Regarding the April 13, 2004 Arte broadcast on the September 11 events (Thema series), reader reactions:
April 14, 2004
Film presented by: Daniel Leconte: “September 11 never happened,” by Barbara Necek and Antoine Vitkine.
April 15, 2004, some remarks
Readers are sending letters about this scandalous broadcast on Arte on April 13. Some suggest sending a kind of “petition letter” to the channel, thinking “that would carry more weight.” But it’s pointless. The content of this broadcast was enough to show just how rotten this media establishment is. Perhaps it’s always been rotten; we simply didn’t notice. What was subtle was that those holding the reins simply allowed shockingly biased documentaries to air, giving the illusion of press freedom. An illusion, since everything can be manipulated at will. The famous filmmaker Chris Marker showed this in his film “La Jetée.” We must learn to doubt everything and trust only ourselves. It’s easy to make it seem like there was a “shocking report” on the Khmer Rouge massacres, while hiding other realities. In our media, in all media, the spotlight shines only where it’s told to shine. When Meyssan appeared on Ardisson’s show, it was just a blunder. There are always minor blunders in these systems of information manipulation. Ardisson was called back to order, ordered to return to obscurity, just as my friend Jacques Pradel had done years earlier—he paid a price of five years of near-unemployment for his lack of conformity. This iron control over information must be “internalized” by journalists themselves, who must develop reflexes of self-censorship. It’s conditioning. We live in the world of Big Brother and Brazil. Pradel was too independent-minded; he kept his ethics. Ardisson reacted by trying to spark a debate which, as this “sociologist” Pierre Lagrange—whom I know all too well—states “shouldn’t happen.” I recall this “intellectual’s” remark at the moment when Pradel was bombarded with criticism:
“What undermines this ‘Roswell affair’ is its sheer improbability.”
When reading such statements, one feels tempted to cry out, “Is there a sociologist in the room?”
The message delivered to Ardisson, relayed by Thierry Thuillier, head of news at A2, was very simple: “Why does your moral conscience feel the need to express itself here? You’re not here to do that. You’re here to entertain and numb the audience. You stepped outside your role. Don’t do it again, else you’ll be fired.”
One must be blind and deaf not to realize the increasingly outrageous manipulation of the media toward the public. For instance, I came across an 18-page report, already old, in Paris-Match, “accompanying Alain Juppé during his ordeal.” Poor fellow: caught red-handed, this politician was condemned! It was necessary to evoke sympathy and compassion from the public, to show him as a distressed man, family head, husband, father, and so on.
Now, all we know is that we’re being lied to, and that this lie is everywhere. Yesterday I received a reminder from the magazine Ciel et Espace asking me to renew my subscription. I tossed it in the trash. I’m fed up with seeing this scientific magazine promote non-events while hiding crucial facts. I recall Alain Cirou, now editor-in-chief, who, as secretary of the French Astronomical Association, asked me years ago to give a lecture at the old École Polytechnique premises. Before I spoke, Cirou wanted to reveal he’d faced heavy pressure from scientists, politicians, and journalists to cancel my talk. That was his “heroic gesture.” He surely remembers that day well. Today he serves the mediocre crowd controlling the scientific sphere.
It took the independence and courage of Jean-Claude Pecker for me to speak at the Collège de France on February 2004 before a large audience. But aside from him and Narlikar, no renowned astrophysicists bothered to come. Too risky. I possess rapid-fire precision; many have collapsed during seminars, their theorems shot full in the forehead. I’m weary of these resignations, these illusions of science. Yesterday on the phone I spoke with a young member of the Epistémotron team. Maybe it’ll succeed. I must help this group of mostly computer specialists to spawn what could become “wild research” based on calculations shared by amateurs. In astrophysics sanctuaries, mediocrity dominates. At the Paris Institute of Astrophysics, at the Marseille Astrophysics Lab where I belonged, theoretical speculation rests in the hands of folks lacking ideas, imagination, competence—like Bosma, Athanassoula, Françoise Combes, Omont. These have all gone astray. I’m tired of this pseudo-science. Researchers cry out: “More posts, more funding!” True. But who’ll clean up these “Augean stables” that authorities wish to demolish to privatize research in the most idiotic way imaginable?
