Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 13

Revolver Casings?
In the section about the Officer Tippet shooting, it's stated that Oswald had a "revolver", and that four casings from the scene matched this weapon. I don't understand-- revolvers do not eject casings. Was it, then, an automatic and not a revolver? Or is the business about the casings fiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.240.95 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oswald was seen reloading at the scene. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * J. D. Tippit has pertinent material. The murder was well witnessed, Oswald removed the spent casings to reload. --Pete (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Pete, the witnesses described a short stocky shooter, not Oswald. The bullets fired did not match those left at the scene, unless Remington cartridges are sometimes made with Winchester bullets! by IP ADDRESS 108.???.???.??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.147.59 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * About fourteen people saw Oswald shoot Tippit or flee the scene. The "short stocky" factoid comes from Mark Lane's manipulation of the testimony of a single witness.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have that Mark Lane manipulated witness testimony? BrandonTR (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * , facts are stubborn things. Here's a transcript of the recording of Mark Lane's interview with Helen Markham, showing how he repeatedly tried to browbeat the witness, and then later misrepresented the substance of the interview to the Warren Commission.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, facts are stubborn things. Even Joseph Ball, senior counsel to the Warren Commission, referred to Markham's testimony as "full of mistakes," characterizing her as an "utter screwball." BrandonTR (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The CT crowd likes to focus on Markham, conveniently ignoring the fact that ELEVEN people positively identified Oswald as the man who either shot Tippit or fled immediately thereafter. As if the only issue here is how nutty Markham was rather than all that trivia about all the positive identifications of Oswald as the shooter and the one who fled. But the fact here is that not only did Mark Lane manipulate the witness in question, he also lied about it in front of the Warren Commission. And, oh yeah. He also lied about who he was over the phone to Markham, claiming to be the police chief.


 * What else has this man who wants "the truth" revealed in regards to the assassination done? Well, he suppressed key testimony from the one witness behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll who was in a position to see any knoll assassin by omitting his declaration that no one was behind the fence at the time of the assassination. But, of course. Publishing the fact that there was no one in a position to be the knoll assassin would have blown a hole in his conspiracy theory through which you could have driven a Mack truck. And, oh yeah, he had a book he had to sell. I always thought it was rather convenient for Lane that that witness - Lee Bowers - was soon killed in a car accident. Canada Jack (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just like to point out that the formerly difficult to obtain, With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit, by Dale Myers is now available as an ebook. This is a good book that separates fact from fiction. Oswald shot Tippit. Myers suggests the possibility that Oswald hitchhiked a ride to the crime scene. Now to me that means maybe Oswald got a ride and wasn't hitchhiking, if you know what I mean. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Warren Commission apologists prefer to ignore witnesses to the Tippet shooting who identified an assailant who was not Oswald. Acquilla Clemons saw two men near Tippit’s car just before the shooting. After the shooting, she ran outside of her house and saw a man with a gun whom she described as "kind of heavy." He waved to the second man, urging him to "go on." Frank Wright emerged from his home and observed the scene seconds after the shooting. He described a man standing by Tippit’s body who had on a long coat and who ran to a parked car and drove away. BrandonTR (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't choose to ignore them, I just think that given the weight of evidence against Oswald, it's highly likely that those contrary witnesses were wrong. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Joe is correct, Brandon. When you have 11 witnesses saying A and 2 saying something else, you have to explain why the 2 are right and the others are wrong. Besides, the forensic evidence supports the conclusion that Oswald shot Tippit. This is yet another example of the CT crowd, despite a mountain evidence pointing directly to Oswald, choose to believe... well, anything that pops into their heads, it would seem. Canada Jack (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The vast discrepancies in witnesses testimony is just more evidence that the Warren Commission conducted a fraudulent investigation and cherry-picked evidence that would lead to its preordained lone-nut conclusion. BrandonTR (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ignoring 11 witnesses and favoring the testimony of two is pretty much the definition of cherry-picking. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Cherry-picking is the Warren Commission refusing to call witnesses Acquilla Clemons and Frank Wright to testify, because their testimony would contradict the Warren Commission preordained conclusions. BrandonTR (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are numerically impaired, Brandon. If there are 14 witnesses who testify "A" and 2 who testify "B," and it is decided that "A" is likely what happened, it ain't "cherry picking." It's deciding that 85% of the witnesses were more likely right, not the rest, especially since that testimony was more consistent with the forensic evidence. Further, we don't know if the WC was aware of these two, so it's pure speculation that they "ignored" these witnesses. After all, many, many witnesses testified to things which never made it to the final report.

But, when it comes to Clemons' testimony, this is what I have to say. After years of seeing Mark Lane as being one of the heroes in terms of uncovering the "truth," I realized the fraud he had often perpetuated. If one sees his interview with Acquilla Clemons (on youtube), there are some very telling moments. He presses her to describe the person she saw with the gun. And, guess what? It matches almost precisely the description that Lane told the Warren Commission Markham had given to him. The problem is NO ONE ever described the assailant in that way, certainly not the dozen or so witnesses cited by the Warren Commission - except for Lane himself, as the transcript of his phone conversation with Markham shows. It's more than a little suspicious, given Lane's proven track record of feeding witnesses lines and of misrepresenting what people told him, that Clemons would give almost the identical description of the man with the gun who shot Tippit as Lane reported Markham had given. Further, does it really ring as credible that Clemons says she was threatened with death if she told anyone what she saw - yet she was perfectly willing to sit down for a filmed interview with Lane? And this is the best the conspiracy crowd can come up with? Canada Jack (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm curious. Conspiracy theorists like Brandon claim that the fact that witnesses they favor like Clemons were not called before the Warren Commission is "evidence" that the WC had a pre-ordained conclusion. But was the WC even aware of people like her, who if I understand correctly, was dug up well after the shooting by Mark Lane?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There were many witnesses, in all aspects of the case, who contradicted the Warren Commission's preordained conclusion and, hence, were not called to testify. Of course, it would be in keeping with the WC's fraudulent investigation for it to claim that the commission was merely unaware of these other witnesses. BrandonTR (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems like regardless of whether or not they were aware of these witnesses, your preordained conclusion about the Warren Commission would be the same. However, the question remains, were they aware of late appearing witnesses like Clemmons at all?  If Mark Lane was in fact the one who revealed her claims, it is possible that they were unaware of her existence until after the publication of Rush to Judgment, and so ignoring her is evidence of nothing except the fact that the WC lacked a time machine.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Warren Commission conducted a fraudulent investigation and it is a national disgrace. BrandonTR (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Once of the best more-recent books on the subject is Gerald McKnight's, "Breach of Trust." This book, (I'll just crib from Amazon), "argues that the commission embraced the politically safe lone-gunman theory from the outset and therefore slanted its investigation, ignored crucial leads and discounted contradictory evidence and witnesses." Now you guys know I tend to agree. But I don't think it particularly applies to the Tippit killing. Actually, some of the commission's most solid work was on Oswald's movements after Dealey Plaza. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is much to criticize about the Warren Commission's investigation. Even fifty years out, A Cruel and Shocking Act by Philip Shenon, which I haven't read yet but will soon, has new revelations about their missteps.  But their mistakes are not "evidence" of a "preordained conclusion", as Brandon would have us believe.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We're all aware of your opinion about the Warren Commission, but is irrelevant to whether or not they were aware of the witnesses we're discussing. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the witnesses who the Warren Commission didn't call to testify are very relevant. BrandonTR (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the witnesses are relevant, which is why I asked about them. Your opinion is not relevant.  If you don't know the answer to the question about their knowledge of Clemons, et al, that's fine, don't answer it, but don't use it as an excuse to restate your already widely known opinion.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone else find this suspicious?


 * Critics have questioned whether the cartridge cases recovered from the Tippet murder scene were the same as those that were subsequently entered into evidence. Two of the cases were recovered by witness Domingo Benavides and turned over to police officer J.M. Poe. Poe told the FBI that he marked the shells with his own initials, "J.M.P." to identify them.[224] Sergeant Gerald Hill later testified to the Warren Commission that it was he who had ordered police officer Poe to mark the shells.[225] However, Poe's initials were not found on the shells produced by the FBI six months later.[224][226]Testifying before the Warren Commission, Poe said that although he recalled marking the cases, he "couldn’t swear to it."[226][227] The identification of the cases at the crime scene raises more questions. Sergeant Gerald Hill examined one of the shells and radioed the police dispatcher, saying: "The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol."[228] However, Oswald was reportedly arrested carrying a non-automatic .38 Special revolver.[222][229] BrandonTR (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wrote most of that you know. :) Either Officer Poe is not entirely correct or that the police substituted other shells to frame Oswald. You'll just have to make up your own mind. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Several things to note here. Brandon, your comments in regards to the pre-conceptions of the Warren Commission are only relevant if their conclusions are at odds with the clear weight of evidence. So, what do we have? 11 or 12 witnesses who positively identified Oswald as the man who shot and killed Tippit and fled the scene thereafter. And the critics, for all their whining about Helen Markham and their complaints about a grand total of TWO witnesses who seem to say something else, have no adequate explanation as to why the Warren Commission made such a glaring error here. Those other witnesses MADE NO POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION yet those other 11 or 12 POSITIVELY identified Oswald as being the man they saw!

The bullet shells/hulls. Several witnesses SAW Oswald remove the hulls from his gun and flee, positively identifying Oswald as the man who did this. Those hulls were confirmed to have come from the gun Oswald had in his possession. So what is the retort? That there are questions about the chain of custody of those hulls, and that an officer said the shells came from an automatic. Well, since we have multiple witnesses who saw Oswald take the hulls out, what are we to conclude here? That the police substituted the hulls? Take a step back here, folks. Witnesses saw Oswald and positively identified him as the man who shot Tippit. Several witnesses saw Oswald and positively identified Oswald as the man who removed the shells from his gun. But the critics say those shells didn't come from Oswald's gun, even though they were ballisticly matched and came from that particular gun in his possession!

So, let's take Brandon at his word and conclude that the Warren Commission in haste concluded Oswald shot Tippit, as they were bent on that conclusion. Maybe he has a point. Maybe they WERE certain that Oswald was the guy so they were going to conclude that, no matter what the evidence suggested.

Well then, let's imagine that Oswald DID NOT shoot Oswald. Then, how are we to interpret the evidence? First, we'd have to conclude that an amazing 12 people were ALL completely wrong in their identifiaction of Oswald. And we'd also have to conclude that the hapless Oswald, after leaving his rooming house, happened to go in the general direction of where Tippit was shot AND that he'd carry a revolver on his person. The timing of this would have to be perfect, of course. Notoswald would have to have shot Tippit not too soon after Oswald left his roominghouse (the CT crowd has some flimsy evidence that the killing happened too soon after he left, so a half mark in favour of the CT crowd on that point). BUT Oswald would also have had to find himself within walking distance of the crime AFTER it happened as well, which, by this theory, his bad luck led him to.

Further, Notoswald would have HAD to go in the general direction of where Oswald would soon end up. And he'd have to vanish without a trace, despite the swarms of cops who were there within minutes. AND the gun he had would also have to dissappear.

Finally, the conspirators would have had to make sure that the bullets found in Tippit were at least consistent with the shells found AND the handgun fired. And let's not forget, all of this would have had to been done with the cooperation of the Dallas police who would therefore have to be "in" on the murder of one of their own. And let's not forget that the entire scenario - frame Oswald for the killing of a cop - would have had to be pre-planned. Why? Why go through the additional complexity, where a plot could unravel, and have Oswald framed not only for the killing of the president, but a cop as well? Why not simply arrest him for the killing of the president? I'm sure the CT crowd has some Rube Goldberg-type scenario that is somewhat plausible to them if not to any other sentient being in this galaxy. I can't speak for Andromeda, though.

So there you have it. One or two men, who looked nothing like the man they were trying to frame (short, stocky, bushy hair), somehow knew Oswald was within walking distance, so somehow coaxed a cop out of his car (even though he/they looked nothing like the police description of the assassin), shot him in cold blood, threw shells on the ground - which any sensible killer who wants to leave as little incriminating evidence as possible would do - and then is seen by a dozen or so people all of whom have a brain fart and think they are seeing Oswald, then he dissappears into thinn air just as hapless Lee suddenly appears, in a near-panic, trying to hide. Why this man who was so calm when earlier confronted at the TSBD, or on the bus or in the cab would now be in such a state of panic, we can only wildly speculate on. It wasn't because he just shot and killed a cop - no, it must be because he, uh, forgot his toothbrush.

And, just in case there was any doubt that this innocent man who was being framed was indeed the killer, Oswald helps out the conspirators and says "this is it" and then attempted to shoot the arresting cops in a testament to his utter innocence in any involvement in the tragic events of the day. And, finally, the Dallas police/FBI then took Oswald's gun, find wrong-sized bullets for it, and fire them off, and switch the shells. In the process, they'd also kick the ass of Notoswald for leaving the shells on the ground in the first place, necessitating this extra task. Is it any wonder that it's hard to take the CT crowd seriously when one takes them at their word and try to construct ANY plausible scenario to explain Oswald's innocence? Canada Jack (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Some other questions, perhaps someone with more knowledge of firearms than I could answer this for me. Sgt Gerald Hill said "The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol." First, can one look at a bullet shell and tell that it's from an automatic .38? Are the bullets different than ones used for a pistol?


 * Second, the claim is that the call indicates it was from an automatic pistol, therefore excluding Oswald. But correct me if I am wrong here. I am not aware of any dispute that the bullets found were in the bushes or on the lawn, ejected by Oswald or Notoswald. But wouldn't shells from an automatic pistol have been ejected when fired? So, wouldn't an automatic have left the shells beside where Tippit lay? If this is true, and there is no dispute that a) the shells were found on a lawn/bush where witnesses saw the man empty his pistol and b) no dispute that the man fired point-blank and NOT from the lawn, then wouldn't that be confirmation that whatever gun was used, it wasn't an automatic? Canada Jack (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I always thought Hill simply meant, "There are shells at the scene. This indicates the likelihood of an automatic, which ejects its shells, rather than a revolver, which does not. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's the presumption, though the quote implies he looked at the shells themselves and determined they came from an automatic. So, can one tell that simply by looking at the shells? Canada Jack (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't be more ignorant on this subject, but according to wikipedia there is a distinct visual difference. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That Oswald would take the time to manually eject cartridge cases at the scene (presumably to immediately reload) is an unnatural, nonhuman act, more in keeping with the cyborg in the movie, "The Terminator." Had Oswald shot Tippet, his immediate concern would be to flee the scene and worry about reloading later. Another unnatural, nonhuman act was when Oswald was seen drinking a Coke 90 seconds after JFK was shot. Both discrepancies are part of the evidence that Oswald was framed (probably by elements in the CIA) in both murders. BrandonTR (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, there is a distinct visual difference between an auto cartridge case and a revolver case. The auto case is non-rimmed (is the same size as the base of the case) with an extractor grove, while the revolver case is rimmed and is significantly larger than the base of the case. Moreover, the case head of the different cartridges are stamped for identification by manufacturers. The case head of a 38 Special will ususally read "38 SPL", while that of a 38 auto (38 Super or 380) will read "38 Super" or "380 Auto." BrandonTR (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't find it at all odd or unusual that a man who has just shot two people would be in an agitated frame of mind. He presumably thought that he was in imminent danger of arrest or worse and that it would be useful to have his weapon ready for immediate self-defence. If you had just killed a policemen, wouldn't you expect more to turn up swiftly, with their guns drawn and aimed at you? As for inconsistencies in witness statements, that is a given with any event involving several witnesses, especially if some time has elapsed. It would be more unusual if every witness told exactly the same story down to the last detail. --Pete (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd defy you to find another case where a gunman, who upon shooting a police officer with a revolver, then emptied his spent cartridges at the scene before fleeing to a distant location. BrandonTR (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * LHO had just shot the President of the USA as well. Trying to argue that he was in anything approaching a normal state of mind strikes me as a pointless activity. He was agitated, there's no doubt about that. --Pete (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One must assume that any gunman who shoots somebody (whether it is the President or someone else) is agitated. Why am I not surprised that you could not list another case where a gunman, who upon shooting a police officer with a revolver, then emptied his spent cartridges at the scene before fleeing to a distant location? BrandonTR (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I viewed your request as a diversion, a red herring, a chimera. I declined to jump on it and ride away. The simple fact that we are still talking about LHO's actions and state of mind to this day emphasises that neither actions nor state of mind were in any way normal. We cannot pretend that they were, and more to the point, your opinion and my opinion on the matter are irrelevant to this article and to Wikipedia. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oswald was a human being with human emotions and reactions. The fact that you cannot explain Oswald's actions in the context of what we know about human responses and reactions speaks volumes. BrandonTR (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That Oswald would take the time to manually eject cartridge cases at the scene (presumably to immediately reload) is an unnatural, nonhuman act, more in keeping with the cyborg in the movie, "The Terminator." But whoever shot Tippit did precisely that! So, what are you saying? That NotOswwald gave witnesses more time, deliberately, to take a look at him and perhaps recall his features so they could later identify him? That the witnesses lied? This makes precisely NO sense, since, if we are to take Mark Lane at his word, this person in no way resembled Oswald! Besides, as Pete says, it makes a lot of sense if he felt he needed to defend himself, to fully load his revolver as soon as possible, as he was reduced to two bullets. As usual, the conspiracy claim that this act was "unusual" makes precisely zero sense, and employing a modicum of common sense reveals that whoever reloaded risked being seen - but Oswald was more concerned about defending himself against cops who he knew would shoot to kill.

