Hello everybody,
Last year marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. I was interviewed by several French media. On Friday, November 22nd, 2013, a French television channel (France 3) had a short report on the Kennedy assassination and I was featured, having been filmed in my study a few days before.
I can be seen with David Lifton's book, "Best evidence" in my hands, just as in the TV documentary that had been done a few months before for another channel.
French journalist Philippe Labro, the man who was sent to Dallas that fateful week-end and saw Lee Harvey Oswald in custody and even talked briefly to Jack Ruby can also be seen in that short segment. By the way, he shares my conviction that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin.
Another author is also briefly interviewed. He is Thierry Lentz, a French author who mistakenly believes that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and it is the duty of every honest man to let it be known !
April 26, 2014
March 1, 2014
documentary : "Les hommes du président"
Hello everybody,
Some of you may remember that I tried to make arrangements to organize some interviews with a few JFK-assassination researchers for a documentary, last year. The documentary was shot in Paris (France), Dallas (Texas), Miami (Florida) and Washington, DC over a ten-month period, starting in Novermber of 2012.
That documentary was aired on French television last November. So far only the as-broadcast-on-TV French version is available but as interviews in English have subtitles (instead of being dubbed) I would say that the documentary can be followed by a non-French speaker rather easily.
The film-maker has made a non-partisan documentary, neither "conspiracy", nor "official version". He only wanted to focus on the research community and the impact the JFK assassination had on some people's lives. I would like to stress that, though I am being followed by the film maker and am being seen and heard most of the time I had absolutely no part in the making of the documentary and did not even give an opinion. The end result is not what I would have done. Several interesting moments were cut out during the editing process.
Apart from that I must say I enjoyed traveling with the film-maker, visiting the historical places, being filmed on location and most of all meeting interesting people for some of the interviews.
On a personal level that journey was a fantastic experience and I am happy to have been lucky to live it. Needless to say I was thrilled to be able to meet people such as Gerald Posner, Max Holland, or Debra Conway, and I am proud to be in a JFK-assassination documentary with them. I just wish I had been able to meet more JFK-assassination researchers.
In the documentary you can see interviews with myself, French-journalist Philippe Labro, Jefferson Morley, Debra Conway, Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Nicola Longford and an unknown conspiracy-theorist by the name of John Braconnier.
Interviews with Mark Oakes, Beverly Oliver, Robert Groden and others were, sadly, left out during the editing process.
Here are the first four minutes of the documentary :
You can rent the whole one-hour documentary at this address :
http://www.filmsdocumentaires.com/films/2328-les-hommes-du-president
Enjoy.
Some of you may remember that I tried to make arrangements to organize some interviews with a few JFK-assassination researchers for a documentary, last year. The documentary was shot in Paris (France), Dallas (Texas), Miami (Florida) and Washington, DC over a ten-month period, starting in Novermber of 2012.
That documentary was aired on French television last November. So far only the as-broadcast-on-TV French version is available but as interviews in English have subtitles (instead of being dubbed) I would say that the documentary can be followed by a non-French speaker rather easily.
The film-maker has made a non-partisan documentary, neither "conspiracy", nor "official version". He only wanted to focus on the research community and the impact the JFK assassination had on some people's lives. I would like to stress that, though I am being followed by the film maker and am being seen and heard most of the time I had absolutely no part in the making of the documentary and did not even give an opinion. The end result is not what I would have done. Several interesting moments were cut out during the editing process.
Apart from that I must say I enjoyed traveling with the film-maker, visiting the historical places, being filmed on location and most of all meeting interesting people for some of the interviews.
On a personal level that journey was a fantastic experience and I am happy to have been lucky to live it. Needless to say I was thrilled to be able to meet people such as Gerald Posner, Max Holland, or Debra Conway, and I am proud to be in a JFK-assassination documentary with them. I just wish I had been able to meet more JFK-assassination researchers.
In the documentary you can see interviews with myself, French-journalist Philippe Labro, Jefferson Morley, Debra Conway, Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Nicola Longford and an unknown conspiracy-theorist by the name of John Braconnier.
Interviews with Mark Oakes, Beverly Oliver, Robert Groden and others were, sadly, left out during the editing process.
Here are the first four minutes of the documentary :
You can rent the whole one-hour documentary at this address :
http://www.filmsdocumentaires.com/films/2328-les-hommes-du-president
Enjoy.
