Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 6

Specifically with respect to the nature of edits such as this one by User:Canada Jack, we should be careful not to attempt to nullify the HSCA's findings here. Its conclusion, "on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy" certainly has many detractors, but notwithstanding, as no other official process has ever risen to overturn it, there really is no basis for us to do so either (whether by drawing on certain interpretations of its validity by some other party or otherwise comparing it to any other (independent) federal investigation). Earl of Arundel (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Earl. I reverted your incorrect assertion that the conclusion of "conspiracy" was "partly" based on the acoustic evidence. In fact, as is stated in the report dissent, the conclusion was ENTIRELY predicated on that evidence, other evidence "tended" to corroborate that conclusion (witness reports etc). This is said explicitly in Edgar's dissent:

Was there a conspiracy? I agree with the December 13, 1978, first draft of our final report which states on page 64

"The committee finds that the available scientific evidence is insufficient to find that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy."

Up to that moment in the life of the committee, we were prepared to go to the American people with this conclusion. Only after the report of Mark R. Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy [i.e. the dictabelt evidence], in the 11th hour of our investigation, was the majority persuaded to vote for two gunmen and a conspiracy. I respectfully dissented.

Canada Jack (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

An added note here. This is no trivial point. While Earl of Arundel is correct to note that nothing will change the conclusion of the HSCA, as that was what they concluded in 1979, the fact that the acoustic evidence was cited within the very report itself as having changed the conclusion of insufficient evidence of conspiracy to one of probable conspiracy, and the fact that this evidence was subsequently found to be incorrect, means it is pertinent to underline the basis of the conspiracy conclusion was this tainted evidence. (It was the scientific evidence, btw, which drove the conspiracy conclusion, not the other evidence - such as witness accounts, other potential conspirators, Oswald's relationship with certain people, etc.) Canada Jack (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I will say this. The HSCA report is indeed an inherently paradoxical document, and this I think is really the main source of confusion. On one hand it topically categorizes its findings and lays out the evidence accordingly. On closer inspection, however, its acceptance of said evidence as fact is rather noncommittal which, admittedly, does not reflect consistently with the conclusions reached! And also, as you point out, a lot of the discussion between members does seem to focus on the weight of the acoustical evidence. So that leaves us, as editors, with the conundrum of either presenting its findings as verbatim (almost pedantically) or otherwise by stretch of implication. Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be somewhere in between, such as "(The HSCA's ruling was largely based on analysis of...)" or some such. Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you saw the need to go to the NO OR page here, Arundel. I am rather well-versed in the subject and further discussion would have allowed me to present material from the Report itself which established my position - that the conclusion of "conspiracy" was solely driven by the acoustic evidence. It's not my interpretation, it's the exact view of two of the committee members! The following is what I posted on the NO OR page in response to your posting.:

Earl of Arundel has this exactly backwards. He cites no source to back his claim that the HSCA's conclusion of "conspiracy" in regards to the Kennedy assassination was "partially" driven by the acoustic evidence. It's not there in what he posted, indeed the only actual evidence cited... is the acoustic evidence. So he is the one engaged in original research - actually, not even that, as he cites no source for his claim, and what he has posted heavily implies that it was the sole driving force behind the conclusion.

The dispute here arises because I omitted "partially." In fact the conclusion was driven solely by the acoustic evidence, and I presented the reference which states exactly that. From the Report's dissent by committee member Robert Edgar:

Was there a conspiracy? I agree with the December 13, 1978, first draft of our final report which states on page 64

"The committee finds that the available scientific evidence is insufficient to find that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy."

Up to that moment in the life of the committee, we were prepared to go to the American people with this conclusion. Only after the report of Mark R. Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy [i.e. the dictabelt ::::evidence], in the 11th hour of our investigation, was the majority persuaded to vote for two gunmen and a conspiracy. I respectfully dissented.

I didn't post the following, but from the same HSCA Report, a dual dissent by Samuel Devine and Robert Edgar which buttresses my contention:

"The testimony of acoustical experts was given such weight that most committee members were persuaded that a fourth shot was fired at Kennedy." and "Based on this evidence and testimony [the acoustic evidence], a majority of the select committee concluded there was a 'high probability of a conspiracy.'" And, from Edgar's separate dissent, an even more explicit link to the evidence and the "conspiracy" conclusion: "We found no evidence to suggest a conspiracy. We found no gunmen or evidence of a gunman. We found no gun, no shells, no impact of shots from the grassy knoll. We found no entry wounds from the front into any person, including President John Kennedy and Gov. John Connally. We found no bullets or fragments of bullets that did not belong to the Oswald weapon. And we found little, if any, evidence of partnership with Lee Harvey Oswald. Few credible ear-witness accounts back up the marginal findings of our acoustics experts." Further, in asking questions about the acoustic evidence, he says this: "Do we know enough to make our judgment on conspiracy accurate? To the last question, I say no." This again underlines the fact that the acoustic evidence drove the conclusion. And... "Did we rush to a conspiratorial conclusion? I believe that exhibit "A" will clearly demonstrate a rush to conspiratorial conclusions." For Exhibit "A," see below.

Edgar in his dissent reproduced in several columns the changes in conclusions from the initial Dec 13 1978 draft.

DRAFT REPORT: "There is insufficient evidence to find that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy."

FINAL REPORT: "Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that 2 gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of 2 gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations."

The only evidence which they had been presented between the Dec 13 draft and the Dec 29 final report wa the conclusion regarding the dictabelt evidence. The witness testimony was only cited as it generally corroborated that revised conclusion - it didn't suffice on its own to warrant that conclusion as is clear from the draft report.

There is no "original research", no "synthesis" here, my point that the acoustic evidence drove the conclusion of "conspiracy" is explicitly from the Report itself, and Earl of Arundel has thus far posted nothing to back his contention that the dictabelt only partly drove the conclusion. Canada Jack (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Canada Jack (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The onus is on you, Earl of Arundel, to cite something which says the conclusion of conspiracy was only "partially" driven by the acoustic evidence. So far, you've failed to do so. It wasn't in the conclusions you posted to the NO OR page - indeed, as I said above, the only evidence cited in that conclusion... was the acoustic evidence, implying exactly what I claimed! Canada Jack (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have in fact cited very plainly which specific paragraphs (that is, 1.B. and 1.C.) in the HSCA report refer to each conclusion in question. The statements of dissenting members are not nearly as relevant, as their views are in substance immaterial to (as they are in conflict with) the official findings of the report (hence, the reason for their dissent).Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The dissent spells out the original conclusion before the dictabelt evidence was presented, and the changed conclusion after the evidence was presented, thus establishing the case the dissenting members of the committee made. Further, the two dissenting members explicitly state that it was this evidence which drove the conclusion, and it was on this basis I changed the text. The onus is on you to identify where the Committee's conclusion only "partly" was driven by the acoustic evidence. You have yet to identify where this is to be found in the Report. The paragraphs you cite fail to state what you claim here.

IOW, I have cited sources for my claim, you have failed to cite a source for your claim. Canada Jack (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your views on this, Arundel. My views are not particularly controversial - the fact the committee changed their conclusion based on the acoustic evidence has been known, well, since 1979. It would be easy to cite numerous secondary sources which make the precise point I am making, but the evidence from the Report's dissent is quite strong. Are you aware of the long and tortured history of the HSCA? They had drafted their report after 2 years of hearings by the end of 1978. Then, the acoustic evidence was presented, changing the conclusion. I've even posted the original conclusions!

But, as I said, the onus is on you to show where the conclusion only "partly" came from the acoustic evidence. The fact you think this is Original Reseach on my part says to me you weren't previously aware of the history of the HSCA, or were relying too heavily on biased sources who had their facts wrong, or had omitted pertinent information. Canada Jack (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• i agree with Jack from Canada, not with Earl from Arundel. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Rather than continue discussion of this issue on CanadaJack's talk page, I'm just reposting the most current comments from there to here:

What "synthesis" of the report are you talking about? The dissent quite plainly describes the change in the fundamental conclusion of the committee owing to the receipt of the dictabelt evidence. The only one who is imposing their personal beliefs here is you, a belief that the conclusion was derived from multiple lines of evidence when the conclusion itself cites only one piece of evidence suggesting multiple gunmen - the dictabelt evidence! This is not controversial, Earl, and I'm amazed you are extending this debate this far. Canada Jack (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Follow the layout of the report carefully and you will readily see that the findings are organized in a logical fashion. Exactly four of them are delineated, but only two concern the possible involvement of co-conspirators: again, they are 1.B. and 1.C. . Each of those two individual findings contain corresponding sets of evidence and the discussions thereof; the first set addresses the acoustical evidence that ostensibly led to the conclusion reached in the first finding, and similarly the second set specifically addresses the "probable existence" of conspiracy concluded in the second finding. Those are the only official findings relevant to our discussion here. Full stop. The opinions of the dissenting members are at direct conflict and in direct opposition with these findings. Maybe the rulings were changed at the eleventh hour or ninety-nine percent of the internal debate really did focus on the role of the dictabelt evidence with respect to possible conspiracy. It's all interesting and notable, but it just doesn't change the fact that the findings are the findings, and those alone should be used as the final word in the commission's overall assessment. And this is what puzzles me about your insistence on emphasising the importance of the opinions of dissent. Because it's synthesis insofar as it's essentially heresay, strictly speaking. For all it's worth, a dissenting member could just as well have asserted that Kennedy had instead been zapped by Martian death-rays and it wouldn't really matter. So he dissents, and that's fine. That's the whole point of dissenting opinion, after all. Earl of Arundel (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The onus is on you, Earl of Arundel, to cite something which says the conclusion of conspiracy was only "partially" driven by the acoustic evidence.