Another unnatural, nonhuman act was when Oswald was seen drinking a Coke 90 seconds after JFK was shot. I'm not aware that anyone saw Oswald drinking a Coke. But the simple act of getting a Coke was a rather weird thing to do just seconds after the president was shot. Think of it. Who on this planet, after seeing the president shot in front of your eyes, with all the shock and mayhem which immediately ensued, would think of one thing and one thing only to do - get a Coke! "Hmmmm. The president has been shot. Maybe killed. Time for a Coke." Right. The mere act of getting a Coke under such circumstances is odd behaviour, especially given by all accounts he never drank the stuff, preferring Dr. Pepper. But THAT machine... was on the first floor. Further, his very demeanour was odd. Acting "calm" by all accounts, when every other person in Deally Plaza was in an excited, shocked state, after seeing the president shot. Of course these obvious discrepancies never occur to the CT crowd who, it would seem, never employ common sense. Oswald had to get somewhere where he'd not arouse suspicion, he couldn't just "show up" on the sidewalk and say "what's up?" He had to account for his movements and getting a Coke would do that. Even if it made precisely zero sense, he had nothing else. Canada Jack (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Coke machine was on the 2nd floor. As for whether Oswald was merely seen with a Coke in his hand, or was drinking it, is superfluous. One would suppose if he had a Coke in his hand he was drinking it. Whoever shot Tippet in all likelihood was not using a revolver, but a semi-auto which automatically ejects the casings. In other words, the initial police report that the casings were from a semi-auto pistol, and not a revolver, appear to have been accurate. If the initial police report is correct, Oswald was not the shooter of Tippet, since Oswald owned a revolver, not a semi-auto. BrandonTR (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence to support your conjecture, and your conjecture is irrelevant to this article. If we were to construct an encyclopaedia out of speculation, it would not be viewed as reliable. Perhaps you should be attending to the conspiracy article, not this one. --Pete (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I just listed the evidence, which is the initial police report describing the spent shells found at the scene. BrandonTR (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You might instead spend some time with the four bullets found in officer Tippit (one of them with one of Tippit's uniform shirt brass buttons, carried in with the bullet). These are heavy revolver bullets . Now, it's true that they couldn't be matched specifically with Oswald's revolver, as the weapon's barrel had been cut down and it produced ballistics that couldn't be replicated from bullet to bullet in the FBI's own tests. However, the four bullets from Tippit (CE-602 to 605) were 155 grain slugs, far too heavy to have come from a .380, .38 super, or similar automatic weapon (you find me an exception from 1963). Moreover, they were identified at the time as .38 Special bullets, which means actual caliber .357, of a type fired only by .38 Special revolvers (which Oswald's revolver, originally a .38 S&W Victory, had been modified to fire). Three of the slugs had the Western Cartridge Company .38 Special bullet copper anti-corrosion lubaloy coating. The other was lead of a type used in .38 Special revolver cartridges by Remington-Peters. All these bullets had 5 groves and 5 lands, with a right-hand twist, a signature of Smith and Wesson. The bullets themselves say to any gun person, without any other evidence, "Smith and Wesson .38 Special revolver". Again, even leaving aside the high bullet weight, there is no automatic of that caliber firing bullets with a right hand twist and 5/5 configuration. Indeed, Oswald on capture was carrying 5 loose loaded cartridges in his pocket, with that same bullet weight, and there were two more in his revolver. Last, but not least, Oswald's revolver (as expected) had that barrel 5 land/5 grove right twist configuration. Tippit was very certainly shot by four heavy bullets from a Smith and Wesson .38 Special revolver. You're going to have to make your case that it wasn't by OSWALD'S Smith and Wesson .38 Special revolver. S  B Harris 07:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is always the possibility of evidence being fabricated later. The initial police report was that the spent cases were from an auto pistol. BrandonTR (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The possibility of one person making a mistake is a lot larger than the possibility of a huge police conspiracy involving multiple police officers in covering up the murder of one of their own, making it look like it was done by somebody other than the person who did it. Which is your theory. The initial police report from Hill that the weapon was an automatic was made apparently on the basis of Hill believing that the cases were found at the site of Tippit's body in front of Tippit's car, leading to a natural conclusion that they'd been ejected from the weapon there. And indeed, why would a revolver-user pause at the site of a murder to remove a few spent brass? So Hill made a natural assumption there, which is never a safe thing to do. In this case, it was an error. The cases were actually found in the bushes of the next yard by witness Benavides, who, as you note above, searched for them there, ONLY AFTER seeing Oswald scatter them there, from his handgun. Benavides collected them in a cigarette back, and gave them to Officer Poe, who then turned them over to Officer Hill, who made a radio call. Hill didn't know any of the history of where they were found, at the time. Due to the chain of 3 people, that had been lost to him, he screwed up. Easy to do. In fact Benavides seeing Oswald scatter the handful of cases from his handgun in the next yard is strong evidence AGAINST the pistol being an automatic, as surely you must see. So, you want to know what was the most natural explanation for what the witnesses saw and the physical evidence showed? Easy. The 4 bullets in Tippit came from 3 Western .38 Spl cartridges and 1 Remington-Peters in the same caliber. The cases found at the scene by two different people were 2 Westerns and 2 Remington-Peters. The natural assumption was that Oswald was carrying a pistol loaded with 3 Westerns and 2 Remingtons, and he fired all 5 shots at Tippit, and missed once. And one of the 5 cases (a Western) was not found. The common experience with police is that a person in a gunfight fires until they are empty. Why five shots and not six, then, as it's a six-shot revolver? I have an answer for that, too, which you will read for the first time, here. It can't go into the article, but it's far more likely than anything I've read so far. Ready? It's not safe to carry certain revolvers with a round in the chamber under the hammer. In 1963 this was true for all single action revolvers, and also for double actions that are rimfire .22's. When Oswald was in the Marines, he had dropped a personal .22 caliber pistol, apparently a derringer type, on its hammer. The weapon had gone off, wounding Oswald in the left elbow, putting him in the hospital. How close is the elbow to the heart? That discharge had contributed to his dishonorable discharge from the Marines, in fact, and must have been a very bitter memory. Anybody who this happens to, is hypervigilant about it happening again. So whether Oswald knew that technically his cheap Victory model S&W revolver was safe in the condition of fully loaded or not, my guess is that he normally carried it with an empty chamber under the hammer, against the possibility of a similar type accident for his concealed-carry weapon. And on that Nov. 22 he was in such a hurry when he returned to his rooming house to get his coat and pistol, that he didn't fully load it. Who would expect him too? But, what this means is that after emptying the pistol at Tippit , he found himself defenseless. With the possibility of a further confrontation with the police at any moment, it does make sense that, as Oswald was running from the scene, he took the five seconds necessary to swing out the cylinder, push out the empties into a hand with a single motion of cylinder extractor, and scatter them into the bushes. Then he reloaded the pistol as he continued his walk toward downtown Oak Cliff. That's what all the witnesses say, and it's what the physical evidence suggests, too. And there you are. It's not as exciting as a Mission Impossible conspiracy theory, but it is natural in every way, and it does make sense. S B Harris 01:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You're obviously just speculating and making stuff up to fit your preconceptions. BrandonTR (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As if you never "speculate" and "make stuff up", . At least concedes that this theory can't go into the article. But it is based on the established fact that Oswald shot himself in the elbow while in the Marines, so has a plausibility that most wild conspiracy theorizing lacks.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The difference between SB and you, Brandon, is he takes into account the actual evidence, instead of seizing on one statement, one person who says "x" while everyone else says "y." etc. He points out that if the shells were found in the bush, that would preclude the shooter using an automatic, the precise point I earlier made. Seizing on the police report ignores the contrary evidence which suggests the gun was not an automatic. So either you make the case as to why the police report must be believed above other evidence to the contrary, or you accept the report was wrong on this point. You have utterly failed to make any case, despite requests to do so, a consistent criticism which can apply to most in the CT crowd. On the other hand, SB makes a plausible case that the report was written with the PRESUMPTION the gun used was an automatic, which in the end simply suggests an understandable error was made, something made everyday and routinely by we humans, even the super-human "highly trained professionals" who are impervious to error and misperception which the CT crowd regularly paints their witnesses as being (unless, of course, the cop in question has evidence which supports the lone gunman theory, at which point the cop is part of the conspiracy). He, in other words, accounts for the contrary evidence, without having to resort to a series of implausibilities (planted evidence! lying witnesses!). Something which you and the CT crowd pointedly avoid doing.Canada Jack (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The police are expert witnesses. Why would you believe non-expert witnesses over expert witnesses? BrandonTR (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * But the police are not "witnesses," here. No policeman saw Tippit shot. The only witnesses are the civilians on the scene. One (Benavides) saw Oswald eject cases from his handgun while running away and used that knowledge to go over to the yard up the street and retrieve two of the empties for Poe, the officer on the scene next. This would certainly indicate that the gun was not an automatic, as Oswald would not have been ejecting empties from an automatic. An automatic, in fact, would have ejected empties onto the street near the downed Tippit. This should not be hard for you to understand. As for the statement of Gerald Hill on the radio, not identified by him until many years later, we don't know on what basis he made it. It's not likely to have been on the basis of seeing the cases and identifying them as automatic cases (.380 or the like) as no such cases are found on the scene. There is no evidence of this sort to explain. Far more likely is that Hill believed the two shells given to him in a cigarette back by Poe, supplied by Benavides, were found near Tippit, and inferred from this that the weapon was an automatic on the basis of it ejecting empty brass at the scene. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. This is not a police "report"-- it's one officer making a remark to others over the radio, before the suspect is even in custody, to help in their search. And it turns out to be wrong. The inside of two of the cases is marked with a crude B for "Barnes" (one of the officers in the chain of evidence) but there are no marks for Hill (see for the best photos on the net of these materials). We have no reason to think Hill ever got the cases out of the cigarette pack. In any event, the Oswald pistol was loaded with a mix (3 and 3 each) of Remington and Western .38 Special rounds when it was taken from Oswald, showing that Oswald had both brands of ammo in his possession. The four cases found at the scene turned out to be empty brass from Remington and Western ammo (2 of each), and the 4 slugs in Tippit were 155 grain .38 Special bullets (3 Western and 1 Remington) that had certainly been fired from a Smith and Wesson revolver, as shown by the groove pattern and righthand twist. The cases had been fired by Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all others. The bullets were NOT badly damaged but could not be matched to any revolver because they had been fired through a barrel slightly too large for them (as shown by the gas blow-by markings), consistent with Oswald's revolver which had originally been a .38 S&W. [Confusingly a .38 S&W is an older, shorter, and less powerful cartridge which fires a slightly larger .361 bullet; Oswald's weapon had been re-chambered for the longer and more powerful .38 Special (which is actually .357 caliber) but with the .38 S&W barrel merely shortened, so it is .361 caliber and causes the .357 caliber .38 Special bullets to rattle and gas to blow by them]. The bullets that killed Tippit were revolver bullets that were from the exact same two types and loads of ammo found in Oswald's revolver on capture, and as shown by the characteristic barrel twist, they had certainly been fired through a Smith and Wesson revolver into Tippit, and it could certainly have been Oswald's. In fact, the gas blow back pattern indicative of a barrel too large, or a barrel blown out and worn, is evidence that they likely came from Oswald's unusual revolver. But ballistics does not prove this.  All in all, however, it's a pretty damning set of facts. There is no place here for automatic cases or bullets. These bullets from Tippit are heavy 155 grain .38 Special bullets (caliber .357) identical to those found in Oswald's revolver when he was taken, and they had been fired down a Smith and Wesson revolver barrel-- one that was slightly too large for them (.361 vs. .357 caliber), just as Oswald's was. Do you have anything to add to that, BrandonTR?  S  B Harris 05:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The police are expert witnesses. Why would you believe non-expert witnesses over expert witnesses? So, you are trying to claim we can dismiss multiple witnesses who saw Oswald manually eject bullet shells from his gun because they are "non-experts"? Huh? Brandon underlines one of the common fallacies of the Conspiracy crowd - that we can take as the ultimate truth statements from their preferred witnesses, in this case a police witness at the scene, because they are "professionals," presumably impervious to error. Obviously, you've met very few cops, Brandon. But witnesses, even police witnesses, make presumptions, and make mistakes. More basically, Brandon, how do we account for the other evidence? We have multiple witnesses who saw the shooter manually eject the shells from the gun. This is corroborated by multiple witnesses who saw the shells in the bushes, and corroborated by the nature of the bullets found within Tippit, corroborated by the gun which matched the shells found on the person of the man a dozen people positively identified as the man who shot Tippit and fled the scene.