November 9, 2013
Dallas, November 22, 2013
Hello everybody,
I'll be in Dallas for the 50th anniversary.
I'll arrive on the 21st and leave on the 23rd of November.
I'll try to register for the JFK-Lancer banquet (don't know yet if I can).
I am looking forward to being able to talk to other researchers and forum members.
Let me know if you are there. Send me e-mail messages.
Regards,
/F.C./
I'll be in Dallas for the 50th anniversary.
I'll arrive on the 21st and leave on the 23rd of November.
I'll try to register for the JFK-Lancer banquet (don't know yet if I can).
I am looking forward to being able to talk to other researchers and forum members.
Let me know if you are there. Send me e-mail messages.
Regards,
/F.C./
October 24, 2013
October 5, 2013
[joke] The two-Armstrongs theory
Hello everybody,
I have uncovered new evidence.
You all know John Armstrong, the JFK-assassination researcher who has recently been interviewed by Len Osanic on Black Op radio.
Well, get ready for a big surprise !
In fact, there are two Armstrongs.
Yes, that's my conclusion, after years of studying the case.
More precisely, there is a Mister John Arm (they called him that because he is so weak you'd think he had one arm instead of two).
Here he is :
And then there is a Mister John Strong (they called him that because he is very strong).
Here he is :
As you can see, it is obvious the two of them are very different :
It's time the CIA told us the truth.
Enough is enough.
I have uncovered new evidence.
You all know John Armstrong, the JFK-assassination researcher who has recently been interviewed by Len Osanic on Black Op radio.
Well, get ready for a big surprise !
In fact, there are two Armstrongs.
Yes, that's my conclusion, after years of studying the case.
More precisely, there is a Mister John Arm (they called him that because he is so weak you'd think he had one arm instead of two).
Here he is :
And then there is a Mister John Strong (they called him that because he is very strong).
Here he is :
As you can see, it is obvious the two of them are very different :
It's time the CIA told us the truth.
Enough is enough.
September 28, 2013
Oswald on the steps ?
Hello everybody,
For a few weeks some JFK-assassination forums have been inundated with hundreds of posts piling up on threads about a new conspiracy theory.
Looking at a shadowy figure in a blurry picture, some fringe conspiracy theorists claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository building at the time of the shooting, thus "proving" his innocence.
That's funny, really.
Last year Ralph Cinque and his friends told us that Billy Lovelady (the man we see on the famous Altgens picture), a man on the steps of the TSBD, was not really Billy Lovelady but was, in fact, none other than Lee Harvey Oswald.
OK, why not ?
But now, a Sean Murphy and some of his followers tell us that a shadowy figure whom they call "Prayer man", a man on the steps of the TSBD, is, in fact, none other than Lee Harvey Oswald.
So, if we are to believe them, there were two Oswalds, on the steps, at the very same time, side by side.
Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald, together, watching the motorcade...
Fascinating, indeed !
Can you imagine Lee Oswald, in custody at the Dallas Police Headquarters, telling the reporters in the hall :
"No, they've taken me in because of the fact that I was on the steps with another myself. I'm just two patsies."
Conspiracy theorists will never ceaze to amaze me !
But please, don't laugh, or a nobody called Colin Crow may be angry at you...
For a few weeks some JFK-assassination forums have been inundated with hundreds of posts piling up on threads about a new conspiracy theory.
Looking at a shadowy figure in a blurry picture, some fringe conspiracy theorists claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository building at the time of the shooting, thus "proving" his innocence.
That's funny, really.
Last year Ralph Cinque and his friends told us that Billy Lovelady (the man we see on the famous Altgens picture), a man on the steps of the TSBD, was not really Billy Lovelady but was, in fact, none other than Lee Harvey Oswald.
OK, why not ?
But now, a Sean Murphy and some of his followers tell us that a shadowy figure whom they call "Prayer man", a man on the steps of the TSBD, is, in fact, none other than Lee Harvey Oswald.
So, if we are to believe them, there were two Oswalds, on the steps, at the very same time, side by side.
Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald, together, watching the motorcade...
Fascinating, indeed !
Can you imagine Lee Oswald, in custody at the Dallas Police Headquarters, telling the reporters in the hall :
"No, they've taken me in because of the fact that I was on the steps with another myself. I'm just two patsies."
Conspiracy theorists will never ceaze to amaze me !
But please, don't laugh, or a nobody called Colin Crow may be angry at you...
September 23, 2013
[joke] Proof of conspiracy, at last !
