Talk:Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy

Untitled

This article strikes me as presenting various conspiracy theories as fact. Particularly troubling is the allegation that Oswald was a CIA operative, a frequently made claim by advocates of conspiracy for which no hard evidence has ever been produced. Additionally many of the sources are from pro-conspiracy works and may fall under WP:FRINGE.-Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The primary source for the article is the 1975 article by award-winning journalist Edwin Black, based on a five-year investigation the details of which are chronicled in it in quite a lot of detail. Do you have a problem with that? You're not being overly specific here. As to the CIA operative claim (actually that he was a CIA fake defector, not an active CIA operative when he returned) - well I'd have to dig into it (and lack time now), but I have a vague recollection Victor Marchetti was a source for that (it's also in Black's article). Though TBH if you can believe that at the height of the Cold War an ex-US Marine can return from the Soviet Union having tried to spill everything he knows from working at a U2 base as easily as Oswald did without intelligence cover, well I've got a bridge to sell you. Incidentally, what do you think the AARB's still-classified files hold, if not Oswald's intelligence links? What the hell else can still have national security implications 50-years later? Podiaebba (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

many of the sources are from pro-conspiracy [theory] works - what's that supposed to mean? If we exclude all facts and sources that point to a conspiracy on the mere basis that they do so, then yeah, it's very easy to "prove" that there wasn't one, having assumed our conclusion. NB does "pro-conspiracy [theory] works" include the HSCA report? The AARB Final Report showing the Security Service destroying relevant records in 1995? Podiaebba (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oswald CIA fake defector

I'm moving the following from the article, since the "disputed" tagging of the Oswald CIA fake defector claim rendered the section unclear.

Both had been recruited by the CIA - Vallee to train Cuban exiles to assassinate Castro, Oswald to defect to Russia as part of a fake defector program. [source: Black's 1975 article]

I don't have time to follow up sourcing for this now (and maybe not for a good long while; if I do it I want to do it properly), but I will quote approvingly the following, found from John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories#Role_of_Oswald:

James Botelho, a former roommate of Oswald who would later become a California judge, stated in an interview with Mark Lane, "Oswald, it was said, was the only Marine ever to defect from his country to another country, a Communist country, during peacetime.... When the Marine Corps and American intelligence decided not to probe the reasons for the 'defection', I knew then what I know now: Oswald was on an assignment in Russia for American intelligence."

Which is a nicely authoritative statement of the really quite bleeding obvious. Podiaebba (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Side note for future reference: this excerpt from Michael Parenti's book has relevant points for follow-up (section "Luxury Defection"). Podiaebba (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As is generally true of most of the conspiracy theories, the claims about Oswald are heavy on conjecture and short on hard evidence. People are certainly free to believe what they want to. For the better part of a couple of decades I would have strongly agreed with the conjecture about Oswald. But I'm not arguing for or against those views or the whole conspiracy idea. My opinions are neither here nor there. Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic articles confine themselves to facts backed by reliable sourcing WP:RS. No hard evidence exists that supports that claim. I think you were correct to redact that part of the article irrespective of your personal opinions.

On a side note I am curious about the title of the article. I would suggest it might be more appropriately retitled as a plot, vice assassination attempt. I don't think an actual attempt was made on Kennedy's life on November 4th 1963. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article could be retitled. I'm not sure exactly how, but probably "Chicago" and "plot" would be words to include. NB I'm curious at your suggestion that your changed your mind... because occasionally, particularly with scientific articles about acoustic evidence and the like, I've been open to reconsidering my general opinion that the Lone Gunman theory is untenable. Bugliosi's book seems to have swayed some people, but a brief look into it yesterday easily turned up researchers Bugliosi claims to respect tearing it to shreds. Hard evidence? Basic things like a chain of custody for the Parkland stretcher bullet aren't even there - the evidence for it would be laughed out of court. Podiaebba (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)