OK, here's what the Report says: "On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy." Obviously, the Dealey Plaza witnesses did not testify re the Dictabelt. Case closed. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The answer was in front of our face all this time on the article of House Select Committee on Assassinations itself, maybe it was even staring at us and maybe it was having fits cuz of the laughter:

Although the HSCA had prepared a draft report confirming the Warren Commission's single shooter theory and finding no evidence of conspiracy, at the eleventh hour, the committee was swayed by a since-disputed acoustic analysis of a dictabelt police channel recording.^[1]: 495 This acoustic analysis of the dictabelt recording by the firm Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc. concluded that four shots were fired at the president, thus causing the HSCA to reverse its earlier position and report "that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."^[1]: 9 In terms of scientific evidence, the HSCA acknowledged that the existence of a second shooter was only supported by this acoustic analysis.^[1]: 84

• As I was involved in this discussion, I can not close it. I request to @Acroterion and Ad Orientem: or any other editor (preferably an admin) familiar with the subject who wasnt part of this discussion to close it, with appropriate result/reasoning in he header. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm far too heavily INVOLVED with this article to close a contentious discussion thread. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@El C: All the discussions were about the conclusion of HSCA. This was the very same reason for the edit war in which you provided the sanction (the first time we met). I am aware i can not close it, so I made request to at least four admins (including you), and two-three other editors. Everybody denied closing it by providing different(!) reasons. After that, I even took the request to "request for closure" board, where you commented on the request.

Basis for closing: The other editor kept on saying that there were "other factors" on which HSCA based the conclusion of conspiracy. The source provided above clearly states that the conclusion was based solely on the acoustical/dictabelt evidence. It was a factual closing, not based on opinions/consensus. Purely on facts. So i thought me being a primary participant wouldnt be an issue. And apparently, nobody else could do it for some or other reason.

What was i supposed to do? Was I supposed to leave an incorrect conclusion out there? I closed it by myself as a last option. Before that, I tried to get it closed by others, I even requested the, to be logical, and impartial (I didnt request anybody to provide a judgement in my favour). As you can see, in the comment above this one, I requested to Acroterion, and Ad Orientem or any other editor (preferably an admin) familiar with the subject who wasnt part of this discussion to close it, with appropriate result/reasoning in he header.

As per "having this discussion indefinitely", this discussion is not about philosophy. It is purely factual. As the Earth revolves around the Sun, or Ruby killed Oswald. Pure facts.

I again make the same request to you: please close these discussions in similar manner to that I did. But please take the decision that you think is the correct. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with El C. There really is no need to close all of these discussion, particularly since things seem stable now. Is there something in the article that you want to see changed? -Location (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Location and El C: No i just want to make it sure that nobody gets confused about the facts. The fact was, and still is, that the HSCA based its conclusion of conspiracy solely on the acoustic/dictabelt evidence. Nothing more than that.

You two are right though. I think my own comments at the bottom citing HSCA is enough to evade the confusion. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"The fact was, and still is, that the HSCA based its conclusion of conspiracy solely on the acoustic/dictabelt evidence."

Incorrect. "On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy." Also, re "organized crime' and "anti-Castro Cuban groups", "available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved". Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Although the HSCA had prepared a draft report confirming the Warren Commission's single shooter theory and finding no evidence of conspiracy, at the eleventh hour, the committee was swayed by a since-disputed acoustic analysis of a dictabelt police channel recording.^[1]: 495 This acoustic analysis of the dictabelt recording by the firm Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc. concluded that four shots were fired at the president, thus causing the HSCA to reverse its earlier position and report "that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."^[1]: 9 In terms of scientific evidence, the HSCA acknowledged that the existence of a second shooter was only supported by this acoustic analysis.^[1]: 84

—usernamekiran(talk) 20:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, witness testimony is not "scientific". Unscientific evidence can also support the conclusion, and apparently it did since the HSCA included it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Kiran, everyone is entitled to their interpretation of the facts. What the facts constitute is guided by consensus. Closing the discussion to make preeminent one participant's view of the facts, seems problematic. Doubly so when done by that same participant. I see nothing wrong with having this discussion open for other editors to further comment on. Why should it be frozen for one view to be represented above all others simply because its proponent deems it the factual one? It doesn't work like that on Wikipedia. We have mechanisms in place to close discussions and this seems far from being a suitable candidate. Again, except for RMs and RfCs, regular discussions are not closed anywhere except perhaps AN/I, XfD, etc. Not unless the discussion becomes so highly toxic, it's better closed. El_C 05:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• @El C: I thought it was actually a factual one, I didnt realise it was only me who thought it was factual.
• @Joegoodfriend: yes, HSCA did consider the testimonies in the report. But based on the testimonies, but based on the testimonies HSCA "confirmed the Warren Commission's single shooter theory and finding no evidence of conspiracy..." HSCA based its conclusion of four shots solely on acoustical evidence. Four shots being fired "caused the HSCA to reverse its earlier position and report "that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.""

• "In terms of scientific evidence, the HSCA acknowledged that the existence of a second shooter was only supported by this acoustic analysis." Other scientific evidence had nothing to do with fourth shot. It was regarding the shots being fired from TSBD, and the bullets were fired using the same carcano rifle found in TSBD, and the direction of shots.

• In conclusion, HSCA concluded a "possible conspiracy" only because of four shots; the conclusion of four shots was based only on dictabelt evidence. So the conclusion of "possible conspiracy" was in turn based only on dictabelt evidence. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Material cited to conspiracy believer Michael Parenti's website has been added multiple times. The material from that website states:

Sociologist David Simone compiled a study of the books published on the Kennedy assassination, some 600 titles, and found that 20 percent of them blamed either a lone assassin or the mafia or the Cubans or Russians. The other 80 percent ascribed the assassination to a conspiracy linked to U.S. intelligence agencies, some of these also saying that mobsters were involved at the operational level. Ignoring this 80 percent of the literature, publications like the New York Times and Washington Post have listed the various theories about the JFK assassination as follows: (a) lone assassin, (b) mafia, (c) Cubans/Soviets, and (d) the "Oliver Stone movie theory." In other words, they ignore the existence of a vast literature from which the movie is derived and ascribe the critical theme presented within the film solely to the imagination of a film maker. The press would have us believe that the notion of a state-sponsored assassination conspiracy and coverup came out of a movie--when actually the movie was based on a rich and revealing investigative literature.

First, Michael Parenti is not a reliable source for information on the assassination of JFK. This particular section is Parenti's attempt to support the "state within a state" conspiracy. Second, the material is self-published. Third, the only hits I can find for a sociologist named "David Simone" are linked to Parenti's writings. -Location (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The premise that a survey of books published on the subject should drive how the New York Times and other mainstream sources in how they characterize who shot Kennedy is, in a word, nonsense. Since the vast majority of books on the Roswell UFO incident conclude aliens were involved, should the New York Times and other mainstream sources therefore routinely declare aliens were found in Roswell in 1947 and the government has been engaged in a coverup ever since?

But, on the merits, the "rich and revealing investigative literature" routinely dismisses the notion that Oswald had anything to do with the assassination, despite the reams of evidence linking him to the crime. In so doing, they make groundless claims that Oswald, despite this evidence, was framed, claiming that evidence was planted or forged without explaining how this possibly could have been done. They further ignore or dismiss the forensic evidence and techniques which establish with virtually no room for doubt that Oswald and Oswald alone fired shots at the limosine. This is why the majority of the "rich and revealing investigative literature" is considered fringe as they start with the premise that Oswald didn't do it.

Even if we are willing to put aside that and say for the sake of argument that Oswald did it alone but had a conspiracy behind him, well, this "rich and revealing investigative literature," after some 50 years of being on the case, has come to no consensus amongst the many players, who actually was behind the assassination. From the lede: Former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi estimated that a total of 42 groups, 82 assassins, and 214 people had been accused at one time or another in various conspiracy scenarios.

The premise there was a conspiracy rests on the notion snipers other than Oswald were firing at the president. The official investigations destroy this notion, so the claims are the evidence was forged and/or planted, a fringe position to take. But if the list of potential actors in concert with Oswald includes 42 groups (!) then clearly on its face conpiracy authors are grasping at straws in making their cases, which is why, unless there is a mainstream consensus that a particular player (not Oswald) was behind the assassination, the official conclusions are the mainstream consensus. Canada Jack (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There will always be 'idle chatter' on 'how to get rid of "this" President'/'what would happen if "this President" were ousted/died' etc; there will always be those who, for whatever reasons wish to be disruptive influencers (even by asking 'what is the price of a pint of milk?').

Intending assassins can operate for a wide range of motives - political, seeing the victim as dangerous in some manner, 'operating from a viewpoint others consider disturbed', revenge, misunderstandings and 'will nobody get rid of this disruptive priest' etc.

There is clear evidence that Oswald was involved in shooting JFK - he had the means, the location etc: the problem is that he gave no indication as to motives and they cannot be deduced from the material left. There were also a number of disconnects #at the time# - the assassination (and why should those in the repository think that a member of staff would be involved), the death of Tippett, events in the cinema etc. Jack Ruby never gave information as to why he shot Oswald (and from what I understand it was pure chance that he was in the position to do so).

Oswald had a range of associations with some of those who would have wanted Kennedy out of the way - but no evidence has emerged of any of them actively aiding him.

In the 53+ years since JFK's death no conclusive details have emerged to prove any person or group actively involved in aiding the assassination. (And we never hear of the cases where a 'notional Oswald' is distracted from going to the sniper site until after the victim has passed/reports in sick etc.) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

he had the means, the location etc: the problem is that he gave no indication as to motives and they cannot be deduced from the material left. Sure, there will be, as in most criminal cases, basic unanswered questions. But the "unknown motive" point is a common fallacy. Understanding WHY someone did a criminal act is not necessary for conviction if the evidence is sufficient to establish responsibility for the criminal act. Sure, it is always more satisfying to know the why, but it mainly comes into play when the evidence is ambiguous or non-existence. So, the husband who had a lot of money to gain by the "accidental" death of his wife but is only connected circumstantially to her death might see the prosecution play up motive. But here we have ample evidence to link Oswald to the crime and the why will never be known, though there are some likely theories. Unfortunately, also in this case, if you exclude Oswald from the crime, and simply ask who benefits from JFK's death, then the gates are open to dozens, hundreds of theories of who had the most to gain. But motive, without evidence linking the person or group to the crime, is of not much worth. But it is what most of the conspiracy claims are based upon. Canada Jack (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There are cases where there are motives adduced, however illogical they appear to others (Spencer Percival). The point is - most of the supposed 'initiators of the conspiracy to kill the President' would have had more benefit and/or less dis-benefit on discovery if they had merely interfered with the 1964 election/put pressure on the President than from actually assassinating him. (There will have been people who made use of circumstances or who were not averse to JFK being removed from office - and there would have been many opportunities for people to have confessions attached to their wills/released X years after their deaths.)