Fifty years !
Yes, we had to wait fifty years....
Until now, nobody had been able to prove with any kind of certainty that there had been a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Nobody.
Not even David Lifton.
Not even James DiEugenio.
Not even Robert Groden.
An the public was beginning to think that maybe, yes, maybe the Warren commission, Gerald Posner and David Von Pein were right, after all.
If no evidence had been found yet to show Oswald's innocence, it probably indicated that he must have been guilty.
-> And then he came, the great, great researcher, the one and only, the hero who found the proof !
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, he found the ultimate proof.
Proof that Oswald did not shoot anyone that day.
Proof of conspiracy.
His name is Sean Murphy.
Fifty years after the event, at last, we now know the truth, thanks to him.
And here is the proof :
This very CLEAR picture shows Lee Harvey Oswald (and no one else in the whole universe) on the steps of the School Book Depository at the time of the shooting.
It is OBVIOUS.
Who would dare say they don't recognize Lee Oswald ?
It's him, beyond any doubt.
No, he did not kill Kennedy.
Thank you so much, Mister Murphy.
Conviced?
Yes, we had to wait fifty years....
Until now, nobody had been able to prove with any kind of certainty that there had been a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Nobody.
Not even David Lifton.
Not even James DiEugenio.
Not even Robert Groden.
An the public was beginning to think that maybe, yes, maybe the Warren commission, Gerald Posner and David Von Pein were right, after all.
If no evidence had been found yet to show Oswald's innocence, it probably indicated that he must have been guilty.
-> And then he came, the great, great researcher, the one and only, the hero who found the proof !
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, he found the ultimate proof.
Proof that Oswald did not shoot anyone that day.
Proof of conspiracy.
His name is Sean Murphy.
Fifty years after the event, at last, we now know the truth, thanks to him.
And here is the proof :
This very CLEAR picture shows Lee Harvey Oswald (and no one else in the whole universe) on the steps of the School Book Depository at the time of the shooting.
It is OBVIOUS.
Who would dare say they don't recognize Lee Oswald ?
It's him, beyond any doubt.
No, he did not kill Kennedy.
Thank you so much, Mister Murphy.
Conviced?
July 24, 2013
Another book that won't change a thing...
Hello everybody,
I was visiting The Education Forum and discovered a new thread, started by none other than John Simkin, and titled : "Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit (2013)" [link to that thread]
The thread is about a new book, by researcher Joseph McBride [link to the Amazon page], which allows its author to add his name to the seemingly never-ending list of people who staunchly refuse the historical truth and prefer to theorize, theorize .. and theorize.
The forum thread is still short, but in it I was able to read that Joseph McBride claims :
So, in other words, according to McBride, Oswald did not do anything wrong that day, and the evidence was altered.
. . .
I'm tired. Really tired.
. . .
I was glad to see David Von Pein inject common sense and critical-thinking arguments into the thread.
Of course, McBride is wrong, utterly wrong.
Nonetheless I guess I'll do what I always do : I'll order his book, read it and add it to my collection.
As I have always done, I'll give the author a chance to prove his case. But as always, I bet he won't be able to !
I was visiting The Education Forum and discovered a new thread, started by none other than John Simkin, and titled : "Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit (2013)" [link to that thread]
The thread is about a new book, by researcher Joseph McBride [link to the Amazon page], which allows its author to add his name to the seemingly never-ending list of people who staunchly refuse the historical truth and prefer to theorize, theorize .. and theorize.
The forum thread is still short, but in it I was able to read that Joseph McBride claims :
- Lee Harvey Oswald is innocent in the Tippit shooting
- Two, three, and possibly four men were involved in the Tippit murder (but not Oswald)
- Lee Oswald was in the second-floor lunchroom at the time of the Kennedy shooting
- Mary Ferrell was a disinformation agent (a "gatekeeper", a person delegated by the US government)
So, in other words, according to McBride, Oswald did not do anything wrong that day, and the evidence was altered.
. . .
I'm tired. Really tired.
. . .
I was glad to see David Von Pein inject common sense and critical-thinking arguments into the thread.
Of course, McBride is wrong, utterly wrong.
Nonetheless I guess I'll do what I always do : I'll order his book, read it and add it to my collection.
As I have always done, I'll give the author a chance to prove his case. But as always, I bet he won't be able to !
