Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 14

"Perpetrator"?
The fact that Oswald is _still_ identified as the perpetrator in the Wikipedia article and in the mainstream press, and that any deviation from that conclusion is relegated to a "Conspiracy"88.120.130.106 (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC) page, all but prove that there is a conspiracy, extending into the present, to prevent the public from learning who the actual perpetrators were. 88.120.130.106 (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, by explicit and fundamental policy, reflects mainstream sources. It describes conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories where they are so described by reliable academic and mainstream sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the way that the conspiracy extends to publishing houses, television, magazines and the internet where the public are prevented from access to any material about the conspiracy. That obscure movie by an obscure director released a few years ago in a few small-town cinemas and promptly pulled before anyone saw it. Certainly never got onto mainstream TV broadcasting. Classic example.


 * The truth is that, despite all the massive amounts of conspiracy material published and consumed, there's not a shred of evidence that there was a conspiracy, that there was another shooter, or that there was some coverup. Hell, the House Select Committee on Assassinations came out and concluded there was a conspiracy, but they couldn't come up with any conclusion as to who it was. The report is a public document, but few conspiracy theorists sit down and read it, because there's nothing in it for them. Not unless they want to write a book about a dictaphone belt.


 * Not that this stops them.


 * If there is any evidence to be uncovered and presented, then why in fifty years hasn't it come up? There's a megafortune to be made, considering the enduring success of a great range of presentations of every possible alternative based on nothing but speculation, inconsistencies in witness statements and other shakey brown stuff. If someone came up with the good oil, something that could stand up to critical analysis (as opposed to sounding plausible to Joe Blow at home watching telly) then it would be the sensation of the century. Even if there were efforts to shut it down, how on earth could they work in this age of viral videos, Wikileaks and Snowden?


 * In Wikipedia terms - to get back to talking about an encyclopaedia - we need a reliable source to present a mainstream view. More than one - we'd need about a gazillion to overcome WP:WEIGHT which stops fringe views from being presented as mainstream fact. There is a good article and discussion page to be found at Kennedy conspiracy and I direct the IP and any others of a like mind to read through it. Please. --Pete (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * there's not a shred of evidence that there was a conspiracy - hyperbole is not your friend, any more than it is the friend of the promoter of any particular conspiracy theory. You're free to believe the Lone Gunman theory, but not to pretend that 50 years of research has produced no evidence against it summarised in at least moderately reputable sources. It would also be nice to rein in the "no shred of evidence" hyperbole when there is an unknown but substantial number of documents still classified (why? if he was such a lone wolf, what's there to hide at this remove?) and as recently as 1995 relevant documents were still being destroyed by the Secret Service. Podiaebba (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you consider "shred of evidence" hyperbolic, then I will phrase how I see it this way:
 * There is no solid, convincing evidence of a conspiracy. The evidence that Oswald fired the shots that hit Kennedy and Connally is persuasive and convincing. That is how the main articles about the assassination ought to present matters. The notable conspiracy theories can be presented in articles about those theories.
 * If new evidence come to light that convinces most reliable sources that there actually was a conspiracy, then the article can be changed at that time.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. I don't agree with that assessment, but that is the mainstream position as far as mainstream media goes (while it's solidly the minority position as far as the US public is concerned, as the article points out). Podiaebba (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought our community's norm was to seek a neutral point of view, as verified in reliable secondary sources. This seems quite different from the mainstream point of view, which, as historians (and other experts of all types) can tell you, is usually dumbed down and pretty wrong. groupuscule (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, neutrality is generally identified with the (Western) mainstream media position. Even excellent academic or media sources showing a particular mainstream media position to be wrong don't generally shift that understanding of neutrality, and on certain controversial topics like this one, a willingness of academics or reputable journalists to engage with the topic in any way that deviates from the mainstream view rapidly gives them an aura of unreliability entirely unconnected with whether anything they have said or written is actually shown to be wrong. As a result, reliability, whilst not formally tied to being (Western) mainstream, informally is. Podiaebba (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, in my own favorite topic area a single worker, presenting carefully researched, systematically marshalled evidence, has completely reversed the (cherished) mainstream position of 150 years. It took ten years of research, a dozen journal articles plus a major book, and ten more years of intellectual digestion and diffusion for this to happen, but now all serious writers endorse the new view. (See Phineas Gage.) (Full disclosure: I made a tiny contribution to that effort myself, though only after the war was pretty much already won anyway.) New doctrines are supposed to have to struggle against the old -- it brings out the best in them; see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Statistical hypothesis testing. Meanwhile, this page is supposed to be for discussion of how to improve the article in keeping with Wikipedia policies and practices, whether you like them or not. Its nominal topic is whether Oswald should be called "the perpetator" -- everyone seems to understand that the answer to that is Yes, according to policy and practices, and the discussion has drifted off into questioning those policies and practices themselves, which should be taken up elsewhere by those who wish to do so. I therefore propose that this thread be closed. EEng (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that this thread was never going anywhere, a comparison with the scientific use of the Phineas Gage case is clearly misleading, for reasons that really shouldn't need spelling out. Podiaebba (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you to spell it out, but since you can't possibly have absorbed the Gage material in the eight minutes between our two posts I don't think it would be enlightening. I'm glad you agree this thread is going nowhere, so let's all observe radio silence from here on out, shall we? EEng (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've absorbed that the Gage issue is about a nineteenth-century medical case with rather limited political ramifications either way, and with a pronounced lack of still-classified US government files. Roger? Over and out. Podiaebba (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As predicted you missed the point. Whether Gage had significant public consequences is irrelevant; in the little world of neuroscience there were prominent, influential individuals with a real investment in the old view, who were embarrassed by their reliance on faulty information about Gage. According to you ("Even excellent academic or media sources showing a particular mainstream media position to be wrong don't generally shift that understanding") these people would resist or undermine correction of the facts, with some kind of alliance-of-the-established-order assisting. That didn't happen. So I say again: whether Gage case has significant public consequences is irrelevant -- it certainly has consequences for the careers of people who care a lot about their careers, and your generalization is falsified. Sorry to have prolonged the discussion. I'll give you the last word if you want. EEng (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss the point - but you seem to have an oddly rose-tinted view of how paradigm shifts in academia work (quite often they only happen by older academics leaving, allowing younger ones to take up new ideas). The bottom line, which apparently does need spelling out, is that comparing a reluctance to concede even major academic error with the assassination of a US President and the cover-up thereof is prima facie absurd. Podiaebba (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (Why do I bother?) First you compared dismissal of conspiracy evidence to situations in which (you claim) "Even excellent academic or media sources showing a particular mainstream media position to be wrong don't generally shift that understanding". Now that I've given a counterexample to that, you've decided that it's absurd to compare academic disputes and assassination controversy -- except you're the one who made the comparison! And since you don't appear to be an academic, spare us the bromides about the old versus the young -- way more complex than that (and in the Gage case, it was the researcher in his 80s showing the younger ones the error of their ways). EEng (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're bothering either, seeing as you don't seem able to distinguish a mainstream media position and how media debate (especially on issues of major political significance) works from academic positions and how academic debate works (especially on science issues not of major political significance), or grasp that academic positions changing all the time isn't incompatible with a difficulty of paradigm shifts taking place. As an aside, I was an academic once (for the avoidance of snark, I left for personal reasons - it's not a family-friendly career, especially in the early stages). Podiaebba (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll let your last post lie as a monument to itself. EEng (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. (I can guess why, as you remain unable to distinguish distinguishable things and reckon my claim to do so is proof of self-contradiction when it isn't.) Podiaebba (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You might have a point if you were referring to an "excellent academic or media source" actually showing that mainstream media position to be wrong. Thus far, nothing you've posted or cited challenges the mountain of evidence which points to Oswald as the sole assassin. Indeed, thus far, nothing you've posted even ADDRESSES this evidence, which is why many of those who contend there was a conspiracy lack credibility with those mainstream media sources. Many of whom, incidentally, such as the New York Times and Life magazine, cited failings by the Warren Commission as a reason to re-examine the case, which is what happened, and those questions were by and large answered. Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not at this time attempting to persuade anyone of anything. If you're engaged enough to be posting here, then you ought to be engaged enough to, eg, look up the criticism of Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History, which is the most comprehensive attempt to defend the Lone Gunman theory. [Unsurprisingly, none of the details of that makes it into the WP article on the book, leaving a general impression of pointless whinging instead of substantive critique.] Podiaebba (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've read critiques of the Buglioisi book and they are, for the most part, narrowly focused on perceived anomalies left inadequately addressed (they feel), or not addressed at all in the book but of slight signifigance, while ignoring the substantive point - that the mountain of evidence points to Oswald and Oswald alone. Questioning the chain of custody on 399, for example, doesn't negate the rest of the evidence. And to pretend ALL the evidence is "faked" or "planted" is intellectually dishonest as it requires a Rube Goldberg-designed assassination conspiracy, and this is outside of the unique abiulity of some of this crowd to "know" what evidence is real and which is planted/faked. This is the main problem with virtually all of the conspiracy theories out there - they not only usually fail to address the evidence which the Warren Commission and the HSCA used to assess and conclude Oswald fired the shots which struck, they IGNORE it and fail to identify alternate scenarios WHICH FIT THE EVIDENCE. It's all very well and fine to claim Oswald couldn't have been on the sixth floor. You HAVE to account for the evidence which places him there, let alone explain what happened to the person on the sixth floor witnesses saw fire at the president!


 * To say the conspiracy crowd has failed to explain its case is being charitable. They are good at tossing out scenarios, they are bad at linking it to the evidence we have. The echo chamber which is the conspiracy crowd doesn't seem to get that if this had gone to trial, the evidence which points to Oswald would have had to be addressed. And that this would have been a very, very easy case to prove in court. Canada Jack (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Questioning the chain of custody on 399, for example, doesn't negate the rest of the evidence.  - well that statement is hard to disagree with. I would add to it that a planted bullet 399 is perfectly compatible with Oswald being the shooter (it's possible to frame a guilty man when the evidence isn't there, and there was rather good reason post hoc to try hard to rule out any possible Soviet or Cuban conspiracy). And to pretend ALL the evidence is "faked" or "planted" is intellectually dishonest - just as it's intellectually dishonest to pretend (a) that the only way evidence ever points in the wrong direction is when it's "faked", not to mention (b) that intelligence assets (or indeed anyone else, but covert intelligence operatives are used to being ordered to do weird and potentially criminal things) can't be directed to do things that they only later realise was intended to incriminate them for a crime as yet uncommitted. Podiaebba (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is possible to construct a scenario that explains all the evidence in a way that admits a scenario where Oswald conspired with others, but Rube Goldberg has already been mentioned. The support for any one particular conspiracy scenario would be best described as small, and the evidence smaller, if not non-existent (because of the official cover-up). Perhaps we are in the position of trying to pick the one true God from all the many contenders, in a world where many if not most humans believe to a greater or lesser degree. The popular view may well be that there is a particular god or set of gods that controls all the functions of the universe, but the evidence gives no convincing proof of any one situation. Best to stick with the evidence.
 * That is my view, and it is one that holds an open mind as vital. If someone comes along and presents compelling evidence for a particular god or that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, then I will switch my views. I think any reasonable person would do the same.
 * But where is the evidence of a conspiracy? It has not presented itself in fifty years. It must have involved a great many people, but none of them have come forward. And what's the point? If most Americans believe there was a conspiracy, then where is the need for silence? Why has nobody jumped ship, presented their compelling evidence, and made a fortune, eternal fame and the true vindication of their individual life in their declining years? Where are the deathbed confessions?
 * I suggest that those supporting a conspiracy as the mainstream view that Wikipedia ought to present, turn their attention to our article on the subject. I have just reviewed that article and it is an absolute hodgepodge of competing theories, none of them holding any preponderance of evidence. Indeed, evidence seems to be a negative for a good theory. If we can work up a good alternative scenario, with evidence to match, and it makes its way through the consensus and other wiki processes, then we can finally show our detractors that we are a serious encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I would add to it that a planted bullet 399 is perfectly compatible with Oswald being the shooter Doesn't make much sense, pod. That's because we have about 50 separate pieces of evidence pointing to Oswald as the killer. What would the particular "need" be to plant false evidence in this case? Something fishy would easily be realized if the planted bullet wasn't compatible with the other evidence. Further, if one is to plant evidence, doesn't it sorta make sense to plant a bullet which is a bit more roughed-up than CE 399? There's been a lot of debate over whether the bullet could have remained so relatively intact, not sure if you've noticed. And, wasn't it lucky that the planters put a bullet there which didn't lose LESS of its original mass than the fragments found on Connally? This is another example of failing to see the forest for the trees for the conspiracy crowd who focus on chains of custody and confusion about what exactly was seen, rather than the actual evidence and what it says. The bullet was fired from the particular rifle, that has been proven. Its shape - flattened laterally, lead extruded, is compatible with the bullet plowing into Connally sideways, hitting the rib and then entering his wrist backwards, depositing lead which was matched to the lead of CE 399, EXACTLY what the WC suggested and what the wounds suggest. So ALL of this had to be anticipated by the planter. It's amazing that some in the conspiracy crowd think this is MORE likely than what the WC claimed - but there you go. Which is why it is hard to take many of the conspiracy claims seriously, as they fail to use any common sense or ask "if I claim x, what does this imply about other evidence?"