We have probably all been in the situation where the significance of something encountered or heard etc only becomes apparent long after the event (and 'if only I had saved this first edition/recording it would now be a very valuable thing' etc).

Most people will accept that the balance of evidence is that LHO was involved in the shooting, that some of the 'conspiracies' etc were based on misinformation (the seating arrangement of the car being one aspect) or information not being recorded/considered relevant at the time - and that if there had been something weird going evidence would have emerged by now.

And if Oswald had left a full confession and there had been an evidence trail that wrapped everything up there would still be conspiracy theories/claims of false flag operations etc. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan in 1981. Just as an interesting aside, he fired 6 shots but none of them hit the President directly. However the shooting occurred right next to the President's Limousine and, needless to say, the car was bulletproof. As a result, the bullet ricocheted off the car and hit Reagan in the chest; causing him a serious injury. It's an interesting story because you would hope that a bulletproof car would prevent the President from being shot; not become an accessory???

But I digress!

John Hinckley Jr.'s motive was his obsession with actress Jodie Foster. He figured that killing Reagan would make him an important person and that Jodie Foster would then reciprocate his feelings once his infamy made him her equal. The fact that Ronald Reagan was the target was effectively just luck. He had followed President Jimmy Carter around for some time but was arrested on firearm charges. By the time he had some money and was ready to try again, Reagan had beaten Carter at the election and taken over the Presidency.

Now then ... if John Hinckley Jr. had been killed during the assassination attempt, what would be the likelihood of someone figuring out that his motive was to impress actress Jodie Foster??? Virtually nil I would say! The point being that it isn't difficult to come up with potential motives for Lee Harvey Oswald, but ultimately we don't really know what his motive was because he was killed. However we know that he had tried and failed to assassinate someone else already, that he was pro-Cuba, that he was a nobody who wanted to be a somebody, etc., etc., etc., all of which does not supply a definitive motive - as has been pointed out - but which certainly enables us to theorise about potential motives which are a lot 'better' than wanting to impress Jodie Foster so that she would fall in love with him??? FillsHerTease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. We think of John Wilkes Booth and his revenge for the South, or Sirhan Sirhan for the anniversary of the Six Days War and RFK's support for Israel, both clear and rational motives (outside of the irrational act of murder) but often the motive is something not very rational at all, like with Hinkley and, say, Son of Sam, who was following the orders of a neighbour's dog. If anything, motive can describe the mental state of the perpetrator which might affect his culpability. Canada Jack (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Current media sensationalism about the new documents must be backed by documents shown on the National Archives website.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007101304/http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theories/Second_Primer/Second_primer.html to http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theories/Second_Primer/Second_primer.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031023104538/http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_826.pdf to http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/wh17_ce_826.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813044440/http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr19.html to http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr19.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126122954/http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guardian.html to http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guardian.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213212741/http://www.jfkresearch.com/prologue.htm to http://www.jfkresearch.com/prologue.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214235845/http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Conspiracy_theories/Primer/Primer_of_assassination_theories.html to http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theories/Primer/Primer_of_assassination_theories.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722232539/http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=MDYzM2MyMDIwMjRiNWZlY2RlZjc3ZDY4YjAxMjBiM2Q= to http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=MDYzM2MyMDIwMjRiNWZlY2RlZjc3ZDY4YjAxMjBiM2Q=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903145804/http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/LIPSEY.TXT to http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/LIPSEY.TXT
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501032813/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/09/23/1008075/work-on-gadhafis-ny-tent-halted to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/09/23/1008075/work-on-gadhafis-ny-tent-halted

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I've just corrected an error in the text, see the reference I give.

The text as it was is a very common mistake made by people who criticise Donahue's work without actually reading it! And following the publication of JFK: The Smoking Gun, we can expect more and more of it. McLaren's work is worth a read too, but it is nowhere near as thorough as Donahue's. But many reviewers assume that, having read McLaren, they don't need to read the work on which it is based but can pretend they have. Bad mistake. See here for just one example. Andrewa (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if that is truly a "correction," as it is not a standard view that the neck wound was "probably fatal." A "cracked vertebrae" is not something reported in the autopsy - only in the HSCA report is there a reported "defect" in C6, not a "crack." Further, JFK's immediate reaction to being shot there is to throw his arms up - hardly the reaction of someone who has just been rendered a "quadriplegic." Since the standard view is that JFK would have survived the neck wound, it would make more sense to identify who says it was "probably fatal" in the text rather than as a reference, or simply state something like "Oswald was responsible for the non-fatal wounds according to this theory, but Hickey for the fatal wound" etc. Canada Jack (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very well said. But I need to ask, have you actually read the book?

This is not about what actually happened. This is about what Donahue and Menninger claim happened.

Disagree that there is a standard view.

Agree that more rephrasing might be good.

But disagree that "Oswald was responsible for the non-fatal wounds according to this theory, but Hickey for the fatal wound" in any way accurately represents the Donahue theory. That is the very mistake I am trying to avoid, one that many reviewers make, and which reveals that they simply have not read the book, or at least not at all carefully.

If you have a copy of the book handy, have a look at Chapter Seven "Kennedy's Unknown Wound". This explains Kennedy's throwing his arms up... it's in response to the first shot, which (according to the theory) missed the car completely, but a ricochet fragment from it struck Kennedy in the scalp (the "unknown wound"). It's the second shot that then cracked his vertabra. My online synopsis of the book doesn't actually mention the reason for the chapter title... perhaps I should. The book does describe the head wound as fatal, and I think there is no question that it was. What is in question is, was Kennedy already severely wounded, and probably dying, before the head wound? In Chapter 15, it is clearly stated that (according to the theory) he was.

The book also goes into the problems with the reports to which you refer, in some detail (but McLaren does not of course). But just to recap, this isn't about our own interpretations of those various reports, enquiries, etc. (any more than it's about McLaren). It's purely about accurately reporting what Menninger and Donahue say. Andrewa (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No I've not read the book, which underlines my point. The line as written assumes the reader has. To say the other wound was "probably fatal" needs to be identified as the opinion of the author(s). Virtually no one else makes this claim. And I can cite a pile of official - and unofficial, for that matter - sources wich say as much, so this view has to be identified as coming from the author. And, again, you say that his "vertabra was cracked" - HSCA assessment of the x-rays revealed that C6 was grazed by a bullet - it wasm't "cracked," though in his later years JFK suffered with the effects of 3 cracked vertabrae, a consequence of his osteoporosis.

In sum, I am not arguing the veracity of the theory, I am saying because some of the claims are not the standard view, it must be identified as such. The easiest soultion is to remove "probably fatally" and leave as is otherwise. Because if you are to include those words, you should say in the text and not as a footnote something like "...alleges that while Oswald did attempt to assassinate JFK and did succeed in wounding him, according to the author probably fatally, [434] the shot that struck him in the head was accidentally fired..." This all somewhat distracts from the main claim - Hickey's shot - and gets bogged down on side issues which are debateable (as is the Hickey claim in the first place - he is on film sitting when the claimed shot was fired). Canada Jack (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, you do seem to be (again) expressing an opinion on the theory. I make no secret of the fact that I personally find it convincing, and recommend that you read the book before making a judgement, but that's up to you of course. And it's only one of more than a thousand such books!

And again, agree that further rephrasing would be good. And we both need to be very careful not to insert our personal assessments in doing this. Andrewa (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the theory is impossible because Hickey is on film, seated, when the head shot struck. But the corrections I suggested need to be implemented. Easiest is to remove the two words "probably fatal." Claiming the shot to the neck was fatal isn't the central claim here and is not needed. Canada Jack (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

But the book does make this claim. Why would you wish to remove this content? Otherwise, it seems as if Donahue is in some way holding Hickey responsible, which again he was very careful not to do.

See #What this talk page is not for whether the theory is impossible. Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I recently added a quote by RFK, but it was falsely called vandalism by BrandonTR. I Think it should be added. It's from a great source, Bobby Kennedy himself. Here it is:

...divine retribution. He said that. Then he went on and said that, when he was growing up, somebody he knew - who had misbehaved - was on a sled or something, ran into a tree, hit his head, and became cross-eyed. He said that was God's retribution for people who were bad. So you should be careful of cross-eyed people because God put his mark on them. And this might very well be God's retribution to President Kennedy... ^{(Source: Cite book|title=Robert Kennedy In His Own Words: The Unpublished Recollections of the Kennedy Years|last=Kennedy|first=Robert|publisher=Bantam|year=1989|isbn=978-0553346619|location=United States|pages=105)}

I know I could have added more around this quote to make it flow better and I will try to do that and I hope others will to. I'm fine with someone deleting it as well, if they have a constructive reason and a bit of helpful criticism, but just shouting "vandalism" doesn't help. HAL333 02:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree it's not vandalism, instead it's a good-faith edit. Problem is, while it's a lovely quote, how does this fit into a page on conspiracies to kill JFK? Unless there's a "God did it" conspiracy! Canada Jack (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the big thing here is that LBJ said that JFK deserved it. Although not quite an admission of guilt, it is definitely an endorsement of Kennedy's killing. It shows that LBJ is a ruthless guy, who said that Kennedy deserved to have his head blown off. HAL333 22:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The text says the following:Brugioni recalls seeing a "white cloud" of brain matter, three or four feet above Kennedy's head, and says that this "spray" lasted for more than one frame of the film. The version of the Zapruder film available to the public depicts the fatal head shot on only one frame of the film, frame 313.

Perhaps it's just the way it is written. However, the text seems to imply that the 'white cloud' did not last for more than one frame of the film. What is meant by "depicts the fatal head shot on only one frame of the film"? Obviously, the impact itself is only on frame 313. But the physical reaction of Kennedy's head matter does indeed carry on until at least Z-316, if not 317. The quality of the film doesn't make it clear by 317, and by 318 Zapruder had introduced camera shake (probably in reaction to the sound of the shot). But it's certainly clear that there is a plume of tissue and blood above Kennedy's head up to and including Z-316, and the projectiles of presumably parts of his skull or brain are clearly visible in both 313 and 314 (and possibly also 315).

It's not actually easy to talk about this, for me. And I've had to watch the bloody scene for the six hundreth time now! Anyway, I think the second sentence may need reworded for clarity.

