Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Adjustments to the lead

I've just finished some reworking of the lead. (Reasoning for each individual change is given in the edit summaries.) That said, I'm not completely satisfied with the first paragraph, which describes what the conspiracy theorists believe. Two questions:

• Should any other details be included? Of course the claims are very diverse, but maybe some of the more common threads (such as the number of gunmen) could be mentioned.
• Is it fair to emphasize the belief in a coverup as the most significant aspect of the conspiracy theories?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Sunrise (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the hard work you've done. I'm concerned with the opening sentence being, Conspiracy theories about the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy claim that the United States government covered up crucial information in the aftermath of the assassination. This seems to imply that an official coverup is a precursor to any and all conspiracy theories. There are some theories that had not yet been suggested by the publication of the Warren Report. Could we have this sentence at the end of the first paragraph, where it was before recent edits? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear - there are two distinct things here when we talk about a "conspiracy." One is a conspiracy to kill the president. The second is another conspiracy by the government via the Warren Commission etc to cover-up the facts of the first conspiracy. Depending on who is making the claims, government and/or government agencies were involved in the first as well as the second conspiracy, or, the government covered up the facts of, say, the mafia or the Cubans for reasons as varied as: collusion; to avoid going to war against Cuba/Russia; to cover up their incompetence. Canada Jack (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup, this is the idea behind my second question. The lead sentence should be either a definition or a description, so my thought was that the best option would be to describe what the conspiracy theories hold (beyond the truism “that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy”).

If the statement is simply wrong (i.e. if some major conspiracy theories don’t involve a US government coverup) then it should be adjusted accordingly. But my feeling was more that the statement was incomplete, as Canada Jack has pointed out; what about something like “...claim that the assassination involved people or organizations other than Lee Harvey Oswald and this was covered up by the United States government”? Less straightforward, but adding more detail. A different (or additional) option might be add another sentence discussing this. Sunrise (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That version proceeds from the assumption that all JFK assassination conspiracy theories involve a belief that the original investigation deliberately covered up (or hid, or obscured, or lied about) facts. Certainly, many believe they did. However, many researchers have pointed out that the investigation saw evidence both for and against conspiracy and concluded against conspiracy. If a researcher states that the evidence for conspiracy was stronger, that's simply a difference of opinion, NOT the suggestion of a cover up. Also, some conspiracy theories have come about based on information not available to, or ignored by, the official investigations. To be unaware of something, or to ignore it is not the same as a 'cover up.' Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see - that sounds reasonable. I've made the change you were suggesting, and replaced "claim" with "may claim." The first sentence now refers to Oswald as an the proposal above. How does that sound? (Unless maybe - @Canada Jack:, do you think this is privileging the one category of conspiracy theory over the other?) The wording does still feel awkward to me, especially the first sentence, so I'm sure there are better versions. Sunrise (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Good job, thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

A clarification here on my point that there are "two" conspiracies being discussed here. True, as Joe points out, not all conspiracy theories claim that the government deliberately hid the facts of the claimed conspiracy behind the assassination. But it was a claim probably most famously advanced during the Shaw trial, as Jim Garrison was one of the early proponents of this view (per Bugliosi). So I'd say it be more accurate to say something like "Multiple theories have been proposed on who may have been behind the assassination either with or without Oswald's involvement. Additionally, many authors claim that the government conspired to hide the truth behind the assassination, misleading the public into believing only Oswald was involved when they knew others were involved. Whether the government was directly involved in the assassination itself is a point on which authors differ." Canada Jack (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agreed.Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am OK with that suggestion, too. Location (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that the lede was written with the false statement that the HSCA conclusion of conspiracy was partly based on the dictabelt evidence. In fact it was SOLELY based on that evidence, as per the summary report from the HSCA itself (``Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at president John F. Kennedy``), as they found no other evidence to establish a conspiracy. I can also dig up quotes from the dissent of Samuel Devine and Robert Edgar which make this precise point and state that until that last-minute evidence was presented, the HSCA was writing the report concluding there was no evidence which established there was a conspiracy. Indeed, while noting the extremely unlikely scenario that two snipers with no connection may have fired at JFK, it dismissed this possibility. And while noting no evidence linked many of the usual suspects to the crime, the HSCA admitted that the `conspiracy`could have been limited to Oswald and the second gunman, further emphasizing that the dictabelt evidence was the sole basis for the conclusion of conspiracy. Canada Jack

The Newmans

Good on Location for clarifying this point with the photo cutline.

The Newmans have for half a century been touted by conspiracy theorists as being ear-witnesses to a knoll assassin. They were the closest people outside of the motorcade to the president when he received his fatal shot, and Bill Newman, from that day to the present, has always maintained that the fatal shot came from "directly behind" him. The problem is, "directly behind" him is the pergola, NOT the grassy knoll or more specifically (since the CT crowd likes to pretend that the "grassy knoll" extends from the underpass to the tree in front of the TSBD) not the picket fence several dozens of yards to the Newmans' right where the vast majority of CT authors claim a knoll shot was fired from.

Just in case some accuse me of drawing my own conclusions as to where "directly behind" him was - since that would depend on the specific direction he was facing - he can be seen pointing to the pergola in this video when interviewed by Jesse Ventura. [1] The dishonesty of the conspiracy crowd is on full display as you can SEE Newman gesturing "directly behind" with his thumb, pointing at the pergola, then the video immediately cuts to a shot not of the pergola but of the picket fence, many yards away.

But just in case you think there is still some interpretation by that good ol' Lone Nutter Canada Jack going on here (maybe the camera angle in the Ventura interview made it appear Newman was pointing to the pergola when he meant the fence, for example), here is what Newman did when asked to locate where the shot came from during the 1986 mock trial. Go to around the 3:17 mark where he marks the source of the shot after being asked to by Gerry Spence, acting as defence for Oswald, Vincent Bugliosi is the prosecutor. [2]

For the purposes of the article, it is fine to cite the Newmans as a source for the claims made by the conspiracy crowd, the accuracy of the claim notwithstanding. And Location's clarification suffices in terms of pointing out that Newman himself takes issue with how his testimony has been misused by many in the CT crowd. But in case there is any doubt where Bill Newman thought the shot came from, this should lay to rest any dispute. Canada Jack (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears as though there is a fair amount of primary source material in the article that implies a connection to a conspiracy but is not explicitly stated by that material. If a reliable secondary source reports that authors A, B, and C believe primary source material X, Y, and Z are evidence of a conspiracy, then we need to phrase it that way. - Location (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Medical evidence

I am removing the following paragraph:

Robert McClelland, one of the Parkland Hospital doctors who attended to Kennedy, testified to the Warren Commission that the back right part of Kennedy's head was blown out, with posterior cerebral tissue and some cerebellar tissue missing. McClelland later said: "My supposition, and that of a lot of people, is that the first shot probably was fired from the sixth floor of the [Texas School Book Depository] ... whether by Oswald or someone else, I don't know. The next shot apparently came from behind the picket fence by the grassy knoll — all kinds of things indicate that is indeed what happened."

The first source, McClelland's WC testimony, is primary source material and we cannot provide original analysis of it to make a case for conspiracy. We need a reliable secondary source stating that someone makes a case for conspiracy based on his testimony. The second source is a sketch McClelland made after his WC testimony, therefore, it does not support the the sentence anyway. The third sentence is about McClelland's general views on conspiracy and doesn't touch on what this section is about (i.e. conspiracy allegations involving the medical evidence). McClelland's assertion that "all kinds of things" point to a grassy knoll shooter is not a discussion about the section's topic. - Location (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Two sets of tramps arrested

An IP account was reverted twice for posting the following, which I believe to be true but maybe should be rephrased and referenced better:

There were two sets of three tramps picked up that day. The first were picked up right after the event at 12:30 as shown in the Forester arrest document Also The other police reports back this up such as arrest record of Abrams The second set of tramps were picked up at 2PM This apparent from the time that elapsed in the Elkins Deposition between the event and when the tramps were picked up.

I carefully read the whole website and also believe the author is a reliable source.

Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether there were two sets of tramps or a thousand sets of tramps arrested that day is completely irrelevant to the standard "tramp" claims. The standard conspiracy claims focus on the identity of the three who were photographed, not on how many tramps were in the area (as opposed to, say, how many snipers were in the area).

The thrust of the webpage seems to be to sell a book in regards to an elaboration of this multiple-groups-of tramps claim. Frankly, I fail to see the importance of this, even if it is true. And the other claims of Oswald "hiding" the names of CIA people in his address book are bizarre and far-fetched, IMHO. So, if you were hoping to separately include these claims, as they are not as far as I know well-known or oft-cited, I'd say they don't warrant inclusion as we'd be giving undue weight to fringe theories.

Tell us, Raquel, what connection do you have, if any, to Mr. Weberman? Canada Jack (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No relationship. I would redo the ref-links to the book (I just ordered it on Amazon, I would not link to the website) and to the document, i.e., some of the documents are Warren Commission Exhibits. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell us, Canada Jack, what connection do you have, if any, to John C. McAdams? BrandonTR (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

None, Brandon. It's clear you have no connection to any conspiracy theorist we should take seriously, so I'll not bother to ask you the same irrelevant question. Canada Jack (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Jack has summarized the situation pretty well. This is the kind of thing the Other Published Theories section if for: ideas from a published, reliable ("reliable" being used very loosely here) source, but basically suggested by that source only. One two sentences should cover it.Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Raquel - why is the second set of tramps relevant? If you want to add this to the section, you need to specify why this has any bearing on the issue. I fail to see how it is relevant. The issue is who were those three tramps photographed, not whether there were other tramps in the vicinity. Canada Jack (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Train Wreck

If there are three sentences in this supposedly encyclopedic article that offer any counterbalance to the catalog of fringe theories, I could not find them. This article is a POV disaster and needs to be substantially rewritten to comply with guidelines and policy including very importantly, WP:DUE. It is so bad that in its current form it probably should be deleted, the obvious notability of the subject notwithstanding. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You obviously didn't look very hard. Here's just one example from the article:

Author Gerald Posner points out that Marrs' list was taken from the group of about 10,000 people connected even in the most tenuous way to the assassination, one of the multiple official investigations, or the independent research of conspiracy theorists. He notes that it would be surprising if a hundred people out of ten thousand did not die in "unnatural ways" and points out over half of the people on Marrs' list did not in fact die mysteriously, but of natural causes, such as Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who died of heart failure at age 69 in 1984, long after the Kennedy assassination, but is on Marrs' list as someone whose cause of death is "unknown". Posner also points out that many prominent witnesses and conspiracy researchers continue to live long lives and have not made it onto the mysterious death list.[64] BrandonTR (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think it is a train wreck now, you should have seen the lack of organization that it had before I got a hold of it a couple years ago. And I know that I have added more than three sentences to balance various aspects of conspiracy theories. Where would you like to start? Location (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm looking at it and thinking it needs a WP:HEY level rewrite. If it was actually worse a couple of years ago... [shudder]. We need a section dedicated to criticism of the conspiracy mania with references to the works of Posner and Bugliosi among others. There should also be rebuttals to the various theories in each section, though I concede in some cases that will require some research. And we need to put an end to the abusive out of context quotes that can be found here and there. Example: "According to Vincent Bugliosi, allegations that the evidence against Oswald was planted, forged, or tampered with is a main argument among those who believe a conspiracy took place." True enough. But no mention of the fact that Bugliosi is a fierce critic of the cult of conspiracy who then went on to demolish those claims in detail. Putting those kinds of out of context quotes in the article is misleading to the point of being outright deception. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

One common fringe viewpoint is that evidence had been planted, forged, or tampered with, but in keeping with WP:RS we needed a non-fringe viewpoint in order to include it in the article. In-text attribution was likely used due to frequent placement of {{According to whom}} tags and charges of weasel wording. Your idea is a good one. Perhaps those of us who monitor this page need to start working on an outline. Location (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Moon landing conspiracy theories is a fairly good model for this sort of article. Sunrise (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few bold edits. Another important issue is the use of the term "researchers" for conspiracy theorists, which I would say lends them undue credibility. But someone who already knows who is in which group is probably better suited than I am to fix this. Sunrise (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You just admitted you don't know the subject, so why are you even commenting? BrandonTR (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is successful in part because it is usually relatively easy for newcomers to a topic to reach the point when they can contribute effectively, as long as they already have a good grasp of WP policy. Principles such as RS are quite simple to apply very broadly. But please let me know if I appear to misunderstand anything (along with, of course, your reasoning). Sunrise (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sunrise: A section here similar to that found in Moon landing conspiracy theories#Conspiracists and their main proposals would be helpful. This article has approached it a different way with John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Other published theories, however, it's probably better to list the prominent "lone gunman critics" and their works first, as well as prominent debunkers, as it would give context for material that appears later in the article. Location (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that as well (mainly per the discussion below). Sunrise (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's impossible to structurally simplify the article as you seem to propose. You imply there are basically two groups to deal with: conspiracy theorists and "debunkers". But this is not the case. Within the set of conspiracy theorists, you have many subsets including not just writers and researchers, but government officials, like Robert Blakey and Richard Schweiker, Gary Hart, Senator Yarborough, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and so on. Furthermore, the conspiracy theorists do not just adhere to one or even two two conspiracy theories. Rather the conspiracy theories cover a whole spectrum. Likewise, the so called debunkers are not a monolithic group as you imply. While many attempt to debunk certain conspiracy theories, in doing so some propose their own conspiracy theories, while others propose that a certain commission or study got it right (like the Warren Commission), while other "debunkers" propose that another commission or study is to be believed (like the HSCA). In short the "debunkers" don't agree among themselves on what should be debunked, what is factual, what is theory, what is irrefutable evidence, etc. BrandonTR (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think you inferred that I am proposing to restructure the article and that is not the case. As the OP has suggested, the article refers to various individuals without much context. The idea would be to list near the top of the article the most prominent "promulgators and popularizers" of conspiracy theories and their major contributions to the discussion. (Speculation on the part of LBJ or hearsay on the part of RFK Jr. is certainly not the same.) This material near the top of the article may give more context for everything else that follows. Location (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to give a list of conspiracy theorists, it would be helpful to include what exact conspiracy theory they are promoting. One problem is what category to put certain people in. For example, should HSCA head Robert Blakey be put under the category of "conspiracy theorist" for writing in a book and in the HSAC Report that there was a second shooter; or should Blakey be put in the category of "debunker" for arguing against those who posit that Oswald was not involved at all in the shooting? BrandonTR (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's less complicated than you make it out. There are those who accept the official version of events and those who don't. The latter may fall into many different variations and flavors, but to one degree or another they are almost all subscribers to some sort of conspiracy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that this article is in need of any sort of major rewrite. the current version has emerged based on consensus and based on legitimate wikipedia practices. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are joking... right? Have you actually read WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly. What you're basically proposing is a "JFK conspiracy theories" article without the conspiracy theories. That's absurd. BrandonTR (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. What I am saying is you cannot have an article that serves only as a promotional catalog of Fringe theories without appropriate counterbalance. And per DUE the emphasis on the fringe theories cannot be disproportionate. As there is effectively no counterbalance at the moment this article violates a whole list of WP policies and guidelines. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a vehicle for promoting fringe conspiracy theories. It needs a major rewrite on the WP:HEY level. Absent that, I would have to seriously consider sending it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt an AfD would succeed, as the topic surely passes GNG, but a rewrite would definitely go a long way here. In any case: Brandon, a useful heuristic that I recommend is that the status of claims that are rejected by the mainstream must always be clear. So an incorrect claim should always be clearly marked as such, e.g. by juxtaposing it with an explanation of why it is wrong, phrased factually and without attribution per WP:ASSERT. Sunrise (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability is not even remotely in doubt. But I believe WP:DUE is policy, which trumps guidelines including WP:N. That said, I agree that an AfD would be controversial and frankly I would prefer to avoid it. If this is fixable that is absolutely the preferred course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You're positing the false premise that there is in fact a "mainstream opinion" -- presumably elevating whatever is in the Warren Commission report (but not the HSCA report) to "mainstream opinion." Everything else, as far as you are concerned, is heresy. In fact, a majority of Americans believe that the Warren Report is seriously deficient, with a majority of those polled believing that there was a conspiracy. So we see that those who believe in conspiracy are not "fringe" at all -- they are the majority. Moreover, many of the conspiracy theories presented in the article are already counterbalanced by non-conspiracists, like Bugliosi. Of course, you yourself are free to add non-conspiracy rebuttals as you see fit. My suspicion is that the reason we don't see more rebuttals to the conspiracy theories presented is that those complaining the loudest about "counterbalance" do not know much about the case either for or against conspiracy very well to begin with. BrandonTR (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream expert opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Who are the mainstream experts? Name them, and tell us what makes them experts. BrandonTR (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like, from your link, that this article has meet the reliable sources criteria. BrandonTR (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Gamaliel (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a moment here, folks. "NPOV Train Wreck"?!? C'mon. To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, this is more like the Hindenburg, a giant bag of gas ready to detonate and collapse under its unsubstantiated weight!