April 12, 2013
The acoustic evidence : confirmation of the official version (again)
Hello everybody,
You have all heard of the acoustic evidence debate. To put it simply, conspiracy theorists have been claiming that the Dallas Police Department radio recordings show that there had been four shots fired in Dealey Plaza (four impulses heard = four shots = two shooters = a conspiracy), while Warren Commision defenders say that the impulses heard on the tapes are not shots, and therefore prove nothing.
This blog has a short article that presents a Charles Rader interview which prove conspiracy theorists are wrong.
There's more.
A few days ago Steve Barber (yes, the famous Steve Barber !) started a new thread by writing a post on the JFK Assassination Forum. It is a very interesting post, that I recommend everybody to read.
You've got to listen to his audio clip.
Let me quote a very important sentence written by Steve Barber in that thread :
"... That the Decker crosstalk is authentic, it is "true crosstalk", and that the Ramsey panel has it right."
Well, in essence that's what I had written in my book. That's what all the Oswald-was-guilty researchers (from Gerald Posner to David Von Pein) have been saying for years.
In other words, Robert Groden is wrong, 100% wrong. (Or he is voluntarily lying, which would be even worse). Any "researcher" that would dare keep talking about the so-called "acoustic evidence" would be either ignorant, or a liar (or both ?)
For sure, conspiracy theorists have lost that battle. Come to think of it, so far they have lost all of them.
You have all heard of the acoustic evidence debate. To put it simply, conspiracy theorists have been claiming that the Dallas Police Department radio recordings show that there had been four shots fired in Dealey Plaza (four impulses heard = four shots = two shooters = a conspiracy), while Warren Commision defenders say that the impulses heard on the tapes are not shots, and therefore prove nothing.
This blog has a short article that presents a Charles Rader interview which prove conspiracy theorists are wrong.
There's more.
A few days ago Steve Barber (yes, the famous Steve Barber !) started a new thread by writing a post on the JFK Assassination Forum. It is a very interesting post, that I recommend everybody to read.
You've got to listen to his audio clip.
Let me quote a very important sentence written by Steve Barber in that thread :
"... That the Decker crosstalk is authentic, it is "true crosstalk", and that the Ramsey panel has it right."
Well, in essence that's what I had written in my book. That's what all the Oswald-was-guilty researchers (from Gerald Posner to David Von Pein) have been saying for years.
In other words, Robert Groden is wrong, 100% wrong. (Or he is voluntarily lying, which would be even worse). Any "researcher" that would dare keep talking about the so-called "acoustic evidence" would be either ignorant, or a liar (or both ?)
For sure, conspiracy theorists have lost that battle. Come to think of it, so far they have lost all of them.
March 27, 2013
[joke] Jim DiEugenio proves his case.
Hello everybody,
All of you know that JFK-assassination forums often prove to be places where verbal fights take place instead of healthy debates.
We sometimes see David Von Pein versus James DiEugenio.
David Von Pein often says that James DiEugenio's theories require a conspiracy involving hundreds of conspirators, which is an idea that is ludicrous on its face.
I agree 100% with David Von Pein.
But here, it looks like Jim DiEugenio was right after all. See, he has sent me these pictures which he says prove his case :
Here is a picture of some of the people who were involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK (per DiEugenio) :
Here is a picture of some of the people who were involved in the subsequent cover-up to lure the American people (per DiEugenio) :
Here is a picture of some of the people who have lied to the investigators, and can be considered as accessories after the fact :
Well, I think that settles it. What about you ?
All of you know that JFK-assassination forums often prove to be places where verbal fights take place instead of healthy debates.
We sometimes see David Von Pein versus James DiEugenio.
David Von Pein often says that James DiEugenio's theories require a conspiracy involving hundreds of conspirators, which is an idea that is ludicrous on its face.
I agree 100% with David Von Pein.
But here, it looks like Jim DiEugenio was right after all. See, he has sent me these pictures which he says prove his case :
Here is a picture of some of the people who were involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK (per DiEugenio) :
Here is a picture of some of the people who were involved in the subsequent cover-up to lure the American people (per DiEugenio) :
Here is a picture of some of the people who have lied to the investigators, and can be considered as accessories after the fact :
Well, I think that settles it. What about you ?
March 21, 2013
[joke] A shot from the front ?
Hello everybody,
While the Warren Commission concluded that President Kennedy was shot from behind, conspiracy theorists have been claiming for decades that he was shot from the front.
I have found a document that proves that conspiracy theorists were right all along.
