Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 12

Let's Debate Why Article is NOT near good article status
The article needs to set out the contested facts, and cite the available evidence about them. It fails to do this, instead citing heavily contested commissions as 'authoritative' to the point of silencing alternative evidence (not theories). I suggest paragraphs allowing facts from published sources on the main controversial issues
 * 1) How many shots were fired? H of R admits 4. Then there's the man injured by the overpass from a fragment, Garrison's police witness who found a bullet fragment with some brain but was killed before he could testify, the bullet hole in the wind shield, the fact that on the Zapruder film Kennedy is clutching his throat while the Governor in front still sits looking forward holding his hat. Published sources can be found for these facts despite the fact that the govt commissions didn't like them
 * THe HCSA counted 4 shots solely on the basis of an acoustic tape later found flawed (most people heard 3). It was thought to be from the assassination time, but best evidence is that it is not, as it has a message that went out over the air later. See Dictabelt evidence relating to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. There was no hole in the windshield-- only a chipped place where some fragment didn't go through (probably a bit of the headshot bullet). The governor held his hat in the hand with the broken wrist, until they offloaded him onto a stretcher. As you see in Zapruder, he never did make a forward motion, even to the moment of the head shot on JFK, by which time Connally had surely been hit. So you're looking for something that clearly never happened. Connally's reaction to being hit in the side is not like you see in the movies, that's all. Few things are.


 * 2) Why were the Secret service body guards removed form the President's car?Evidence for and against published.
 * Who says they were? Clint Hill hopped off and on the car at several times through the Dallas motorcade trip. He just happened to be off at the moment JFK was assassinated. They never had agents on the car with no place to go in in the backup car.


 * 3) why did the car keep travelling slowly despite the first shots, until the final headshot? Evidence for and against published.
 * The driver obviously was not aware he was being shot at.


 * 4) why was Oswald's connections to the CIA via 554 Camp street, Bannister and Hunt, his prior associations with Ruby not investigated?
 * The HCSA investigated them all, and found them lacking. The 554 Camp address that Stone makes so much of, was the (former) address of an anti-Cuban group that Oswald was making fun of, by putting it on his pro-Cuba literature (he'd been punched out by these people, and made a fool by them in a radio debate). There's no good evidence that Oswald was ever there, and if he had been, he would not have met Banister or Hunt, as they were in the same building but not at that address. They were at 531 Lafayette, which did not connect inside the building, and had a separate street entrance.


 * 5) why was the ex-director of the CIA JFK had sacked appointed to the Warren commission. Evidence for and against published.
 * I have no idea why LBJ chose Allen Dulles. Maybe to piss off Bobby.


 * 6) the Dallas ED physicians report and neat throat entry would and an exit wound in the occipital region. The body goes on the plane in one casket and comes out in another with the head and throat wounds altered and brains missing
 * The Dallas physicians saw a small through hole and assumed it was an entrance since they assumed bullet expansion (with an FMJ bullet through the throat, however, this was a bad assumption). JFK's shirt fiber tear directions make it plain that this bullet entered his back and exited his shirt at the tie knot level, end of tale. Not every Dallas physician reported an occipital wound. The photographic evidence from Dallas (Moorman, Zapruder) shows NO occipital wound. Zapruder's film and his own testimony (see the photo in his bio) clearly has a head side wound. This is testified to by many eye witnesses, including agent Clint Hill and JFK secretary Kenneth O'Donnall, both of whom saw just what Zapruder saw, which was the side of the head blasted away above the right ear. There was no missing brain at the autopsy. A full autopsy on the brain after it had fixed in formalin was performed 2 weeks after the initial autopsy (per usual procedure) and it found a brain with one side blasted to tatters, as expected (there is a drawing of it somewhere). Its weight was about normal, leading to some people protesting it was somebody else's brain (right). Or else JFK's brain was heavier than yours and mine, which seems more likely. The brain was returned to the family (specifically RFK's secretary) and nobody knows what Bobby did with it. Best guess: buried it with his brother when the grave vault was reopened for refurbishment in 1965 (I don't know when JFK's dead infant child was moved there-- perhaps then). But clearly, if Bobby had wanted his brother's brain examined again, or thought there was something funny about it, or missing from it, he had every chance in the world to have the matter looked at. He didn't. Hmmm. Do you suppose he was colluding with LBJ? Okay, what was a joke.


 * 7) LBJ's mistress claims LBJ had a meeting in Dallas day prior to the killing and made threats thereafter. The article should mention her evidence. This has been published
 * So? What LBJ's alleged mistress says he said is not exactly first-quality evidence.


 * 8) Did Nixon set up the CIA assassination squad while VP? Is that what the Watergate burglars were trying to cover up?
 * Sure. They were burglarizing Democratic strategizers during an election to find out what they knew about Nixon's involvement in JFK's assassination. LOL. Hoping, if they knew something, they wouldn't TELL....


 * 9) Moorman photo--not mentioned in Warren commission--although it is often crucial headshot. Needs to the cited and the published expert comment about it.
 * There's nothing crucial about the Moorman photo except for what it doesn't show-- a back head wound. The alleged shadows on the grassy knoll are about 50% human-sized, so perhaps a midget shot JFK.


 * 10) Books now out with evidence of LBJ's involvement need to be cited
 * There's a whole article for that.

At the moment the article is suffering for an 'argument from authority' logical fallacy---all other evidence is being excluded if it is not consistent with Warren C or H of R despite the heavily contested nature of those inquiries.NimbusWeb (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And given the hundreds of books out there with every nutty idea in the world (including JFK being accidently shot by the secret service men in the car behind him), how are we to pick and choose? S  B Harris 23:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article needs to set out the contested facts, and cite the available evidence about them. It fails to do this, instead citing heavily contested commissions as 'authoritative' to the point of silencing alternative evidence (not theories). To be blunt, that is bullshit. The conclusions of the Warren Commission and the HSCA are stated as that - their conclusions. There is nothing "authoritative" about those conclusions which is why the article is sprinkled with phrases such as... "According to the Warren Commission..."


 * The article instead sets out the conclusions of the major investigations of the assassination. The problem with your approach, Nimbus, is there is NO other investigation which even remotely approaches the HSCA and WC in scale and scope. Is the fact that many disagree with these conclusions avoided on the page? This is in the lede: These conclusions were initially supported by the American public;however, polls conducted from 1966 to 2004 found that as many as 80 percent of Americans have suspected that there was a plot or cover-up. Indeed, much of the evidence garnered in favour of the various conspiracy theories emerges from the evidence and testimony the WC and HSCA gathered.


 * As for "contested facts" just about every single piece of evidence in this case is contested. Let's take a look at the number and sequence of shots. If we were to include all the various theories, we'd have to make the section ten times the length. Even the HSCA and WC disagree on important aspects of the shots they say Oswald took (let alone the "grassy knoll" shot), down to precise timing, when the "missing" shot happened, etc.


 * In the end, most of the points raised in your post ARE addressed - in particular on the conspiracy theory page. Your point that this is an "argument from authority" is misplaced - nowhere are the conclusions of the WC or HSCA stated to be definitive, indeed, the various conclusions by them are identified as THEIR conclusions. And to pretend that it is never mentioned that there are alternate theories tells me you've not read the page closely. Canada Jack (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with Canada Jack here. The article does a fair job of laying out the controversy and pointing to where you can find more information.  There's no reason to turn this article into a morass about all of the details/questions turned up by everyone.  You can put that stuff in other articles.


 * Unfortunately the article suffers badly from being poorly worded, too wordy in places and too thin in others.


 * The HSCA section especially is woefully deficient. The lead discusses the HSCA's evaluation of previous investigations extensively.  One would expect the HSCA section to expound on why the HSCA found those investigations to be deficient.  Instead that section comes off as dismissive of the HSCA and its conclusions.


 * There's also the matter of the HSCA being deeply divided. There's a discussion about the WC's members and their reluctance to participate but nothing like this about the HSCA.  That section should tell us something about the nature of the committee itself.Ggeezz (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree, Ggeezz. While I don't agree with the premises Nimbus states for the reasons this article does not have "good" status, I'd agree for the reasons you state. I think the basic structure is good, but we have way too much detail in some areas and too little detail in others. Maybe we can disagree with what Nimbus says in terms of his specific critiques, but his overall point that this article isn't "good" is a valid point. Canada Jack (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

People who've studies the areas know this is not a balanced, but a partisan article. I agree with NimbusWeb, but would add that the fact of why JFK's brain went missing is another major controversy. If he was shot from the GK, then the bullet in that brain would have been different from those fired by Oswald's gun.139.130.166.199 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The big problem with the article is that the dominant editors aren't simply including published well referenced material, but acting as a type of jury as to whether it is 'widely accepted.' Basically there view is that if it doesn't support the Warren or H of Reps Commission then it falls into the 'conspiracy' second class. This is why the public would probably regard this article as pushing an agenda rather than being balanced. If someone adds properly referenced published material that puts a contrary view it should go in. FOr example on the trajectory of the fatal head shot. It wouldn't take much to have a second sentence that says. "An alternate view that the shot came from the front right is claimed to be supported by initial back and to the left movement of JFK's head in the Zapruder film (ref) (ref), by the number of witnesses who claimed to hear shots from the GK (ref ref), the initial description of an occipital head exit wound by the Dallas ED physicians (ref). If such material is attempted to be included, would the dominant editors block it. If so, this would reveal they are working to an agenda and not seeking to be balanced.109.202.226.195 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, a specific question. If someone were to add page-referenced material from James H Fetzer, editor, Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK, Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1998 would that also be refused entry to this article and if so why?109.202.226.195 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

James H Fetzer, editor, Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK
The above is an excellent antidote to Warren and H of R and references to it would add value to the article.144.82.250.133 (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The big problem with the article is that the dominant editors aren't simply including published well referenced material, but acting as a type of jury as to whether it is 'widely accepted.' Perhaps you didn't bother to read the response above, 109. It's not about "well-referenced," it's about what are the major investigations. You'd have a case to make if the article reads as if this is "the truth" and there are no alternate theories as to what happened. But, as I pointed out, 1) the conclusions are explicitly stated to be those of the various investigations; 2) the fact that there is major disagreements is mentioned in the lede, indeed, one of those major investigations concluded "conspiracy"; 3) there has been NO investigation even remotely approaching the ones taken out by the WC and the HSCA which we could call "definitive" and therefore would be one to quote from.


 * Basically there view is that if it doesn't support the Warren or H of Reps Commission then it falls into the 'conspiracy' second class. Uh, the HSCA concluded "conspiracy." Further, if one concludes that Oswald did not act alone, or had accomplices, in contrast to the WC conclusions, then what does that mean? It means... "conspiracy."


 * FOr example on the trajectory of the fatal head shot. It wouldn't take much to have a second sentence that says. "An alternate view that the shot came from the front right...  I ask again, have you or any of the other anonymous IPs even bothered to read the article, or the response above? As I have pointed out, once you get into the various theories, by necessity the article is greatly expanded. Which is why we have the page for conspiracy theories. So it's not simply "adding a second sentence," as there are disputes with almost each and every point here.


 * Alright, a specific question. If someone were to add page-referenced material from James H Fetzer, editor, Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK, Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1998 would that also be refused entry to this article and if so why? What is special about Dr Fetzer's opinion? Why are the opinions of this individual so important to be on equal standing with the exhaustive government investigations of 1964, 1979, etc.? And how is this person's opinions representative of those who take issue with those conclusions? This is why we have a conspiracy page where this specific author and his book are referenced. Canada Jack (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You muppet CJ, it's an edited volume of expert opinion, not a single author. All experts. Of course it should go in if properly referenced. Need to get external review if it was blocked.203.118.57.177 (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ??? ...and how does this "edited volume of expert opinion" rise to being the definitive take on conspiracy theories in relation to the assassination? That's the problem we have here. Some would argue, for example, that Mark Lane has the definitive take on it. Or Garrison. Your premise that the article requires "balance" presupposes there is a definitive counter-argument to the conclusions of the WC. Unfortunately, that simply is not true. Which is why the conclusions of the two major investigations are here, and reference is made to other theories, which can be found on its own page. Other pages explore issues - such as the rifle, the autopsy, the SBT, etc.


 * Additionally, Fetzer's reputation even within the conspiracy community is controversial. Many see his theories - such as the Zapruder film alteration, x-ray alterations, brain substitution - as bizarre and/or implausible. And, he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to photo manipulation, accepting Jack White's measurements of the backyard photos as "proof" of alteration, this from a man who didn't even know what photogrammetry is. Canada Jack (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting that there are some four anonymous IPs here making essentially the identical points. And raising Fetzer to the status of the representative of the conspiracy community seems strangely... coordinated. But, I'd submit, if we were to delve into the critiques of the WC, I'd say we start with Lane, then Garrison - who derailed the CT crowd for several years with his insane prosecution of Shaw - go through the Church/HSCA reinvestigations, to Lipton, to Stone then Marrs and Fetzer. But to do so requires its own article, and we have one with the conspiracy theory page. Brandon is largely the one doing that page and while I think that would be a better structure, he has a different approach. I'd suggest you IPs go to that page and make adjustments along those lines, or at least suggest it and see what kind of consensus emerges. Personally, I not only think this page could stand some improvement, so could that page. A historical approach to the conspiracy community would be a more appropriate place to discuss Marrs/Fetzer as they are two of the current leading conspiracy theorists. Canada Jack (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How conspiracy theories are addressed
There's a lot of contention regarding this article about how it treats conspiracy theories (i.e., whether it implies they are valid or invalid and how prominent they should be.) IMO, the fight over whether the WC should be viewed as correct is distracting the focus of the article from some important points it needs to address.