Note to Brandon: Gee, seems a lot of neutral observers are flagging the same points I made about this page a while ago, eh? It's not just we "lone nutters" who think this page is a train wreck/giant bag of exploding gas! Canada Jack (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

section break 1

"What I am saying is you cannot have an article that serves only as a promotional catalog of Fringe theories without appropriate counterbalance." Just out of curiosity, are ALL JFK assassination conspiracy theories "fringe" as far as you're concerned?

"Who are the mainstream experts? Name them, and tell us what makes them experts." Excellent question. Gam and I had this discussion a while back. I hope we're not defining "mainstream" as "agrees with the official conclusions" and "fringe" as "disagrees with the official conclusions."

In the talk thread [3], as I said Gam and I had this discussion.

Gam asked, On authors of published research suggesting a conspiracy: "are they representative of mainstream academic thinking?"

I responded, that, for example, "David Scheim: PhD, MIT. Edward Epstein, PhD, Harvard. Gerald McKnight, Professor, Hood College. Joan Mellen, Professor, Temple University. Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, participated in HSCA. David Wrone, Professor, U. of Wisconsin. Walt Brown, PhD, former Justice Department employee. John Newman, Professor, University of Maryland. Henry Hurt, journalist, Rockefeller Foundation. Gaeton Fonzi, Federal investigator for the HSCA."

Gam, countered with the point, "A few academics, a number of them in non-relevant fields like mathematics, do not necessarily represent the mainstream historical viewpoint."

So is that where we're going, folks? The "mainstream historical viewpoint" is that the official conclusions are correct, therefore all other research and opinion is to be minimized as "fringe"? Please tell me that's not where we're going. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind, I'm not attacking the premise of this thread. On the contrary I agree that the article needs work. And I'd like to think I have some street cred on the subject. Years ago, I created the "Other Published Theories" section of the article specifically to minimize some of the fringe theories that were being given hundreds of words and undue weight in the article. Among the few notes in the article you'll see counter-pointing various theories is the text I added calling Judyth Baker a hoax. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me respond to Joe here. The "mainstream experts" are those who actually assessed and weighed in with their opinions on the evidence as presented to the Warren Commission and the HSCA. And, with very few exceptions, when the ACTUAL evidence was examined (and not, say, a photograph of a piece of evidence, or a multi-generational copy of an x-ray or photograph of Oswald), they concluded the evidence established Oswald's guilt and culpability.

It should also be noted that while there indeed were several prominent members of the HSCA who believed there was a conspiracy, the SOLE piece of evidence to drive that conclusion was the dictabelt evidence, now thoroughly debunked. For all the talk of "conspiracy" at the HSCA, there was NO convincing evidence that Oswald was involved in one, despite the bias of many on the committee, and they acknowledged that - as they had to to be intellectually honest, hell honest, period - when they wrote the final report. Even Cyril Wecht, who believes there was a conspiracy, agrees that the autopsy material, including the photographs and x-rays, support the conclusion that two and only two bullets struck the president, and that they were fired from behind where the HSCA elsewhere concluded was where Oswald was.

It is for these reasons that we describe "mainstream" experts as being on-side with the "Oswald" conclusion as that is what they concluded given actual access to the evidence. The conspiracy crowd cites "experts" such as David Groden and Jack White who, before the HSCA not only demonstrated they had not the slightest clue what they were talking about in terms of doctored photographs, they continue to this day to cite "problems" with the photos, such as the backyard ones, WHICH WERE ANSWERED IN 1978. THAT is why these guys are "fringe." If they were intellectually honest - they aren't - they would see that the evidence does NOT support their tightly held-to-the-chest conclusions. At least Wecht, who knows his pathology, is intellectually honest (usually) in acknowledging what the evidence suggests. Not so people like White and Groden - stars of the conspiracy crowd - and many, many others who routinely lie and obfuscate over long-established evidence which establishes Oswald as the lone gunman. THAT is why this is a fringe belief, not because it is at odds with "official" opinion. Canada Jack (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with the above; I don't see how anyone can read all the authors I mentioned and reach a sweeping conclusion that they are all "intellectually dishonest." If there's conclusive evidence that they are not just premature or wrong in their conclusions, but actually lying, I'm not aware of it.

However I don't consider this fundamental disagreement with Jack to be a roadblock to improving the article. We've exchanged this sort of argument many times, but as far as I know I've never disagreed with any edit he's made. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. here is the key issue here.

Let me respond to Joe here. The "mainstream experts" are those who actually assessed and weighed in with their opinions on the evidence as presented to the Warren Commission and the HSCA. And, with very few exceptions, when the ACTUAL evidence was examined (and not, say, a photograph of a piece of evidence, or a multi-generational copy of an x-ray or photograph of Oswald), they concluded the evidence established Oswald's guilt and culpability.

well, the purpose of this article is to examine theories which disagre with those conclusions. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Canada Jack says: It should also be noted that while there indeed were several prominent members of the HSCA who believed there was a conspiracy, the SOLE piece of evidence to drive that conclusion was the dictabelt evidence, now thoroughly debunked. Actually, it's the so-called debunkers who have been debunked, but we'll leave that argument for another time. In fact, the HSCA presented other evidence that led it to conclude conspiracy. Here's one example from the HSCA Report: Ruby's shooting of Oswald was not a spontaneous act, in that it involved at least some premeditation. Similarly, the committee believed it was less likely that Ruby entered the police basement without assistance, even though the assistance may have been provided with no knowledge of Ruby's intentions… The committee was troubled by the apparently unlocked doors along the stairway route and the removal of security guards from the area of the garage nearest the stairway shortly before the shooting… There is also evidence that the Dallas Police Department withheld relevant information from the Warren Commission concerning Ruby's entry to the scene of the Oswald transfer.[32] BrandonTR (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of using this space to reiterate our perspectives regarding historical events, it would be more productive if we discussed potential edits. Ad Orientem raises an important point and discussion of that issue should not be sidetracked by irrelevant discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think people are responding directly to Ad Orientem's points. I don't think their responses constitute irrelevant discussion. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

To what Joe said - you are wrong on the conspiracy angle. The committee was ready to conclude no convincing evidence of conspiracy was seen by them, until the dictabelt evidence was presented at the last minute. Members of the committee have made this precise point. The "evidence" you supply of the Dallas police force not guarding exits etc can also be interpreted as simple incompetence. In fact, that is what really was going on there, not some Rube-Goldberg-style scheme. Indeed, most of the "conspiracy" claims arise not out evidence of some nefarious plot, but out of routine incompetence by the Dallas police, the FBI and the CIA, and their efforts to hide and minimize their bumbling security fiasco which not only allowed the president of the United States to be killed in broad daylight, but also allowed his accused assassin to be killed while in custody. The defector Oswald went to Mexico City and the CIA couldn't even photograph the right guy, calling some schlub Oswald? The FBI receives a death threat from Oswald days before Kennedy comes and they don't bother as a simple precaution to increase surveillance on him despite his possible propensity for violence? The Dallas police can't secure the basement of their own headquarters and some bar owner blows away the chief suspect? Did they deliver mea culpas afterwards? No, they employed a strategy of "Cover Your Ass."

As to the structure of the page, it seems to me we should bring over as an intro the history of the conspiracy movement the bit I wrote on the main conspiracy page, or do some similar history which puts a lot of this into context. It seems to me that the movement as described there had a key role to play to re-opening the case in 1977 and identifying many of the troubling issues either left unaddressed or inadequately addressed by the Warren Commission. For example, the fact that the wounds to the president were described via the testimony of the pathologists, without reference to the photos and the x-rays, while many witnesses described head wounds at odds to this. Further, as an example, the grassy knoll as a source for the shots was virtually ignored by the WC, despite many witness claims who stated they thought the shots came from there.

So, I'd say, the conspiracy crowd was and reflected mainstream thought - until about 1978. The trouble is, the HSCA in exhaustively re-examining the evidence, (and this is the ACTUAL evidence - the rifle, the bullets, ORIGINAL negatives/slides first-generation prints etc, not a photo in a book somewhere) came to near-identical conclusions: 1) Oswald fired the shots which caused all the injuries; 2) Oswald had no known associates who may have put him up to the assassination; 3) No convincing evidence linking any of the usual suspects, like the Mafia, the CIA, to the crime. The major difference, of course, was the finding of "conspiracy" based solely on the dictabelt evidence (presented days before the mandate of the committee was to expire, the original conclusion of "no evidence of conspiracy" was hastily changed).

Following the HSCA report, I'd argue that the conspiracy movement became the fringe movement it is today. They routinely ignore evidence which had been thoroughly examined and which established Oswald as the culprit, and when they do address it, they, without any rationale other than an apparent attempt to explain away evidence, declare most of this evidence to be planted or forged. As only a small example, on the backyard photos, which were claimed to be forged, I did a search, found an article talking about the "evidence" these photos were forged, but they cite "anomolies" which were addressed and answered in 1978. They even claim a Canadian expert who thought there was evidence of forgery, but who changed his view once he saw the original negative/prints, STILL says they were forged. If the article had dated from 1977, okay. But that's not the case. It is dated 2009. This is why these guys are "fringe" and in most cases can't be taken seriously. Canada Jack (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

you are offering opinions on the veracity or validity of the theories presented in this article, based upon their content. all of these have been included here as examples of theories about this event. as the title of this entry indicates, presenting theories is one major part of this article. the inclusion of these theories is based upon their coverage in third-party sources, as per Wikipedia policy.--Sm8900 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

here are some links from reliable sources indicating that conspiracy theories cannot validly all be labeled fringe based on individual people's opinions.

• One JFK conspiracy theory that could be true, By Thom Patterson, CNN, Mon November 18, 2013.
• Kerry doubts Warren Commission report --Sm8900 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, now you start to get into the sticky juxtaposition of public and lay opinion versus expert opinion and reliable sources. Sure, most Americans don't believe Oswald acted alone. Half the country doesn't believe that humans evolved from a lower order of species. However, the number of peer-reviewed studies supporting the Intelligent_design_movement is zero. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

hm, so now, sources are not acceptable unless they are peer-reviewed journals? so if that's the case, I guess that no Wikipedia article has ever cited the New York Times, BBC, Bloomberg.com or CNN? --Sm8900 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. But I think we have fairly clear guidelines as to who qualifies as RS on historical subjects. Someone with academic credentials in history who is published on a given subject, quite possibly. John Kerry, probably not. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

okay. in that case, I will not use him as a citation for any material within the entry. glad that we could reach resolution on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"They routinely ignore evidence which had been thoroughly examined and which established Oswald as the culprit, and when they do address it, they, without any rationale other than an apparent attempt to explain away evidence, declare most of this evidence to be planted or forged." Factually, this is false. While certain authors have claimed planted or forged evidence, the vast majority have not. Did any of the nine I listed above declare ANY, much less "most" of the evidence planted or forged? Apparently you simply cannot stand the fact that many of historians who have studied the subject for years simply disagree with the official conclusions. And yes, I'm aware that you don't consider any of those analyses valid because they didn't have access to the evidence in the same way that the official investigations did. I disagree with that. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"And yes, I'm aware that you don't consider any of those analyses valid because they didn't have access to the evidence in the same way that the official investigations did. I disagree with that." The assessment of the evidence by the experts establishes Oswald's culpability. The experts on the HSCA were near-unanimous on what the evidence states. To deny the veracity of this evidence REQUIRES you to deny the veracity of forensics and forensic pathology. You MIGHT have an argument on some specific aspect - like the NAA tests - but there are probably 100+ pieces of evidence which establish a lone gunman and Oswald as that lone gunman. And that's the reality that these people are denying. You CAN'T seriously deny Oswald's guilt and the lone gunman conclusion without ignoring this evidence. There is more latitude when it comes to others who may have put him to the task. Canada Jack (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

section break 2

Three of the seven Warren Commission members had doubts about the single bullet theory. Commission member Hale Boggs once commented, 'I had strong doubts about it.' Commission member Richard Russell adamantly opposed the Warren Commission's single bullet theory. Russell expressed his vehement disagreement with the single bullet theory in a proposed dissenting statement dictated on Sept. 16, 1964; he argued against the theory at the final meeting of the Commission on Sept. 18, 1964 (although the doctored transcript of this meeting contains no reference to Russell's arguments), and then criticized the single bullet theory again that very day in a telephone conversation with LBJ; and he emphatically rejected the theory in interviews with the press in 1966 and 1970. The two principal reasons Russell rejected the single bullet theory: (1) Connally's Warren Commission testimony, in which Connally absolutely, positively, and unequivocally asserted that before he was hit he heard a previous shot that struck JFK ("It's a certainty. I'll never change my mind"), and (2) Russell's own examination of the Zapruder film. In a conversation with Lyndon Johnson, Russell said, “They were trying to prove that the same bullet that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connally, went through him and through his hand, his bone, into his leg and everything else. … The commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it.” Johnson, presumably out of politeness, replied, “I don’t either.” Russell’s fellow dissenter at the 18 September meeting, Senator John Cooper, wrote that “it seems to me that Governor Connally’s statement negates such a conclusion.” BrandonTR (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Brandon's remarks are typical of many in the conspiracy community. It's as if nothing has happened since 1977 on the subject. In other words, he, like most in the conspiracy crowd, completely ignores the extensive re-examination done by the HSCA which answered most of those doubts. Up to 1977, one could raise many basic questions on the SBT, among other things, as there were troubling discrepancies in the WR. But those issues WERE raised when the HSCA re-examined the case. They concluded - to the surprise of many on the committee - that the SBT WAS correct and was entirely consistent with both the forensic evidence and the photographic evidence. High-resolution versions of the Zapruder film since have further corroborated the SBT. Those who ignore the evidence - in the conspiracy crowd - routinely mischaracterize what in fact the evidence was that the SBT accounted for. You can still find all over the internet the complete lie that the SB had to do a "zig-zag" to hit both men - a bold-face lie which was highlighted in the film "JFK," and became such a cultural meme that even Seinfeld referenced it. So what do these intellectually dishonest people do? They IGNORE the evidence and dredge up the quotes from Connally, and from the one member of the committee who couldn't be bothered to be there when most of the testimony was delivered - Richard Russell.

