Talk:CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fork article w/ CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory[edit]

The idea has been introduced (without any discussion here) of moving several sections of this article into a separate article: CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. For the record I am AGAINST this change. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I put it in CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. If you don't like this entry, perhaps you should think about merging it. Anyways, the reason I had been considering a fork was because I thought the original Kennedy conspiracy article talked too much about the CIA instead of other competing theories. I am personally a fan of the LBJ-Masonic theory, which is barely mentioned in the original article. ADM (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
As I wrote above, I am all for a re-write on the CIA-related stuff. That doesn't explain why (1.) you deleted whole sections of the article not on this specific topic and (2.) why you made major revisions to an article on controversial stuff without discussing it first on talk. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I added parts about Cuba to the split because they also talk about the CIA. It's possible that the entry was busy and I thought that it was free, without people coming back to check their work. I didn't get the impression that it was under discussion. ADM (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess I don't quite get it. You chopped out a lot of "the Three Tramps" even though the text had only the most tenuous connection to the CIA. In any case please DO edit the CIA assassination stuff in this article; what's here is not good. I think your new article may get nominated for deletion pretty quick, but I've wrong before. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm over five years late to the party, but I guess I'm in at least partial agreement with Joegoodfriend on this. The theory that Castro and the Cubans killed JFK (i.e. "retaliation theory", which LBJ apparently believed) is not the same as the theory that anti-Castro Cubans working with the CIA killed JFK. In other words, not every mention of the CIA goes in an article about the theory that "the CIA did it". - Location (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

This article tends to present the conspiracy theory as fact. Conflicts with facts should be noted, and the article as a whole should avoid such a slant. Nick Heer 01:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It reads the opposite way to me. It takes a considerable amount of paragraph's before it even starts to list conspiracy theories. As filler it lists distractions and other theories that don't involve the CIA. There are other articles for that content. Furthermore, where actual facts exists, it blurs them and pushes the content to the bottom of a section rather then simply listing said facts. Other articles on this subject are structured in a much better way.--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick wants it to be more pro-official theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


The grammar and spelling need to be corrected throughout the entirety of this page. There are multiple errors, some changing the intended meaning of sentences —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently undertaking a good part of the rewrite.

CIA as source[edit]

Does this follow WP procedure? That is to directly cite the subject matter? It seems like a bit of a confusing paradox to me.--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


The article has contained the following quote since it was created:

Kennedy said to his collaborator Clark Clifford, shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, "Something very bad is going on within the CIA and I want to know what it is. I want to shred the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the four winds."[2][3][4]

Regarding the sources:

2 is a YouTube clip of a Kennedy speech that does not refer to the quote,
3 does not refer to the first part of the quote, but does cite the 1966 article in The New York Times noted elsewhere in the article for the second part of the quote, and
4 is a dead link that has likely moved here within the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba.

None of these sources attribute the quote to Clark Clifford, nor can I find any reliable sources that do so. Given that [2] does not even mention the quote, [3] in and of itself may be judged unreliable, and [4] is obviously biased in this context, I am going to trim the quote and use the NYT article noted within [3]. Location (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also fixed the quote to match what the NYT actually wrote. Location (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

UFO conspiracy[edit]

The material below was removed by BrandonTR with an edit summary stating: "material removed -- WP:FRINGE -- UFO theories are considered fringe and pseudoscience".

According to one UFO-related conspiracy theory, the CIA killed Kennedy in order to prevent him from leaking information to the Soviet Union about a covert program to reverse-engineer alien technology called Majestic 12.[1] (Unformatted reference found here.)

Pseudoscience isn't really relevant since the method of cherry-picking FOIA documents and proclaiming "the CIA did it" isn't unique to the author of this particular theory, but it is certainly "fringe" in the world of JFK assassination conspiracy theories. If a WC critic is OK with its removal, then I am, too. Given that it was originally moved from the "Other published theories" section in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, I'm preserving it here for future reference. Location (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Speigel, Lee (April 18, 2011). "The JFK-UFO Connection: Bogus Documents or Unanswered Questions?". AOL News. Retrieved January 2, 2013. 