Indeed, when JFK received a bullet in the throat he was unable to talk (he could not even utter a sound). When he was shot a second time, he fell on Jackie's lap. Unable to talk, at least he could write. Using his own blood, he was able to write something on White House stationary before fainting :
I think that settles the issue for good !
While the Warren Commission concluded that President Kennedy was shot from behind, conspiracy theorists have been claiming for decades that he was shot from the front.
I have found a document that proves that conspiracy theorists were right all along.
Indeed, when JFK received a bullet in the throat he was unable to talk (he could not even utter a sound). When he was shot a second time, he fell on Jackie's lap. Unable to talk, at least he could write. Using his own blood, he was able to write something on White House stationary before fainting :
March 9, 2013
Fake pictures
Hello everybody,
As you all know, there are heated debates on some forums about so-called "fake pictures". Some researchers claim that some (or all) pictures are fakes, or altered, while others say they are authentic. The debate rages even among conspiracy believers. It is almost a fight.
Was "the man in the doorway" Lee Oswald, as Ralph Cinque and Jim Fetzer claim ? Or was he Billy Lovelady, as the rest of the researchers (conspiracy believers and Warren-Commission defenders alike) believe ?
It's not for me to say, here. I won't join the debate. I am not taking sides, at least not today.
This morning, I only want to have fun. It's good to have fun, from time to time, isn't it ?
So here are my own fake pictures :
As you all know, there are heated debates on some forums about so-called "fake pictures". Some researchers claim that some (or all) pictures are fakes, or altered, while others say they are authentic. The debate rages even among conspiracy believers. It is almost a fight.
Was "the man in the doorway" Lee Oswald, as Ralph Cinque and Jim Fetzer claim ? Or was he Billy Lovelady, as the rest of the researchers (conspiracy believers and Warren-Commission defenders alike) believe ?
It's not for me to say, here. I won't join the debate. I am not taking sides, at least not today.
This morning, I only want to have fun. It's good to have fun, from time to time, isn't it ?
So here are my own fake pictures :
January 19, 2013
In defense of Paul Baker
Hello everybody,
I can't believe what I'm reading !
On The Education Forum, there is a thread started by David Lifton, titled "O'Reilly's Book (on JFK) has been green-lighted to be a movie".
Several members joined the discussion.
The topic changed progressively.
Apart from the fact that some members were their usual selves (Ian Kingsbury with his completely dull, empty posts, or Lee Farloser, with his arogance, his verbal abuse, his intellectual narrow-mindedness) I have noticed something of note.
One member stood out : Paul Baker.
I didn't really know him beforehand. I had not realized how good he was. I don't know if he knows me. I don't know what he might think of me. That doesn't matter. All I know is that he is good. Very good.
He is a sensible person. Clever. Reasonable. Logical. Witty.
He knows to separate facts from fiction.
He knows what science is.
In front of him, Jim DiEugenio proved himself foolish. He was litterally "punished".
Paul Baker's intelligent observations were met with ridiculous statements by Jim DiEugenio, whose legendary close-mindedness was there for all to see.
Well, all that is not surprising.
But wait...
Today, James DiEugenio broke the world record of bad faith !
He had the guts to write (I quote) : "I think this is it for me and Paulie. He is simply not worth talking to."
My God ! Don't make me laugh !
The truth is : that is a total cop-out !
James DiEugenio was afraid. He realized that Paul Baker was better than him. He realized he was being defeated. He realized he was losing. He had to find an escape.
Another person would have acknowledged they had been wrong. Not James DiEugenio, who will probably be remembered as the most close-minded JFK-assassination researcher of all times.
James DiEugenio could not handle Paul Baker. So he ran away.
He found the lamest excuse in the book.
Is that hypocrisy, or self-deception ? Or cowardice ?
Even worse : DiEugenio then wrote (I quote) : "And, to be frank, I don't know why the mods let him on anymore." !?!?!?!? In other words, if a member wins the argument, then he must be fired. If DiEugenio is right, his opponent may stay. If he is wrong, his opponent must leave.
That's James DiEugenio.
The problem is : he is always wrong.
At any rate, he should be ashamed of himself, tonight.
I can't believe what I'm reading !
On The Education Forum, there is a thread started by David Lifton, titled "O'Reilly's Book (on JFK) has been green-lighted to be a movie".
Several members joined the discussion.
The topic changed progressively.