As for your Connally comments, you forget the one assumption he made - that Kennedy was hit by the first bullet. We see him turn after hearing the first shot, but he never turned to see the president until he - Connally - was hit. This is clear in the Zapruder film. So, how could he know JFK was hit by the first bullet? He CAN be certain a shot was fired before he was hit. He CAN'T be certain JFK was hit by that first shot as he didn't see the president until he himself was injured. This is obvious from anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of the assassination, but is another example of the misleading arguments made by the conspiracy crowd, desperate to avoid actually addressing the analyses which form the basis of the SBT. Canada Jack (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

From "they, without any rationale other than an apparent attempt to explain away evidence, declare most of this evidence to be planted or forged." we mysteriously switch to "there are probably 100+ pieces of evidence which establish a lone gunman and Oswald as that lone gunman." Sorry, the damage is done. You made a patently false statement, and now you're trying to dance around the fact that you made it. You haven't actually read the works of the better-regarded authors doubting the official conclusions, or I don't think you would have made the statement in the first place. Which I find very telling for someone who's made these talk pages the subject of a roughly 900-part series on why he's the world's greatest expert on what these authors do and do not say. You're simply taking the position that one side is right, so everyone else is crazy/stupid/disingenuous rather than simply expressing a different interpretation of the same evidence. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the damage is done. You made a patently false statement, and now you're trying to dance around the fact that you made it. ??? Are you kidding me, Joe? Do you want me to list say 100 occurrences where conspiracy theorists claim evidence was planted or forged with no evidence in fact this was the case? You know it'd take me about 5 minutes to find those examples on the internet! Far from being a non-sequitor as you imply ("...we mysteriously switch to..."), the evidence which many claim was planted or forged is the very evidence which establishes a lone gunman/Oswald as the assassin!

Here are few examples I can think of off the top of my head. Do you want me to cite each one? The Zapruder film is a sophisticated forgery; The backyard photos are forgeries; Witness Howard Brennan who identified Oswald is a liar; Witness Helen Markham who identified Oswald as the man who shot Tippit is a liar; bullet casings from the TSBD were planted; the Oswald rifle was planted; Oswald's fingerprints on the rifle were planted; Bullet casings at the Tippit murder scene were planted; Oswald's gun bag was forged by the police; mail-orders for the rifle and gun under alias Hidell were forged; the Hidell ID on Oswald was planted; the "single bullet" was planted; the recovered rifle was a Mauser, replaced later by Oswald's Carcano; the Autopsy photos are forgeries; the x-rays are forgeries; the pathologists were liars when they made no mention of a massive rear head wound; bullet wounds to the president were faked; etc etc.

You're simply taking the position that one side is right, so everyone else is crazy/stupid/disingenuous rather than simply expressing a different interpretation of the same evidence. No I take the empirical position that the masses of physical evidence which point to a) a lone assassin and b) Oswald and which were assessed by two of the most exhaustive investigations not only in American history but world history firmly establish the truth of those conclusions. And I further make the underlying point that BEFORE one starts to point fingers at other players, you HAVE to start with the evidence establishing Oswald as the lone assassin. To do otherwise is to pretend that forensic science is a lie. To do otherwise is to pretend that virtually ALL of these experts called to testify and assess this evidence were liars and complicit in a cover-up of one the most heinous crimes in American history, which in ITSELF would be a heinous crime. And that is PRECISELY what most of these authors do, either by baldly saying so, or ignoring the work of these investigations. Either way, "fringe" beliefs ignore evidence or dismiss evidence which establishes mainstream historical verities. This is, in other words, not a mere "interpretation," whereby one could look at a piece of evidence and say it doesn't establish what some claims it establishes. We are talking about somewhere in the area of 100 pieces of evidence which establish Oswald as the killer. It's not a question of "interpretation" if you claim Oswald didn't do it based on the evidence; it's a matter of denial.

So, Joe, to be a true account, using standard historical analyses, a non-fringe author HAS to acknowledge first that Oswald shot and killed the president. THEN, and if you had bothered to read what I posted above ("There is more latitude when it comes to others who may have put him to the task"), you could start importing other players who may have somehow got Oswald to do their bidding. But, unless you can prooffer some evidence that, say, the CIA directed Oswald to do it, we are stuck with by and large elaborate speculations about how this may have come about. And just because, say, Dulles hated Kennedy, doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that Dulles had Kennedy killed. No serious historian would make such a claim. Canada Jack (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Zapruder film is a sophisticated forgery." "the Autopsy photos are forgeries; the x-rays are forgeries" Fetzer says this, as have a few others. But the vast majority of researchers, those taken seriously by the research community, have not. "The backyard photos are forgeries." Groden says this, maybe a couple of others. Groden also points out a lot of other evidence questioning the official conclusions, and Oswald as lone gunman, that has nothing to do with the photos. "Witness Howard Brennan who identified Oswald is a liar; Witness Helen Markham who identified Oswald as the man who shot Tippit is a liar" "the pathologists were liars" Suggesting that various people were wrong in their assertions is very different from declaring, "most of this evidence to be planted or forged." "bullet casings from the TSBD were planted" and "Oswald's gun bag was forged by the police" "the recovered rifle was a Mauser" Some authors have pointed out inconsistencies in the evidence chain which bring the official conclusions into question. That is not declaring the evidence planted or forged.

You said, "They routinely ignore evidence which had been thoroughly examined and which established Oswald as the culprit, and when they do address it, they, without any rationale other than an apparent attempt to explain away evidence, declare most of this evidence to be planted or forged." That is a patently false statement. You are wrong. Period. Full stop. Are you telling me that David Scheim, Edward Epstein, Gerald McKnight, Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, Cyril Wecht, David Wrone, Walt Brown, John Newman, Henry Hurt, Gaeton Fonzi, Anthony Summers, James Dieugenio, Jim Davy, Josiah Thompson, John H. Davis, Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann have declared most of the evidence to be planted or forged? I'm telling you they have not. I'm not sure any of them have called any of the evidence planted or forged. And as for, "They routinely ignore evidence which had been thoroughly examined and which established Oswald as the culprit," that's false as well. The fact that you disagree with their conclusions doesn't make their analysis wrong. I'm more convinced than ever you haven't read any of these books. "They routinely ignore evidence." How would you know? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, Canada Jack, I'm not sure what your suggestion is on this. are you seriously saying that an article on conspiracy theories should simply state that there are no conspiracy theories? clearly, some sources say that they do exist. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Very late response to Joe and Sm here... No, Sm, I don't suggest conspiracies shouldn't be on this page. What I am suggesting is MOST of the conspiracy crowd lack credibility because they exonerate Oswald of involvement, at least directly in terms of firing the shots. It's not a matter of "interpreting" evidence differently, it's making the intellectually dishonest claim that the mounds of evidence which link Oswald to the murder somehow don't matter. IOW, one can quibble with, say, the presence of a palmprint on the box the sniper sat on. If that was the only piece of evidence linking him to the crime, that'd be a weak case against him. But that's not what we have here. We have multiple fingerprints, a bag which he was seen carrying with his fingerprints which he denied having, we see a rifle, purchased by him, with his fingerprint and his denial he had it, the photo of him with the rifle which he also denied, the bullets which killed Kennedy matched to that particular rifle, etc etc. Even if you don't use the words "planted" or "forged," to pretend Oswald didn't shoot the president requires the a priori assumption that all that evidence was planted or forged.

"Are you telling me that David Scheim, Edward Epstein, Gerald McKnight, Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, Cyril Wecht, David Wrone, Walt Brown, John Newman, Henry Hurt, Gaeton Fonzi, Anthony Summers, James Dieugenio, Jim Davy, Josiah Thompson, John H. Davis, Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann have declared most of the evidence to be planted or forged? I'm telling you they have not." If they say Oswald didn't fire the shots, then they are denying the evidence against Oswald is valid. They are therefore, even if not directly saying so, suggesting that evidence was either planted or forged. Canada Jack (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"If they say Oswald didn't fire the shots, then they are denying the evidence against Oswald is valid. They are therefore, even if not directly saying so, suggesting that evidence was either planted or forged." No, they are saying that the official investigations, where they conclude that the evidence points exclusively to Oswald, are wrong or premature. I understand how fundamental our disagreement is here, we'll just have to leave it that way. You believe that there is no possibility that a reasonable person can study the evidence and testimony and conclude that there was or could have been a shooter other than Oswald. Therefore if someone claims to reach this conclusion, they must be uninformed, lying or crazy. I disagree. Many researchers, as do I, find the case for a second shooter on the grassy knoll quite convincing. And I don't understand the point of view that says the ballistics evidence can only be interpreted one way. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, Joe. Once one looks at the evidence which the Warren Commission and the HSCA used to conclude Oswald indeed fired the shots which hit Kennedy, which I did not do for years as I was immersed in the lies of the conspiracy crowd, the ONLY intellectually honest position one can take is that it is highly likely Oswald shot Kennedy. Period. The evidence for it is overwhelming, so overwhelming that the CT crowd, after 50 years, can't account for it, so they either ignore it, deny the evidence is valid, or claim it was faked/planted. All intellectually dishonest positions to take. In other words, the level of denial REQUIRED to suggest Oswald had no hand in the actual shooting means you have to throw out reams of forensic evidence and conclude those investigators either are liars - which many authors indeed claim - or that the evidence has been planted and/or forged.

I am just talking about Oswald here, Joe, so quit pretending I am saying that saying this means a conspiracy was impossible or that I am saying to think a conspiracy happened means you are a fool, the typical strawman argument you raise when I discuss how many - most - in the CT crowd deal with the evidence against Oswald in the case. "Many researchers, as do I, find the case for a second shooter on the grassy knoll quite convincing." That's a different argument. I dismiss the second gunman claim as there is no evidence of a second shooter, though I acknowledge it is POSSIBLE there was a second or even third sniper, just that only Oswald hit his mark. What I am talking about is the notion that Oswald didn't fire those shots from the TSBD. And on THAT score, some counts have more than 50 pieces of evidence, a lot of it physical, which directly links Oswald to the shooting. Canada Jack (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The ultimate irony here in terms of what the Conspiracy crowd believe is that they will deny and try to explain away the mounds of actual forensic evidence which firmly establishes that shots, fired by Oswald, struck and killed the president, yet, on the flimsiest of premises, say they have "solved" the case, citing "evidence" like a single fingerprint which "proves" a LBJ associate was behind it, or a photo of tramps, one of whom was Hunt, "proves" the CIA was involved etc etc. Sure, not all in the CT crowd do that, but far, far too many do.

When it comes to Oswald, my premise is that the physical evidence - what we know for a fact - firmly establishes Oswald's guilt. However, the LACK of evidence does not in a similar manner "establish" there was, say, no second gunman, or others involved conspiracy somehow connected to LHO. So, while I say Oswald's guilt is established, I only say that the evidence which we have does not speak of a conspiracy. This does not preclude the possibility of evidence emerging which might suggest Oswald had a helper or was otherwise involved. But, and this is my ultimate point, it is hard to see how any emerging evidence would counter the evidence we have against Oswald. You'd have to get into the realm of Alien intervention or time portals or other wackiness. Canada Jack (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Without picking that apart, let me see how far I can go in your direction. Clearly, there is no "babe in the woods" innocence for Oswald. Leaving all his money and wedding ring at home on the morning of the assassination is the act of a man not coming home again. Also, it IS the routine of authors doubting that Oswald acted alone to say that evidence was planted, provided we're talking about evidence planted by other conspirators to make sure only Oswald is blamed. That's not the same thing as the investigators framing Oswald (some say that, most don't). Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Three questions, Joe - #1 - In your opinion, did Oswald fire the shots that struck Kennedy? - #2 - Of that list of authors you posted, how many claim that Oswald fired no shots? - #3 - Is it credible, in your opinion, to claim that Oswald was not involved in the actual assassination as a sniper (whether alone or with others)? Or that claim merely an "opinion" or an alternate "interpretation" of the evidence, much as, for example, historians debated whether Hitler was a deranged lunatic or an encapsulation of the average German writ large, aiming to right some historical wrongs and not aiming to take over the world (or, at least, Europe) until events led him down that road (a historiographical debate in the 1960s)? Canada Jack (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, this is the kind of insightful discussion I'd hoped we have before we mostly started calling each other names. Hopefully now we're in a what soccer players would call a "friendly." I'd like to address all these questions, I plan to do so at a relaxed pace.

Question #1. Oswald. The case against Oswald is very strong:

I. A whole lot of evidence points straight to him.

II. It's established beyond a reasonable doubt Oswald was prepared to kill - I'm satisfied he killed Tippitt.

III. There is no other suspect.

IV. The idea that someone else could have committed the crime and gotten away is pretty remote.

---

Would I convict Oswald in a court of law? Only if at least some of the following was resolved. Until then, I have a reasonable doubt.

I. Oswald had no motive.

II. I see serious problems with Oswald's opportunity to commit the crime.

A. Oswald claimed to have spent his lunch hour where he normally would - in the lunch and snack rooms, where he was seen just over one minute after the crime. Witness testimony sort of, possibly, independently corroborates Oswald's claim to have been downstairs between 12 and 12:30. It's not clear. If Oswald was downstairs at that time, there's no case against him.

B. How did Oswald think this was going to work? The President was supposed to pass at 12:00. Oswald would have no expectation of being alone on the upper floors at that time. There were two versions of the mortorcade route published, one of which showed it not passing the SBD. He did not, according to one witness, attempt to immediately leave the building after his release by Truly, but strolled around drinking Coca Cola. When he did leave, he clearly had no working plan to get away.

C. Oswald was working until 11:50. Between 12 and 12:15-20, another employee was eating lunch on the 6th floor. He even left his lunch sack on, or very close to, the sniper's nest. No explanation has ever been offered as to when Oswald was supposed to have built the sniper's nest and assembled the rifle.