Over 30 years after the assassination, the most popular show on US television (Seinfeld) did a whole episode based on JFK conspiracy theories. The basis of the episode had nothing to do with who's right or wrong (WC, HSCA, or any of the various theorists) but rather America's fascination with a great mystery.

What this article lacks is an explanation of why American's haven't agreed with the WC, why so many conspiracy theories have survived and thrived, why people are still researching the topic today, how it could still be at the very center of American pop culture 30 years later.

I think that should be the focus of the "Assassination conspiracy theories" section. There should also be a section explaining the U.S.'s relation to the assassination over the decades. It should have a "references in popular culture" section at the bottom. And the lead should at least allude to this event's importance in the culture.

What do you all think?Ggeezz (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But the WC conclusions are not depicted as being "correct," they are simply reported as being their conclusions. And, the Seinfeld episode had more to do with the MOVIE JFK rather than the assassination per se. Again, the problem here is there are literally hundreds of conspiracy theories, with nothing like a consensus of who "really" was behind the assassination. So we can't say "Many researchers have concluded that LBJ was behind a conspiracy to kill JFK," and explore that contention, as many others point to the CIA or to the Mafia or others. Further, the numerous official investigations have ALL reached identical conclusions in terms of a) what the autopsy shows, b) how many bullets struck JFK and c) Oswald's culpability. Only the HSCA came to a conclusion of "conspiracy," but even there they concluded all the wounds were caused by one gunman, and that gunman was Oswald. They found NO convincing evidence pointing to any other players.


 * I think the "conspiracy" section could stand a re-do, for sure. But it doesn't need to be much longer as there is, as I said above, nothing like a consensus as to who was behind this. What I think the conspiracy page needs is something to flesh out the history of the conspiracy movement. I;m not sure if anyone else has done this, but Bugliosi has an excellent history of the movement, tracing the early rumblings from Mark Lane - who Buliosi says is the true father of the conspiracy movement - through some of the big media suggesting problems with the WC starting in 1966, through the analysis of the autopsy photos, to the Garrison trial, etc. Indeed, I thgink the "conspiracy" page really needs this.


 * As for its role in culture, since the fact that the idea of "conspiracy" is already in the lede, along with the large number of Americans who believe a conspiracy/cover-up, that has been addressed. The practical problem is there is no room to properly address the various theories here. For example, one of the best-selling books on the subject was Lipton's where he says JFK's corpse was altered for the autopsy. But many conspiracy theorists dismiss his theory as being implausible, so what do we do? And, easily the most prominent "conspiracy" argument that people are familiar with is Oliver Stone's "JFK" - but much of THAT film is dramatic fiction. And, the film focuses on several people in New Orleans without ever explaining how Clay Shaw and the others were connected to the military types who are also said to have behind the assassination. Even the most basic thing - who fired the knoll shot, one of the New Orleans boys, someone from the military, what have you - is not prooffered. By the logic of using the most prominent sources, we'd need to reference the problematic book, and the film with gaping holes of logic, but I submit that the conspiracy theories would not be fairly represented. Canada Jack (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the conspiracy page needs an explanation of the history of the movement. And that explanation should stay on the conspiracy page.


 * But on this page we explain what the WC and HSCA concluded and that most Americans disagree. We also sort of explain the fractured nature of the public's dissent.  If you came to this article and didn't know anything about the assassination the biggest question you'd have is "Why doesn't America believe the WC's version and secondly, why is America's view so fractured? *(i.e., why is there no consensus?)"  Furthermore, you wouldn't have any idea that the topic has such a prominent place in American culture as this fantastic mystery of great import.


 * The importance of Stone's film has nothing to do with the specific theories he proffered. Rather, the film thrust and further entrenched the event into the American culture as an unsolved mystery.


 * Even the most niche of Wikipedia subjects will list the references to it in pop culture. Yet this article mostly ignores the event's affect on the culture.  The reason the Texas School Book Depository draws over 325k people each year is not solely because JFK was the last president to be assassinated.  Yet that's the impression this article gives.Ggeezz (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a simple thing to do, Ggeezz. About the only measure we have of disagreement with the WC etc is in the form of polls. Why do people disagree? That's not such an easy thing to address. But, as I said, the history of the conspiracy movement as discussed in Bugliosi's book is a good starting point. He traces the movement from Mark Lane on and how the mainstream media at the time voiced many of the doubts. SO, once those doubts were voiced they were embraced by the public and to this day that has been the general belief. Further, probably 90 per cent of books published on the subject voice doubts with the WC conclusions.

I'd say that what we have in the lede pretty well can stand, but that in the conspiracy section we can discuss how a movement was sparked, per Bug, by Lane and gained momentum with Life/NY Times circa 1966, etc. But this would have to be referenced to the author who traces that history. If there is anyone besides Bugliosi who has done that, then they should be referenced as well. This is why I think the conspiracy article falls short, as there is little context at all there.

The problem is always when discussing the development of a cultural phenomena, we must reference those who trace that development, and not simply create our own history as that would be OR. Canada Jack (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The importance of Stone's film has nothing to do with the specific theories he proffered. Rather, the film thrust and further entrenched the event into the American culture as an unsolved mystery. That's your opinion. I've talked to people who site stuff in the film, so it is a point of reference as well for many no doubt. And, well, that's the problem. There is no "unsolved mystery" here at all. Stone misrepresented and often made up facts to create an alternate narrative. And when that was pointed out to him he'd speciously reply that that was what the Warren Commission did so he could do it too. Which ignores of course that the WC relied on actual evidence to come to their conclusions and Stone didn't, he largely relied on conjecture and proven falsehoods. Like "the route was changed." Canada Jack (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The point I'm trying to make is there are two distinct cultural phenomena: the conspiracy movement and the disbelief of the general public. To the general public the event is a "great mystery."  As a side note, that's basically what the HSCA said too: there was probably a conspiracy but we don't know what kind, the original investigations were botched and now it's too late to find out.  Of course, the mystery according to the HSCA (and me for that matter) is Oswald's history and connections.  They would say there's little to no mystery about the actual shooting and Kennedy's wounds (and I would agree).  But the fact that the shooting exists as a mystery in the American psyche is undeniable.


 * And unfortunately, everyone seems to be more interested in the shots and the wounds than Oswald's history, but I digress.


 * I'm not saying it's easy to describe why the general public doubts the WC. I don't even understand it myself.  Apparently, the demographic with the highest doubt in the WC is young people  to whom Stone's film was "before their time."  Each age group in the US has a different relationship to the assassination.  Some people were alive at the time and watched the national news through those first years.  Some people were introduced to the subject through Stone's film. For people 25 and under, I don't know where they predominantly get their information about this.


 * I'm not saying it's easy. But I think the article is remiss if it doesn't address the topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Wikipedia has a great many articles on Christianity, a belief for some 2 billion people. But beyond describing the various beliefs and history of the religion, the question "why do 2.2 billion people believe in Christ" is not addressed per se. The same should be so here. We can describe the beliefs. We can describe the conclusions. But as to WHY most Americans believe something or not isn't really something we'd normally address. Why are there more Yankees fans than Royals fans? I can think of some reasons, but it isn't really a subject we address in general. Canada Jack (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Christianity is little broad to be dissected, but the article for the Yankees does delve into why people like (and dislike) the Yankees. It's in the lede and there's a section on their popularity.  It's hard to explain why the Yankees attract more attention outside of their home area than other teams, but the article attempts to do it.  And more importantly, it's a thing.  It's part of the Yankees and part of understanding what the Yankees are.  (I wonder if the article for the Braves explains how TBS created a lot of Braves fans outside of Atlanta?  It should.)


 * I'm not suggesting we go into why individual people like the Yankees, believe in Christ, or believe in a conspiracy theory. But when something becomes a cultural fixture, like Roswell, part of understanding it is knowing that people are fixated on it and in a general way why/how it became popular.Ggeezz (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I more or less wrote the "Roswell" page so perhaps I shouldn't comment too closely on it, but in that case we had the incident, then we had the evolving stories. In the lede we mention that it is a cultural touchstone, but we don't delve into the sociological reasons for that. I think here, it'd be a good plan to dissect a bit of that in terms of the history of the conspiracy movement. The only problem is Bugliosi is the only one who I am aware of who has done that. And... it would be an intro into the "conspiracy" section. Canada Jack (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I agree the conspiracy movement history should go on the conspiracy page. But don't you agree that there's a cultural phenomena outside that movement that deserves a mention (sort of like the bleacher creatures vs. widespread Yankee support/hatred outside of New York)?  If I search "Who shot JFK" on google this page comes up first.  But in my experience that phrase is more often used as an idiom than a question.  And I suspect it's more likely that someone unfamiliar with the phrase first heard it as an idiom rather than a question.  And while the article should mostly deal with the assassination itself, if you read the whole thing you should at least learn of it's status as a cultural mystery, just as you explained that in the Roswell article.Ggeezz (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what. I'll try to write something on the history of the conspiracy movement over the next few days, as per Bugliosi's treatment of it. From that, one can see that from about 1966, when the mainstream media like Life and The New York Time Review of Books started to ask pointed questions about the Warren Commission conclusions, the notion of "conspiracy" being a common belief was reflected in polls from the day. Garrison can be seen in this context.

My only problem here is that it is only Bugliosi who has done this, as far as I know, tracing the movement to the 2000s. It'd be better to have additional sources for this.

Or... if you want to try this. I'd suggest putting this in the "conspiracy" section. But to get into the specifics of "why", well that is a sociological question. But one could see that from Lane, through 1966 and Garrison, questions were being raised. COnferences were being held, and student movements from the 60s perhaps formed a grassroots movement to reopen the case, culminating in the 1975 Geraldo show which arguably led directly to first Church and then then HSCA, that the general movement was to question the WC. However, post-HSCA, it is a bit more murky until Stone.

What do you think, and do any other editors have any objection to a treatment such as I have described? Canada Jack (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think something along those lines would increase the quality of the article.Ggeezz (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've started on this thing... coming soon... Canada Jack (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest by Editors and their Replacement
This article is substandard mainly because it seems to be edited by an editor/s who have a bias towards the Warren Comm/H of Reps Comm. Whilst the bulk of academic and public opinion finds the methods and conclusions of such commissions dubious they are here promoted as a type of orthodoxy. Better to have separate articles each for Warren Comm/H of Reps and so-called Conspiracy Theories, with a summarised amalgam in the separate main article. CanadaJack (whoever he is) must disclose if he has any financial or other conflict of interest. Is he Bugliosi or some other apologist for the standard view, is he being paid by CIA for example? Who has appointed him the controller of this article? How can he be replaced? At the moment he is pedalling the view that many reasonable people would see as encouraging the bullet to replace the ballot box and employing a 'growing mushrooms' approach to editing which is always denigrating points of view opposed to Warren and H of Reps58.164.113.45 (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. You are welcome to add information with reliable sources to this article if something is missing. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 10:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think from reading the above that's all the critics above were asking for--the opportunity to present brief properly referenced alternative views which could be expanded in the 'Conspiracy Theory article but flagged here. Likewise the Warren and H of Reps views could be briefly cited here and then expanded in a separate article on the Warren and H of Reps comms.58.164.113.45 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are mistaking consensus of reliable sources for "conflict of interest." Wikipedia gives appropriate weight to the prevailing opinion in reliable sources, with lesser weight to other views.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia represents mainstream sources as being of the first importance. Binksternet (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My, my. If any of these anonymous IPs would care to bother to engage in discussion, we are willing to discuss. AGAIN, there is NO consensus from the conspiracy crowd as to many of the basic questions. Which of the literally HUNDREDS of conspiracy theories should be here? And why? Who says which ones are the main ones to focus on? And, on specifics, for example, how many people were firing at the president? One, two, three - or more? Are we to spell out each scenario? And which scenarios of the perhaps 100s out there, are the ones to focus on? How many shots were fired? Three, four, five, six - or more? Was Oswald involved? Some CTs say "yes," with either him firing alone, but put up to it (very few say that, admittedly), or with accomplices? or not taking part, but part of the conspiracy? or not taking part and NOT part of the conspiracy? And that is just Deally Plaza. What about the numerous players said to have taken part in the assassination? (And this is not even getting into the "Two Oswalds" claims, of which there are many variations.)

So far we've had a flurry of IPs suggesting Fetzer. With suspicious coordination. But why him? Why not Lane, Lifton, Stone or any number of the others? What makes Fetzer the single source for the definitive conspiracy angle, as if there is such a thing? And why has no one bothered to answer that basic question?

I have repeatedly made these points to complete silence in response. It's fine to demand an expansion of this page, it's not fine to pretend that there are no issues in so doing. Instead, we read this: ''This article is substandard mainly because it seems to be edited by an editor/s who have a bias towards the Warren Comm/H of Reps Comm. Whilst the bulk of academic and public opinion finds the methods and conclusions of such commissions dubious they are here promoted as a type of orthodoxy.'' AGAIN, the article quite clearly states that the scenarios are ACCORDING TO THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. There is NO suggestion that "this is correct," indeed the notions of conspiracy are in the lede, the FACT that the HSCA concluded "conspiracy" is in the lede, and the FACT that the public believes "conspiracy" is in the lede.

Since the only comprehensive investigations carried out were those two, how are we to assess which alternate research we should highlight? Indeed, since we had a suspiciously coordinated flurry of posts here, suggesting we quote from the Fetzer books, one wonders if there is a conflict of interest from those anonymous IPs? Why have NONE of them engaged in a response with me or any of the other editors? This is why we have a separate page for the conspiracy theories. There simply is not enough room to incorporate all this in a coherent fashion. Which is why I have said (noted above) that I am writing a short history of the conspiracy movement here, which rightly should introduce the "conspiracy" page. Pro-conspiracy editors, such as Brandon, no doubt will have something to contribute to that. The only reason I am going ahead to do that is no one else has said they will do it. It's not because I "own" the page, it's because those who generally subscribe to those theories haven't done that aspect of it here.