 * This is precisely why most in the conspiracy crowd can't be taken seriously. Time is wasted getting these people to address, let alone even acknowledge, the contrary evidence. These people live in an alternate reality, oblivious to the glaring holes in their scenarios, not even willing to attempt to construct an alternate explanation which accounts for all the evidence. Which is not surprising - as I pointed out, the implications of accepting their contrary evidence as being correct REQUIRES a plot of such labyrinthal complexity that it collapses under the weight of its utter implausibility, But that doesn't stop them for a second. Canada Jack (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of wasting time, perhaps it's time to look at a topic ban here? I'm getting tired of endless conspiracy nonsense interrupting the (rare) useful work on this article. --Pete (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. We've beaten this subject into the dirt. The Warren Commission apologists just cannot accept the testimony of expert police witnesses who obviously know the difference between revolver shell casings and auto pistol casings. BrandonTR (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite obviously the police never saw automatic cases (only the press and other novices ever calls them "casings", BTW). I don't know what these hypothesized auto cartridge cases do, or explain, in this case. Tippit was hit with 4 bullets of an exact caliber fired only in revolvers, of a weight (in that caliber) fired almost exclusively in revolvers (certainly so in 1963) and which indeed in Tippit's case had typical revolver markings on them (5 lands and grooves, right-hand twist), indicating that they had, indeed, been fired through a revolver. If we found revolver caliber and weight ammo with markings indicative of having been fired through an automatic, that would have been odd. A Colt automatic pistol, for example, frequently has a left-hand twist and 6 lands and grooves, so a .380 ACP (Automatic Colt pistol) bullet often has such markings. A .380 bullet with a right-handed rifling twist and 5 lands and grooves would be strange. As would a standard 155 grain .357 (i.e., .38 Special) with 6 grooves and a left-handed twist. If Tippit had been hit with the latter, we'd have to conclude that somebody hand-loaded .357 155 grain bullets intended for .38 Special use, into a .380 automatic case, and then shot Tippit with such an automatic, leaving the ejected cases at the scene. Later these cases would have to be made to disappear by the police (who are trying to murder one of their own), and four expended cases from Oswald's pistol substituted into the evidence chain, instead. Hmmm... you'd think a person working that hard to make a .380 shooting look like a .38 Special shooting, would have "policed" their own brass better, to begin with. So to speak. If somebody loaded .38 Special bullets into .380 auto cases, they'd have to have left at least two of them in the Parker yard where Hill could I.D. them as .380 auto cases. But how does that work? Tippit was hit by four .38 Special bullets that had been through a Smith and Wesson revolver barrel, by their markings. So now we have to hand-load .38 Special 155 gr. bullets into .380 ACP cases, and fire them through a Smith and Wesson revolver that has been rechambered to take rimless .380 rounds (extraction is a problem, but this thing is only going to be used once...). A very odd and special firearm, indeed. The brass from this shooting (if we can get it out of the cylinder) has to be left where it can be shown to Hill, then made to disappear, so that Oswald's expended brass (which is the only kind that carries the markings of Oswald's firearm) can substitute for it. This is not easy. It's starting to look like the HSCA idea where there's a second shooter, but he doesn't hit JFK. Perhaps there's a second shooter firing automatic rounds at Tippit, but he doesn't hit him? Ah-- now we're getting somewhere. We don't have to posit the world's weirdest revolver that fires hand-loaded automatic cartridges, whose only purpose is to confuse hell out of historians. Instead, there's one guy firing a normal .380 automatic at Tippit, but he's a lousy shot and never connects. We'll call him... Duplicate Oswald. He provides automatic cartridge cases for Hill to identify. Actually, he doesn't have to shoot at all-- just scatter .380 ACP cases along the tracks of the real shooter. The other guy is firing a revolver very, very much like Oswald's (really, VERY much), with .38 Special ammo very much like Oswald's (from the same two companies, mixed up like Jelly Bellies like those in Oswald's pistol), and this second gunman shoots Tippit 4 times. Oswald, of course, is innocent (though he has probably begun to wonder why gunfire is following him around Dallas wherever he goes). Oswald's right hand will test positive for gunpowder residue, but it's planted. Oswald allegedly tries to kill Officer McDonald in the Texas Theater with his pistol, but McDonald (and the officers witnessing it) all lie. The real Oswald wouldn't hurt a fly. And although Oswald's pistol allegedly smells like it has been freshly fired, that also is a lie. As for getting fired brass from Oswald's pistol into the evidence chain, that is child's play. As most of the Dallas police force, apparently, are in on the frame-up. S B Harris 03:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One of these? It would make working on this article much more productive.  At this point I don't even bother editing it anymore except to combat the most egregious attempts at inserting nuttery.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 06:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Coke machine was on the 2nd floor. I didn't say it was anywhere else but on the second floor. The Dr. Pepper machine, however, was on the first floor, which is what I said. Dr. Pepper was the only drink any witness remembers seeing Oswald drink. Which suggests Oswald was seeking an alibi. He would have more likely been seen if he had gone down the stairs to the first floor to get it. Which brings up an interesting point. He said he was on the first floor, having lunch, and went up to the second floor to get a Coke. But Baker saw him just pass through into the vestibule on the second floor, which suggests he had only just arrived there seconds earlier. But Truly and Baker hadn't simply sprinted up the stairs once they got to the first floor, they called for the elevator from there, soon realized it was not in service, THEN went up the stairs and saw Oswald. So why didn't they see Oswald pass by on his way up the stairs? Canada Jack (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether it was a Coke or a Dr. Pepper is a distinction in search of a difference. BrandonTR (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The distinction, Brandon, is not in the brand, it is in the location of the vending machines. The Coke machine was on the second floor, the Dr Pepper machine on the first. I'm not suggesting it's a bizarre choice for Oswald to have gone for a Coke rather than a Dr Pepper, the only drink anyone ever recalled him with before Nov 22 1963, but going for a Coke meant there'd be less chance of being seen coming down the stairs to the 2nd floor rather than to the dock of the 1st floor. So it's a good chance he suddenly changed his brand to lessen his chance of being seen descending the stairs. More tellingly, he said he went from the 1st floor lunchroom to go up the stairs. But Baker and Truly ALSO went that way, via the back way to call the elevators. It took them a moment to realize they couldn't call the elevator. So, if Oswald took that same route to get to the Coke machine, why didn't they see him pass by and go up the stairs ahead of them? Canada Jack (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Who knows? The important point is that they saw Oswald within 90 seconds after the assassination and said that he was buying a Coke from the machine and that he wasn't out of breath. BrandonTR (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If a president (or any human being) has just been shot, who is going to be counting seconds accurately and evaluating the breathing patterns of somebody buying a soda? Why do you fixate on the trivial items that in your mind support your conspiracy theories while ignoring the mountains of solid evidence that Oswald shot both JFK and Tippit?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, you choose to speculate and ignore witness testimony. BrandonTR (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Holy Cow. Shut this thread down as completely unconstructive. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that will last only as long as the time it takes someone to post the next complaint about the Warren Commission.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, as soon as some Warren Commission apologist chooses to try to defend the indefensible. BrandonTR (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See what I mean, Binksternet? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? BrandonTR (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"Accused" and "Alleged". Innocent until proven guilty.
It is not the usual practice to put the deceased to trial. Guilt or innocence is not determined in the usual fashion, but it is certainly possible to investigate the facts. There is a wealth of evidence demonstrating a chain from Oswald purchasing the rifle to pulling the trigger and killing Kennedy. It's been fifty years and there is no actual evidence for any other shooter. We give fringe theories the WP:WEIGHT they deserve, and in this case, that's not a lot. Trying to water down the facts uncovered by a string of official investigations isn't appropriate in this article, where we deal in facts, not fantasy. --Pete (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Several investigations determined Oswald in fact carried out the crimes, which is what the article says. The rather silly objection that only a person who stands trial can be found "guilty" ignores that he was indeed found to have carried out the crimes he was charged with after what many argue were some of the most intensive investigations in world history. I note that this rather inane argument that he should only be identified as the "accused" or "alleged" assassin isn't found on the Lincoln page where Booth was determined to be the killer of Lincoln despite never standing trial for that crime. Should we also say that Stalin and Hitler only "allegedly" led their governments to unspeakable crimes as they also never stood trial? Canada Jack (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We've already watered down the intro by attributing his guilt to the investigations instead of outright stating it. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't state as fact what has never been proven. BrandonTR (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we might like to cease disrupting the work here? Endless discussions on fringe notions is not what we're about. Especially when each topic has been discussed previously. --Pete (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing fringe about the fact that a majority of Americans reject the Warren Commission's conclusions. BrandonTR (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we should take that as a "no", then? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you mean that most Americans reject the Warren Commission, then you should take that as a definite "no."

Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Icarus4 (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

poor quality external link
After a short edit war Snuggums readded a link ([]), asking for a reason for its removal, and I replied. I have no idea (or interest) in who John McAdams is, but just reading his home page persuaded me that I would not expect to be directed to him as a serious scholar. "Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill John Kennedy by himself, or did a conspiracy do it?" No John, a conspiracy did not do it, as a conspiracy is not capable of action. Members of a conspiracy may have acted, but not the conspiracy. A conspiracy is for this purpose like a conversation, a conversation can not shut a door, but I mightg shut the door as a result of a conversation. ". And if you are like most Americans," ". But if you are a sophisticated conspiracist," begining senternces with a preposition. "But if you are a sophisticated conspiracist, you likely understand that the mass of silly nonsense in conspiracy books and documentaries does no service to the cause of truth in the assassination, and simply buries the "case for conspiracy" under layers of bunk." Not sure the writer knows where he is going with this sentence, Pro or Anti. In short the standard of writing falls far short of acedemic, and discourages me from trying to read the site any further, even if he does have something worthwhile to say on page 99: It's not worth reading 98 pages of schoolboy project style writing to find it. Leave link on if you want it, I do not feel happy directing readers to a poorly written blog. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Given how the removal of the link had been repeatedly restored, I felt there should be a reason for its removal. My only problem was that (at first) no edit summary explaining its removal was given. I have no personal opinion on the link itself, just feel any removals should be explained. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Given how the restoration of the link had been repeatedly undone...IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems the main reason here for exclusion of the McAdams link are some semantic disputes over the the use of the word "conspiracy" and style issues in terms of beginning sentences with prepositions. The fallacy here is the premise that a scholar should write in a scholarly style rather than a newspaper style, even though this is a site which is intended for the general public. Which, to me, is rather slight reasoning to have the link removed. I appreciate your decision not to want to delve into the rest of the website based on your style objections, Jeanie, I just wonder why you suppose your objections should also apply to others who have no such concerns? Canada Jack (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * clearly I was not the only editor who thought the link not required.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thus far, Jeanie, going by the reverts, an equal number of editors have agreed that the link should stay. Which suggests we should gain a consensus here on the talk page before we proceed with the link's removal. Canada Jack (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * McAdams' blog is already referenced in External Links under "Lee Harvey Oswald: Lone Assassin or Patsy". Why are we giving multiple links to McAdams' website (a website that is spurious to begin with)? BrandonTR (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like an RfC should be held..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like it shouldn't SPaulus1 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since a link to McAdams' site is already present as "Lee Harvey Oswald: Lone Assassin or Patsy", there seems to be no good reason to link there again with "Kennedy Assassination Home Page". McAdams' site is well known and respected, but two entries is overlinking. The Oswald page is the most relevant one: I would recommend adding the author's name to it, and removing the other link. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. BrandonTR (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If the website is acceptable, we should link to it once. If it is "spurious", we should't link to it at all. I don't think that it is "spurious" as compared to pro-conspiracy websites, so let's have one link to it, fully cited.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Once a Marine, always a Marine
As defined on one of its two websites, there is no such title as "former Marine." In the second paragraph it describes Oswald as such. As a compromise and to signify that he was no longer in active duty I'll change "former" to the more appropriate "retired" Marine.GuyHimGuy (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. My buddy in the Corps once told me, and I quote, "There is only one former Marine: Lee Harvey Oswald." Can someone with a dishonorable discharge call himself, "retired"? Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right as hee made one of the biggest moves against his country.GuyHimGuy (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oswald received a hardship discharge, not a dishonorable discharge. He did not "retire" and was not entitled to a military pension. This is an encyclopedia, not a U.S. Marine Corps recruiting site. Oswald was a former member of the Marines, and any language implying otherwise is misleading and not encyclopedic.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - administrator help needed
The second paragraph now reads, "As a marine, Oswald defected to the Soviet Union . . .". This is inaccurate, as it implies that Oswald was on active duty when he defected. He received a hardship discharge from the Marines the month before he defected. Thank you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change status of web page from full protection to blocking
Content disputes

On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others. BrandonTR (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Lone gunman theory redirect
I suggest deleting "lone gunman theory" link at the beginning of the section on shootings since it is redirected.Cdg1072 (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Further reading" etc removed by Brandon
Brandon has removed several further reading/external links, both of which, not coincidentally, detailed non-conspiratorial interpretations of the evidence linking Oswald to the assassination. His claim? The links are "non-specific" on the subject. Even for Brandon, this is specious reasoning. The Bugliosi book has a chapter, exclusively focused on Oswald's biography, which runs several hundred pages. Indeed, I'd wager that that section is longer than at least some of the other books listed! Using Brandon's logic, we'd have to omit a "further reading" listing of a noted British person if the reference points to the Dictionary of National Biography as it is not "specific" enough for him. Right. Meanwhile, the McAdams website has a link on its front page to its Oswald section where a visitor can peruse not only basic biographical information, but dozens of claims and counterclaims on him. Further, and more to the point, it is beyond inane to claim these sources are "non-specific" when, lo and behold, numerous references on this very page for the article... are from those very sources! Canada Jack (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see edit-warring has broken out. Perhaps BrandonTR could discuss edits here before he makes them when he thinks they may be controversial? Which they mostly are, going by the edit history. --Pete (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as per BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Canada Jack (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. 'Further reading' sections should only bar sources that the editors agree are of no value. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Time for some discussion, then. I'm removing two books from the list that don't belong. --Pete (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of revert dispute of Brandon's link
Brandon has added a link, Gamaliel sees it as a low quality link from an unreliable website and reverted it. And the back and forth is now on its fourth or fifth round. I agree with Gamaliel that Bold-Revert-Discuss applies here, and you two are now afforded an opportunity to state your cases here and not in the edit lines. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * CTKA.net is an unreliable, unacademic source, unfit for using as a source or in external links sections. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_86 and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_83. It should not be included, as per standard Wikipedia policy and practice, until a consensus has been achieved for inclusion of such a link.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the site, it is tripe of the first order, selling speculation to the gullible. In no way is it a serious news or history or academic resource. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Websites that do not support all of the Warren Commission's conclusions appear to be considered unreliable by some of the editors here. Very well then ... here's the source link to PBS. BrandonTR (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make a case for ctka.net as a reliable website according to the WP:RS policy instead of blaming everyone else for your inability to do so. Now regarding your insertion of this link to a subpage of the website for the Frontline episode "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?":  Why does this article need to highlight this particular page?  Is there a compelling informational reason this particular subpage should be singled out over dozens of other subpages from Frontline?  Or does this merely contain conspiratorial content that you personally wish to highlight?  If it is the latter, it of course should be immediately removed as per WP:NPOV.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make a case for PBS Frontline being a unreliable source. You ask why the PBS Oswald Frontline piece should highlight this particular page written by Professor Newman. Well, for one thing, Newman's article presents another perspective, although Newman's article does not allege a conspiracy as you falsely claim. One might also ask why two sub-pages of the McAdam's website are highlighted in the Links section for a total of three McAdam's links? BrandonTR (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Brandon, but Gamaliel has it nailed. We already have a link to the Frontline page, and you have simply added a link to one of those pages from that very page, a page which includes a wide range of views on the assassination. Why, then, do you insist on a link to this one particular page of many links available? As for McAdams, one link is to his main page, the other two to Oswald specifically - one simply being a timeline which is very useful for someone to get a sense of what Oswald was doing and when, crucial to know given the constant moves and activities he was involved with. The Frontline link is to a range of articles on Oswald, including Newman's. You are comparing apples and oranges. You say the Newman link doesn't allege conspiracy? So even though it treats as fact that an Oswald impersonator was making calls to the embassies in Mexico City, that can be interpreted as some "whatever" factoid, like the colour of his socks? Nothing odd or involving others besides Oswald at all? Anything you say, Brandon. But that's not even the point here. To pretend the Frontline page anoints the page in question as a "reliable source" is specious reasoning at best. Canada Jack (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's obvious to everyone but you that I did not claim that Frontline is an unreliable source. I merely asked why we should highlight that particular subpage.  Instead of answering that question, you dodge it and ask about McAdams' website.  Canada Jack clearly outlined why we have highlighted those particular subpages.  Can you make a similar case for highlighting that Frontline subpage?  I doubt it.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel, you are obviously challenged with your reading comprehension skills, but let me say it again, Newman's article presents another perspective, although Newman's article does not allege a conspiracy as you falsely claim. As for Canada Jack's nonsense, he needs to read the HSCA report which also examined the evidence as to whether there was someone impersonating Oswald in Mexico City. BrandonTR (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Bluster and insult won't disguise the fact that you have made no case at all. Every webpage "presents another perspective", but obviously we can't link to them all. So, once again, why does this article need to highlight that particular page? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The bottom line here, Brandon, given BRD, is that the onus is on you to establish the need for this page when we already have the Frontline page link. This is the "discuss" portion of that process, and I have yet to see even an attempt at a cogent defence of what you are attempting to do here other to declare it is "another perspective." But the link to that page with all those views is already there! As for the HSCA report, if you are referring to the Lopez Report, perhaps you should re-read what it concluded on the Oswald impersonator. The Report, long withheld, must have been a massive disappointment to those who sought evidence of conspiracy, because it concluded that the majority of the evidence in fact suggests the person was Oswald and not an impersonator. And this from an author who desperately sought evidence of a conspiracy. The Report adds that the "possibility" cannot be "absolutely dismissed," but I suppose we can't also "absolutely dismiss" the "possibility" that aliens from Alpha Centauri were involved. Newman, however, seems to know better and flatly declares the impersonator story as being factual. Canada Jack (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The possibility that someone was impersonating Oswald would not have seemed so likely had the CIA not produced a picture taken by a CIA camera of someone who the CIA at first said was Oswald, but who looked very different from Oswald. Later, the CIA changed its story regarding the photo claiming it was all a big mistake. It's little things like this, along with the CIA's known history of lying and deception, that has caused a majority of Americans to dismiss the Warren Commission's lone nut version of the assassination. There's no reason to theorize about little green men when you have a terrorist agency like the CIA that has an established record of assassinating other countries' leaders. BrandonTR (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Brandon, and the Lopez Report delved into this - analyzing actual EVIDENCE instead of silly comic-book conspiracy scenarios - and concluded... the man who contacted and visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies was most likely indeed Lee Harvey Oswald. The back and forth over that "Oswald" photo shows to people who know anything about intelligence agencies that even the CIA aren't immune to incompetence and confusion. So, per Newman, we are expected to believe the same people who said "That's Oswald!" in terms of the photo can be expected to know if it was Oswald on the audio tapes? And this "proves" there was an imposter making at least some of the calls? How stupid does he think we are? I have yet to hear a rational explanation from the CT crowd as to how this photo adds up to complicity in some nefarious plot - whether against the Cubans/Soviets or against Kennedy - that doesn't invoke Rube Goldberg as an architect of the plan. Canada Jack (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes Jack, and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover must have also been part of the CT crowd, because as the article points out, Hoover pulled out his pen and, in his characteristic large, thick handwriting scrawled, “OK, but I hope you are not being taken in. I can’t forget CIA withholding the French espionage activities in USA nor the false story re Oswald’s trip in Mexico City only to mention two of their instances of double dealing.” BrandonTR (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The bottom line, whatever Newman says being beside the point, is that that material is already part of the extant "Frontline" link which has a selection of articles on Oswald and therefore does not require a separate link. The "balance" is there already as a range of views is found on that page and Newman is right at the top. Canada Jack (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The bottom line question: Why the double standard with a link to the McAdams website and then 2 separate, redundant links to McAdams articles that trash Oswald? BrandonTR (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no double standard, there is a single one, and that is that subpages of particular value can be linked to. Canada Jack already outlined above the specific reasons for including those subpages you complain about.  If you provide a similar compelling and substantive reason to include the Newman subpage, we will discuss it here.  This discussion would become productive if you stopped beating the tiresome drum of CT oppression and provided such a reason.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I already provided the reason (see previous). BrandonTR (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's already been pointed out to you that "presenting another perspective" is, in and of itself, an inadequate case for inclusion, and no other editor concurs that this is a valid reason for inclusion. Do you wish to expand on your case or should we table this discussion and remove the link?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles here. This is the same pointless time-wasting disruptive discussion we've had dozens of times with Brandon over attempts to insert CT material here. The actual CT article would seem to be a better place for such discussion. Just sayin' --Pete (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * [removing personal attack] BrandonTR (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hoover was making the same critique the HSCA made about the CIA 15 years later, Brandon. They lie and obstruct about everything. That's not news, and it doesn't equate to conspiracy. But instead of defending content of material, let's look at the main issue - should there be a separate link for Newman? We've already explained why the McAdams sublinks are warranted, but the Newman sublink is a sublink to a page on Oswald! We need a substantive rationale for its inclusion.Canada Jack (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Newman doesn't equate the Mexico City incident to conspiracy, rather to a proven coverup. Some people think that revealing a coverup in this matter is important, although you many not think so. BrandonTR (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A cover-up of the CIA's incompetence in Mexico City? But all sides agree on that point. May I remind you that this page isn't about the actions of the CIA per se but on Lee Harvey Oswald. So, if there is no conspiracy being claimed here, then the article is merely on a cover-up of CIA's operations and clumsiness in regards to tracking Oswald, then the question now becomes, "How is this relevant?" The page is about Oswald, not on the CIA's bungling in Mexico and cover-up of that bungling, fascinating though that non-related subject is. Canada Jack (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We're at least making some progress. You now agree that Newman is not talking about conspiracy. As to how this relates to Oswald? ... well let's see ... Oswald was the guy down in Mexico City supposedly trying to get into Russia via Cuba. BrandonTR (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that if the article is about the CIA's coverup of their operations down there, it isn't particularly relevant to an article on Lee Harvey Oswald. We already know what Oswald was doing down there, so why a link to a long-winded article on what the CIA was doing down there? No one has established Oswald was down there with the CIA - that would be a conspiracy would it not? Even if it IS relevant, you still are stuck with arguing for a sub-link to a link - and I'd say you've undercut the relevance of the article to the page by saying it has nothing to do with a conspiracy. Canada Jack (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again you repeat the conspiracy mantra. What the CIA did regarding the Oswald visit may not be relevant to a conspiracy, but it's relevant to a coverup. You need to read the article. BrandonTR (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the "conspiracy mantra," Brandon, it's whether the article is about a conspiracy - making it a relevant link - or whether it is to a cover-up - which makes it an irrelevant link. You should re-read my post - and I read the article. It's an old one, actually. Canada Jack (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Official coverups regarding matters concerning Oswald are very relevant. BrandonTR (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's get something straight, Brandon. If you insert something and it is reverted and you fail to gain consensus for its inclusion, then the item stays out. In a similar fashion, if one removes material which has been on a page for a while, and that material is put back in and you fail to gain consensus for its removal, that material remains. In this case, I see three editors all agreeing that your inserted material should not be included, which means you are on the border of being a vandal here as you continually re-insert material you failed to gain consensus for its inclusion. The onus is on YOU to gain consensus for its inclusion NOT on us for its removal, once BRD has been invoked. And, may I remind you, a link to a page which has the article you are trying to insert as a sublink IS ALREADY ON THE PAGE. Canada Jack (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure how many times we have to go through this, Brandon. You need consensus when there is disagreement over something added or something removed. It's really as simply as that. You do yourself no favours by continually ignoring the basic rules here at wikipedia as those who might sympathize with your position see you acting not in good faith, but as little more than a vandal. As for me being a "fool," I've been called worse things by better people. Canada Jack (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015
Oswald was not trying to pass anyone; he was just standing. "Baker let Oswald pass after Truly identified him as an employee." should be "After Truly verified that Oswald was an employee, they left him in the lunchroom and continued up the stairs."