D. Witnesses statements were that persons other than Oswald were seen through the 6th floor windows.

E. You know from other discussions that I'm of the opinion that Oswald could not have gotten to the second floor in under 90 seconds and would have been seen descending the stairs if he had been there.

Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

section break 3: a bloated mess

Demonstrating again what a bloated mess this article has become, I have for a second time spent a fair amount of time expanding and citing John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Bernard Weissman. The article now devotes 10 sentences (and I could write more) related to one allegation that stems from a lush who wanted some attention... and Mark Lane decided he would give it to him and take some for himself, as well. Ad Orientem, is this how you want the article to be counterbalanced per your OP? If so, we might as well replace the entire article with "Please read Reclaiming History" because I don't have the time to give this the Bugliosi treatment and no one else seems to be lifting a finger. Location (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor who added the RS and fringe tags has not edited or participated in TALK regarding the changes he demanded. That's not how the game is played. Unless someone is going to outline why the article still violates RS and Fringe, and makes it clear that they are going to make the necessary edits, I'm going to remove the tags.

Location, I believe you suggested spinning off some of the bloat into separate articles. What about New Orleans conspiracy, possibly LBJ or Mafia? How about 'wintness deaths'? Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies but I have been busy in the real world dealing with a major health crisis in the family. For now my editing is going to be very limited. As soon as I have a little time I intend to do some heavy editing. With respect to tags, if there is consensus that the problems have been resolved then by all means remove them. But I don't think that my absence or lack thereof from this article should be a factor in that decision. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking forward to reading the updates. Thanks and good luck. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am in favor of some spin-offs to reduce the bulk here and make the sub-topics more manageable, however, I think we would need some consensus to ensure that a particular spin-off is not viewed as a WP:POVFORK that ends up in an Afd discussion. You have some good ideas. Of the four mentioned, the topic of "mysterious deaths" would probably be the easiest to handle. Questions: How would the article be titled? Would be provide the material as a list with some discussion of each, or in paragraphs of prose? How would we decide what names would be mentioned? Would mention of a name only in a conspiracy source be sufficient, or would we require mention in a neutral or non-conspiracy source, too? - Location (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good questions. The Three tramps spin-off as a possible model? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I just found this discussion, and plan on making some of the edits that Ad Orientem proposed, because I think they're worth implementing. I'll be WP:Bold, but measured and incremental. If anyone wants to yell at me, do it here! Thanks--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is PERFECT, exactly provides what I wanted to know AND MORE. To say this article is a "bloated mess" is a very weird point of view... this article is about a major historical presidential assassination! It's easy enough to read and has plenty of cited sources. Please keep this article. Better yet, aim for the same level of depth and quality in all articles from now on. 92.40.250.78 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

On removal of information contained in FBI report

User Location has removed the following text that has been included in the article for many months:

According to W. Marvin Watson of Lyndon Johnson's White House staff, Johnson told the FBI "...that he was now convinced there was a plot in connection with the [JFK] assassination. Watson stated the President felt the CIA had something to do with this plot." Assistant Director of the FBI Cartha DeLoach testified to the Church Committee that he believed this allegation regarding CIA involvement was "sheer speculation".

User Location's justification for removing this text is that "We don't know what Watson actually said." However this is not a legitimate justification for removing said test as Wikipedia policy states as follows:

Editors are not truth finders

Wikipedia doesn't reproduce verbatim text from other sources. Rather, it summarizes content that some editor(s) believes belongs in the Wikipedia in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources. This process involves editors who are not making claims that they have found truth, but that they have found someone else who is making claims that they have found truth. Since there may be more than one set of facts or explanations for the facts in the article, there's a guideline for that where multiple points of view (the Wikipedia's term for versions of truth) are included.

Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia.

BrandonTR (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

1) If you check the edit history, you find that the material as worded above has not been in the article for many months.

2) As above, you have not summarized nor have you attributed the relevant material accurately. Watson never said that Johnson told the FBI that he was convinced there was a plot in connection with the assassination. This is factually incorrect, therefore, I am reverting it again.

3) An accurate summary with appropriate attribution already appears in the main article related to conspiracy theories involving the CIA. See CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory#Proponents and believers. It's one thing to clutter that article with trivial assertions based on hearsay (or double hearsay in this case) that are tangential to the topic, but you would think that this article - as the parent of the sub-article - would outline the most germane points regarding the CIA conspiracy allegations. Please make your case as to why this material should be retained here instead of in the appropriate sub-article. - Location (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeaaaaah. This is the only reliable source I can find that shows anything about the Lyndon-Watson claim. Is it reliable enough for this paragraph? Unsure.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It is essentially the same report that appeared a month earlier in The Washington Post. - Location (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Wow, this article hasn't had an edit war like this in a long time. This one is also a little unusual -- typically when both parties are very well-read in the facts and theories underlying the debate, as I know they are in this case, we don't get edit warring. Who can summarize what the point or points of contention are? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the passage in CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory#Proponents and believers discusses the material more accurately and in fuller context than what BrandonTR has tried to insert here. (For example, he cites a non-existent document "DeLoach to Watson, FBI document 44-24696, April 4, 1967.") Conspiracy believers tend to think that a memo to Tolson in which DeLoach SAID Watson SAID Johnson SAID something implicates the CIA in a conspiracy. Given that we have already farmed out a discussion of CIA conspiracy-related material to the sub-article, is this material - as double hearsay - even significant enough to include here? - Location (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

[@Joegoodfriend: I would like to clarify that the memorandum does exist, but it is not the "DeLoach to Watson, FBI document 44-24696, April 4, 1967." that BrandonTR keeps inserting into the article. The newspaper reports accurately reflect what it does state. - Location (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)]

Solidly argued. Brandon, why should the text in question be included? Also, I love disputes where the existence of evidence is in question. Brandon, what more can you tell us about this document? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Joegoodfriend: Despite having added it to the article in 2012, my belief is that he cannot tell you anything more about the document because he has not actually seen it. Do you have an opinion as to whether the material should stay since it is already in the appropriate sub-article? I am happy to open an Rfc to solicit more opinions. - Location (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I’m coming down against inclusion. Here is my reasoning.

Wikipedia articles are not made better by the inclusion of unverifiable claims, based on hearsay-style remarks. Let me take an example.

Some people will cheerfully tell you that Frank Marshall Davis was a “card-carrying communist.” Consensus of the editing community has kept the charges against Davis out of his Wikipedia article, despite the fact that the FBI claims they were given the information by communist informants.

But what does the FBI file on Davis actually say? Case in point: the charge Davis was involved in underground communist activities is backed by the following report:[4]

"On 10/6/53, (name redacted), former CP member, advised that in September of 1950, he was told by (name redacted) that the CP in Hawaii was going underground and reorganize into “groups of threes.” (Name redacted) was to contact man for four groups which included group #10 with Marshall Davis as the Chairman."

I agree that in an article about a controversial and contentious subject, the unverifiable claims of one source regarding something they allegedly heard from some other source are not strong enough material for an encyclopedia article. Even when those claims find their way into an FBI file. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the text, you'll see that multiple sources are given for the FBI memo, including the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune. Don't be baffled just because you cannot find this particular FBI memo on the internet. BrandonTR (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The newspaper references do not cite the memorandum that you placed in the article (i.e. "DeLoach to Watson, FBI document 44-24696, April 4, 1967."). Can you clarify where you read it prior to placing a citation for it in the article? - Location (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A reference to this document appears in Anthony Summers' book on J. Edgar Hoover[5]. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Finally. Summers botched the file number, then BrandonTR botched the recipient. In other words, he cited the primary source without reading it. By the way, there are at least two scans of the full memorandum to be found if one looks hard enough. - Location (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If you've found links for the scans provide them, instead of playing weird games of hide and seek. BrandonTR (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with playing games. You haven't bothered to read the sources, yet you remain insistent that inaccurate material stays in the article. In fact, the material in the article STILL states "A 1967 FBI memo from Assistant Director of the FBI Cartha DeLoach to W. Marvin Watson says..." even though the sources are clear that the memo was to Tolson. I have no strong objections to citing the primary source(s)[6][7], but we should not need to since we have secondary sources. We should resolve the issues of why the material should be in this article anyway instead of just the sub-article. - Location (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The history of your nonsense is that if you can't find one excuse to exclude the material, you'll attempt to create another. BrandonTR (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081227083509/http://www.abc.net.au:80/rn/bookshow/stories/2008/2438955.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bookshow/stories/2008/2438955.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A Few Notes

On the Z film talk page I wrote of "Chain Of Custody, Tampered With, Triangulation Anomalies" that needs to be addressed there and here I think. Also, on the main JFK page I linked to "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories" under the "See also" section because it's such an important part of the JFK mythos that it cannot be omitted except by those who wish to bury cultural history or ignore skeptical discourse. Please don't let them take it down. Lastly, on the Assassination of JFK in Pop Culture talk page I've requested color coded (or flagging icons) for each piece of media to mark it "official green", "undecided amber", or "conspiracy red" (other colors may be better). It might illustrate a propaganda Hollywood connection, or not. JasonCarswell (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a Wikipedia page listing books/media about JFK and/or his assassination. At the end of the documentary JFK at 50 The Who, the How and the Why a list of books was presented. Noel Twyman's Bloody Treason, James Douglas' JFK and the Unspeakable, Phil Nelson's LBJ: The Mastermind Of JFK's Assassination are referenced but Douglas Horne's Inside The AARB and Peter Janney's Mary's Mosaic are not. This doesn't mean they need to be referenced here but a list of publications somewhere would be good. JasonCarswell (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorists consider four or five groups, alone or in combination, to be the primary suspects in the assassination of Kennedy..." seems too brief and all that's mentioned about the overall cooperative cabal of several (could be over "four or five") hierarchical pyramids of power, some nested and/or overlapping, that collaborate or conveniently look away, how they benefit, and how the world has changed or remained status quo against Kennedy's alleged intentions. This holistic overview conspiracy seems absent or lost in the minutia. It's been widely expressed and I'll bring in references as I find them. JasonCarswell (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Mortal Error

Article currently [8] reads in part Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK (1992) by Bonar Menninger (ISBN 0-312-08074-3) alleges that while Oswald did attempt to assassinate JFK and did succeed in wounding him, the fatal shot was accidentally fired by Secret Service agent George Hickey... That's not quite true.

Howard Donahue (the ballistics expert whose research is the basis of the book, but who is not even mentioned in this article) concluded that Oswald had critically and probably fatally wounded Kennedy before the shot that struck Kennedy in the head was fired. ...the bullet that struck Kennedy's neck had cracked one of his vertabrae... if Kennedy would have survived the trauma at all - something Lattimer doubted - it probably would have been only as a vegetable quadraplegic. (p. 199)

John K. Lattimer subsequently published his own theory, which I have not read, only the Donahue/Menninger theory (both in the original and in McLaren's version). My point is simply that the Donahue/Menninger theory is not accurately described in our article. According to that theory, the fatal shot was probably fired by Oswald, not Hickey, and while the subtitle of the book suggests otherwise, the text is quite explicit on this point.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak to what the book actually claims, but I've never heard that the initial neck wound was such that Kennedy would have been left a quadrapalegic, and certainly not a "vegetable." While indeed one of his vertebrae was nicked, none were broken and his spinal cord was not severed. Surely the latter is a requirement to be left a quadraplegic? Any medical opinion I have read on the nature of the wound is that Kennedy would have survived that one, the head shot was not survivable.

That being said, if the book indeed makes those claims, incorrect as they would seem to be, that is what should be in the section. Canada Jack (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The book makes exactly that claim, see the quote above, and while it's a primary source I think in this case that's perfectly acceptable. And note who is quoted in the book... John K. Lattimer was a source without peer to express this opinion.

Interested in exactly which medical opinions you have read that stated that Kennedy would have survived that one. But there are lots of opinions around so I suppose it's not surprising! Donahue's own starting point was when he realised that the Warren Commission had not called any ballistics experts (their ballistic tests were done by a veterinary surgeon, from memory he did nine tests but the results of all but one of them disappeared). He was then approached by a magazine to write an article supporting the Warren Commission findings, which he agreed to do. But his research for that article led to one disturbing discovery after another. It's a fascinating story.

And I should disclose my POV (if it's not already obvious), see my personal website for the details. I find the book convincing enough to own two copies, one to lend to others who are interested (I'd hate to lose my early edition, which has some differences to the current one). Most decline the invitation, but those who read it are always impressed. And so far all of those I've met who claim to have read it and are unimpressed have not actually done so, some have instead read or watched Colin McLaren's Smoking Gun book and video in which he took up the theory but didn't do it justice IMO, others have read only reviews (and I'm even skeptical that most of the reviewers have read the book either, see my web page on one instance).

Anyway, the discussion here is supposed to be just on fixing the article, and the point is that whoever wrote the quote above hadn't read the book either, or at least not very well, as deciding that Kennedy was already critically wounded before Hickey's (alleged) accidental discharge is a turning point in the narrative and the main topic of a whole chapter. Any other comments on that? Andrewa (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andrew - The WC routinely described the first wound as the "non-fatal" wound, and Dr Perry who saw Kennedy at Parkland was asked about this issue in front of the WC. Warren Commission Hearings Volume III pages 366-390. Mr. Specter: "In your opinion, would the President have survived the injury which he sustained to the neck which you have described?" Dr. Perry: "Barring the advent of complications this wound was tolerable, and I think he would have survived it." I'm no medical expert, but the major blood vessels - the carotid arteries and jugular veins - were apparently not damaged, nor the vagus nerve, which, if damaged, would have affected the parasympathetic control of his heart, lungs and digestive tract.

But where this theory - on the head wound bullet being accidentally shot from the trailing car - falls apart is on the trajectory analysis done for the HSCA - which created a cone of origin for the shot which was far too high for it to have originated from the following vehicle. Even more basically, there is film footage from the moment of the head shot which shows the agent in question in the wrong position to have fired the shot. Again, all that being said, if the claim is in the book, it should be in the article. Canada Jack (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fascinated by the prospect of film footage showing Hickey in the wrong position, agree that would be a basic problem... what's the source of this information? The other objections were in a sense anticipated by Donahue, in that his analysis considered them before they were raised by others. The book is actually a narrative of the development of his thoughts. The claim of major nerve trauma comes from an X-ray that Lattimer supplied to Donahue and which he reproduced in Mortal Error, but which had been withheld from Perry for reasons that remain unexplained AFAIK. It clearly shows that the spinal column is not just chipped but that one of the tranverse processes is both broken off and dislocated.

But the reference to Perry's testimony also belongs IMO. Thank you for it and the source. Interesting. Andrewa (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The film I mentioned is the Bronson film. It shows Hickey still seated at the moment Kennedy is struck in the head. So, to have fired that fatal shot (putting aside the trajectory objection I already noted), he would have had to have fired through the windshield. There are photos of the car as they are about to go onto the freeway, showing Hickey brandishing the rifle - and the windshield of that vehicle is clearly intact. Canada Jack (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, found three YouTubes of that, and stills as well. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Opening sentence...

