Jump to content
The Education Forum

François Carlier

Two Posts Per day
  • Posts

    528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by François Carlier

  1. A few years ago there was a Marcel Dehaeseleer / Jack White "Camera obscura" experiment done. You may want to look that up. Note : Jack White has passed away but Marcel Dehaeseleer is still around (he is from Belgium) although his web site is no longer on line.
  2. OK. Thank you very much. (I needed this information. The journalist is calling me in exactly half an hour...)
  3. Hello everybody. I have a question for James DiEugenio (although I fear he might not care to read it, but if someone could let him know) Regarding the documentary JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass (Oliver Stone, 2021) What were Oliver Stone's intentions in making this documentary and what impact on viewers was he looking for? (I am asking because I am writing an article on that documentary, which I have watched three times, for a science magazine in France. My article is completed but I really wanted to do a good job by trying to understand the purpose or goal of the team Stone/DiEugenio. After so many books written and documentaries done over several decades, and after the JFK movie, what did Oliver Stone try to achieve by doing this documentary in 2021 ?). Thank you in advance for your answer and enlightenment.
  4. Hello David. Thank you. Yes, that makes sense. You're most probably right. And I do hope that you are right. I would love to read Lifton's last book.
  5. Hello everybody, I have read the entire thread. So, some people write that Lifton's laptop computer "crashed and he lost everything" (which, to my mind, would have been devastating and might have sped his demise), while other members write that his work will soon be published. I wonder : which version is the right one?
  6. At any rate, would you agree (or would you not) to say that, whatever conclusions you reach on the Kennedy assassination mystery, it is not advisable (or not reasonable) to use the Dreyfus affair as support to the Kennedy assassination (as some researchers have done in the past, among them Jim Marrs) ?
  7. Hello Sir. Oh, I probably didn't think that deeply, sorry. 😉 I simply meant "researchers who believe and claim that the Kennedy assassination was a covert operation".
  8. Hello Sir, Thank you for your answer. Indeed, I am aware of RFK Jr. voicing his doubts. I agree with you. But I was referring to the previous generation, meaning, John Kennedy 's brothers. For example, I have a quote from Ted Kennedy : "There were things that should have been done differently. There were mistakes made. But I know of no facts that have been brought to light which would call for a reassessment of the conclusion. I'm fundamentally satisfied with the findings of the Warren Commission Report." [Time, November 24, 1975] And that makes me believe that, roughly speaking, it is safe to say that John Kennedy's brothers, as well as his wife, were fundamentally in agreement with the official conclusions and never really publicly or loudly voiced their disagreement with the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin.
  9. When studying the Kennedy assassination, it's very instructive to draw a parallel with the Dreyfus affair. Indeed, very often, conspiracy theorists such as Jim Marrs, among others, use the Dreyfus affair as an example to try to demonstrate that a government conspiracy is possible (e.g. Jim Marrs, in a conversation with me in Dallas, November 1996, recorded by me on audiocassette). Their argument is as follows: it makes sense to imagine a conspiracy to kill Kennedy from the highest decision-making spheres in the USA, since it happened historically with the Dreyfus affair in France. It's very useful for the conspiracy theorists, because they need to support their position and try to show that it's not outlandish. The Dreyfus affair, which they only vaguely know, becomes a kind of supporting argument. But while such an argument might appear logical on the surface, the truth is, the parallel between the two cases does not support conspiracy theorists - quite the contrary. I'll show that here. To begin with, let me summarize the Dreyfus affair. --- --- --- Paris, September 1894. The French counter-espionage services discover a document found at the German embassy, a "bordereau", or some kind of note. It was an unsigned letter, written by a French officer, announcing to the German military attaché the dispatch of confidential military documents. Scandal: was a French spy selling military secrets to the Germans? An investigation was launched. Captain Alfred Dreyfus, of Jewish faith, who had been attached to the General Staff for some time, was suspected by the intelligence service. Accused of treason, he was arrested and imprisoned in October 1894. His trial began behind closed doors before the Paris Council of War. Unbeknownst to the defense, a "secret file" was prepared against Dreyfus, and shown to the jury. Major Henry, in charge of the investigation, sincerely believed that Dreyfus was guilty. But as he was unable to obtain a confession from Dreyfus, and as his superiors put pressure on him to obtain evidence, he decided to fabricate a false document, inadmissible by the court and therefore without risk to himself. But in order to ensure Dreyfus's conviction, the Ministry of War ordered Henry to pass on to the judges the Dreyfus investigation file, which was normally inadmissible, and therefore not to be given to the judges. It was illegal, but it was an order. And Henry, afraid to admit that he had made a false document (with the idea that it would never be used), kept quiet, and left it in the file given to the judges. Dreyfus is condemned. The War Council unanimously found him guilty of spying for Germany. Dreyfus proclaimed his innocence, but nothing was done. He was sentenced to deportation for life to French Guiana, and to degradation in December 1894. Dreyfus was sent to Devil's Island. But without