 * just as it's intellectually dishonest to pretend (a) that the only way evidence ever points in the wrong direction is when it's "faked" Well, sure, pod, but I am at a loss to think of ANY evidence touted by conspiracy theorists as being described as "faked" by supporters of the lone gunman theory (outside of the disinformation the Soviets put out)! However, I can think of about a million examples of claims of "faked" or "planted" evidence which establishes the lone gunman theory by those who espouse conspiracies.


 * (b) that intelligence assets ...can't be directed to do things that they only later realise was intended to incriminate them for a crime as yet uncommitted. ??? What is the relevance of this comment? If that is a reference to, say, Oswald handing out pro-Cuban leaflets or otherwise spending months "posing" as a leftist, the Warren Commission based its conclusion on the culpability of Oswald not on his various political activities or status as a moody loner, but by the trail of physical evidence in the sniper's nest, his connection to the murder weapon, his previous actions that day and on the day before, and his actions in the hour or so after the assassination. But perhaps it's not a surprise that the conspiracy crowd likes to avoid talking about the events the day of and build some weird case of Oswald being "groomed" - so as to avoid addressing the mountain of evidence produced Nov 22 1963 which points to LHO and him alone. Canada Jack (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This thread has really lost whatever little purpose it had. Let's leave it. If I get round to doing anything substantial on this topic, we may cross paths again. :) I'll just leave you with a reply to (b) that this is a reference to the likelihood of Oswald being part of the CIA's fake defector programme, and the likelihood of being an FBI agent provocateur on his return. PS really, you've no idea what evidence Oswald might have been directed to create? When he could have acquired a rifle by any number of means that left no paper trail, but he went for mail order? Podiaebba (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Pod, if you cannot follow the thrust of the discussion and instead feel the need to bail out when you cannot address the points raised, do you accept that this action merely reinforces the views of those holding contrary opinions? And how do you feel about this within yourself? No criticism; you are entitled to your opinions, but I wonder how this can reinforce your own claim to intellectual integrity. Surely a reasonable person would accept that when the facts do not support a particular view, that view is not worth holding. After all, you are asking others to pursue the same logic by presenting your own arguments. --Pete (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, pod, we'll leave it. PS really, you've no idea what evidence Oswald might have been directed to create? When he could have acquired a rifle by any number of means that left no paper trail, but he went for mail order? Hmmmm. Have you read the Warren Report? If you have, then you should recall that Oswald's actions on that fateful day were the key items to link him to the murders, not a paper trail to the rifle. Besides, his purchase of the rifle was only one piece of evidence which linked him to the murder weapon. He was photographed with it, as confirmed by Marina, and his fingerprints were on the rifle, and he was seen carrying a package he refused to explain. But it's really only the conspiracy crowd which cites Oswald's mail-order purchase - as opposed to an anonymous in-person purchase - as "suspicious." As if it is "convenient" that there is direct evidence linking him to the murder weapon. Right. Given that his attempted assassination of Walker followed his receipt of the rifle by mere days, perhaps he was not unreasonably worried that he might be remembered for the purchase of the potential murder weapon, and given his anti-social nature, he may have only known of two routes to get a firearm - via the mails, via gun shops. (And, since he had a good chance of being caught for that, why blow your asset on killing Walker in the first place? Or does the conspiracy crowd ever think through the consequences of their silly premises?) Bottom line, no one but the conspiracy crowd finds this suspicious. Canada Jack (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's any number of possible explanations for the points you make - including that there was no conspiracy. I really don't wish to discuss it in any detail, because it's over a decade since I actually read around this topic in any detail (I just dipped into recently because of all the anniversary hooha). Podiaebba (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If he wanted to create a paper trail, then why use a false name? --Pete (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that actually a real question you put substantial thought into? Podiaebba (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a simple and obvious objection to the "paper trail" surmise. To my limited intellect, it seems like an effort to avoid being linked with the rifle. --Pete (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The "paper trail" suggestion was in the context of Oswald being told to do things as an intelligence operative the significance of which he didn't understand at the time. Constructing the paper trail under a false identity could easily be a part of that (with the false identity to be exposed later). Podiaebba (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A zillion posts ago I said
 * this page is supposed to be for discussion of how to improve the article in keeping with Wikipedia policies and practices, whether you like them or not. Its nominal topic is whether Oswald should be called "the perpetrator" -- everyone seems to understand that the answer to that is Yes, according to policy and practices, and the discussion has drifted off into questioning those policies and practices themselves, which should be taken up elsewhere by those who wish to do so. I therefore propose that this thread be closed.

To my startled gratification Podiaebba agreed, yet some evil impulse compelled me to immediately shatter the peace. I therefore feel dutybound attempt restoration of that peace. Once again: this thread should be closed. No more final shots, no more rejoinders, because such would have no relation to improving the article. EEng (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The subsequent discussion has been both harmless and useless, but oddly difficult to end. Podiaebba (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell
I think it is notable that Bertrand Russell was an early critic of the Warren Commission, but my edit has been removed. He was one of the world's most prominent philosophers of the time, and would have given respectability and an international profile to "conspiracy theories". This is mentioned on his page.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bertrand Russell was 91 years old when JFK was assassinated. Though he was a great man, I am aware of no evidence that his observations on the assassination shed any special light on those events.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article about Russell says that he issued criticisms of the investigations of Kennedy's death before the Warren Commission report was issued. How can we cite the criticisms of a 92 year old man when the report had not yet been issued? And given the statement that Russell compared the accusations against Oswald with the Dreyfuss Affair, we have reasons to doubt the criticisms. There is overwhelming evidence against Oswald, so the two cases are not at all comparable.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I support mentioning it in the contexts of dissents/criticism, as it was a famous and significant criticism, but oppose citing it for statements of facts, as it is out of date and these questions have mostly been answered. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was famous and significant, there shouldn't be any problem citing a secondary source or two saying so. That's all I asked for. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, a reasonable request. It should be easy for the OP to find some citations.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 05:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see the point of listing prominent people who believe one thing or another about the assassination. Isn't this just the fallacy of an argument by authority? Unless Mr. Russell had some particular inside take or stake in the viewpoint, I fail to see how it is relevant. As opposed to, say, the views of the Kennedy family who DID have a particular stake in this. Canada Jack (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not an argument by authority, any more than mentioning the film JFK is. It just indicates how high profile the "conspiracy theories" were from the start.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, unless Bertrand Russell is recognized as having some particular unique insight to the assassination, it is merely his opinion, and is therefore irrelevant. MOST people assumed from day one it was a conspiracy. Why not mention my next-door neighbour by name? This is a classic "argument by authority" fallacy. Your citation of "JFK" suggest you don't understand what is meant here. Canada Jack (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if your neighbour was internationally famous and set up an investigative committee in 1964, that would be notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's different, Jack. The way you framed it, it was Russell expressing an opinion, which carries as much weight as my neighbour expressing an opinion. However, if you want to insert something about the committee from 1964, that might work well in that section I wrote on the history of the conspiracy movement. Wasn't Lane also involved with Russell on this? Canada Jack (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Arguments against Oswald-substitution
Given that the repository was 'a busy place' a stranger wandering around would have been noticed (or at least mentioned after the event).

If there was 'a formal plot' a number of workers at the repository would have to be co-opted/had their silence bought over 'the stuff' being brought in, and there would always be the chance of someone coming across 'these bags don't belong here, what's in them... Boss, look at this.' (Along with the Presidential car having the cover on.) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the sort of idea that many in the Conspiracy crowd like to put forth, with zero evidence there in fact was such a plot. But you are correct, 80, if it wasn't Oswald in the window taking the shots, then who was it? We know there were shots fired from there. Multiple witnesses SAW a sniper taking shots. We also know that every employee was accounted for at the moment of the assassination. Save one. We also know that all employees returned to the building to be interviewed etc. Save one. We also know, with the exception of an elderly man being escorted to the washroom, that NO unknown persons were in the building. So, for there have to been multiple gunmen in the building, or a professional sniper, REQUIRES pretty well every employee there to be in on the plot. But the Conspiracy crowd generally don't go that far, they just typically ignore logic and common sense - let alone a ton of incriminating evidence - and focus on whether Oswald was seen with a bottle of Coke. Canada Jack (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Jack styles himself as the world's leading expert on people who believe that JFK was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy. But he represents our views very poorly.
 * "We also know...that NO unknown persons were in the building." Wow, how do we know that? Are we clairvoyant?
 * There is evidence that suggests that the crime was perpetrated by someone other than Oswald. If you want to take the position that none of that evidence is credible, fine. But don't tell me there is no evidence because there is.
 * No credible explanation has been provided as to how Oswald snuck a rifle into the building. The conclusions of the Warren Report on this subject contradict the facts.
 * The assassination occurred at 12:30 PM. Bonnie Ray Williams sat alone on the 6th floor eating lunch until 12:20, five minutes after the motorcade was supposed to pass. He saw and heard no one. Remember this is the time Oswald was supposed to be frantically building the sniper's nest and assembling his rifle.
 * Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the first floor lunch room at 12:25, exactly where he was seen six minutes later after the assassination.
 * Two people descendeded the staircase from the upper floors at the same time Oswald was supposed to have been racing down the staircase. They saw and heard no one. Those on the fifth floor, who described the scene as so quiet they could hear footsteps on the floor above them, never mentioned hearing anyone on the staircase.
 * Reenactments have suggested that Oswald just barely had enough time to get from the sniper's nest to the lunchroom. But all the reenactments I've heard of have left out a bunch of things Oswald supposedly did. Specifically, either climbing over or opening and closing again the sniper's nest, dodging back and forth between boxes to get across the room, dropping the rifle between stacks of boxes and then pushing another heavy box over it, and arriving at the lunch room in time to operate the electric door and for it to close again.


 * "if it wasn't Oswald in the window taking the shots, then who was it?"
 * Arnold Rowland saw two men, one of a dark complexion by the sniper’s nest, and a second man with a rifle at the western most window, far opposite from the sniper’s nest.
 * Carolyn Walther saw two men, one with a gun. One of the two had a “darker complexion.”
 * Ruby Henderson saw two men, one of whom she described as possibly Mexican or negro.
 * John Powell from the 6th floor of the Dallas County Jail Bldg. saw two men, “one of whom appeared to have darker skin,” working on a scoped rifle.
 * And last, and least, we have Howard Brennan who would eventually identify Oswald, though he refused to who shown Oswald in a police lineup.
 * I'm not saying that all or any of these witnesses are necessarily credible. I am saying that there is more than one valid point of view to be considered, and that those who believe that there was a conspiracy are not all crazy, stupid and/or dishonest in the way that Jack characterizes us. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"We also know...that NO unknown persons were in the building." ''Wow, how do we know that? Are we clairvoyant?''

No, we know that because NONE of the employees saw anyone other than other employees in the building, we know that because from the moment of the assassination, all exits were watched by witnesses who saw no unknown persons flee. We also know that because someone fleeing from the 6th floor, where multiple persons saw someone fire shots, would have been seen by either Truly or Baker, by the two women descending from the 5th floor, or Lovelady etc who were on the first floor when those two descended. Indeed, the SOLE unknown person who entered the building was an elderly man who was assisted up to use the Depository washroom.

''No credible explanation has been provided as to how Oswald snuck a rifle into the building. The conclusions of the Warren Report on this subject contradict the facts.''

That is what we call a "lie." We have several witnesses who saw him carry a lengthy package when he went into work. A bag matching that description was found by the sniper's nest, it was of sufficient dimensions to carry the dissembled rifle. When asked during interrogation, Oswald denied he carried anything other than his lunch, and he denied he said anything about "curtain rods." All that evidence accounts for how Oswald carried the rifle, and why he would lie about it. The best the conspiracy crowd has is the uncertainty of the length of the package he carried. But there is no doubt he carried a lengthy package. Which still begs the questions: a) why did Oswald lie about carrying such a bag and b) where were the curtain rods? Not to be outdone, the CT crowd claim those two witnesses were "lying" about the package, but then why not ensure the "lie" sticks by ensuring they describe a longer bag? The WR had a simple explanation: Oswald lied, the witnesses were mistaken about the length of the package. NONE of the CT crowd explanations for this make ANY sense - why would Oswald lie?