The open sentence in the lede reads:

"There have been numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963."

...which could, if one were pedantic, be taken to mean there were numerous conspiracy theories on November 22, 1963; not that there have been numerous conspiracy theories since that date. If you see what I mean? An updated version of the sentence might be:

"There have been numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy since it occurred on November 22, 1963."

Just a thought... FillsHerTease (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

---

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories → John F. Kennedy assassination fringe theories – It seems to me that this article's name should be changed from 'John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories' to 'John F. Kennedy assassination fringe theories' because these assassination conspiracy theories are all fringe theories but not all these assassination fringe theories are conspiracy theories. I believe the term "fringe theories" is a more accurate reflection of the content in this article than "conspiracy theories" and naturally encompasses conspiracy theories. The term "fringe theory" is in common usage so is readily recognizable by the vast majority of literate people. It is true that most fringe theories relating to this assassination are conspiracy theories, but I believe it would be more inclusive and accurate to change the name of this article for the sake of precision and neutrality, while I don't believe the proposed change would harm the article. CodeBadger (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "Conspiracy theory" is what these are best known as. Searching google for "jfk conspiracy theories" found 57,100 results and "jfk fringe theories" found zero. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per DIYeditor. Dr. K. 03:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose More widely known as "conspiracy theories", which is the most likely term for searches. And a redirect takes care of those who search for "fringe theories". I searched the English Wikipedia website for articles with "fringe theories" in the title and turned up nothing. Sundayclose (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The fringe or other theories section is only about 2% of this article, so the current title seems appropriate. It seems WP:undue to rename the article for what is almost an after thought in the article. As Sundayclose says, a redirect will easily take care of anyone who happens to be looking for teh much less common topic. Meters (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Shearonink (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging the editors who commented in the move thread before the formal RM was opened and who have not yet posted here: User:Joegoodfriend, User:Canada Jack, User: FallingGravity.
    Meters (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The vast majority of claims challenging the WC/HSCA conclusions revolve around conspiracies. Other claims that don't involve a conspiracy can be dealt with in a separate section, a brief mention in the lede. Canada Jack (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per DIYeditor and Dr.K. above, and also per Canada Jack. Actually, per all of the above. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't select article titles based upon what we believe to be "more inclusive and accurate", but by what reliable sources choose to use to refer to the subject of the article. Close per WP:SNOW. --В²C ☎ 20:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Specifying in the main title header that this is solely a list of "assassination fringe theories" appears to suggest that it exists alongside another list of "assassination mainstream theories". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Couldn't any theory that is not the generally accepted or offered story be considered the subject of a conspiracy to cover it up or deny it, by anyone who was not a believer or refused to consider it as plausible? That would place a fringe theory under the broader term of conspiracy. RM2KX (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move article

I would like to rename this article to 'John F. Kennedy assassination fringe theories' and had wondered what other editors thought of this. The reason being that all assassination conspiracy theories are fringe theories, but not all fringe theories relating to this assassination are assassination conspiracy theories - notably the accidental shooting theory by Bonar Menninger. Thank you for your time. CodeBadger (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@CodeBadger: Is there a source that calls them "fringe theories"? Everything that I've seen says "conspiracy theories," and WP:COMMONNAME suggests we should stick with that. ^Falling_Gravity 03:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Codebadger has already been told in the edit summaries undoing his moves (by User:Dr.K.)[9] [10] and on his talk page (by User:Acroterion ) [11] to discuss this contested move at WP:RM. I doubt this move will be accepted since the fringe theories section is only about 2% of the article, but that's where to raise it. Meters (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I also don't think that the name of the article should be changed to include the term "fringe theories". But, as mentioned above, WP:RM is a good choice if the OP thinks that further discussion is necessary. Thank you for the ping by the way. Dr. K. 04:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I thought it might be best to make a comment about the proposed move on the Talk page as well as WP:RM. CodeBadger (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It has been three hours since you proposed your move on this page, and you have yet to actually take this to WP:RM. Meters (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Good to read that you are enthusiastic about the proposed move Meters. Sadly I have other responsibilities to attend and feel I should read all the associated articles before doing so, thus I cannot give you a precise time frame as to when this will be. Cheers. CodeBadger (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It's worth checking the instructions at WP:RM#Requesting a single page move. Following them will start a discussion here. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check out the instructions as suggested. CodeBadger (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

CodeBadger, GET CONSENSUS before you make changes on these pages, especially on such a fundamental change as the name of the article. Given the only reason you seek to do this is to accommodate your Agent Hickey theory (see above), and also given that when it comes to disputes with the WC/HSCA conclusions, likely 99% say there was a conspiracy, I suggest that all you need to do here is add something to the lede which mentions that a small number of authors claim Kennedy's death was an accidental shooting. Canada Jack (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I will get consensus before making any changes. Thanks for your suggestion. CodeBadger (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with the change. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I wish to thank everybody who commented on my move request. Much appreciated. I accept the consensus. CodeBadger (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oswald's stolen identity

While Oswald was in Russia, some person(s) used his identity. FBI was aware of the fact that identity of person being used in US, who is currently in Russia. Edgar Hoover even sent a memorandum regarding that (i have a hard copy of that memorandum somewhere). I think that stolen identity scenario should be mentioned in the article. usernamekiran (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Rafael Cruz

Honestly, I don't think that this should be included in the article. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#National_Enquirer it doesn't look like the National Enquirer is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Unless and until a RS is found that can independently corroborate it, it should come out. Almostfm (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Hello @Acroterion:
I saw you reverted my revert. But i did not understand your reasoning. Would you please put it in simple words? Thanks. usernamekiran (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

An IP with a history of enthusiasm for conspiracy theories inserted the inappropriate editorializing in Wikipedia's voice a few days ago [12]. Please do not reinstate it. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• roger. usernamekiran (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

John Connally

I have come across the 'LHO was attempting to kill John Connally' (and JFK was collateral damage) theory - should this be mentioned? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article. That theory is already covered. Meters (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A different theory to that one - LHO was aggrieved with JC because (LHO thought) the latter had officially not pursued something LHO wished him (or the Texas administration in general) to do.

Given that over 50 years have passed since the event, and nothing has been discovered in the records (Former Soviet Union/Eastern Europe), 'letter to be opened after my death', crackdowns on various criminal operations etc is it likely any new and definitive evidence will turn up?

For many democracies and some other types of states 'do what we say or we will scupper your re-election' will almost always carry a lesser penalty than killing the said politician - which would apply to most of the proposed originators of a plot in this case. (Getting somewhere between the speculative and Sherlock Holmes' eliminating the impossible - which may fall within a WP talk page remit.) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald sent a letter to John Connally regarding some issue of his naval service. But at that time, Connaly wasnt the secretary of navy anymore. But Connally politely replied Oswad, telling him the same, and also telling him that his letter has been forwarded to the current secretary of navy. There are no proofs, nor any logical reasoning that Oswald had any ill feelings towards Connally. Ergo, if Oswald fired the shots, Connally wan not Oswald's target. And kindly stop using intitals for everybody, as if they are your high school buddies. JFK, RFK, LBJ were publicly known by their initials. Connally was never referred as JC. usernamekiran (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said - 'just mentioning.'

The main problem with the Kennedy assassination - whatever Oswald's precise role in the situation he did not leave a message as to why he did it. (Though there would probably be as many 'discussions at varying angles to reality' analysing such messages as there are now.) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The main stumbling block

This is not a forum for debate about who shot JFK. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
... is that no-one actually saw Oswald fire the shots so he is as elusive as a Higgs boson detected by its break-down particles alone. He #was# in the building, did have the shooting skills, the sniper's vantage was set up, the gun was seen, Oswald did leave the building, and kill the policeman - but 'the crucial few minutes' were not observed. Was the rifle checked for fingerprints - I do not recall seeing this being mentioned. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC) He in fact WAS seen firing the shots, but the conspiracy community has spent 50 years disparaging the witness - Howard Brennan - who testified to the WC that he saw Oswald fire the shots. (He said he feared for his family when he didn't identify Oswald in a line-up despite saying later he knew it was him.) The WC considered his testimony non-reliable in identifying Oswald, but probative in establishing a sniper firing from the window. The fact that someone was firing from there is beyond dispute, there were a total of 9 or 10 witnesses who saw a sniper firing, and/or the rifle barrel, and/or hearing the casings falling to the floor after the shots. His fingerprints were found on the rifle, taken off by the Dallas PD; the rifle was his; he denied he even owned a rifle, a provable lie and indication of consciousness of guilt. His fingerprints were found on several boxes of the sniper perch, several of which were placed for the singular purpose of providing a rifle rest - Oswald would have had no reason in the course of his duties to handle these particular boxes. The rifle which was proven to have been the individual rifle which fired the shots - linked to the bullet and two fragments - had fibre fragments matching what he wore, as did the paper wrapping he was seen carrying an object in. The wrapper, with his fingerprints on, was found adjacent to the sniper's nest. Two witnesses saw him with a similar package that day, holding what he said were "curtain rods." He denied carrying a package. Further, all other employees were accounted for (save for one mentally challenged individual no one claims was capable of firing a shot); no unknown persons were seen in the building before or immediately after the assassination, and Oswald alone fled the scene. The question not answered by the conspiracy community is: if not Oswald, who fired the shots? And what happened to that person? There is literally no one left in the building available to be the assailant! There has rarely been such a slam-dunk in terms of the reams of evidence establishing the guilt of an accused. Those who claim that "he'd have been found innocent because nothing proves he was in the sniper's nest at the moment of the assassination" ignore the fact very few killers are convicted on the basis of more than one or two pieces of incriminating evidence. There are literally dozens of incriminating pieces of evidence in this case establishing he was the sniper seen firing the shots and former DA Vincent Buglioisi makes the salient point that while you might be able to explain away one piece of evidence, maybe even two, the mountain of evidence here linking Oswald to the crime means the very is very, very little doubt Oswald shot the president. Canada Jack (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Second Oswald Theory

Hi editors. I'm putting together my notes to add Second Oswald Theory to this article. That is:

1. The theft of Oswalds' identity while he was in the USSR, and how the theft could possibly be tied to other accusations re Oswald.

2. The suggestion of an Oswald imposter in Mexico while Oswald was there.

3. The reports of someone using Oswald's name in Dallas before the assassination.

4. A reference to the article on Silvia Odio.

I plan to stick to the facts, and will try to stay away from text covering what individual researchers think the facts might mean except when necessary to give context. This article already has way too much "Jim Marrs believes blah blah blah."

For the record, I do not believe there was an Oswald imposter in Mexico. As for the other incidents, I can state the facts and let people draw their own conclusions. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are too much of opinios of individuals. After last discussion about Ossy's identity theft, i couldnt find the FBI memo anywhere online. The one from Edgar, where he says "someone might be using Ossy's birth certificate".

I find it very strange. Currently that memo/piece of comminication is not on the websites of FBI, CIA, NARA, or GPO. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if true (and point #2, at least, is fairly well established), its inclusion would still require some reliable source to answer the question of why it matters (being strong circumstantial evidence of one thing or another). That may be hard to find. That isn't to say that it doesn't matter, of course, just that it wouldn't be very encyclopaedic to proffer speculations otherwise. Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The idea is that if there was a second Oswald, he either was working with Oswald on a plot that included, at least in part, the assassination of JFK or that Oswald was not aware of this person and he was part of a plot to incriminate Oswald. Those two ideas are woven into many of the well-known conspiracy theories, and are supported by many of the published assassination researchers (or crackpots, depending on your point of view). On that tangent, I'm hoping to get through this without a protracted debate on reliable sources. Although I'll be the first to agree that some published sources on the subject are so unreliable that they should never be used for Wikipedia. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'm just trying to stress that the article shouldn't be a repository of claims made in books on the subject. If you have a piece in mind that pulls that all together into a cohesive presentation backed by reliable sources, fine, but just strewn about as random points it would definitely comes across as very tabloid-like, IMO. Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Currently working on the text for the Oswald-double in Mexico. As a conspiracy theory, this lies entirely withing CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory, so I'll be adding it there instead of here. Not sure anyone reads that article... Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Joegoodfriend: looking forward to it. Let me know if i can be of any assistance. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In my books, points 2, 3 and 4 are worthy of inclusion, but I have yet to see the goods on the claim (point 1) that Hoover was aware someone was using Oswald's alias while he was still in the Soviet Union. I have seen the material on the worry that someone might have taken his birth certificate, a reaction to Oswald's mom's letter about the Swiss school. But I am curious to see more on the claim that someone was actually using that ID, or at least the belief that someone was actually using that ID in 1960, 1961. At this point, if this is simply a misunderstanding of those early memos - raising a red flag about the possibility of identity impersonation by, presumably, Soviet agents, and, more basically, the possibility that the ID was stolen in the first place - then it doesn't warrant inclusion here.

Point 3 and 4 have been contentious for many years, the Odio claim very hard to explain away. But point 2, Earl of Arundel, is not as solid as your clip seems to indicate. Far from the release of the Lopez Report (part of the HSCA but not released until the 1990s) indicating a "smoking gun," it merely repeats what we knew already - there were unconfirmed reports of Oswald in the company of others, such as with pro-Castro students and attending a "twist" party - and the possibility of in imposter couldn't be ruled out. Indeed, one of the great revelations of the report was the admission that it was "likely" Oswald in fact was the person who went to the embassy! Not something the conspiracy community really wanted to see. Further, there is no doubt he in fact went to Mexico City, the HSCA didn't even bother to re-visit that as the WC covered it and established it beyond reasonable doubt. For me one of the great "mysteries" about the Mexico City claims is, if the CIA was either on to him or setting him up for a fall, why would Oswald himself admit he went, and why would the CIA release photos of someone clearly not Oswald?

I look forward to whatever is produced for this new section, a section the page clearly calls for. I will, as always, try to include constructive remarks, underlining we have to address WHO is claiming this is an example of a second Oswald, etc. Might be an idea to have an intro from a secondary source such as Buglioisi who puts the "second Oswald" claims in context. Canada Jack (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Canada Jack: I never could find anything on that FBI memo. It is strange there is nothing about that in Nataional Archives, or on the website of FBI. The first memo can be seen on several third party webistes though. As we talked about it earlier, the "Sacramento Bee daily" said there were three memos in total by Edgar/FBI around 1960-61 regarding Ossy. A lot of people claim there were these memos. But I never found any of them, nor anybody who knows what these memos talk about. They are just "hear-say" claims i guess.

