Jump to content

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

When did those theories surface?

I think the historic context when those theories surfaced is interesting. Was it immediately, after a couple of years, or in the recent decade? If anybody has such sources and can add that information, that would be great for the article, I think. Tony Mach (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

CNN. FBI altered RFK assassination witness testimony of hearing 12-14 shots from 2 gunmen

Hoover's FBI altered RFK assassination witness testimony. Nina Rhodes-Hughes.

"I never said eight shots. I never, never said it," Rhodes-Hughes told CNN. "But if the attorney general is saying it then she's going according to what the FBI chose to put into their report."

"There were more than eight shots," Rhodes-Hughes said by phone. She says that during the FBI interview in her Los Angeles home, one month after the assassination, she told the agents that she'd heard 12 to 14 shots.

and

Rhodes-Hughes says part of her view of Sirhan was obstructed and she could not see the gun in his hand but she says that, as soon as she caught sight of Sirhan, she then heard more shots coming from somewhere past her right side and near Kennedy. ... At Melanson's request, Rhodes-Hughes reviewed her 1968 FBI interview summary for the first time [around 20 years later] and found it contained more than a dozen inaccuracies.

--Timeshifter (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

May 2018. 2 of RFK's children believe there was a 2nd gunman

Another one of RFK's children believes there was a 2nd gunman: "Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland".

RFK Jr. did an interview with the Washington Post:

--Timeshifter (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Major Organization Issues

This article has major organization issues which need to be rectified. When I have the time, I will propose a clear outline which organizes the key evidence in coherent points (such as Ballistics - Eye Witnesses - Sirhan Sirhan - motives. HAL333 (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Rfk assassination.jpg

File:Rfk assassination.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Enyart Film

Maybe I missed it - but I didn't see any mention of the film that was seized from Enyart:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKenyartS.htm

From Spartacus Website:

"Jamie Scott Enyart was born in 1953. On 6th June, 1968, Enyart, a 15 year old high school student, a high-school student, was taking photographs of Robert F. Kennedy as he was walking from the ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel to the Colonial Room where the press conference was due to take place. Enyart was standing slightly behind Kennedy when the shooting began and snapped as fast as he could.

As Enyart was leaving the pantry, two LAPD officers accosted him at gunpoint and seized his three, 36-exposure rolls of film. Later, he was told by Detective Dudley Varney that the photographs were needed as evidence in the trial of Sirhan Sirhan. The photographs were not presented as evidence but the court ordered that all evidential materials had to be sealed for twenty years.

In 1988 Scott Enyart requested that his photographs should be returned. At first the State Archives claimed they could not find them and that they must have been destroyed by mistake. Enyart filed a lawsuit which finally came to trial in 1996. During the trial the Los Angeles city attorney announced that the photos had been found in its Sacramento office and would be brought to the courthouse by the courier retained by the State Archives. The following day it was announced that the courier’s briefcase, that contained the photographs, had been stolen from the car he rented at the airport. The photographs have never been recovered and the jury subsequently awarded Scott Enyart $450,000 in damages." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, "The city contends the pictures exist only in Enyart's teenage imagination, that whatever photos he took at the Ambassador were returned to him as prints. The negatives, the city claims, were lost in a theft." (https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1996/06/24/photographer-wants-rfk-photos-back/) The monetary award was also subsequently overturned (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-dec-02-me-39683-story.html). Some more info on the case here (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-01-18-me-25805-story.html). Reminds me of Beverly Oliver in the JFK case. Mel Ayton contends that Enyart's story is uncoroborrated, and that he wasn't even in the kitchen when the shooting took place according to his associates. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5000:94ED:6AF6:618D:5A47 (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Bullet count section doesn't make sense.

"Sirhan's... revolver contained eight rounds, which were all fired... Three bullets hit Kennedy; The five bullets that hit the other five victims stayed in their bodies"

So this accounts for all eight bullets, but then the section says: leaving two bullets that would have been lodged in the room itself. Last time I checked 5 plus 3 is 8, why does it say leaving 2 extra that should have been present? Even if its talking about holes not the round count, then we are looking at one bullet that should have been present given 8 shots with one pass through. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. If two lodged in Kennedy, and five in the other victims, that only leaves one round unaccounted for: Kennedy's pass-through shot. Other points made in this section indicate more bullets, and a supposed "ricochet" accounting for two holes itself. When positing "conspiracy theories," being so vague about something as critical as # of shots fired does not engender confidence. In fact, it suggests an actual conspiracy. It's not like it happened in Dealey Plaza or something. Bullet-count should be easy-peasy. Jororo05 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Umm....Bullet holes and bullets are not the same thing. TheScotch (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this entire account is super confusing. Reading the cited source doesn't help - indeed, it appears to contradict the claim that all five bullets which hit the other victims remained lodged in their bodies, saying that the bullet that hit Schrader "bounced off" his forehead. It also doesn't seem to support various other of the claims made in this section: it doesn't say anything about what happened to the bullets that hit the four other victims aside from RFK and Schrader; it doesn't mention bullet holes in the foam ceiling; it doesn't mention that the LAPD concluded that bullets hit the ceiling before richocheting to his a person; it doesn't mention Martin Patrusky or his claim that he was told that two bullets had been removed from the doorframe (indeed it doesn't mention any claim that bullets were removed from the doorframe); it says that the doorframes were destroyed after the trial but doesn't attribute that to the LAPD and doesn't mention the ceiling tiles in connection with this! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I've taken the axe to some of the stuff which was completely unsupported by the cited source, but more work is still needed. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories/Archive_1&oldid=1227442362"