72.182.21.218 (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  13:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect grammar
"she caught a glimpse of a man whom she believed was Oswald": it's a subtle point, but this "whom" should be "who". Consider it with brackets: "she caught a glimpse of a man who (she believed) was Oswald". It's subject pronoun, not object pronoun. (OTOH, "whom" would be correct if we said "she caught a glimpse of a man whom she believed to be Oswald", because then it's the object pronoun: she believed him to be Oswald.) Please fix by changing "whom" to "who". 86.132.138.215 (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Thanks! - Location (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

FAQ
Since the FAQ discussion got submerged in more walls of text and debate, I'm reviving it here. The point of an FAQ is to make the consensus, or at least the reasoning for content visible to new editors in a concise manner, without making interested users work their way through massive archives or scrolling through hundreds of kilobytes of text. Let's confine the discussion in this section to suggested FAQ, please, and please keep it short.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Impartiality
I suggest reviewing this article to make sure it is impartial, because at this point I feel that it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.158.131 (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. Canada Jack (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the first sentence: "Lee Harvey Oswald was, according to five U.S. government investigations, the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy..." is highly impartial and makes the reader think that LHO was the actual assassin (those "investigations" did not lead to any convictions are were highly corrupted). This is highly misleading and readers will get the impression that LHO had something tangible to do with JFK's death. I highly suggest that the opening be changed to something more like: "Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to five U.S. government investigations,[n 1] alleged to have been the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99th Percentile (talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That proposed sentence would give the inaccurate impression that those multiple investigations merely suggested he was the killer instead of reaching that as a definite conclusion.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter that some political committee "reached a definite conclusion" and why is this any more than just a "suggestion", really? No teeth to this point. 99th Percentile (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The conclusions of the Warren Commission and of the HSCA were quite definitive in concluding that Oswald in fact shot and killed the president. To suggest otherwise would be a disservice to the average reader, in fact, to suggest otherwise would be a lie. Even the staunchest conspiracy theorist would agree that that statement is factually accurate, even if they take issue with the conclusion. And it is beyond specious to point out, as was done here, that those conclusions "did not lead to any convictions" given that the person they identified was Oswald and Oswald was, may I remind you, dead when the conclusions were reached. In the United States, a dead man cannot be convicted. But, just as when we identify Booth as the killer of Lincoln despite the fact he didn't stand trial, Oswald's guilt, as Booth's, was determined beyond reasonable doubt by the relevant official investigations. Canada Jack (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a logical statement (i.e., that the commissions did, in fact, conclude something), but you're going over the top with the "reasonable doubt" stuff. Oswald was never convicted of a crime, and subsequent information has essentially rendered those commissions both obsolete and, for the most part invalid. The modern reader should be made aware of this, and the convenience of sweeping this under the conspiracy rug is wrongheaded. I've read several modern history textbooks that don't even mention Oswald any longer under the Kennedy assassination. Thus, there's an obvious move afoot to sidestep the issue of Oswald's involvement, let alone guilt. Wikipedia should not make a political statement about the certainty of Oswald's guilt based on corrupted commissions from decades ago.99th Percentile (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Oh God is Jack going to have fun with this one.) 99th, I share your skepticism on the conclusions. However, Wikipedia is not sweeping that under the rug; there's an entire article devoted to JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories, and many splinter articles from that as well. The Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK Assassination articles have long been written to reflect the official conclusions and not the "alternate" conclusions. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the whims of editors here and have no energy to battle anyone. I was just trying to make a logical point and hope that someone here understands that the LHO-did-it meme died years ago and that there really isn't (any longer) evidence that supports this or would hold up in a court of law. I'm not trying to rewrite history and have no problems citing those committees. However, to present readers with bold statements asserting his guilt is kind of silly when you think about it. I'll move on if we're stuck in neutral here.99th Percentile (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "whim" of the editors to note that the exhaustive investigations of the two main government inquiries (and several others as well) came to identical conclusions - that Oswald indeed shot and killed the president. The FACT being expressed here is that this is what they concluded. The statement does NOT treat as "fact" that Oswald indeed killed the president, just that the investigations made particular conclusions.

True, many authors claim Oswald didn't do it, but they almost to a person had no access to the forensic evidence. Those who DID have access all made identical conclusions: JFK was struck by two bullets shot from the rear; those shots came from the TSBD; the rifle used was owned by Oswald; Oswald was the sniper. In the main, these conspiracy authors cite "evidence" which was rebutted 35+ years ago. Like the "faked" backyard photos, the "changed" motorcade route, the Mauser rifle in the TSBD, etc. You are free to believe the lies and distortions from the conspiracy crowd - who, like Holocaust deniers, claim that the mountain of evidence pointing to Oswald and Oswald alone was "faked" and "planted" - but if you actually read the Warren Report and the HSCA conclusions (which, of course, you have?), you will see that the case is far more iron-clad than those authors would like you to believe. Canada Jack (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL. Same kind of narrow minded BS I've seen on other controversial issues. Your mountain of "FACT" is worthless sir, as practically anyone can disprove the Warren Commission's assertions with minimal research. This isn't a "conspiracy crowd" issue any longer; thousands if not millions of documents have been released and dozens if not hundreds of books have been published by sincere people (not kooks) all framing the WC and the HSCA work as incompetent at best and purposely corrupt at worst. I've no interest in debating another "true believer" (people who, btw, are more dangerous than any "conspiracy nut".99th Percentile (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ouch! Sounds like you paraphrased this line out of my history of conspiracy which I wrote on the main assassination page (recently removed though): "framing the WC and the HSCA work as incompetent at best and purposely corrupt at worst."


 * Again, the "fact" quoted on the page is what the various investigations concluded, notwithstanding the veracity of those conclusions.


 * As for "sincere" people, you obviously don't know much of the history of the conspiracy movement. I started to look into it in 1972, seeing old Life magazines and reading "Six Seconds in Dallas." Now, while Thompson I would rank as one of the "sincere" conspiracy theorists, many of the other prominent conspirators I much later realized were not. Mark Lane in particular. And he is not one simply cherry-picked to make a point: many argue that he almost singlehandedly drove the conspiracy argument in the early days, even appearing before the Warren Commission. He HID the most crucial piece of testimony by the single witness who watched the motorcade from behind the picket fence - where the knoll assassin would have been visible to him - and made Lee Bowers appear to claim there was a "commotion" and "flash of light" implying a gunman. Turns out Bowers, since Lane wouldn't ask the obvious question, stated point-blank that at the time the motorcade passed by "NO ONE" was behind the fence. But Lane had a line to peddle - that there was a knoll assassin. Too bad that the sole witness who would have known told him there was no one there!


 * And then there are others like Garrison and Stone who bold-faced LIED to the American public about who said and did what.


 * It was not until about 2000 that I realized the case the Warren Commission peddled which I had for almost 30 years seen as bogus, so obviously bogus, was in fact correct. And I am not alone. Many here, many out there, people who wanted the truth about the "conspiracy" to get out, made the intellectually honest realization when presented with the evidence that Oswald in fact killed the president, and did so alone. It's not a conclusion I ever expected I'd make, but once I explored the issues brought up by the conspiracy crowd, I realized to my astonishment that most of the issues were addressed and convincingly answered often decades earlier.


 * With the internet making much material instantly available, one realizes that the mendacity from most (not all) in the conspiracy crowd is endemic to the field. And, in truth, to claim much of what they claim means you have to reject basic forensic science and/or believe that incriminating evidence was forged or planted and that hundreds if not thousands of witnesses and experts deliberately LIED to hide the "truth" of conspiracy.


 * The "millions" of unreleased documents? Besides tax records and the like, the most potential for a "smoking gun" comes from the still-withheld files of George Joannidess and several others. But this amounts to several thousand pages, and there are likely good reasons to keep this stuff secret that have nothing to do with the assassination. Keeping agency contacts and methods secret, for example. Does that mean there is NO pertinent revelation to be had? No, there could be. But I'm not holding my breath. I remember the "smoking gun" said to be in the secret Mexico City report from the HSCA. When released, we saw a lot of... nothing, the pro-conspiracy author admitting that it was likely Oswald in fact visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies/consulates. But hey, maybe one of those unreleased file has some CIA guy saying, "oh yeah, by the way, I shot Kennedy!"


 * One last question for you, 99th: Have you read the Warren Report? And if so, what line of reasoning do you see as so easily disprovable such that "practically anyone" can do so? Canada Jack (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As stated, I don't have any interest in debating true believers. I arrived at my opinions through years of research and still throw them out and revise them as I learn more. You say you did the same, but then "saw the light" and now believe (apparently) that it's an open and shut case. Yes, I've read the Warren Report, and it's hysterical. Led by 2 people with a HUGE axe to grind (Dulles and McCloy) and written by a team of loyal dupes (Ford, Specter, Jenner, etc.), it fails to find even basic connections (e.g., Ruby's ties to the Mafia, Oswald's intelligence background) and messes up all of the key details (autopsy, Zapruder film). Just look at CE399 for God's sake. Of course, the WCR couldn't explain the massive cover-up that has occurred since. If Oswald has direct involvement and acted alone, then everything would have pointed that way. There wouldn't even be a conspiracy movement of any import. But hey, you've already made up your mind. I really don't care about that anyhow--I just wanted to add a word to the main paragraph so that the casual reader wouldn't be similarly duped.99th Percentile (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 99, opinion and surmise are all very well, but we have to deal with facts. The Warren Commission and HSCA were government investigations with wide powers and access to evidence. What private investigation could compare? Has any private investigator found another weapon, another shooter? They have not. We know the locations of both Oswald and the rifle he used. Are you saying you have something as or more concrete than that? Or does it come down to maybe, might be, could have, possibly, we just don't know? It seems to me that you are trying to cast doubt on the facts we have without putting up anything better. --Pete (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.40.203 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

And I'm the "true believer"? 99 is another example of, when you actually try to discuss evidence, a person who covers his or her ears and goes "blah, blah, blah," then states there is no point in even discussing it.(!)

I don't blame 99 for avoiding a detailed discussion of the case, as usually when the right questions are asked, the conspiracy claims fall apart. For example, if there were two gunmen firing, and since we have nine or ten witnesses who actually SAW a sniper fire from the TSBD so we know that was the source for at least some of the shots, why do 95% of the earwitnesses say they heard shots coming from a single direction, even if there was much variation of where the shots came from? Common sense would state the obvious: People were confused about the source of the shots. But wouldn't there be at least a significant portion of people who said shots were fired from two directions if there was a knoll assassin as well? I've not yet heard a convincing response to that basic question.

But, since 99 brought it up, here is what the conspiracy crowd fails to address when it comes to CE399, the so-called "magic" bullet: 1) If separate bullets struck JFK in the back and Connally, what happened to the other bullet?; 2) We know that the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back entered there, and exited his throat as his shirt and tie had strands pushed out - if not CE 399, what happened to that bullet? 3) We can see the instant Connally was struck by the lapel flap at Z224 - at the point, Connally's body position is such that, given the trajectory, the only place the bullet could have come from was from Kennedy - how can this be reconciled if you believe he was struck by a separate bullet? 4) Connally's back wound was described as being elongated, indicated a tumbling bullet. Since snub-nosed bullets such as CE 399 (as opposed to point-nosed bullets) are ballistically very stable, how do you account for this tumbling if it had not struck Kennedy previously? 5) If Connally was struck by a separate bullet, why was it traveling so slow as to only slightly pierce his thigh? How could it have been slowed down sufficiently if it had not previously struck Kennedy? 6) If, as some argue, CE 399 was planted, how did the conspirators know to a) ensure the lead which extruded and left deposits in Connally's wrist was matched to the bullet when even bullets from the same batch would not match and b) ensure that there was not too many fragments left in Connally than would add up to more, with CE399, than the weight of one bullet? 7) How would the conspirators know to flatten the bullet latterly so as to coincide with a tumbling back entrance, smashing sideways into his ribs?

The modus operandi of the conspiracy crowd is to appeal to "common sense," as in how could a bullet do all that damage and be relatively unscathed? Well, folks, that is a hypothesis. And instead of resting on a hypothesis, many have tested the feasibility of the claim. And over 50 years of repeated testing has demonstrated that a bullet indeed could do that much damage and be relatively unscathed if it travelled the route the WC said it did, another point the conspiracy crowd likes to ignore. The evidence of the condition of the bullet, in other words, is consistent with the wounds it caused, and those who pretend otherwise are, quite simply, lying.

99 is also one of those people who like to impute motive. While I agree that we'd not likely get a very thorough exploration of what the agencies were up to owing to the vested interests of some on the WC, it is a logical fallacy to suppose that that in and of itself means "conspiracy." Whatever happened in Deally Plaza and in terms of associations Oswald may have had are not confirmed or negated by the investigations themselves. IOW, to note that Kennedy-hater Dulles was on the WC does NOT mean that the CIA was therefore somehow complicit. It's not evidence ipso facto of a cover up! (Some like to suggest that the very appointment of Dulles was evidence that Johnson was trying to white-wash the investigation. The trouble with that theory is the rather inconvenient fact that the person who recommended Dulles was none other than... Robert Kennedy!)