Apart from the fact that some members were their usual selves (Ian Kingsbury with his completely dull, empty posts, or Lee Farloser, with his arogance, his verbal abuse, his intellectual narrow-mindedness) I have noticed something of note.
One member stood out : Paul Baker.
I didn't really know him beforehand. I had not realized how good he was. I don't know if he knows me. I don't know what he might think of me. That doesn't matter. All I know is that he is good. Very good.
He is a sensible person. Clever. Reasonable. Logical. Witty.
He knows to separate facts from fiction.
He knows what science is.
In front of him, Jim DiEugenio proved himself foolish. He was litterally "punished".
Paul Baker's intelligent observations were met with ridiculous statements by Jim DiEugenio, whose legendary close-mindedness was there for all to see.
Well, all that is not surprising.
But wait...
Today, James DiEugenio broke the world record of bad faith !
He had the guts to write (I quote) : "I think this is it for me and Paulie. He is simply not worth talking to."
My God ! Don't make me laugh !
The truth is : that is a total cop-out !
James DiEugenio was afraid. He realized that Paul Baker was better than him. He realized he was being defeated. He realized he was losing. He had to find an escape.
Another person would have acknowledged they had been wrong. Not James DiEugenio, who will probably be remembered as the most close-minded JFK-assassination researcher of all times.
James DiEugenio could not handle Paul Baker. So he ran away.
He found the lamest excuse in the book.
Is that hypocrisy, or self-deception ? Or cowardice ?
Even worse : DiEugenio then wrote (I quote) : "And, to be frank, I don't know why the mods let him on anymore." !?!?!?!? In other words, if a member wins the argument, then he must be fired. If DiEugenio is right, his opponent may stay. If he is wrong, his opponent must leave.
That's James DiEugenio.
The problem is : he is always wrong.
At any rate, he should be ashamed of himself, tonight.
January 14, 2013
A good example of critical thinking versus conspiracy theories
Hello everybody
I recently found this very good video : a very good example of critical thinking applied to the Kennedy assassination.
(Close-minded people such as James DiEugenio should definitely listen to what the guy has to say. Unfortunately, they probably won't.)
I recently found this very good video : a very good example of critical thinking applied to the Kennedy assassination.
(Close-minded people such as James DiEugenio should definitely listen to what the guy has to say. Unfortunately, they probably won't.)
January 6, 2013
Pierre Salinger (3)
Hello everybody,
I have uploaded a third and last excerpt of my 1993 interview of Pierre Salinger.
In this short audio file Pierre Salinger tells us about the Vietnam war and Lyndon Johnson.
I know fringe conspiracy theorists such as Robert Morrow won't like to hear that audio file. They think that there was a conspiracy and Johnson was in on it. They are wrong !
I really enjoyed meeting Pierre Salinger, who was a very nice person. In that excerpt you can hear my voice, asking the questions. It's clear that I am impressed and in awe, speaking very quietly.
Pierre Salinger taught me a lot. He was very close to John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Jackie Kennedy. He lived with them for years. His opinion : no conspiracy.
Neither David Lifton nor Robert Morrow ever met any of those people. And they claim they know better ? They should be ashamed of themselves !
(Again, I'm sorry for the bad quality : there's too much noise.)
Hope you'll like it.
I have uploaded a third and last excerpt of my 1993 interview of Pierre Salinger.
In this short audio file Pierre Salinger tells us about the Vietnam war and Lyndon Johnson.
I know fringe conspiracy theorists such as Robert Morrow won't like to hear that audio file. They think that there was a conspiracy and Johnson was in on it. They are wrong !
I really enjoyed meeting Pierre Salinger, who was a very nice person. In that excerpt you can hear my voice, asking the questions. It's clear that I am impressed and in awe, speaking very quietly.
Pierre Salinger taught me a lot. He was very close to John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Jackie Kennedy. He lived with them for years. His opinion : no conspiracy.
Neither David Lifton nor Robert Morrow ever met any of those people. And they claim they know better ? They should be ashamed of themselves !
(Again, I'm sorry for the bad quality : there's too much noise.)
Hope you'll like it.
January 5, 2013
Pierre Salinger (2)
Hello everybody,
Since some people seemed interested in the Pierre Salinger short audio excerpt of an interview I conducted in 1993 and asked for more, I have uploaded a second excerpt.
In this short audio file Pierre Salinger tells us what he thinks of Oliver Stone's movie JFK.
Again, I'm sorry for the bad quality : there's too much noise.