As you said, the first memo only castes a doubt if somebody was using Ossy's identity. Nothing more than that. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a good summary. I feel like the Cuban consulate witnesses who described a person claiming to be Oswald but who did not look like Oswald are hard to believe. If the guy didn't look like Oswald, why didn't they hold up the visa application, which had Oswald's real photo, and say, "Why doesn't this photo look like you?" As for the Texas witnesses, we cannot for example refute those who testified under oath that they met an Oswald who was clearly not Oswald, but there's also little or nothing to substantiate their claims. And of course the related conspiracy is: someone sent fake-Oswald to hang around rifle ranges and car dealerships to help frame the real Oswald. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(reset) How common was 'Oswald' as a given or family name at the time for 'youths and men up to about 30' - ie the other persons did meet someone so called at about the right time, but thought nothing about it until after the assassination, and it is thus a case of mistaken identity? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, editors. I've added CIA_Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theory#Second_Oswald_in_Mexico_City_Theory to that article. Enjoy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

New page for conspiracies surrounding Oswald?

I think it is time to do it. The theories regarding Oswald keep on increasing with time. Creating the new page will reduce the size of this page by 20%. And also, there will be a lot more theories after Oct 26, 2017. What do you people think? usernamekiran (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The biggest problem here is that small points of evidence have been given entire paragraphs. The problems surrounding Helen Markham's statements have been given more than 100 words. That could easily be reduced to a single sentence with all the same citations. If we start working on that, there will plenty of room for more Oswald stuff. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• that's true @Joegoodfriend: but even after that, this page has will have like only 30% content regarding Oswald. And there are few theories that haven't been mentioned. I had them in mind, but I forgot. One of them is someone pretending to be Oswald. If we create a new page, there would be room for these theories. And I think a lot more theories will come up after Oct 2017. I think it will be better if we are prepared. But for now, as we discussed earlier, we can work on reducing these two pages. Should the necessity arise after Oct 2017, we can create the new page then. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am all in favor of moving larger segments of this article to appropriate sub-articles (e.g. the New Orleans conspiracy, the mob did it, Johnson did it, etc.), but I don't think this is the proper way to do it since every theory involves Oswald to some extent. What is the proper way to do it? Perhaps I'll start a new thread on that. -Location (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ideas to trim the article

Time and time again, I've seen the complaint from newer editors that some important factoid about the assassination of JFK has been suppressed when another editor removes it due to poor sourcing, redundancy, etc. The irony is that the sheer volume of minutiae in this article - particularly those sections in which everyone and his mother has some interpretation of the evidence or belief about some alleged conspirator - only serves to bury any possible coherent presentation of the major theories. Does anyone other than those convinced either way bother to read this tome? God knows I've tried over the years to implement my own ideas to fix this (which I'm willing to share), but I'm wondering if anyone else feels some sort of overhaul is in order or is willing to share their ideas. - Location (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate wiki/discussion group with the same rules 'somewhere' to which all interested parties can decamp - and report here (or other relevant pages) when the matters are settled to everybody's satisfaction. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stab at this. That means reading the whole article. I may not survive that. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Good luck! Talk to you next year! -Location (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, here's one. A while back, all the material on murder of J. D. Tippit was moved from that article to this article. Do the editors agree with that?

An entire paragraph is devoted to questions re Helen Markham's credibility. This could be cut to one sentence. I mention this because it typifies a problem with the article - we don't need to mention every conceivable data point to summarize the questions that have been raised re the evidence and testimony. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

For a few different reasons, I think there are certain articles (like Assassination of John F. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, J.D. Tippit, and Jack Ruby to name a few) that should only briefly mention the non-official viewpoints. The conspiracy angle deserves a few sentences in J.D. Tippit, but the more detailed ideas belong here or in the articles of the various authors.

I do agree that the section discussing Markham exemplifies sections that could be trimmed. I think a lot of the bloat in this article occurs when someone adds material of a relatively minor nature that supports a conspiracy perspective, then others (myself included) feel the need to insert material to refute it. A lot of this isn't covered in what Wikipedia traditionally knows as "reliable secondary sources", so material of an "unreliable" conspiracy source is met with primary source information (e.g. the Warren Report, HSCA, AARB, some primary source FBI report, etc.). And sometimes someone inserts an FBI or CIA report to support a conspiracy angle then someone else adds other primary source information - or information from McAdams or Bugliosi - to refute it. Where does it end? -Location (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately it keeps going on. I agree with trimming the article. Let me know if i can be of any assistance :) —usernamekiran[talk] 13:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Rfc notice in Talk:David Ferrie

David Ferrie (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

If interested, see Talk:David Ferrie#RfC about the inclusion of allegations made by William Gaudet. -Location (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Related article is being discussed here:

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#CIA_Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theory

--David Tornheim (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Buffs

Was it Calvin Trillin who coined the terms "assassination buffs" in 1967?[13] This might serve as background for the history of JFK conspiracy theories. - Location (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Bugliosi says so - and "buff" is seen as being a pejorative by many, uh, buffs. Bugliosi, btw, did a good history of the conspiracy movement which used to be largely the basis of the conspiracy section of the main page, but has been removed, and was once something I said could work here. Canada Jack (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. A better history of the movement would be nice. The GoogleNews archives have been gutted, so I'm having difficulty finding older stuff now. -Location (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 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/20160801184321/http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx to http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/Thomas%20Donald%20B/Item%2003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512005751/https://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11206&comments=1 to https://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11206&comments=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509203506/http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/family_epics/marcello/11.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/family_epics/marcello/11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808171854/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ%3D

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) 17:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying what the HSCA in fact concluded on conspiracy

Since correcting Earl of Arundel on the basis of the HSCA conclusion of "conspiracy," I have experienced what I consider to be an over-the-top reaction (and I've been an editor here for 11 years so I feel I can gauge that) over what amounts to a single word I changed - from "partly" based on the acoustic evidence to "solely" based on the acoustic evidence. I have been accused of engaging in Original Research, of synthesizing sources to insert a personally preferred conclusion, and of acting in bad faith. I am innocent of all charges!

I've cited text from the dissent. Arundel complains "[t]he 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)." This is specious reasoning. Just because they disagree with the conclusion doesn't mean they have nothing relevant to say as to how that conclusion was reached! And, as they themselves point out, the committee was prepared to go to the American public with a conclusion of no evidence of conspiracy up to the last minute until the dictabelt evidence was presented. Their posting of the relevant conclusions before and after the evidence was presented clearly establishes the validity of their argument.

If this was not so, then what changed the mind, after more than two years of testimony, investigations and evidence, of the committee? If there was something else besides the dictabelt evidence - the sole evidence cited in the conclusion of the final report, by the way - then what was it? A better question is: If the dictabelt evidence was not presented or was discredited when presented, what would the conclusion have been? Well, we know the answer to that as the draft report saw all the evidence - save for the dictabelt evidence - and concluded no compelling evidence of conspiracy!

But even more than that, we have the final report which cites only the dictabelt evidence as being conclusive proof - or very nearly so - of a conspiracy to kill president Kennedy.

Here is what Arundel said on the NO OR noticeboard:

Paragraph 1.C. concludes that "the committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy". To support that finding, many connections between Oswald and various other people and groups are drawn. Nowhere, however, in this specific finding is there any reference to the acoustical evidence.

Arundel is correct that there is no reference there to the acoustic evidence. But he is incorrect when he states "many connections between Oswald and various other people and groups are drawn." In fact, the committee found NO compelling evidence to conclude "conspiracy" either with Oswald's associations, or with various often-mentioned possible conspirators he may have been connected to. The committee lists various organizations - the CIA, FBI, Mafia, pro- and anti-Cuban groups, the Soviets etc. - and says there was no evidence of any of their involvement. It leaves the door open for individual actors in some of those groups, but it certainly made no conclusion that they were in fact involved in the conspiracy they identified.

As for Oswald's associations, the committee in fact stated that based on their evidence, it could have been limited to him and the second gunman! On page 97 of the Report, the committee states the 4 premises on which they based conspiracy: 1) The WC's flawed investigation of conspiracy meant their conclusion of no conspiracy could not be given independent weight; 2) The WC's conclusion that Oswald and Ruby had no association was incorrect and therefore that conclusion could not rule out the possibility of conspiracy; 3) the association of Oswald and Ruby could not by itself infer the involvement of a larger conspiracy, but did not rule out the possibility of a small conspiracy; 4) There was a high probability that a second gunman was involved. But since the HSCA on the next page admits that the conspiracy could have been limited to Oswald and the second gunman - who could not have been Ruby - the sole premise driving the conclusion of conspiracy was #4 - the second gunman. And where did this "high probability" of a second gunman come from? The dictabelt evidence.

How do we know the dictabelt was the sole evidence driving the conclusion, as per the final report (as opposed to the dissent)? It's in the section describing the scientific evidence. For one, the section head says it quite plainly: "scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President." If you read the section detailing these conclusions, you will find extensive discussion of the dictabelt evidence. Then, a discussion of the attempts to calibrate the Zapruder film with the dictabelt evidence. The committee concluded the film does corroborate the dictabelt evidence but, and this is crucial to note, since they also concluded only Oswald's shot struck anyone and the second gunman missed, the Zapruder film does not independently supply evidence of a conspiracy.

Further, the committee says this: "Scientifically, the existence of a second gunman was only established by the acoustical study, but its basic validity was corroborated or independently substantiated by the other various scientific projects." That statement nails it. Without the "acoustical study," there was no scientific validation of the conspiracy contention, and the possibility of a conspiracy was not established as it was based on this scientific conclusion. It further stated that the photographic evidence could not establish the presence of a second gunman, and the witness testimony on hearing shots from the knoll were such that "the statistics are an unreliable foundation upon which to rely with great confidence for any specific finding."

In sum, the evidence as presented in the final HSCA Report clearly establishes that the committee while suggesting a stronger association between Ruby and Oswald, could not conclude that they were involved in a conspiracy together, and separately found no evidence that other groups were involved, though it could not rule out individual players. And that, indeed, the conspiracy they identified could have been limited, based on the evidence they had, to Oswald and the second gunman. Further, the basis for their conclusion of a second gunman was the scientific evidence which the committee clearly stated was only definitively established by the acoustic evidence.

Therefore, the text of the final report itself corroborates the contention of the authors of the dissent - that it was only the acoustic evidence which drove the conclusion of conspiracy - and that absent that, as per the draft report and the text of the final report, a conclusion of "no evidence of conspiracy" would have been reached otherwise.

And, for the purposes of wikipedia, since these conclusions are stated explicitly in the dissent (primary source) and stated by secondary sources (Bugliosi, Posner. etc), there is no "synthesis" or "original research" involved here. Canada Jack (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's a compelling argument, but only up to the point that it requires the reader to infer that the terms "possible conspiracy" and "possible second gunman" are necessarily synonymous. They are not. And as you have already pointed out (although only in an attempt to brush it aside), the report states in no uncertain terms:

The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors:

1. Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight.
2. The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
3. While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
4. There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact, fired at the President.

Even if the committee's examination of acoustical evidence was indeed faulty, that still only applies to at most two of the above premises. Hence, it is therefore entirely reasonable (and moreover consistent with the specific wording of the report) to state in the article that 'The HSCA's ruling was partially based on analysis of the so-called "dictabelt recordings"'. Nevermind that, you say: "[...] since the HSCA on the next page admits that the conspiracy could have been limited to Oswald and the second gunman - who could not have been Ruby - the sole premise driving the conclusion of conspiracy was #4 - the second gunman. And where did this 'high probability' of a second gunman come from? The dictabelt evidence." Elementary, my dear Watson! That's a blatantly synthesized interpretation, to put it mildly. Earl of Arundel (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. This debate has turned into another "never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel" situation. Are we debating different edits to the article? If so, great: someone please lay out the different edits word for word and we'll see if we can get an consensus on one of them. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, Joe, though this is an interesting discussion. I'll keep this short. Well, I'll try.

Simply put, the discussion is on whether the HSCA's conclusion of "conspiracy" was partly or solely based on the dictabelt evidence, and therefore how we characterize that in the lede of the page.

There are two arguments I've made to say that the conclusion of "conspiracy" was based soley on the dictabelt evidence. The first is from the dissent itself, where two of the committee members state exactly that - the committee had already concluded there was no convincing evidence of a conspiracy until the 11th-hour presentation of that evidence. And they reproduced the language with shows that. Duke of Arundel's argument, which to me is a complete non-sequitor, is that because they didn't agree with the committee's conclusion, their views are not relevant. It's a non-sequitor because there is no logical requirement for someone to agree with a conclusion if they are discussing HOW that conclusion came about. They were part of the committee! Their views carry weight because they were part of the deliberative process! Are we to dismiss the views of one of the Framers of the American Constitution on how they deliberated simply because one of his proposals was not agreed upon? Your argument makes zero sense. Besides, and this can't be overstated, the dissent is part of the final report, and D of A is dismissing this part of the report he otherwise agrees with! For no logical reason. IOW, the main source for the contention the dictabelt evidence drove the conclusion of "conspiracy" is the report itself!

Given the Report itself plainly states the evidence drove the conclusion, that is sufficient for our purposes.

That's a blatantly synthesized interpretation, to put it mildly [in reference to my discussion of the body of the report] You misunderstand what I was doing. The dissent spells it out, that the conclusion was driven by the dictabelt evidence. But because you have been erroneously stating that the committee concluded other evidence also drove the conclusion, I showed that that is in fact not the case. It's not "synthesis" because I had always maintained we need only go by the dissent. I'm not arguing that we should keep the language I suggest because of my reading of the body of the report; I am arguing we should do so because the dissent explicitly says what I assert.

Anyway, secondly, the body of the report clearly only cites one piece of evidence which established "conspiracy" - the dictabelt evidence. It is clear to me that Duke of Arundel has not carefully read the report. Elsewhere, he claimed that the HSCA concluded that Oswald was involved with various groups. "To support that finding [of probable conspiracy], many connections between Oswald and various other people and groups are drawn." The problem with that claim is it is false, at least in terms of the HSCA concluding he had any conspiracy relationship with anyone else. I challenge Arundel to find where the committee concluded this. Further, it is clear he has not closely read the 4 factors above which led to their conclusion. The 4th deals with the dictabelt evidence, but the other three are not positive examples of evidence of conspiracy, they are assertions by the committee that the Warren Commission's conclusion of no relationship between Oswald and Ruby were wrong and therefore the possibility of conspiracy there could not be ruled out, but the committee crucially did not conclude there was a conspiracy relationship between the two or between those two and others! This is crystal-clear in the body of the report! IOW, there is no "evidence" here suggesting a conclusion of "conspiracy," the committee merely doesn't dismiss the possibility of there being a conspiracy here as the Warren Commission did, an entirely different thing! Again, I challenge Duke of Arundel to cite where the committee concludes a likely "conspiracy" between Oswald and Ruby and/or other connected players. Recall, we are debating whether the dictabelt evidence was sufficient for the conclusion, or whether there is other evidence. The 3 other factors are not "evidence"; they are assertions that the possibility of conspiracy were wrongly dismissed by the Warren Commission.