I happen to agree that the conspiracy section is far too short here. And I have said so above. The page needs work. But given the enormity of the subject - I mean, with the WC and HSCA there are basically 1 1/2 scenarios, but there are literally 100s of conspiracy scenarios - "conspiracy" needs its own page.

As for THIS: ''CanadaJack (whoever he is) must disclose if he has any financial or other conflict of interest. Is he Bugliosi or some other apologist for the standard view, is he being paid by CIA for example?'' I guess that I should take that as a compliment. That my knowledge of the events and my responses could be seen as possibly being from Bugliosi, or the CIA. Sorry, but the "conspiracy" doesn't extend to yours truly. I am a Canadian television promo producer who first got hooked on the assassination in 1972 upon seeing old Life magazine articles on it, then reading "Six Seconds in Dallas." On the 10th anniversary of the assassination, I saw "Executive Action" here in Toronto. To me, the idea that Oswald acted alone was, in a word, ludicrous and I wondered how the WC could have saw fit to peddle such an obvious lie. And that is what I believed until roughly 2000. When the high-resolution versions of the Zapruder film started to be disseminated, I was stunned to realize that the SBT was not only possible, it was probable. From there, the CT house of cards started to fall apart as many claims were, I started to realize, distortions or out and out lies. For example, Mark Lane's interviews with key witnesses, like Lee Bowers who, because Lane avoided asking him directly, had to say "by the way" and point-blank told him that there was no one behind the fence at the moment of the assassination. Lane omitted this from his film, a rather massive omission. Or the lies peddled as "cover-ups" for decades, such as the Mauser issue, such as the "changed route" issue, and the false claims that "all" Parkland doctors saw a rear head exit wound. IOW, the conspiracy community routinely lied and misrepresented evidence in order to promote the idea of conspiracy. Not all, there are honest ones out there, but far too many who should know better. And were routinely doing what they accused the Warren Commission of doing. The hypocrisy is staggering. And, since I have been on this for 40 years and now believe Oswald did it unaided these "citizens seeking the truth" accuse me of being some CIA mole or what have you? And this is being a "free thinker?" Earth to CT crowd: There are a great many people who have no motive to believe one thing or the other who happen to have researched the subject and come to the same conclusion as me. It's beyond insulting to treat those who believe this as "useful idiots" when the focus should be on discussing. Which, I note, these "free thinking citizens" conspicuously avoid doing. I'm not the one who is pretending to have some received wisdom. Even if I believed that, it is intellectually dishonest to believe those beliefs need not be justified.

For the record, I have NO ties to any American - or Canadian for that matter, or ANY for that matter - agencies. To suggest I am some sort of CIA stooge... well, that's so laughable, I don't know know what to say.

My bias? That is clear. The Warren Commission botched a lot of the investigation, but they got most of it right. Besides, it is a fallacy to conclude that if someone was inept at investigating that that means what was being investigated was not disclosed. IOW, however competent or incompetent the WC was does not alter the facts of the case, a point seemingly lost on critics of the WC. Besides, most of the issues left unaddressed - the grassy knoll, the autopsy, the real roles of the CIA etc., substantial claims of groups behind a possible conspiracy - were addressed by the later investigations. If we were talking 1972, many of these important issues were thus far unaddressed in a serious comprehensive manner. That can no longer be said. Those questions have been answered and the conclusions of the WC, however flawed the investigation was in 1964, stand the test of time.

What this page ideally should be is an exploration of the assassination as per the main investigations, with more of a history of the questions raised afterwards and the various responses to those questions. The page in my view is partly there, but it needs a greater exploration of that. In particular, a history of the conspiracy movement. On that, I agree. As others have correctly pointed out, much of the reason we are talking here now is because of the conspiracy movement, and it deserves more than the short shrift it gets here. But to properly explore the issues raised by those researchers requires other pages, as is already the case in many instances. Canada Jack (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

did JFK have back brace on, and did it play a role?
I have just seen the suggestion that the 1st shot would have knocked JFK over if he didn't have the back brace on. The theory is that the back brace helped keep him upright, just before he got the fatal shot to the head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A rifle kicks no harder on one end than the other, and the kick of a 6.5 mm Carcano is milder than most hunting rifles. So, no, the shot would not have knocked JFK over, even if the neck bullet had spent all its momentum in JFK (which it most certainly did not, as it continued on to knock the wind out of Connally, or at least cause him to puff out his cheeks from shock and pain). JFK might have naturally doubled-over while coughing up blood from that wound to his trachea (it's bit like vomiting), and perhaps indeed the back brace prevented that natural reaction. But the force of the bullet doesn't enter into that question. Whether JFK would have done this or not, from coughing, will never be known. Perhaps. S  B Harris 19:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and another point here, as it is not obvious from the Zapruder film as we are seeing him nearly straight-on from the side, but Kennedy is actually toppling over to his left after that shot. He is at something close to a 45 degree angle when the fatal shot struck. It's a bit more obvious in the photos and films shot from the other side of the street. So the brace while it may have prevented him from easily slumping forward, did not prevent him from falling over to the left. Canada Jack (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the best shot of that tilt (or lean toward his wife) is the Moorman photo, taken just after the head shot. Connally DID fall over to the left into his wife's lap, and probably JFK would have also. Actually, he did fall over unconscious/comatose leftward into the seat after the head shot, brace and all. That's just not a good position to cough from. Would he have leaned FORWARD more if he could have? Hard to say. S  B Harris 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the photo. JFK is seen toppling to his left. A clearer example is here. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT: Yes. If you look at the high res Moorman and you know what to look for (from looking at the Z. film) you see that the extra light on the top of JFK's head is not from sunlight. It's not seen from his hair in front. Rather, what you're seeing is the white underside of a flap of scalp that has been folded over to lie on top of his head, anchored over his right ear. That scalp flap will be put back down in placed by the time he gets to the ER. Looking at the right side of his head in the photo that begins the autopsy, you can see that there's something not quite right about his scalp, since there's stuff coming out from underneath the scalp above his right ear. We have one photo, shot from behind, with this flap entirely reflected, and it shows the entire quadrant of skull gone on that right side. But it's hard to get your bearings unless you know what you're seeing there (you're essentially looking at the back of a skull with scalp pulled back, and no brain inside). S B Harris 22:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Charles Bronson (not the actor)
Under the 'Recordings of the assassination' section, there is mention of a man called Charles Bronson, folowed in brackets by the note (not the actor). I think it's reasonable to presume most people would accept that there are more then one Charles Bronson in the world, and as such, it seems a bit extraneous to clarify him as not being the actor. If for no other reason then there is no link to the actors Wiki entry. MrZoolook (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above WP editor, MrZoolook. "(not the actor)" is a big visual speed-bump, especially confusing when one clicks the included link and is taken to Charles Bronson (the actor's) WP page! I suggest you remove that "(not the actor)" part and leave it be. However, if you think it's absolutely necessary (which I don't), write something like "...a Charles Bronson...", "a photographer named Charles Bronson...", or "...a man named Charles Bronson...". Or create a footnote explaining who some of these 32 photographers were, including Mr Bronson. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably just me, but when I read "Charles Bronson (not the actor)" I thought I knew who we were talking about... GRAPPLE   X  22:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * [Insert laughter here] I guess we all have out go-to Bronsons! B^) Wordreader (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see the news reports now: "Kennedy assassination solved by Wikipedia editor." saying Bronson was on day release or something! MrZoolook (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Need for Separate Pages on Warren and H of Reps and on Conspiracy Theories and this article to better reflect both
I have read the comments by Canada Jack and though remaining sceptical and that few items of non central evidence he mentions lead him to focus on Oswald as a lone gunman. He conveniently disregards (just as a sample) the H of Reps admission from the sound recordings that there was a 4th shot, the fact that most Dallas ED doctors did report an occipital exit wound, the doubt raised by the loss of teh brain, the cleaning of the windscreen of the car, the meeting of LBJ with J Edgar H and others in Dallas the day before the shootings, the connections of Oswald to the CIA. One needn't go on except to say there is clearly a controversy, and I can't understand who has appointed him editor in chief of this article. He is clearly biased against versions of the truth that aren't Warren Commission or H or Reps and he will now probably fill this page with more rubbish so it won't be apparent to subsequent readers how distorted his involvement is making this article.124.176.246.111 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If Canada Jack wants us to believe his bonafides he should disclose his real name.124.176.246.111 (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So should you, bub. This is MY real name. What of it? S  B Harris 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop attacking other editors. Demands for real names are completely inappropriate. You disagree with him, and the changes you demand are not in accordance with consensus or policy..   Acroterion   (talk)   23:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no actual evidence of any second (or third or fourth) shooter, nor of a conspiracy. The sound evidence noted by HSCA has been reanalysed and there is now no evidence of a fourth shot, which is what led HSCA to conclude a conspiracy. For Oswald, we know pretty much everything there is to know about his activities in connection with the assassination. He fired three shots, we know where they hit, where the casings fell, when they were fired. For anyone else, we have zip. If editors pushing some alternate theory cannot produce any actual evidence and are reduced to making personal attacks on those who can, then it would be better if they removed themselves from this article and found a more appropriate place. --Pete (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why I am the issue here? While I certainly defend the structure of the article to a point, my actual participation in creating what is here now was relatively slight. My name? Jeremy Gilbert. Want to see my photos? Go here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jer1961/ Want my shoe size? 12. As for your comments on Oswald, 124, I have to ask you - Have you bothered to read the article? This is in the lede: "there was '...a high probability that two gunmen fired at [the] President.'" and further on, we have the conclusions of the HSCA which stated there was a likely conspiracy. The Dallas doctors? The details of the condition of the president in Parkland are not discussed at length here, nor are the conclusions of the autopsy (which has its own page). So your objections to what is here are moot.

One needn't go on except to say there is clearly a controversy, and I can't understand who has appointed him editor in chief of this article. Read the article. In the lede: "polls conducted from 1966 to 2004 found that as many as 80 percent of Americans have suspected that there was a plot or cover-up." And... "Kennedy's assassination is still the subject of widespread debate and has spawned numerous conspiracy theories and alternative scenarios." So would the casual reader coming to this page be under the impression that what the WC said was the final word on the subject and everyone agrees with its conclusion Oswald did it? I think not. And, to the extent that the conspiracy viewpoint is not represented here (despite the conclusions of the HSCA, and despite the fact there is no single viewpoint), I have already indicated I agreed there needs to be a bit more in that section on this page and have proposed to do it, also indicating HOW I will do it. Far from being "editor in chief," I have offered to write that section - with input from others, even mentioning by name one possible pro-conspiracy editor who may have suggestions - because no one else has offered to do it! And, thus far, no one has raised objections to my proposal. Because of the basic problem that there is no agreed-upon conspiracy scenario - there are in fact 100s - I have suggested a history of the movement here would suffice and the redirect to the conspiracy page would be where these arguments would live.

As I have said before, critiques are fine here, but thus far I have had no suggestions from those complaining on how to accomplish this given the basic problems on how this would be done. I have offered my solution. If you have a better idea, let's hear it. Canada Jack (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Pete, I'm curious. Are you speaking from your opinion here or from "reliable sources?"  I don't agree with all of the chatter from the unregistered users as of late and I support CanadaJack's efforts in making the page better.  But your characterization of the situation does not accurately represent the findings of the HSCA.  When I started to examine the various pages related to this issue (JFK, Oswald, HSCA, Dictabelt, etc.) than handling of the HSCA was rather poor.  In fact the JFK lede stated that the HSCA concluded Oswald was the lone assassin.  A false statement in the JFK lede?!?!  The fact that the HSCA found the previous investigations were flawed was downplayed and mostly unexplored.  The further examinations information on the dicta belt evidence were biased.


 * There are, what we would have to consider Reliable Sources on both sides of the issue of the dicta belt. The HSCA contradicts you on this statement:  For Oswald, we know pretty much everything there is to know about his activities in connection with the assassination.  The HSCA said the FBI and CIA did not share information with the WC and the HSCA was not able to get this information when they investigated.  Furthermore, the HSCA did not initially share information they used to determine that Oswald was actually in Mexico City.  I don't whether that's been released yet or not.  Regardless, it was the finding of the HSCA that we don't know everything there was to know about Oswald's activities related to the assassination.  Also, before the dictabelt analysis the HSCA was merely going to say they "lacked sufficient scientific evidence" to conclude there was a conspiracy.  Presumably, they were still going to say the previous investigations were flawed, that information was missing.  There's no way for us to know.  Furthermore, the members of the HSCA were initially divided, were divided during the process and were divided after it.  (There were several dissents.)  Blakey seems to have made contradictory statements over the years.Ggeezz (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ggeez, are you sure the lede said the HSCA concluded Oswald acted alone? I don't recall that at all, what I recall is that it always stated that a) Oswald fired the bullets that struck and b) there was a second gunman (whose shot missed). Perhaps you misread this. As for the dictabelt evidence, I'd have to agree that though it seems clear that that conclusion was flawed, there are strong rebuttals suggesting the dictabelt evidence is bona fide.


 * AS for the conclusions from the HSCA that the previous investigations were flawed, while certainly true, that doesn't mean the previous conclusions were wrong. For example, there were strong words said on the conduct and conditions of the autopsy, especially that the conclusions were based on the TESTIMONY of the pathologists. It was less than ideal. But all the forensic pathologists who investigated this nevertheless stated - unanimously - that, flawed or not, the conclusions of the original autopsy were correct given the evidence they examined. The bottom line is that though the HSCA lamented the fact that some 15 years had passed and some questions could never be answered because the WC did not aggressively explore those questions, they nevertheless found nothing in the issues raised by the conspiracy theory that credibly indicated "conspiracy." And they were able to vigorously investigate most of the issues. Bottom line, stating that the WC was "flawed" does not mean, therefore, there was a conspiracy. Which is why the issue, while important, does not have an overly strong bearing on a page which mainly focuses on the assassination, rather than on the investigations, flawed or not, of that assassination. A secondary issue, IOW. Canada Jack (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The lede said all the investigations concluded Oswald was the "lone assassin" with the HSCA "allowing for the possibility ... [second gunman]" If you stretched your imagination it wasn't technically false, but it was an intentionally misleading way to state it.