As for the passing comments about the autopsy and Zapruder film, the former was dealt with in several subsequent investigations, and aside from the precise position of the entry wound to the skull, the conclusions of the pathologists were confirmed. Even while noting the sloppiness of the autopsy, the teams of subsequent investigators stated that they had nevertheless came to the correct conclusions given the evidence, a basic point glossed over by the conspiracy crowd. Was the initial autopsy less than ideal? Yes! Did they come to an incorrect conclusion? No! Not sure what the Zapruder film issue here is, though. The film was in the possession of Life magazine. Canada Jack (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest that you, Canada Jack, switch to editing a religious page, given your faith-based defense of the WCR. You and Pete ask me to disprove the WCR when the report itself didn't prove anything. There is hardly any evidence linking LHO to the crime other than circumstantial and coerced testimony, and huge chunks of the WCR were overturned by the HSCA. You ask me to prove an alternate theory 50 years after the fact, when any forensic evidence and witnesses are certainly long gone (I know a witness to the autopsy who just died recently). You ask what happened to the "other bullets" (??) when even the magic bullet had (terribly) questionable provenance. You ask me to use facts rather than common sense, even though you have no facts on your side other than the WC existed and issued a report. I'd love to do your work for you, and would love, in fact, to re-edit this page, but I know you'd take any edits down immediately because they don't fit into your clean, make-believe world. I have an entire bookshelf filled with scholarly JFK books that each handily disprove the WCR's conclusions. Perhaps you should read a few before suggesting that I'm making stuff up:
 * JFK and the Unspeakable, by James W. Douglass
 * Destiny Betrayed, 2nd Ed, by James DiEugenio
 * The Last Investigation, by Gaeton Fonzi
 * Oswald and the CIA, by John Newman


 * Oh, I'm sure you'll say that these are conspiracy-laden hogwash, but these sorts of books tend to cite facts and honest research, something you're having a hard time processing. Don't worry, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just trying to leave a trail in case anyone with a sincere interest in reality takes over this page. Come on Jack, it's 2015 and time to drop your 1960s establishment opinions. Do you still look for hippies in the shadows?99th Percentile (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Where to start? Notice that 99 refuses to address ANY of the points I made about the SBT other than to make an elliptical remark about the provenance issue - No doubt a reference to Tomlinson and Wright who didn't positively identify CE399 as the bullet they saw at Parkland (they did, however, both say that CE399 "appears to be" and "looks like" the bullet they saw). I could go on about this chain of custody (Johnsen said he got the bullet from Wright, and Johnsen positively ID'd the bullet, for example), but it is obvious where 99 is getting his "facts" from.

But I gotta respond to this howler: "There is hardly any evidence linking LHO to the crime other than circumstantial and coerced testimony." And you claim to have read the Warren Report? What, in a language you can't comprehend, perhaps?

Vincent Bugliosi has a chapter detailing the evidence linking Oswald to the assassination. Here are some of the 53 pieces of evidence he lists which link him to the assassination:

This is generally the circumstantial case, listing acts which indicate a consciousness of guilt. The physical evidence follows.

1) LHO left behind his wedding ring and $170 in cash - likely all the money he had - for Marina when he was driven to work the day of the assassination. Obviously, he realized he might never see her again.

2) Oswald placed a long bulky package in the car when he was driven to work telling Wesley Frazier they were "curtain rods." No curtain rods were found at the TSBD, nor did his landlady say there was a need for any, and Oswald claimed he only carried his lunch.

3) Oswald, a news junkie who voraciously read newspapers every day and was one of the most politically focused people most who knew him had met, pretended not to know that the president was going to pass by when he asked James Jarman what the crowds were for. This was an obvious attempt to give the impression he was unaware of the president's visit - for what reason would he do this if not to deflect suspicion?

4) Howard Brennan positively identified Oswald as the man he saw firing shots from the TSBD. And while he equivocated when asked to identify LHO in a police line-up (he later said he feared for his family but knew it was him), his descriptions to police shortly after the shooting closely matched that of LHO. No other person in the building who was not accounted for remotely resembled that description, and no unknown persons entered the building before the assassination or left it afterwards.

5) Mulitiple witnesses SAW someone shoot from the window, or saw the rifle sticking out. The weapon found on that floor was ballistically matched to CE 399 and other fragments, and Oswald was the owner of the rifle.

6) Oswald, during the Sunday interrogations, slipped up and said he was on the sixth floor during the time of the assassination, the only employee to report their location there, or have to have been reported by others as being there.

7) Oswald claimed, ludicrously, that his first reaction to the assassination was to... get a Coke. This was an obvious attempt at an alibi after he raced down the stairs.

8) Oswald claimed he was in the first-floor lunchroom at the time of the assassination, a claim which belies what all who knew him as being the most politically aware person they knew. His claim that he had no interest in seeing the most powerful man on the planet lacks credibility.

9) He rushed from the scene, taking a bus that wasn't the right one to get to his rooming house, then getting a cab and requesting the cab stop several blocks from his place - evidence of a consciousness of guilt in desperately fleeing the scene and ensuring police weren't already at his place.

10) Oswald got his revolver from his room, not something an innocent person would likely do under the circumstances, and he changed his pants and donned a jacket.

11) Oswald shot and killed a policeman who apparently stopped him as he resembled the description of the sniper. TEN witnesses positively identified LHO as the man who shot Tippit, or who they saw emptying the shells from his gun immediately thereafter, or hastily fled, holding the revolver. If there is ONE piece of evidence which points conclusively to LHO killing Kennedy, this is it. The conspiracy crowd, while trying to change to subject by focusing on the testimony of one of these witnesses, Helen Markham (often on the fraudelent "testimony" given to Mark Lane), or on another witness from a block away who claims there was a second man, IGNORE the NINE other witnesses who ID'd Oswald, let alone proffer an explanation as to why an innocent man would shoot and kill a cop under these circumstances.

12) When arrested, Oswald said "it is all over now" and drew his revolved before being subdued. Why would an innocent man say such a thing and, more to the point, attempt to kill another policeman?

13) When arrested, he refused to give his name, not the typical behaviour of an innocent man.

14) Oswald made a clenched-fist salute once at police headquarters, a rather bizarre act by an "innocent" man.

15) He refused to take a lie detector test.

Here is the physical evidence linking him to the assassination:

1) The rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was determined by handwriting experts to have been purchased by LHO. The rifle was shipped to a postal box LHO rented in Dallas. Photos taken by his wife Marina show him holding the rifle, she confirms she took the photos and HSCA experts determined the images were authentic. Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle, on a portion which could only be placed when disassembled. IOW, he not only owned the rifle, he possessed it. A tuft of fibers found between the butt plate and wooden stock of the rifle perfectly matched fibers from the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested.

2) Two large bullet fragments found in the limo and CE 399 were fired by that particular rifle to the exclusion of all rifles on the planet.

3) The three bullet casings found by the window were fired from the same rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. Three employees directly below the window heard the shots and the shells hit the floor above them.

4) A bag which was the right size to hold the dissembled rifle was found near the window, undoubted the same bag Wesley Frazier and his sister saw him take to work that day. The bag had Oswald's prints on it.

5) Oswald's palm print and right index fingerprint were found on a box which had been arranged as a gun rest and from where some nine witnesses saw a sniper shoot and/or a rifle sticking out from the window. His palmprint was found on a large box just behind, in a position the sniper would have been in when he sat on the box and rested his right hand on it.

6) The handgun found on Oswald when arrested was determined to have been ordered by Oswald and shipped to the same Dallas post office box as the rifle.

7) One of the bullets which struck Tippit was linked to the revolver to the exclusion of all other guns. The other bullets were of a smaller calibre and could not be positively matched, though experts said they could have been fired by the gun. However, all four cartridges were fired by the revolver to the exclusion of all other firearms.

Oswald's provable lies:

1) He denied ever owning a rifle, let alone the murder weapon.

2) He lied about being in the photo. Marina confirmed and the HSCA confirmed that Oswald indeed posed with the rifle.

3) He lied about having ever seen the photo before, despite having signed one.

4) He denied the "curtain rods" story. Or even having a lengthy package that day, despite the testimony of two other witnesses.

5) Oswald said he was having lunch during the shooting with an employee, James Jarman Jr., who testified he ate lunch alone.

Then, howler #2: "huge chunks of the WCR were overturned by the HSCA." ???? Like what? On ALL pertinent evidence linking Oswald to the killing, the HSCA CONFIRMED the WC conclusions! They confirmed a) the only bullets which struck - two - were fired from the TSBD; b) they confirmed that Oswald was the sniper. They confirmed c) via the autopsy photos that JFK was struck by 2 and only 2 bullets, fired from the rear. While the HSCA scolded the WC for not aggressively pursuing conspiracy angles, the HSCA was unable to find convincing evidence of a conspiracy - other than the now-discredited dictabelt evidence, the SOLE piece of evidence which caused them to conclude a second shooter was in Deally Plaza.

"You ask me to use facts rather than common sense, even though you have no facts on your side other than the WC existed and issued a report."

Yeah, 99, it's time to actually deal with facts. I;ve presented, what? THIRTY facts on the case, you've failed to address even a single one!

But, as I said, most of the conspiracy crowd, when presented with evidence, cover their ears and go "blah, blah, blah." I expected a bit more from you. Canada Jack (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking you - or anyone - to "disprove" the WCR, 99. I'm asking you to come up with some facts. Maybe you think the official line is a load of baloney. Fine. But where's your load of facts? The alternate scenarios I've heard turn out to be loads of something worse than baloney.

Suggesting that this article is not impartial, implies that there is another side to the story. But there isn't. Not one that stacks up. If we were to present any one of the conspiracy theories as an alternative we'd be so short of reliable sources that it would only be a paragraph - and that lacking any checkable facts. I ask again, where's your shooter? Where's your weapon? Where are your witnesses? There is nothing as remotely well sourced as what we already have. 99, we at Wikipedia pursue a Neutral Point of View policy, and I invite you to familiarise yourself with that and other wikipolicies before asking for an article to flagrantly stand aside from the rules which govern all of Wikipedia's content. --Pete (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll reply to Pete first, since at least his replies are to the point. Pete, I am not trying to propose an alternate theory of the crime. My original suggestion was simply to soften the lede of this article by alluding to him being the alleged assassin rather than the actual one. This is actually what modern history textbooks do. You'd have a hard time finding a modern history textbook that frame's Oswald's guilt as strongly as the Wikipedia article. Thus, IMHO, this should be addressed. That is all. Wouldn't this be more inline with Wikipedia's neutrality policy than a strong statement of his guilt?


 * To further reply to Pete's assertion that I must prove an alternate theory, I must say that this is illogical. The WCR didn't put forth a viable theory, so why should I have to do a better job? I can, however, do a better job in sticking to the facts, something that the WCR avoided. To put it simply, when you're doing an investigation of a crime, all of the uncovered facts MUST either support, confirm, or be neutral to your hypothesis. If any uncovered fact goes against or disproves your theory, then you must either update or discard your theory. The WC, which did not comprise seasoned investigators, avoided countless facts (some obvious, some knowable, some discoverable) and reached preordained conclusions (e.g., the outline of the WCR was written before the body of it). I won't chalk up their errors to short time-frames or professional incompetence either, because a vast array of people with less resources (and no mandate) have been able to do a much better job since then. As a final condemnation of their corruption, why would they feel the need to classify millions of documents if the lone wolf Oswald was the sole culprit? The destruction of countless records is also suspicious, and the declassification of some of these records through the ARRB ultimately showed that there were many key facts that they had access to but buried so that no one else would see.


 * To Jack: It sounds like the cognitive dissonance of accepting facts outside your world view is getting to you. I'm not being critical here, but sympathetic. I understand how hard change can be sometimes. But change we must, if we're going to get anywhere. We no longer live on a flat world with the sun revolving around us. If you ever get a hankering to join the 21st century, I kindly suggest you read Reclaiming Parkland by James DiEugenio. This is probably the best book for you at this time, since it almost completely destroys every one of your assertions with facts.


 * And this is what we're after, isn't it? Facts. Cold, hard facts. Why are we even debating this? I suggested that we update this article, not to add some crazy conspiracy theory, but to soften the tone of the introductory sentence. After all, this is what modern textbooks are doing. In addition, given what we know now through declassified records, citing the Dallas Police, the Secret Service, or the FBI as a reasonable source of conclusive evidence would be laughed out of any courtroom in America (even Dallas, after Craig Watkins took office). On top of that, the HSCA concluded that JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy. Please get with the times.99th Percentile (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Our wording is "Lee Harvey Oswald was … according to five U.S. government investigations, the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy…". That is a statement of fact. Your speculation of various things, that you wish us to include in our article, is not. You want us to water down our article - notwithstanding its mention of alternate theories, and a whole article on those theories - to cast doubt on a solid fact, without presenting anything factual in return. We are not saying he was the assassin, we are saying five government investigations came to that conclusion. If you cannot grasp the situation, and you are unfamiliar with our policies, then perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the way things work here. We aren't just dismissing you out of hand because we think you are a crank or something. We are saying that your input is valid and welcome. So long as you follow the procedures we have developed over many painful years. Everything must be sourced. We follow a neutral point of view. We don't allow the personal opinions of editors to replace checkable facts. And on and on.


 * If you are unable or unwilling to stick to Wikipedias's way of doing things, then you are going to have trouble working with those who are. --Pete (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Howler #3: "The WCR didn't put forth a viable theory, so why should I have to do a better job? I can, however, do a better job in sticking to the facts, something that the WCR avoided." Actually, they did lay out the evidence, you have failed to say why that evidence doesn't pass muster, you simply ignored it. You are entitled to your own opinion, but it must be based on facts. I've laid out a good number of facts which led to the conclusion Oswald did it - we've yet to hear anything to counter that, other than insults.

"To put it simply, when you're doing an investigation of a crime, all of the uncovered facts MUST either support, confirm, or be neutral to your hypothesis."

OK, fine....

"If any uncovered fact goes against or disproves your theory, then you must either update or discard your theory."

Very good, 99. Obviously you feel certain facts disprove the WC conclusions. So, what facts are you talking about? And what about the facts which SUPPORT the conclusion Oswald did it? "As a final condemnation of their corruption, why would they feel the need to classify millions of documents if the lone wolf Oswald was the sole culprit?"

Oh boy, if you needed any evidence that 99 is out of his depth on this, read the above. Now he's saying the Warren Commission classified millions of documents.

Not much fun in debating someone who is still in JFK Assassination 101. Canada Jack (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

While it's always good to have some well-meaning editor hat a discussion like this, discussion like this goes directly to article improvement. Or at least article stability and editor harmony.

As hatnoted, this is the umpteenth time we've had some conspiracy theorist come in and talk about bias and white-washing and the shortcomings of the industro-military complex or whatever. Typically, in this article they want to weaken the identification of LHO as the assassin by saying he was "alleged" or something of that nature.

For a start, robust discussion of the government inquiries and the available evidence here on the talk page has three positive effects:
 * 1) It prevents edit-warring and all the unpleasantness and ill-feeling that goes along with that.
 * 2) It allows us to bring forward the relevant Wikipedia policies for the guidance of new editors - usually they are newcomers here and don't know how we do things.
 * 3) It highlights the difference between what we have in the article - facts supported by reliable sources - and the typical conspiracy theorist ammunition of speculation, doubt and accusation of bias, as supported by whatever conspiracy book they've just shelled out $24.99 on.

Yes, I know it's a distraction from the nuts and bolts of the article, but this article and those related to it attract their fair share of stubborn newbies, and if we don't talk over their concerns, they are going to spend their boundless energy and ample time in edit-warring, calling in their buddies, creating extra accounts, appealling to ArbCom and just making life unpleasant for all parties. --Pete (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly, but there are boundaries, and this section is just plain enormous and unwieldy, far beyond any reasonable discussion of article improvement, and well into the "general discussion" that's deprecated at the top of the page. On other topics of this kind we've started using FAQs. It seems like high time to do so here, so that editors new to the topic can see the main points of repetitive discussion and be directed to a concise summary.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested in putting together a FAQ I recommend Talk: George Washington and Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as examples. The Sandy Hook article uses a separate page - Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/FAQ, the GW article uses  found here: Template:Recurring themes. Shearonink (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it also the Wikipedia policy to reflexively refer to people making suggestions outside of the editors' worldview as "conspiracy theorists"? I'm asking because I'm not a newbie and have never suggested re-writing this article (or history, for that matter) to fit some conspiratorial agenda. I merely pointed out time and time again that we cannot ignore facts when writing an encyclopedic article. I'm not asking that we pretend the WCR never existed, and I think this article and others on Wikipedia tell the tale of those events in a mostly (but not entirely) balanced way. However, professing that LHO was actually guilty because the WCR (and other, similarly corrupted bodies) said so is beyond the pale. Just because he's dead and cannot stick up for himself doesn't give us the right to assassinate him again.


 * I have no desire to enter the fray in terms of suggesting or proving alternate theories and I shouldn't have to. I just wanted to soften the blow of history, much like the declassified records of the ARRB have. If you have a strong desire to understand what, tangibly, is wrong with the WCR, then you can read a host of books and articles that destroy it factually, without undue opinion. This is what researchers and investigators do, and characterizing sincere authors as conspiracy theorists does no one any good. If you paint with this broad of a brush, then the WC members were the most prolific conspiracy theorists in history.


 * My suggestion doesn't even go against the Wikipedia policy of original research, because so many books have been published based on post-WCR facts that it's silly to ignore them. Textbook publishers haven't ignored them either. As mentioned previously, most of the textbooks I've read (middle school through AP History) don't even mention LHO or instead frame him as the alleged assassin (both of which are accurate and non-controversial). Isn't this the point: if the editors here wish to use factually incorrect documents in order to continue framing a defenseless person while ignoring other opinions, then that seems like the worst kind of bias.99th Percentile (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't even see the comments from Pete and Jack under the hat (sort of like using a rug to hide your junk). Pete, using the phrase "5 U.S. government investigations" without "alleged" is like saying he was tried 5 times. Hopefully, even you can see that your use of facts in this way is self-serving, like a giant club to make a fine point. Do you think the general public (you know, the readers of this site) even know about the DPD, SS, or FBI investigations, let alone the HCSA? Don't you think it's odd to group the DPD under "U.S" investigations? Casual readers will believe that LHO is the actual assassin because of your lede, which is both biased and misleading. Let them read into those investigations and make up their own minds (or is that too dangerous?). Remember that I'm not asking you to bury those sources, just to soften the accusation, because all of those groups had highly self-serving reasons to frame LHO and the currently available facts suggest that this corruption was much greater than suspected in the 60s and 70s.


