Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy

I've heard that there was a KGB disinformation plot: to spread the rumor that JFK was assassinated by the CIA, in which they influenced an american author who published an early book on the assassination... Lawsonsj 07:00, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Moved from "Talk:JOHN-F.-Kennedy-assassination":

who shot John F. Kennedy? What was the Warren Commission's conclusion? Explain one conspiracy theory about President Kennedy's assassination.

This is a morass, and probably always will be: all significant witnesses are dead by now. All I've done, for the moment, is clarify that the basic facts in the intro--when Kennedy was shot, who was in the car with him, that Oswald was arrested, denied the killing, and then murdered himself--are not in dispute, but what they imply is. But by the end of the current article, it wanders off the deep end--alien greys? "powerful foreign interests that control" the federal reserve? Vicki Rosenzweig 20:47, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was about to add "LBJ did it"[1] but they're all gone now, for no good reason, really. Even the greys idea is one that's supposed to be popular in Japan, so even though "out there", it's out there. (eg Kennedy evidently issued an ultimatum to MJ-12, and they decided that Kennedy should be subject to an expediency -- killed...September 23, 1989, a two-hour documentary is screened on Japanese television. Viewers are treated to the full spectrum of recent investigations, including underground labs, MJ-12, genetic facilities, the Kennedy murder...[2] Now, that whole file could've been the proposal for X-Files and it'd take forever to separate the fact and the fiction in it -- but that's not the point.) As for the "powerful foreign interests" leave that to the Fed page - which is wrong on that point - and check into [Executive Order 11110] about the backing of the money.

I apologize. I was, as it were, 'being bold in my editing'. What I tried to accomplish here is to make this particular article feel less, as user two above pointed out, as it went off the deep end, and make it more readable by separating fact (or at least fact set through the Warren Commission and other investigations) out from pure speculation - which I felt was very badly intermingled in the version of a few days ago. It was not my intent to discount that there's lots of consipiracy theories out there, and in fact they probably definately belong here...but if I might propose it...they probably belong exclusively in the suspicious circumstances section, or perhaps even its own page, with each theory stated in concise terms (given the sheer number of conspiracies that exist). I spent several hours trying to rearrange what was there, to give the article a different setup and tone...but of course, feel free to revert or re-add what you don't like. It's the Wiki and all. :)

not for me, i've quit. (not over this - fluoridation, and having to explain why i mistrust those who flagrantly and repeatedly abuse trust.) -- exKwantus

I actually spent a great deal of time trying to evaluate what I was doing, for what that's worth.

The original article just...felt more like it was dealing exclusively with conspiracy, and didn't touch on what was going on that day chronologically, or that, in fact, the president had died and that it had been a national tragedy.

Some of the comments here seemed to be somewhat unhappy with the article as it was. Just did my best to see what I could do with it.

This article will probably get a lot of read soon, anyway, given the 40th anniversary coming up in less than two months. I suppose I was trying to shoot for something that best respected the magnitude of the tragedy. But I don't mean to say that a section devoted to conspiracy doesn't belong.

Skybunny 22:17, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This page was edited and someone took out almost all the links, the paragraph headings, etc. Was that vandalism? --Raul654 04:59, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it was but I've reverted it. Angela 05:01, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm not too keen on reverting other people's edits until someone else agrees that it's vandalism --Raul654 05:03, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just reworded a few paragraphs in trying to keep the assassination description section more close to what's undisputed fact and found that this is a difficult task, mainly because nearly everything is more or less controversial.

Since most of the factual information seems to be kept secret, it is not easy to find reliable sources or even to find out how reliable a particular source actually is. It is very time consuming to compare statements from different sources and judge their credibility.

In trying to reword the article to what seemed to me more close to the "undisputed facts" i noticed that several statements of the form "<statement>" needed to be reworded to "The Warren Commission believed that <statement>" which led me to think that there was a slight pro Warren Commission report tendency in the article.

I want to emphasize that i'm neither a strict Oswald-did-it-alone nor a strict It-was-a-conspiracy advocate. In fact, i wasn't even very much interested in the topic several weeks ago. During a recent vacation trip i visited Dealey Plaza and the 6th Floor Museum in the former Texas School Book Depository building and became more interested in finding out what actually happened. Meanwhile i've bought two books ("Case Closed" by Gerald Posner for one side, "Say Goodbye to America" by Matthew Smith for the other) but didn't yet read much of them (i have other interests as well). I also watched the JFK movie by Oliver Stone and looked up a few issues in the Warren Commission's report that is available via Internet.

From what i read and saw so far (which is not too much, i have to admit), i believe that the Warren Commission's report is at least as much a "theory" as any other (though not a "conspiracy" theory, of course) because it is to a surprising extent based on dubious "facts", and i don't consider it appropriate to present conclusions of the Warren Commission as undisputed facts, just because the Warren Commission's report was the first official report and there are not many undisputed facts available.

I'm not too happy with the article in its current state. My feeling is that if we want the article to represent what's "currently known" we should move conclusions of the Warren Commission to a separate "JFK assassination theories" article and stick to really undisputed facts in the "JFK assassination" article.

As i'm not very deep into the topic at the moment i don't want to do a major rewrite or restructuring.

Any other opinions on that?

-- Gerd Badur 19:11, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm the one who did the rewrite. I had a specific rationale for the rewrite as it was done, and I should probably explain where I'm coming from here. When I came to this article, it was in this state: [3]

The problems I saw were, among other things, a huge inherent mistrust of the Warren Commission, pure speculation interspersed with fact, and a fairly disorganized read. For all intents and purposes, if you say on a scale of 0 to 100 that believing every detail of the Warren Commission is 0 and believing none of it, 100, the article before I touched it was sitting somewhere around 80-90. As it's written, it probably sits more around the 40 mark...lightly biased, but not badly so.