 * I think the HSCA was able to vigorously investigate most of the issues. And that's why I don't question the autopsy, bullets, Zapruder film, etc. so much.  But what the HSCA was not able to investigate vigorously 15 years later was Oswald's activities and connections prior to the assassination.  Thus why I said Peter was wrong to say "we know pretty much everything there is to know about his activities in connection with the assassination."  In fact the HSCA concluded there's much we don't know, that we might have known if a proper investigation had been done (and the willful withholding of information didn't happen).  In particular, Mexico City is mostly a black hole and the HSCA certainly didn't say or imply that they had a good handle on what went down there.  The Lopez report is a bizarre, scandalous thing filled with contradictory evidence and few conclusive findings. Ggeezz (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The lede said all the investigations concluded Oswald was the "lone assassin" with the HSCA "allowing for the possibility ... [second gunman]" The lede says no such thing. It says "([the] (HSCA) ruled that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy... While agreeing with the Commission that Oswald fired all the shots which caused the wounds to Kennedy and Connally, the HSCA stated that there were at least four shots fired and that there was "...a high probability that two gunmen fired at [the] President."[6] The HSCA did not identify any other person or group involved in the assassination besides Oswald..." Nowhere in the discussion of the HSCA conclusions is the phrase "lone gunman" used and Oswald is said to have been in a conspiracy with unnamed others. Canada Jack (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about the main JKF page, not this page. It's fixed now because I fixed it. I'm talking about this version which is how it was for a while.Ggeezz (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, gotcha on the JFK page. As for Oswald, there were very few "black holes" left uninvestigated by the HSCA. The main claim in terms of Mexico was that Oswald was impersonated at the consulates. But this was deemed unlikely by the HSCA as Oswald presented his credentials - included a photograph - and signed papers in the presence of officials. AND Oswald admits he was in Mexico. Further witness statements confirm Oswald's activities were likely not outside of his attempts to go to Cuba, though there is an interesting contention of him hanging out with a beatnik crowd which, even if true, goes nowhere. Otherwise, there are very few days where Oswald's activities are not accounted for upon his return from the Soviet Union. Subsequent revelations from Russia and from the initial Garrison investigations of the Clinton, Louisiana "witnesses" reveal that Oswald had no known outside contacts of significance. The bottom line is that all that is left unknown are his activities over the span of a few days here and there, where it strains credulity he could have been recruited or otherwise engaged in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, or to have been involved in other illicit activity. It can't be disproved, as it is nearly impossible to prove a negative (Oswald had zero contact with agents involved in a conspiracy), but the likelihood is exceedingly remote, given the coordination presumably required and the (eventual) thoroughness of the investigations. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That Oswald was likely not impersonated at the consulates was in fact the conclusion of the HSCA. But there was a considerable amount of evidence to the contrary.  One of the two people that mainly dealt with Oswald stated emphatically that it was not Oswald who visited the Cuban consulate. The other person gave a description that did not match Oswald.  They said the individual spoke rough, broken Russian, while Oswald is known to have spoken fluent Russian.  The Lopez report also questions whether Oswald did in fact sign the papers in front of an official.


 * Page 242 of the Lopez report starts the section addressing the question of whether there was an imposter, here. I don't know whether there was an imposter or not.  But that section of the report makes it crystal clear that there's far more we don't know, than what we do know.  And any conclusion is a matter weighing one pile of unreliable evidence against another pile of unreliable evidence.


 * Have you ever read that part of the Lopez report?Ggeezz (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I read the HSCA report on this issue, but the problem has always been that Oswald presented documentation, which included his photograph, and he signed the documents in the presence of the officials, and those documents are in the handwriting of Oswald. We also have to remember that, fearing a finger pointed in their direction, the Soviets early on engaged in a disinformation campaign to implicate American intelligence agencies (which was not generally known at the time of the HSCA investigations). Further we have many witnesses in Mexico City, and on the buses, who positively identified Oswald. Further, and most glaringly, Oswald HIMSELF said he went to Mexico and went to the consulates, which has been confirmed by his letters, the testimony of his wife and other evidence.


 * In the end, it only makes sense to have had Oswald impersonated in Mexico City to underline his Marxist tendencies so as to implicate him. But how likely is that if there is no serious doubt that Oswald in fact made the trip? And given that Oswald in multiple ways indicated his intention - and his ultimate frustration in failing - to go to Cuba? So we are left with an exceedingly implausible scenario, where Oswald indeed goes to Mexico City, but inexplicably spends his days there doing basically nothing even though he had the intent of going to the consulates, then an imposter going there for real. Huh? Given his cheap and misanthropic ways, this seems very unlikely. And here is something even weirder. It is usually the CIA who was accused of pulling off this imposter ruse. But who supplied the photo of "Oswald" who looks nothing like Oswald? The CIA! Why the hell would they want to implicate Oswald with a photo of someone who looks nothing like him - and supply the investigation with this photo? Surely they would have supplied some sort of doctored image or whatever of Oswald himself.(!) Because surely, if we are to believe the accusations, they would have been aware he was there and would have ensured to get an image. This is the recurring problem with conspiracy scenarios... they make zero sense. Canada Jack (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ggeez, a bit of both. Reliable sources and personal opinion. Death of a President is what got me going, twenty-odd years back, and since then I've read other books and material on the subject. I've been to Dealey Plaza, visited the museum, bought the seedy pamphlets pushed on the street. I keep an open mind, but above all, I look for facts, not suppositions. Sure, we don't know every single detail of Oswald's movements, and who he spoke to, but we do not have any record of him being hired or set up. We likewise have no record of any second shooter. Not just the official inquiries, but in all the material published by both sides, there is no hard evidence that demonstrates that anybody other than Oswald knew about the assassination ahead of time. Not a scrap, just suppositions and couldabeens. It's been fifty years, almost, and despite the most intense scrutiny in that time, the supposed conspiracy has not unravelled. It is quite appropriate that Wikipedia have articles on the various theories, but to state in this article anything other than factual evidence from reliable sources is inappropriate. For example, it is a fact that the HSCA on assassinations concluded a conspiracy. If I have a source that I like above all others, it is not the WC or HSCa, it is Bugliosi's book, where he addresses all the various theories, points out the holes and contradictions and repeatedly highlights the lack of evidence. The alternatives to the blindingly obvious - that Oswald, a loopy ex-Marine, bought a mail order rifle and fired three shots at JFK when he took the opportunity - are based on shadows and hearsay. --Pete (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@CanadaJack, addressing your first paragraph, are you aware that the HSCA was not convinced by this evidence? It was consulate policy to sign the documents in the presence of officials, but Lopez said that wasn't always the case in practice. Furthermore, I believe it was Duran who said Oswald signed them in front of her and Lopez treats Duran as unreliable (for obvious reasons). If the imposter was allied with Oswald then it's not surprising he had the documents and the photo. None of the people on the bus to Mexico actually knew Oswald, they just know a person on the bus said they were Oswald.

So none of what you are talking about constituted credible evidence that Oswald was in Mexico. And that's exactly what the HSCA said. But the HSCA report goes on to say the CIA presented them with some information that did convince them Oswald was in Mexico, but they couldn't share that information. Thus, according to the HSCA we (meaning the general public) don't have conclusive evidence that Oswald was ever in Mexico. And Lopez also says you can't state anything definitively either way.

I know you're quite knowledgeable on the subject. But I feel like you're trying to "make the case" for me. You realize the witnesses on the bus are meaningless, right? You can't positively identify someone if you don't know them. Why bring it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What you say is true, Ggeez, but this is a case of an event which is hard to prove but in the end... goes nowhere. Which is why it's a big "so what," especially since Oswald himself confirmed he certainly intended to go to Cuba and that he went to Mexico City with the intention of so doing. It's sorta like the argument about someone else shooting Tippit. We are not sure 100 per cent where Oswald was from leaving his door to escaping the scene of the Tippit murder. So, CTs ask us to believe, by discounting one witness's testimony, that Oswald's actions and all the other witnesses who saw him flee and identified him are irrelevant because that one witness can't be 100 per cent certain that was him. It's POSSIBLE that another person appeared all of a sudden and disappeared in a flash. It just isn't terribly likely. It strains credulity that several uncertain witnesses in Mexico means all the other positive evidence can be tossed out the window. The CT crowd spend a lot of time pointing out uncertainty here and there. But they generally don't even attempt to address the other evidence which establishes what is being claimed. Which is why they don't make convincing cases.


 * But it is also true that the HSCA agreed it was most probable that Oswald indeed visited the consulates. Canada Jack (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you know it goes nowhere? If someone else visited the consulates we don't know what that means.  You'd have to track that guy down to find out whether it "went anywhere" or not.  That's what a proper investigation would have done.


 * Perhaps all there is to this is that the CIA had their eye on Oswald and had some contact with him, merely hoping to gain information about Cuba or Russia. Maybe they wanted him to go Cuba because they thought it might lead to more information, so when he was going there anyway they got "involved."  Maybe they got him laid in Mexico.  And then when he assassinates JKF the CIA says "oh crap, erase everything we have on Oswald, no one here has ever talked to him or even heard of him."  Maybe that's all there is.  But we don't know because there was never a timely, proper investigation.


 * And you keep bringing up that Oswald said he went to Mexico to go to Cuba. You know that Oswald is an unreliable witness.  Why would he lie about that?  I have no idea.  I'm not saying I know what happened in Mexico. I'm saying it's filled with unknowns and you have to guess at happened.  That's also the definitive version according to Reliable Sources.


 * When you say "... all the other positive evidence can be tossed out the window?" Are you talking about Mexico specifically or the case in general?  You keep bringing up other parts of the case where a thousand cooks have said a thousand ridiculous things when there's fairly reliable evidence we can turn to.  But I'm not part of the CT crowd.  But for Mexico there's not a single piece of credible evidence (released to us) that establishes Oswald even went to Mexico.  I can go through them one by one, but you already know the details.  You also know that's what the Lopez report says.  It's also what the HSCA at large said, except they were given an additional piece of evidence (that we don't have) that convinced them Oswald was in Mexico.  So if you trust the HSCA it's established he was there, but it was not established he went to consulates, it was just most probable according to the HSCA.


 * But the Mexico visit is not like the Tippit murder. We have multiple pieces of evidence that suggest something else happened (the two main witnesses gave descriptions that didn't match and the taped phone calls).  In Mexico the best evidence we have, the preponderance of evidence suggests someone else visited the consulate posing as Oswald.  On that point, the HSCA disagreed (though Lopez did not give an opinion either way).Ggeezz (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The HSCA didn't even explore the issue of whether Oswald in fact went to Mexico or not. Why? "It is the conclusion of this committee that the Warren Commission correctly established that Oswald had travelled to Mexico City." It's not an issue, Ggeez, despite the incessant questioning, there is just too much positive evidence to establish that Oswald in fact travelled to and stayed in Mexico City. OBVIOUSLY the WC and the HSCA weren't going to rely on Oswald's word, they corroborated his claims to have gone. Those who pretend otherwise also need "proof" that the sun rose in the east on any day in question.

When it comes to actual consulate visits, then we have some questions, I agree. But I submit that it makes little sense for such an elaborate ruse, especially given that Oswald himself would have to have been part of the ruse, knowing that someone had visited the consulates in his name (because he repeatedly made the claim that he did so.)

As for "this goes nowhere," let's ask a basic question: Why would Oswald involve himself in a ruse as to who actually went to the embassy? This is what makes zero sense. It WOULD make sense if someone else was trying to establish that he was semi-desperate to go there, but as I said, lying or not, Oswald himself said he went! So what's the point of trying to incriminate him if he says he did the deed?

Further, for the sake of argument, if the Cuban trip attempt was a simple ruse to hide the "real" reason he went to Mexico - to meet with confederates involved in a plot, one could make a plausible argument that these unknown people could not enter the United States and therefore had to meet in a "neutral" location - the question still arises: Why the elaborate trickery? He'd presumably have had plenty of time to engage in his meetings AND go to the embassies. If these were non-CIA confederates, he'd want to make sure any surveillance the CIA would carry out - surely he'd assume movement at the consulates would be monitored - would show HIM as the person attempting to get a visa.

Still further, WHAT IF HE GOT THE VISA? If this was a "ruse," well what if he got the visa? There was no guarantee that the Cubans/Soviets would reject him, the plotters - even if they were the CIA - likely could not be sure that Oswald would have his request rejected. Wouldn't a granting of the visa screw up the conspiracy? And, don;t forget, if there were spies around, the KGB might have twigged on to the "CIA plot" and LET HIM IN, to tail Oswald or "Oswald" and see where he led them.

Well, you might say, the plotters weren't the CIA. Okay, then these people were even LESS likely to know the reactions of the Cubans/Soviets to a visa request then. So, the mere attempt to get a visa potentially would torpedo any plots they might have had. And still further, any non-CIA plotters risked having their plans exposed by the sudden focus on their man Oswald through a very incriminating visit to the consulates. Going there, IOW, risked having the "plot" exposed as the CIA would presumably now be tailing this guy Oswald, clearly a Marxist and Castro sympathizer, or some sort of agent provocateur. Either way, if you were not the CIA behind the plot, the LAST place you'd have your man go to would be the Cuban and/or Soviet embassies. You might just as well climb the fence of the White House with a flag saying "LOOK AT ME!!!"