 * To Jack: Please stop talking about "facts" in the way you do until you read more. I honestly can't debate someone who copy/pastes from the WCR to make a case about the WCR. The illogic of this is staggering. I don't have the time to copy/paste facts from sources, and I doubt you would even care. I've already cited several books, the best of which (for you) is Reclaiming Parkland by James DiEugenio. This walks through every key aspect of Reclaiming History and the WCR and counters almost every false assertion. Does it not matter to you that all of the forensics were screwed up and that the most incriminating evidence comes from Ruth Paine's garage or changed testimony? As someone who claims to be up on stuff but then falls back to posting WCR factoids, this is hard to discuss rationally. In the interest of honestly, I'll admit that I used shorthand to say that the WCR classified all of the records. However, regardless of who did, we can safely say that this is one of the smoking guns of the whole case, because if lone wolf LHO did the crime, then there wouldn't be a need to destroy or hide so many records.99th Percentile (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will vigorously oppose any attempt to water down the language of this article regarding Oswald's guilt. The evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy is overwhelming and persuasive, and I thank for summarizing it. Spinning conspiracy theories is not a good use of this talk page, which should be limited strictly to building consensus around proposed improvements to the article. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  20:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of an FAQ at the top of the page. It would save some repetition of effort. It will also serve as a filter. Those who read it will have their questions answered, those who don't read it and ask the same old questions may be directed to it and thereafter ignored, because they will not listen to what they are told anyway. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The odd thing is we don't even spell out the case against Oswald on the main page, or on the main assassination page, which makes the complaints from 99 and others so peculiar. Simply stating the obvious - that Oswald, according to the various investigations, was the assassin - goes across the line for some. But why then is Oswald here? Precisely because he was the one fingered for killing the president, notwithstanding other views (he's not famous for NOT killing the president!) Surely the fact of the conclusion of guilt by the various investigations is the single most notable thing about Oswald.(!) Canada Jack (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And I suppose that with authors like James DiEugenio publishing books like "Reclaiming Parkland" with often laughable claims about evidence (like the mail-order "discrepancies," the Mauser issue, etc etc), some claims which were debunked by the Warren Commission itself, we will continue to have credulous posters like 99 demanding we get our heads out of the sand. The mentality is very hard to overcome, to admit you were misled by these guys - took me almost 30 years to come to that realization - and without a very firm handle on the minutia of the case, people like 99, in way over their heads, will continue to hammer away on issues they know very little about.


 * IOW, I'm not sure a FAQ will do much to stop this sort of stuff, as many regular people like 99 won't even address conclusions made by the WC which they see as inherently corrupt. There is not much to be learned by someone who contends they having nothing to learn and says that all you have to offer are government "lies." Canada Jack (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. We've already resolved the issue of "alleged assassin" here by specifically offering in-text attribution (i.e. "according to five U.S. government investigations..."). Is there any question that five government investigations were definitive in who they thought to be the sniper who assassinate JFK? - Location (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Taking Talk:Barack Obama as an example, it should be possible to pick five or six of the most common issues and condense them. The same questions or variants can be applied to Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy. At Obama the amount of traffic given to the birth certificate, the use or absence of his middle name, his faith and his race on the talkpage dropped steeply when we were able to say "see Q2 of the FAQ".  Acroterion   (talk)   03:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose a specific text edit, and I'll be glad to tell you whether I think it works for the article and why or why not. You can expect a fair evaluation from Jack as well. Enough said. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The big one is "Why doesn't Wikipedia describe Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy's alleged assassin." A paragraph or two on that subject decribing the consensus and why it exists will head off 80% of the repetitive comments. Other questions might be "why aren't other possible gunmen mentioned," "why is Oswald described as the assassin when he was never tried" and maybe some version of discussion of gunshot evidence. Most other issues really belong in an FAQ at the main assassination article. And echoing comments farther up, we might want to emphasize that this article is about Lee Harvey Oswald and nobody else: general assassination discussions are elsewhere.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Why doesn't Wikipedia describe Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy's 'alleged' assassin." If you dig into the TALK history, you'll find that this has been discussed many times. Personally, I would prefer "alleged", but consensus of the editors at large clearly does not.
 * "we might want to emphasize" No. Don't tell me what we might want to emphasize. Propose a specific text change to the article so the other editors can say whether they support it and why or why not. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thank you to Joegoodfriend and Acroterion for more reasoned responses. I feel, however, like I'm being set up. I don't really see how the FAQ idea helps here, because it just gives the editors another stick to beat off interlopers. Trust me, I'm generalizing for effect; I know that "newbies" may benefit, but serious-minded contributors will not experience any advantages.

I looked again at my original proposal, which was to add the word "alleged" after "was" in the lede ("Lee Harvey Oswald was alleged to be, according to five U.S. government investigations, the sniper..."), and now believe that Pete and Jack would never allow this in a million years. Their dragon in the garage--I mean, the WCR--is too sacred to them to even consider alternate ideas, let alone hypotheses. It is really quite strange, actually, because I have a hard time imagining 90+% of the population (or them) treating other government publications with such reverence. Do they love the tax code as much? Is nothing the government produces impeachable?

It's simple: the world has moved on since the 1960s, and people now know that the WCR was a giant frame job against the greatest patsy in history--LHO. There is a mountain of evidence (and common sense) supporting this. However, I also get that some people can't get their mind around this. I'm not criticizing those people at all, because it's similar to religious faith, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, people aren't entitled to their own facts, and editors of an online encyclopedia should enforce consistency, fairness, and objectivity, rather than a faith-based blockade against "crazy conspiracists".

You can add my edit or not. At this point, I have more important things to worry about. However, consider the HSCA article, which claims its findings were discredited by Vincent Bugliosi. The editors here may have nothing to do with that, but talk about a double standard. Bugliosi is responsible for, pound-for-pound, the worst book ever, and Wikipedia is using it to discredit a government investigation. If this is allowed, why can't the ARRB discredit the WCR?99th Percentile (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL! In the fourth paragraph, even this article uses Vincent Bugliosi to discredit the HSCA. Talk about a double standard!! Can the editors please recuse themselves from further arguing or editing on this matter??99th Percentile (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I sympathize - yes, I also see a double standard. This is not the first TALK discussion where someone has asserted that the research tending to discredit the official investigations should be discounted because the contrary researchers did not have access to the original forensic evidence, yet the same person will cheerfully tell you that the HSCA was wrong in many respects, as were those who operated on the President but contradicted the officials findings. Marina Oswald -MUST- be believed when she says she took the backyard photos, but was absolutely lying when she said her husband worked for the CIA, etc. etc. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is really quite strange, actually, because I have a hard time imagining 90+% of the population (or them) treating other government publications with such reverence. Do they love the tax code as much? Is nothing the government produces impeachable? You really are quite an odd one 99 - perhaps my name isn't obvious enough - I'm Canadian - what "reverence" would I have for the Warren Report or any other American government agencies/codes, whatever? They bungled much of their own investigation! They came to the correct conclusions, but we chiefly know that because of the work the HSCA did 15 years later.


 * As for "alleged," the simple answer is that is for someone who is facing trial. Oswald didn't facing trial, so there is no need to say "alleged" as government investigations concluded he killed the president. We can therefore assign guilt. Hitler is culpable even though he never stood trial for the crimes of WWII - we need not say "Hitler allegedly drove the Nazi policies which resulted in...", nor do we need to affix "alleged" to John Booth, Lincoln's assassin, as he never stood trial either. Investigations concluded he killed Lincoln. The same applies with Oswald. It's a conflation of common law practice in how we describe defendants with assigning culpability (usually via trial, sometimes as in the cases mentioned here, not).


 * the WCR was a giant frame job against the greatest patsy in history--LHO. There is a mountain of evidence (and common sense) supporting this. So far, no common sense arguments, and no evidence from you. I think what was most revealing was where you seem to be getting your information from - DiEugenio's book "Reclaiming Parkland" is chock full of howlers and misleading claims, along with attempted re-hashes of issues settled in some cases back in 1964! I wouldn't expect you to be up on a lot of the technical issues here - you fumbled the one very basic "fact" you expressed about the Warren Commission classifying documents - but as I said earlier, sincere editors like yourself acting in good faith are easily fooled by the arguments these guys make. There is in fact a "mountain of evidence" pointing to Oswald - I listed some of it earlier. And to argue as DiEugenio does that Oswald had nothing to do with it REQUIRES a conspiracy of such an elaborate nature that Rube Goldberg would be needed as its architect. Just as a small example, his claims about the provenance of the rifle, that Oswald couldn't have sent the money order owing to the time stamp, etc., means that someone had to a) forge the order form, b) inexplicably ship something else (DiEugenio apparently didn't look at the next issue of the rifle magazine where they have the correct rifle graphic - it was wrong on Oswald's mail-in form), c) get the rifle shipper in on the conspiracy (they in fact did have the rifle initially, they in fact did ship it, or if they didn't, they'd have to agree to lie about that), d) anticipate that Kennedy would come to Dallas in the first place and that Oswald would have some unique access for which would set him up as a patsy e) somehow convince Marina to claim she took photos of Oswald with the rifle, even as she now claims he had nothing to do with the assassination f) inexplicably take not one but at least THREE garden photos with the rifle, thus greatly increasing the chance that a faked image would be detected f) plant the rifle in the building and/or get someone ELSE to use the rifle, and have that sniper (someone was seen firing shots) miraculously disappear without a trace g) somehow get Oswald's prints on the rifle (can't get it off the corpse, how is that doable?), h) get Oswald to NOT stand with other employees when the motorcade passed so as not to wreck the frame-up by having a verifiable alibi, i) ensure Oswald DOES order a gun to the same post office box using the same alibi, which tends to corroborate his propensity to order via mail and deliver to a PO box etc etc.


 * The insanity of these scenarios alone make them implausible, yet this is what DiEugenio and others REQUIRE us to believe if these scenarios were played out. "Common sense" is completely lacking from these conspiracy scenarios, but you, 99, wouldn't know that as you likely aren't well-versed in all the issues, meaning these guys can lead you down the garden path relatively easily.


 * However, consider the HSCA article, which claims its findings were discredited by Vincent Bugliosi. ???? Where does it say that? On the sole piece of evidence which the HSCA concluded proved a second gunman, he pounced. And on some of the text of the report itself which slammed the WC, he came to the defence, at least partly, of the WC. Otherwise, he supports the analysis of the committee, with a few quibbles (for example, the first shot in their defence of the Sinble Bullet Theory is set at Z190, much too early).


 * While it may seem like a "double standard" in terms of the dictabelt evidence, the problem is several on the committee complained that this evidence was the ONLY evidence which the HSCA used to conclude there in fact was a conspiracy. It's in the dissent. Indeed, the draft report saying "no evidence found of conspiracy" was changed at the last minute after this analysis was delivered. And, given that further scientific research of the dictabelt casts considerable doubt on whether it records anything pertinent, it is germane to mention that those conclusions therefore have been called into question. This is in contrast to the WC which made its conclusions, even if based on what many argue was selective use of evidence, nevertheless did not make its determination of Oswald's guilt on a single disputed piece of evidence. Their case is in fact very detailed and relies on probably 100 separate pieces of evidence, not a single one like with the HSCA. Indeed, the HSCA came to near-identical conclusion about Oswald's role and the nature of the president's wounds.


 * Oh, and Joe - Marina's testimony on the rifle photo was judged to be corroborative but not probative owing to her changing stories on other things. The HSCA relied on photoanalysis, and the other evidence gathered by the WC to link Oswald to the rifle. That's another problem with many of the conspiracy authors - they point (sometimes correctly) to problems with testimony or evidence or witnesses, but fail to account for the corroborative evidence often used to link Oswald/whatever to something. Helen Markham is a classic example of that.  Canada Jack (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "in terms of the dictabelt evidence, the problem is several on the committee complained that this evidence was the ONLY evidence which the HSCA used to conclude there in fact was a conspiracy" The HSCA reports found compelling other information that tended to suggest conspiracy - Oswald's "apparent" relationship with David Ferrie for example. You of course reject the idea that the two were together in 1963. Yes, a double-standard.
 * "they point (sometimes correctly) to problems with testimony or evidence or witnesses, but fail to account for the corroborative evidence".
 * No, they don't "fail to account for the corraborative evidence." They just don't find that evidence compelling enough to conclude that without question Oswald acted alone. And by the way, which researcher(s) are you specifically talking about? When I listed some of the principal contrary researchers, you didn't claim to have read any of them. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Joe, there'd be a "double standard" re Ferrie if the HSCA was going to conclude there was a conspiracy or likely a conspiracy based or partly based on that evidence. But this in fact is not the case. The dissent spells this out - there was to be a conclusion of "no credible evidence of conspiracy" until the dictabelt evidence was delivered, almost at the very end of the committee's mandate. Therefore to note that that evidence has been called into question is highly pertinent as it would have resulted in the opposite conclusion. There is no comparable situation re disputed evidence elsewhere in the HSCA report, or the Warren Report.

'''No, they don't "fail to account for the corraborative evidence." They just don't find that evidence compelling enough to conclude that without question Oswald acted alone.'''

Sure, I'd agree, if her testimony was what led to the conclusion that Oswald posed for the photos. But you miss the point. It's not enough to focus on a single piece of evidence which was used to buttress a case when multiple OTHER pieces of evidence buttress the case - you HAVE to account for the other evidence if you want to dismantle the conclusion. So, with Marina, while it is valid to note she changed her story on other issues and therefore wasn't a credible source, it is not valid to therefore question the conclusion that Oswald was photographed in the yard with the rifle as there were multiple other pieces of evidence which led to that conclusion! The issue, after all, is not who TOOK the photos, but whether the person IN the photos was actually Oswald really posing with the rifle. (This is in contrast to the dictabelt evidence - no other evidence the HSCA assessed led them to the conclusion there was a second sniper) They used photographic analysis to determine if the images were faked - very detailed analysis on the negative, first-generation print and the third print - as well as multiple other pieces of evidence (largely explored by the WC) to establish Oswald's ownership and possession of the rifle. Canada Jack (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And you've missed the point. The HSCA concluded a conspiracy and that Oswald's relationship with Ferrie in 1963 was "apparent." No, you say from your armchair, they were wrong on both counts. But you deny credentialed researchers the opportunity to weight all the evidence and find that possibly the case for conspiracy is more compelling: Why do you deny other researchers the opportunity to do what you do?
 * "True, many authors claim Oswald didn't do it, but they almost to a person had no access to the forensic evidence.". (You say they ignore evidence, but again who don't say whom you're talking about. And Dr. Cyril Wecht of course, who has written extensively about why he feels the lone gunman scenario is impossible, did have access to the forensic evidence. And no one of course had better access to the “forensic evidence” than Dr. Malcolm Perry, who operated on the President before his throat wound was obliterated by the tracheotomy and stated that President Kennedy's throat wound was one of entrance.)
 * "I take the empirical position that the masses of physical evidence which point to a) a lone assassin and b) Oswald and which were assessed by two of the most exhaustive investigations not only in American history but world history firmly establish the truth of those conclusions."
 * Case closed, according to you: the HSCA was right, and cannot be questioned. Except when it was wrong. You get to pick it apart, but no one else does. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

''And you've missed the point. The HSCA concluded a conspiracy and that Oswald's relationship with Ferrie in 1963 was "apparent."''

Joe: Was the HSCA going to conclude "conspiracy" or "no conspiracy" before the dictabelt evidence was presented? Obviously, you are confused on this point of fact, but they were going to conclude "no conspiracy." As for Ferrie, if you'd care to look at the very link you supplied, it is part of a section which concluded there was no evidence of said group(s) involved in the conspiracy which they (now) identified. How you can claim that the mention of Ferrie and Oswald's possible relationship in a section which specifically denies anti-Castro groups involvement in the assassination is somehow evidence of a conspiracy... I fail to see where that is even implied. It simply states that a non-anti-Cuban relationship was possible, they didn't have the evidence one way or another.

Perhaps you missed it, but even I have noted that the HSCA thought there was more to the Ferrie/Oswald connection than what they could discover by their report's publication. However, as I also previously noted, years after the HSCA report, even that small glimmer of hope for the conspiracy crowd was negated when the full extent of the Garrison team's fraudulent treatment of the Clinton LA "witnesses" to Oswald/Shaw/Ferrie was revealed. The ONLY evidence which has emerged since then of a relationship between the two was a photo showing the two at one of the cadet meetings. Problem is, even the Warren Commission was aware of this connection, so the only thing that has emerged is photographic corroboration. But that's it.