passing judgment on the affair, and without expressing an opinion on what the poor man had to endure, it must be stressed here that here is all that was dishonest, here is all that was "conspiratorial" in the Dreyfus affair: a few staff officers, truly believing that Dreyfus was the guilty party, conspiring to hide a forbidden procedure (secretly handing over the dossier to the judges so that they would have arguments against Dreyfus), and a false document - which they themselves did not suspect - fabricated by one man alone. That's all there is to it. Only Dreyfus's family believed in his innocence. Public opinion, Parliament and the press found deportation too lenient for a "traitor to the fatherland". The Dreyfus affair revived anti-Semitism. What happened next? In September 1896, Colonel Picquart, who was an anti-Semite (let me stress that point) and the new head of the intelligence service, was asked to work on improving security procedures, and in the course of his investigations he discovered that the secret file on Dreyfus had been illegally handed over to the judges. He immediately informs his superiors, demanding that the verdict be overturned before the Dreyfus family learns of it. And when his superiors insinuate that the Dreyfus will never know if he doesn't tell anyone, he fights back, saying it would be abominable, and would dishonor him. This is the crucial point, and it must be stressed. Here's how an anti-Semitic colonel reacted when his military hierarchy asked him to conspire against a Jew: he refused categorically. Colonel Picquart discovered that false documents had been provided to the military jury that convicted Dreyfus. He is convinced that Major Esterhazy is the author of the famous bordereau. What do the generals do then? Have him killed? No. They simply punished him by appointing him to a post in North Africa. Esterhazy, for his part, was tried in 1898 and acquitted, despite all the evidence against him. But Picquart, rather than save his career, could not bring himself to keep the terrible secret, and repeated it. Madame Dreyfus is informed. The new Minister of War, General Cavaignac, himself honestly convinced of Dreyfus's guilt, and unaware of the secret maneuvers, sets up a new military investigation. The investigator discovers the false document, and (once again) does not keep the information to himself, but reports it to the Minister. Emile Zola publishes "J'accuse" in the newspaper L'Aurore, which serves as the trigger for the Dreyfusards' fight. The Dreyfusards spoke of a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Proof of Dreyfus's innocence was uncovered: the false documents provided to the judges (those of Esterhazy and Henry, who committed suicide on August 31, 1898). Dreyfus returned to France, and his trial was reviewed before the Rennes War Council, from August 7 to September 9, 1899. He was deported from France from March 12, 1895 to June 9, 1899. Long years of struggle and the arrival of new leaders (Emile Loubet, elected President of the Republic on February 18, 1899) led to his rehabilitation. It was Emile Loubet who pardoned him on September 19, 1899. On July 12, 1906, the Court of Cassation overturned the Rennes verdict, and on July 13, 1906, Parliament passed a law reintegrating Dreyfus into the army. On July 21, 1906, Major Dreyfus received the insignia of the Légion d'Honneur. --- --- --- The following observations and conclusions can be drawn: - in the Dreyfus case, the (identified) conspirators are patriotic officers, whereas in the Kennedy case, the (unidentified) conspirators are supposed to be traitors to their country (they want to kill the commander-in-chief). - in the Dreyfus affair, the victim is a simple officer, a man of no national stature, almost an unknown, whereas in the Kennedy affair, the victim is the President, the most powerful man in the country. - In the Dreyfus affair, the family struggles to clear his name, to bring the truth to light, whereas in the Kennedy affair, not a single member of the Kennedy family - an undeniably united and powerful family - will make the slightest move to denounce a conspiracy, convinced as they are that the official version is true. For neither members of JFK's family, nor his close associates and friends, would ever subscribe to the zany theories of the conspiracy theorists. - in the Dreyfus affair, none of the original conspirators - powerful men - asked for Dreyfus to be killed on his Devil's Island, whereas in the Kennedy affair, the conspiracy theorists would have us believe that the conspirators had dozens of inconvenient witnesses killed without any problem or qualms. - in the Dreyfus affair, Colonel Picquart couldn't keep his secret, and wanted the truth to be known, at the risk of ruining his own career, whereas in the Kennedy affair, the conspiracy theorists would have us believe that dozens of conspirators all willingly went to their graves keeping the secret to themselves. - in the Dreyfus affair, the new investigator didn't try to hide the truth he'd just discovered, to cover up for the conspiring generals (his superiors), whereas in the Kennedy affair, the conspiracy theorists would have us believe that those who know the truth keep silent to protect the guilty. So, if even one person in the Dreyfus affair refused to lose his honor, it's hard to see how ten, a hundred, a thousand people in the Kennedy affair could have plotted, organized the assassination, then the cover-up, and killed the many witnesses - average Americans who had done no harm to anyone - and never divulged anything, never had the slightest scruple, never confessed anything to anyone, even on their deathbed. There's a long way between a real conspiracy that existed in reality, and the imaginary conspiracy of the Kennedy conspiracists. The parallels drawn by Jim Marrs and other authors, on balance, run counter to his theory. As you can see, conspiracy theorists' conclusions are based on a distorted vision of the world, but not on the real world. What do you think ?