Also, what is meant by "the Zapruder film available to the public"? Surely there was only one Zapruder, and one Zapruder film of the event? There may have been multiple prints made (and I'm not sure how many of these are publically available), but I think this needs clarification also. As in, "The Zapruder film available to the public..." --82.21.97.70 (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the 4th paragraph of the "Alleged inconsistencies" section has a long list of various investigation inconsistencies in a sentence that is kind of hard to read - unwieldy even. It's 154 words long and the list grammar/formatting is borderline questionable. I think this information would be better conveyed in a breakout bullet point form. If not that, maybe it would be better to parse it out into multiple sentences.

I'm new to wiki editing, so I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss this. Feel free to let me know if this isn't the right approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanesmo (talk • contribs) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing/hearing anyone in the staircase she was on the fourth floor2600:1700:4000:62E0:6903:9276:56E:9576 (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

What is your point? Are you suggesting a change to the article? Sundayclose (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is tied to the conspiratorial view that Oswald did not walk down the stairs at the TSBD, therefore, he could not have been the six floor assassin. I seem to recall Canada Jack reiterated the WC view on this at least once a long time ago. There are many examples of testimonial inconsistencies like this, so I don't think this one is enough to change the article. [Edit: found the WC bit here.] - Location (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the WC covered this and her testimony indicated that she didn't see or hear Baker/Truly either. Since she came down and saw Lovelady, she had to have descended after Oswald descended and Truly/Baker ascended, or not see them when they encountered Oswald in the vestibule on the 2nd floor. The other salient point is that SOMEONE was firing shots from the 6th floor, there are multiple witnesses that establish that, and that someone still had to escape down the stairs, even if it wasn't Oswald, further suggesting that Adams was incorrect in how long it was before she descended - maybe a minute or two rather than mere seconds. Canada Jack (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The "Prayer Man" theory, to begin with, is bogus as far as its claim that it shows Lee Harvey Oswald in the shadows on the front steps of the Depository during the assassination, however, as far as Wikipedia rules, the entry itself is not credible and is based on false claims in almost every sentence of the entry...First off the claim that Prayer Man is a man is wrong and has been proven to be a female...In 2016 digital photo expert Chris Davidson managed to enhance the NBC newsreel "Wiegman Film" in which Prayer Man is seen and brought out the face of a woman on Prayer Man...Also - the hands in a praying position that is the source of Prayer Man's moniker is actually that woman holding her purse up in front of her...Photo analysis showed that Prayer Man is wearing a uniform-colored dress from shoulder to knee and not showing the color breaks between Oswald's shirt, belt, and pants...This once again confirms that Prayer Man is a woman...Whoever wrote the article entered the false claim that Marina Oswald confirmed that Prayer Man was Lee...This is not true...The Prayer Man supporter who sent Marina Stan Dane's Prayer Man book, Ed LeDoux, recorded Marina in a phone call and Marina told him she hadn't read the book LeDoux mailed her...From his conversation with Marina in that recorded phone call it was clear that Marina thought she was being asked about the original mistaking of Billy Lovelady for Oswald in Ike Altgens' 1963 photo of the Depository front steps...The claim in the presently-existing Prayer Man entry that Marina confirmed Oswald was Prayer Man is provably false and is based on deliberate misrepresentation that is typical of how the Prayer Man group supports its bogus claim...The next flagrant untruth the editor makes is the claim that the 2nd floor Lunch Room Encounter never happened and was fabricated by manager Truly and Officer Baker...Whoever wrote this entry omitted the fact that there were several witnesses to Oswald being in that 2nd floor lunch room, the latest being Buell Frazier who said a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple was seen on that table after the assassination in the exact spot Oswald was seen eating lunch...The reason the Prayer Man believers need to get rid of the 2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter is because they know it makes Oswald being out on the front steps unlikely...Next, the editor ignores that Baker's encounter could not have happened on the 4th floor because Mrs Garner said she was there watching the steps and saw Baker & Truly emerge...It is just outright dishonest for the editor to then continue that Truly saw Oswald in a storage closet on the 1st floor while not informing the reader that this was at least ten minutes after the assassination after Truly had searched the upstairs and returned to the ground floor...He does the same thing with Ochus Campbell, who also made clear that he did not see Oswald hiding in the utility closet under the front stairs until after he had gone to the Grassy Knoll and returned back to the Lobby...The editor is stretching context and trying to make it look like those witnesses saw Oswald right after Prayer Man was seen not too far away in the Depository front entranceway...Once again, when Fritz indicated Truly saw Oswald "somewhere near the back stairway" he was describing the 2nd floor Lunch Room Encounter and therefore confirming its real-ness...The editor is doing an outright intentional mis-informing of the reader because Campbell was quite clear the "storage room" he saw Oswald in was the utility closet under the front stairway and not the rear store room the editor is dishonestly inferring...The editor continues his deliberate prevarication by claiming FBI agent Hosty's notes of the 3pm interrogation of Oswald on the day of the assassination indicated Oswald was out on the front steps watching the presidential parade...There were 3 witnesses taking notes during Oswald's interrogation by Captain Fritz...They were Fritz, and FBI agents Hosty & Bookhout...When their notes were compared all 3 sets of notes started at the Lunch Room Encounter 90 seconds after the shots, then went down to the 1st floor to eat lunch, and then after lunch was eaten went out to the front steps to watch the presidential parade...If we give Oswald 5 minutes to eat lunch (according to these notes), then the earliest Oswald could show up on the front steps to watch the parade would be 6 1/2 minutes after the shots and not during the assassination as the editor suggests...The last and final whopper is the editor's reference to Postal Inspector Harry Holmes' statement...Holmes was present during Oswald's interrogation on Sunday two days after the assassination...The editor has failed to accurately relate what Holmes actually said...Holmes related that Oswald said he had "come downstairs to see what the commotion was all about"...What Oswald was saying there is he came down from the 2nd floor lunch room where Officer Baker had confronted him and went to the 1st floor Lobby where he was stopped by a cop...The editor is trying to give the false impression that Oswald went from the Prayer Man position on the front steps in to the Lobby where he ran in to Baker & Truly on their way in to the Depository and that Baker and Truly then lied and shifted this encounter to the 2nd floor lunch room, however any accurate interpretation of what Holmes really said makes it clear Oswald had described a 2nd stopping by a cop that occurred in the Lobby after Oswald had come down from the 2nd floor Lunch Room Encounter with Baker, and this was many minutes after the shots...So the reason for this "Talk" entry is to protest that even though the Prayer Man theory may be a legitimate entry as an example of conspiracy theories as far as the credibility of the internal workings of the entry itself it is quite deceptive and uses deliberate mis-representation of evidence as its means...This is typical of Sean Murphy's Prayer Man theory and is a good example of how it was formulated...Murphy himself completely disappeared in 2013 and has never returned to answer for any of this...Prayer Man has been proven to be Depository secretary Sarah Stanton...See the book 'Honest Answers About The Murder Of President John F Kennedy' (Palamara 2021)...

 Not done if you're making an edit request. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

To my mind, conspiracy theories which include Oswald as at least one shooter seem at least more tenable than those who exclude him as being framed such as Garrison’s. Does any conspiracy theory with Oswald being framed address to me what would seem a couple of obvious questions that I haven’t heard addressed? If so, can they be included in the article? Firstly, what was the fallback plan if by plain dumb luck Oswald had been absent from work that day due to illness or any other reason? Would the assassination have been called off? Secondly, and even more likely, I think, what if after the fact Oswald would have had an ironclad alibi such as eating lunch with several coworkers at the time of the shooting? (Indeed, he claimed he was doing exactly that with two coworkers, both of whom denied it.)

I’m not here to debate the issue, just simply to ask what I did above. If such contingencies had been considered by the conspirators according to those who position an innocent Oswald as the fall guy, what exactly do they say the plan was? Thank you. HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay no debate, I will simply tell you that your assunptions are wrong. Not all interrogation reports state that Oswald said he ate lunch with two other workers. The joint Hosty-Bookhout report states that he simply saw the two re-enter the building. The two workers said they entered through a rear loading dock. The window of the domino room gave a perfect view of this.

"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called "Junior" and the other was short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."

You could not "walk through" the domino room. It only had one entrance and in any case, there was no purpose in walking through it. Oswald saw them "walk through" from the dock entrance to the elevator.

Bookhout then wrote a solo report changing this to Oswald saying he ate with these two. As did Fritz. None of the reports were typed while Oswald was still alive. Jarman was asked about having lunch with Oswald, and truthfully denied it - thus effectively beating the falsified alibi.

As for Oswald having an "ironclad alibi" - you answer your own question. They controlled the narrative, the evidence, the witnesses - and after Oswald was murdered, they could claim anything. His ironclad alibi was changed as above so it could be beaten and Hosty falsly claimed he destroyed his interrogation notes (which further state that Oswald said he went out to watch the parade). Luckily these notes did survive and there is evidence that could validate (or refute) that part of the alibi - if it can be prised out of the hands of NBC.

As for your "what if"... there were no shortage of alternative patsies. Frazier was arrested as an accomplice and he owned an Enfield - with an Enfiend being one of the makes of rifles reportedly found on the 6th floor. And another worker, Joe Molina, had his home ransacked by police looking to tie him in since he was on their so-called subversive list.

Hope this helps.111.220.48.157 (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)gpfloor111.220.48.157 (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I've always been at a loss myself as to why so much effort by conspiracy theorists is spent in attempts to exonerate Oswald when he clearly fired the shots that killed the president. Virtually no conspiracy theorist (there are a few exceptions) claim that Oswald did it but was part of a larger conspiracy (with or without additional snipers). Interestingly, the HSCA more or less worked on that presumption - the evidence showed that Oswald did it alone (at leasr until the subsequently discounted acoustic evidence was heard late in the game), but there were enough ties he had to others that a conspiracy couldn't be ruled out.