But if the plotters WERE the CIA, then why all the crap with another man being photographed and tapes of someone not Oswald? Wouldn't the CIA want everyone to think Oswald was at the consulates if they were in on a plot? Why, IOW, have "evidence" which raises red flags? THAT makes no sense either.

In the end, establishing Oswald was there may be difficult, but as I said this goes nowhere as there is no logical reason for having Oswald go to Mexico City, admit to attempt to going to the consulates (whether he in fact did or not), and have someone impersonate him and go in his name. And that's the problem with the scenarios we keep hearing. When you sit down and try to figure out what is going on, it makes no sense for the simple reason Oswald HIMSELF said he did so. If he hadn't said so, that'd be a different story.

In the end, the presence of unanswered questions simply is that - unanswered and perhaps unknowable. And most likely the anomalies and other "mysteries" are down to the everyday things in life - mistakes from witnesses, confusion over details, and perhaps even a bit of disinformation. This is everyday stuff and in the end it adds up to... zero. Canada Jack (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "...this goes nowhere as there is no logical reason for having Oswald go to Mexico City," Can we agree that people don't always do the logical thing?  We recently had Secret Service hire prostitutes while on duty and then not pay them.  Furthermore, sometimes people do things that don't make sense to you because you don't know the whole story.  There are too many possibilities to cover them all.  The CIA could have treated Oswald as a Soviet agent, a double agent, merely a source, or a crazy person.  The CIA may have dealt with Oswald as the CIA or they may have pretended to be Soviets, Cubans, or Mexicans.  Maybe someone there was in the plot.  Maybe it was a false flag operation, or a Fast and Furious type operation where you float the idea and the means and grab anyone who takes the bait.


 * I'm not saying I think any of those are the reality. I'm merely pointing out that there are more possibilities than you have enumerated.  And the form of your argument was to enumerate all of the possibilities and rule them out.  That only works if you enumerate ALL of the possibilities.  Correct?  Of course, it's impossible to enumerate all of the possibilities.  I'm not suggesting you'd have to.  I'm just suggesting you can't argue that it goes nowhere because there's nowhere for it to go.  There's always somewhere for it to go.Ggeezz (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry Ggeezz, but as I have spelled out, it really makes no sense at all for Oswald to be in on a plot to have an impersonator go to the consulates while he was there! I suppose in the next 50 years someone may come up with a rational scenario, but I'm not holding my breath. And, this is not a case of horny secret service guys hanging out with hookers, this would been a relatively elaborate and carefully planned operation designed to... well, that's the problem. It's hard to see the point. I can see understand the secret service guys taking that risk. I simply cannot comprehend the point of a duplicat Oswald plot with Oswald in on it.

BTW, I may have made the "mystery" of the "second Oswald" appear more likely to have happened than I intended. There is more than enough evidence to allay any doubt for a reasonable on-looker to conclude that it was Oswald at the consulates. In this instance, I wanted to underline that while many of the CT crowd raise issues about some pieces of evidence, they don't often employ common sense. So while they pile up ambiguous evidence to establish a premise of "conspiracy" (while ignoring other evidence), they fail to appreciate that their arguments make no sense at all. The Oswald imposter in Mexico is a classic example. Canada Jack (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The staffers writing the Lopez reports had serious doubts that Oswald visited the consulates.  Did they not have any common sense?


 * Here's a rational scenario for Oswald being in on the plot to have an impersonator. The CIA was watching the consulate and when a person of interest showed up in town, they paid Duran to flirt with Oswald and get him to a party.  When he had the mother of all hangovers the next morning, they convinced him that it would be better for this other guy to go to the consulate in his place; they do it all the time.  The guy goes in with all the proper papers but acts like a complete jerk on purpose and he doesn't get a visa.  And Oswald wouldn't be able to get a visa later.  The CIA thought they were doing their country a service until it turns out they inadvertently got the president shot.  So they cover everything up.Ggeezz (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence for this scenario? I may be wrong about Oswald, but it seems reasonable to me that he was capable of acting like a complete jerk all by himself. --Pete (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing my point. I'm merely creating a plausible scenario where Oswald was in on the "impersonator scheme" because CanadaJack said no such thing exists.  CanadaJack said the impersonator scenario "goes nowhere" because there's no where for it go.  I'm merely saying it could have went here, or in a hundred other directions.  Although I do think this is one of the more likely scenarios considering all of the evidence.  But the evidence we have is just a few puzzle pieces that could fit a myriad of broader pictures.Ggeezz (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The staffers writing the Lopez reports had serious doubts that Oswald visited the consulates.  Did they not have any common sense? Obviously, you've not researched Lopez. I suggest you do.


 * As for your scenario, you've not shown us any plausible reason as to why the CIA would want to go through so many hoops to prevent Oswald from going to Cuba. Further, you now have TWO Oswalds showing up at the consulates - and no one would find this suspicious at their end? No one would notice this? And the CIA would see this as an acceptable risk in terms of blowing the covers on their operations? Again, if the Cubans/Soviets didn't have Oswald on their radar, they would after such shenanigans.


 * CTs have spent almost 50 years trying to come up with something here... they have utterly failed. When Lopez's report came out in 1996, the CT crowd were sure they'd have a smoking gun. Nope. Putting aside the positive evidence which places Oswald in the consulate, when one scratches the surface, we don't have any scenario that doesn't sound like it was created by Rube Goldberg.


 * One last comment. I'm just suggesting you can't argue that it goes nowhere because there's nowhere for it to go. There's always somewhere for it to go. Which is the problem with the CT crowd. Anyone can come up with scenarios on any aspect of the assassination, be they plausible or just plain silly. But what the CT crowd seems not to get is we need EVIDENCE of any of these scenarios actually being carried out. And that "evidence" isn't in the form of what possible motives a person or group might have, a recurring fallacy from the CT crowd, it's in something linking those groups to the actual scene of the crime. We never get that. Canada Jack (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A few notes on my "scenario." The CIA operatives used that particular method to prevent Oswald from going to Cuba not because it was the easiest method, but because it was the most fun/cool.  The real Oswald never went to the consulate.  The CIA "intercepted" him before he got there.  (In an alternate scenario he did go there, but he only talked to Duran and she told him to meet her later.  No one else at the consulate paid any attention to the real Oswald and never knew the name of the real Oswald.)


 * I'm not advocating any specific theory, for the same reasons you state. There's not enough credible to evidence to come to any solid conclusion about what happened in Mexico.  Our difference seems to be that you think the available evidence supports the WC conclusion.  I do not.  I think the available evidence leads us to no conclusions. Ggeezz (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Ggeezz, but there is ample evidence to establish that Oswald indeed likely went to the consulates. More than enough. Even Lopez acknowledged that Oswald in all likelihood went. "While the majority of the evidence tends to indicate that this individual [who visited the consulates] was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald, the possibility that someone else used Lee Harvey Oswald's name during this time in contacts with the Soviet and Cuban Consulates cannot be absolutely dismissed."'' Yeah, and the "possibility" that Roswell aliens also visited the consulate at the time also cannot be absolutely dismissed. Why? Because you can't prove a negative.

This is only an issue because the CT crowd choose to make it an issue. Because the level of evidence isn't definitive (hell, even to them the Zapruder film can't be trusted), and because in this case the CIA itself was involved and were, not surprisingly, reluctant to be totally open about their surveillance methods when it involved two of America's chief Cold War rivals. In the normal course of events, the conclusion is obvious, Oswald went. But in the alternate universe in which many of the CT crowd lives in, no evidence can be trusted, no scenario is implausible no matter how silly or unlikely it is on its face, and every participant in the "cover up" does their job perfectly without detection. It's all very silly, but here we are 49 years later yapping about it, eh? Canada Jack (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A while back you accused me of being disingenuous. I'm tempted to accuse you of the same thing here, but I won't.  Clearly Lopez didn't mean the possibility could not be dismissed the same way that nothing can be dismissed because you can't prove a negative.  In the discussion on the matter several things were noted:
 * - Azcue stated the man was not Oswald.
 * - Duran gave a description that did not match Oswald.
 * - The CIA notes of the phone taps said the man spoke broken, rough Russian, while Oswald was believed to speak fluent Russian.
 * - Presumably some of the discussions were in Spanish and it was believed Oswald did not speak Spanish.
 * - The CIA probably did obtain photographic evidence of "Oswald" visiting the consulate, but they did not share it.


 * There's independent, corroborating evidence suggesting the man who visited the consulate was not Oswald, as noted by the Lopez report, not some nut speculating on motives. Ggeezz (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not read all of the above, but just wanted to say that Jack is on the right track; there are very few real mysteries concerning Oswald in Mexico, and what is still unclear is probably easily explained (other than why he wanted the visa I guess, that will never be known).
 * Oleg M. Nechiporenko has discussed at length his meetings with Oswald at the Russian consulate. Oswald sought his assistance in obtaining a Cuban visa. Yes, it's true that the CIA released a photo of a different man, whom they said was Oswald emerging from the consulate. And yes, they sent the FBI a recording of a man calling the consulate who they said was Oswald but who was clearly not Oswald. Very likely, the CIA just screwed up.
 * The Cuban consulate employees have made statements that tend to suggest that they were visited by an Oswald impersonator. However, the visa application left at the consulate includes actual photos of Oswald. It strains credulity that the employees would not notice a dramatic discrepancy between a visa applicant and the applicant's photos. If you're looking for an Oswald double, go back to Dallas. There's some rather interesting stuff there.
 * PS for Ggeezz. You are not the first person Jack has accused of being disingenuous. Try not to let it get you down. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good point about the photo on the application. I believe Azcue said he'd never seen that photo in his testimony to the HSCA.  The person interviewing should have pressed him on that point (was there a different photo originally attached to the application?)  But none of that really matters.  It all comes down to Azcue's reliability.  If he lied about the person not being Oswald, then surely he'd lie about the picture, right?  Likewise, most of the evidence suggesting the real Oswald was there comes down to Sylvia Duran's word.  She's the one that supposedly witnessed the signature.  But we have good reason to doubt Duran's reliability.  At least there aren't any contradictions in Azcue's testimony.  But then there's Azcue's successor who said it was the real Oswald.  It's essentially he said/she said.


 * These mysteries may be easily explained, but I don't see how you can logically say they are probably easily explained. If we had a lot of solid evidence from Mexico affirming the WC, then I would dismiss Azcue, dismiss the photo and the call as mistakes, and dismiss the CIA's refusal to turn over the photo they probably did have as stubbornness.  But unfortunately we don't have that lot of significant evidence. Ggeezz (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In this article, we go by the evidence, as published by reliable sources. Perhaps this fascinating discussion could be continued in another place? --Pete (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Brandon inserting material without discussion
Brandon has plonked, for no particular reason, material on Oswald's stashing the rifle and descending the stairs of the TSBD. The problem is, the section is about the events in Deally Plaza, and the reactions of the crowd, and how Oswald was later noticed to be missing and arrested after an altercation with a policeman. IOW, it is a narrative of the developing event NOT a narrative exploring the movements of the accused. Once he was noticed missing, and once he was arrested for shooting a cop, he enters the narrative. If Brandon feels that this needs inclusion despite the structure of the page, he now has the opportunity to make that case. Canada Jack (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Canada Jack first argued that Oswald's actions after the shooting were out of place in the section about Dealey Plaza. Canada Jack, for some unexplained reason, is changing his story and is now arguing that Oswald's actions after the shooting don't belong in the article at all. I wish this guy could make a consistent argument and stick to it. BrandonTR (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, Canada Jack has been editing on Wikipedia for some time. One would think that he would have learned by now that the onus is on the editor deleting material, as stated in Wikipedia's NPOV section: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia...." BrandonTR (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The onus is on the editor inserting material, per WP:BRD, and I don't see you attempting to make your case on behalf of your proposed addition. GRAPPLE   X  19:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The onus is on the editor deleting material, as stated in Wikipedia's NPOV section: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia...." I don't see you making the case for deletion. I only see you parroting what your buddy Canada Jack has said. BrandonTR (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Buddy? Never interacted with them, but by all means, continue casting personal aspersions instead of focussing on content and why this should remain in the article or not. And note that "a general rule" does not mean "absolute law"; WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS are the guidelines to follow here. GRAPPLE   X  20:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You have not make an argument why the material should be excluded, because obviously you have no argument. 70.196.195.52 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You ADDED the material, Brandon. It doesn't make any sense where you've put it. I've flagged that, removed it as it has no place here, and offered you a chance to make the case. All we have from you so far is some nonsense which you feel, it seems, gives you license to plonk down any garbage at all, as long as it is "sourced." Give me a break. As for the substance of your response above, it's very simple. 1. As written, the part about Oswald makes no sense where it is. It doesn't fit in a section discussing the aftermath in Deally Plaza. And, no, renaming the section to accommodate your addition (an old Brandon tactic) is a no-go as well. 2. Further, as the ARTICLE is written - as a narrative of the events, and a narrative of the investigations - it is very hard to see how this part might fit into any of the narrative. IOW, The page is NOT about the case against Oswald. It's a quick examination of the assassination itself - focusing on the details of the murder which is, after all, the page's topic - the aftermath, how Oswald came to be a suspect, and subsequent investigations.


