Talk:United States House Select Committee on Assassinations

Secret Hearing

I edited the faulty line about the HSCA "suffering" in the same way as the Warren Commission in being secret. The Warren Commission was not secret. From Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History:

"Two misconceptions about the Warren Commission hearing need to be clarified...hearings were closed to the public unless the witness appearing before the Commission requested an open hearing. No witness except one...requested an open hearing...Second, although the hearings (except one) were conducted in private, they were not secret. In a secret hearing, the witness is instructed not to disclose his testimony to any third party, and the hearing testimony is not published for public consumption. The witnesses who appeared before the Commission were free to repeat what they said to anyone they pleased, and all of their testimony was subsequently published in the first fifteen volumes put out by the Warren Commission."

If the Warren Commission was "secret", why would they publish everything verbatim in 26 volumes and sell the books to the public?139.48.25.61 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Some witnesses said that they could not speak do to a confidentiality agreement. Some testimony is still under lock and key. They will be released when all of the criminals are dead and are able to escape public scrutiny and justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.89.86 (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. The WC classified millions of records, so there goes your "no secrecy" argument. Their meetings were not public and one or more of the key summary meetings didn't even have a stenographer. After DiEugenio completely destroyed Bugliosi's book in "Reclaiming Parkland," I don't think it's remotely possible to cite this as a source for anything other than humor.99th Percentile (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Article should include the history of the first chief counsel

Th article only mentions Robert Blakey. It should also list the history of the first chief counsel, Richard Sprague. It should also mention the history of Mark Lane's efforts to get the committee created - he suggested Sprague and opposed Blakey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.14.250 (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

the "feel" and "taste" of the hearings

this article doesn't convey the "feel" and "taste" of the house select committee on assassinations and the effect that its hearings had on the country. the hearings were held on the radio, essentially "in full view" of the american public. maybe these hearings didn't create the public furor incited by the original assassination, but they were avidly followed by at least some segments of the american public. i was fourteen years old and a high school freshman at the time and i remember looking forward to the time when school would let out so i could go home and listen to the hearings on national public radio. (as a result, i ignored my studies and homework, paving the way for a "career" as an indifferent student.) the hearings were the "talk of the town." people got the idea that history was being made and were happy that the kennedy assassination was finally being given a public airing. and the hearings were dramatic....and ambiguous. some days i would come to the conclusion that no reliable evidence of assassination had been presented. the next day witnesses would testify and reawaken suspicions of conspiracy in my mind. the next day witnesses would be put on the stand who would back up the lone gunman theory. towards the end of the public proceedings, it appeared as if the lone assassin theory WOULD be vindicated. then, almost literally at the last minute, dictabelt evidence was presented which seemed to back up the theory of conspiracy in a conclusive fashion. for the first time (perhaps) since the assassination, most of the media and the majority of the american public concluded that there HAD been a conspiracy in the kennedy assassination. based primarily on this acoustic evidence, the committee concluded with a ninety five percent degree of certainty, that there had been a conspiracy. the warren commission report, it seemed, had been overturned. it appeared that the conspiracy theorists had been right all along and the majority of the american public accepted this verdict. (this is what i mean by conveying the taste and feel of the hearings. this was really a weird time in american history. "crackpot" conspiracy theorists had apparently been vindicated. it was as if the speculation in an "in search of" episode had actually turned out to be true. it was as if ufos had landed on the white house lawn.) for awhile the public as a whole continued to accept the "conspiracy" thesis, then the dictabelt evidence itself was (apparently) discredited, and the "kennedy assassination conspiracy hypothesis" went back to being a "crackpot theory" in the eyes of many people. later there were attempts to discredit the refutation of the acoustic evidence and rebuttals attempting to refute the dictabelt evidence once again. so now confusion ruled with respect to the dictabelt evidence and most other types of evidence tending to indicate a conspiracy. people would put forward evidence to indicate a conspiracy, only to have that evidence refuted (or seemingly refuted). there certainly was no consensus among the media with regard to the question of conspiracy. gerald posner wrote a book supposedly refuting the conspiracy thesis once and for all, then almost immediately afterwards there were attempts to refute his book. oliver stone's jfk movie created a great deal of attention but didn't overwhelmingly convince the media and public to embrace the jfk conspiracy theory. (in fact, it created a backlash of "lone gunman" enthusiasts attempting to defend their theory.) and on and on it goes........ the point i am trying to make is that (for a short time at least) the house select committee on assassinations hearings changed public opinion. for the first time since the assassination, most of the members of the media and public (rightly or wrongly) believed in the existence of a jfk assassination conspiracy. for the first time, the "crackpots" (apparently) had turned out to be correct. the article should convey a bit of the taste and feel of this temporary zeitgeist change and how the committee hearings brought it about. i think the fact that the so-called "cranks" and "crackpots" were taken seriously at least for a short time says something about TIMES during which the committee hearings took place. (and the fact that the findings of the committee were not followed up says something about the reagan eighties.)```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.228.117 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

McAdams citations

Citations of John McAdams' website should be carefully considered due to the plain bias and self-referential suppositions of that site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djohnson0804 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed

"... Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with [organizations] in the months leading up to the assassination, including an anti-Castro group, the DRE ..." Says who?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.138.127 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It is clumsily worded, but the article states:

Robert Blakey, The Chief Counsel of the Committee later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the Committee researchers, George Joannides, was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with in the months leading up to the assassination, including an anti-Castro group, the DRE, which was linked to the CIA, where the liaison, Joannides, worked in 1963.