  10. I had great respect for Hugh Aynesworth, with whom I exchanged messages around the fiftieth anniversary. He was essentially a very honest man. He was right about the Kennedy assassination. He knew the truth, ultimately. May he rest in peace ! God bless him !
  11. I wish David Von Pein were interviewed on the Joe Rogan podcast. Can anyone here get them in contact with one another ?
  12. With his own words, Pat Speer says exactly what I said. I contend that it is the "conspiracy community" or "the group of researchers who believe that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK" that suffers the most from those extreme, outlandish theories that are nonsensical at best. I contend that it's a huge waste of time. First-generation critics (some of whom I personally highly respected), and even second-generation critics would never have sunk so low. It really makes me sad.
  13. 60 years after the event, and some people are debating whether the second-floor encounter between Baker and Oswald really took place ? I guess at the 70th anniversary those "researchers" will debate whether the assassination really took place in Dallas... I have been studying the case for more than thirty-five years and have been a close witness to the whole "critics against the Warren Commission" decades-long story, reading every book and personally meting every known researcher along the way. I believe that one of the most tragic failings of the critics community has been that there precisely never was any type of "community" that would have cleaned up the ideas and set a high standard of quality of ideas ! Nobody has done more harm to the "critics community" than the "new-generation", extreme conspiracy theorists themselves !
  14. I would contend that: - 100% of LN's, or defenders of the official version, firmly believe that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter did happen! - 95% of Warren report critics and conspiracy theorists likewise believe that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter did happen! That leaves a tiny, tiny group of people who resort to (if I may say so) "farfetched theories". Isn't there a point where some conspiracy theorists actually go against their own cause? Any comments ?
  15. The folkloric world of the Kennedy assassination is rife with picturesque names. After "Badgeman" and "Black-dog man", we now have "Prayer man". The first two were imaginary shadowy men, illusory assassins who did not exist. On the contrary, the third one is indeed a real individual, but just not who the conspiracy theorists would like him to be. To start with it is even surprising that conspiracy theorists should believe in that fairy tale. It doesn't make sense in the first place. It's against all logic. If there were conspirators, they used Oswald as a scapegoat. If he is to take the blame, it is obviously imperative that the conspirators control his movements and prevent him from getting out when the shots were fired. To my mind, if a scapegoat were seen by the public during the shooting, it would irreparably destroy the operation by giving him a golden alibi. Besides, - The picture (taken from the Jimmy Darnell film) is out of focus. You can't see anything at all, neither the contours nor the details. It is almost merely a dark spot. You can’t say for sure whether it's a man or a woman, and indeed some researchers have seriously suggested that it might be a woman. Admit it: at best, that blurry picture is hardly conclusive! - Oswald's colleagues who were on the steps at the entrance to the TSBD have no recollection of seeing Oswald there (take Buell Frazier, for instance). I repeat: people who were there knew Oswald and not one of them saw him there. Nobody saw him. Nobody ever said that they saw him. And they had ample time to look! - More to the point: Oswald himself never said he was there. On the contrary, he told the police he was inside the building. The debate ends right there! Please, why didn’t Lee Oswald ever tell his wife, or his brother, or the reporters that he was outside? Because he was inside! He said it himself! End of story! - The "Prayer man" fiction is contrary to all existing testimony, including the statements of people such as Director Roy Truly and police officer Marrion Baker (who had never met before) or even Mrs. R. A. Reid, the clerical supervisor, who all saw Oswald inside the building, consistent with him having been inside all along. - It is also contrary to all logic regarding Oswald's attitude. Again, if he had been leisurely outside the building during the shooting sequence, then why did he then decide to leave in a hurry without saying anything to anyone and go on to kill officer Tippit half an hour later? Anyway… There may still be issues worth debating about the Kennedy assassination but the “Prayer man” fiction is not one of them !