For future reference[edit]

- Location (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the CIA[edit]

I am removing the section entitled "Problems with the CIA" per WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." It appears as though this section is providing material to substantiate the conspiracy belief that conflicts between the CIA and Kennedy were the impetus for the assassination, and none of the sources for the material make that assertion. The proper way to make this argument is through secondary sources discussing that particular aspect of the conspiracy theory. - Location (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Second Oswald Theory[edit]

Hi, the text I've added was not without discussion of the editors. See: Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories#Second_Oswald_Theory. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

One Sided[edit]

This article is hopelessly one sided. It presents virtually no rebuttal to the conspiracy theories and as such violates NPOV, DUE and PROFRINGE. I have tagged it accordingly. These tags should not be removed w/o consensus that these issues have been resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there would be strong objection to this, but my suggestion is to remove anything cited to a fringe source. A fringe source or fringe theory should really only be mentioned to the extent that it is discussed in reliable secondary sources. The alternative to this is that we have claims by conspiracy theorists refuted by primary source material in the name of WP:PARITY.
Any other suggestions? -Location (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Location: we can add rebuttals, remove stuff cited to a fringe source, and try to present the other side/making it No POV. Face-smile.svgusernamekiran[talk] 18:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
We also need editors who check that the material they or others have put in the article actually agrees with the sources used to support that material. For example, the lede states: "The CIA's potential involvement was frequently mentioned during the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in plots to assassinate foreign leaders, particularly Fidel Castro." That is followed by a news report about the CIA's involvement in the plots against Castro and a primary source document about the same thing. Sources like these are types of things that conspiracy believers use to piece together their theories but neither one of the sources actually support the full statement... including the most important part which is the assertion that the CIA was involved in a plot to kill Kennedy. I see this all the time. -Location (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The first item that could definitely change this whole debate is definite proof that Oswald was ever a CIA agent himself, in any way, shape, or form. After almost 55 years such proof still cannot be found and it does not seem to be forthcoming. If such a simple fact about the CIA cannot be determined, this means that there is no basic fact about the CIA that will ever be determined in American history, let alone the question of "if" it was involved in ANY plot ever. warshy (¥¥) 14:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
(Yes, this whole matter is indeed hopeless, and we will never know even the most basic fact about what might have happened there, other than that the President of the US of A was indeed shot and killed on November 22, 1963.) warshy (¥¥) 15:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Following through with my previous edit, I've changed the lede with this edit to replace the sources that do not discuss alleged CIA involvement in the assassination with a source that does discuss it. -Location (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Location I Concur. If it's not mentioned in a reliable secondary source it probably should not be included per WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. Not every crackpot theory needs to be in the article. Also we need material that rebuts these theories of which basically there is none at the moment. Yet another reason this article is just a pro-conspiracy WP:COATRACK. Bugliosi's book, which is arguably the most exhaustive and thoroughly referenced work on the subject, is incredibly cited only once. That strikes me as a great untapped source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
And note that Bugliosi is used to reference a comment about the Secret Service rather than the CIA! - Location (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
where did my comment go?[talk] 08:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It was removed by 7&6=thirteen. Not sure why. I have restored it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Just documenting for future reference that Bugliosi's chapter on the CIA starts on page 1189 and ends on page 1214. -Location (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Bugliosi is pretty brutal in his take down of the various conspiracy theorists. I really need to dig my copy out of the attic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, how Bugliosi is ignored here is beyond me.
@Location: This is a very good work. Thanks a lot. But the "easy boogeyman" seems a little odd wikipedia lol Face-smile.svg
@Warshy: yes, there is no proof that Oswald worked for CIA, but there is a possibility he worked unwittingly. —usernamekiran[talk] 18:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Re: "easy boogeyman". I saw that Bugliosi explained that point better, but I didn't have time to find it, write it up, then cite it appropriately. I'll try to get to that later. -Location (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Bugliosi states in the third paragraph on page 1190 that it has been easy for conspiracy theorists to focus on the CIA because "it has been a shadowy, somewhat autonomous governmental agency whose mantra seems to be secrecy..., Machiavellian intrigue, and operating outside the constraints of the law." Not sure how to re-word that better than the "easy boogeyman" reference which seems clear to me, but somewhat unencyclopedic. - Location (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Location and Ad Orientem: how is:

The secretive nature of the CIA and its reputation for high level political assassinations in the 1960s has made it an "easy target" as the perpetrator for those who believe in a conspiracy.

Actually, I don't think "boogeyman" is a big problem. I mean, it is okay if it remains there in the article. —usernamekiran[talk] 18:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't like "easy target". It definitely shouldn't be in quotes as it is not a quote from the article. I like "scapegoat", but I think that, too, would need a source. Not sure about "perpetrator" since there are various permutations of the "CIA did it" theories. - Location (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"Scapegoating" is used by Holland to describe Garrison's charges against the CIA, however, I'm not sure that source should be used in the lede as it used predominately later in the article and the mention of it applies specifically to Garrison.[1] -Location (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Location: thanks for pointing to the quote issue. I realised it only after you pointed out. We can remove the quote (I will do it now after posting this message).
Actually, if we add too much vocabulary from the source then it can be accused of WP:OR even when it is not. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The alliteration is a bit much but I've changed it to "plausible perpetrator". I think "easy target" is a euphemism of sorts that we should avoid. - Location (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


This article is being discussed here:


--David Tornheim (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Cuban exiles[edit]