Besides, even given that evidence - with Oswald's fingerprints on the bag he claimed didn't exist - we aren't talking about smuggling an elephant in. He could have walked the rifle in on any number of occasions without being noticed. The only "mystery" is why getting the rifle in the building is seen by some in the conspiracy crowd as some sort of Houdini-like feat.

''Arnold Rowland saw two men, one of a dark complexion by the sniper’s nest, and a second man with a rifle at the western most window, far opposite from the sniper’s nest. Carolyn Walther saw two men, one with a gun. One of the two had a “darker complexion.” Ruby Henderson saw two men, one of whom she described as possibly Mexican or negro.''

Joe, you make this all too easy. The ONLY people who claim there were unknown people there... were people outside who weren't employees! If several EMPLOYEES were saying this, well, that's something. But that's not what we have here. The CT crowd never explains how these people escaped the notice of the TSBD employees. If we assume there indeed was a second man - well, what happened to him? Vanished into thin air? And, with witnesses like Arnold, he said nothing of a second man when first interviewed and when he first said that in front of the WC, even his wife said this was the first she heard of it. We KNOW who the "dark complexion" man was - Bonnie Ray Williams who ate up there after noon. Sure, there were two on that floor - maybe even at the same time. But Williams didn't know Oswald was there. He saw NO ONE else up there. Powell is even more of a joke - he couldn't have seen what he claims to have seen from the jail.

Yet, predictably, you supply the contradictory evidence. ''The assassination occurred at 12:30 PM. Bonnie Ray Williams sat alone on the 6th floor eating lunch until 12:20, five minutes after the motorcade was supposed to pass. He saw and heard no one. Remember this is the time Oswald was supposed to be frantically building the sniper's nest and assembling his rifle.''

Just a second - wasn't this when your OTHER witnesses talked of two men there? So... why didn't Williams see them? Was he part of the conspiracy? Since the witness accounts describe someone who sounds suspiciously like Williams, the logical inference is that these people saw Williams - and Oswald - but not at the same time, conflating that.

Besides, the nest existed, did it not? So your point that Oswald couldn't have frantically been building the nest... is moot. The nest was built, or do you deny that too? And multiple witnesses SAW a man firing what appeared to be a fully assembled rifle from that very window. Whoever Williams did or didn't see is moot when one realizes that indeed someone fired from there! Another example of common sense and simple logic seeming to escape the Conspiracy crowd. Williams didn't see Oswald! So what! He didn't see whoever fired the shots, whether it was Oswald or Krusty the Klown! Next irrelevant point, guys? Further, even if we accept your rather late time for the completion of Williams' lunch, that still gave Oswald 10 minutes up there alone.

In the end, the conspiracy theories on this not only defy logic and common sense, they contradict each other!

In the end, it's not that these people are crazy etc. It is that a) NONE of these accounts stand up to scrutiny and b) any unknown person would not have escaped the building without being seen. Since ALL the employees were accounted for at the moment of the assassination - save one - the question the conspiracy crowd never addresses is Who, if not Oswald, was there?

And, it's not about a "different viewpoint," it's that the claim there were others besides Oswald doesn't add up as there were no others except Oswald left who could have carried out the act. And the conspiracy crowd conspicuously avoid employing logic and common sense here. Canada Jack (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "That is what we call a "lie." We have several witnesses who saw him carry a lengthy package when he went into work. A bag matching that description was found by the sniper's nest,"
 * Wrong. Two witnesses saw Oswald with a bag they described in detail, as NOT resembling the bag found in the SPD, and not long enough to contain the rifle. Furthermore, no one saw him carry a bag into work, in point of fact he was seen going into work that morning without any bag.
 * This is not the first time you've called me a liar, when I have the facts correct.
 * What exactly is your problem? Why can you not simply state the facts, and what you think they mean, without attacking everyone who disagrees with you as a liar and crazy or stupid? Especially since your "mastery" of the facts is nothing to write home about. You're sometimes wrong, but you don't see me calling you a liar. Grow the hell up. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So you admit Oswald was carrying a bag? Then why did Oswald vehemently deny carrying one? And since he said he was carrying "curtain rods," which would account for a bag carrying in fact a rifle, then why did he also deny saying that? The answer is completely obvious to anyone outside of the conspiracy crowd. They take the quick glimpses from two witnesses - which don't even agree amongst themselves as to the description - and take that as the gospel truth.

Yes, no one saw him carry a bag other than those two - but no one saw him going into work that day either. So does that mean we can't prove he went to work? How'd he get to work? Can we prove it? This is how the conspiracy crowd gets sillier and sillier as if the issue of Oswald carrying a package into work is some giant mystery. It ain't. But, as I've said before, this crowd needs proof that the sun rose in the east on a particular day.

This is not the first time you've called me a liar, when I have the facts correct.

To claim that THE evidence (not "some" evidence) contradicts the contention from the Warren Commission that Oswald carried a rifle into the building is a complete and utter LIE, Joe, and you know it. YOU were the one who claimed that evidence "contradicts" the Warren Commission on this point. "The conclusions of the Warren Report on this subject contradict the facts." Bullshit. Given the evidence, the logical conclusion is that Oswald carried the dissembled rifle into the TSBD. The CT seizes on the estimates several witnesses gave as to the length of the package. Those were ESTIMATES, Joe. They didn't use a tape measure. If they knew it held a rifle he'd use to shoot the president, they'd presumably have made more careful judgements. The simple FACT that they offer contradictory descriptions should give a clue to most that there was uncertainty here.

The problem with too many in the CT crowd is they like to point out discrepancies, yet fail to tie together a logical sequence of events. Indeed, to use logic and common sense. Here is Joe on one of the CT contentions, that Oswald didn't have time to get down the stairs etc. ''Two people descendeded the staircase from the upper floors at the same time Oswald was supposed to have been racing down the staircase. They saw and heard no one. Those on the fifth floor, who described the scene as so quiet they could hear footsteps on the floor above them, never mentioned hearing anyone on the staircase.''

Hmmmm... But we KNOW someone fired shots from the 6th floor - we have all those witnesses who saw the sniper. So... what happened to the sniper? Not Oswald? Then who was it? What happened to that person? If one uses common sense, even if one says it wasn't Oswald, well SOMEONE was there and that SOMEONE escaped. Another point with the two women - they didn't see Oswald. But... they also didn't see Truly and Baker - which they surely would have given the time constraints. If not on the stairs, then on the first floor. But Lovelady says he got there - and the women arrived. When one maps it out, one realizes that those two women HAD to have gone down AFTER Baker and Truly went up the stairs.

Or, they use "evidence" which came 15 years after the fact, like Carolyn Arnold's claim she saw Oswald in the lunchroom 5 minutes before the assassination. Trouble is, she started saying that in 1978, and gave no such evidence in 1963. Which makes the claim dubious to say the least. But that's nothing new - they claim Jean Hill "saw" a knoll sniper, even though she is on TV tapes from Nov 22 1963 saying she saw "no one." Right. These people have made a lot of money off suckers, suckers like me when I bought this bullshit hook line and sinker. Canada Jack (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "To claim that THE evidence (not "some" evidence) contradicts the contention from the Warren Commission that Oswald carried a rifle into the building is a complete and utter LIE, Joe, and you know it." Yeah. But since I never said that, no problem. I said "the facts," meaning "multiple facts," not "every single fact," and no one but you would read it as "every single fact."
 * Yeah I'm real familiar with how you measure credibility. If witnesses support the conclusion that Oswald acted alone, they're credible. Otherwise, they're not. You also assured me in no uncertain terms that Marina testified that she saw Oswald practicing with his rifle, when she never testified to any such thing. Liar liar pants on fire. See, I can do it too. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Missed this comment. Not sure when I said that about Marina - in terms of Lee firing with the rifle, no she never said that. What I have claimed is that she saw hi practicing the bolt on the enclosed porch, and he said he went off elsewhere to take shots. So either I wasn't specific enough, or my comment wasn't interpreted the way I intended. From the WC: Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn at any time that he had been practicing with the rifle? Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he went once or twice. I didn't actually see him take the rifle, but I knew that he was practicing. Mr. RANKIN. Could you give us a little help on how you knew? Mrs. OSWALD. He told me. And he would mention that in passing---it isn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going"---it wasn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going to take the rifle and go and practice." But he would say, "Well, today I will take the rifle along for practice." And... as for working the bolt.... Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about his practicing with the rifle, the telescopic lens, on the back porch at New Orleans, and also his using the bolt action that you heard from time to time. Will you describe that a little more fully to us, as best you remember? Mrs. OSWALD. I cannot describe that in greater detail. I can only say that Lee would sit there with the rifle and open and close the bolt and clean it. No, he didn't clean it at that time. Yes--twice he did clean it. Mr. RANKIN. And did he seem to be practicing with the telescopic lens, too, and sighting the gun on different objects? Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know. The rifle was always with this. I don't know exactly how he practiced, because I was in the house, I was busy. I just knew that he sits there with his rifle. I was not interested in it. Mr. RANKIN. Was this during the light of the day or during the darkness? Mrs. OSWALD. During darkness. Canada Jack (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

People do 'misremember the past' especially when things are not seen as significant at the time but are afterwards linked to something significant, and 'a few minutes' can be subjective (try asking someone who has just looked at their watch what the time is - they usually have to look at it again).

It was in Oswald's interests not to incriminate himself as he did not have A Cause To Justify And Promote.

'Reversing the polarities' - if there was a conspiracy whoever was found to be responsible (and there would always be loose ends/someone having a good reason to reveal the information - as with Alexander Butterworth and the Nixon tapes/bizarre links (looking for Lord Lucan and finding John Stonehouse)) would find themselves in much trouble very fast.

If someone was out to 'get Kennedy' the way to go would have been 'aggressive string pulling' ('you do X or exect the dirt in all the newspapers'). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

All LHO had to do was to discuss 'new curtains for his residence' - then people would 'see' a bag of curtain rods.

If there had been no clear line of sight for the assassination attempt and LHO had taken the gun away would the 'sniper's nest' have been seen merely as 'them #### skiving off again for a smoke and a game of cards.' Has anyone checked 'the windows and mirrors' - the 'second person' thus being a reflection?

Having another person involved in the repository goes against Occam's Razor - it would make more sensee to have them somewhere else.

Nobody expected the assassination (or any violence) - so they did not keep a record of exactly what they were doing when.

If there was an organised conspiracy, there would be notes/drafts/plans of action, and people 'keeping a record to prove that they were not the person most responsible or so they could sell their story to the papers' etc. Given that it is 50 years since the event, and no such material has turned up, the case for 'a conspiracy to assassinate the President' (as distinct from a 'Kennedy out in 1964' campaign) is very weak.

If it was desired to force an outcome - information is presented to JFK in a way that he is encouraged to go in the desired way (and this includes LBJ). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Was John Connally also seated lower than President Kennedy?
In the "Others wounded" section, I find this: "Connally, who had been in a seat forward of Kennedy and three inches to his left, ..."

But was Connally also seated LOWER than Kennedy? There is a comment about this in the talk page of JFK (film), for which I recall someone pointing the erroneous placement of Connally directly forward of Kennedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a comprehensive examination at Single bullet theory, but the short answer is that Connally was seated in a jump seat lower and to the left of Kennedy's. --Pete (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

News reports circulating on July 29,2013
News reports on July 29, 2013 report another independent study of the assassination, this one coming from Australia. A news headline suggests a Secret Service Agent as a second shooter. This is partially consistent with a prior film documentary I had seen which reported secret service agents on foot told to pull back from the car as it entered Dealey Plaza. Perhaps someone might wish to research these latest reports, and enter something into the article. Marc S., Dania fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur. This is a pretty important study and should probably be included. The central idea (I believe) is that the Secret Service Agent involved was in one of the preceding vehicles and in his attempt to prime and raise his weapon accidentally let off this round which caused the second of Kennedy's wounds. Out of the theories put out, it seems one of the more plausible and certainly warrants inclusion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.102.197 (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What are the reliable sources covering this? -- Neil N   talk to me  15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The author, Colin McLaren, details the authoritative sources he accessed during four and a half years of study in this interview by the Australian Broadcasting Commission []. I have been adding that link to the External Link sections, but Skyring keeps UnDoing it. SkyRing erroneously claimed the link was to a conspiracy theory. It isn't. It obviates conspiracy by showing the bullet was fired by an untrained agent erroneously. Clearly, SkyRing did not even study the link before editing it out. Mkidson (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I listened to half the interview and it details a fringe theory as it has not been widely accepted by experts in the field. The link should be kept out of the article until it can be shown McLaren's theory has gained widespread acceptance. -- Neil N  talk to me  01:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"The central idea (I believe) is that the Secret Service Agent involved was in one of the preceding vehicles and in his attempt to prime and raise his weapon accidentally let off this round which caused the second of Kennedy's wounds." This theory has received high prominence on television here (Sydney, Australia) in the last couple of days. Having watched this coverage myself, I can safely say that the theory referred to concludes that a secret service man in a *following* car (not a preceding one) accidentally shot JFK. 203.9.151.254 (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The original theory is by Howard Donahue and is described in detail by Bonar Menninger in his 1992 book Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK. According to the WP article on the book Australian investigator Colin McLaren created a 90-minute documentary on Howard Donahue's theory including interviews with Menninger. The program aired on Nov 3, 2013 in Australia and in an abridged form on Nov 13, 2013 in the UK. The WP article describes the theory and gives comprehensive references, which may satisfy NeilN's request for reliable sources. The WP article on this book has been around since Nov 2006 and the book therefore presumably satisfies WP:N. At the very least it seems there should be a brief description of the theory here and a pointer to the article. Wellset (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Wellset I would still oppose adding this here. There are over two dozen theories detailed in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and most of them are not mentioned here. -- Neil N  talk to me  16:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories currently lists thirteen conspiracy theories and then briefly describes fourteen other published theories  including this one.