And, oddly, many of the polls on whether there was a conspiracy or not often frame the question as "Did Oswald do it alone, or did he have help," rather than "Did Oswald do it, or did a conspiracy involving others do it? This in contrast to most conpsiracy theories which don't have Oswald firing any of the shots. Canada Jack (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

All very good points! Thank you for your input. Also, I would like to add that Oswald proclaiming that he was a "patsy" does not sound indicative of a totally innocent man caught up in some bizarre mix-up. Rather, such a person would seem more likely to proclaim in a mystified fashion: "There's been a horrible mistake!" The only conjecture I can make is that because Oswald had been a radical leftist, those bent on positioning a bunch of right wing CIA operatives as responsible would view Oswald as not fitting into such a conspiracy.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I've made the point (per Bugliosi) that what Oswald meant by "patsy" was its original definition - a convenient scapegoat. So the Dallas police, per Oswald, saw him as communist who had lived in the Soviet Union and on that basis arrested him. Indeed, Oswald says precisely that: "..they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union...I'M JUST A PATSY!" Our more modern understanding of that word is that it means a person, often ivolved with criminals, who is set up as the fall guy by the criminals themselves. So, by this interpretation, Oswald seems to be saying that those who actually carried out the assassination set it up to make it appear he was the one who did it. Canada Jack (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again. That's an interesting take that I haven't considered before. You might well be correct in this, at least.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Former mobster Michael Franzese says it was a mob hit covered up by the government because they could not admit the Mafia could take out a president. Kewalaka1 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Widow of Lee.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone has plonked down what purports to be the rationale for the Warren Commission - trouble is, that rationale seems to be pulled straight from a conspiracy theory - about a second Oswald in Mexico City. So the section needs to be substantially rewritten - or removed.

With the information that someone had been impersonating Oswald, President Johnson expressed concern that the public might come to believe that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and/or Cuban leader Fidel Castro was implicated in the assassination — a situation that Johnson said might lead to "... a war that [could] kill 40 million Americans in an hour". Johnson relayed his concern to both Chief Justice Earl Warren and Senator Richard Russell, telling them that they could "serve America" by joining the commission Johnson had established to investigate the assassination

It appears that a lot of this is taken whole cloth from a Frontline article by John Newman, but nowhere does it say that these are the conclusions of the author. This is the OPINION of the author who wrote the article, it is not a FACT. While there are sources which will back up the part about Johnson's fears of the Soviets and /or Cubans being blamed, and a risk of a nuclear war to follow, to suggest this was also driven by the "truth" of an Oswald impersonator is merely the opinion of an author, let alone that there was in fact an imposter, a highly disputed claim.

Therefore this entire "background" section needs to be substantially rewritten or removed. Beyond the implied rationale for Johnson creating the WC, most of the documents I see linked to here were released with the HSCA's Lopez Report back around 1996, part of the release of previously top secret documents surrounding the assassination. And that report - written by staff members hunting a conspiracy - said the evidence was not sufficient to conclude there was an Oswald imposter. That release was eagerly anticipated by conspiracy theorists at the time as it was purported to be a smoking gun that revealed the CIA etc knew there was a second Oswald. In fact, it revealed that the evidence showed that it was most likely indeed Oswald who visited the embassies in question, not an imposter, though the latter possibility could not be ruled out. And this was by staff who had direct access to many of the people in question.

Yet the section basically treats the imposter theory as fact. As with any of the other conspiracy theories on the page, claims should be couched along the line of, "authors claim..." or "one theory suggests..." In terms of this, the very existence of an imposter itself isn't clear as to WHY there'd be an imposter - an entire page could be spent on what an imposter might mean in terms of the assassination, indeed, a real imposter might have nothing at all to do with the assassination, but something to do with the KGB throwing the CIA off certain scents, for example. And any cover-up of any knowledge of this more to do with institutional "cover your ass" when your surveillance subject kills the president, than with some nefarious plot said agency was involved with. Just sayin. Canada Jack (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

In fact, Johnson's concern about about an Oswald impersonator in Mexico implicating the Soviets or Cubans, and possibly inciting a nuclear war, comes from an audio recording of Johnson's telephone conversation with Senator Richard Russell. (click on reference)

^[1]

BrandonTRA (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Read the transcript. He doesn't say anything about the Oswald impersonator, he does mention Hoover and refers to an incident which seemed to link the Soviets and Cubans to Oswald. If it WASN'T Oswald, wouldn't that exonerate the Soviets and Cubans? Because at that point everyone was sure Oswald was the sniper. Just saying. What Johnson DOES say is talk about the Cubans and Soviets possibly being behind this could lead to a war - and that it was therefore Russell's patriotic duty to serve on the commission. Again, who is claiming that Johnson's motivation to form the commission had anything to do with an Oswald impersonator? Knowing Johnson, he likely DIDN'T think the Cubans and Soviets had anything to do with this, because he knows people and he knew the leadership of either country would not be so catastrophically stupid to do something like that.

So, the section has to be rewritten to excise the unsubstantiated claim that Johnson was compelled to form the commission at least in part because of the Oswald impersonator issue. Indeed, the basic question most people would ask is... why is this important in the first place? It certainly doesn't seem to imply that the Cubans and Soviets were somehow MORE culpable because some guy was pretending to be Oswald - where is the logic here? For most conspiracists, the impersonator was likely someone involved with the American intelligence agencies, not the Cuban or Soviets - so Johnson would have thought "CIA" before he thought "communists." On the other hand, the fact that Oswald or not-Oswald was talking to the Soviets/Cubans ITSELF was an issue which could spark a conflict as it might seem to implicate the Soviets/Cubans. And that was hardly a secret, therefore that notion had to be quashed. Canada Jack (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that this FRINGE claim should be removed and replaced with the mainstream reasoning for the commission (firstly, to have a definitive, authoritative, timely, and as complete as possible investigation into JFK's death, and secondly, to substantiate or invalidate any possible links between Oswald, the Soviets, the Cubans, and espionage. We were on the brink of war, and Congress wanted to know if it was a war worth waging). We need to insert his content using reliable secondary sources like these: . And not get drawn in or hoodwinked by conspiracists and charlatans who are re-writing the history of the months after the assassination, after which stories changed and narratives mutated and diverged. Like how all these things happen to create space for conspiracies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

From the audio recording of Johnson's telephone conversation with Senator Richard Russell:

LBJ to Senator Richard Russell (November 29): Well you want me to tell you the truth? You know what happened? Bobby and them went up to see him today and he turned them down cold and said "no." Two hours later I called him and ordered him down here and he didn't want to come. I insisted he come, he came down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City and I say now, 'I don't want Mr. Khrushchev to be told tomorrow and be testifying before a camera that he killed this fellow and that Castro killed him and all I want you to do is look at the facts and bring in other facts you want in here, and determined who killed the President and I think you'd put on your uniform of World War I, fat as you are, and do anything you could to save one American life. And I'm surprised that you the Chief Justice of the United States would turn me down.' And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down. I'll just do whatever you say, but he turned the Attorney General down.

LBJ to Senator Richard Russell (November 29): Dick, it has already been announced and you can serve with anybody for the good of America and this is a question that has a good many more ramifications than on the surface and we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour and you would put on your uniform in a minute. Now the reason I've asked Warren is because he is the Chief Justice of this country and we've got to have the highest judicial people we can have. The reason I ask you is because you have that same kind of temperament and you can do anything for your country and don't go giving me that kind of stuff about you can't serve with anybody--you can do anything. -- BrandonTRA (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this be entered into the article? If so, then I believe WP:DUE applies, and I don't think the conclusions you're drawing from this are any more substantiated here than they already are in the article. And if not, then WP:FORUM applies, and it should be collapsed on those grounds. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed this sentence from the lead because it gives credence to debunked conspiracy theories about JFK's murder: "In 1998, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) unearthed inconsistencies in the prior investigations, and the Board's chief analyst for military records contended that the brain photographs in the Kennedy records were probably not of Kennedy's brain". Yodabyte (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I restored the sentence from the lead because no "debunking" evidence has been provided. 24.234.77.218 (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It is the burden of those attempting to add content to do so with a reliable source, not the other way around. See WP:BURDEN. The Fetzer source is very likely not reliable. There are already good sources here, why should we persist in referencing a holocaust denier and all around not-credible conspiracy theorist? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are there so many mentions of Fetzer in the article? Fetzer should not be mentioned unless he is discussed in RS. We document conspiracy theories by using what RS say about them and their promoters, not by using the unreliable sources of the promoters of the theories. The only exception is in the biography of the subject, in this case Fetzer, and then according to the limitations mentioned at WP:ABOUTSELF. Otherwise, unreliable sources must never be used because, with that one exception, all content here is based on RS. I'm going to take a stab at removing some of the most egregious mentions. -- Valjean (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and thanks for auditing, —PaleoNeonate – 14:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, and there was also some content from Gary Aguilar (an ophthalmologist claiming to have expertise on autopsies -- which as a person with medical training is just absurd) sourced to consortiumnews. A quick search of RSN shows consortiumnews to have a consensus against reliability, so I'm removing that content as well. The actual statements from Aguilar may be WP:DUE for this article, but only if they are found in WP:RSes, not consortiumnews. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: Fetzer's books are not self published -- ASIN ‏: ‎0812694228; Publisher ‏: Open Court -- no evidence given the Fetzer's books are unreliable. -- BrandonTRA (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with that publisher, but it appears to be a religious-oriented one, with Fetzer reported by various sources as a conspiracy theorist. His field appears to also be philosophy rather than ballistics, —PaleoNeonate – 21:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The article should not rewritten by declaring any sources and content that certain editors don't want in the article as FRINGE, and then deleting said sources and content (as in the case of deleting material from University of Minnesota professor emeritus James Fetzer and his published books). The claim that those opposed to such deletions have the burden to prove that content is not fringe are without merit. It is a well known proposition that you can't prove a negative and, therefore, proving that something is not FRINGE becomes a futile exercise.

Here is the proper course of action regarding disputed information (WP:INACCURATE), according to Wikipedia guidelines:

WP:INACCURATE

If there is a possibility that the information may be accurate, but there is uncertainty, add after the statement. This will add [dubious - discuss] to the finished version, encouraging readers and editors to discuss the matter.