...and it is cited to the addendum of his interview with Frontline. -Location (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed or Discredited Acoustic Evidence

The DOJ/FBI is one in the same, with a conflict of interest which puts their credibility in doubt. The Justice Department as part of the "deep state" would be the first to manufacture a committee on ballistics analysis to cover up the conspiracy finding by the HCSA. The Justice Dept. investigation was not nearly of the same scope or depth, and countless manufactured reports could be generated to refute the HCSA finding on conspiracy. The HCSA findings should stand alone as it was the last comprehensive analysis of the JFK assination. Who are these minions here from the government and other institutions trying to undermine and bury clear findings by the HSCA? This is why I do not trust Wikipedia on many topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.172.212 (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the description of the acoustic evidence as "discredited" has been altered a few times recently. Here is my justification for restoring "discredited" instead of "disputed". If you would like to change it to a less-definitive adjective, please provide some evidence for doing so:

Vincent Bugliosi (2007). Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. W. W. Norton: "The HSCA's acoustical evidence has been totally discredited." Ballard C. Campbell, Disasters, Accidents, and Crises in American History: A Reference Guide to ...": "This acoustic evidence was soon completely discredited." Holland, Max (June 1994). "After Thirty Years: Making Sense of the Assassination". Reviews in American History 22 (2): 191–209: "The acoustic evidence for this allegation was subsequently discredited by experts..." Martin, John (September 2011). "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy – 48 Years On". Irish Foreign Affairs: "In the years after 1978 the acoustic evidence has been discredited." Peter Knight (2007). The Kennedy Assassination. University Press of Mississippi: "The acoustic evidence was soon found to be flawed...although even the discounted acoustic evidence..." Kathryn S. Olmsted (March 11, 2011). Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11. Oxford University Press: "...discounted the acoustic evidence of conspiracy"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koijmonop (talk • contribs) 18:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Before I make the change myself, I'm hoping that someone can remove the ridiculous "discredited" comment (i.e., the third sentence). Vincent Bugliosi's book was completely and utterly destroyed by James DiEugenio's Reclaiming Parkland and CTKA website. Given that Reclaiming History was already kind of a white elephant upon arrival, DiEugenio's scholarly dismantling of almost every Bugliosi assertion should render it somewhere between locker room gossip and McAdams' website. The HSCA should stand on its own, since it was never discredited in any kind of official forum. If we disparage it here and now, then we should overturn the Warren Commission article too, which nobody is up for.99th Percentile (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The HSCA recommend that the DoJ take another look at the acoustics issue. They did and the initial findings were rejected. - Location (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting recent edits

I’m reverting some of the edits from 97.94.181.36 for the following reasons. I’d be happy to discuss it further, if desired.

“the” instead of “one” basis for the finding of probable conspiracy. As discussed at length elsewhere, the justification for the HSCA’s finding of probable conspiracy begins and ends with the acoustic evidence. Page 84 of the HSCA report, “Scientifically, the existence of the second gunman was established only by the acoustical study, but its basic validity was corroborated or independently substantiated by the various other scientific projects.” Those other scientific projects being witness testimony of counting gunshots and inconclusive photos. From the CBA report, the acoustic evidence “was the basis of the finding by the House Select Committee on Assassinations that “scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F.Kennedy.”

Scientific evidence “do not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the president.” This is indeed a phrase from the HSCA report, and therefore I have no problem with leaving it later in the this article. But, I’m going to change the wording in the lede for two reasons. First, it’s not easily understood writing. Second, later authors have disagreed with that conclusion, based on the HSCA’s own report. Bugliosi, explains it like this: the HSCA bound themselves to the finding of probable conspiracy, supported by the false dictabelt analysis. But to present a coherent report, therefore they couldn’t contradict themselves elsewhere. However, a close reading of the various scientific studies shows that all the evidence other than the dictabelt DOES preclude two shooters. Representative Edgar said, “We found no evidence to suggest a conspiracy. We found no gunmen or evidence of a gunman. We found no gun, no shells, no impact of shots from the grassy knoll. We found no entry wounds from the front into any person, including President John Kennedy and Gov. John Connally. We found no bullets or fragments of bullets that did not belong to the Oswald weapon. And we found little, if any, evidence of partnership with Lee Harvey Oswald. Few credible ear-witness accounts back up the marginal findings of our acoustics experts” (HSCA Report, p.496). So for the most scrutinized event in history , we have no photos, video, eyewitnesses or credible suspects as a second shooter, and no medical wounds or bullet damage outside of Oswald’s shots. With that kind of lack of evidence, I don’t know how else you COULD preclude the existence of a second shooter. It is true that the evidence doesn’t preclude the existence of a second shooter, but it is more accurate to say that the evidence supported the Warren Commission’s findings.