Therefore, my points stand as the committee is left with only one line of evidence driving the "conspiracy" conclusion - the acoustic dictabelt evidence. Therefore, as the Report itself confirms that the dictabelt evidence drove the conclusion of conspiracy (explicit in the dissent and upon a careful reading of the committee's actual conclusions), we should keep the language saying the conclusion was driven solely by that evidence, though the dissent is sufficient for the purposes of wikipedia. Canada Jack (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

the body of the report clearly only cites one piece of evidence which established "conspiracy" - the dictabelt evidence. Jack, that's your opinion, otherwise known as original research. But never mind; the Committee can, for example, find the body of evidence compelling enough to reach a conclusion without citing any particular piece(s) of evidence. The dissent is relevant, but it's of limited relevance compared to the official conclusion and its wording.

To quote the Report, "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."

I've never disagreed with an edit you've made, but I don't see how I can agree here. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Jack, that's your opinion, otherwise known as original research." As I said, Joe, the dissent clearly states that the dictabelt evidence solely drove the conclusion. The two members explicitly say that. Your quote doesn't say what evidence drove the conclusion, that's your interpretation of what they said. THAT'S original research. Canada Jack (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Jack. I will try to put in as little words, and in as simple language as possible. The witnesses who stated they heard the shots from any other location(s) than TSBD, were either deemed uncredible, or inexperienced regarding gun-fires, or were claimed as "they mistook echoes for actual sound". It was the last moment dictabelt evidence which changed the conclusion. The HSCA criticised previous investigations, and the institutions (FBI, SS...). But the report doesnt say Oswald was connected with any organisation, incuding CIA. It concluded high probablity of conspiracy, because there was evidence of another gunman; the evidence being the dictabelt recording. HSCA didnt consider other "evidences" as proofs, it merely considered them as things that corroborate(d) with the "evidence" (the dictabelt). In other words, if there was no dictabelt, the testimonies would have received the same treatment as received my Warren commission. Same goes for "other evidences". Bottomline, conclusion of "probable conspiracy" was based solely on dictablet.

Note: I used to read report of Warren commission as my remedy for insomnia which worked. Later I re-read these two reports numerous times. Few times, it was start-to-end, and for many times it was "section to section" which i still do. And it is not just that, I have gone through numerous memos, numerous communications between and/or within CIA, FBI, DOJ and many more. And I downloaded all these documents by myself from official government cites of CIA, NARA, FBI, GPO among many others. I am young (1988) and goofy, but not an idiot. And when it comes to JFK, I am certainly not ignorant. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

the dissent clearly states that the dictabelt evidence solely drove the conclusion. But the majority didn't agree with the dissenters, as is made clear in the words of the Report. You're saying the minority opinion so completely outweighes the actual wording of the Report, agreed upon by the majority, that this article should rely on the dissent and ignore the actual conclusion? Disagree.

The witnesses who stated they heard the shots from any other location(s) than TSBD, were either deemed uncredible, or inexperienced regarding gun-fires, or were claimed as "they mistook echoes for actual sound". I'm sorry that makes no sense, given that -one more time- "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." Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. Not to mention that the committee isn't actually obligated to supply evidence to support their rulings in the first place. They reach their final conclusions by consensus, regardless if one member arrives there by considering this exhibit and another by that one, even though each may disagree about the fundamental credibility of the piece(s) of evidence used by the other to base their decision. At the end of the day, the findings are what count. They represent the legal analogue of the final judgement of the court. The HSCA cited the factors with which they based their rulings. It isn't our job here to question whether they meant it or not. Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

For posterity's sake, this is a diff of the disputed revisions. Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Joegoodfriend: hey Joe :)

@Earl of Arundel: Would you eulogise idiosyncratic scintillating onomasticon website to me?

I was trying to keep my points as little as possible, with simple language. I was not expecting users playing with the meaning of the words. So here is some "robotic conversation":

In March 1965, Harold Feldman wrote that there were 121 witnesses to the assassination listed in the Warren Report, of whom 51 indicated that the shots that killed Kennedy came from the area of the grassy knoll, while 32 said the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository. (ref name="Feldman") In 1967, Josiah Thompson examined the statements of 64 witnesses and concluded that 33 of them thought that the shots emanated from the Grassy Knoll. (sfn|Bugliosi|2007|p=847)

Of the 104 Dealey Plaza earwitness reports published by the Commission and elsewhere, 56 recorded testimony that they remembered hearing at least one shot fired from the direction of the Depository or from near its Houston and Elm Streets intersection that was to the rear of the President, 35 witnesses recorded testimony of at least one shot fired from the direction of the grassy knoll or the triple underpass located to the right and front of the President, eight witnesses gave statements of shots fired from elsewhere, and five earwitnesses testified that the shots were fired from two different directions. Dealey Plaza Ear witnesses

• usernamekiran's comments: If there were so many people who claimed hearing shots grassy knoll, then why did not Warrent commission give it a consideration? Becuase, as i said previously, and i am quoting myself: The witnesses who stated they heard the shots from any other location(s) than TSBD, were either deemed uncredible, or inexperienced regarding gun-fires, or were claimed as "they mistook echoes for actual sound" [by the warren commission].
  

HSCA was going to do the same, when the dictabelt evidence came up, HSCA said "the testimonies support the dictabelt". The conclusion was not based on anything else than the dictabelt.

Arnold Rowland was standing on the east side of Houston Street, facing the TSBD. Warren commission.

Mr Specter :Did you have any impression or reaction as to the point of origin when you heard the first noise?
Mr Rowland :Well, I began looking, I didn’t look at the building mainly, and as practically any of the police officers there will tell you, the echo effect was such that it sounded like it came from the railroad yards. That is where I looked, that is where all the policemen, everyone, converged on the railroads.…

Mr Specter :Now, as to the second shot, did you have any impression as to the point of origin or source?
Mr Rowland :The same point or very close to it.

Mr Specter :And how about the third shot?
Mr Rowland :Very close to the same position.…

Mr Specter :After the shots occurred, did you ever look back at the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr Rowland :No; I did not. In fact, I went over toward the scene of the railroad yards myself.

Mr Specter :Why did you not look back at the Texas School Book Depository Building in view of the fact that you had seen a man with a rifle up there earlier in the day?
Mr Rowland :I don’t remember. It was mostly due to the confusion, and then the fact that it sounded like it came from this area “C”, and that all the officers, enforcement officers, were converging on that area, and I just didn’t pay any attention to it at that time. Warren transcript

Kindly dont make a Rowland out of me. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. This isn't a debate about our own opinions about what happened in Dealey Plaza or whatever the Warren Commission report has to say about it. The question is simply "what portion of the HSCA report's findings are premised on the dictabelt evidence?". According to the report itself there were four premises in total (see above). Are you saying that all four of these are dependant on the acoustical evidence? Earl of Arundel (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not deviating from the topic. Why did you think so? I was trying to make the point how the dictabelt changed perspective of HSCA. You made a Rowland out of me afterall.

• # 1 You say HSCA's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors first of which: Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight. are you kidding me with that? How can ANY finding be based on the previous grammatical statement?
• # 2 The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.

In other words, in above statement HSCA states "commission's find (regarding something) was not relaible." That doesnt mean HSCA believes there was a conspiracy and/or that the commision tried to cover up the conspiracy. It simply states the results are unreliable. Example: I give a commission some chemicals, apparatus and blood sample, and tell it to measure sugar levels in the blood. The commission tested the sugar levels, and they found out that the sugar levels are within the normal range. Then you and me find out, even though commission had access to precise instruments/chemicals, their method of measuring the sugar was flawed, so i (he committee in example) declared "the commission's report on sugar levels is not reliable". Then you are saying, "committee's finding that blood sugar level was probably high; was based on the fact that committee beleived commission's method was flawed." Yup. Thats what is going on here. How can you say the sugar level isnt below than normal?

• # 3: While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.

You must be kidding here. The statement above deals with the extent of conspiracy. Committe says there were significant assciations of Oswald and few major groups (which committee examined), and from these examinations it can not be deduced if these groups were involved or not. Same goes for Ruby. So the committee states: a limited conspiracy can not be ruled out.

This statement talks about the extent of a conspiracy, assuming there was one already.

• # 4 high probability of a second gunman firing at JFK.

how did the committie come to that conclusion? From the fact that Oswald was drinking a cola in TSBD, or from the fact that JFK had breakfast in Fort Worth that morning?

• your "four factors" are grammatical sentences. At the least, the committie's conclusion of conspiracy was not based on them. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I have a fairly straightforward solution to this issue. I think it's pertinent to note the dissent for the simple reason the identified evidence was later found to be not indicative of an actual second gunman. If this was Richard Russell and the single bullet theory, well, we'd need not make much of that as the SBT hasn't been subsequently disproven.

So... how about language along the lines of "The HSCA's ruling was, according to the report's dissenters, based on analysis of the so-called "dictabelt recordings" obtained from..." In this way, the issue is flagged but we, Earl and I (and I apologize, I think I called you "Duke" at one point, my mistake, not being snide), can leave that issue of whether the report itself actually can be seen to be based solely on that evidence to the side. Fair enough? Canada Jack (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• i am okay with that. :) But we need to consider Joe's vote as well. He has been here long before me, contriuted here profoundly, and you two go a long way back together. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

But the majority didn't agree with the dissenters, as is made clear in the words of the Report. You're saying the minority opinion so completely outweighes the actual wording of the Report, agreed upon by the majority, that this article should rely on the dissent and ignore the actual conclusion? Disagree.

Joe (and Earl, who agrees with Jos), you miss the point. Obviously, the dissenters' views didn't carry the day on the evidence, but I'm not saying that their view on the veracity on the evidence should be flagged (they lost that argument, obviously): I'm saying their point that the conclusion of "conspiracy" so completely relying on that evidence renders that conclusion suspect if the evidence was found wanting later. And because it WAS found wanting and was debunked, this is a crucial point to make. I think it's a fair compromise to make the point that - in the view of the dissenters - the "conspiracy" conclusion was based on that evidence, later debunked.

Now, we could go back and forth on what, exactly, the report says and whether in fact we can determine it relies solely on that evidence or not, and even if I make a case you agree with, it would be Original Research as Earl correct;y points out to make a determination based on our interpretation of the report. But we don't need to do that, we simply need to note that the dissenters felt the conclusion of "conspiracy" relied in their view too heavily on this single piece of evidence, and in fact changed the conclusion from the original "no proof of conspiracy." Canada Jack (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

we simply need to note that the dissenters felt the conclusion of "conspiracy" relied in their view too heavily on this single piece of evidence, and in fact changed the conclusion from the original "no proof of conspiracy."

Great, if that's what we simply need to do, then I take it you have no problem with text that states that the official conclusion was partially based on the acoustic evidence, as long as the text also thoroughly covers the dissent? Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it has to be stronger than that for two reasons - 1) the dissenters say it was completely based on that evidence, and 2) because the report itself is ambiguous on how much it relied on that evidence. It says "factors" etc but when it comes to compelling "evidence" it only seems to rely on the acoustic evidence as determinative. It goes both ways - to say it's a conclusion "partly" or "completely" relying on the dictabelt evidence based on our various interpretations of the report is Original Research. The report is ambigiuous, a point Earl underlined earlier, and therein lies the rub.

In contrast, the dissent is explicit on this issue. So, as a compromise, I suggest we flag who is saying it and say: "The HSCA's conclusion of 'conspiracy' was, according to the report's dissenters, based on analysis of the so-called "dictabelt recordings" Canada Jack (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Jack. And just to be clear that by "dissenters" we aren't referring to the media or some other group of outside detractors, it could even be stated more specifically that "The HSCA's ruling was, according to dissenting members of the committee, based on analysis of the so-called "dictabelt recordings" obtained from [...]". Earl of Arundel (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point, Earl. Yes, we should clarify who the dissenters are. Canada Jack (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

By following CanadaJack's recommendation we avoid the use of interpretive wording, Joe. In any case, the reader can draw their own conclusions. Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

somehow, my last comment didnt go through (it is not even in my contribution history). I (unsuccessfully) posted it after Jack's comment of 17:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC). Anyways, what I wanted to say then, is same for now. All the suggestions are good, but i think we should not use the word "so-called". I mean, even though it was flawed, and later discredited, the dictabelt was a real thing, and not some "assumed thing" or forgery. That word reflects like: "so-called video tape of alien autopsy" :-D —usernamekiran (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The expression "so-called", in this context, is just a common literary device used to introduce something not referred to in previous passages that otherwise might be confusing to a reader not well-versed in the subject. Alternately, the reference to dictabelt could simply be converted to an internal link. It leaves the sentence sounding a bit terse, in my opinion, but otherwise it serves the same purpose. Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Joining this discussion, if the report does not state fairly explicitly that the committee relied on the dictabelt evidence, you can't say they did - simple as that. The dissenters may be indicative but cannot be used as 'evidence'. If I disagree with how fellow jury members come to a conclusion, I might record that IMO they relied too much on witness X, that doesn't make it a truth that their opinions were swayed by X. Nor can you weasel-in an 'essentially/mainly etc. relied on'. AFAI can see, the only certainty here is that the committee accepted (as true), a piece of evidence which was largely discredited later. I don't see why that isn't good enough.

If really wanted the dissenters' criticism could be added, but that's a lot of detail for a lead IMO. In terms of function in the whole historical narrative, the relevance is that the committee appeared to come to a firm-ish conclusion, which was subsequently 'blown wide open' again by the discrediting of the acoustic evidence. Pincrete (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree, but then how to phrase that without using weasel words? The HSCA's explicit findings and implicit conclusions are obviously at odds, so it makes it quite difficult for editors here to represent their verdict concisely! Earl of Arundel (talk) 22:15, 7 April 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. 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." In terms of scientific evidence, the HSCA acknowledged that the existence of a second shooter was only supported by this acoustic analysis.

• 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) 19:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Basis and scope of HSCA findings reliance on dictabelt evidence

In previous discussions it was established that the HSCA did in fact quote several factors in addition to the dictabelt evidence upon which their conclusions were based. It would therefore be strictly WP:OR on our part to contradict their findings by asserting that their conclusions were instead wholly based on the acoustical evidence. I have no issue with mentioning the opinions of the dissenting members to that effect, but in doing so it should be made clear that the final report does not itself draw that conclusion. Earl of Arundel (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• it was never "established". You provided four factors, all of which were debunked in the previous discussion itself. I have one question for you, kindly answer honestly: Have you studied the Reports, and other material regarding assassination, or are these articles "just some wikipedia articles" for you? And by study, i dont mean skimming on internet and reading on wikipedia in recent past. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

An article should only reflect wording that is supported by reliable sources, and here that source is presumably the dissenting members of the committee (as our own opinions and interpretations don't count as reliable sources). So it's okay to claim that the report was essentially based on the dictabelt evidence as long as it is made clear what parties drew that conclusion, because the HSCA report itself does not state such a thing. Unless of course you can provide evidence that they did in fact conclude otherwise (and yes, I have indeed read the report myself, which is precisely why I am so confident that you will not find anything to that effect). Earl of Arundel (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Kindly take a look at point B.

Zoomed-in on B.

The point B states:

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

It means, other scientific evidence does not oppose there was more than one gunman. But these (other) evidences don't support the multiple gunmen either.

The last statement in point B states Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations. Meaning, other evidence than acoustics (dictabelt) actually oppose conspiracy allegations.

