Jump to content
The Education Forum

François Carlier

Two Posts Per day
  • Posts

    532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About François Carlier

  • Birthday 11/01/1967

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.facebook.com/Carlier.Kennedy/
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Paris, France
  • Interests
    Science, history, critical thinking, crimes investigations.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,926 profile views

François Carlier's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Dedicated

Recent Badges

  1. Hello again. That topic requires a thread altogether. The medical evidence in the Kennedy-assassination case is definitely an astounding matter ! Mistakes, misunderstandings, failures, conflicting accounts, debates, burned notes, what have you... I am not a physician so I have no real authority in this field (although I know that a lot of physicians have conflicting opinions and have reached conflicting conclusions). What do I think of the fact that the wound was "moved" ? "Astonishing" ? Yes. "Meant to deceive ?" I don't think so. Maybe they had time to reconsider their position after calm and collected re-appraisal of the evidence.
  2. Thank you for answering. I wonder what other members think about what Robert Groden claims. I mean, it is very important : a well-known JFK researcher claims that the suspect had a perfect alibi (Oswald was with a woman and talking to her while the shooting occured). That's pretty darn important ! So either Groden has exonarated Lee Oswald for good and for ever, or he is wrong. I happen to believe that Groden is wrong, but I think that it is an important issue and I wonder what conspiracy-oriented members think about that (I'm surrprised that nobody is using that Groden argument).
  3. Hello everybody I have a question. You are all talking about whether Lee Oswald was seen by officer Marrion Baker (and Roy Truly), or was he on the sixth floor, or was he on the second floor, or was he on the first floor, or was he outside watching the presidential parade…. That's all very well, but reading this thread, it seems to me that nobody here believes that Lee Oswald had an airtight alibi since he was with a Geraldine Reid, handing her a one-dollar bill so he could have change to buy a coke at the vending machine. That is what famous conspiracy-leaning researcher Robert Groden claims (in his latest book as well as in interviews, on radio or on television – see video below). That's what I would like to know : who agrees with him, here ? I know that so-called "lone nutters" such as David Von Pein won't agree with Robert Groden. I don't need his answer, I already have it. DVP would say that Oswald does not have an alibi and was NOT with "Geraldine Reid" at the time of the shooting. I also know what other researchers have said (for example, James DiEugenio, in his review of Groden's book, writes that he was mistaken and was somewhat bamboozled - https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/groden-robert-absolute-proof) But what about the so-called "conspiracy theorists" ? I mean, all the people here who reject the official version and claim to believe/conclude/suspect/know that there was a conspiracy and Oswald was either a patsy or altogether innocent (not guilty), or part of a plot, or a bystander, or anything you might suggest ? What do you think of Robert Groden's claim ? I'm interested to know.
  4. Thank you very much, David. At least, thanks to me, people will now know how to pronounce your name correctly. (that's my contribution to the JFK-assassination controversy) 😁
  5. 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.
  6. OK. Thank you very much. (I needed this information. The journalist is calling me in exactly half an hour...)
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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) ?
  11. 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".
  12. 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.
  13. 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 ?
×
×
  • Create New...