by Martin Gardner, Thinking critically about new-age ideas, by William D. Gray, Conspiracy Culture : From the Kennedy Assassination to the X-Files, by Peter Knight, and so many others.
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.
Believe me, it was hard to admit it in front of my family and friends. But truth and honesty must always be our guides in life. You've got to always tell the truth, come what may !
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 that 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, has 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. My own research has cost me a lot. And I was never funded by anyone. Let Len Osanic know that we believe in Oswald's guilt because we consider that the available evidence shows it convincingly.
Indeed I honestly believe that Oswald was the sole assassin.
Why can't conspiracy theorists accept the fact that we, defenders of the Warren report's conclusions, 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 don't say that for money. I say that because I have good reason to say it. I say it because I believe it. Pure and simple.

A debate on French television

Hello everybody,
In November 2010, a French television channel, LCP, invited three people (Pierre Melandri, a historian who specializes in the study of the United States, Thierry Lentz, the author of the book "L’assassinat de JFK: histoire d’un mystère d’Etat", and myself), for the "Où, quand, comment ? L'histoire" history program, whose presenter is journalist Jean-Pierre Gratien. We were there for a debate after viewing the conspiracy-oriented documentary "JFK, autopsie d’un complot" (by William Reymond and Bernard Nicolas).
Below is the video of our courteous exchange.
In the second edition of my book (the new title of which is "Elm Street. The Kennedy assassination explained"), I give my comments about that program, and write all the things I wanted to say but did not have the time to.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

A television documentary project

Hello,

What a story !

As a French person who has been interested in the Kennedy assassination for years, a published author who is on the Warren-Posner-Bugliosi side, I am getting ready for the 50th anniversary.
As the new, revised and expanded French edition of my Kennedy-assassination book should be out any day now, after having been read and proofread by my publisher, I am now working on the English edition, but it takes longer than I thought.
In the meantime, I am working on a big project : a TV documentary. Indeed, I am currently having talks with a French TV documentary producer with whom I have a good chance of making a documentary on the JFK assassination. For obvious reasons of secrecy, I cannot give any specifics here, as to what angle we have chosen and so I shall not, in this message, go into further details about our project. I can only say that we want to interview some researchers.
The aim is to make a documentary for French television, conducted in English with American researchers and subtitled, that would later be distributed in the United States for the 50th anniversary.
I am now working on the synopsis. Our aim is to get the equipment and the funding from the TV producers.
About a week ago I started letting my goal known on the Internet, sending messages to prospective interviewees, namely well-known researchers who surely have interesting things to share.
I made it clear that we don't want to take sides in our documentary : our aim is to serve history, and not any specific theory (neither mine nor any other’s). That's a promise.
I hope this documentary will be a success. The interviewees don't have to agree with me, nor be fond of me, nor anything, to accept to be interviewed. And we will not censor anything. I repeat : we're not doing a documentary on my work, nor on my views about the Kennedy case. We want to do a documentary on the Kennedy assassination, pure and simple.
Alas.
A thread was opened by researcher Pat Speer on The Education Forum (with the aim of helping my message to be known) and unfortunately, all the members who hold a grudge against me (for whatever reason, even invalid) started pouring their "anger" (for lack of a better word) without even knowing what I had in mind, let alone consider the issue. That's too bad. [the funny part is that most messages were written by unknown people whom I would NEVER want to interview anyway…]

So I have to reply here in three parts :

-1. Granted, over the years, I have sometimes "slapped" people in writing. But I was slapped in return. I have indeed insulted people at times, but it is also true that I have been insulted in my turn. I have, on occasion, been rude, and have received my share of rude replies as well. Granted, I have not always been respectful of people or rules. But I am not the only one, that's for sure ! Well, I know a lot of researchers don't really appreciate me, but there's nothing I can do about it now. I can't reverse the clock. But I don't mind. And that's not what's important. What matters here is whether an unbiased documentary could be produced and could be of interest to all those who have researched the Kennedy assassination. If I can make such a documentary, wouldn't it be good if well-known researchers came to share their views, instead of throwing their sarcasm at me without even listening in the first place ?