  16. Hello everybody. I have a question. Where can I find a good website, or good websites, with high-quality, unaltered, pictures and X-rays ? (Oswald's backyard photos, autopsy photos, autopsy X-rays, H. A. Rydberg drawings for the Warren commission, Ida Dox drawings for the HSCA) ? Any idea or piece of advice ? Thank you in advance. Regards.
  17. Apparently, on this forum (whose moderators are conspiracy believers) conspiracy theorists can insult those who disagree with them at will, They can mock whomever they want. They risk nothing. But if I post just a bit of humor, Mister Mark Knight feels the need to block the thread and then threatens to expell me from the forum (so easy to brag through a computer screen !…).OK.I'm leaving.For good.I bet some people will be happy.Good luck to everybody ! I wish you well !
  18. Apparently, on this forum (whose moderators are conspiracy believers) conspiracy theorists can insult those who disagree with them at will, They can mock whomever they want. They risk nothing. But if I post just a bit of humor, Mister Mark Knight feels the need to block the thread and then threatens me to expell me from the forum (so easy to brag through a computer screen !…). OK. I'm leaving. For good. I bet some people will be happy. Good luck to everybody ! I wish you well !
  19. Mister DiEugenio. It is very funny, in a way. You never reply to the logical comments that I write, but you expect me to reply to every single item of comment that you make. Well, never mind. There are three possibilities : - 1. Oswald fired the shots on Kennedy, he is the sole assassin, and in his flight, trying to flee Dallas, he was seen and caught by a police officer and he killed him. That makes sense ! - 2. Oswald is innocent, he has nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination. When he learned that the president had been shot, he just decided to go to see a movie to have a good time, so he left work without telling anybody and on his way there took his revolver and shot a police officer. That does not make any sense ! - 3. Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination. He was chosen by conspirators to be the scapegoat. He was framed. He realised it. So he fled the scene. He was scared. When apprehended by Tippit, he feared that it was all part of the plot so he killed the police officer. OK. That's farfetched, but why not ? The problem is : if he was framed by conspirators, how in the world did those conspirators let him on the loose, running around, watching the presidential parade on the steps of the TSBD ? That does not make sense either ! In other words, only the first proposition makes sense. As I told you, several people saw Oswald on the scene of the Tippit murder. Callaway talked to him. I never said that Callaway saw him fire the shots. I know the sequence of events. David Von Pein gave a few reasonable comments about that on this thread. As I explained in a long post earlier on this thread, all you do is ask questions which, most of the time, are truly irrelevant. Nelson and Jackson were never "silenced" . So if they wanted to volunteer information, why didn't they do that ? Nobody stopped them. There was confusion, no doubt. Maybe disorganisation. Even unfortnate initiatives. But nothing sinister. I say that nobody in their right mind can deny that Lee Oswald killed Officer Tippit. Hence, you'll have a hard time trying to show that Oswald didn't have anything to do with the shooting of President Kennedy. Another note : I am seriously, genuinely surprised at you apparent joining of the "prayer man" group. You seem to follow the trend with enthousiasm. I'm surprised. I thought you were more careful in your positions. In all honesty, I am convinced beyond certainty that the "prayer man" theory is a dead-end, a big mistake, a soon-to-be-forgotten ludicrous theory, a totally erroneous supposition, a delusion. Nothing more. Of course, when I issued my so-called "challenge", I know it was just silliness (the thunderstorm part was funny, though), but, very seriously, I am asking you, when all is said and done, and everybody admits that the "prayer man" theory has to be discarded as a big mistake, you'll come here to publicly acknowledge that you had been wrong and I had been right !
  20. I know. I know. I am going to reply to you. To be honest, I haven't had the time to come back and read seriously and type a serious reply. I have had a tough day. I just felt like having some fun a little bit, for a change. We always argue. We can smile, from time to time. I'll come back later.
×
×
  • Create New...