Talk:1980 October Surprise theory

A new one

Here's a new one: www.infowars.com/october-surprise-terror-hysteria-recycled-in-election-ploy/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.37.122 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

release timing

On the day of his inauguration—in fact, twenty minutes after he concluded his inaugural address—the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the release of the hostages.

• January 20, 1981: Hostages are formally released into United States custody after spending 444 days in captivity. The release takes place just minutes after Ronald Reagan is officially sworn in as president.

The way I remember it, the hostages were transferred to neutral Algeria the night before (although it was after midnight in Algeria, it was well before the afternoon inauguration which would have been sometime around 1900 GMT). After the inaugural address, it was announced that they had reached friendly West Germany. I don't know when Iran announced the deal.

Carter had offered to release Iranian assets in return, which is why Iran made sure the hostage release happened while Carter was still in office. Reagan had said he would not honor any deal made by Carter.

Can anybody find a RS which states the times of the flights? The current chronology is unreferenced and wrong. 128.29.43.2 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How can this theory not be true? How would they be released conveniently at that time? 24.94.249.157 (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest Parry reporting

There is simply no doubt that Parry has done the most research and the best reporting on this matter. It is "vandalism" to repeatedly remove the Parry material from the article. It takes hours to find and arrange references and compose paragraphs, but only seconds to erase them. This kind of agenda-driven crap makes it pointless to address controversial subjects on Wkpd.75.117.22.34 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the Consortiumnews material from this article under the apparent excuse that his reporting is not verifiable. That is a ridiculous excuse. Parry's journalistic credentials and standards are equal to or better than any other researcher referenced on this page. Deletion of his material is cowardly sabotage.71.31.237.51 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The article has never discussed the allegations that Bush himself sneaked away from the campaign trail for a meeting in Paris on 10/19/1980. I suppose whenever it does (it's getting be one of those things that no one really cares about anymore, but are still sort of interesting), this latest report of Parry's on Bush's alibi (he claimed to have been in Washington during that time period, but the only witnesses who would confirm his presence the night before that alleged meeting are long dead), would be of interest and use as a source: http://www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/7623-focus-taking-a-bush-secret-to-the-grave Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Shouldn't Robert Parry be included in the introductory paragraph alongside Bani-Sadr and Gary Sick, and instead of Barbara Honegger, as major figures who have affirmed this story. Since several other White House consultants and staffers claim to have overheard similar statements, I don't doubt that Honegger did overhear Donald Gregg tell Richard Allen that they had f---ed Carter's October Surprise, launching her investigation, but her investigative methods and journalistic creditials are not even close to Parry's. I don't think that anyone who examines all of RP's information can still harbor any doubt about whether the Reagan campaign's deal went down.75.90.22.131 (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)75.90.22.131 (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Readers Beware: This article is worthless in present form

Due to repeated erasures by individuals who would suppress this story it has become worthless gobbledy-gook. Even some paragraphs supporting the debunkers were so imperfectly read or understood that they bear no resemblance to the original. Anyone wishing to understand the "theory" should examine the October Surprise archive at Consortium News' website. 75.117.22.34 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ari Ben-Menashe

I think Ari Ben-Menashe has a first hand account of the October Surprise event, alleging that he saw George H W Bush in the Paris Hotel in his book 'Profits of War'. If I ever find my copy of this book I will give a reference. The other thing is the Newsnight report made by Allan Francovich in the 90's which I have not seen yet--Wool Bridge (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this article needs some work. By the way, does anybody know of sources (besides the government itself) that argue against this "conspiracy theory"? Or has it basically moved into the realm of "conspiracy fact"? groupuscule (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone called Alexei Galkin claiming to be a former Russian secret agent wrote this to Conspiracy Planet: CP

"My name is Alexei Galkin. I am a retired Lieutenant General, formerly head 
of a directorate of the KGB. General LeWinter was a man both much feared and 
admired by knowledgeable intelligence officers throughout the Soviet bloc for his 
skills in disinformation and media manipulation. His work in Chile in the early 
1970s, where he totally neutralized the El Mercurio newspaper, is considered 
a classic and was taught in numerous services in the bloc. His work on the 'October 
Surprise' case was so well conceived that even today the truth remains discredited. 
Many of us consider LeWinter the most brilliant CIA officer of his era. Since his 
forced retirement, his life appears to have been chaotic and he is living in what 
is reported to be a state of poverty and serious illness in Portugal. He has 
published two excellent books in the language of his adopted country. It is 
deeply saddening that a man of such qualities, after long years of loyal service 
to his country, should be reduced to living like this." 

He is implying that LeWinter's efforts (in manipulating Alan Francovich's films) completely destroyed the credibility of the October Surprise Theory.--Wool Bridge (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

From memory not only did Ben-Menashe report that he had seen GHW Bush in Paris and that Robert Gates had carried the money he also impied that Olaf Palme, Robert Maxwell, Senator John Towers and Amiram Nir had all been killed because they had threatened to reveal secrets on Iran-Contra and October Surprise. --Wool Bridge (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at WP:RSN regarding the reliability of one of the major sources used in this article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The above refers to the following discussion: "Consortium News" at October Surprise conspiracy theory. - Location (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: This weed is everywhere. See the sourcing for John Shaheen. -Location (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

Parry wrote, "Andelman... had testified... that deMarenches had discussed the Paris meetings.... After Andelman's testimony, the task force called de Marenches. But when the imperious French spymaster failed to return the call, the task force concluded, paradoxically, that Andelman's testimony was "credible" but lacked "probative value."[1]

Parry neglects to say that Andelman, based on his experience with De Marenches, had concluded that he might not have been honest, or that the task force had asked De Marenches about the meeting before questioning Andelman, and he had denied it.[2] Hence their conclusion made sense.