-2. On The Education Forum, David Lifton had the nerve to mention the occurrence when I met him and interviewed him in 1996, at the JFK-Lancer conference. Lifton wrote what seems to me to be a derogatory comment. Let me add my comments here. I did two taped-interviews of David Lifton : one, in 1990, of a long telephone conversation we had. And the second one in 1996, in Dallas. In the six-year span, I had tremendously increased my knowledge by reading books and was no longer a Lifton fan. I easily cornered him by asking him questions to which he had no answer (such as : "If there were only shots from the front, how do you account for Connally's wounds ?", or : "So you are saying that the plotters decided to have Kennedy shot from the front while accusing a so-called patsy to have fired from the rear. Is there any logic in your proposition ?", and so on…). Lifton had no answer. He was cornered. He could not find any reasonable thing to say. I was very disappointed. He may have felt upset because, here he was, facing a man with critical-thinking skills, who did not want to buy his nonsense. Which is why he wrote his post on the Education Forum earlier today. Well, whatever … It is well known that I do not believe in Lifton's theories. He is a conspiracy believer whom I debunk in my book. He and I are on opposite sides. OK, granted. Still, I would have loved to have him in my documentary. And I would have interviewed him with respect, letting him share his views, without even trying to give my opinion.

-3. Our documentary can only exist if we can interview well-known researchers. I have been able to get in touch with several researchers. So far I have received a good number of answers. If I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong), here are the answers I have yet received :
John McAdams : agreed to be interviewed
Robert Harris : agreed to be interviewed
Walt Brown : agreed to be interviewed
Pat Speer : agreed to be interviewed
Anthony Summers : contacted but no answer yet
Greg Burnham : wants none of it, without even listening to what I have to say
David Lifton : wants none of it, without even listening to what I have to say
James DiEugenio : wants none of it, without even listening to what I have to say

I am still hoping that the word will be passed around. I would like my list to expand.

I'd like to interview these researchers : Jim Marrs, Ian Griggs, Mark Lane, Robert Groden, Harrison Livingstone, Gerald Posner, Stewart Galanor, Cyril Wecht, Jim Moore, Henry Hurt, Michael Kurtz, Edward Epstein, Josiah Thompson.

I don't know much about making documentaries. I only know about the Kennedy assassination. That's why being helped by professionals is such a good opportunity that I don't want to pass up.

If I can make it, fine, I'll be happy. But if I can't, for lack of candidates, well, then, too bad. No big deal. I'll survive.

Regards,

/François Carlier/

Welcome !

Hello everybody,
Today, Thursday June 8th, 2012, I have decided to create this blog dedicated to the Kennedy assassination, and written in English, for it is mostly aimed at English-speaking people (in the United States, Canada, Australia and England).
At the same time, I have decided, once and for all, to stop posting on newsgroups and forums. That part of my life is over. No more fighting, no more trading insults, for that is only a waste of time.
I have just erased all the messages I had posted on alt.conspiracy.jfk and alt.assassination.jfk in the past months. As for the forums, most of them I had already quit, anyway.
From now on, anything I shall write on the Kennedy assassination in English will be on this blog, and nowhere else. Those who are interested in what I have to say may come to visit this blog and leave comments (pro or con). Those who do not care won't even know about this blog and so will never visit it. That's fine by me.
My goal is to defend facts, reality, common sense, and the truth. I can't stand liars. I am appalled at conspiracy theorists who can do nothing but spread disinformation and mislead people.
I have spent more than twenty years studying the Kennedy assassination. And I have spent the last 14 years writing about it, mostly on the Internet (newsgroups and forums) and in a book (the second edition of which, revised and expanded, is due in a few days). I have learned that there's no debating conspiracy theorists. Some people just can't face the facts. Conspiracy theorists deny reality. They refuse to acknowledge the obvious. They live in a dream world.
After trying all I could, for years, to seriously have healthy debates with some conspiracy researchers, and seeing that it's a dead end, I ended up making fun of them, trying to ridicule them and insult them. While I had fun doing it for a time, it does not lead anywhere either. It's time to grow up and change. Time to become serious again.
I believe the 50th anniversary is a most important event. I really think it is important that I express my opinions during that period of time. Afterward, I believe the Kennedy-assassination case will go into oblivion. Conspiracy theorists, having failed to prove their case, and having been thoroughly debunked, will end up being forgotten.
I, too, will stop spending my time on that case. I will store my books (probably in the form of a donation to a university library), and go on to other topics, never to come back again. That's a promise.
In the meantime, with a serious and mature attitude, I intend to have my say.
Stay tuned...