Jump to content

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 152.130.15.110 (talk) at 17:51, 21 April 2024 (Third bullet theory). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter

No consensus for inclusion, this doesn't need to be reactivated in multiple venues Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partially due to the 60th anniversary of the JFK assassination there are many articles recently concerning the Paramount+ original documentary, "JFK: What the Doctors Saw". It premiered Nov 14, 2023. Seven Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter.

--Timeshifter (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC) - and see note:[reply]

Note: I formatted and reordered the above articles for ease of use. Emphasis added to excerpts. I also added the New York Times article mentioned later in the discussion. Additional possible reference articles will be added here: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox232. So as not to clutter up this talk page. Feel free to let me know of more articles on the sandbox talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't here to relitigate the investigation of the assassination or change official conclusions, we are here to summarize independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See reliable sources above. 7 doctors who were there. WP:NPOV requires their points of view be included in this article. WP:NPOV presents info from reliable sources, and lets the readers decide. Whether readers choose to believe the Warren Commission or not is their prerogative according to WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not present the Warren Commission conclusions as fact in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly this article can have this information added in the context of theories about the assassination, if it's not here already, but it can't claim that there was "more than one shooter" in Wikipedia's voice until the preponderance of sources make that claim- any more than it can claim in Wikipedia's voice that the Warren Commission was correct. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "more than one shooter" can't be claimed in Wikipedia's narrative voice. The doctors came to that conclusion. And that can be stated as their conclusion. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue for the article about the assassination itself, and you might want to review that talk page and its archive carefully before proposing it there, as it sounds like this general issue(if not the sources you use here) might have been brought up before now. As to this article, I agree that you probably could mention these claims in the context of theories, if it isn't already mentioned. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this has been brought up before and ignored. There is not one word, as far as I can tell, in the current versions of Assassination of John F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories about any Parkland doctor saying the neck wound is an entry wound. Even though various Parkland doctors have been saying this for years. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then the only thing you can do is attempt to gain a consensus on the talk page of the assassination article, but you will need to do more than just repeat prior arguments to have any chance at succeeding. Personally I don't think you are likely to succeed, and it will likely be a long, hard effort, but that's what you can do. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it's not mentioned in this article as a theory. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it would be hard to get in the main assassination article? It's completely verifiable info from 7 doctors who were there. From reliable sources. It's not tin foil stuff. Wikipedia has some really weird herd instincts at times. I am saying this as someone who has edited Wikipedia for over 18 years. Some advice please. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely classic primary source. We can include what secondary sources say about these "7 doctors" but as first-hand witnesses to the event, their stuff is not something Wikipedia editors can comment on or analyse. Bon courage (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PST. All the links I provided are secondary sources, including the documentary. And some of the Parkland doctors have been saying this publicly for years. There are secondary sources reporting that too. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the idea that we should include what the "7 doctors" said is poor without additional sourcing. Ideally, we would use a strong, recent-ish independent source to present the mainstream view. As a fall-back, we could use the Stokes report, which says the Warren report relied on the testimony of the Parkland doctors and the autopsy performed in Bethesda. The Stokes committee's own panel of doctors re-evaluated that evidence, as well as X-rays and photos from the original autopsy, and re-confirmed the Warren findings. Both found that one of the bullet's paths involved an exit out of the front of JFK's neck.
This article has a serious WP:FRIND problem, and no conspiracy theory content should be added without a balancing mainstream view. Much content should likely be removed, since it's lacking such context. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in question is entirely and specifically related to the release this month of the Paramount+ documentary "JFK: What the Doctors Saw". I could not find any RS with an independent review and analysis of the doctors claims. So it may be due for a brief mention in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, but the text must make it clear the claims are the result of a television program - and not any study by independent experts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the doctors have been reporting what they saw for years. Others, as the documentary reported, laid low out of fear. There are reliable sources for all of this. I linked to just a few. They mention the older claims by some of the doctors. And this is not a "fringe theory". The doctors are just reporting what they saw. And then they made the logical conclusion that there had to be shooters from different directions. That's all they claimed. No fringe theories. Just basic stuff that ER doctors see all the time with gunshot victims, as reported. You can also report all the stuff from the Warren Commission, the Stokes report, etc.. As long as it is not claimed as "the truth" in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV requires that people be allowed to make up their own minds. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just reporting what they saw. An argument that is frequently invoked about Bob Lazar's claims. That doesn't mean they aren't forwarding a conspiracy theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary and previous articles report what the doctors saw. Multiple doctors who were there. Not just one person. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so is this about this "What the doctors saw" documentary? There's something on that in the NYT.