The conclusion of all that is:

• Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
• Other evidences don't support the multiple gunmen.
• So, the conclusion "high probability of conspiracy" was completely based on dictablelt evidence. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, and what you're using there is known as logical inference (that is, "negates some" and "negates all" are two very different things, and so requires a "jump" in logic to reach the conclusion that they are in fact the same thing in this case). Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a policy which states that "articles must not contain original research.[...] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Now, you can of course use the statements of dissenting members, but it would be misleading to attribute that to the committee's official findings. Which is exactly why the sentence you attempted to remove was there in the first place, just to be clear about the source. Perhaps some other approach could be used. We could, for example, remove this part:

The HSCA's ruling was, according to dissenting members of the committee, based on analysis of the dictabelt recordings obtained from Dallas police sources which implied the possibility of additional gunmen. Later, several other prominent experts refuted the committee's assessment of the recordings in a series of rigorous tests. In addition, the recordings were found to have originated from a DPD officer's microphone other than what had originally been thought, effectively discrediting the acoustical "evidence".

...but now, you see, we've actually downplayed the impact of the acoustical evidence by omission! So what is the problem with proper attribution? Isn't that what we're aiming for here? If we're really concerned with WP:UNDUE then why not just expand on that more (rather than less)? Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Earl here. The language Earl quotes above suffices, and to draw a conclusion based on inferences found within the report is, by definition, original research. I say this even though I agree with kiran's interpretation. This has been discussed, these points have already been raised, and a consensus was reached. It is not our place to do a forensic examination of the report and draw inferences; it is only to reproduce what is plainly stated in the report and/or citing secondary sources which themselves offer interpretations of how the committee arrived at their conclusion. Canada Jack (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is about which sentence to use in the article #1 or #2?

1. The HSCA's ruling was based on analysis of the dictabelt recordings obtained from Dallas police sources which implied the possibility of additional gunmen.
2. The HSCA's ruling was, according to dissenting members of the committee, based on analysis of the dictabelt recordings obtained from Dallas police sources which implied the possibility of additional gunmen.

Kindly keep the answer plain, and simple.

• I vote for #1 —usernamekiran (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I again vote for #1 —usernamekiran (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and a consensus was reached. Canada Jack (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Canada Jack and Earl of Arundel: I still think the article should use other words than "according to dissenting members of the committee". Anything else than these words. At least, a different word than "dissenting". —usernamekiran (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

'Kiran, earlier in this discussion Jack provided a good example of how to get things done around here. It doesn't work to say, "We should change this sentence." If you think we should change the text, propose a specific new text here on talk -- put it in bold or quotes so know exactly what we're getting. Then see if the editors like the new text better than the current. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Joe. :) —usernamekiran (talk) 17:19, 28 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. 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." In terms of scientific evidence, the HSCA acknowledged that the existence of a second shooter was only supported by this acoustic analysis.

• 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) 19:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting requested for correction in lede

Hi,
I believe the statement from the second paragraph, "The HSCA's ruling was, according to dissenting members of the committee, based on analysis of the dictabelt recordings obtained from Dallas police sources which implied the possibility of additional gunmen.", should be deleted from the article.

Before voting, kindly read the entire reasoning provided below.

This is the version as of March 2, 2017. Till then all was jolly. But then user:Earl of Arundel made an incorrect edit, and user:Canada Jack corrected it. Here is the difference.

This edit by Canada Jack led to these discussions: Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories#Current_status_versus_possible_interpretations_of_the_HSCA_report

Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories#Clarifying_what_the_HSCA_in_fact_concluded_on_conspiracy

And most importantly this one: where a user issued an edit war warning, just after one good faith edit, and further discussion.

At the end of these discussions, Earl of Arundel managed to convince everybody to settle for: "The HSCA's ruling was, according to dissenting members of the committee, based on analysis of the dictabelt recordings obtained from Dallas police sources which implied the possibility of additional gunmen."

He convinced the editors using a false conclusion, and I am quoting his words "The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors".

His claims were proven wrong in the same discussion where he presented the claim. Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories#Clarifying_what_the_HSCA_in_fact_concluded_on_conspiracy

After a few days, when I tried to correct the article, he warned me as he had warned User:Canada Jack. In that warning, I replied to him to discuss it on the talkpage of the article, and he immediately reported me to admins for edit warning.

User_talk:Usernamekiran#Warning:_Attempt_to_engage_in_an_edit_war_at_John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive339#User:.E2.80.8EUsernamekiran_reported_by_User:Earl_of_Arundel_.28Result:_No_violation.29

When it resulted as "No violation", only then he initiated the discussion on talkpage. When I proved there that the conclusion of HSCA was based on dictabelt evidence, even then he did not agree to change the wording in article, and just kept on coming with new excuses.

I believe the statement in discussion should be deleted from the article.

"The HSCA's ruling was, according to dissenting members of the committee, based on analysis of the dictabelt recordings obtained from Dallas police sources which implied the possibility of additional gunmen."

Delete or Keep?

—usernamekiran[talk] 20:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment / Question: Don't you need to remove three sentences regarding the recordings:

"The HSCA's ruling was, according to dissenting members of the committee, based on analysis of the dictabelt recordings obtained from Dallas police sources which implied the possibility of additional gunmen. Later, several other prominent experts refuted the committee's assessment of the recordings in a series of rigorous tests. In addition, the recordings were found to have originated from a DPD officer's microphone other than what had originally been thought, effectively discrediting the acoustical "evidence".

Otherwise, you'd have two sentences about recordings with no point of reference:

"In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person responsible for assassinating Kennedy. In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, although it declined to specifically identify any additional parties in its findings.[3][4] Later, several other prominent experts refuted the committee's assessment of the recordings in a series of rigorous tests. In addition, the recordings were found to have originated from a DPD officer's microphone other than what had originally been thought, effectively discrediting the acoustical "evidence".–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: The set of sentences can be reverted manually to the undisputed verison before all the mess began:

In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person responsible for assassinating Kennedy. In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that a second gunman other than Oswald probably fired an extra bullet at Kennedy. The HSCA did not identify that second shot, nor did they identify any other person or organization as having been involved.[2][3] The acoustic evidence on which the HSCA based its second gunman conclusion has since been discredited.[4][5][6][7][8][9]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talk • contribs) –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Revert to undisputed version is my vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• I vote Keep as is or Don't care, as long as wording does not employ original research/synthesis.

The HSCA findings were not entirely based on the dictabelt evidence (see previous discussion, above). Therefore, I would support any sort of wording along these lines:

"In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person responsible for assassinating Kennedy. In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, although it declined to specifically identify any additional parties in its findings. The HSCA reasoned that a second gunman other than Oswald probably fired an extra bullet at Kennedy, but the acoustic evidence on which the HSCA partially based its conclusions has since been discredited by several experts."

Or perhaps:

"In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person responsible for assassinating Kennedy. In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, although it declined to specifically identify any additional parties in its findings. The HSCA reasoned that a second gunman other than Oswald probably fired an extra bullet at Kennedy, but the acoustic evidence on which (according to dissenting members of the committee) the HSCA based its conclusions has since been discredited by several experts."

Earl of Arundel (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with "Earl #1" above this comment. Let's use that.

The "March 2" version is misleading, because it says, The acoustic evidence on which the HSCA based its second gunman conclusion has since been discredited. The conclusion was not based on the acoustic evidence, it was based on the acoustic evidence AND "an analysis of the testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses". That's how we got to this "dissenting members" text as a compromise. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Earl of Arundel: Earl, first of all, you should read the HSCA report before commenting here. The HSCA findings were not entirely based on the dictabelt evidence. But the finding that there were multiple gunmen, was entirely based on the dictabelt. —usernamekiran[talk] 16:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Report says[14] "Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations." So I'll take back what I said about "March 2" being misleading. That doesn't mean it's the best wording. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joegoodfriend: yes Joe, thats what I was trying to say when in previous discussion I uploaded the photos of the report itself. But my suggestions were declined stating it refelcted "original research". The most important point here is, current wording is not the best one either, we need to come up with new, accurate wording. —usernamekiran[talk] 21:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is a simple solution to the entire problem:
Provide a reliable source which supports the statement "The HSCA's ruling was, according to dissenting members of the committee, based on analysis of the dictabelt recordings obtained from Dallas police sources which implied the possibility of additional gunmen." and lets keep the starement in the article.

If no source can be found, we simply convert the statement to "The HSCA's ruling was based on analysis of the dictabelt recordings obtained from Dallas police sources which implied the possibility of additional gunmen." —usernamekiran[talk] 00:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• You need not look any further than the HSCA report itself: "Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President". Clearly this means that the acoustical evidence was just one of several factors under consideration, does it not? Earl of Arundel (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This is why the "according to..." text is needed, as there are diametrically opposed views to what the HSCA actually says. Case in point is the above quote from Earl - I read that same text "Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President" as saying that the scientific evidence does not eliminate the possibility of a second gunman, NOT as evidence for a second gunman, something quite different. IOW, this is not "evidence" for a conspiracy, it is stating that, scientifically, the presence of a second gunman can't be discounted. Surely, the inability to prove a negative - proving there was no gunman - is not evidence of anything.

And, knowing this would be shot down as it is straying from the goal here of improving the page, it would be rather easy to establish via the text of the report that the ONLY evidence cited within which clearly establishes a conspiracy is... the dictabelt evidence. The "factors" section is an obvious attempt by the majority of the committee to gloss over this fact, to make the case for "conspiracy" more compelling, but a look at the draft and the final reports indicate that the only difference is... the dictabelt evidence. The dissent explicitly says this, and their critques of course were borne out when that evidence was re-examined.

But I also concede that editors in good faith can read this differently, that it's OR to build a case on this page based on my interpretation, hence the language which states "according to the dissenting members of the committee," etc. is needed. Canada Jack (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. Maybe the wording could be changed to 'essentially' or some such? I think I'll give it a go and see how it takes with everyone... Earl of Arundel (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry to revert the edit by Earl of Arundel.

But the content he edited is currently under discussion. And the new wording should have been discussed here before he added it the article directly. —usernamekiran[talk] 04:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't revert simply because the topic is being discussed. Have you got an actual objection to the wording? Earl of Arundel (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion:: "In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person responsible for assassinating Kennedy. In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, although it did not identify any individuals or groups in its findings. The HSCA reasoned that a second gunman other than Oswald probably also fired at Kennedy, but acoustic evidence which the HSCA accepted in reaching its conclusions was later discredited by experts."

I've removed 'extra bullet', since it does not seem important, what is important is 2nd gunman. I've simplified what they did NOT say. I've modified the end to remove any suggestion of HOW reliant the committee was on this evidence, which again seems to belong in the body. Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

nb strike-through is subsequent simplification. Pincrete (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Fully support, it eliminates WP:SYNTHESIS issues and boils the matter down quite clearly. Earl of Arundel (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The text here implies that in addition to the conclusion of conspiracy, the HSCA concluded a second gunman fired at the president. As I have pointed out, that conclusion of conspiracy, according to the dissent, was based solely on the conclusion a second gunman fired at the president. This needs to be phrased such that the conclusion of conspiracy was, at least in that view, a result of that evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Canada Jack —usernamekiran[talk] 00:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, but then problem remains that the HSCA does not succinctly say as much. The wording 'accepted' seems to avoid that trap implicitly - is there any alternate wording that you could suggest that might overcome any possible ambiguity? Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You guys obviously know a great deal more detail than I, BUT I've looked through the above discussion, and I see no evidence of the committee basing its decision largely on dictabelt evidence, EXCEPT the criticism of the dissenters, and dates of 'change of heart'. Similarly, I see no evidence that the 'conspiracy' conclusion was based wholly on 'two gunmen'. Editors make a very strong case for what may have happened to sway the committee, but despite being a stong case, it's extrapolating a conclusion from several pieces of evidence, none of which is guaranteed to be reliable, ie it's SYNTH IMO. Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, we could revert back to some prior phrasing (or perhaps you have another suggestion?), but personally the "...acoustic evidence which the HSCA accepted in reaching its conclusions..." seems fairly enough unambiguous to me. Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:05, 8 April 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. 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." In terms of scientific evidence, the HSCA acknowledged that the existence of a second shooter was only supported by this acoustic analysis.

• 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) 19:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Three Tramps

Shouldn't the "three tramps" theory be mentioned somewhere? E. Howard Hunt has been mentioned, but as an individual. Three tramps theory states the three people were major participants in the assassination. usernamekiran (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC) usernamekiran (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing there. The arrest records have been released and we know who they were. Meters (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Three_tramps got its own article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The theory may have been debunked, but it was a prominent one for many years and there are some who still claim it to be valid. We, after all, have the clearly delusional and ridiculous David Lifton theory of wound alteration performed before the autopsy, a theory even many CT's find implausible, but the book was a best-seller and it is referenced on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Plausibility is certainly not a criterion. I have no objection to including it. Meters (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Joegoodfriend User:Meters yes, the arrest records were released in 1989. Many people ask why for so many years Dallas PD told that there were no records. They also ask what was the necessity of mainting the secrecy. And there are some who belive these records published in 1989 were "creared" (forgeries?). The point is, this theory is still sort of valid. usernamekiran (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Joegoodfriend was already supporting inclusion, and he and Canada Jack have already convinced me that inclusion is reasonable. Go ahead and add it if you like. Meters (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Meters. But in which section should i add it? In "conspiracy theories" or "allegations of other conspirators"? usernamekiran (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If the "three tramps" theory was supposedly "debunked" by releasing the arrest records (not the same thing," who were the three, and why have they been ruled out? Completeness counts.Rtelkin (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Read the article that we linked to (Three tramps) and add the information yourself if you want. I've already said that I don't object to adding the information, but I have zero interest in adding conspiracy theories. Meters (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Three tramps was created long ago to help relieve the expansion of bloat in this article. It would be a step backwards to start putting all that back in here. -Location (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Poor Wording in Opening Paragraph

I'm in the process of scouring certain Wikipedia pages for unscholarly/unsupported entries. This first paragraph is awful.

<<In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that a second gunman other than Oswald probably fired an extra bullet at Kennedy.>> What is an "extra bullet?" Extremely vague.

<<The HSCA did not identify that second shot>> So it was a "second shot," not an "extra shot?" How many shots is that? In what order were they fired? This is way too vague to qualify as encyclopedic material. 5198blk (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey 5198, I completely agree with you. Please feel free to rewrite this - I'd put some drafts here for consensus before you put it on the main page though. I obviously don't accept these theories but I've always thought those views should be properly presented - but this page is, as you say, a real mess and not well-written. Canada Jack (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion: "In 1979, the (U.S.) House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that there was another shooter, that more than three shots were fired, and that the assassination was likely a conspiracy." 5198blk (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Who supposedly "discredited" the evidence (audiotape at the scene), were they experts, and how did they discredit it? This penny is too important to leave in the air, even here, in the intro.Rtelkin (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the article, and the article links to John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording in the relevant section. If you have a suggestion for change, post it here. -Location (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)