 * This one is however unusual in that it proposes a second shooter who is not part of a conspiracy (or at least not at the time of the shooting). It's compatible with the basic Warren Commission finding, that Oswald acted alone, while rejecting almost all of its basis. As Menninger has often pointed out, it's a third possibility, and appeals to neither faction. It probably deserves some extra attention if only for that reason. Andrewa (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Timing of the Depository Job
Oswald applies for the job on 15 Oct. and is hired immediately. Later in the article it mentions the press releases details of the President's route 2 days prior to the assassination. Oswald's ability to kill Kennedy depends completely upon his job at the Depository, yet the article seems to describe this as a "happy accident". Someone learns of a job opportunity, tells someone who tells Oswald, who then applies, and relies on a friend, who also works there, in order to commute weekly. He stays in a Boarding room during the week in order to work. This is the general impression I get from the Article, and it is so fantastic that it is beyond my ability to believe it. I cannot believe that Oswald "just happens" to get a job at a location that is essential for murdering Kennedy. As a reader, I'd like some attention paid to this area of the sequence of events. Either there are legitimate questions and answers that are available, or legitimate "conspiracy theories" that try to explain it. As it stands right now, the absence of necessary attention to these questions is an impediment to the article's readability. Jonny Quick (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For such a thing to be more than an accident would require a number of people, including Roy Truly and Ruth Paine, to be assassination conspirators. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 05:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , your "just happens" notion requires us to conclude that Oswald got the job for the purpose of assassinating Kennedy. No serious student of the assassination claims that. He got that job because he needed a job, and it was the sort of job a pathetic sad sack could get in the 1963 Texas job market. Entirely by coincidence, it gave him the opportunity on November 22. He earlier had an opportunity to kill General Walker, and only a wooden window crossbar deflected the bullet and saved Walker's life by a literal hair. If the motorcade had taken a different route, Oswald may have tried to kill someone else prominent, whenever he had the chance. He seems to have decided that his destiny was to kill a perceived enemy of Fidel Castro, and there were many such targets. JFK was just the victim who happened to come into the range of his successful rifle shots.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * funnily enough, the other day I randomly came across some articles by Russ Baker, based on his book, and having not dealt with this topic for over a decade, I learnt something new which piqued my interest enough to engage with it again (I was doing my best to ignore all the hooha). The Texas School Book Depository building could have been owned by anybody... but it wasn't, it was owned by David Harold Byrd, a major figure in the Civil Air Patrol and a man connected to George de Mohrenschildt (at least via the Dallas Petroleum Club; it's also suggested that Byrd once employed de Mohrenschildt at one of his companies). Hum. Coincidence was working even harder than we thought, I guess. Podiaebba (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Buildings are generally owned by rich, well-connected people. You draw enough lines, everyone is connected.  I read a story the other day about a person who witnessed the assassination who was a handyman who had worked on Jack Ruby's house.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, I really don't want to get sucked into discussing this topic much here (where opinions are probably even more entrenched on both sides than usual)... and on the other hand, it's hard to let that remark lie. How many people were there on the day - hundreds? thousands? I forget, but it was a lot. It's highly likely that some of them had connections that might appear interesting, even though they're just there by chance. But mere presence isn't in itself very interesting - we're talking about understanding the causality of an event, and merely being there doesn't really tell you anything about what might have happened. Unless there's some evidence the handyman actually did something to cause the event (or cause Ruby's follow-up, or do something else of interest), then his presence is neither here nor there. Now in this specific instance, we're trying to understand how Oswald came to be employed at the Texas Book School Depository. The default assumption is surely that he happened upon that employment by coincidence. In testing that assumption, we have to look at what evidence might call that assumption into question; that is why I mentioned Byrd. Now you're perfectly free to sustain belief in the default assumption (there is after all no evidence, AFAIK, of Byrd actually doing anything relevant to the event), but making irrelevant comparisons or "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon - we're all connected somehow" sort of points isn't helpful. Real criminal conspiracies, many involving murder, are regularly litigated in courts around the world, and there's a certain process involved in prosecutors trying to prove them. That process doesn't involve them starting with the view "what? people working together to do something bad and then trying to cover it up? well that's just nuts." Incidentally, if the evidence trickling out over the decades was pointing to a Soviet or Cuban conspiracy, I rather think the political acceptability of challenging the Warren Commission conclusion might be a bit different, don't you? Food for thought, just possibly. Podiaebba (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't want to get sucked into this either. So if you have RS for this, go raise it at the Conspiracy page. EEng (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * RS for this - this what? There is RS sourcing for Byrd's ownership at Texas School Book Depository. I have no ambitions to pursue the matter beyond that. Podiaebba (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

OTOH if it's not coincidence with Oswald killing based on chance opportunity, then how? Wes Frazier and Roy Truly, the guy who hired Oswald both have to be lying and in on the plot. But siting THEM is a bitch. Truly, who hired Oswald, had worked there for years. How did he get corrupted ? Frazier has only worked there a few months, but too long to have been sited there after the route was decided. And how the hell did the Bad Guys manage to site Frazier, who told the Oswalds about the job, as a neighbor of the Paines ?? S B Harris 01:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough to get into the details of that. I can only say that it's really irritating when people imply that every tiny cog must be "lying and in on [all of] the plot". People can be misled, manipulated, coerced, do things because they're asked by a friend or employer, etc etc, without having faintest idea of what they're a small part of until afterwards (and maybe not even then, if it's not a big public thing). Afterwards, Cover Your Ass creates an inbuilt momentum to hide their role. Others involved in cover-up may be given excellent reasons for it by superiors ("national security" covers a lot; so does protecting the mistakes of institutions someone is a part of) again without necessarily knowing what it is that they're covering up. People tend to create false analogies between the sort of thing we're talking about and criminal or terrorist conspiracies where generally everyone involved has at least a general idea of what they're involved with. But as soon as you get criminal or terrorist elements infiltrating state or private institutions, they can and do use and manipulate people and institutions to their own ends. Latin American narcostates are one good example of how bad things can get. Podiaebba (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But these are not small cogs. These are people who had to do what they did, or the president would not have been assassinated. Ruth Paine, now 81, is still alive and helped restore her little house in Irving to a museum. She and her husband took in the destitute and pregnant Marina Oswald and her child in September, after Marina came back to Dallas from New Orleans. They didn't like Lee much, but they let him stay on weekends, and they knew he had a rifle in a blanket in the garage (Marina went to look after the assassination, and it was gone). Ruth Paine wanted to learn Russian and that was how she met Marina, year before. But the Oswalds would have been stuck out in Irving, a suburb, if it hadn't been for a Paine neighbor, Wesley B. Frazier. He worked at the book depository and told everybody there was a job there. Lee, who was out of work, applied in October. Roy Truly hired him because he was polite and his Marine training made him automatically say "sir" to older men. That was it. He drove with Frazier back and forth on Fridays and Mondays, except (memorably) went back to the house on the Thursday evening before the Friday assassination, something he'd done only once before on a weekday (when his second daughter was born). And took back with him a LONG package. Had none of these people done what they did, Oswald wouldn't have been working in the building JFK passed under (Oswald has no car, and couldn't drive anyway). And he couldn't even have gotten his weapon there. So-- how did the bad guys get all these people to DO these things? And not talk?  S  B Harris 03:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I meant what I said about not knowing enough to get into the details of it. Right now I can only respond again with generalities: (a) if there was a conspiracy, then just because things turned out a certain way doesn't mean that this was the only option the conspiracy left itself (cf attempted assassination of John F. Kennedy). (b) don't underestimate the ability of intelligence types to obfuscate how things get arranged a certain way (eg using, as far as possible, people who can't talk because they're oblivious of their role) - this is their speciality, and quite often their lives may depend on it as well as their livelihoods. And a point I keep making: if Oswald was an intelligence asset, that gives a lot of power to the elbow of someone trying to steer him in certain directions in way that would appear coincidental ("hey, there's someone you should meet, but make it look an accident. Here's information A,B,C about the target; do X, Y and Z; and you should be able to strike up a relationship...."). Oswald, lest we forget, didn't get to talk, and if that was planned, he could have done the bulk of the leg work setting himself up. Podiaebba (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We deal in wikipolicy here. It's the way things work and we make a useable encyclopaedia from sources and editors with different opinions. We deal in reliable sources, not speculation, not synthesis. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no call for that snippy statement of the obvious. Podiaebba (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oswald had two days to talk! He might be the most resourceful, underpaid and under-prepared "intelligence asset" in history. He had NO CAR. He lived on lunch-meat sandwiches. He had NO MONEY ($170 at the end). He had a $20 rifle that couldn't be exactly be sighted in (though it was close). He had to watch his children get substandard medical care and no home. He knew he was facing the electric chair, but wasn't going to talk. Where do they FIND these guys? ;) Not in the yellow pages. Can you imagine what the job description must look like?

''WANTED: mission impossible class agent. Brilliant acting needed. You put together your own equipment out of nothing, and set up your own kill. You work minimum wage and that's your funds. Your family suffers. No money or equipment provided. Suicide job, with possible state execution. Apply within.'' And when he does, they tell him it's his patriotic duty to give up everything and... KILL THE PRESIDENT. S  B Harris 07:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah - who ever heard, for example, of an undercover police agent living a shitty life for a while in order to get close to a criminal target? And it's really quite unthinkable that a man willing to defect to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War and then mysteriously return when the Soviets didn't think much of him might have been someone willing to put up with a certain amount of crap in furtherance of his beliefs. You also appear to be willfully missing the point that (a) Oswald need not have known what exactly he was involved in and (b) there were a lot of people who thought Kennedy was a danger to the country, and it's hardly a stretch that Oswald thought so too. Podiaebba (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And don't forget the bit about how If you are caught, or killed, The Secretary will disavow any part of your actions. Good luck, Lee. So you see, it all fits. EEng (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's just fiction. Intelligence agents never work in conditions of plausible deniability where they know they will be disowned if it goes tits up, and never have. Podiaebba (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Intelligence agents don't take their families into cover with them, and undercover cops don't do that, either. It's one thing to suffer danger and privation yourself, and another to see your kids get bad medical care. Do you ever read about Serpico's CHILDREN undercover with him? No (he had none then). And wives are a problem (the real Frank Serpico got divorced while in plainclothes). Where was Richard Sorge's wife in Japan? The woman he cared about was elsewhere. Cops in particular expect to be rewarded after a stint undercover. They don't expect a suicide assignment. Anyway, all you people who think Oswald was the worst-treated agent in history, I presume you all still agree that Oswald did the shooting (with his $19.95 rifle which was one year shy of being as old as he was?) S  B Harris 22:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

And just how is all this fantasy talk improving the encyclopaedia? Plato in Gorgias puts it elegantly. Either we work together to discover the truth, holding no unshakeable opinions, or we let it be, eschewing conflict. --Pete (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And it's really quite unthinkable that a man willing to defect to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War and then mysteriously return when the Soviets didn't think much of him might have been someone willing to put up with a certain amount of crap in furtherance of his beliefs. This is an example of a statement where it is clear you are not terribly well-versed in the literature on this subject. Oswald was initially refused entry by the Soviets, and his actions - if he was indeed some agent - destroyed his usefulness as an agent for the West, as if there was any such role for him anyway. Further, the fact he married a Soviet citizen - with possible family intelligence ties - rather destroyed his usefulness for the East, and meant he could not be trusted in the West. Which is why the FBI, for one, was keeping tabs on the couple. What is astounding is that anyone can claim this guy may have been with the CIA, FBI (!) or any other American agency with a straight face. RBH has had to walk you through some of the problems with your apparent willingness to give far more credence to notions Oswald was an agent, in terms of how he got the job at the TSBD, and I've pointed out that his actions of Nov 22 erase any doubt he was an unwilling accomplice in the assassination. Which basically destroys any possibility that Oswald was some sort of agent, sleeping, unwilling, or willing, whatever.