I think that the issue of whether Parry's site is rs is a red herring. It is factually correct, but the issue is neutrality. Parry presents one view, which is in the minority. We should not base the article on his writings, which present one view.

Now that WeldNeck has provided a link to the complete task force report, I suggest we use that as the main source for the article, and use subsequent writings for what has been learned or what comments have been made since the report was published.

Also, while this article is correct that Congress "concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation" they actually went further and said unequivocably, "There was no October surprise agreement ever reached." (p. 53) The current implies that they considered the allegations, while unproven, to be possibly true.

TFD (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Parry neglects to say that Andelman, based on his experience with De Marenches, had concluded that he might not have been honest, - you don't know what Andelman actually concluded. All you know is what the HOSTF writes as a summary of his testimony, which if you look at the detail sounds very much like a series of questions from interrogators designed to raise doubts Andelman couldn't explicitly dispel, rewritten to make it sound like the doubts all came from Andelman. I don't know for a fact that this was the case (an actual transcript might be revealing either way), but I do know that Pierre Salinger wrote in his memoirs that (without pressure of House investigators trying to prove nothing happened) Andelman reported back to him that de Marenches had admitted organising the meeting for Casey. Salinger gives no indication of Andelman having doubts about this, but does link this confession to a report he'd had in the mid-1980s from a senior French intelligence official saying the same thing. Anyway, what is your ultimate point? The entire article is a mess that needs rewriting from the ground up. Podiaebba (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Added Andelman's report of a de Marenches' motivation for denial which is based on de Marenches' statements to Andelman and not speculation interpolated by House investigators: he didn't want to hurt Bush's re-election chances or hurt Casey's legacy. I somehow suspect that this was in Andelman's testimony too... but anyway, it's important, yet not in the HOSTF report. Podiaebba (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Claude Angeli's evidence (p167) needs including too. Angeli's sources saying "no files found" is explained by Salinger's source saying there was a report in the French records but it was removed. Podiaebba (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In terms of neutrality, why not have the title be "theory" and not "conspiracy theory"? The centre of the theory here is that advantageous political delay was sought by Reagan supporters, the alleged conspiracy is merely the "how" and not the "what". Polymath Professor (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Title: October Surprise conspiracy theory

The title seems POV to me. Taken literally, yes, it is a theory about a conspiracy, but "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation, implying that the events are definitely factually untrue. Based only on the article itself (I have no further knowledge on the topic than what is contained here and in Iran-Contra Affair), there doesn't seem to be anywhere near a scholarly consensus; indeed, the only scholarly historian cited in the article is Robert Dallek, and only that he "did not confirm" Bill Casey's presence at the London conference. I see two possible resolutions.

1. Provide quality, verifiable sources to show that it is considered a conspiracy theory by the scholarly community, or that it is called the "October Surprise conspiracy theory" in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources.
2. Rename the article to October Surprise conspiracy allegations or similar

Opinions? Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest "October Surprise Theory." I read this article precisely because I wanted to find out what was the scholarly consensus. The title telegraphed a consensus that the theory was false. The body of the article does not support the existence of a scholarly consensus. This article has done me a disservice. The title needs to change. Burressd (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on October Surprise conspiracy theory. 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/20131110011626/http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Casey%20William%20J/Item%2016.pdf to http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Casey%20William%20J/Item%2016.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060916184013/http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/october-surprise.html to http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/october-surprise.html

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} 07:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Barbara Honegger

Jim1138 Why have you restored the removal of content about Barbara Honegger which is based on writings of Honegger herself? We must use independent, neutral ans reliable sources here. At the most, Honegger's books can be used for claims made by her. Honegger is not a reliable and expert source. However her claims are being presented as a definite fact. What's more, there is no independent source used here for her occupation in the Raegan administration. We cannot rely on her for what jobs she held. What's more one of the sources used here is a page of her book on sale on Amazon. That is not how we cite sources. We have to cite the details of the book as well as the page number of it where the info was copied from. We must follow the rules on using sources. If you don't have sufficient independent, neutral and reliable sources, then I suggest that you undo your revert. 59.96.132.80 (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The only reliable source about Honegger working in the Raegan administration is this one (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZHs-J4MD0K0C&pg=PA50&dq=barbara+honegger&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi034zB_JzRAhVFRI8KHYNHBqk4ChDoAQg6MAY#v=onepage&q=barbara%20honegger&f=false). However, it does not fully detail what her job was. All other books I've found seem to be mostly peddling comspiracy theories and aren't of reputed reliable authors and scholars. 59.96.132.80 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I've found another one "New Statesman Society, Volume 1, Issues 13-21" as well as this one: (https://books.google.com/books?id=VTkDAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA281&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTzuqKgZ3RAhUHRo8KHUj9BTgQ6AEIGTAA#v=onepage&f=false). I've used these independent sources for her job descriptions wherever they can be used for instead of Barbara Honegger's own works. 59.96.132.80 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I've sourced some of the info about Barbara Honegger with independent, neutral and reliable sources. However some of the information still needs better sources. An Amzaon page of book sale and writing of Honegger herself aren't neutral or reliabie or independent. 59.96.132.80 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Chronology

There is no single chronology for the October Surprise conspiracy theory since multiple people have added their claims to it. It's probably best to use in-text attribution to indicate who made the various claims about people and dates.

By the way, it's nice to see that Roger Stone copied the chronology for The Bush Crime Family (i.e. [3]). And that's another reason why nearly anything put out by Skyhorse Publishing is unreliable. -Location (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)