 * As for your tendency to plonk down material willy-nilly without bothering to discuss with anyone else, one needs only to look at the embarrassing, disorganized mess the conspiracy page has become under your sage tutelage. Which is why many here agree that your contributions need to be closely scrutinized. Canada Jack (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What follows is the material I have attempted to add under the caption: "Lee Harvey Oswald"

According to the investigations, after Oswald shot President Kennedy with his rifle, he immediately hid the gun under some boxes and descended from the sixth floor of the building using the rear stairwell. About ninety seconds after the shooting, while in the building's second floor lunchroom, Oswald encountered police officer Marrion Baker who was accompanied by Oswald's supervisor Roy Truly; Baker let Oswald pass after Truly identified him as an employee. According to Baker, Oswald did not appear to be nervous or out of breath.[56] Mrs. Robert Reid, clerical supervisor at the Depository, returning to her office within two minutes of the assassination, said she saw Oswald who "was very calm" on the second floor with a Coke in his hands.[57] Oswald descended using the front staircase, and left the Depository through the front entrance just before police sealed it off.

Canada Jack says that the above material does not belong in an article about the assassination of President Kennedy, but he wont tell us why. So far, it's his own little secret. BrandonTR (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, all the references in the above material are cited to the non-conspiratorial Warren Commission. BrandonTR (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Canada Jack is also being disingenuous when he says: "And, no, renaming the section to accommodate your addition (an old Brandon tactic) is a no-go as well." I have not renamed any section. The section remains what it has always been: "Lee Harvey Oswald."

If BrandonTR is going to quote WP:NPOV I suggest he quotes it properly instead of truncating sentences to change their meaning. The actual quote from the policy is "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased". 2 lines of K 303  20:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the above editor not attempt to defend the error of GRAPPLE who incorrectly said: "The onus is on the editor inserting material." BrandonTR (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Except I'm entirely correct in saying so. GRAPPLE   X  20:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that you're wrong. As evidence, you can't come up with a quote from Wikipedia to support your position. 70.196.195.52 (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD. That's my evidence. Stop socking, go read it, and come back to me. GRAPPLE   X  20:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I read this section. And there is nothing in there to support your position. If you find something there, come back and let us all know. 70.196.195.52 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Or WP:CONSENSUS. Plenty of quotes there. How about "Any such revert should be explained. One option is to leave a clear edit summary stating why the particular edit is not considered to be an improvement to the article, or what policies or guidelines would require the edit be undone"? Or "Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under WP:Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material and for reversions of vandalism"? 2 lines of K  303  21:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did explain the revert (see above). BrandonTR (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

''Canada Jack says that the above material does not belong in an article about the assassination of President Kennedy, but he wont tell us why. So far, it's his own little secret.'' I've told you, four, five times? Do things start to sink after you are told a dozen times? Please advise. This is a NARRATIVE, Brandon. What does that mean? It means the events are described as they happened. When does Oswald enter the NARRATIVE? He enters the NARRATIVE when Truly notices he is missing and informs the police. Why isn't Oswald going down the stairs part of the NARRATIVE? Because THAT was only determined by subsequent investigations, after the fact. This is as opposed to the sequence of the actual assassination which is broken down as per the investigations.

To underline how ridiculous your approach here is, Brandon, here's a question. If info on him stashing the rifle and going down the stairs is so crucially important for this page, why don't we also have text here saying "Oswald fired the bullets"??? What's truly weird about your approach is you seem to feel it is FAR more important to describe Oswald stashing a rifle and dashing down stairs, but NOT mention that he was taking shots at the president.(!) There is a good reason we don't say Oswald fired the shots at that point as it is a NARRATIVE. Canada Jack (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did explain the revert (see above). This is another exercise in banging one's head against the wall, which is why I avoided this for the past few days. Brandon, instead of quoting policy on why you think the text should stay, DEFEND THE MATERIAL ITSELF. Why include Oswald stashing the rifle and NOT shooting the president, for example? Canada Jack (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack, did you forget how to read? My inclusion begins: "According to the investigations, after Oswald shot President Kennedy with his rifle, he immediately hid the gun under some boxes and descended from the sixth floor of the building using the rear stairwell." BrandonTR (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but he has so far only cherry-picked half a sentence from a guideline when the full guideline doesn't actually relate to this subject at all, which would have been clear had he quoted the full sentence. In addition to this, a wholly relevant guideline has been shown to him several times now which he is simply ignoring. GRAPPLE   X  21:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations Jack! You came up with an entirely different reason than your original reason, which was that my material was in the wrong section. You originally said: "The problem is, the section is about the events in Deally Plaza, and the reactions of the crowd." Jack, I'm sure that if you keep trying, you can come up with about a dozen other reasons for excluding this material that have nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines. BrandonTR (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good, Brandon. I've identified THREE reasons why your material doesn't belong here. It seems in your whacky world, that somehow diminishes the argument against inclusion.(!) No, it shows how little thought you put to this, and underlines why your contributions have to be scrutinized.


 * Indeed, it also underlines what you continually do here - you AVOID answering the basic question as to why the material belongs here. SO, are you going to answer why it is MORE important to include "Oswald ran down the stairs" then it is to include "Oswald fired the shots"? Probably not. Canada Jack (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jack you've identified three illegitimate reasons concocted in your goofy imagination why this material does not belong here -- reasons that truly border on insanity. BrandonTR (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Kindly refrain from impolite discourse here, Brandon. I've read your material carefully and I'm with Canada Jack on this. You'll have to provide a better explanation if it is to stand. --Pete (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Pete, kindly refrain from sucking-up to Canada Jack. It was Jack who said that I lived in a "whacky world." BrandonTR (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, he started it. Sorry, that changes everything. Why not try to be a shining example of politeness, then? --Pete (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you suck-up to Canada Jack? BrandonTR (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A number of re-creations of this have shown that a man of Oswald's size could stash the rifle and get from the 6th floor to the second floor in 78 seconds (the longest) or less without EVER running at any point, let alone on the stairs. Thus, there is no reason he should have been "out of breath" in the lunchroom, and he could easily have made it on time, to meet Baker, without breaking a sweat or hurrying. The WC times are all significantly longer than anybody else doing this re-creation has come up with. Putting in that somebody reported that he wasn't out of breath, its lying by implication. It's like writing in Wikipedia that somebody reported Oswald wasn't wearing a tie. Well, SHOULD he have been wearing a tie? Do we care that he wasn't wearing a tie?  Why the hell is a tie relevant? It's all very confusing. S  B Harris 23:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's all very confusing SBHarris, but we readers are big boys and girls, and we can handle seeming confusion and contradictions in the official account and come to our own conclusions. BrandonTR (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's nice, but I'm still wondering why we should care that Oswald wasn't breathing hard. In re-creations of getting from 6th to 2nd floor in the time Oswald had, nobody breathes hard. Even elderly men don't breathe hard. Oswald was 24, thin, making his living at the time from manual labor, and walked everywhere he could, since he didn't drive. Why do you think he should have been breathing hard? Why is it remarkable that he wasn't? Why should this factoid be in Wikipedia?  S  B Harris 02:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So... still got nothing? GRAPPLE   X  01:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Only an illiterate could describe what I have written as "nothing." BrandonTR (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a lot of something alright, none of relevant though. Still failing to see a single worthwhile argument for including this proposed content, nor even an attempt at making one. GRAPPLE   X  01:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever, you say Grapple. You can go back and turn on Glenn Beck now, or Fox News, or whatever delusional programming you listen to. BrandonTR (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a socialist Irishman; if all you're going to do is make personal attacks rather than argue for your content, then at least figure out who you're meant to be insulting. GRAPPLE   X  01:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The content speaks for itself. Go back and read it. Only a fool could not see its relevance. BrandonTR (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't. You need to speak for it; as is, consensus is against its addition and you have absolutely nothing to convince anyone otherwise. GRAPPLE   X  01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The consensus is a false consensus, made up of Warren Commission apologists and fools. BrandonTR (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And only you can see the light. Right. Regardless of that, you don't have consensus, and I suggest that is because you haven't provided a convincing argument, not because we all have our minds made up already. --Pete (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Brandon loves the WC times when he agrees with them, but thinks anybody else who happens to agree with the WC is an "apologist" when they disagree with Brandon. Here's a re-creation where the time from 6th floor to 2nd floor comes out 48 seconds. When the WC makes a mistake (like the location of the rear head inshoot) I'll be glad to take them to task. I think the WC did make an overestimation in the timing in the TSBD. But here you go: Here's a re-creation. Why don't you watch it a few times? What have you got that is better? S  B Harris 02:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * SBHarris loves editing out material that doesn't exactly support his preconceived notion that Oswald was the lone assassin. BrandonTR (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not stick to addressing the discussion points raised instead of other editors and otherwise swimming against the flow of established procedures? It would help tremendously. --Pete (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's impossible when you have a committee comprised of suck-ups to Canada Jack who accept what Jack says as gospel and reject all reasonable arguments. It's a stacked deck and a stacked game. BrandonTR (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Then maybe your best option is to take your ball and head elsewhere, as you're clearly not going to abide by any of the site's governing policies. GRAPPLE   X  03:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe so. But first I'm going to point out that your a suck-up to Canada Jack. BrandonTR (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "You're". GRAPPLE   X  03:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the disputed text. he immediately hid the gun under some boxes. Not accurate. The rifle was hidden between narrow stacks of boxes with a single box pushed over the top of the gap. Oswald did not appear to be nervous or out of breath. ...Oswald who "was very calm" on the second floor with a Coke in his hands. Text is not relevant to the article without context. Seems to me the only possible context would be as part of a discussion of evidence or speculation as to why Oswald may not have been the assassin. Such a discussion belongs on the the assassination conspiracy theories page. The editor who reverted the addition acted appropriately.

The reenactment film linked above. "Unsolved History has convincingly shown that Oswald could have fired three shots and arrived at the second floor lunchroom in well under the time allotted." Awfully sure of themselves, aren't they? So, did the reenactor stare out the window for several seconds before moving, as we're told Oswald did? Nope. Did he climb over or squeeze between the stacks of boxes making up the sniper's nest? Nope, just walked away. Did he dodge back and forth between more stacks, making his way across the floor? Nope, no stacks here. Did he push a full box of books over the gap where he dropped the rifle? Nope, just dropped it. Did he open the heavy lunchroom door, then operate the closing mechanism? Nope, once he breaks the tape, he's done. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Johgoodfriend is another suck-up to Canada Jack. The only reason Canada Jack makes unwarranted deletions of material on this page is because he knows he can get his yes-men Warren Commission apologists and other assorted fools to go along with him. BrandonTR (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you have a look at the archived talk pages for the assassination conspiracies theories article and the LHO article going back about eight years or so. Then come back here and quote all the times I argued that LHO acted alone. As Mitt Romney would say, "I'll bet you $10,000" you don't find any. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just admit it. You're a suck-up to Canada Jack. If Jack told you to shoot yourself in the leg, you'd probably do it. BrandonTR (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you didn't read this discussion between Jack and me on reliable sources. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This has to be one of the more inane contributions by Brandon in a long while. Read the goddam text Brandon. And ask yourself: Why does Oswald - if your contribution was to stand - only appear when he's shoving a rifle behind boxes and running down the stairs? And then he materializes across town shooting a cop? This is a classic example of the Sorcerer's Apprentice on another witless crusade to do nothing more than make a mess of this page and for what? To somehow establish... well, we are not sure. The entire POINT of this page is to establish the basic narrative of the events that day, to wit: the motorcade, the shots being fired, the confusion within the plaza as people rushed to the knoll and others pointed to the TSBD. Then, the first suspicions that a missing TSBD employee may have been involved. And that employee is soon arrested for the shooting, etc.


 * Which is why, if this was truly the "Warren Commission apologist page" Brandon likes to pretend it is, the page says NOTHING about Oswald firing the shots, indeed says NOTHING about where the bullets came from!


 * And what do we get from Brandon? No explanation at all as the importance of this, in his eyes, "crucial" piece of information. You will note, I am not even discussing the various debates about who saw what in the lunchroom, etc. Why? Because that discussion is entirely beside the point! This article merely describes THE ASSASSINATION and soon after how Oswald came to the attention of police, and then his murder. It is utterly clear to me that Brandon has not the slightest clue of what this article is doing, and he betrays his incomprehension by braying on about "Warren Commission apologists" as if the inclusion of Oswald stashing the rifle defeats the case they made. Indeed, what he has done is betrayed his ultimate motive here - to include material which sheds doubt on the culpability of Oswald. Yet I challenge him to locate material on the page which leads irresistibly to the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin. Look at the description of shots hitting the limousine. Where does it state that these shots came from a rifle Oswald was shooting, or even from a single location? Indeed, other than reporting the obvious fact that several investigations concluded he was the assassin, the only evidence discussed here pointing to Oswald as the assassin is the fact he owned the rifle. There is NOTHING here even establishing Oswald was in the building at the time, save for Truly noting that he was missing, which implies Oswald would have been there, a rather indirect association.


 * And, finally, you will also note that despite a large number of other editors including several of whom can't seriously be accused of "sucking up" to me (that doesn't stop Brandon of making the accusation, though) are on record agreeing with me on this issue, Brandon has YET to make a case for inclusion of the material! Sorry, Brandon, there is nothing "self-evident" about this material being here given the structure of the page. Indeed, a casual reader, given your added material, would likely wonder what the point of it is given the narrative we have here.


 * Since this page almost completely leaves unaddressed the EVIDENCE one way or the other to who carried out the assassination, leaving most of that to other pages, the BALANCE here is provided by noting the conclusions of the various official investigations - one of which concluded "conspiracy," btw - and later, an extended discussion of the rise of conspiracy theories on this subject, written by yours truly. Since I put that section in a few weeks I have heard NO complaints that "conspiracy" was being ignored. Sure, we don't have some of the pet theories held by some here described on the page, but neither do we have anything approaching a serious discussion of the case the Warren Commission and others made to conclude Oswald fired the shots, etc.