Because those governing us, if they’re as greedy as most other powers and essentially seek to serve money interests, aren’t merely dishonest; they’re inept, incompetent. In the U.S., much cash is undoubtedly squandered, as elsewhere. Yet these people enjoy a huge advantage: they lack structures like the École Polytechnique or ENA. They run research campaigns akin to warfare, removing losing generals. I demonstrated in my book how this gave them an edge. Conversely, why do our technoscientific media ignore events like “the X43 feat”? See images showing merely a wind tunnel model. Is this incompetence, or has the U.S. grown so powerful it can steer our media in whatever direction suits it?
The U.S. is the world’s most powerful nation. It possesses weapons capable of erasing any other nation from the map within hours. Which journalist would dare claim that America’s true motive for seizing Iraqi oil fields is to prevent China from ever gaining access? Which journalist would dare note that Chinese “Longue Marche” rockets might serve purposes other than “colonizing the Moon,” or that Russia’s Semiorka rocket, boasting an 8000-kilometer range, exists for purposes other than putting a man in space?
We saw on this site references to lawsuits, including one against Robert Alessandri. We saw how the defamation lawsuit system is used to crush men without mercy, simply to silence them, to stop them from presenting undeniable evidence exposing blatant incompetence. We also saw via OVNITHON how a mere hundred citizens, with a few modest checks, could thwart this state terrorism. We see how a simple website enables this solidarity surge and how this “minor affair” threatens to discredit a service whose sole aim, for 28 years, has been to mislead people—just as its director (now sole member) prepares to publish “his” book, slated for release April 24, 2004. Once I find time, I’ll post the entire file online. One must fear defamation lawsuits; thus I must produce contents from issue #29 of a magazine called “Ovni-Presence” dating to March 1984—twenty years ago. To minimize risk, it’s best to reproduce this document entirely. Twenty years is ample time for a three-month press statute, if I recall correctly. CNES would be heavily implicated in what turned out to be a lamentable attempt at scientific plunder ending in total failure. The scandal forced Gepan’s dissolution and the transfer of its three engineers: Alain Esterle, Bernard Zappoli, and Alain Caubel. Gepan became Sepra, and “honest Velasco,” an optics technician, was promptly placed in charge. The document sits on my desk. This work must be done; that’s all. And it dates back twenty years. Twenty years of incompetence, blunders, and utter foolishness. But don’t be fooled: the architects of this mess still secretly control ever more dubious operations, thirty years behind the U.S.
It’s utterly mind-boggling to hear in Arte’s April 13 program that criticizing America means criticizing democracy. We’re currently obtaining a copy of this broadcast. I believe it constitutes, at least for me, a historic event. We’ve seen countless times footage of the World Trade Center towers collapsing. Watching this film, my remaining faith in journalism evaporated. This April 13 was for me the equivalent of September 11 in terms of information.
There’s a TV show, I believe it’s “Arrêt sur Image,” offering a possible self-criticism by the media. Will its host discuss this “documentary” on September 11 conspiracy theories? Our own “World Trade Center” collapsed that night while we watched Arte’s Thema broadcast. So, what must we do?
Seemingly, despite all its flaws, the Web remains humanity’s sole realm of freedom, though it can certainly be a breeding ground for all sorts of disinformation and falsehoods. It’s no coincidence that the French government tries to regulate the Net via the Faure law. The danger of this freedom of speech, which I exercise here, has been perfectly grasped.
I might subscribe to the Voltaire Network, now a paid newspaper. Why not? For journalism to thrive, journalists must eat. Perhaps the future lies in this kind of press? Everything’s changing now. Even scientists are starting to shun their “publication journals,” with all the risks this entails. But how can we proceed when mediocrity, cowardice, lying, and censorship infect every structure of our society?
Despite all its flaws, the Web remains humanity’s last bastion of liberty.
Jean-Pierre Petit, April 15, 2004