-----------------------------------

Wikipedia Guidelines

Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. -- BrandonTRA (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

we operate via consensus on which sources are reliable. In this case, both prior consensus and the consensus of editors here and on various noticeboards is that these sources are not reliable. So the removal of content sourced only to them and unlikely to be sourced elsewhere is entirely in order and keep with WP:PAGs. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Have seen no good evidence presented so far that the deleted sources are unreliable, nor has there been anything presented so far that a consensus has been reached that deleted sources are unreliable. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the proper procedure is not to delete contested sources, but rather to tag contested sources with the template ^{[dubious – discuss]} (see above). -- BrandonTRA (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

no, that tag is one of several options. It is not the only option. WP:INACCURATE is a user essay and therefore not a part of Wikipedia's WP:PAGs and is not binding or a rule in any way. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What was the justification for removing the following sourced material, and where is the alleged consensus for doing so?

However, when researcher and ophthalmologist Gary Aguilar, examined the interviews of the Bethesda witnesses, which were declassified in the 1990s, he found that these witnesses also agreed that there was a large, avulsive hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, suggesting an exit wound and that Kennedy was hit from the front.^[2][3][4] -- BrandonTRA (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Consortiumnews is considered “generally unreliable” for statements of fact, see WP:RSP and the many associated WP:RSN discussions about this website.

Aguilar is also an ophthalmologist. He has no expertise in gunshot wounds, autopsies, or forensic interviewing. So asserting him as an expert falls afoul of WP:FRINGE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You offer no evidence to the claim that Consortium News is unreliable. Moreover, Dr. Aquilar is not cited as an expert witness, but as a researcher presenting an opinion.

Wikipedia guidelines -- "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." -- BrandonTRA (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is in the consensus found within discussions of wikipedia editors on WP:RSN and summarized on the WP:RSP page. Opinions of random "researchers" are not indiscriminately added to wikipedia articles. They must be WP:DUE, meaning they are found with frequency within sources considered "reliable." Consortiumnews is not considered reliable, ergo Aguilar is not WP:DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Your invented category of "random researchers" is nowhere to be found in any of Wikipedia's guidelines. -- BrandonTRA (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The appropriate policy would be WP:FRINGE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Your invented category of "random researchers" is nowhere to be found under WP:FRINGE. -- BrandonTRA (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User Shibbolethink removed my edits and claimed that Posner's 1993 book "Case Closed" is unreliable. I find this claim incredible, as it is widely acknowledged that this book, along with Bugliosi's book, is the definite account of the Kennedy assassination. Posner's book is used multiple times as a source in this article. Should we remove all references to this book? Virtuus (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

One cannot only ask "is this source blanket reliable" it must also ask "Is this source reliable for this content" and "Is this source reliable for making this content WP:DUE for this article?"

Personally, I believe the source is, in general, reliable, and reliable for this content. But that it is not the only useful source for determining what is DUE. My reversion was not very clear in that regard. So far that, I apologize.

To explain further: we already mention this person, we mention his theories about Marcello, does this source, which is generally reliable, determine that this content is DUE in addition to what we already have? Not exactly. We would need to see how often this level of depth is mentioned in the landscape of all WP:RSes about the assassination. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The HSCA produced hundreds of pages examining Oswald's alleged mob connections (Link to report). All major books challenging JFK mob conspiracy theories examine the validity of these connections (Posner, Bugliosi). I won't revert your edit again, but I don't understand the problem with the content I added. Virtuus (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the mob connection theory is interesting and clearly DUE. But the question is not "should we talk about the mob connection conspiracy theory?" but instead: "should we talk about it to this depth?" The operative question, then, is: Do the breadth of many different secondary sources discuss it to this depth? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The head investigator of HSCA, G. Robert Blakey, published his own book on his view of that investigation and on his theories about the assassination (G. Robert Blakey, and Richard N. Billings, The Plot to Kill the President, New York, 1981). The book is already extensively used, but any new material should be taken directly from Blakey's book, not from Posner's views on Blakey's theories. Posner and Bugliosi are just the main apologists for the original Warren Commission report and theories, and their work should be used with this central feature clearly in the mind of the editor. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The current state of the article uses this website quite a bit (e.g. are both cited several times). Do we have any reason to believe this is a reliable source as per WP:RS? Meaning: secondary, independent, with an editorial board, published editorial policy, and wide readership in mainstream circles? Because the more I examine this, the more it seems like a personal website pushing conspiracies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@BrandonTRA I removed the material in question because it is based solely on WP:PRIMARY sources, and therefore has no demonstration of being WP:DUE.

Per DUE, "avoiding undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects....Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements.... Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

We have no demonstration that this material is DUE, as we do not have it represented in secondary independent reliable sources as characterized in WP:RS. A secondary independent source means completely separated from the subject matter, so these transcripts of the commission proceedings etc. do not count. Those are WP:PRIMARY sources and are not part of determining whether material is WP:DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You have deleted entire paragraphs with many citations -- containing both primary and secondary sources. You need to be specific as to what sources you feel are given undue weight, and why. BrandonTRA (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

No primary sources should be cited about fringe beliefs. AARClibrary.org and history-matters.org are fringe sites which are hosting primary documents from the warren commission. These primary documents do not show us that these materials are WP:DUE. We need independent reliable secondary (preferably scholarly) sources for that. We cannot simply cite primary sources and put that information on this article. We are interpreting these details as relevant and important to the narrative, important enough to be included here. To do so indiscriminately is a violation of WP:DUE. The logical conclusion would be that we should describe every single moment of the Warren commission in detail. And that, of course, would be ridiculous and unencyclopedic. Hence why DUE exists as a guideline. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If you go to the main page on the JFK assassination -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy -- you'll see that both AARClibrary.org and history-matters.org are referenced several times. So your opinion that these are fringe sites are merely your own. BrandonTRA (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the sites, but their use in this disputed content was as hosts of primary documents. Hosting the documents doesn't make the sites secondary sources. Shibbolethink is right to question whether this content is due. If reliable, secondary sources are making the kinds of analysis the disputed content does and highlight the same parts of the primary documents , we should cite them. Firefangledfeathers 18:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You're changing your story. Here is what you said before regarding History Matters: "One need not look much farther for evidence of this website's non-reliability than its front page." (see above) BrandonTRA (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you confusing me with Shibbolethink? I'm flattered. Firefangledfeathers 20:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@BrandonTRA: The reference to fox10news is actually an article by local affiliate WASA. per the [q] footnote on the WP:RSP entry: "Local Fox affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG." But, regardless, the applicable WP:RSP entry would actually be Fox News (news excluding politics and science) as this is a topic of history. And that entry reads: "There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science". I'm no fan of Fox News, but I am a fan of correctly applied Wikipedia policy. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science". Indeed, Fox News in not reliable on politics and science, but it's very reliable on entertainment ... lol BrandonTRA (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Fox News is not a reliable source in regard to either politics or science (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) -- non- WP:RS. In accordance, I have removed Fox News citations. BrandonTRA (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

WASA Fox10news is a local fox affiliate, as described above. It is an independent news organization affiliated with but operated independently from the national media channel Fox News. Fox affiliate citations are handled differently from typical fox news citations. Please read the WP:RSP entry more carefully. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Fox News is generally reliable on ALL topics other than politics. In the subject of politics, it reliably presents a conservative view of the nature and significance of current events, thereby suffering the vile calumny of the left (or: every other mainstream media source) of being "unreliable." In that context, "unreliable" means "they don't parrot the liberal cant."98.183.25.236 (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is not a reliable source in regard to either politics or science (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) -- non- WP:RS. In accordance, I have removed Fox News citations. BrandonTRA (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Why would you duplicate this section?

Regardless, here's my reply from above:

WASA Fox10news is a local fox affiliate, as described above. It is an independent news organization affiliated with but operated independently from the national media channel Fox News. Fox affiliate citations are handled differently from typical fox news citations. Please read the WP:RSP entry more carefully. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Local news channels affiliated with fake national news channels like Fox News (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) can not be assumed to be totally independent of their distributor, national media channel. They are inherently tainted and should not be used as reliable sources. -- WP:RSN -- BrandonTRA (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not what WP:RSP says at all. It says: "Local Fox affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Fox News is NOT an “unreliable” news channel. It reliably, as I’ve stated before, presents a conservative interpretation of current events. It is the only mainstream news channel which does not parrot the liberal cant. The left cannot tolerate this. Liberal commentators and their toadies (eg, commenters on this page) therefore assault Fox News by vile calumnies imputing the integrity of their journalism. The Left simply tolerates no dissent, being at heart a totalitarian, autocratic and oppressive mentality.98.183.25.236 (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a group of organized persons out of the "ReOpenKennedyCase" website who are entering seriously mis-referenced material in Kennedy Assassination Wikipedia articles in order to spin content in favor of their claim that Oswald was seen as "Prayer Man" on the front steps of the Depository during the assassination...They did it in this article in the "Role Of Oswald" section in the following quote: " When asked to account for himself at the time of the assassination, Oswald claimed that he “went outside to watch P. Parade” (referring to the presidential motorcade), and was “out with [William Shelley, a foreman at the depository] in front”,[230] and that he was at the “front entrance to the first floor” when he encountered a policeman.[231] Initially, Texas School Book Depository superintendent Roy Truly and Occhus Campbell, the Depository vice president, said they saw Oswald in the first floor storage room at the time of the shooting. Some researchers, including Stan Dane, theorize that a man who was filmed standing on the Depository front steps during the assassination, referred to as "prayer man", is Oswald. "... The entry's author footnoted the quotes from Mary Ferrell and the Warren Commission Volumes in order to hide their true "ReOpenKennedyCase" source...The last footnote from Stan Dane's "Prayer Man" book is the true source and also the source of the entry author's bias...Because of its esoteric nature in Kennedy research the public who reads this entry will not immediately detect its faux scholarship and intent...The references to "out with Bill Shelley in front" and "went outside to watch the Presidential Parade" have already been proven to be 5 minutes after the assassination according to other information included in those same references but omitted by the entry's author...The quote [he was at the “front entrance to the first floor” when he encountered a policeman.] is a straight bastardization of Harry Holmes describing a second stopping of Oswald at the front door 5 minutes after the shots after he had come down from being stopped by Officer Baker in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...The entry is dishonestly trying to infer this quote by Postal Inspector Harry Holmes was saying Oswald was Prayer Man on the front steps...Its writer omits Holmes saying "Oswald had come downstairs to see what the commotion was all about" right before the quoted part...Typical of the Prayer Man group the following quote is just outright false and intentionally so: "Occhus Campbell, the Depository vice president, said they saw Oswald in the first floor storage room at the time of the shooting"...If you check Campbell's real statement he clearly said that he went to the Grassy Knoll from the front steps after the shooting and minutes later when he returned to the Lobby he saw Oswald hiding in the Storage Room (Source: Occhus Campbell Warren Commission Statement)...The entry writer is being intentionally inaccurate in both his writing and sources and is trying to spin the evidence in the direction of Prayer Man by means of distorted quotes, omissions, and false references... 2601:6C3:4000:C5C0:55D3:2BB3:1672:2625 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

One need not look much farther for evidence of this website's non-reliability than its front page: "In the wake of the end of the Cold War and the passage of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, the U.S. Government has declassified an enormous number of formerly-secret documents. Among the most stunning are those pertaining to the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy and its subsequent investigations. The new records contain stark indications of conspiracy, and a great wealth of material concerning the hows and whys of the ensuing coverup."