[1] TL;DR - it's a nothingburger. Bon courage (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the NY Times article you dismiss: "the professional opinions of the physicians present in the president’s Parkland Memorial Hospital emergency room. ... What did the staff observe? An entrance wound on Kennedy’s throat. What does that suggest? A bullet entered from the front. Why is that significant? It contradicts the findings of the Warren Commission. ... You will finish the film agreeing that what the doctors saw is crucial." --Timeshifter (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You left off the concluding sentence, the best one! So there is no knowledge here, just some stuff. I don't see a problem with recording how this is another arrow in the conspiracy theory quiver, but we'd really need some decent (think scholarly) sourcing to make sense of it. Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"But what it all means for America’s most enduring mystery is less clear." That's very Wikipedia of them to say. As in WP:NPOV, and letting the readers decide what to make of it. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is certainly not that, it is reflecting accepted knowledge on topics, and putting fringe material in a box with a warning label on it. The accepted knowledge on this seems to be that it is ... meaningless (other than for fuelling another round of conspiracy theory excitement). Bon courage (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV: "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." --Timeshifter (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Explaining. Not just putting stuff out there and 'letting the reader decide'. This is especially so for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Bon courage (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence."
This is not a fringe theory or pseudoscience. These are ER doctors describing what they saw. ER doctors who frequently see gunshot wounds. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doctors are often wrong about things. In any event, we need second secondary sources to comment. Until then there's not much to say? Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, all the articles I linked to, and also the documentary, are all secondary sources. As is the NY Times article you found. See: WP:PST (Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources). --Timeshifter (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, most are WP:NEWSPRIMARY repetitions of the claims, or advancing novel opinions. For anything authoritative on this we'd want something weighty (scholarly, academic). Anyway, this is an article focused on conspiracy theories, so what conspiracy theory are you proposing to add? Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NEWSPRIMARY the articles I linked to are both primary and secondary sources. A documentary is about as weighty as one can get. These are not novel opinions. Some of these doctors have been saying this for years.
According to you this is a fringe theory. So it belongs here according to you. Anything that contradicts the conclusions of the Warren Commission is considered a fringe theory by some. When the Innocence Project contradicts the conclusions of a trial it is not considered a fringe theory. We can let reliable sources call certain testimonies and theories whatever they want. In the form of X says Y about Z. It shouldn't be in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is the article specifically about conspiracy theories. What conspiracy theory are you wanting to expand on with this latest documentary fluffage? Please make a specific proposal. Bon courage (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been paying attention at all? The Parkland doctors said the throat wound was an entrance wound. They said that indicated more than one shooter. So that by definition is a conspiracy. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a conspiracy theory? Or are you in fact proposing that this TV show moves the dial on the actual historical account (in which case this is the wrong article) ? Bon courage (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be maintaining that the TV show has "No fringe theories", in which case it would follow that you don't want its content here, but in the serious article (i.e. Assassination of John F. Kennedy). Have you actually proposed an edit anywhere? Note WP:NOTFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't WP:OWN this article or the other one. I have already answered all your questions so far. If you happen to make a relevant comment I am interested in responding to, I will do so. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! I do not own this article. More to the point, YOU don't. However, I am still unclear about what you are proposing exactly for us to relay to our readers wrt knowledge about JFK conspiracy theories with the source(s) you are producing. Specifics please! Bon courage (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sounds like you want this in the article about the assassination itself. That's where you should be proposing it. It will be hard because if, as you say, their alleged observations have been said "for years" and yet it's not in the article, that there are reasons for that as I doubt you are the first person to think it should be added. You'll need to make a very convincing case to get a consensus to add these alleged observations that aren't generally mainstream. If you want it in this article, you will need to tell how specifically you want to work it in here. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about me, and I don't have the time. The info is obviously notable and relevant on its own. Both before, and especially now, with 7 doctors testifying to the same thing. I will let other Wikipedia editors take it from here, and decide where to put it. If it continues to be censored from Wikipedia, then many more people will wonder why. Eventually, critical mass will be reached, and enough editors will come around and force it into an article. Or maybe not. I have seen it happen before with other issues. Especially issues that challenge American systemic bias. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that Americans think every TV show is important to a subject which otherwise has a huge weight of scholarly material (both the history and the conspiracies) to draw on. That is more the bias that is being countered. Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7 doctors testifying to the same thing actually doesn't mean what you think it means. Doctors testify to things all the time in the media, like alien implants and Covid quackery. Until mainstream scholarship in medical journals endorses the conclusion of these doctors, their opinion stays relegated to the fringe/tabloid domain. See WP:MEDRS. Not giving fringe ideas WP:UNDUE weight isn't censorship. It's good editorial policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments are so ridiculous that I will make the occasional comment. This is not a medical article. These are not fringe doctors. These are not fringe medical opinions. They are ER doctors who frequently see gunshot wounds, and know what an entrance wound looks like. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note. See recent discussion at Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia and the Warren Commission conclusions