 * You seem to be a smart guy, Pod (or gal, sorry, not sure), and I was on the same journey you were on for many years. And what I see is that you have been exposed to a lot of the oddities of this case without a clear understanding of the logistics involved in terms of actually engaging Oswald as an agent. This is not a surprise as many in the conspiracy crowd routinely obscure these issues, and ignore evidence which says otherwise and, as I've said and RBH has underlined, "common sense" is a foreign term for them. In the end, it is nearly impossible to prove a negative - that Oswald was an agent. Or that the mafia was involved. Or the right wing, the Cubans, or the Anti-Castro Cubans. Or, for that matter, the Boy Scouts of America or the Manchester United football club. But his life has been microscopically examined and the evidence of activity which we'd expect from someone involved with one or more of those groups is simply not there, and the stream of expected witnesses simply have not materialized. But this doesn't stopm the true believers who STILL claim Oswald, for example, was hanging out with Guy Bannister (based on a witness who said so 15 years later, then, less crediblly, more much later), that he was seen with Shaw and Ferrie in Clinton (now proven to be an incident fabricated by Garrison's office) etc etc etc. Canada Jack (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * well, yes, I'm not deeply immersed in this stuff... and I do agree that proving anything at this point, absent there being smoking guns in classified files (and them ever being released...), is unlikely. But even with much confusion and false leads, circumstantial evidence can pile up. And there's the odd "huh? really?" thing like (as I came across recently) Ruby warning Dallas authorities on 24 November that Oswald would be killed if not adequately protected ... Anyway, I'm happy to bumble around the topic documenting this and that to WP standards - a general project which no-one should object to, since documenting misconceptions and errors by all manner of sources can't really hurt. Podiaebba (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with your link, which claims the killing of Oswald was set up, is that all the evidence shows it was spontaneous. Ruby was getting money sent to one of his girls in the post office, and if Oswald hadn't decided to change his shirt, Ruby would have arrived too late. As it was, he arrived only 30 seconds before he shot Oswald. Further, let's use a bit of common sense. The cop in the book claims Ruby called the night before to warn of the hit, and he knew it was Ruby. SO..... if Ruby in fact made the call, why weren't the rest of Dallas police notified? It seems to be a rather massive dereliction of duty to receive a phone threat FROM SOMEONE YOU KNOW and do nothing about it! Why wasn't this guy fired? Secondly, since when does the Mob telegraph when they are going do a hit? You may send a warning out to advise people to lay low - but not if you are the hitman! So, what's the logic here? "Okay Ruby, your job is to kill Oswald." Ruby: "Got it. But first I call someone I know at the police station and let them know there will be a hit." Mob guy: "Good plan. Let's warn them we are going to kill Oswald, just so they know the mob was behind it." Sorry, pod, but this makes precisely zero sense. Canada Jack (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm and misdirection does you discredit. Unless you simply disbelieve the Dallas police officer who said he identified Ruby as the anonymous caller, then there is a real issue, and trying to be silly about it isn't helpful. Not tightening security, in the extreme circumstances, can be explained without reference to conspiracy (though obviously it does raise questions, about cockup at least). On the other hand, Ruby's claimed reason for shooting Oswald was never even remotely believable, and warning the police only makes it more so. It looks an awful lot like Ruby was being pressured into shooting Oswald, and trying to avoid a situation where he could carry out the task, so he could back out without blame from whoever was pressuring him. It's hard to come up with any other explanation for the calls, other than "nah, the police officer must be lying". Podiaebba (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is helpful, actually, because it underlines the absurdity of the claim. A police officer receives a warning about the killing of a suspect in police custody and does nothing with that information?  That certainly makes his after the fact claim highly dubious.  This book does nothing to explore either the facts or the implications of this potentially significant allegation, and it is cited to a book by conspiracy monger Robert Groden, which makes it all the more dubious.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't know what the cop did or didn't do with the information - an assumption he did nothing because Ruby succeeded is obviously foolish. And you seem on the one hand to object to not following the implications of the claim, and on the other hand to it being sourced to someone who does. Podiaebba (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right, we don't know what he did with the information. I should not assume nothing was done.  But I do know the author of the book you linked to does nothing to investigate this matter, which is an essential question to answer if we are to take this matter seriously.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your sarcasm and misdirection does you discredit. The silliness of the claim is the problem, Pod, not my characterization of it. It's just another example of a wild claim that, once you ask some basic questions, becomes implausible. Are we really expected to believe that a death threat was called in by a person the cop KNEW, whom he knew was a cop groupie and could be seen almost daily at police headquarters, and this cop who seemed to take the threat seriously DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING? It's one thing to not anticipate a possible scenario - it's quite another to have the killer himself basically tell a COP that the hit is coming... and the cop sits on this? Do most in the conspiracy lack any common sense? It seems so.


 * Ruby's claimed reason for shooting Oswald was never even remotely believable It makes FAR more sense than the claim that the Mob got him to do it, ESPECIALLY given that Ruby showed up mere seconds before the shooting. But sure, Pod, it's totally plausible that a mob guy would call the cops to say that they were goping to kill Oswald. Total sense. Isn't that what these guys typically do? And it makes equal sense that the cop, knowing it was Ruby, did NOTHING in terms of securing the place or getting the word out to watch out for Ruby. Yeah, that makes more sense. Canada Jack (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You clearly don't believe the Mob told Ruby to make those calls - nor does anyone else, it's prima facie absurd, as you say. So why keep asserting that this potential explanation is silly when no-one's arguing for it? It's a classic straw-man argument. Asserting that the claim is "silly" is a non-argument. As to what the cop did or didn't believe or do in response to the call - I don't know, do you? If all we have is speculation, it is very easy to imagine that the officer told someone about the call and considered his duty done, and then in the chaos and "we need the press here" nothing was really done. (And that's without reaching for conspiracy possibilities - cockup is easily enough in the circumstances.) As to Ruby nearly turning up too late - this is a point which fits at least as well with Ruby being pressured and trying to get out of it ("I was there...! I tried! But I was too late... sorry"), as with Ruby being on a personal mission to protect Kennedy's widow from an Oswald trial. Podiaebba (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You clearly don't believe the Mob told Ruby to make those calls - nor does anyone else, it's prima facie absurd, as you say.... It's a classic straw-man argument. Speaking of "strawman arguments," Pod, where did I say the mob instructed Ruby to make the call(s)? In critiquing me for my supposed "strawman argument," YOU made a strawman argument in mischaracterizing what I said! Indeed, in my fanciful conversation, I have Ruby coming up with the idea! But this just underlines the absurdity of the claim - the mob, apparently trusting Ruby to carry out perhaps the most crucial hit in the history of the mob - relies on a person described almost universally by those who knew him as being a psychotic clown! Let's think about this implications here rationally: To kill Kennedy would be a massive, massive gamble by the mob. Any hint that they were involved would result in them being crushed. Therefore the hitman would have to be the most trusted, reliable hitman in the organization. You can imagine the conversation - "this has to be seamlessly executed, we have to make sure Oswald dies." Which begs the question: Why the hell get an idiot like Ruby to carry this out?


 * Then, in an apparent attempt to answer this clearly absurd claim - that Ruby called a cop he knew as he didn't really want to do it - we have more Rube Goldberg explanations as to how this absurdity is somehow plausible. The "common sense" is why the mob would ask this unreliable clown - who, if the claim is correct, not only CALLED the cops to warn them, he almost missed the delayed transferred - to carry out their most crucial hit in ensuring their backs were covered! The real problem here is that we have a circle of conspiracy authors who have the self-interest to not bother asking basic questions about even the most absurd, implausible claims, as they can make a buck selling books to the gullible conspiracy crowd. And there is a lot of money there to be made!


 * In the end, Pod, the onus is on those who make the claim to actually back those claims with evidence. Instead, we have an implausible claim followed by a series of implausibles - Ruby really didn't want to do it; the Dallas cops were in on it; a warning from a known person was ignored (as opposed to the myriad expected death threats); the Dallas police had orders from higher-ups to allow Ruby to kill. Canada Jack (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 *  where did I say the mob instructed Ruby to make the call(s)? - OK, re-reading, you didn't _say_ that, you just really, really strongly implied it. NB "series of implausibles"? How is it implausible that a man didn't want to shoot another in a police station? How is it implausible that Dallas cops were in on it, when the HSCA strongly implied it? And if we accept that some cops were in on it, then you've just made up an extra implausible that's already covered (the handling of the warning); and if we don't then it's easily covered by cockup in extraordinary circumstances. Podiaebba (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever; implications of Ruby's call can be argued til the cows come home... and I think they just have. Having found Grammer's interview (from The Men Who Killed Kennedy, extract here), I've added it to Jack Ruby. If you have a problem with that, take it to the talk page there. Podiaebba (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, re-reading, you didn't _say_ that, you just really, really strongly implied it. Uh, no. Here is what I said: So, what's the logic here? "Okay Ruby, your job is to kill Oswald." Ruby: "Got it. But first I call someone I know at the police station and let them know there will be a hit." Mob guy: "Good plan... So I "really, really strongly implied it," eh? Actually, I had Ruby come up with it and the mob agree to it. Not to belabour the point, but you really got to do your homework here, and that is the problem with so many of these claims. On their face they are implausible because of the rest of the evidence, not just because it's counter to what the Warren Commission concluded or whatever. What is LIKELY is that if the cop indeed received a phone call, he was one of many to receive threats against Oswald in those two days. This is not disputed, and it was to be expected. Before the era of easily traceable phone calls, calls which threatened the life of the accused were routine - ever more so in this case. Was it Ruby? Very, very unlikely for the reasons stated above, at least in connection to an actual mob hit. Indeed, if it was Ruby, he was almost certainly blowing off steam and acting on his own as it defies any common sense that he'd make the call if the mob was in fact involved. Further, we can't discount the possibility that the witness has been influenced in his recollection by other claims and subsequently concluded it was Ruby who called. There is a fair bit of money to be made here, after all. As always, the onus rests with the person making the claim as to why we should believe it, not on us to prove the negative. Canada Jack (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep trying to claim it very unlikely that Ruby made the call, and when I criticise the contortious non-arguments you adduce for that, you sort of evade and sort of repeat. I've no interest in pursuing this silly exchange any further... but will note for the record Robert Groden's book High Treason claims Grammer signed an affidavit on this in 1963/4 (but was not called by the Warren Commission), and by Grammer's own account, he recognised the familiar voice as Ruby's as soon as he heard that Ruby had shot Oswald (the inherent oddity of Ruby warning of what he was about to do notwithstanding). Podiaebba (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, Pod, if you feel it is likely that the Mob would hire a guy, to take the claim at face value, who would turn around and call the cops to warn them what was coming, I don't know what else to say. Wouldn't that kinda risk the success of the hit? Just saying. This hit would have been one of the most crucial in the mob's history. Crucial, if we follow the logic, because it was needed so as to silence an accomplice whose testimony could implicate - and destroy - the mob. So crucial, in fact, that we'd expect the most reliable and skilled hitman to do it. Yet we are asked to believe that they give this crucial job to a guy described by everyone who knew him as a clown and an idiot, and, I hasten to note, had NO known history of carrying out jobs of this sort. Taking the claim, again, at face value, what Ruby did in making the call is PRECISELY why the mob would not ever use him - he was an idiot! Canada Jack (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Did the mob have another guy who was such close friends with the Dallas police, they would let him just wander into their stations with a loaded gun, hang around all day, pose as a reporter at Oswald's press conference, walk right into the garage and past guards at Oswald's transfer, etc.? No, that was just Ruby. I think the evidence that Ruby acted of behalf of Carlos Marcello is fairly convincing. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Buff"
I have been criticized at great length by for calling Mary Ferrell a "buff" on this talk page, and this editor defines "buff" using the broad definition of the term in a way that would exclude committed amateur Kennedy assassination researchers from that definition. The problem is that language evolves, especially in narrow contexts. Here on Wikipedia, we use the terminology that reliable sources use. The term "buff" in the context of amateur Kennedy assassination researchers was first coined, I believe, by Calvin Trillin in a June 10, 1967 article called "The Buffs", published in The New Yorker, a reliable source. Very recently, Time (magazine), a reliable source, used the term "buffs" at least six times in an article by Jack Dickey discussing amateur Kennedy assassination researchers here. If someone was to respond that no reliable source considers Mary Ferrell a "buff", then consider the coverage on the 20th anniversary of the assassination by Ron Rosenbaum in the Texas Monthly,  a reliable source, in an article called "Still on the Case", where he describes "the epic embarrassment" of the Oswald exumation scandal, where Mary Ferrell was front and center advocating for digging up the body to prove a conspiracy, that resulted in a "hit on the whole Dallas buff community" when the body was proven to be Oswald rather than a doppelganger. I use "buff" to describe Mary Ferrell and other Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists because that is a term that has been used by reliable sources for 46 years.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Cullen328: Your argument is invalid. The journalists you cite are no reliable sources regarding this issue because of several reasons.