This website is not a news organization or a scholarly journal. It does not have an editorial board. It does not have any editorial policy. It is comprised of various essays and thoughts of conspiracy theorists.

The pertinent wikipedia policy is WP:FRINGE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Now you say that the pertinent Wiki policy is WP:FRINGE In other words, you've changed your argument mid-stream from your previous "unreliable" justification to your new "fringe" justification. Of course, your new justification is without merit as well, since you have provided no support that History Matters meets Wiki's criteria for being fringe. You're just wasting everyone's time with this. Tomorrow, when I have the chance, I will simply supply another source for the verbatim Garrison trial testimony that was sourced to History Matters. Hope you like wasting our time... BrandonTRA (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Just because someone or some site alleges a conspiracy in the case of the JFK assassination does make them FRINGE, nor does it meet Wiki's criteria of FRINGE. Many of those who have held power in the U.S. have alleged a JFK conspiracy, including the government body, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which alleged a Mafia conspiracy, as well as President Lyndon Johnson who alleged a JFK conspiracy involving Khrushchev and/or Castro. It is perfectly OK and within Wiki guidelines to cite sources alleging conspiracy. BrandonTRA (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith in these exchanges. Do not assume I'm changing my argument, I am rather making more than one argument. Do not assume I'm saying we should not discuss the existence of a conspiracy theory, I am saying no such thing. We, however, need to use reliable sources to do so.

Yes, please replace the source when you get a chance. We can put such statements in the article, when worded in an WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE compliant fashion, I would never say otherwise. But we must do so using sources which meet WP:RS and not in-universe WP:FRINGE sources. The pertinent directly RS-related guideline would be WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSOPINION. For all the reasons I listed above. But both WP:FRINGE and WP:RSOPINION apply here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that the AARC is actually a sub-organization of History-matters: "The JFK Assassination Archive disk and other AARC electronic document products are developed by History Matters. Visit our website: www.history-matters.com for more information and to order"

This would mean the citation was not actually replaced, just pointed towards a different website run by the same group of people who are, as described above, likely not a reliable source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If you go to the main page on the JFK assassination -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy -- you'll see that history-matters.org is referenced several times. So your opinion that this is a fringe site is merely your own. BrandonTRA (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The wiki is not perfect, so the existence of something somewhere else does not mean the use of it here is within policy. Wikipedia does not work like a court of law, and there are no "precedents" by extant text. It probably shouldn't be referenced there either, but it doesn't matter in most cases. But it especially should not be used to support any fringe view statement. Which is the actual issue here, not the source itself, but that it is being used to advance a fringe perspective without description of the mainstream consensus as is required by WP:FRINGE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: I generally agree with Shibbolethink on the reliability of History Matters. When used properly, I do not have a strong objection to using the primary source material that is not published on the National Archives website; however, I do think President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection on the National Archives website should be the first place to go for primary source material. Unfortunately, a lot of the primary source material is often used to make a point not supported by reliable secondary sources. That material should be stripped from the article. - Location (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I am wondering to what extent conspiracy sources are permitted to be used in this article. I had originally thought that Wikipedia guidelines allowed fringe material to be discussed in an article only to the extent that it was discussed in reliable secondary sources (see WP:FRIND). Does the fact that we are essentially defining this article as fringe content mean we can ignore that? This article states that there have been 1,000 to 2,000 books written about the assassination with 95% of those being pro-conspiracy. If that means we have 950 to 1,900 pro-conspiracy books, can anyone dump anything from those books into this article as they see fit? Who decides which conspiracy authors or theories are notable for inclusion? - Location (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, pro-conspiracy books can only be used to support the stated views of the author. So if an author is notable enough to merit inclusion of their views, they could be used for that purpose.

However, generally speaking, if an author is notable enough and their views are WP:DUE in this article, then said views will have been covered by a better source already, which we should prefer.

It's not that there's a policy against citing such sources, just that in practice, it's not helpful to do so. Happy (Slap me) 16:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

See Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. This allows us to use conspiracy theorists as sources about themselves to an extent, but only in articles about them. So we could use material from Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment to summarize his taken on the murder, but not in this article. TFD (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Right. This overall is an example of lots and lots of UNDUE content. There's so much UNDUE in this article, it's a bloat. The other thing is that someone can be reliable on their own opinion, and even be a bit notable, but be included to such an extent that it is way out of proportion of their DUE-ness. That happens a lot in this article as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The long list of Witness Deaths (about 3 pages of text) creates the impression of overwhelming evidence for the theory they evidence of a conspiracy. The argument that they are not improbable statistically is actually the consensus of reliable sources. It should be in a paragraph at the top of the section, just after (or before) a paragraph summarizing the theory witness deaths are evidence of a conspiracy. Ttulinsky (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the following text from this section:

Another suspicious death cited by Jim Marrs was that of Joseph Milteer, director of the Dixie Klan of Georgia. Milteer was secretly tape-recorded thirteen days before the assassination telling Miami police informant William Somersett that the murder of Kennedy was "in the working". Milteer died in 1974 when a heater exploded in his house.[108][109][110][111][112] The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported in 1979 that Milteer's information on the threat to the President "was furnished [to] the agents making the advance arrangements before the visit of the President" to Miami, but that "the Milteer threat was ignored by Secret Service personnel in planning the trip to Dallas." Robert Bouck, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Secret Service's Protective Research Section, testified that "threat information was transmitted from one region of the country to another if there was specific evidence it was relevant to the receiving region."[113]

If this section is to be about the theory that people were presumably killed because they knew too much, the only thing we have here is Jim Marrs claiming Joseph Milteer's death - eleven years after JFK's death - was suspicious. There is no indication of why Marrs thought that it was suspicious and Milteer's death isn't even discussed in reliable sources. The reliable sources here do state that Milteer was caught on tape making a threat, the HSCA investigated it, and said that the Secret Service responded poorly... but that is not what this section is about. Marrs may have been a well-known CT, however, that does not mean every thought he put in writing gets to go in this article. - Location (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I condensed the first part of this section that refers to the first ten deaths that Penn Jones considered to be "suspicious". I imagine it will take at least five to six lines to discuss how each person is (tenuously) connected to the assassination, how they died and why Jones or someone else thought their death was "suspicious", and the counter-argument provided by the WC, HSCA, or some other reliable source. If we are going to introduced fifty to sixty more sentences to the article on just these ten people, then there should be a sub-article. [Edit: I removed the UNZ links to the original Ramparts articles per the deprecated source tag/warning and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources.] - Location (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to add a book about the possible involvement of Israel in the assassination of JFK. That book is titled Accomplishing Jim Garrison's Investigation on the Trail of the Assassins of JFK. I tried to explain the relevance of that book, but I was censored. That book was praised by James DiEugenio, one of the main experts on the assassination of JFK, and by many others. Enough reason to add it. 93.41.114.124 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You were not censored. You were reverted because you attempted to add fringe material from a non-notable book by a non-notable author. I am sure conspiracy theorists think it is a good book, but you will likely need a better argument because inclusion of that material would run afoul of WP:SPS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRIND, etc. -Location (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This page is egregiously unbalanced with numerous claims sourced only to WP:FRINGE sources and with little or no counterbalance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

As you might imagine, this article has been a magnet for conspiracy enthusiasts of all stripes. Experienced editors have become exhausted by CT fans on the regular articles, where there are perennial demands to satisfy one or another pet CT. Nobody has had the patience to wade through all of the CTs and work out which have any actual notice in RS. It has been enough to deal with the constant "alleged" insertions on every conceivable peripheral article. This topic is also haunted by a couple of serial sockpuppeteers and IP hoppers. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

For now I have tagged the article and am watchlisting it. There is going to have to be a dramatic improvement before I will be ok with taking down the tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I just now came upon this article while doing some reading for my own interest. It seems to me that an article about conspiracy theories ought to cover stuff that is pro-fringe. It's essential that we identify these conspiracy theories accurately, as things that are unlikely to be true. It's also important to have enough reliable sourcing to indicate that a given conspiracy theory has attracted enough interest for us to take notice of it. However, so long as we do not mislead readers into taking this stuff seriously, I don't have a problem with the page covering outlandish stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with @Tryptofish. Writing about conspiracy theories requires fringe sources. Even non-fringe sources have fringe sources as their source. @Ad Orientem, do you claim there should not be an article on conspiracy theories? 123popos123 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@123popos123 Only if the conspiracy theories have been extensively discussed in reliable secondary sources, such that they ring the WP:N bell. In this case, at least some of them clearly do pass GNG. But we should be relying primarily on RS sources. FRINGE sources should never be quoted in a context that could lead to their being mistaken as RS. Wikipedia does not base its coverage on public opinion polls, or which well-known figures subscribe to certain beliefs. We confine ourselves to what is reported in reliable sources. And some popular conspiracy theories have been excluded entirely because they do not have sufficient coverage from reliable sources to merit their inclusion. Certain fringe theories surrounding the death of Dorothy Killgallen being one example. Courtesy ping @Acroterion @Happyyap1 @Tryptofish. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for the pings. WP:N is about having a standalone page on a topic, not about inclusion of a topic as a part of a broader page. But in terms of WP:DUE, we should consider how much attention WP:RS sources give to a topic. It's OK to cover wacko theories, but we must identify them as such. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It is alledged that no one has the patience to wade through all of the material in the article to determine which material is supported by reliable sources. In fact, the article is the result of years of back and forth among hundreds of editors, which included debate about reliable sources. Conspiracy theorists are ridiculed. However, many anti-conspiracy theorists are loathe to acknowledge that the House Select Committee on Assassinations ruled for conspiracy in the case of the JFK assassination. Other prominent voices have also alledged conspiracy, including President Lyndon Johnson, Sen. Richard Russell, Sen. Gary Hart, Sen. Richard Schweiker and Sen. Ralph Yarborough. Happyyap1 (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is a major issue, and I've had this article watchlisted for a long time hoping that I'll eventually amass the time and gumption to tackle it. I picked a subsection at random and got [John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Tampering with evidence|§Tampering with evidence]], which is sourced only to . Though we get the disclaimer "Some researchers have alleged ...", there is otherwise no questioning of the alleged tampering or presentation of the mainstream view.