 * If Brandon would like to make a positive contribution to this page, then let's hear it. Instead we get cries of "bias" from someone who it seems is most concerned that his views aren't front and centre. Canada Jack (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This has to be one of the more moronic posts by Canada Jack in awhile -- and god knows he's made many. In typical Canada Jack fashion, he keeps changing his story. In objecting to the inclusion of my material, he previously said: "What's truly weird about your approach is you seem to feel it is FAR more important to describe Oswald stashing a rifle and dashing down stairs, but NOT mention that he was taking shots at the president." Yet my material begins with the sentence: "According to the investigations, after Oswald shot President Kennedy with his rifle, he immediately hid the gun under some boxes and descended from the sixth floor of the building using the rear stairwell."

An individual who cannot make a consistent argument cannot be taken seriously, and Canada Jack again fails on consistency. BrandonTR (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow. I don't think I have to add anything to the above, other than Brandon's comments underline just how far out of his depth he is on this page; he simply does not comprehend the issues his insertions pose, despite numerous attempts to explain them to him. But this is par for the course for him. Check out the conspiracy theories page, which Brandon has largely built, to see the mess that allowing him free reign results in. Canada Jack (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Canada Jack references the JFK conspiracy theory page, which he does not like. The reason that Jack doesn't like the JFK conspiracy page is because, on that page, he can't manipulate a bunch of yes-men groupie editors into going along with his every whim. BrandonTR (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's right, Brandon, the "conspiracy" which pretends there was no conspiracy here can't breach your wall of truth over there. No, the reason I don't like that page - which I have always argued was a necessary page - is that it is so poorly written and organized that anyone trying to get a handle on the subject will give up halfway through. I personally feel that page needs a competent editor to handle it, to present the subject of conspiracy in a manner befitting the seriousness of the subject. That's what this place is about - presenting information on subjects in a coherent and comprehensive manner so that the casual reader can get a pretty good picture of a topic in question.


 * And if anyone doubts I could do this in a balanced and fair manner need only read my history of conspiracy on this page. What I have done there could form the basis for the conspiracy page, and I've even suggested you could pick up the ball on that one. But if the paranoia you show on this page is any indication, there is no point in me making a serious attempt. On simple matters of organization, you have shown you simply don't understand how important that facet is and we'd waste endless pages of text here arguing over stuff you should know before you even log onto wikipedia. AS the above debate amply demonstrates. It's just too bad for those who want the conspiracy angle to be fairly presented. The person who has decided to handle that isn't doing a very good job and he seems oblivious to that fact. Just saying. Canada Jack (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah Jack ... we know what you can do with a page. One need only look at the joke of page on Lee Harvey Oswald to see what you have done. It's not surprising that the Oswald page has been given such a low rating. BrandonTR (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting comment, Brandon. An interesting feature of wikipedia is you can count who is editing what. So, for this page on JFK's assassination, we see that I have done 130 edits, while Brandon has done 41. This page is in pretty good - not perfect - but pretty good shape. So, how about the conspiracy page, which I describe as being a mess? Well, I've done some 70 edits there - but Brandon has done 623. So if I say this is largely his doing, that is fair comment, since he has almost double the amount of edits than the second place editor has on that page (not counting a contributor who has not been here since 2006).


 * One need only look at the joke of page on Lee Harvey Oswald to see what you have done. It's not surprising that the Oswald page has been given such a low rating. Hmmmm. I'm not really aware that I have had a large hand on that page, but let's take a look. 32 edits for me - that's fewer than the other pages. What about Brandon? 230 edits! Brandon, only three other editors have had a larger hand in messing with that page, and two of those editors have ZERO edits since you started! So, thanks for admitting to all that a page on which you are a leading contributor is "a joke of a page" and has been given "such a low rating"! All the more reason, by your own admission, to keep your hands off this page !Canada Jack (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * More revisionism from the "fair and balanced" guy, Canada Jack. In fact, the Oswald page was rated highly until disinformation specialist, Canada Jack came along and began editing out chunks of important material on the ground that such material might hint at conspiracy. BrandonTR (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, man, this is hysterical. Perhaps you can't count, Brandon. On the LHO page, I've made 32 edits - you've made 230. My last edit was almost 4 months ago. And you claim that I'm responsible for it being "a mess"? Okay... Canada Jack (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are hysterical. You're 32 edits were not minor edits. Many of your edits removed vast swaths of "politically incorrect" information. Go back and take a look. BrandonTR (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

External Links issue
Could someone please look at and fix the External Links section's Maintenance Tag issue? This prevents the date from being included in the "On this day..." section on the Main Page every year, and possibly the 50th anniversary next year. Thanks! — WylieCoyote (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it, and try to incorporate the ELs into refs. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory section greatly expanded
I have written what amounts to a new section on the history of the conspiracy movement, which I will post shortly. It will replace the short and frankly inadequate paragraph on the subject that is there now. AS I have said before, and I have agreement on this from others, to delve into the various theories would make this page highly unwieldy. So, instead of that, a history, largely drawn from Bugliosi (as I am unaware of another account of the history of the movement to 2005 or so) which gives a greater idea of the scope of the subject, without going into the various contentions in any detail.

I'll try to get this posted later today. Canada Jack (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is now up. I hope this is seen as a good-faith attempt to address concerns that the conspiracy aspect of the assassination had been given skimpy coverage.Canada Jack (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this does a good job of not only introducing the history of conspiracy theories, but describing the "public at large's" relationship with the topic (or at least giving the reader enough facts for them to draw their own conclusions).Ggeezz (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done! Very good summary of the history without going into the messy specifics of each theory. Location (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Lyndon Johnson, when listed as a possible conspirator, be described as Vice-President, since that would have been his position at the time of any involvement in any conspiracy to have JFK assassinated? 203.9.151.254 (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I described him as "president" as per the convention where an individual is given his highest honourific, just as we routinely call Jimmy Carter "president" Carter even though he's not been that for 32 years. That's my rationale, any other thoughts on this question? Should we instead refer to him, as 203 suggests, by his title when he presumably plotted? Canada Jack (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Gov. & Mrs. Connally also seated LOWER than President & Mrs. Kennedy?
In the Others wounded" section, it currently states tbat Governor Connally was seated 3 inches further left than President Kennedy. Were the Connallys in what we call "jump seats", LOWER than where the Kennedys were seated?  Wasn't this also pointed out in some critique of the "JFK" movie (which erroneously placed Gov. Connally directly in front of President Kennedy)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to several sources, the rear seats could be raised ten inches or so. Here is a good photo of the difference in height. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and when seen from the side, Connally is clearly a lot lower and inboard. see here. S  B Harris 00:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That "seen from the side" photo doesn't show the SEATS. Anyway, it should be edited into this Wikipedia article that Gov. Connally was seated in front AND 3 inches to left AND lower w/r to President Kennedy. (So Mrs. Connally would be in front AND 3 inches to **right** AND lower w/r to Mrs. Kennedy?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Warren Commission inappropriate as historical source
There was only ever one official criminal investigations into the Kennedy assassination, that of Jim Garrison. The Warren Commissions purpose was set out before it was ever formed- to frame the lone nut in public perception. Johnson and Hoover are frank about this when forming the Commission. Any "investigation" which is given its consl;usion prior to the investigation is null and void on the face of it. Garrison's record prior to his investigation of the assassination was a conservative professional who had never failed to convict those he indicted. The attempts to discredit and marginalize him by the government largely failed as Garrison was an exceptionally law abiding individual with a strong moral compass. Any article about JFK's assassination should outline HIS findings, not the Warren Commission's, which has been so widely discredited, was never a criminal investigation, was appointed and led by some of the suspects in the murder, and formed with the now proven (by Johnson's phone recordings with Hoover) intention to convince the public of Oswald's guilt. Outlining the findings of the Warren Comnmision tells us nothing (except by inference and ommission) about the Kennedy assassination, and a large consensus of the public knows it. I am shocked to find this article accepted on Wiki, it discredits the entire site.Inteluck (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insights. As a useful next step, please look at our sourcing policy. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you'd like references to the Warren Commission removed from an article concerning Kennedy's assassination? Would you also like to see the HCSA expunged? Anything else you want cut that would interfere with promoting Garrison's theories?  Acroterion   (talk)   00:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

sorry for lack of sources. This is meant more as a broad perspective edit. I am reading the sources policy and will source the phone calls I reference, although I am sure most of you will know exactly what I am talking about. Of course the Warren commission has to be referenced, and should be included, along with the HCSA and everything else. The Warren Commission is less appropriate as the source of the historical narrative than the only criminal investigation into the matter. This does not mean it is not an huge part of the story, and I find your comment hard to take seriously, except as an indication of your passionate attachment to a particular viewpoint.Inteluck (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Whose "passionate attachment?" Thank you for your clarification, but your initial post proposed to essentially remove or disregard the Warren Commission report in favor of Garrison's investigation. You'll have to make a case that the Garrison investigation should be emphasized above all else by referring to a preponderance of material in mainstream accounts that prefers Garrison's material over other sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said to disregard or remove the Warren commission from the article. That would be ludicrous. I said it was inappropriate as the source of the historical narrative, which it clearly is, most people agree it is, and have for decades, the HSCA agrees, as do the preponderance of recent and or current published articles from reliable sources. In fact, every study and investigation since has refuted and criticized the Warren Commission, and line up more with Garrison than Dulles.If we go back far enough, the preponderance of articles from (unreliable) major media sources will support the Warren Commission and further yet, slavery. Almost all the witnesses, and ALL surviving witnesses, including Parkland doctors with impeccable professional records (like Garrison) line up with Garrison because Garrison formed his conclusions from interviewing them and investigating other aspects of the event. The Warren Commission started with a conclusion, then worked backwards from this. It is a matter of historical record, call the Parkland doctors and nurses who will gladly tell anyone who cares to ask, and agree to a man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia relies on major media and scholarly sources, so you'll need to work within the consensus of those sources. However, those same sources don't uniformly endorse (and some harshly criticize) the Warren Commission. I suggest you re-read your first comment with a detached eye: it appeared to me to amount to a request to eliminate the Warren Commission from the discussion, which struck me as an extreme position.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought recent trumped preponderance in evolving or contentious articles. I am sorry if I left the impression I was angling for removal of the WC. This would be extreme and untenable. I merely objected to it serving as the source of the historical narrative, when it has been so thoroughly and completely discredited so widely and universally by all subsequent expert investigations, and is at diametric opposition to consensus opinion and the historical record and as it has emerged. Recent photographic analysis techniques have finally confirmed scientifically what the parkland doctors have been saying for so long- the official autopsy photos were altered. All sources I know of line up in the same way on this, and this is merely a microcosm of all other aspect of the WC position- it doesn't line up with the witnesses, the evidence, or any other professional analysis. Garrison is merely one of these, I would be equally happy to see ANY source other then the WC serve as the backbone of the article when it comes to the historical narrative. Having seen Garrison on Carson and elsewhere, he struck a chord of accuracy with me personally, but I realize this is personal perspective, and would not push for HIS perspective uniquely, altho it certainly lines up with the evidence, witnesses and preponderance of recent reputable sources better then the WC- no contest there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 03:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Understood: that clarifies things considerably. You're going to have to provide some sources for your assertions, and I'd be very cautious about a major alteration based on recent developments concerning a controversial event that happened almost 50 years ago. You'll need to make rather specific proposals and use good sourcing, and consensus will be required for major changes. Recent doesn't usually trump preponderance unless the new material is universally accepted as obvious fact.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost all the witnesses, and ALL surviving witnesses, including Parkland doctors with impeccable professional records (like Garrison) line up with Garrison because Garrison formed his conclusions from interviewing them and investigating other aspects of the event.

??? Not sure how many witness accounts you have been reading, but there were multiple Parkland witnesses who stated the head wound matched what the WC concluded, as well as numerous other witnesses who said the same. AND many Parkland witnesses who said "rear head exit wound," changed their minds upon seeing the autopsy photos when they realized, for example, they had mistook crenelated brain tissue for the cerebellum. Further, and most importantly, the pathologists testified to the head wounds. To claim Garrison was an "impeccable professional" is, in a word, ludicrous. Look, for example, at his treatment of Clay Shaw, a completely and utterly innocent individual against whom Garrison led a witch-hunt against, and whom he brought perjury charges against after his acquittal, an almost unheard-of example of judicial vindictiveness.

can you give me another example of his work which has been discredited before or after the JFK related stuff? I understand he went on to re-election and eventually was elevated to the bench. None of the interviews I have seen of him suggest to me he is unbalanced of insane. He was on Carson for nearly an hour, and refused to discuss anything to do with the Shaw case because the case was open before the courts. To me he had a firm grasp of his correct role in the judicial process. Many others felt the same way.

Recent photographic analysis techniques have finally confirmed scientifically what the parkland doctors have been saying for so long- the official autopsy photos were altered.

This is a rather incredible assertion. First, the photos and, more importantly, the negatives, are at the Archives and haven't been scientifically analyzed since the HSCA hearings. So what "recent photographic analysis techniques" could possibly be done? NONE. At least, not on the original images. As one photographic expert admitted at the HSCA upon seeing the analysis done on original negatives in regards to the backyard rifle shots, his conclusions on their authenticity were of little weight as he was analyzing mufti-generational copies. The HSCA determined no manipulation with the x-rays or autopsy photos and they were analyzing the actual original exposed mediums. And, again the "parkland doctors" are in fact split on the wounds. A good number of them say that the wounds match what the WC said.