First, the definition of a well and long established word is not at the discretion of few journalists. The only reliable source for the meaning of words is an American dictionary. For convenience I refer you to Merriam-Webster.com, which validates my assertions above.

Second, you are not entitled to wrongdoing just because some other people did the same. An example for clarification: Assume that some people have called Dr. X a "crackpot". In this case you are not allowed to also call Dr. X a "crackpot", because it is still a denouncing of Dr. X. On Wikipedia we do follow WP:WORDS and WP:NPA and do not denounce people, neither fellow editors on Wikipedia nor people outside. Calling experienced JFK history researchers "buffs" is denouncing those people. Therefore I assert that this is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Third, trying to change the meaning of well and long established words could also be interpreted as an attempt to enforce Newspeak onto the public (the readers): By definition, ''"Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, peace, etc. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as thoughtcrime. The aim of Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple concepts (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) that reinforce the total dominance of the State. The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. The idea that language influences worldview is linguistic relativity. Crimethink is the Newspeak word for thoughtcrime (thoughts that are unorthodox or outside the official government platform). Goodthink, which is approved by the Party, is the opposite of crimethink." Somehow the definition of Newspeak sounds eerily evocative to the wording and reasoning of the ongoing discussion in USA about what happened on 22 November 1963 and afterwards. But there is more related to Newspeak: "An unperson is someone who has been "vaporized" — not only killed by the state, but erased from existence. Such a person would be '''written out of existing books, photographs and articles so that no trace of his existence could be found in the historical record. The idea is that such a person would, according to the principles of doublethink, be forgotten completely' (for it would be impossible to provide evidence of his existence)" This is irritatingly reminding me of how the evidence documents, photographs and witnesses have been ignored, misinterpreted, faked and supressed by the government in the murder case JFK, and how an ongoing effort is made by the government in association with the media to make the public forget about what happened. E.g. by one of the journalists you used as argument: Jack Dickey writes " With Kennedy mania in the air, the JFK director is back making mischief and planning to tell the story of another assassinated American leader." so Dickey thinks telling about the murder of JFK is making mischief. Very weird world view for an journalist who by definition is a person aiming a discovering the truth about what is going on in the world and tells it to the public. Dickey adds, "There are places where reporters from old-guard mainstream national publications (ahem) are welcomed, and then there are places like the Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy at Duquesne University’s Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law, where a reporter is received as warily as a CIA functionary". Which brings me to

fourth, the influencing of the media worldwide and in USA by the CIA, as was proven by CIA documents which were sued into release decades after they went in effect and elaborated on here and here and there by independent researchers, whistleblowers and other people committed to the truth.

To me it seems some people have interpreted Orwell's novell Nineteen Eighty-Four as a handbook, not as a warning.

Icarus4 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the proposed neutron activation analysis material,, who is much more conversant with the evidence than I, has demolished the proposed language quite effectively. That editor is correct to focus on the issue of "false positives" and "false negatives" in this matter. If Mary Farrell's database is so wonderful, why didn't it alert the editor proposing this exulcapatory language to the issue of "false negatives"?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If Mary Farrell's database is so wonderful - the Mary Ferrell Foundation provides a database of historical documents (the largest of its kind, it reckons) and essays from many people, not an encyclopedia. It does not attempt to provide definitive answers. And on the specific issue, it does (if you search) provide a variety of opinions on NAA. Podiaebba (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's remember that the underlying premise - that the NAA info should be included on the page - is what the section is about. While Icarus outlined the issue, he hasn't made the case for why this issue, out of perhaps hundreds, rises to being included on the page. Why this and not the Single Bullet Theory controversy, for example? As for Ferrell, it is chiefly a source for primary information -one of the best, actually - not a "reliable source" in terms of the secondary opinions which would be more along the lines of what would appear here or on attendant pages. Canada Jack (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One other brief note - the archive is named in honour of Mary Ferrell, one of the earliest JFK assassination researchers - she didn't actually set it up. Canada Jack (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm not sure where to start on this. The word "buff" has a long-established meaning as "specialist" not just as an "enthusiast" who cheers, say, for a sports team. The former is obviously what Cullen means here. I'll ignore the prescriptive vs descriptive approach to word definition debate, but suffice to say that meanings shift over time, and the meaning meant by Calvin Triller in the New Yorker establishes that the "specialist" understanding of the word has been around since at least the 60s. I'm kinda amazed that Icarus tries to pretend the New Yorker, famous for its persnickety approach to language and its usage, was using the "fan" meaning of the word in the 1967 article mentioned by Cullen, or that the New Yorker(!) is not a reliable source.


 * For the record, the prime authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary, says this: (there are many uses of this word, the etymology for our use is interesting) b. ‘An enthusiast about going to fires’ (Webster 1934); so called from the buff uniforms worn by volunteer firemen in New York City in former times. Hence gen., an enthusiast or specialist. Chiefly N. Amer. colloq.
 * 1903  N.Y. Sun 4 Feb. iv. 2/1   The Buffs are men and boys whose love of fires, fire-fighting and firemen is a predominant characteristic.
 * 1907  A. M. Downes Fire Fighters & Pets xiii. 159   The ‘buff’ is a private citizen who is a follower, friend, and devoted admirer of the firemen.
 * 1931  E. H. Lavine Third Degree vi. 62   A dentist, known to many cops as a police buff (a person who likes to associate with members of the department and in exchange for having the run of the station house does various courtesies for the police).
 * 1955  Sci. Amer. Aug. 88/3   No choo-choo buff can be without Sampson.
 * 1962  Listener 1 Nov. 704/2   A neighbour of mine who is a hi-fi buff.
 * 1963  Economist 20 July 244/2   The ‘Pugwash’ meetings between western and Russian scientists and other disarmament buffs.
 * 1966  New Yorker 17 Sept. 130   For ballet buffs, Tuesday evening of last week was a great occasion.
 * 1968  Globe & Mail (Toronto) 17 Feb. 37   Sports buffs will enjoy many diversions, with bicycling and camping..heading the list.


 * As one can see, a semantic shift was occurring by 1962 where the "fan" meaning of the word beings to also mean "expert" or "specialist." So will Icarus is correct on what the word has meant, he is wrong to suppose that the use of the word by Cullen is incorrect. Canada Jack (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

''Very weird world view for an journalist who by definition is a person aiming a discovering the truth about what is going on in the world and tells it to the public. Dickey adds, "There are places where reporters from old-guard mainstream national publications (ahem) are welcomed, and then there are places like the Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy at Duquesne University’s Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law, where a reporter is received as warily as a CIA functionary". Which brings me to fourth, the influencing of the media worldwide and in USA by the CIA, as was proven by CIA documents which were sued into release decades after they went in effect and elaborated on here and here and there by independent researchers, whistleblowers and other people committed to the truth.''

Not a very weird view when one realizes that the media - which hugely influenced the public into demanding a re-opening of the case in 1978 - is now denounced as something akin to being traitorous for pointing out all those legitimate questions were answered 35 years ago, and the Warren Commission was found to be largely correct. Hell, I'VE been accused of being some CIA plant for supporting those conclusions, so the comical treatment of paranoia in the article is well-founded. These conspiracy buffs (a correct usage of the word "buff," btw), are only interested in THEIR "truth" and anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot or a shill. THAT'S "free inquiry"? It's closer to the Orwellian world you reference than what the media is talking about! The rather inconvenient fact here, however, in regards to the questions of a conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination is that it was largely the effect of that same establishment CIA-influenced media which re-opened the case in 1978! Government "tools," such as the New York Times, the Saturday Evening Post, Life Magazine, were casting doubt and/or calling for a reinvestigation as early as 1966. And it was an "establishment" journalist, Geraldo Rivera, on one of America's most-watched morning shows, who arguably did more than anyone else in convincing the public of the possibility of conspiracy by broadcasting the Zapruder film in 1975.

The problem, Icarus, is the rather good questions these people were asking, and the open questions which then existed, WERE addressed by the House Select Committee. And they established that the Warren Commission was correct in terms of Oswald causing all the injuries that day AND that there was no credible evidence of conspiracy outside of a single piece of now-debunked evidence. Those conclusions stand the test of time, like it or not, and have been re-affirmed by numerous re-creations as technology advances. Canada Jack (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I will take my lessons in word usage from how words are actually used in reliable sources which, as has been amply demonstrated, often call amateur Kennedy assassination researchers "buffs". I will turn to Calvin Trillen and incisive writers for examples of such usage, and will emulate them, rather than bowing to what Icarus4 prescribes. As for the Orwellian screed above, heck, I don't live in North Korea and anyone is free to post any kind of wackiness online in most civilized countries, and the only consequence is the derision of level headed people.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Notice that Icarus has completely avoiding addressing my points? I guess he feels I am one of "them"! Canada Jack (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Canada Jack: Don't worry, Jack, I will address all statements. You did not yet address the statements I presented regarding the Neutron Activation Analysis. I will resume writing on the NAA above as soon as I have completed my current acquisition, proper analysis and preparation of additional sources. Until then I will continue addressing all other themes that are currently in discussion here.
 * On the meaning of the noun "buff": Your citation from the Oxford dictionary shows that 1903, 1907 and 1931 the "buffs" were enthusiasts but not specialists. Also the 1955 example No choo-choo buff can be without Sampson. defines an enthusiast. "Chattanooga Choo Choo is a 1941 song by Harry Warren (music) and Mack Gordon (words)." The mentioned "Sampson" was maybe TOMMY SAMPSON "Swing King", "Scotland's best known Big Band Jazz leader". You claim that starting in 1962 the meaning of "buff" were "specialist" by citing Oxford with Listener 1 Nov. 704/2  A neighbour of mine who is a hi-fi buff. This is an invalid argument: In 1962 it still meant "enthusiast", as can be seen in the full context of this quote: Letter No 741, October 28 1962: "An hour ago, a neighbour of mine, who is a hi-fi buff and mighty proud of an amplifier that practically fills the building, telephoned me and asked me to listen to the raging sound of his gramophone. He was playing, Oh, What a Beautiful Morning! It was corny, but it was spontaneous and good." Here it is obvious that the neighbour is no specialist but an enthusiast just as the person describing the music listening session that was "corny, but spontanous and good". The later defining Oxford examples also show "enthusiasts". Thus, your argument is invalid. According the the very defining example contexts the Oxford dictionary delivers, the noun "buff" was still no specialist but an enthusiast at the very current end of the defining context list.
 * In his June 1967 article "The Buffs", The New Yorker humorist/journalist Calvin Trillin wrote, "in the two and a half years between the assassination and the publication of Epstein’s book, most of the hours spent examining the official version of the President’s murder were spent by people who had no professional reason for their interest and no plans to make a full-time career out of criticizing the Warren Report. They tend to refer to themselves (and the professionals) as “investigators” or “researchers” or, most often, “critics.”" So Trillin explains that these people are no professionals, do their investigation in private time and have no plans in becoming professionals. Anyone can surely see that these non professionals are not specialists. But then he attempts to force a new meaning into the noun "buff" by continuing with, "They are also known as “assassination buffs.”" Which is just plain nonsense: Nobody called a non-professional assassination investigator/researcher a "buff" before Trillin did it. Take a look at the dates when "assassination buff" appeared elsewhere. In his article Trillin then continues to enforce the use of just "buff" on all 63 occurrences of amateur assassination researchers. He carefully avoids any other noun. He obviously tries to force his Newspeak into the readers' minds. And you two claim that Trillin established the meaning "buff" = "specialist" although Trillin himself just wrote that they are not. Your claim is just against basic logic.
 * "Conspiracy buffs" is also a very misleading term for persons which are documenting, investigating, researching and - importantly - analyzing evidence and indications for a possible conspiracy related to the assassination of JFK. Here I give you more reasons why calling these researchers/analysts "buffs" or "conspiracy buffs" is not only incorrect but also misleading the reader of such texts. I will also show why I strongly recommend all people to read Nineteen Eighty-Four. First I will repeat from the chapter "NAA". There I wrote the word "buff" is a synonym for an "enthusiast" who by definition has an "intense enjoyment, interest, or approval" of a topic or person. It is also a synonym for a "fan", who by definition is a "aficionado or supporter of something, such as a band, a sports team or entertainer". Here you see the second reason why calling a conspiracy researcher/analyst a "buff" is highly misleading: A "buff" is very positively emotional whereas a conspiracy researcher is the opposite. When meaning "enthusiastic" he is "intensely joyful" whereas a conspiracy researcher is extremely serious and worried about the condition of democracy in USA. (If the president was killed by his own government agencies, this would mean democracy in USA is badly damaged, which is an extremely serious topic.) A "buff" when meaning "enthusiast" approves of something whereas a conspiracy researcher it the opposite: He despises conspiracy because he sees it threatening democracy, he wants to reveal the conspirators and prosecute them. A "buff" when meaning a "fan" has affection and "support" for something whereas a conspiracy researcher feels the opposite: He despises conspirators who threaten the democracy and wants to shatter the conspiracy. So you see another reason why calling a conspiracy researcher a "buff" is extremely misleading the reader. And as we all know: misleading the public is a main tool of the CIA.
 * @ Cullen328 & Canada Jack: Regarding "I don't live in North Korea and anyone is free to post any kind of wackiness online in most civilized countries, and the only consequence is the derision of level headed people": Misleading the reader by forcefully turning the meaning of words into their opposite is also a main tool of Newspeak: "Miniluv: "Ministry of Love" (secret police, interrogation and torture). Minipax: "Ministry of Peace" (Ministry of War, cf: 'Department of Defense' vs. 'War Department'). Minitrue: "Ministry of Truth" (propaganda and alteration of history, culture and entertainment). Miniplenty: "Ministry of Plenty" (keeping the population in a state of constant economic hardship). Prolefeed: The steady stream of mindless entertainment produced to distract and occupy the masses. Recdep: "Records Department" (division of the Ministry of Truth that deals with the rectification of records). Rectify: Used by the Ministry of Truth as a euphemism for the deliberate alteration of the past. Telescreen: Television and security camera-like devices used by the ruling Party in Oceania to keep its subjects under constant surveillance. Thinkpol: The Thought Police. Upsub: Submit to higher authority. An unperson is someone who has been "vaporized" — not only killed by the state, but erased from existence. More irritating examples for Nineteen Eighty-Four: "The Book explains the concept of perpetual war, the true meanings of the slogans WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"
 * All of these definitions of Oceania in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four are currently accurate for the USA. The USA is waging a perpetual War on Terror and according to investigative journalist Michael Hastings also waging a War on Journalism which, if true, would mean that the government is attempting to kill the Fourth Estate. Investigative journalist Michael Hastings, who said,""the most interesting things that I was finding would end up on the cutting room floor" recently was killed in a mysterious car "accident" after he announced he will soon release his biggest story so far on the new | CIA director John Brennan. This should be compared to the many witnesses and journalists that ended up dead by a bullet in their body, a broken neck, poison in the vein or their vehicles crashing after the JFK assassination respectively right before their planned Warren/HSCA testimonies. It should also be looked cautiously at the mysterious circumstances of the death of John F. Kennedy Jr. The government is also deceiving the public about the purpose of their security measurements which have the actual purpose of surveillance of political demonstrators. Some large consumer electronics producers participate in the secret surveillance of people in their own homes via Smart TV and Xbox One (as was elaborated on here). I think readers will also be aware on the total constant surveillance of all telecommunication (telephone, email and web) by the NSA, which violates the constitution of USA and other countries. The manipulation of US media and academic people (professors and students) by Operation Mockingbird (one of many CIA operations) was first investigated by the Church Committee in 1975 (short video from House hearing) and found that in 1975, 25 of the biggest media houses (including Washington Post, New York Times and The New Yorker), 400 media editors/journalists and over 5000 university professors were working for the CIA. The university professors had the tasks to politically influence their students, denounce dissidents to the CIA and write CIA opinions in their scientific books which here are upheld as "reliable sources". The journalists had the tasks to provide intelligence to the CIA and to publish CIA opinions without declaration of source, pretending to be the journalists own opinion - also here used as "reliable sources". Regarding to the JFK assassination and the Warren Commission report I recommend reading the CIA Document #1035-960 elaborating on how to discredit Warren Commission critics and manipulate the public opinion by making media editors and book reviewers present the opinion of the Warren Commission Report and devalue dissenting books.