Hope you'll like it.
(I'll upload a third excerpt soon)
Since some people seemed interested in the Pierre Salinger short audio excerpt of an interview I conducted in 1993 and asked for more, I have uploaded a second excerpt.
In this short audio file Pierre Salinger tells us what he thinks of Oliver Stone's movie JFK.
Again, I'm sorry for the bad quality : there's too much noise.
Hope you'll like it.
(I'll upload a third excerpt soon)
January 1, 2013
Pierre Salinger's story
Hello everybody,
You all remember Pierre Salinger, who was the White House Press Secretary to President John F. Kennedy, on top of being a personal friend of his.
Pierre Salinger had a long and colorful career that Wikipedia will tell you about.
When I was a young student beginning to research the Kennedy assassination I was able to contact him. We exchanged letters over a period of a few months. Later I was lucky enough to meet him on three occasions.
At the time (roughly 1991-1997) I was under the influence of David Lifton, whose book and VHS tape I had bought, and with whom I had had a long tape-recorded telephone conversation (in 1990).
I had also met Robert Groden in Dallas and owned his first book. Not having studied the case enough I believed in a conspiracy. Since then, of course, I have applied logic and common sense to the case and realized long ago that there was never any conspiracy and that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin.
Anyway.
Back then I was still a huge Lifton fan and confronting Pierre Salinger was the best thing that could happen to me. He was a very nice man.
Most of all, he was knowledgeable. I wasn't.
He was experienced. I wasn't.
He was mature. I wasn't.
He had been there. I hadn't.
He didn't believe that there had been a conspiracy. And he seemed unimpressed by Lifton's theory.
What he had to say about his experience with John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Jackie Kennedy was very interesting.
Not only did we exchange several letters, but I also had the honor of visiting him for a taped interview in London, in the ABC bureau, where he was the Chief European correspondent. He agreed to invite me to his office, where I stayed for a few hours. We had a memorable conversation. A few years later I again saw him in France, where he was giving a lecture. The following day I again talked to him in a railroad station where he was waiting for his train. Definitely a nice man, on top of being a man I admired, if only for having been a close friend of John Kennedy's.
I am hereby uploading an excerpt of the audio file I created. I have tried to digitize the sound from an old audio cassette.
We can hear Pierre Salinger telling us how he remembered that fateful day.
I find that excerpt very interesting and moving.
I thought I should share it with interested researchers.
I hope you'll enjoy it.
You all remember Pierre Salinger, who was the White House Press Secretary to President John F. Kennedy, on top of being a personal friend of his.
Pierre Salinger had a long and colorful career that Wikipedia will tell you about.
When I was a young student beginning to research the Kennedy assassination I was able to contact him. We exchanged letters over a period of a few months. Later I was lucky enough to meet him on three occasions.
At the time (roughly 1991-1997) I was under the influence of David Lifton, whose book and VHS tape I had bought, and with whom I had had a long tape-recorded telephone conversation (in 1990).
I had also met Robert Groden in Dallas and owned his first book. Not having studied the case enough I believed in a conspiracy. Since then, of course, I have applied logic and common sense to the case and realized long ago that there was never any conspiracy and that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin.
Anyway.
Back then I was still a huge Lifton fan and confronting Pierre Salinger was the best thing that could happen to me. He was a very nice man.
Most of all, he was knowledgeable. I wasn't.
He was experienced. I wasn't.
He was mature. I wasn't.
He had been there. I hadn't.
He didn't believe that there had been a conspiracy. And he seemed unimpressed by Lifton's theory.
What he had to say about his experience with John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Jackie Kennedy was very interesting.
Not only did we exchange several letters, but I also had the honor of visiting him for a taped interview in London, in the ABC bureau, where he was the Chief European correspondent. He agreed to invite me to his office, where I stayed for a few hours. We had a memorable conversation. A few years later I again saw him in France, where he was giving a lecture. The following day I again talked to him in a railroad station where he was waiting for his train. Definitely a nice man, on top of being a man I admired, if only for having been a close friend of John Kennedy's.
I am hereby uploading an excerpt of the audio file I created. I have tried to digitize the sound from an old audio cassette.
We can hear Pierre Salinger telling us how he remembered that fateful day.
I find that excerpt very interesting and moving.
I thought I should share it with interested researchers.
I hope you'll enjoy it.
October 29, 2012
[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 ?
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 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 26, 2012
[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 :
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 :
October 3, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)