Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Unsupported Hathcock Tale

This article references a supposed test by sniper Carlos Hathcock at Quantico trying to duplicate the JFK assassination shots. I contacted the Quantico historical office and they have no record of any such test. I am not very familiar with the various biographical materials on Hathcock, but from what I have seen the tests are not mentioned. The tale appears to be a fiction created by Craig Roberts. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the comment about "no record" to the article. If anyone wants to contest it, they are welcome to contact the USMC historical office to confirm. There is an email request form at: http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/General/Contact_Us.htm MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. Before again attempting to edit-war this private email back into the article, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Restored. Annette Ammeman of the USMC Historical Office has stated in official capacity that the USMC has "no record" of the test. I have given the email to the USMC Historical Office and anyone can validate what I have written here who is actually interested in the facts -- I am Greg Goebel, I am sure they keep records of their correspondence. More to the point, where *IS* the official USMC record of the test? If it was not recorded, it is forensically worthless, if it ever even happened. If there's a concern for validation here, it cuts both ways -- actually, I think it cuts harder against the Craig Roberts story than it does the USMC story. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've mentioned this issue at WP:RSN in hopes of getting additional perspectives. In the meantime, I believe it would be better not to wage an edit war over the issue. In my opinion, neither the addition of this material, nor its deletion, falls into the category of "obvious vandalism" that would exempt either of you from a 3RR/EW block. Let's see what the reliable source experts say. — Richwales (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will be happy with that for now. However, I would emphasize that the lack of any official report (AFAIK) on the Carlos Hathcock story is more significant than the validity of what one will be told on emailing the USMC historical office. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems the suggestion of the discussion was that the paragraph on the Hathcock test ought to be struck if nobody can come up with reasonable source corroboration. Comments? I am more willing to add something to an article than delete something, it feels like high-handed censorship, but it does seem a sensible solution. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, basically right. Wikipedia policy demands that material in an article must be backed up by references to reliable sources. See WP:V (the "verifiability" and "reliable sources" policy), and also WP:NOR (the "no original research" policy). Further, the policy on verifiability and reliable sources prefers the use of secondary sources — i.e., we should report what reliable sources have said about a topic if possible, rather than directly cite primary source documents (and possibly contaminate our reporting of the primary sources by our own interpretation thereof, in violation of the ban on original research). I agree this is sometimes frustrating, especially when we know something about the subject but are forbidden to share our personal knowledge directly, but the consensus is that these policies are necessary in order to preserve Wikipedia's reliability as a reference. — Richwales 16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem when we get to discussing conspiracy theories is that many of the sources for these theories are not typically considered reliable sources. However, if we are simply replicating claims in connection to the assassination, the bar is somewhat set lower, focussing more on whether in fact the claim has been made, rather whether the claim itself withstands scrutiny. Personally, THIS claim always sounded silly as it was never clear how exactly the tests were carried out as this would have a large bearing on its reliability (what if, for example, they assumed the three shots were done in 4 seconds? That would render the tests meaningless).

But it is clear that affixing a reference to a personal e-mail is "original research" and has to go. Whether the claim itself also has to go is not so clearcut, IMHO. Canada Jack (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I keep saying this repeatedly: the issue is not the validity of the email as a source, it isn't valid. The issue is that there is no official report backing up the Hathcock story. The only source is Craig Robert's book, and it apparently provides no specifics of the matter. It is suspected to be a hoax, and it falls on anyone who wishes to retain it to provide some backup. If it is retained, it should at least be pointed out that the only known source is Roberts' book, and be placed in the context of other assassination marksmanship tests -- the 1964 tests the Army Ballistics Branch performed for the Warren Commission (not very well), the 1967 tests by CBS News (about as accurate a setup as could be imagined), as well as the testimony of marksmanship experts such as Sgt. James Zahm to the Warren Commission or the HSCA, all of which give to a greater or lesser degree a different message than the Hathcock story. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The only source is Craig Robert's book, and it apparently provides no specifics of the matter. It is suspected to be a hoax, and it falls on anyone who wishes to retain it to provide some backup.

It is suspected to be a hoax? By whom? If we have a published source which says "hoax," then that should be attached to the claim. Since, as I said above, the bar is set such that the existence of the claim is indeed verifiable, as opposed to whether the claim itself stands scrutiny, we aren't really quibbling about what is indeed likely true. Otherwise, frankly, we'd have a blank page. There are a ton of claims here which are, and I am being charitable, flimsy. The Mauser? We have the filmed recovery of the Carcano. Yet this canard is being repeated nearly 50 years after the fact. How about the wound alteration and the decoy hearse? Provable bullshit. Yet this was a best-selling book and is still cited by many critics. Many if not most of the conspiracy theories here have little or no basis in fact. Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Aw jeez, Murphy's law of online discussions: everyone grabs onto everything but the essentials. Again, the only known source for this tale is Roberts book. There is no official record of it. Is it improper to mention that? And, if it is retained, should it not be included in the (verifiable) context of known marksmanship tests and expert testimony? I'm getting less and less to care what happens here, but can we start to converge to a solution instead of diverging from one? If the solution is "let it stand as is", what more can I say? Proposals, please. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, MrG, you seem to be missing the essential point here. We're not assessing the veracity of a claim here, we are assessing whether the claim has been published and therefore verifiable in that sense - that someone is making it. Not sure why you are wasting your time on a page of conspiracy theories which are, by and large, without merit or even logic, let alone with any evidence to back them up. As I said, if the criteria included the veracity of what is being claimed, we'd have a blank page. Canada Jack (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals please. If you just want to leave it stand, fine, say so. But if you have a constructive proposal to make, kindly get to it. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) None needed. It wouldn't be strange if Hathcock never filed an official report concerning this matter. He had a lot of discretion in how they conducted the sniper school and other involvements. No where did Roberts or Hathcock say "In an official simulation conducted by the USMC..." so no pretense of that has been presented. The letter from USMC is original research and needs to be left out. I don't know if this simulation ever occurred or not but Roberts who was an associate of Hathcock has published this then that may be presented here. If another author has published a rebuttal in a book or magazine then that could be mentioned. Your advocacy and attempt to right great wrongs against Roberts is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, cutting out the overhead, you're saying "leave it as is". Good enough for me. Any problems with deleting this talk topic? It has no value to me or anyone else. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't delete. We preserve them so we don't have to rehash later. It won't hurt our servers. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'm history. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Something being overlooked here is the fact that, as I mentioned in the RSN discussion, Roberts' "published" statements are in a self-published book, which should normally exclude them from Wikipedia unless discussed in a secondary reliable source – which the currently cited blog is not. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Roberts is an established author and although I don't have this particular book, I have one of his from Pocket Books (Simon & Schuster) since 1990. I'm not supporting the claims made in the article but he isn't an upstart from a vanity perspective. That said, I have no dog in this fight and it doesn't bother me if a citation needed is placed or if it is removed altogether. Your call. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)