 * But back to the meaning of "buff". Another reason why "buff means specialist" is just an invalid excuse for denouncing people by Cullen328. Every academic and media person and very many ordinary persons that I have read calling JFK assassination researchers or conspiracy researchers a "buff" have done so in a pejorative way. "Buff" is used as term of abuse and to stigmatize those people. Examples are Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi and John McAdams. And it is no happenstance that this denouncing is only used by those "reliable sources" which publish the statement that Oswald did it alone, and only used against those people which issue the statement that they think it was a conspiracy. So it is clear that this usage of "buff" is a name slur.
 * "The media" were not "hugely influencing the public into demanding a re-opening of the case in 1978", instead they were ignoring the problematic situation of a horribly flawed official investigation. E.g. Edward J. Epstein on the origins of JFK denialism who 1966 wrote Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth and followed up 1968 with Counterplot. But the first investigator was Mark Lane who "four weeks after the assassination published an article in National Guardian dealing in-depth with 15 questions regarding public official statements about the alleged assassination of J. D. Tippit and John F. Kennedy". According to historian Peter Knight, after JFK's assassination, Bertrand Russell, "prompted by the emerging work of the lawyer Mark Lane in the US ... rallied support from other noteworthy and left-leaning compatriots to form a Who Killed Kennedy Committee in June 1964, members of which included Michael Foot MP, Caroline Benn, the publisher Victor Gollancz, the writers John Arden and J. B. Priestley, and the Oxford history professor Hugh Trevor-Roper. Russell published a highly critical article weeks before the Warren Commission Report was published, setting forth 16 Questions on the Assassination and equating the Oswald case with the Dreyfus affair of late 19th century France, in which the state wrongly convicted an innocent man. Russell also criticized the American press for failing to heed any voices critical of the official version. Also before Epstein, Harold Weisberg in 1965 self-published (!) his first book Whitewash, "the first book to allege a systematic pattern of falsification in the Warren Report". The fact he had to publish those ground breaking revelations by himself should make it clear that the mass media was strictly ignoring/supressing the topic. Yet here we despise self-published books as "unreliable source". Twelve years after the murder, one media person allowed the public to see the Zapruder film: "On March 6, 1975, on the ABC late-night television show Good Night America (hosted by Geraldo Rivera), assassination researchers Robert Groden and Dick Gregory presented the first-ever network television showing of the Zapruder home movie. The public's response and outrage to that television showing quickly led to the forming of the Hart-Schweiker investigation, contributed to the Church Committee Investigation on Intelligence Activities by the United States, and resulted in the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation."


 * Of course no "reliable source" of the kind of Gerald Posner, Vincent Buglisi or John McAdams provided the public with that crucial information which had been withheld from the public for 12 years (like many other important documents). No academic professor provided this crucial information, no established journalist. Instead it were two unknown, "unreliable sources": two unknown amateur JFK assassination researchers: a photographer and a comedian/social activist took on the challenge of research while the scientific and media establishment was sleeping or pouring the CIA lies into the minds of the nation. Since then, not much has changed. Thousands of books representing an immense amount of research have been published by assassination researchers, mostly by amateurs, just recently a few by scientists. And those investigative books are in most cases ignored by press and television but instead devalued by the "reliable sources" Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi and John McAdams. Journalist and Wall Street attorney Gerald Posner destroyed his career with his bad and one-sided research in several assassination books and most importantly when it was revealed that he was repeatedly stealing intellectual property from other authors, misrepresenting statements from interviews, inventing interviews that never happened and more. But it is no happenstance that Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed" got the most favorable media praise and books reviews all over USA: his book was representing the Warren Commissions' conclusion that Oswald did it alone. Some of Vincent Bugliosi's claims regarding the JFK assassination have been dismantled as seriously flawed. John McAdams has a horrible reputation for using a fake name in public, attempting to destroy a newsgroup of researchers and by falsely accusing others of pedophilia. McAdams also falsely accused assassination researcher Gary L. Aguilar, MD of taking drugs. And it is also no happenstance that Bugliosi and McAdams receive high praise from the realm of book reviewers (from which many are working for the CIA, see above) and large media attention. At the same time people who make interviews with eyewitnesses, analyze documents, sue the justice department for 17 years until they are provided assassination related documents against the justice department's claim of a "national security risk" remain mostly unnoticed by the media and the scientific establishment. One can not wrap his mind around the justice department's claim that releasing JFK assassination documents to the public would pose a "national security risk". I wonder what/who is actually put at risk by those documents.


 * Your claim that "all those legitimate questions were answered 35 years ago by the HSCA" is also patently false. I recommend you read some quality info about that, e.g. "The Last Investigation: What Insiders Know About the Assassination of JFK" by Gaeton Fonzi. An aggressive Philadelphia investigative journalist, Fonzi was recruited by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976 to be one of its lead investigators. It is also very helpful to know that HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey often sided with the CIA in disputes, and now regrets it. because his CIA liaison officer was not as what he appeared. HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey many years later said that his CIA liasion officer George Joannides would have had to be a main witness to be heard under oath. Instead Joannides effectively blocked all CIA information from reaching the HSCA. The HSCA first Deputy Counsel Robert K. Tanenbaum stepped down because the predecessor of Chief Counsel Blakey, Dick Sprague, was rejected by the US Senate for political reasons and because "at that time I had a three year old daughter. . .and I didn't want her to read about American history that I knew to be absolutely false, that her father may have participated in.". Tanenbaum says, "In my opinion, Congress never wanted to go forward with these investigations at all. That's just based upon my having spoken with a lot of the membership of the House as I was asked to do by the Committee". In its final report, the HSCA lied to the public by claiming that the conclusion of the Warren Commission was validated with the exception of 2 shooters. HSCA also lied to the public when they claimed that the Parkland doctors had changed their mind on the position of Kennedys wounds when in fact the doctors affirmed their original statement from their Warren Commission testimonies which say that the autopsy photos are faked. See here and here and here and here and there. If you carefully read the testimonies of the doctors, you will notice that some bluntly rejected autopsy photos because they had never seen those photos before, but the photos we made are not in the evidence of HSCA. Other doctors said that the X-ray of Kennedy is different to the one we made at Bethesda. Those witnesses who had already been threatened gave testimonies like, "Q. "Are you able to determine whether the photographs in front of you now are consistent with or not consistent with the brain, as you remember it from 1963?" A. "Well, it has to be, if that's Mr. Kennedy." Q. "Well, that's the question.""
 * Summary: The HSCA was another cover-up operation. It lied to the public using faked autopsy photos, faked x-rays, faked autopsy report and misrepresented eyewitness testimonies.


 * If you want to see quality news in the media, you get it from serious news outlets like The Huffington Post, Salon.com, Rolling Stone. Regarding JFK assassination info you get that from this list. And don't ignore the comedy outlet The Daily Show. Look at how it presents that "the rot starts from the top". And the Daily Show also exposes the "news" coming out of financial media as what they really are: a bunch of lies.
 * Said by the mastermind of pure evil: "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
 * Icarus4 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't you just give us some bullet points?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel, I hope that my text is now presented in proper layout. Icarus4 (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR and Godwin's Law apply here. Please stop using this talkpage as a soapbox for your personal views  Acroterion   (talk)   22:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Acroterion, regarding WP:TLDR: It was not my goal to bore readers or to make them spend excessive time to read my text. Instead I only wanted to make sure the readers can understand my arguments and the defense I had to provide when my arguments and my credibility were challenged/rejected by others. I will aim to be more concise. Regarding Godwin's Law apply here: What do you mean by that? I used a quote from the article Big Lie which in my opinion is perfectly suited to help the readers understand my arguments in this discussion: together they form up to the argument that the assassination of JFK was followed by a Big Lie which continues up to the present day. The quote describes the mechanisms of lies and how a Big Lie can prevail in a nation. It also is associated to a historic episode which showed that a Big Lie can indeed prevail in a nation. Regarding stop using this talkpage as a soapbox for your personal views: Do you by that refer to my arguments regarding Newspeak being used in the US? I aim to provide strong source coverage for all my statements. Please tell me for which topics I have not done so.Icarus4 (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Icarus, the "Sampson" needed by "choo-choo buffs" was a railroad guide written by Henry Sampson of Sampson, Low, Marston & Co., the same publishers of Jane's Fighting Ships which was the authority on warships. Sampson's guide was called World Railways, and was first published in 1950. Later it was called Jane's World Railways. Thus the "choo-choo" Sampson was not related to songs or musicians. Regarding the question of calling Ferrell a buff, I think Cullen's point is valid, that reliable sources should be followed. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Buff. Your citation from the Oxford dictionary shows that 1903, 1907 and 1931 the "buffs" were enthusiasts but not specialists. Yes...? You are correct. But so what? No one here disputes that "buff" has a meaning of "enthusiasts." But the only question here is whether the word also means "specialist." The OED entry shows a clear shift in meaning, from its specific meaning as a fan of fires, to a more general meaning of "fan," to an additional meaning of "specialist." You spend a lot of time pretending that this latter meaning of "buff" is not there - I direct you to the definition as per the OED: Hence gen., an enthusiast or specialist. Chiefly N. Amer. colloq.