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

This is the article on conspiracy theories. Editors are proposing to add stuff here, so conspiracy theorising would be relevant. For the historical event, see: Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen you much around on these pages over the years. My contention above is not about this page, it is about what I called "the Wikipedia official view of this event." I am challenging you to prove me wrong. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 18:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing improvements to this article. So I would expect conspiracy-relevant content. How is your comment "I haven't seen you much around on these pages over the years" relevant to anything? Bon courage (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It means that I've been reading, and following, and studying the developments in this area on Wikipedia over many years. I am making the above contention based on these studies and observations. This article is just the garbage dump where everything else that has no place on Wikipedia just gets dumped in the end. But I am talking about the entire area of studies related to the assassination of President Kennedy on Wikipedia, where anything that does not conform strictly to the conclusions of the Warren Commission eventually gets erased, or is just tagged as fringe "conspiracy theories." Again, on this 60th anniversary day, I am contending that the Wikipedia official view of this key event in recent American history is the strict view of the Warren Commission, nothing else. warshy (¥¥) 20:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ not sure how that translates into proposed changes for this article. Bon courage (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
untrue, House Select Committee on Assassinations differs from Warren Commission conclusion, and is referred to often in the main Assassination of John F. Kennedy. vroman (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, the term "conspiracy theory" was coined by officials referring to people who did not believe in the Warren Report's conclusion. 47.144.16.66 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other published theories - by Mary Haverstick (Jerrie Cobb / June Cobb)

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

Some discussion here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29939-mary-haversticks-important-new-book-on-the-jfk-assassination/
On the other hand I am not familiar enough with the long history of this page to know whether "all" conspiracy theory books are within scope (presumably not) and, consequentially, how it is decided what does or does not merit coverage here. Answers appreciated! Tony 1212 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Coup in Dallas"

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

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

Third bullet theory

Stephen Hunter postulates that the most significant evidence of more than one shooter is the discrepancy in behaviors of the second and third bullets. While the second penetrated two bodies and remained intact, the third disintegrated on impact. The bullets used by Oswald were designed for max penetration, so the third bullet's result is an anomaly. None of the other major theories or theorists appear to have highlighted this aspect. Sources: [2] [3]. 152.130.15.110 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories&oldid=1220076636"