And Dr. Cyril Wecht of course, who has written extensively about why he feels the lone gunman scenario is impossible, did have access to the forensic evidence. Yes, and what did he conclude? That the evidence he saw was consistent with the conclusions of the WR - two and only two bullets entering JFK from the rear. As a PATHOLOGIST, he didn't have a special insight into the SBT question, which was an area of ballistics and trajectories.

And no one of course had better access to the “forensic evidence” than Dr. Malcolm Perry, who operated on the President before his throat wound was obliterated by the tracheotomy and stated that President Kennedy's throat wound was one of entrance. That was his opinion, yes. But the wound if caused by an unimpeded bullet passing through the back/neck would have left an exit wound consistent with the one he described. He made no test to determine if it was indeed an exit or entrance wound, unlike the actual pathologists on the back wound. We don't always rely on opinion when there is a test available - so unfortunately, we can't know for sure as the wound was obliterated. Further, other evidence, in particular the tie and shirt collar, show threads moving in the direction of the bullet - which was exiting, not entering.

''Case closed, according to you: the HSCA was right, and cannot be questioned. Except when it was wrong. You get to pick it apart, but no one else does.''

So far, the only possibly valid point you've made is whether there is a double standard at play when the conclusion of the HSCA saying "conspiracy" can be questioned. However, since you were unaware that that piece of evidence - the dictabelt - was the SOLE piece of evidence which drove the "conspiracy" conclusion, your "double standard" argument falls apart as there is no other situation where the HSCA/WC conclusions fall apart based on a single piece of evidence which was misinterpreted.

As for the other points, as I've said many times, there were multiple pieces of evidence which both bodies used to come to their conclusions. Zeroing in on one piece of evidence - like Perry's statement on the throat wound - ignores the other evidence which suggests otherwise. When evidence seems to contradict each other, corroborative or negating evidence must be assessed to come to a conclusion. In Perry's case, a lot of other evidence suggests his assessment was incorrect. Further, there is no corroborative evidence - like an exit wound, or sign of the bullet in the body, let alone a bullet path. And that's always been the problem with the dishonest approach by many in the conspiracy crowd - they focus on ONE piece of evidence which doesn't fit the WC scenario, then declare their conclusions invalid, without explaining how other evidence which supports the WC conclusions fits in. And the reverse is true too - focusing on a Helen Markham, a Marina Oswald, a Howard Brennan, all of whom had questions about their testimony/believablity, without noting that in ALL those cases, the conclusions connected to their testimony was CORROBORATED by multiple other pieces of evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "As for Ferrie, if you'd care to look at the very link you supplied, it is part of a section which concluded there was no evidence of said group(s) involved in the conspiracy which they (now) identified." You’re completely off topic. The HSCA says they had an apparent relationship, you say they didn’t. On the one hand, you call the HSCA sacrosanct and beyond question for independent researchers, on the other hand, you dismiss what the HSCA said. As I said, double standard.
 * "The ONLY evidence which has emerged since then of a relationship between the two was a photo showing the two at one of the cadet meetings." Not at all. Ferrie visited both Oswald’s former New Orleans landlady and a former neighbor about Oswald possessing Ferrie’s library card. And when you say ‘no evidence’, you mean provided one is prepared to dismiss the people who saw them together.
 * "the evidence he (Wecht) saw was consistent with the conclusions of the WR - two and only two bullets entering JFK from the rear." Wecht concluded that the single-bullet theory was impossible and inferred there must have been two shooters, as the SBD shooter could not have fired more than three shots, and one missed the car. I agree.
 * Dr. WECHT. The major disagreement is the single-bullet theory which I deem to be the very essence of the Warren Commission report's conclusions and all the other corroborating panels and groups since that time. It is the sine qua non of the Warren Commission report's conclusions vis-a-vis a sole assassin. Without the single-bullet theory, there cannot be one assassin, whether it is Oswald or anybody else.
 * Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, is it your opinion that no bullet could have caused all of the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally or the Commission exhibit 399 could not have caused all of the wounds to both men?
 * Dr. WECHT. Based upon the findings in this case, it is my opinion that no bullet could have caused all these wounds, not only 399 but no other bullet that we know about or any fragment of any bullet that we know about in this case.
 * "Zeroing in on one piece of evidence - like Perry's statement on the throat wound - ignores the other evidence which suggests otherwise." This is a straw man. Who said that's the only piece of evidence suggesting an entry wound? And no it doesn’t ignore the other evidence - some researchers find that the total body of evidence, much of which is subjective and contradictory, is inconclusive or that it points to multiple assassins. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a double standard to take the HSCA's findings in full context . The HSCA recommended that the DoJ take another look at the acoustic evidence. They did and it was rejected. On the other hand, it is certainly convenient to accept the first part and ignore the second part if one is attempting to make an argument in favor of conspiracy. - Location (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a double standard to take the HSCA's findings in full context . The HSCA recommended that the DoJ take another look at the acoustic evidence. They did and it was rejected. On the other hand, it is certainly convenient to accept the first part and ignore the second part if one is attempting to make an argument in favor of conspiracy. - Location (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

''You’re completely off topic. The HSCA says they had an apparent relationship, you say they didn’t. On the one hand, you call the HSCA sacrosanct and beyond question for independent researchers, on the other hand, you dismiss what the HSCA said. As I said, double standard.''

You have a bad habit of putting words into my mouth. When did I say call the HSCA - or any other investigation - "sacrosanct and beyond question"? I have simply pointed out that in terms of their "conspiracy" conclusion, which was based on a single piece of evidence, that piece of evidence has subsequently been shown to be invalid, therefore their conclusion is invalid. There is no other comparable conclusion by the HSCA or WC which has suffered the same evidentiary problem. If you have information to the contrary, let's hear it.

The HSCA says they had an apparent relationship, you say they didn’t. There you go again, Joe. What I said was that in 1978, the HSCA had reason to believe there was a relationship, but that subsequently the major claim about that - the voting drive sighting of Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw in Clinton LA - was shown to be manufactured evidence from the Garrison DA team. But, more to the point, your link about Ferrie/Oswald says NOTHING about "conspiracy," it simply states that they couldn't rule out a non-anti Castro link between the two. There is no way in hell you can pretend that THAT is evidence of a conspiracy, or that the HSCA saw that POSSIBLE relationship as proof of a conspiracy. Yet, you implied exactly that when I made my point about the dictabelt evidence being the sole evidence they used to conclude "conspiracy."

''Not at all. Ferrie visited both Oswald’s former New Orleans landlady and a former neighbor about Oswald possessing Ferrie’s library card.'' Joe, please read what I said. I said that the only piece of information linking Oswald to Ferrie which has subsequently arisen since the HSCA (1978) has been that the Clinton stuff was fabricated by the NOLA DA. The library card info came out immediately after the assassination from Jack Martin. The HSCA, notably, did not see it as meaning anything, either because Martin was caught lying about a lot of things, or because Ferrie's reaction, if he did that, was not indicative of an actual relationship. The bottom line here is there was no card found on Oswald.

''Wecht concluded that the single-bullet theory was impossible and inferred there must have been two shooters, as the SBD shooter could not have fired more than three shots, and one missed the car. I agree.'' That's fine and dandy, Joe, but Wecht is a forensic pathologist, not a ballistic expert or someone with a particular expertise with trajectory analysis per se. Therefore, he is merely offering his non-expert OPINION on the subject. As for his expert opinion on the wounds to the president, he agreed that the original autopsy, while not done perfectly, came to the correct conclusions based on the evidence he assessed.

''This is a straw man. Who said that's the only piece of evidence suggesting an entry wound?'' It's typically the only evidence prooffered by those casting doubt on the official conclusions. Because it is one of the sole pieces of evidence to contradict the other evidence on this issue. And it's typical of the rampant dishonesty of the conspiracy crowd who bring up issues which simply would never stand up in a serious investigation. Yet, here we, are 51 years later, discussing the same inane line of conspiracy reasoning.

...some researchers find that the total body of evidence, much of which is subjective and contradictory, is inconclusive or that it points to multiple assassins. Most of the evidence linking Oswald to the crime is iron-clad, despite the nonsense from the conspiracy crowd. But if you are like 99, you'd be completely oblivious to that. There is no question that the conspiracy crowd has won the PR fight, as the sort of reaction we have here from people like 99 attest to. It's to the point that someone like me who has looked into the case for some 40+ years, bought the conspiracy line for most of that time, can be accused of being religiously wedded to government explanations, or some CIA plant, or simply just plain stupid.

The fact that the same easily refuted nonsense is repeated again and again and again makes a case for a FAQ a good one, but given the casual rejection of the mounds of evidence linking Oswald to the crime, I don't see it as being generally useful. Hopefully I am wrong. For once.... Canada Jack (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jack, I know you're Canadian, so perhaps you should apologize for being so thick. I didn't say that "U.S." government; my comments could easily apply to you. Also, nice job ignoring the double standard accusation. I guess cherry-picking is another favorite pastime of yours. You love to go back to the WCR, as if it's the Bible, but the only similarity there is that the Bible is fictional (too easy?). You wanted some common sense? Here goes:
 * What was Oswald's motive? He spends his entire adult life as an intelligence asset doing either right-wing tasks or hanging out with right-wing people. Was JFK too left for him? Why did he suddenly snap? How was he so fluent in Russian before going? How could he afford to go to Russia? Are you ignoring all of the many Bannister, Ferrie, Shaw/Bertrand angles?
 * What links Oswald physically to the crime? What explains the lack of direct evidence of him purchasing a gun or shells? Why didn't they find his prints on it and why did he fail the paraffin test? Why does it take Ruth Paine's magic garage to finally place him with the gun (using a doctored photo no less)?
 * How many guns and bullets were found that day? Too many or not enough depending on which report you read. Why on Earth would Oswald mail-order/money order a shitty rifle with an alias, when he could buy the Winchester he trained on at any store in the South with cash?
 * Why does no one see him pull the trigger and why do his actions after the crime fail to fit the facts or any logic (his long odyssey rather than direct flight, the strange murder of Tippit, etc.)?
 * Why does the WC create their report outline asserting Oswald's guilt first before the facts have been looked into?
 * Why is the WC staffed with people who are aligned with those who wanted JFK dead? There's a conflict of interest there no?


 * Oh wait, I forgot that you won't care about any of this. You've already made up your mind and the WCR is unimpeachable. Sorry. 99th Percentile (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, nice job ignoring the double standard accusation. I addressed it. Twice. AGAIN - the HSCA based its conclusion of a conspiracy solely on the dictabelt evidence, which has since been discredited. Therefore since it directly affects the conclusion of the investigation, it warrants mention.


 * What was Oswald's motive? Motive is irrelevant if the evidence points to him, which it does. A frequent fallacy of the conspiracy crowd who typically cite "motive" before discussing "evidence."


 * How was he so fluent in Russian before going? Uh, because he studied on his own - is this a serious question? It's not a particularly difficult thing to do if you are motivated. Is this the best you can do? Again if you want to suggest he was some sort of intelligence asset, his utility was destroyed almost from the moment he set foot in Russia. Not much of an asset. Hey - maybe THAT'S why he snapped - because he screwed up his "mission" so badly in Russia/Minsk!


 * How could he afford to go to Russia? The forensics on his accounts show that he could have readily saved enough to go. The Warren Commission itself paid close attention to this issue, but you knew that, didn't you? His actions after returning to America underscore his notorious stinginess and therefore his ability to literally save every penny he could.


 * He spends his entire adult life as an intelligence asset... You actually believe that? C'mon, 99, tell me you are kidding, are you really that naive? Must this be spelled out for you? Tell me this: Why would an "intelligence asset" go to Russia, meet the media, slash his wrists and end up in a radio factory in Minsk? If you knew anything about the intelligence community, the first step he took into Russia destroyed his utility as an "asset," if there ever was any utility. It never ceases to amaze me how some of these conspiracy authors claim with a straight face that the CIA or whomever would send a publicity-hound like Oswald into Russia as an asset. Are you kidding?


 * Was JFK too left for him? Why did he suddenly snap? Perhaps he was angry at American policy towards Cuba. Trying to enter the country via Mexico sounds like a desperate man in search of some meaning. It certainly makes no sense if he was an "intelligence asset," ESPECIALLY one who so publicly went to Russia - how stupid do you think the Russians and Cubans are? Perhaps he felt he had to prove something in Dallas in the name of Cuba. We will never know. But at least there as some plausible reasons unlike the stuff I hear from the conspiracy crowd.


 * Are you ignoring all of the many Bannister, Ferrie, Shaw/Bertrand angles? The best one is the Clinton one - but that was cooked up by the Garrison DA office. So you are left with Oswald at cadets for a few weeks, a claim by a Bannister secretary that even the conspiracyy-hungry HSCA didn't find credible and an address on a leaflet. Ain't nothing there, 99, sorry to say!


 * What links Oswald physically to the crime? The bullet and two fragments recovered were linked to the rifle which he owned and possessed and which were found in the TSBD; his fingerprints were on the rifle; strands identical to the ones on the shirt he was wearing when arrested were found between the buttplate and stock; his fingerprints were on the box used as a gun rest and his palmprint on the box used by the sniper to sit on, the latter in a position facing the identical direction the sniper was seen facing, both boxes were ones he'd not used in the course of his normal duties and were moved for the purpose of making a sniper's nest; a bag which was likely used to carry the rifle had his fingerprints on it and was found by the gunrest; bullet casings were found which were matched to the rifle.


 * What explains the lack of direct evidence of him purchasing a gun or shells? We have "direct" evidence of him purchasing the rifle on the floor AND the gun he had when arrested. In both cases he used similar "Hidell" aliases; in both cases handwriting experts matched the handwriting on the coupons to his handwriting; in both cases the firearms were shipped to a postal box he rented in Dallas. In the real world this is a slam-dunk; in the loonely conspiracy world, the rifle was somehow "planted" even though the evidence linking the gun AND the rifle to Oswald are near-indentical. As for the shells... we know he used three, no particular mystery there.


 * Why didn't they find his prints on it and why did he fail the paraffin test? They did find his prints on it, it was removed by Dallas police and this was proven by matching the card on which the print was removed to to the stock of the rifle. The paraffin test is not reliable; this was known then and it is not used now, as both false positives and false positives result. A better question is the NAA test of those paraffin molds which came back negative for rifle residue. Though this is often touted by conspiracy proponenents as "proof" Oswald didn't handle a rifle that day, the man who invented the test himself said that in the case of Oswald too long a time passed before the mold was taken and the mold itself was too contaminated to render a meaningful test.


 * Why does it take Ruth Paine's magic garage to finally place him with the gun (using a doctored photo no less)? Not sure what you mean here - do you mean the photo of Oswald with the rifle? That it was found in the Paine garage? Sorry, but the HSCA had one of the actual negatives, and a first-generation print. The team of photo experts who had access to this material unanimously concluded that there was no alteration of fakery - it's Oswald holding the murder weapon. But that hasn't stopped the conspiracy crowd from touting "anomalies" which were addressed way back in 1978. Their "analyses" are meaningless as they don;t have access to the actual negative or the first-generation print, as was acknowledged by the Canadian expert they brought in to testify for the HSCA who originally said he detected possible fakery.


 * How many guns and bullets were found that day? One rifle, the remains of probably two bullets. A false rumour about a bullet found in the grass near the underpass has been debunked, as has the claim of a second rifle found in the TSBD - inanely, some claim a SHOTGUN was found as a possible weapon used in the assassination.(!) The rifle found was initially misidentified as a "Mauser," so the HSCA looked at the reams of photos and films of the rifle in situ, recovered, carried out of the TSBD and through the police headquarters and found it identical to the one in the archives, i.e., the murder weapon.


 * Why on Earth would Oswald mail-order/money order a shitty rifle with an alias, when he could buy the Winchester he trained on at any store in the South with cash? For one, he was notoriously cheap and the mail-order Carcano was cheap. As for purchasing via mail order, I suppose he did so for the same reason he purchased the handgun in the identical way. You'd have to ask him why, precisely, but since that is how he got the handgun, it rather destroys any question that that is what Oswald would do if choosing between a gun store and a mail-order place. Or are you pretending that the handgun was planted too?


 * Why does no one see him pull the trigger and why do his actions after the crime fail to fit the facts or any logic (his long odyssey rather than direct flight, the strange murder of Tippit, etc.)? Howard Brennan saw him pull the trigger. Sure, the conspiracy crowd dismiss his testimony, even while they lie when they say that "no one" saw Oswald pull the trigger. A total of nine people saw a man firing or a rifle in that window. But, basically, more people didn't see him shoot because they were watching the president, not craning their next to look at the upper floors of buildings. As for his escape, its sounds like he was desperately trying to escape, without a particular escape plan in place. What "long odyssey?" He initially jumped on the first bus he saw, then hopped in a cab, getting him close to his room. As for the killing of Tippit, why would he do that if he was not in a state of panic, fearing arrest? It seems obvious there was no escape plan on his part. But his actions before - leaving money and his wedding ring for Marina - suggests he didn't expect he'd make it back.