In sum, Inteluck, you are not only mischaracterizing what many witnesses in fact said, you have risen one of American jurisprudence's most embarrassing frauds as some holy saint on this issue. Hell, even most of the conspiracy crowd disowned him over his kangaroo-court trial against Shaw. You have a rather large hill to climb here if you want to make Garrison's investigation the focal point of the page. Canada Jack (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If Garrisons case against Shaw was so seriously flawed why did the government bother monitoring it and refuse to co-operate with it? If the government was in possession of contrary/exculpatory evidence and supplied this to Garrison this would of ended the case. The intelligence agencies acted like intelligence agencies, they discredited him in the press, killed witnesses, bribed or attempted to bribe others, including Garrison. Irrespective this is all a distraction from the evidence, but does provide important context. The lack of other bullets is an important point you bring up, although I have seen photographs of an agent picking up a bullet, and putting it in his pocket, which was never entered into evidence. again inconclusive and conflicting evidence which can be taken either way- exactly the way the article needs to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If Garrisons case against Shaw was so seriously flawed why did the government bother monitoring it and refuse to co-operate with it? Hmmm. So a DA implicates the government and its agencies in a plot to kill the president? And it's somehow bizarre for the government to monitor the case? On which planet do you reside, inteluck? As for "distractions," the trial was a fraud not because of what "the government" did or didn't do, it was because Garrison was on a witchhunt against a completely innocent man. He based his case on dubious testimony from a hypnotized witness, had witnesses in Clinton change their stories to connect Oswald Ferrie and Shaw, and when Shaw was acquitted owing to the complete lack of evidence against him, what did Garrison do? He dragged him through the courts AGAIN on a perjury charge - saying that this man who was just acquitted nevertheless lied at trial. Charging a defendant who has just been ACQUITTED is almost unheard-of and is measure of Garrison's obsession and apparent disdain for a man who he seemed to think was "fair game" owing to his personal sexual preferences. And you are defending this guy? HE was the one who had a foregone conclusion from the start - there was a New Orleans-based conspiracy to kill JFK - and he didn't care whose lives he destroyed in the process. 40+ years, NOTHING has been shown to establish that Ferrie, Oswald and Shaw were connected other than what was already known - a photo has emerged of Oswald at one of Ferrie's air cadet meetings. Ferrie arguably died owing to the pressure brought upon him by Garrison's crazy investigation, and he deliberately and ruthlessly hunted down and ruined a man - Clay Shaw - who had NOTHING to do with any of this. And this guy is a hero? Canada Jack (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If he was a hero it was related to his actions in combat in WW2? He certainly stood by his convictions, and refused to comment about Shaw while the case was open,. He also had never been any kind of radical or anti-government agenda prior to his investigation. I believe he reluctantly drew his conclusions as the evidence led him. Shaw's links to the CIA are well known now. What you don't state is that Garrison convicted Shaw of perjury. Why was Shaw lying? Garrison never implicated any government agency, in fact he expressly said that even the CIA as an organization was NOT implicated, nor was the FBI except in the context of their refusal to conduct a proper investigation. Of course its not bizarre they bugged his offices- it is exactly what you would expect from an intelligence agency evaluating a threat. It is just illegal, and again provides us with historical context in which to evaluate the agencies involved. Otherwise it proves little, except that somehow Garrison's suggestion that the American intelligence community had rogue elements involved in the illegal assassinations of heads of state which had been redirected at Kennedy was a threat. It is a matter of historical record, even on the CIA's webpage, that they engaged in illegal assassinations of foreign heads of state, and operated outside and even against executive oversight and direction. JFK had to have the FBI shut down training camps run by the CIA, as the CIA would not take direction from its commander-in-chief. It is on the record that these elements were in the business of insubordination if not treason. No proof here, just more historical context. Perhaps we should consult an actuary about the odds of a JFK's murder by a lone nut being followed by Oswald's murder by a nut acting alone, followed by dozens of other witnesses unexpected deaths, including Ferries- oh, and that Robert Kennedy being killed by- here it comes- a lone nut. Actually an actuary has done the calculation- 100 trillion to one- about the same odds of a bullet causing 6 major wounds and emerging virtually pristine. If you want to endorse the WC as a plausible story fine, but don't be surprised that you are NOT with consensus opinion. To try to present it as uncontested fact, while it would not lead me to question what planet you live on- I find this a distasteful tactic for those with intense conviction in place of coherent argument- I would question you sober impartiality. It seems you concur that his case was monitored by the FBI. Does this mean you recognize Garrisons claims that his office was illegally bugged? Ferrie and was seeking protection by Garrisons office when he died. For the record, movies depicting broadly the same themes as Stones JFK emerged as early as the early 1970's- Executive Action. Parallax View also suggested the same themes. I expected an (valid) arguement that the article is not based on the WC for its historical narrative, and provides balance with its reference to contesting theories. I could never of imagined that someone would actually argue that the WC IS a valid source for the historical narrative.


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px|link=]] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png located above the edit window.  This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you.  Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

''If he was a hero it was related to his actions in combat in WW2? He certainly stood by his convictions, and refused to comment about Shaw while the case was open,. He also had never been any kind of radical or anti-government agenda prior to his investigation. I believe he reluctantly drew his conclusions as the evidence led him.''

He is no hero as he literally used his office to destroy a completely innocent man, who he hounded even after his acquittal. As for him "reluctantly" concluding Shaw was involved, you seem blissfully unaware of his actions to shape a case - manufacturing evidence to convict Shaw - which is not what we normally call a "Search for the truth." We call this "manufacturing a conviction." Don't believe me? Why not read what David Lifton has said about Garrision - Lifton can't be accused of being a WC apologist either. And, for a deconstruction of how Garrison twisted the Clinton witness accounts into a "sighting" which even the HSCA agreed likely connected Oswald Ferrie and Shaw, go here. Your comments about the CIA and the FBI are beside the point which many in the CT community don't seem to get. Even if it is true (and it IS true) that the CIA engaged in political assassinations abroad, bugged offices (as we know the FBI did as well) this does not constitute evidence they killed Kennedy or had any role in it! It is this sort of inanity that gives oxygen to the CT crowd. We need EVIDENCE which links those agents either to the actual assassination or to those who carried out the assassination. Why did the FBI and CIA bug offices? Because they were hidebound paranoid agencies! And beauracrats ensuring their asses were covered. It never ceases to amaze me that these often incompetent agencies are suddenly raised to having James Bond-like skill and success in their supposed operations to kill JFK. Hell, if they were so slick, how come we know about all these clumsy buggings and other nefarious operations? Yet nothing about JFK? Time for common sense, eh?

''Shaw's links to the CIA are well known now. What you don't state is that Garrison convicted Shaw of perjury. Why was Shaw lying?'' Shaw, like something like 200,000 other businessmen with foreign connections, was a part-time contact who volunteered information from his trips abroad. Being a war hero, he likely thought he was doing his patriotic duty. Strolling in to a CIA office to discuss business and political issues in places like Guatemala is nothing sinister and does not make Shaw an "operative." But the CT crowd repeats this b.s. again and again and again and again.

''Perhaps we should consult an actuary about the odds of a JFK's murder by a lone nut being followed by Oswald's murder by a nut acting alone, followed by dozens of other witnesses unexpected deaths, including Ferries- oh, and that Robert Kennedy being killed by- here it comes- a lone nut. Actually an actuary has done the calculation- 100 trillion to one-'' As I said above, you really should do yourself a favour and actually do some research on your claims - by reading some non-credulous sources, for one. That "100 trillion to one" figure was published in the London Times and RETRACTED the same day! Why? Because they calculated the odds of specific individuals through out the entire USA - instead of the odds of x number of people dying within 3 years (to 1966) out of all the witnesses, participants. When the latter calculation is done, as any actuarial will tell you, the odds or almost 1 to 1 that that many will die within the specified period. But you've never bothered to check the claims of those who have consistently lied and withheld information for almost 50 years - the CT crowd - have you? Canada Jack (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No I have not researched that statistic. Is it your contention that there was no pattern of suspicious and or unexpected deaths among witnesses? You must be aware of the nearly analoguous revelations about the RFK assassination. Of course none of this is proof, nor do we "need" it. No "proof" can be proffered beyond the most cursory facts in this case, partly because the WC so badly bungled the initial investigation, and the crime scene (limo, body, clothing) and autopsy were so poorly and unusually handled.

Now all we have is contentious and conflicting evidence which you and I can use to draw different conclusions. In light of this reality, many people, and rest assured no attempts at managing peoples conclusions for them will change this, will look at the historical context and draw their own conclusions. I believe I share the consensus view that multiple shooters were involved and the assassination was politically motivated and resulted in dramatic shifts in policy. The WC findings are just another set of theories which can't be completely discounted. I am not a passionate proponent of any particular theory and accept the possibility of many wounds from a single bullet (but not emerging slightly damaged). It certainly would appear plain that you are a passionate devotee of a single theory on the subject. Perhaps this has impacted the article?

The article presents a reasonably balanced and fairly coherent summary of events, but in my opinion reveals a bias in favor of WC "findings", which by implication, when contrasted with "theories", suggests a level of credibility which I feel is not warranted by consensus-view, other investigations, or participant and witness testimony. Obviously you feel differently, and feel strongly these feelings are more valid than the large majority. In this case "Proof" is testimony and evidence you believe. No empirical proof will -or even can- exist regarding the contentious aspects of this issue, except regarding the consequences of the assassination. What policies were pursued by the president and what executive orders were issued and rescinded on what date and by whom.

WC findings are presented as unanimous (as they were presented to the public), while dissent in the HSCA is detailed. Even the WC could not endorse the condition of the bullet without dissent. A dissenting opinion by Russel and 2 others was narrowly averted. (3 of 7 I believe). Dissent later revealed in the WC itself could be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A few things to note here, Inteluck. The basic problem we have here is the two most intensive investigations -by far- of the assassination drew near-identical conclusions, at least in terms of the basic question of Oswald's role in the assassination, whether there were credible links to any persons or groups who might have involved him in a conspiracy, and whether there was ANY evidence there were other shots fired. If we put aside the acoustic evidence, the sole piece of evidence the HSCA used to conclude "probable conspiracy," the evidence that both investigations assessed pointed to Oswald alone firing the shots which struck. This is clearly spelled out in the text of the page - that the conclusions are those of the various investigations.


 * The article presents a reasonably balanced and fairly coherent summary of events, but in my opinion reveals a bias in favor of WC "findings", which by implication, when contrasted with "theories", suggests a level of credibility which I feel is not warranted by consensus-view, other investigations, or participant and witness testimony. But that is the basic function of the page. To a) describe the actually assassination and its immediate aftermath - the shooting, which, it should be noted, does NOT identify who carried it out; b) the identification of Oswald as the chief suspect; c) the investigations and their chief conclusions; d) the rise of conspiracy questions and their main contentions. Again, and this has been repeatedly underlined by me and other editors here, there is NO coherent and agreed-upon scenario which describes the events from the "conspiracy" point of view. For example, on the basic question of who shot JFK, I have seen one list which has something like 100 people over the years as being snipers in Deally Plaza. And this doesn't even address the multiple variations on Oswald himself, whether he had accomplices, whether he was involved but not a sniper, whether he knew the culprits but otherwise was not involved, whether he was completely innocent. Should we list the 100 or so people mentioned by the CT crowd as possible assassins here? Wouldn't that make this page look rather silly? As for "findings" vs "theories," the difference is, unlike virtually any of the CT crowd, the WC and HSCA assessed not only witnesses and interviewed them, they had access to much of the actual physical evidence and the means to test on-site many of the scenarios. This is contrast to the CT community who, while some witnesses were interviewed, had nothing like the resources and scope to properly investigate. Much of the evidence is assessed second- or third-hand. And little true forensic investigation is actually carried out.


 * No "proof" can be proffered beyond the most cursory facts in this case, partly because the WC so badly bungled the initial investigation, and the crime scene (limo, body, clothing) and autopsy were so poorly and unusually handled. That's a gross overstatement. It is true that there were some custody issues, botches like the clothes being cleaned, and the autopsy was not ideal. But there was much evidence that WAS handled without these sorts of questions and the autopsy, though not ideal, was unanimously judged by subsequent teams of pathologists to have arrived at the correct conclusions based on the evidence. This is the common fallacy we hear from the CT crowd - that because there was bungling in terms of some evidence and by the forensic pathologists that therefore there was a conspiracy. While this might be a factor in a case where a conviction turns on a single or several pieces of disputed evidence, it does not apply here as there are probably 50 pieces of evidence linking Oswald directly to the assassination. Yet we are asked to believe that ALL this evidence was somehow forged or planted without detection. Besides, the CT crowd had their day with the HSCA and, guess what? Save for the controversial dictabelt evidence, identical conclusions were reached. Inept and incomplete the Warren Commission may have been, they got it right. Single Bullet Theory? The HSCA - which concluded "conspiracy" - concluded it was not only credible, it was probable.


 * In sum, Inteluck, issues to do with conspiracy belong on the attendant page, as this page doesn't delve into the specifics of the various theories. This is because, owing to the lack of an agreed-upon over-arching conspiracy theory, or even to a limited number of scenarios, we'd have to include dozens if not hundreds of theories which is obviously impractical. Indeed, the page barely delves into the culpability of Oswald beyond stating the obvious fact he was charged with the crimes and several investigations concluded he was responsible. And, contrary to your reading of the page, the conclusions of the Warren Commision and others are referred to as being just that - their conclusions - and frequent mention is made, in the lede, in the conspiracy section, of doubts about these conclusions.


 * As for the "One hundred thousand trillion to one" claim about the witness etc deaths, the HSCA wrote the Times of London to ask them where they got the number. Their response in reference to their to the February 1967 article - Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition — the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have — had gone out, and later editions were amended.


 * There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied — correctly — that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter — hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize. None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material. This is yet another example of a factoid which, although answered some 35 years ago, gets repeated again and again and again without any of these people doing their basic homework, or, indeed, applying standard actuarial methods to answer the question of the odds - it's not as if it is a trade secret. But someone mistakenly did the calculation wrong and we keep hearing the error repeated. One would think after the HSCA investigated this and many other claims, the claims would stop being made. Nope. These are True Believers. Canada Jack (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)