The Testimony of Willem Oltmans, concerning George de Mohrenschildt. This “he said, she said” testimony is sourced from biased conspiracy theory authors, and that fact that the HSCA listened to it does not make it worthy of inclusion in this article. I’d love to see that this line of inquiry was considered by the HSCA or any other impartial parties before we add it back here. Dumping unconnected paragraphs of suspicious allegations into the middle of an article is how you get a disjointed and unreadable wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koijmonop (talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Spot on. The material about George de Mohrenschildt was heavily cherry-picked. We can look at the various details of their investigation all day long, but the HSCA in its final report had two primary things to say about George de Mohrenschildt: 1) he possessed another "backyard photo" and it was determined to be genuine, and 2) he was not an American intelligence agent. Oltmans' claims were not even mentioned. - Location (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Undo revertion

The Testimony of Willem Oltmans, concerning George de Mohrenschildt. This is actual sworn testimony before the House Of Representatives. The assumption that any testimony is biased is unfounded. Whether or not anyone considered it true or false is irrelevant. This is not unconnected with the subject. This is the documented testimony of Oltmans before the HSCA. The material was not cherry-picked. It was the same material that the referenced newspapers included in their articles at the time. I have included a line that Oltman's testimony was not included in the final report.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.244.10 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 August 2015‎ (UTC)

The relevant issue is not whether or not he provided testimony to the HSCA, but what WP:WEIGHT it has to the article. The fact that Oltman's testimony was not included in the final report should be a clue to how important it was to the HSCA (it wasn't) or is to this article (it isn't). Oltman's claims are only important in the context of conspiracy theories, and for that we have John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Selecting material in violation of WP:WEIGHT in order to promote a personal bias is cherry-picking. - Location (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Location. It is undue weight to include material that was not part of the final report. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The part about Joseph Dryer however was indeed part of the final report.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.244.10 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 8 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Are you aware that you are at high risk of being blocked for edit warring, and editing against consensus? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is incorrect. His name appears on pages 60 and 61 of the 800 page Volume XII of the Appendix to the Hearings, but it does not appear in the HSCA's final report or any of the other appendix volumes. This is a prime example of cherry-picking. - Location (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Incomplete Sentence & Unsupported Claim

The opening paragraph contains this grammatically poor sentence: Acoustic analysis of a police channel dictabelt recording,[1] the HSCA also commissioned numerous other scientific studies of assassination-related evidence that corroborate the Warren Commission's findings.[2] This sentence is improperly constructed. Furthermore, no support is provided for the apparent broad claim that the HSCA's effort corroborated ALL of the WC's findings. If it corroborated some, identify them. And please provide reliable sources. 5198blk (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible "original research"?

I am not sure, but except "formation" the article seems to be WP:OR. I am familiar with WP:NOTOR, but I cant be sure with the article of HSCA. Opinions are requested.

Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Cherry-picking primary sources to form a conclusion can be a form of OR, however, most of the highlights of the HSCA's report noted in this article can be found in reliable secondary sources. I certainly think that twelve citations to state that the HSCA acoustic findings were discredited is overkill. -Location (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Naaa, i think it is "wikipedic" lol. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Martin Luther King, Jr..jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Discredited Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis

there is a debate over the utility of the technique owing to the homogeneous composition of typical modern bullets vs the often heterogeneous composition of 50s-era bullets - which is the main reason its been discredited for use now

The reports I linked specifically detail the MC ammunition involved in the JFK Assassination. This is not a dry technical detail, but a fundamental plank that bugliosi relies upon. Specifically 'Comparative Bullet lead Analysis: A Retrospective' states:

'a technique that was first used in the investigation into President Kennedy's assassination'

'Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives' states:

'In effect, this assessment of the material composition of the lead specimens from the assassination concludes that the extant evidence is consistent with any number between two and five rounds fired in Dealey Plaza during the shooting.'

These are scientific papers which cast doubt upon the claim that 'it was highly likely that only two lead bullets were the source'. There are 12 citations on how the acoustic evidence is discredited, there should be some balance on why this particular conclusion is also discredited.

10 cm difference in location of skull entrance wound!

'changed to entry wound location "differed" from WR - other wording was POV - other analysts see it as a trivial difference with no effect on conclusions'

Given the Average Skull is only 17.6 cm, I fail to see how anyone can see that 10 cm is a trivial difference. It's 3/4 of a skull length away!

No materials have been uncovered which significantly change the conclusions or opinion of the HSCA.

I cannot find any text that matches this in my electronic copy of "Reclaiming History". It seems a bizarre statement, coming from Bugliosi, considering the HSCA's conclusion that there was a conspiracy. Can anyone shed light on what is meant here? Epideme12 (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)