I have removed this section per this edit. This article is supposed to be about Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories involving the CIA, and the references cited do not refer to CIA involvement with Cuban exiles in the assassination of Kennedy. -Location (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Good edit, keep up the good work! Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Organized crime and the CIA conspiracy[edit]

I have removed a paragraph from this section with this edit. This article is supposed to be about Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories involving the CIA, and the references cited in this paragraph do not refer to CIA involvement with the mafia in the assassination of Kennedy. -Location (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Good edit, keep up the good work! Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed another paragraph from this section with this edit. This article is supposed to be about Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories involving the CIA, and the material and reference cited in this paragraph do not refer to CIA involvement with the mafia in the assassination of Kennedy. -Location (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed a third paragraph from this section with this edit. This article is supposed to be about Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories involving the CIA, and the material and reference cited in this paragraph do not refer to CIA involvement with the mafia in the assassination of Kennedy. -Location (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed a fourth paragraph from this section with this edit. This article is supposed to be about Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories involving the CIA, and the material and reference cited in this paragraph do not refer to CIA involvement with the mafia in the assassination of Kennedy. Almost all of the information that I have removed from this section is relevant to Assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, but not this one. -Location (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

In follow-up, I did find a source that links the CIA and the mafia here. Enjoy! -Location (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


Copied text & references from E. Howard Hunt to CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory See former article's history for list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen () 17:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • erm... why? —usernamekiran[talk] 17:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Because it is part of the CIA picture, and a relevant piece at that. And because attribution is required for copying within wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen () 17:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
And I answered both questions. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen () 18:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
His recorded statement to his son that he was present for "the big event" is notable. Of course, this whole episode is a mess. The source of one shot was a mystery, until I saw the forensic report implicating an accidental(?) firing of a secret service agent's AR15. Which explained at least some of the mystery bullet, etc. not to mention the president's 'lost' brain. And the lost photos of the Bethesda autopsy. See Mortal_Error and JFK: The Smoking Gun which for some reason seems to not be mentioned (much) in the various JFK assassination articles.
On a different tangent, I have always found it significant that Oswald was hired at the Texas School Book Depository shortly before the assassination, and before the parade route was made public. But that is grist for several other wikipedia articles. 7&6=thirteen () 18:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I really want to take part in this conversation. But 10 minutes ago, I took my meds, and my blackberry was 3d but now it has started wobbling. I should sleep soon before I fo anything stupid lol see you later folks. Miss you @Location, El C, and Mz7:usernamekiran[talk] 18:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yup. That was material I added to E. Howard Hunt over four years ago. (Incidentally, the full citation for one of the links that appeared elsewhere in that article didn't make it here, so there is an error in the References section that needs to be fixed.) I don't think it is necessary here because it is redundant with the paragraph that precedes it. Just another example of the bloat that typifies the JFK assassination articles. -Location (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"I have always found it significant that Oswald was hired at the Texas School Book Depository shortly before the assassination, and before the parade route was made public."

This might have more to do with his inability to hold a long-term job for much of 1963. Per the Lee Harvey Oswald article:

  • In July, 1962, having recently returned from the Soviet Union, Oswald found a job at the Leslie Welding Company. He apparently did not like the job. He quit his position in September, 1962, after only working for three months.
  • In October, 1962, Oswald was hired as a photoprint trainee in the graphic-arts firm of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. He had a poor relationship with his co-workers, was described by them as particularly rude, got into arguments with others, and apparently at one point he and a fellow employee got into a fight which had to be broken by one of their superiors. He was fired in April, 1963.
  • In May, 1963, Oswald found a new job as a machinery greaser for the Reily Coffee Company. His performance at the job was considered very poor and he often sneaked out of his workplace to hang out at a garage located next-door. During working hours, Oswald was repeatedly caught reading "rifle and hunting magazines". He was fired in July, 1963.
  • In late September, 1963, Oswald was still unemployed and collected an unemployment check. The sum was 33 dollars.
  • In early October, 1963, Oswald was still unemployed. On October 14, 1963, his acquaintance Ruth Paine learned that there was a job opening at the Texas School Book Depository and informed Oswald about it. Oswald applied for the job, passed an interview and was hired on October 16, 1963. He was hired as an order filler, and his payment was a minimum wage of 1.25 dollars per hour. His performance at the job was surprisingly good and his supervisor described him as an above-average employee.

He was apparently drifting from job to job.

As for John Kennedy, the decision for a presidential visit to Texas was taken on June 5, 1963. The decision was taken in a meeting between Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and John Connally, in part to address political infighting between Democratic politicians in Texas. The visit to Dallas was publicly announced in September, 1963. The motorcade route was finalized on November 18, and it was announced to the public over the four next days. Dimadick (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hedegaard":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 00:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed 7&6=thirteen () 13:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)