When approaching the case of President Kennedy's assassination and the alleged conspiracy that followed, some are not content to rely on the original evidence and the entire record. In the debate between conspiracy advocates and critics, some display only the bias and evidence that supports their chosen side. Instead of just seeking all the facts, some from each group have clearly predetermined the result without full consideration.
"Common Sense, Facts, and the truth!" by Francois Carlier
The site's subtitle reveals much of Carlier's other ideas. To begin your statements declaring your theories are "the truth" is a bold claim and this might speak to the aforementioned bias. Despite the unverifiable claims, he proceeds with a clear disregard for opposing views. He does this based on interpretation and not repeated and thorough review of such claims using evidence.
"The researchers would be well advised to follow the rules of science, apply critical thinking, weigh the evidence available, ask pertinent questions to knowledgeable people, try to learn about common fallacies in reasoning so as to avoid making errors, be rigorous."
I would suggest he take some of his own advice and consult all the official files. Perhaps try sourcing the primary evidence before letting the opinions and hypotheses of others determine your view. Independent determination based on primary evidence is the essence of scientific inquiry. Merely stating that all who oppose your contention is wrong and providing no conclusive evidence is not compelling.
"I urge every person who wants to research the JFK assassination to start by reading the following book..."
Instead, I would suggest everyone start reading the primary sources first, this includes The President's "Warren" Commission Report, Hearings, and Executive transcripts. The Senate Select "Church" Commission Report and Hearings, the President's "Rockefeller" Report and Hearings, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations Report and Hearings. These primary sources reveal infinitely more than secondary interpretations, and they legally enjoy greater consideration. Unless the author includes a majority of official sources and supporting evidence with verification, his theories remain speculation.
"Conspiracy theorists can't be stopped in their dream world: they claim the X-rays were altered, the autopsy photos were altered, the backyard photos were altered, the body was altered, the Zapruder film was altered...."
Apparently, anyone disagreeing with his assertions is living in a "dream world", yet again he states "they" universally. He seemingly is defining all who believe in a possible conspiracy based on his personal experience. Unfortunately, this does not define the ideas of all who question the official story and thus, Carlier does not undertake the very scientific method he declares that others fail to use. He states without exception all who believe in conspiracy and modification of evidence are grasping at unsupported ideas. However, medical evidence was lost, it faced alteration between investigations, and this appears within the official record.i ii
"They also say the Mafia + the CIA + Johnson + the FBI + oil men + the DPD did it together. What a terrible country they are painting! But I will tell you what. As a Frenchman, I believe in your institutions. Your government is legal and sound and clear. There never was a conspiracy. You live in a democracy. Your country is a fine one, and I like it a lot. A lone nut killed your president, and that's all there is to it. It was a sad event. I liked John Kennedy a lot, he was a great president. I wish he was still alive! But I, for one, trust your government and your institutions. And I am not going to think otherwise because gullible people paint a big conspiracy where everybody was involved and every document forged!"
"They" are at it again, Carlier incorrectly attributes all those mentioned groups acting together is the belief of his critics. Yet this is not true of most conspiracy advocates and authors I have met. Of course, I would never state that my personal experience could be used to support such a claim. I would never claim all who oppose my contentions must be wrong and deluded and someone who does this seems wholly emotional and highly biased. Their approach to investigation is critically flawed, and ultimately these tactics prove nothing.
He continues, "Your government is legal and sound and clear", apparently, he has not paid much attention to the American government in the last five decades. He missed the multiple wars that were based on false information and incompetence. He forgets that a President was forced from office for corruption and unmentioned is the declassification of files about both the FBI "COINTELPRO Program" and the CIA's unsanctioned domestic operations. Official files prove United States government agencies were illegally spying on Americans for decades and conducting illegal operations. These actions are similar to the recent NSA Prism debacle; it seems the American government has not learned from their own history. I love America, but I do not trust the government in every instance without evidence, history guides me, not opinion.
"There never was a conspiracy... Your country is a fine one, and I like it a lot... a lone nut killed your president, and that's all there is to it"
These are more attempts to convince and evoke emotional responses. You do not need to tell us the character of America sir, for we are part of it. His affirmations are nothing more than Carlier's attempts at emotional wordplay. He is not alone in this method, those from both sides of the Assassination Conspiracy debate use similar inconsequential arguments. He speaks condescendingly as if the reader needs to only to consult his sources to obtain the truth, all without a shred of primary evidence.
"We have all the evidence, all the data we need."
Again, this speculation is highly unproven due to the unresolved status of the Kennedy case. I do not agree because some files are still sealed, but for the sake of debate, let us grant him this single point. If this were true, the first place one should gather evidence from is the actual primary documents and evidence! Not just from the well of your personal interpretation. Nor just from the documents, books, and facts that support your opinions and theories. Some critics and advocates rely on speculation and insults to carry the weight of their ideas, and they never do.
"It is hard to have a debate on the JFK assassination issue. The whole field is plagued by passion and guts, and therefore instead of arguments and logic and reasoning, we too often can only read ad hominem attacks. What is that? That occurs when someone attempts to refute a person's claim by attacking that person rather than the claim. It is a fallacy, i.e. a defective argument, one in which the premises do not provide an adequate basis for the conclusion. Indeed it is a fallacy because the person's character has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim"
Indeed, it is quite difficult at times to have a rational debate and some do rely on "ad hominem attacks". Among them is claiming persons or groups "can't be stopped in their dream world", and you disregard them "because gullible people paint a big conspiracy." After repeatedly using these methods Carlier eventually proves something. He demonstrates why many of his own statements do not rely on evidence or facts and he does not realize that apparently, but I do appreciate the assistance.
i. House Select Committee on Assassination Hearings, Appendix Volume VII, Section III, Part 1, pp. 1-11
ii. Memo from Doug Horne, Supervisory Analyst, sub: Unanswered questions raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the Department of Defense as the camera used at President Kennedy’s autopsy, Staff Memo, August 27, 1998, pp. 4-7