the Dreyfus affair, no support for the Kennedy assassination

[François Carlier]

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 ?

Edited January 14 by François Carlier

[Pat Speer]

28 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

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' fantasies are based on their distorted vision of the world, and their imagination, but certainly not on the real world.

What do you think ?

You make some good points, but overstate the case a bit. 

I think you should remove one point in particular--the bit about the Kennedys saying nothing. There is reason to believe both RFK and JBK suspected a conspiracy. RFK. Jr. has said so publicly, and has voiced his own suspicions. Ted Kennedy, as well, supported the HSCA, and I am unaware of his denouncing their conclusion of a probable conspiracy, or of his claiming no further investigation should be conducted. As far as the extended family, two of JFK's cousins attended the 2013 Lancer conference--they may have even passed you in the hall. Both voiced their support for the research community. 

Edited January 13 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, François Carlier said:

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' fantasies are based on their distorted vision of the world, and their imagination, but certainly not on the real world.

What do you think ?

Perhaps belatedly, but RFK2 has stated rather bluntly he believes the CIA was involved in the JFKA, and he vowed to open up the JFK Records, now suppressed by the Biden Administration snuff job. 

For me, you raise a key point: One cannot trust government commissions, or congressional investigations, or more-obviously, kangaroo courts and show trials, to come to the truth. 

Unless there is a vigorous adversarial process---a well-funded and adept defense team, on equal footing with government minions---you are likely reading a political narrative or expedient abstract.

That is the Warren Commission, the 9/11 report or even the 1/6 committee hearing. 

Unless there is vigorous defense counsel, and robust exploration of all agencies involved...you get Warren Commission-quality results, or the first Dreyfus trial results. 

This is is true, no matter one's partisan sentiments or biases. 

 

[François Carlier]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You make some good points, but overstate the case a bit. 

I think you should remove one point in particular--the bit about the Kennedys saying nothing. There is reason to believe both RFK and JBK suspected a conspiracy. RFK. Jr. has said so publicly, and has voiced his own suspicions. Ted Kennedy, as well, supported the HSCA, and I am unaware of his denouncing their conclusion of a probable conspiracy, or of his claiming no further investigation should be conducted. As far as the extended family, two of JFK's cousins attended the 2013 Lancer conference--they may have even passed you in the hall. Both voiced their support for the research community. 

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.

[Bill Fite]

8 hours ago, François Carlier said:

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' fantasies are based on their distorted vision of the world, and their imagination, but certainly not on the real world.

What do you think ?

Maybe it's just me, but....

I think you need to state precisely which "Kennedy conspiracists" that you are referring to.  

Those who believe:

1) LHO may / may not have been involved, may / may not have been the sole person to fire shots.

2) Others were involved & all shots from the 6th floor window or two windows on the 6th floor.

3) Conspiracy with multiple shots from multiple locations.

4) Conspiracy organized and run by *********.

I assume you are referring only to (4) in the paragraph quoted.  

However, the summary paragraph isn't clear which level of conspiracy is being referred to -> all conspiracies or a specific one?

 

 

[François Carlier]

12 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

Maybe it's just me, but....

I think you need to state precisely which "Kennedy conspiracists" that you are referring to.  

Those who believe:

1) LHO may / may not have been involved, may / may not have been the sole person to fire shots.

2) Others were involved & all shots from the 6th floor window or two windows on the 6th floor.

3) Conspiracy with multiple shots from multiple locations.

4) Conspiracy organized and run by *********.

I assume you are referring only to (4) in the paragraph quoted.  

However, the summary paragraph isn't clear which level of conspiracy is being referred to -> all conspiracies or a specific one?

 

 

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".

 

[François Carlier]

12 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

Maybe it's just me, but....

I think you need to state precisely which "Kennedy conspiracists" that you are referring to.  

Those who believe:

1) LHO may / may not have been involved, may / may not have been the sole person to fire shots.

2) Others were involved & all shots from the 6th floor window or two windows on the 6th floor.

3) Conspiracy with multiple shots from multiple locations.

4) Conspiracy organized and run by *********.

I assume you are referring only to (4) in the paragraph quoted.  

However, the summary paragraph isn't clear which level of conspiracy is being referred to -> all conspiracies or a specific one?

 

 

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) ?