 * The meaning of "buff" is simply an example of a semantic shift. I am aware that many in the conspiracy field consider this some sort of pejorative, when it isn't necessarily. Or are you disputing the foremost authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary? The OED, btw, is a descriptive, not a prescriptive dictionary. And it describes within that one general definition of "buff" three distinct usages of the word. You can cite a billion uses of your definition. But this is irrelevant as the definition as "specialist," is there and in usage.


 * So Trillin explains that these people are no professionals, do their investigation in private time and have no plans in becoming professionals. Anyone can surely see that these non professionals are not specialists. A "non-professional" can most certainly be a "specialist." Being a "professional" can simply mean that one makes a living off said activity, not that a person is the best in their craft. The miler Jim Ryun set world records in the mile in 1966 and 1967, and he was an "amateur." When he went "professional" in 1973, it simply meant he was being paid to run - it didn't mean he was a better runner! That meaning of "professional" was much more generally used then than now, where we now more readily equate "professional" as meaning "top of the field" etc. Another example of a slight semantic shift. Few made a living off of assassination research, at least back then. Now, there are many "professional" conspiracy buffs. Nobody called a non-professional assassination investigator/researcher a "buff" before Trillin did it. And you base this on a Google search? Are you kidding? The New Yorker was known - still known - for being sticklers on language and word usage. They were completely anal about it, in fact. I seriously doubt that this use of the word "buff" would have passed muster if that description had not already been in existence.


 * A "buff" is very positively emotional whereas a conspiracy researcher is the opposite. Icarus, your premise has been shown to be wrong, That premise is that "buff" is not defined as "specialist." Further, on its face, your claim makes no sense. Does it sound reasonable to anyone that these researchers are "fans" of the assassination? Huh? Any casual reader in 1967 would have understood the meaning, as your definition literally makes no sense in this context. More evidence that your claims about its definition not including "specialist" is wrong. Your error seems to arise from a narrow prescriptive view of the English language.


 * All of these definitions of Oceania in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four are currently accurate for the USA. It's an interesting premise, Icarus, but it fails on several fronts. First, as shown, the usage of the word "buff" predates the assassination. Secondly, it was the effect in large part of the media in setting the debate in terms of re-opening the investigation. Surely, if your "1984" premise was accurate, we'd see scathing and dismissive editorials, sneering dismissal of the arguments, or, and this is closer to that book, avoidiance of the subject altogether. But it was the effect of this same "Newspeak" media which had the result of a re-opening of the investigation!


 * "The media" were not "hugely influencing the public into demanding a re-opening of the case in 1978", instead they were ignoring the problematic situation of a horribly flawed official investigation. Well, that's a rather startling assertion, Icarus. And it's dead wrong. One need only look at the polls starting in 1966 when media organizations started to raise questions and the previous support for the WC conclusions started to melt away. Questions were raised by critics, of course, but it was the mainstream media which started to pick this up and the tide started to turn.


 * Of course no "reliable source" of the kind of Gerald Posner, Vincent Buglisi or John McAdams provided the public with that crucial information which had been withheld from the public for 12 years [the Zapruder film] (like many other important documents). Wow. Who had the film, Icarus? Life magazine. And who was one of the first to call for a re-opening of the investigation? Life magazine. And, guess what publication I was reading in the early 70s which turned me into a conspiracy buff? Life magazine.


 * Your claim that "all those legitimate questions were answered 35 years ago by the HSCA" is also patently false. They were answered, and the best the conspiracy community can hope for is that there is some "smoking gun" in the Joannides files which are the biggest part of unreleased documents which could shed light on the some of the activities of the CIA vis a vis the anti-Castro Cubans. The rest of your quotes are simply irrelevant opinions from others - none who actually say they have seen evidence of a conspiracy.


 * In its final report, the HSCA lied to the public by claiming that the conclusion of the Warren Commission was validated with the exception of 2 shooters. ??? Uh, have you read the report? It's conclusion, outside the issue of the second gunman, was validated. One shooter, Oswald, caused all the wounds. He had no known links to other groups. No other groups had credible evidence linking them to the assassination. Where is the "lie," Icarus?


 * If you carefully read the testimonies of the doctors, you will notice that some bluntly rejected autopsy photos because they had never seen those photos before, but the photos we made are not in the evidence of HSCA. Other doctors said that the X-ray of Kennedy is different to the one we made at Bethesda. Those witnesses who had already been threatened gave testimonies like, "Q. "Are you able to determine whether the photographs in front of you now are consistent with or not consistent with the brain, as you remember it from 1963?" A. "Well, it has to be, if that's Mr. Kennedy." Q. "Well, that's the question."" Bullshit baffles brains, and it looks like some healthy dollops have clouded your thinking, Icarus. When it comes to testimony, people can - and have - said a lot of things. Many witnesses in Deally Plaza and at Parkland gave testimony which is consistent with the autopsy findings. Others have different recollections. So how is this resolved? For one, via the autopsy records. They don't lie, they don't change with time. The photos and x-rays were scrutinized, first by ensuring they were authentic photographs. There is too much space required to go over this briefly, but the photos were judged by numerous experts in photo analysis as being unretouched photos. The claims otherwise are not credible and are by and large working off of multiple-generational copies. Further, morphological comparison were made to determine whether the person in the photos was in fact Kennedy. There was no dispute. Kennedy is in the photos. Finally, x-rays were compared with known x-rays of Kennedy while he was alive, including dental records. They are all consistent, as are they to the photos. And that is the end of the discussion, period. The conspiracy community has tied itself in knots, as they have to explain how a committee which concluded "conspiracy" nevertheless found all this material to be authentic. "Faked" they say. How? They never explain how these photos - especially the stereo pairs - could have been faked. Indeed, if they were going to fake photos, why do stereo pairs? And so many? You have been fed the b.s from amateurs who are working with multi-generational copies and declare "fake," when they simply have no clue what they are talking about. Why not read the testimony of the "expert" Jack White at the HSCA when he is asked about, in relation to the backyard photos, photogrammatical issues. He admits he doesn't; even know what that is. I;m just scratching the surface here.


 * Summary: The HSCA was another cover-up operation. It lied to the public using faked autopsy photos, faked x-rays, faked autopsy report and misrepresented eyewitness testimonies. Then why did they conclude a conspiracy was behind the assassination? This is another example of the almost infinite silliness of the conspiracy crowd. Any evidence which suggests a single sniper who caused the wounds? Fakes! I have YET to see a credible explanation as to how this was achieved. Which is why the conspiracy crowd simply has no credibility. They didn't like the conclusions, therefore everything was faked. Right. It's hard to have a rational debate with these people as they "know" which evidence is "faked" and which isn't. Hell, even the Zapruder film, the linchpin to the reopening of the case, is now widely seen by these people as "faked" as well. Which begs the question - why even bother having a film of the event? Of course, logic and common sense never visits most of these people. Canada Jack (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Canada Jack: One need only look at the polls starting in 1966 when media organizations started to raise questions: And guess what? 1965, one year before that, the first investigative book Whitewash by Harold Weisberg was self-published (and revealed the huge amount of errors and omissions of the Warren Report). That means no one wanted to print his book! A total failure of media, which actively suppressed the topic! Whitewash stirred up the public (after first smaller investigations by Mark Lane and Russell) and forced the media to respond somehow. Exactly the same happened in 1992 after the movie JFK. The movie JFK was scathed by the media establishment even before it was shown in cinemas. It was damned by mass media editors and reviewers after its showing. But the people loved it and forced the politicians to act: To create the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 which had the task to collect documents and later lead to the ARRB which declassified most documents. You try to invert history.


 * [definitions of Oceania are accurate for the USA] It's an interesting premise, Icarus, but it fails on several fronts. First, as shown, the usage of the word "buff" predates the assassination. This argument is invalid: I never claimed that buff would have had to be used before the assassination. I wrote that since Trillian's article in June 1967 (after attorney Garrison arrested Clay Shaw) there was an attempt to invert the meaning of the noun buff to be able to misuse it to denounce Warren Commission critics. You say, Surely, if your "1984" premise was accurate, we'd see scathing and dismissive editorials, sneering dismissal of the arguments, or, and this is closer to that book, avoidiance of the subject altogether. Which is exactly what has been happening since 1963 in politics, mass media and academics.
 * No one here disputes that "buff" has a meaning of "enthusiasts.": Neither did I. I asserted that buff does not mean specialist.
 * The OED entry shows a clear shift in meaning, from its specific meaning as a fan of fires, to a more general meaning of "fan,". This is correct. buff originated from buffalo. From there is was adhered to the color of buffalo leather and via the leather color adhered further to the leather uniforms of New York volunteer firemen (starting in 1820), then to the volunteer firemen themselves, which were enthusiastically going to the fires as Webster described it in 1934. From that time on buff meant enthusiast. And today fan can easily be acknowledged as a valid synonym for enthusiast. The volunteer New York firemen were volunteers, not professionals and therefore not specialists. Here I see an error in the version of Oxford dictionary you so passionately use for your invalid excuse. It is obvious that a fan is a valid synonym for enthusiast and that specialist is not a valid synonym, neither for fan nor for  enthusiast. The version of OED you refer to is reaffirming my assertion because not a single example of the given 8 defining examples shows the usage of buff meaning a specialist. That also means that no semantic shift occurred after the establishment of the meaning enthusiast. I already proved that in a previous post. I also did a cross check to see whether any dictionary defines buff as a synonym for specialist. None does.
 * You also base your claim on the invalid assumption that the version of the Oxford English dictionary you refer to is relevant here. It is not. The erroneous specialist refers to the outdated Webster dictionary from 1934. We discuss Trillin, McAdams, et al. writing about the assassination researchers from 1967 up to now. Therefore a current American dictionary is required as reliable source. Here you see current dictionary entries for the noun buff, which disprove your claim: Merriam-Webster, Oxford American English, Oxford Advanced American English, Oxford Advanced Learners, Cambridge American English. I make the cross check and look up the meaning of specialist to determine whether it is a synonym for buff. Unsurprisingly, it is not: Merriam-Webster, Oxford American English, Oxford Advanced American, Oxford Advanced Learners, Cambridge American.
 * A "non-professional" can most certainly be a "specialist." Being a "professional" can simply mean that one makes a living off said activity, not that a person is the best in their craft.: This is wrong: See my cross check for specialist above. The dictionaries define specialist as "an expert in a particular area of work or study", "someone who limits his or her studying or work to a particular area of knowledge, and who is an expert in that area" like "a doctor who has specialized in a particular area of medicine". Thus, to be a specialist outside of military, you have to be an expert on your particular area of work or study.
 * Does it sound reasonable to anyone that these researchers are "fans" of the assassination? Huh?: That's the point! It is used to mock the assassination researchers! As I said before, the noun buff is always used in a denouncing/pejorative way by supporters of the Warren Commission against the assassination researchers (which are often assuming that a conspiracy exists).
 * I am aware that many in the conspiracy field consider "buff" some sort of pejorative: Then don't use it! Now we get to the core of the issue: You know that it is pejorative against the assassination researchers. Nonetheless you do it and even defend Cullen328 who was the first to cause the issue here. "I have no further questions, Your Honor." Imagine some women that are being called sluts and they demand that this must not be allowed to do, or imagine some colored people which are called niggers and they demand that this must not be allowed to do, then of course everyone will acknowledge that indeed these pejorative and denouncing words must not be used against these women / colored people. Therefore I demand that Warren Commission critics, assassination investigators/researchers must not be called "buffs" by invoking WP:NPA. This chapter is finished regarding my person. Icarus4 (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:WALLOFTEXT
 * WP:TLDR
 * The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article. Let's return to that purpose.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding my comment at the bottom, where it might be found in this wall of tangential text: You've wandered entirely off point into an argument on the semantics of "buff" that nobody is interested in reading, in an apparent attempt to claim that you're being called names. I am interested in military history, and may fairly be called a "buff", "enthusiast" or a dozen other appellations, but none of them imply that I am enthusiastic about killing people. And you invoked Nazis, which according to Godwin's Law means that you've arrived at the conclusion of your argument, whatever it is. No Nazis were employed in the Kennedy assassination. If you can't stick to a concise discussion of article improvement, please do not post on this page. I'm going to collapse this tangent after a reasonable interval to emphasize that this page is not a forum for interminable argument about minutiae. If you want to continue the discussion, please use your own userspace.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)