I never state outright that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy - and for good reason - if you don't believe the Warren Commission, you don't believe that - or at least, you don't believe he acted alone. I was very careful to track his movements and what the Warren Commission believed he fired - but I didn't lay blame. Most conspiracy theories themselves tend not to say Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination - they typically say he didn't act alone.
I put theory without evidence into 'conspiracy theories', because that's what they are - and as they were before, they were just strewn all over the place.
There are separate pages for Warren Commission and could be one (if someone writes it) for House Select Committee on Assassinations. More in-depth analysis of theories could well go here - not a bad idea.
One thing I am doing is weighting actual documented investigations inherently more strongly than conspiracy theories. The only investigation I was able to read in depth (I read about 60 pages and skimmed another 200) was the Warren Commission - see its link for a link to what's available from the National Archives. Its complaints about the Secret Service and huge security holes are generally not disputed - although some theorists use the fact that these holes existed to say why instead of gross negligence, this was instead an opportunity for conspiracy. True, but not proven. (I even said this in the 'conspiracy theory' section).

If more people read actual investigations backed with fact and can narrow down that fact 'A' or point 'B' are in pure conflict in investigations, they might be moved elsewhere than from the opening 'timeline/assassination' section. But I don't think conspiracy theory should be given equal billing here. By definition, they are untested theories. The House Select Committee suspected a conspiracy, but one CAN read why, and prove or disprove their evidence. Anyone can say the CIA did it, and provide a motive - or say that anyone did it, and provide any motive. The lack of facts is a convenient opportunity to do so. One of the links in the 'conspiracy theory' section is a straw man argument; because Posner didn't know every single thing known to man about the rifle Oswald used, or what coupons he clipped, that he lacked credibility to speak about the assassination. As facts are evaluated and put here, they will probably have to be very carefully analyzed.

I said that in the analysis of conspiracy theories as well. Despite a slight leaning toward the Warren Commission, I do hope that this explained:

Disproving (to absolute certainty) any given conspiracy theory about the Kennedy assassination (or, conversely, proving that the Warren Commission's findings were 100% correct) may never be possible. Doing either would require 'evidence' that hasn't emerged in 40 years and is somehow so compelling that all sides can agree to agree upon it. Given the realistic likelihood of this, the real motive behind Kennedy's death (and to a lesser extent, how the murder was accomplished) may never be agreed upon.

That is, I myself am granting the Warren Commission was not perfect - but if we aren't to believe anything, this page will be blank save for 'Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. Heck if we know anything else.'

I don't believe this page needs a major restructuring. It may need one or two details moved into 'suspicious circumstances', but I think the core is there.

(I don't believe Oswald in the Texas Theatre isn't actually really disputed. Several people got photograps of him being apprehended there.) Other than that, your insertion of 'The Warren Commission said...' is pretty well placed.

This may be one of the most difficult Wikipedia articles there is to write, even moreso than controversial topics like war or abortion. Many facts are in dispute, but there are just enough to try to reconstruct things and get 80% there to certainty. The other 20% will, in my opinion, never be known with certainty. Honestly, even if the Warren Commission today released every document it had, secret or otherwise, conspiracy theorists would still use this as reason to discredit it: 'Why did it take so long to release them?' 'They're not genuine anyway.' 'It doesn't even consider a conspiracy, so it's invalid.'

'

Phew. Well, I tried. I just hope we don't end up with a page with two sentences of fact, and the rest rubbish. Kennedy was killed this day. The nation was absolutely floored by it. It changed American history. Who killed him, in the end, is honestly kinda secondary to the effects.

My $.02, with interest...

Skybunny 22:36, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've read the article revision that was the

base for your rewrite. (I should add: At the time i did some rewording

and asked for comments i wasn't aware you did a major rewrite before. I

just noticed that some statements - not necessarily your's - just too

plainly expressed controversial issues as pure fact, which i felt was

inappropriate. My request for comments therefore wasn't indended to be

criticism of your rewrite in general.)

I have to admit that prior to your rewrite there was a lot of

speculation in the article, and i support separating fact from

speculation. However, from all information i've collected so far, it

appears to me that the Warren Report is also a lot of speculation, and i

consider it somewhat "unfair" to move the conspiracy theories into a

"conspiracy theories" article while keeping Warren Report conclusions in

the main assassination article, just as if the Warren Report wasn't also

a theory. (It is one of the issues that annoy me: What has to do with

conspiracy always is a "theory" while non-conspiracy report

"conclusions" appear to be fact although - according to what information

is publicly available - they aren't. They are simply conclusions.)

I don't have too much interest in describing each and every conspiracy

theory in detail. I'm more interested in finding out how credible the

evidence actually is that led the Warren Commission to conclude that

Oswald was the sole assassin. That's my personal hobby, of course, but

when i find statements like "Oswald shot officer Tippit" within

Wikipedia i'm tempted to adjust them to "what's actually and

undisputedly known".

As long as i haven't collected more information (i consider credible) i

won't attempt a major restructuring. However, i'm curious about what

others think of the idea to write an article about "assassination

theories" to which also the "Warren Report Theory" belongs, rather than

a sole "Conspiracy Theories" article.

-- 213.23.12.167 19:53, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sorry. Previous comment was me. Forgot to login

-- Gerd Badur 19:56, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)