 * Why does the WC create their report outline asserting Oswald's guilt first before the facts have been looked into? Not sure what you are talking about here - what "outline" are you referring to? The FBI issued a very shoddy report in December 1963 - is this what you are referring to? Besides, the facts as they were known early on were this - at least one witness had identified Oswald as the sniper; multiple people had seen a sniper at the TSBD; no other snipers or guns were found that day; the rifle found on the 6th floor was traced to him; the bullet wounds were consistent with shots coming from the rear; Oswald acted very much like a guilty man, killing the first cop he had a chance to when encountered; etc. While there was much media and public speculation on a conspiracy, those who knew the facts as they stood at the end of 1963 had no reason to doubt only Oswald killed the president; the question of whether he had others put him up to it were not yet explored in depth


 * Why is the WC staffed with people who are aligned with those who wanted JFK dead? There's a conflict of interest there no? Like who? Dulles? Are you saying it was innappropriate to have a former head of the CIA on the Commission? Would the head of the Boy Scouts of America have been more appropriate? Well, tell it to Robert Kennedy who suggested to Johnson he be on it.


 * That was too easy, 99. You really gotta do your homework here and not rely on these authors trying to make a buck by spinning a good yarn. Canada Jack (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to kill me with hot air? Man, do you type/paste a lot of stuff. Too bad the ratio of heat to light is so low. Please try to be briefer.
 * The double standard accusation has to do with the use of Bugliosi as a valid citation. If you're sincere, you should remove all references to Reclaiming History here.
 * Motive is irrelevant? Wow, okay. The WCR couldn't find any motive either. Wonder why?
 * He studied Russian. Studied in the military is more like it. Wonder why?
 * Intelligence asset. If you are think this means James Bond or a covert agent/spy then you're being narrow minded. There are many kinds of assets (Cf. sheep dipped).
 * You continue ignoring Bannister, Ferrie, and Shaw/Bertrand. Blinders firmly on. Check.
 * No one can prove he owned the rifle, and the bullet evidence is laughably poor. CE399 is the funniest exhibit ever. That's your case??
 * Rifle purchasing. Wow, he decides to leave a huge paper trail through the bank, the sporting good stores, and the post office--all of which could have been easily spoofed. The PO had no record of the proper forms though for firearm delivery.
 * The DPD had backyard photos with silhouettes cut out. Seem weird to you? Does it seem weird that Ruth, a distant friend of Dulles, is the source of the most incriminating evidence? Never mind; I'm sure you're fine with this.
 * WC Staff. You think RFK wanted Dulles on the WC?? That's laughable. Oh wait, you're willing to believe LBJ? Priceless. McCloy, Dulles, and Ford were under relatively strict orders to clean this mess up and they did exactly that.
 * The WC kicked off with Dulles telling everyone to expect a lone wolf to be the culprit, with a report outline that concluded with Oswald's guilt (to be filled in), and a desire to do almost no actual investigation. In this you trust?
 * Russell, Boggs, and Cooper remained life-long skeptics of the WCR. Russell knew the FBI and CIA had lied. Boggs said Hoover "lied his eyes out". Cooper said he could never buy the SBT.
 * The most "iron-clad" evidence in the WCR has nothing to do with the crime. The more incriminating the accusation, the less it's backed up by anything reliable. The WCR would absolutely never hold up in any current court of law because there is no presumption of innocence and nothing to defend Oswald at all (and there is plenty of stuff, but you ignore it all). It's a hatchet job through and through. 99th Percentile (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please spin your conspiracy theories elsewhere, 99th Percentile. You are being tendentious and this talk page is for the purpose of building consensus about changes to this article. As I have stated before, I oppose watering down the current language summarizing Oswald's role. You are winning over no one. Please move on. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's quite a breathless performance of evading the issues, 99. It's one thing to dispute the importance of a particular piece of evidence, it's quite another to suggest the existence of evidence is itself suspicious. Wow. All we need is "motive." The rest? Window dressing. You'll never lose an argument with that line of reasoning.


 * As I said in another place, for too many in the conspiracy crowd, proof must be supplied that the sun rose in the east on any particular day. And even then...


 * As a small example of just how out of your depth you are, in relying on the b.s. from the conspiracy community, let's take Dulles. The recommendation for him came in the Nov 29 memorandum detailing Katzdenbach and RFK's proposal for a 7-person commission which specifically named two men - Warren and Dulles. Oh, yeah. But that makes no sense if you believe that Dulles was put there as part of the cover-up, so that's gotta be another forged document, eh?


 * And as for an FAQ, for those like the above, this will not be any salve. I mean, if he strenuously argues that the mere mention of the fact that Oswald was identified as the perpetrator by several investigations is beyond the pale, how would spelling out the rationale for the same somehow make this better? But if that is the consensus, I will contribute. Canada Jack (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 99, if you'd like another point of view on your bullet point questions, I'd be glad to offer a different perspective. But it seems like the sooner we close the this thread on this talk page the better. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's all good. I just wanted to see how fundamentalist the editors here were and now I know. It's a bit funny how CanadaJack can only think to confirm the WCR by pasting factoids from the WCR, but hey, if that makes me the tendentious one, so be it. Keep in mind that LHO was never tried, and none of the investigations took any kind of balanced tack, you know, like an actual trial would. But if the opinion of a bunch of political insiders equals "guilt" in a 100%, iron-clad way, they feel free to state these opinions as if they were fact and not, you know, opinions. The silly hogwash here might as well have been written by Priscilla Johnson. 99th Percentile (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, they did have a mock trial - and Oswald was found guilty. So your claim that the WCR would not hold up in a court of law has already been proven false, as much of the evidence and many of the arguments - and witnesses - were part of that trial (the 1986 one). And the evidence which many conspirators argue would not be admissible, like CE399, was in fact admissible evidence there and likely would be now, given that it was matched conclusively to the rifle and THAT was also admissible evidence as its 6th-floor provenance is beyond dispute, and that would quash any argument about provenance. You seem confused on the issue of "presumption of innocence" - that applies to someone who is actually facing trial, wherein the defendant is a blank slate upon whom evidence of guilt of the crime must be presented. Obviously, you reject the conclusion of the WR, but they in fact do present a case, and an accumulation of evidence which points to Oswald, that section being similar to what was presented in that mock trial, the 1986 one. The difference between the WR and a trial being they establish that there was a single gunman, then they identify who that gunman was, and then whether he had associates who put him up to it, or otherwise assisted him. In that respect, the latitude of the investigation was greater than what would have been if Oswald had stood trial, even if you, as you oft state, reject the conclusions.


 * So talking about the "presumption of innocence" is an apples vs oranges argument which isn't applicable for the sort of investigation the WC carried out, notwithstanding their focus on the single person, Oswald. (Which is what most prosecutors do anyway - they focus on one defendant and present the evidence which ties him to the crime, even when there might have been another perpetrator. But the "presumption of innocence" is for the TRAIL itself, not the police/prosecution who, obviously, presume guilt. That's the nature of our Common Law adversarial system. Of course, Mark Lane attempted to play the role of the defense for Oswald during the WC hearings but was denied that right. I think he made up for that lost opportunity.)


 * Of course, as I pointed out, Oswald was convicted based on that evidence anyway in the mock trial. And he, alone, would have stood trial in real life, to face the charges. It's not like they'd choose from a selection of guys to determine who the guilty party was - he had been charged in real life!


 * There have been some interesting debates on what a trial would have looked like. The problem for the conspiracy theorists is that given the scope of a standard trial, if they were simply going after Oswald - and he was the only one charged, after all - then the issue of "conspiracy" would not have been addressed much, if it all. Mr DiEngenio argues that, at least in the Bugliosi/Spence trial, that Spence dropped the ball and that if Oswald had actually testified, he could have brought up Shaw and Ferrie. But even if Oswald did so, and assuming for the sake of argument that Shaw and Ferrie indeed had a role in the assassination, Oswald still had to face the evidence which pointed to him and, as I pointed out, he was convicted based on that evidence in the mock trial. No one pretends Shaw or Ferrie were the ones actually taking the shots at the president after all, and that was what the mock trial was there to determine, if it was Oswald or not, and what the actual trial would have determined - Oswald or not. Not Oswald or who else. Canada Jack (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh Jack. I was willing to let this go and then you go and bring up the fake TV trial from 1986, as if that proves anything or makes it real. Entertaining? Sure, but we're talking about real life here, not a fictional narrative. Now I can see why you haven't removed the Bugliosi references from this page yet. It's funny how you frame critics as conspiracy nuts with active imaginations and yet you're 100% willing to believe something based solely on the fact it feels right to you.


 * If there was ever going to be a real trial, I think you would need a few things (things that On Trial studiously avoided):
 * A living defendant (or at least a proxy. Seriously, Spence did a terrible job; he phoned it in)
 * James J. Hume and rebuttal witnesses to Charles Petty
 * The HSCA & ARRB files (or at least more than was allowed for the TV show)
 * Marina Oswald
 * Priscilla Johnson
 * A ton of rebuttal witnesses (Spence was not up on any of the facts)
 * Oswald's and Ruby's handlers (actually, let's leave Ruby out of this, just like On Trial should have omitted Tippit)


 * Of course, there were many, many more witnesses, but most of them were dead too. There are studies out there that show the astronomical odds of all these people dying within just a few years of the JFK hit, but that's all just another crazy coincidence to you, so I won't go there. Let's let this rest, Jack. It's boring to others and I don't like faith-based arguments. 99th Percentile (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Who's making "faith-based" arguments here? It sure ain't me. You said the WR would be essentially laughed out of court - yet there was a trial, using a lot of the evidence the conspiracy crowd have convinced themselves would not be admissible. And what happened? Oswald was found guilty. But of course, that doesn't count... seemingly because they came to the wrong conclusion, eh?


 * A living defendant? You'd have Oswald testify? Really? He'd be his own worst enemy on the stand. So his presence would likely not be a factor. Most of the time in high-profile murder cases the defendant avoids the stand. And in THIS case, any smart lawyer would have made sure he kept his big mouth shut.


 * You seem, 99, to fail to see how a trial would actually work if Oswald was there. While the defence would try to suggest there were other shooters, in an attempt to exonerate Oswald, we still have the stacks of evidence establishing Oswald's presence, the autopsy photos establishing the rear entry of the wounds and the bullets traced to his rifle. ALL of which was admissible evidence, and NONE of which stood attempts to discredit it. This stuff would - and DID - stand up in the mock trial. Even if we, for the sake of argument, sow enough doubt for example to make it seem possible that the throat wound was a wound of entry - the back wound and the head entry wound were firmly established as coming from the TSBD. And the evidence stacks up against Oswald even if there WAS another shooter. Only Oswald is on trial here, remember.


 * The best result, given that the HSCA came an identical conclusion about Oswald's role (so why would you bring their evidence in?), is that in addition to a finding of Oswald's guilt, there is a ruling that another possible assassin was also involved. But that doesn't get Oswald off the hook. I'm not well-versed in the James Earl Ray assassination of Martin Luther King - which sure seems like a conspiracy - but that example is instructive (I go by one of the rooming houses he rented when he escaped to Toronto in 1968 nearly every day, I did so today). The fact that there was a lot of reason to believe others were involved there - he certainly had associates here in Toronto - did not exonerate him in any way. And, since they lacked evidence pointing to a particular individual, only Ray suffered a legal consequence. That would be the likely outcome here as well as even if the court judged there to be others involved, it's hard to see where other charges might emerge as there isn't evidence pointing to particular individuals that would likely stand up in court.


 * Your listing of evidence and witnesses to bring up and to at a trial indicates you fail to grasp the legal realities. Even if I agree for the sake of argument that there WAS a conspiracy, that evidence at Oswald's trial would be beside the point. You'd be, as a defence attorney, seeking to show that Oswald couldn't have done it, NOT necessarily establishing there was a conspiracy behind the shooting. It matters little if there was one guy actually behind it, or 30, as long as you establish that YOUR guy wasn't behind it. And, may I point out, establishing a conspiracy doesn't exclude Oswald's role in that conspiracy. IOW, legally speaking, this line of attack likely wouldn't help Oswald escape punishment, just as Ray's talk about "Raoul" didn't help him out.


 * That was the complaint of the mock trial - questions of conspiracy were barely explored. But they WOULDN'T be in such a setting. That's the role of a larger investigation along the lines of the WC and the HSCA. But that's been done, and the conspiracy questions for those who accept that line have not been satisfied. Canada Jack (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Who's making "faith-based" arguments here? Well, you are. Since your knowledge of courtroom proceedings is limited to a 1986 TV show, and your knowledge of the legalities involved seem to be limited to the parts of the WC and HSCA reports that you like, I would say your opinion is just that, and your external arguments are therefore hollow.

You are right that the trial wouldn't have to prove a conspiracy, and so I didn't bother to suggest a witness list that would help with that. I merely selected people that could support Oswald's lack of means, motive, and opportunity as well as rebut key witnesses for the prosecution. Of course, this is all silly conjecture, because if Oswald was alive, the government would never want a trial! That's why he had to be killed by Ruby.

If you don't get this basic fact (and instead believe that Ruby was just a concerned citizen or a busybody, like Bugliosi suggests), then your legal assertions are practically invalid. 99th Percentile (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your paranoid ramblings aside, the bottom line here is even if there had been a conspiracy, only one guy would have faced trial, and his attempts to bring up conspiracy possibilities wouldn't help him avoid the evidence which he very likely would have been convicted on.


 * your knowledge of the legalities involved seem to be limited to the parts of the WC and HSCA reports that you like... You fail to grasp the fundamental point here, 99. The "legalities" aren't "limited" to selective sections of the WC and HSCA reports. (As if that makes any sense at all anyway!) Even with iron-clad evidence of a conspiracy within the HSCA report (and it ain't there, anyway, just saying), that doesn't get Oswald off the hook, as the evidence tying him to crime is very strong. And, as I pointed out, the real Texan judge in the 1986 mock trial accepted the evidence that the conspiracy crowd has convinced itself would be inadmissible, so Oswald in all likelihood would have been convicted in 1964 - government meddling or not. What would be the point of bringing up conspiracy angles at trial - it'd have to be by the defence in that case. The prosecution would simply link him to that conspiracy - he'd still have to account for the evidence against him! You've not seemed to have thought this through. The WR and the HSCA underlined a very strong case against Oswald as the TSBD sniper - the presence of a knoll assassin, even if that could be proved, would not get Oswald off the hook! So, there'd be two choices for the defence: One, he'd fight the link made to him and the assassination - the mock trial attempted this, and he lost, a conspiracy allegation is of no help, even if provable. Or, if there was a conspiracy and he admitted involvement, he'd strike a plea bargain to testify against the others. Of course, he'd need to admit involvement, but this way he might avoid the death penalty.


 * Oswald's lack of means, motive, and opportunity... There you go with "motive" again. You are very confused on legalities here. We'd never have to have ANY idea as to why Oswald killed Kennedy if the evidence shows he killed Kennedy. So an argument in regards to lack of motive wouldn't go far. If 100 people see someone inexplicably shoot another person in the head and the evidence is clear-cut he did it, WHY he did it is not relevant in gaining a conviction. Any lawyer dumb enough to argue "we have no motive for my client, therefore he should not be convicted" should quit his job. Yet that's what so many people argue in this case! Any smart prosecutor KNOWS that as long as the evidence is strong, motive isn't particularly important. Sure, it may help in a summation to the jury to ascribe motive so as to provide a compelling narrative, but if the evidence is pervasive - as it most certainly was in this case - motive is irrelevant. You keep tripping up on this fundamental point.


 * Perhaps what has led people astray in terms of bringing up "conspiracy" is the Shaw trial, as many conspiracy arguments were brought up there. But it made total sense to discuss conspiracy in that case as Shaw was charged with conspiring to kill the president! This is notwithstanding the ridiculous case against Shaw and the fact Garrison was more interested in grandstanding than building a credible case against Shaw. His motive there seemed to be more to "prove" there was a conspiracy to the public at large than to actually connect Shaw to it. Though he obviously had it in for Shaw, as charging this man found innocent at the trial with perjury for his testimony afterwards attests to. Canada Jack (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You had me until you typed your first word. It's like nothing phases you. I said that I wasn't bothering with the conspiracy angle and yet your entire reply blathers about conspiracy. With hindsight, all you would have needed at an Oswald trial was a short list of witnesses and basic evidence. 50 years after the crime, there still isn't anything that puts the right bullets into a gun that Oswald fired that day or owned previously. He was a patsy, and with today's knowledge of his intelligence career, his handlers, and the "big picture", getting him off would take a few days. The planners of the crime realized this right away, of course, and activated Ruby to clean up the problem. Your failure to grasp the basic logic of this is not surprising, but it is sad. All you can do is frame others as "conspiracy nuts" and quote the silly, disproved WCR as if it's still relevant. Now, you're citing a TV-show as if it were a real trial.


 * Ask yourself this: if your iron-clad case is so strong, and if the evidence collected over 50 years does nothing to refute the WCR, then how come modern textbooks have significantly softened the Oswald angle? I even have a middle school textbook that doesn't even mention Oswald. It's not like history changes over the years, and "political correctness" has nothing to do with a white male who allegedly killed a white male president. John Wilkes Booth is still mentioned as Lincoln's assassin, but the strongest statement I've found is a high school AP History textbook that refers to Oswald as the alleged assassin, as well as lingering doubts about his guilt. Again, why is this change happening in America? 99th Percentile (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)