I agree enthusiastically with the view that this article must include coverage of fringe views, but restricting ourselves to ones that are covered in high-quality, mainstream sources seems like the only approach to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is explicit in the WP:FRIND part of the fringe guideline:

the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles ... Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Seen elsewhere in the Wikiverse.)

Would not it have been better to go for the 'You do what we want or we will release information in the election year' option - the comeback if the action was discovered would be far less than for 'propaganda of the deed'.

That 60 years have passed and there is a totally different set of worldviews (there are now children whose parents were born after the end of the Cold War) and it is difficult to visualise the world as it was then will affect perceptions. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Will there be a mention on the Main Page?

And, given the various controversies and claims should this article be suitably monitored for the next week or so? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

footnote #467 https://bloomington.iu.edu/~oah/nl/98feb/jfk.html#d1&gsc.tab=0 goes to page not found. vroman (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's now tagged as a dead link. Thanks for the catch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Anything stated about this major event in recent American history on any Wikipedia page, that does not conform strictly to the conclusions of the Warren Commission, is immediately labeled as fringe and/or as "conspiracy theory" on Wikipedia. I contend that the Wikipedia official view of this event is the strict view of the Warren Commission, nothing else. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the article on conspiracy theories. Editors are proposing to add stuff here, so conspiracy theorising would be relevant. For the historical event, see: Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen you much around on these pages over the years. My contention above is not about this page, it is about what I called "the Wikipedia official view of this event." I am challenging you to prove me wrong. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to this article. So I would expect conspiracy-relevant content. How is your comment "I haven't seen you much around on these pages over the years" relevant to anything? Bon courage (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It means that I've been reading, and following, and studying the developments in this area on Wikipedia over many years. I am making the above contention based on these studies and observations. This article is just the garbage dump where everything else that has no place on Wikipedia just gets dumped in the end. But I am talking about the entire area of studies related to the assassination of President Kennedy on Wikipedia, where anything that does not conform strictly to the conclusions of the Warren Commission eventually gets erased, or is just tagged as fringe "conspiracy theories." Again, on this 60th anniversary day, I am contending that the Wikipedia official view of this key event in recent American history is the strict view of the Warren Commission, nothing else. warshy ^(¥¥) 20:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ not sure how that translates into proposed changes for this article. Bon courage (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

untrue, House Select Committee on Assassinations differs from Warren Commission conclusion, and is referred to often in the main Assassination of John F. Kennedy. vroman (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, the term "conspiracy theory" was coined by officials referring to people who did not believe in the Warren Report's conclusion. 47.144.16.66 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

In this section I added a description of the theory advanced in A Woman I Know: Female Spies, Double Identities, and a New Story of the Kennedy Assassination (2023) by Mary Haverstick, in which she attempts to say that Jerrie Cobb, retired and decorated pilot, was actually (or impersonated) June Cobb, CIA operative, and that the latter (or former) was implicated (and by extension the CIA) in the Kennedy assassination, notionally by providing a planned getaway plane for Oswald waiting at Redland airport, and perhaps by being an additional gunperson herself. Hope this is OK as the book in question has not previously been mentioned here, although the theory has already made it to Wikipedia in another article, Jerrie_Cobb#Later_life_and_death. Not sure what to make of it myself (the 2 women had different documented lives and died in different years) but some reviewers seem to take it seriously. Any other comments welcome. Regards - Tony Rees. Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Some discussion here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29939-mary-haversticks-important-new-book-on-the-jfk-assassination/

On the other hand I am not familiar enough with the long history of this page to know whether "all" conspiracy theory books are within scope (presumably not) and, consequentially, how it is decided what does or does not merit coverage here. Answers appreciated! Tony 1212 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I imagine that "Coup in Dallas" (2022), by H.P. Albarelli, Jr., and his research colleagues, Leslie Sharp and Alan Kent justifies some mention or discussion here (if I have not missed it somewhere else more relevant) - https://www.amazon.com/Coup-Dallas-Who-Killed-JFK/dp/1510740317 ... Its credibility / reception is a completely different issue of course. However I lack the background or detailed knowledge to discuss it further really. Any takers? Tony 1212 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Some discussion here if relevant: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27407-coup-in-dallas/ Tony 1212 (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Stephen Hunter postulates that the most significant evidence of more than one shooter is the discrepancy in behaviors of the second and third bullets. While the second penetrated two bodies and remained intact, the third disintegrated on impact. The bullets used by Oswald were designed for max penetration, so the third bullet's result is an anomaly. None of the other major theories or theorists appear to have highlighted this aspect. Also, Oswald did not shoot at Kennedy right after the turn onto Elm Street, when he was closest to the depository building, but waited until they were further away and missed with his first shot trying to fire through the trees in front of the building, then had to rush the second and third shots which made a direct hit on Kennedy's skull less likely. Sources: . 152.130.15.110 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The second bullet passed through almost entirely soft tissue while the third bullet immediately struck bone. 24.230.161.142 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned by 24.230 above, the bullet that struck two did so by passing through Kennedy without touching bone, then plowing sideways through relatively soft bone at a significantly reduced velocity, as opposed to striking the much harder skull bone at maximum velocity nose-first.

As for Oswald not shooting when closest, this ignores the evidence of the sniper nest. The sniper had set up several boxes as a gun rest, poised to shoot when JFK was travelling away down Elm - and not pointing down Houston when the sniper might be more readily seen by witnesses as the target was approaching the sniper's nest, and the angle of adjustment was far steeper as it approached. Going down Elm towards the underpass the angle of adjustment was minimal as the limousine was travelling away almost in a straight line. Even though the limosine was closer when turning onto Elm, it was a trickier shot with the target moving from left to right as it turned. Even if one could argue that shooting down Houston was an easier shot, the bottom line is the sniper in fact set up the gun rest to shoot down Elm, so it's a moot point. As for "rush[ing] the second and third shots", the evidence suggests that the first shot completely missed, he set and fired again, which struck but not at the presumed target - Kennedy's head - , then he set and waited the longest and fired the third shot, a bullseye. Entirely consistent with Oswald's experience as a trained Marine sniper, making adjustments with what most experts agree was not a difficult shot. Took him three to hit the bullseye. A good, but not great, marksman. Canada Jack (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Currently there is not a word about JFK Parkland doctors saying there was a front entrance wound, and a massive rear head wound.

I haven't discussed this interview here before. And I don't see this interview mentioned in the talk archives.

There is an interview from 2015 with Dr. Robert N. McClelland where he says that he saw a massive head wound in the back of Kennedy's head. And that the other doctors saw it too. He said that he saw a front entrance wound.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ435lMaCng

I previously discussed the 2023 documentary about 7 doctors who were there, and they all believed there was an entrance wound from the front, meaning that more than one shooter was required. This Google search pulls up the documentary and many reliable sources that reviewed it:

• Google search: Seven JFK Parkland Hospital ER doctors (see documentary).
• Previous discussion: Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 6#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter.

I mention it now because the documentary and the McClelland interview are saying the same thing. And so it further merits being in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Without some newly discovered, reliable, secondary source, I don't think it will be productive to rehash the same discussion. There was also the one at Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 18#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There were many reliable secondary sources in the previous discussion. There are more now about the massive rear head wound (not a massive top of the head wound), and a front entrance wound.

The above-linked video is a primary source. But it is an interview. According to the essay, Wikipedia:Interviews. and its source guidelines, an interviewee's responses are primary, non-independent, and authoritative for the interviewee's personal experiences, preferences, viewpoints, etc..

There is a different 2015 interview with McClelland here in front of a crowd at the Allen Public Library in Allen, Texas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySO0pLcN5ww - discusses a massive rear head wound, not a massive top of the head wound.

Many of the reviews of the documentary show parts of the interviews with the 7 doctors. So they are secondary sources with primary sources. You can find some of them by scrolling down the results of this Youtube search:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=interviews+with+jfk+parkland+doctors

Reviews from reliable sources such as Channel 5 (British TV channel), CBS Evening News, CBS Mornings, CBS News, etc.. Many of the previously discussed reviews from reliable news sources had video clips too. All of them comment on the documentary and the video clips. That makes them secondary sources, too.

Here is an 2013 interview of McClelland by the chief editor (Rod J. Rohrich, MD) of the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q1lYifmUXA

He describes a massive rear head wound (not a massive top of the head wound), at 6 minutes into the video. There is even a diagram. The video is also hosted on their website:

https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/pages/video.aspx?autoPlay=false&v=420

The videos are part of a special topic:

Rohrich, Rod J.; Weinstein, Aaron; Stokes, Mike (November 2013). "The Assassination of JFK: A Plastic Surgery Perspective 50 Years Later". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 132 (5): 1373–1376. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a64669.

20/20 (American TV program) did a April 3, 1992 report in a segment titled "I Know What I Saw." Dr. Charles A. Crenshaw, one of the ER doctors, saw a massive rear head wound, (not a massive top of the head wound), and a front entrance wound. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJuGGouHg5Y - and archive link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20231125220335/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJuGGouHg5Y

Crenshaw also has a #1 New York Times bestseller (makes it notable) saying the same thing:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/dfqQAAAAQBAJ?hl=en - "JFK Has Been Shot". Can search inside. Copyright 1992.

I think we need a request for comment. I have provided a plethora of primary and secondary sources for the fact that the JFK Parkland doctors saw a massive rear head wound (not a massive top of the head wound), and a front entrance wound too.

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)