Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 05:24, 9 December 2024 (→Kelly Johnson Lockheed Martin skunkworks: you must be joking. This is pure vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 05:24, 9 December 2024 by EEng (talk | contribs) (→Kelly Johnson Lockheed Martin skunkworks: you must be joking. This is pure vandalism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 16, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents / Texas / Government / History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

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. Also, Oswald did not shoot at Kennedy right after the turn onto Elm Street, when he was closest to the depository building, but waited until they were further away and missed with his first shot trying to fire through the trees in front of the building, then had to rush the second and third shots which made a direct hit on Kennedy's skull less likely. Sources: . 152.130.15.110 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The second bullet passed through almost entirely soft tissue while the third bullet immediately struck bone. 24.230.161.142 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned by 24.230 above, the bullet that struck two did so by passing through Kennedy without touching bone, then plowing sideways through relatively soft bone at a significantly reduced velocity, as opposed to striking the much harder skull bone at maximum velocity nose-first.

As for Oswald not shooting when closest, this ignores the evidence of the sniper nest. The sniper had set up several boxes as a gun rest, poised to shoot when JFK was travelling away down Elm - and not pointing down Houston when the sniper might be more readily seen by witnesses as the target was approaching the sniper's nest, and the angle of adjustment was far steeper as it approached. Going down Elm towards the underpass the angle of adjustment was minimal as the limousine was travelling away almost in a straight line. Even though the limosine was closer when turning onto Elm, it was a trickier shot with the target moving from left to right as it turned. Even if one could argue that shooting down Houston was an easier shot, the bottom line is the sniper in fact set up the gun rest to shoot down Elm, so it's a moot point. As for "rush the second and third shots", the evidence suggests that the first shot completely missed, he set and fired again, which struck but not at the presumed target - Kennedy's head - , then he set and waited the longest and fired the third shot, a bullseye. Entirely consistent with Oswald's experience as a trained Marine sniper, making adjustments with what most experts agree was not a difficult shot. Took him three to hit the bullseye. A good, but not great, marksman. Canada Jack (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a word about JFK doctors saying there was a front entrance wound, and a massive rear head wound

Currently there is not a word about JFK Parkland doctors saying there was a front entrance wound, and a massive rear head wound.

I haven't discussed this interview here before. And I don't see this interview mentioned in the talk archives.

There is an interview from 2015 with Dr. Robert N. McClelland where he says that he saw a massive head wound in the back of Kennedy's head. And that the other doctors saw it too. He said that he saw a front entrance wound.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ435lMaCng

I previously discussed the 2023 documentary about 7 doctors who were there, and they all believed there was an entrance wound from the front, meaning that more than one shooter was required. This Google search pulls up the documentary and many reliable sources that reviewed it:

Google search: Seven JFK Parkland Hospital ER doctors (see documentary).
Previous discussion: Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 6#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter.

I mention it now because the documentary and the McClelland interview are saying the same thing. And so it further merits being in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Without some newly discovered, reliable, secondary source, I don't think it will be productive to rehash the same discussion. There was also the one at Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 18#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There were many reliable secondary sources in the previous discussion. There are more now about the massive rear head wound (not a massive top of the head wound), and a front entrance wound.

The above-linked video is a primary source. But it is an interview. According to the essay, Misplaced Pages:Interviews. and its source guidelines, an interviewee's responses are primary, non-independent, and authoritative for the interviewee's personal experiences, preferences, viewpoints, etc..

There is a different 2015 interview with McClelland here in front of a crowd at the Allen Public Library in Allen, Texas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySO0pLcN5ww - discusses a massive rear head wound, not a massive top of the head wound.

Many of the reviews of the documentary show parts of the interviews with the 7 doctors. So they are secondary sources with primary sources. You can find some of them by scrolling down the results of this Youtube search:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=interviews+with+jfk+parkland+doctors

Reviews from reliable sources such as Channel 5 (British TV channel), CBS Evening News, CBS Mornings, CBS News, etc.. Many of the previously discussed reviews from reliable news sources had video clips too. All of them comment on the documentary and the video clips. That makes them secondary sources, too.

Here is an 2013 interview of McClelland by the chief editor (Rod J. Rohrich, MD) of the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q1lYifmUXA

He describes a massive rear head wound (not a massive top of the head wound), at 6 minutes into the video. There is even a diagram. The video is also hosted on their website:

https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/pages/video.aspx?autoPlay=false&v=420

The videos are part of a special topic:

Rohrich, Rod J.; Weinstein, Aaron; Stokes, Mike (November 2013). "The Assassination of JFK: A Plastic Surgery Perspective 50 Years Later". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 132 (5): 1373–1376. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a64669.

20/20 (American TV program) did a April 3, 1992 report in a segment titled "I Know What I Saw." Dr. Charles A. Crenshaw, one of the ER doctors, saw a massive rear head wound, (not a massive top of the head wound), and a front entrance wound. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJuGGouHg5Y - and archive link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20231125220335/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJuGGouHg5Y

Crenshaw also has a #1 New York Times bestseller (makes it notable) saying the same thing:

I think we need a request for comment. I have provided a plethora of primary and secondary sources for the fact that the JFK Parkland doctors saw a massive rear head wound (not a massive top of the head wound), and a front entrance wound too.

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Number of Shots

This section, says Nellie Connally thought her husband was hit by a separate shot, true, but John Connally's own similar testimony (per JThompson's 6 Secs in Dallas) is even more convincing. Believe Connally went to his grave believing Warren Commission was wrong about the Magic Bullet, but paradoxically, Connally agreed with the Commission's overall findings. In any case, failure to cite John Connally's testimony seems like a bit of bias at this point in the Wiki. TBILLT (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The JFK Assassination Chokeholds: That Inescapably Prove There Was a Conspiracy

This book might warrant a mention, along with its authors: James DiEugenio, Matt Crumpton, Paul Bleau, Andrew Iler, and Mark Adamczyk. 2002:2F93:E15E:0:2076:157E:E545:D700 (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: