Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 3

Argument against conspiracies

All aspects of the assassination and those involved in it however indirectly have been investigated for '46 years and counting' - little more than peculiar facts have emerged rather than evidence of a coherent plan.

If an organisation, state or entity had played a significant role in the arranging of the assasination the response against them would have been immediate and with little national or international negative attitude towards the response.

Has anyone suggested the aliens based on the moon (JFK did start the moon landing program)? (This is tongue in cheek/SF story territory). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Three Tramps

For those more willing to get into an edit fight than I am ... I would point out that the section in this article on the "three tramps" is at least partly challenged by the Wikipedia entry on Chauncey Marvin Holt. Actually I'm pretty certain I know which article is right ... MrG 71.33.225.144 (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Double double Cross

Ok, for the anonymous editor who keeps reintroducing this:

1. Virtually every sentence violates wikipedia's policies on presenting material from a neutral point of view.

2. Major changes to the article should be discussed here on the talk page to gain consensus.

3. Controversial statements need citations to support them, or they don't go in the article. A single citation indicating that the whole section more or less comes from one book doesn't cut it.

4. I'm sorry, but very badly written sentences like, "The plan was for the Anti-Castro Cubans the Free Cuba Committee Cubans, who, along with their CIA handlers would try almost anything, to pose as Pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee Cubans" do not belong in an encyclopedia. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Mr. anonymous. If you keep introducing this without fixing its many, many problems it's just going to keep getting deleted. Have you ever heard of spell check? Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Joegoodfriend. The material is inappropriate, poorly-written, and unreferenced. It has to stay out until these issues are addressed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, CIC7. Here is some information on some of the wikipedia policies your are violating. Your text is also much to long and riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. Please address these issues before introducing your text again.

1. Neutral Point of View. 2. Citation. 3. Consensus. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Joegoodfriend, sorry about the spelling and the poor sentences. I'll try to improve. I would suggest that you look up THEORIES in the dictionary. CIC7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CIC7 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just my two cents here, but remember that we are not so concerned at wikipedia with whether we agree with a particular point of view, but whether a particular point of view is a) emerging from an established source and b) whether the view is representative, i.e., an opinion held by more people than simply the author or at least from a best-selling author. For example, while many see David Lifton's switched corpse theory as out of left field given the near impossibility for the act to be carried out, his book was a best-seller, it therefore warrants inclusion. However, one guy tried to insert info from someone who claimed to have been hired for a hit in Fort Worth, which was a) not a published theory and b) not a representative theory. So it's not here.

In terms of what you have inserted, CIC7, it seems that while this may meet those criteria (I personally don't know), it is WAY too long as currently constructed. For the purposes of this page, if it fits the above criteria, then it should be condensed to be approximately the length of some of the preceding entries.

But one problem immediately presents itself - who is promoting this theory? That should be in the opening line, such as "Author x proposes a so-called 'double-double cross' wherein JFK etc etc." Otherwise, this reads as something which may in fact emerge from the ideas of the person making the edits, and therefore MUST be removed from the page. Canada Jack (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Badly written sentences, spelling errors, what about content. Many many books have been written about the Kennedy assassination. I have not brought up anything that is not fairly well known, if you don't agree with something, what is it. Don't you understand what I am trying to say. RFK was tricked. And in the Cold War atmosphere he bided his time. I will correct the spelling and reconstruct the sentences. CIC7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CIC7 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the spelling errors and improving the writing is one thing. However, as Canada Jack has stated above, the real problem is the source of this theory. You do not quote any sources. We cannot allow you to use Wikipedia to publish your theory of the assassination. That is called original research and it is not allowed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, CIC7. While spelling and sloppy writing is one thing, relatively easily addressed, the main thing is you seem to be writing a section which is not reflecting the specific view of a published conspiracy theory. It's not a question of us "understanding" what you have written - it's a question of what the function of this page is specifically and wikipedia in general - and that is to reproduce the major published views regarding conspiracies to murder JFK. Now, has some author published a major work on the assassination regarding the "double-double cross"? If yes, the section has to be framed as coming from the author or authors promoting that view. If no, then the section has to be removed. Even if the argument you have put down is 100 per cent accurate and solves the crime. If it's Original Research, as other editors here have repeatedly said, IT HAS TO GO.

To make the section acceptable (length and spelling notwithstanding), the arguments MUST be said to have emerged from published sources and those sources MUST be specified. And, if there are multiple sources, we cannot merge disparate information to form a new, unpublished opinion. Canada Jack (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole theory appears, to me at least, to be an editor's own theory based on primary source documents published while Kennedy was still alive. There is an occasional (possibly just once?) secondary source thrown into the mix, but the whole addition is totally unacceptable as it stood. It fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and is written in a wholly inappropriate personal tone. I have recommended to CIC7 on his/her talk page that they restrict themself to posting here with suggestions and ideally a proposed draft, should this be ignored I suggest someone asks for admin action, I will be doing so if I am online at the time. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not vandalism! Regarding the addition of information that Secret Service Driver William Greer Shot President Kennedy from the Front Seat.

"Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive. However, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see edit warring)"

THe inclusion of this information is well documented in William Cooper's book-Behold A Pale Horse, which I included in the references. Even though the formatting of the book was correct and it is a published and researched book, not a personal opinion, even the reference to the book was removed. I suspect because it is a little too close to the truth for the comfort of the intelligence community. Also, anyone can look for themselves at frames 303-320 of the Zapruder film and see Greer clearly turn around with what looks like a gun in his hand. This is documented both on the Zapruder film as well as William Coopers book: Cooper, William. Behold A Pale Horse. Light Technology Publishing (1991) ISBN 0-929-385-22-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.183.10 (talk • contribs)

Oh, yeah, like I would be wasting my spare hours editing on Wikipedia if I were in the "intelligence community". LOL.

The fringe views get addressed in this article based on their prevalence, not based on their existence. If a source is reliable and if it is cited by others it gains credibility, and the fringe theory can be listed here. The Bill Greer theory falls down in this regard. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not saying that you as editor are a part of said community, just that it is interesting what gets left in and what is edited out. Also, in light of well and oft used propaganda techniques, often the things and people that are credible and have good info are generally smeared and character assassinated so as to be made non-credible in the eyes of the general public. So how do these "fringe views" gain credibility enough to be included in something like this when they are actively attacked by said community. Or to quote:

"the Wiki companies facilitate COINTELPRO operations by generating a highly biased free-for-all of confusing and discrediting propaganda. This "Hegelian dialectic" manipulation method generates mass confusion by mixing polar opposites; truths versus lies. This manner of "mixing-it-all" up leaves truth-seekers overwhelmed, confused, and psycho-socially disabled to discern anything, or choose what's best for self or society. Thus, the objectives of COINTELPRO are achieved, exclusively benefiting the controllers at the expense of the controlled."

While I understand that part of that "Hegelian dialect" is a desired aspect of Wiki, it also leaves the door open for information to be modified or excised for the purposes of intentional propaganda. And if, by your logic, enough people say it's true it must be, even though it might not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.183.10 (talk • contribs)

It has long been the case that major conspiracy theories are cited in the main body of the article, while the more fringe theories get a line or two in the Other Published Theories section. The Greer theory is no more far out than the theory that JFK was shot by Secret Service Agent George Hickey, and that theory appears in the article in the 'Other' section. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears as if you wish to Right A Great Wrong. If so, you are in the wrong place, not to pun.

The awful Cooper book slews this way and that on his slippery and illogical road of aliens and conspiracies. He contradicts himself so often that it appears to be written by two people not talking to each other. We are not here to present such wacked out sources as valid fringe theories. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is called, "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories." Is it not called, "Credible John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories." It's a published theory, and several well-known researchers have commented on it. Specifically, they've commented on it to criticize it. I can't agree that the theory has to be blackballed from the article simply because it's especially outlandish. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And then there is the well-researched and published book by Russ Baker called "Family of Secrets" that implicates George H.W. Bush in the assassination, not as trigger man but involved nonetheless. And yet, well researched, published, or not, I suspect that this information wouldn't stand up to the delete button either.

Actually, you will find details on the strange connections to the life of G.H.W. Bush and the JFK assassination in the wiki article on the Zapata Corporation. The reason why there's nothing on it here is because there's no theory which connects Bush to an assassination conspiracy, only possible connections between Bush and the investigation. If you look through the archived talk on this article, you'll find that the editors (including me) talked about including the Bush stuff in this article, but decided against it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an admin reversal is in order now that Doug Horne has supported the theory in his book [http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Assassination-Records-Review-Board/dp/0984314431 Inside The ARRB]? If you view Horne as a "slippery and illogical" and "whacked out" source you are immediately disqualified. Furthermore, the implied attempt to develop a distinction for credibly conspiracy theory in this article is completely laughable and nothing short of raw propaganda.

Newcomb and Adams first put forth the theory that SA Greer shot JFK in their 1974 Manuscript Murder From Within. Eyewitness testimony corroborates it, and the Zapruder Film does not conclusively refute it. Horne weighed in rather recently. So you have both the earliest and the latest conspiracy researchers bracketing a case for Greer shooting Kennedy that spans over 45 years of research. If this theory does not warrant exploration, what conspiracy theory does? What conspiracy theories are "more believable" is not the point. What conspiracy theories there are is.

The conspiracy theories section should fairly and accurately represent the inventory of conspiracy theories. Perhaps those working to make the JFK assassination matter less offensive to the establishment should be prohibited from editing this section?

This is not vandalism! Regarding the addition of information that Secret Service Driver William Greer Shot President Kennedy from the Front Seat.

"Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive. However, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see edit warring)"

THe inclusion of this information is well documented in William Cooper's book-Behold A Pale Horse, which I included in the references. Even though the formatting of the book was correct and it is a published and researched book, not a personal opinion, even the reference to the book was removed. I suspect because it is a little too close to the truth for the comfort of the intelligence community. Also, anyone can look for themselves at frames 303-320 of the Zapruder film and see Greer clearly turn around with what looks like a gun in his hand. This is documented both on the Zapruder film as well as William Coopers book: Cooper, William. Behold A Pale Horse. Light Technology Publishing (1991) ISBN 0-929-385-22-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.183.10 (talk • contribs)

Oh, yeah, like I would be wasting my spare hours editing on Wikipedia if I were in the "intelligence community". LOL.

The fringe views get addressed in this article based on their prevalence, not based on their existence. If a source is reliable and if it is cited by others it gains credibility, and the fringe theory can be listed here. The Bill Greer theory falls down in this regard. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not saying that you as editor are a part of said community, just that it is interesting what gets left in and what is edited out. Also, in light of well and oft used propaganda techniques, often the things and people that are credible and have good info are generally smeared and character assassinated so as to be made non-credible in the eyes of the general public. So how do these "fringe views" gain credibility enough to be included in something like this when they are actively attacked by said community. Or to quote:

"the Wiki companies facilitate COINTELPRO operations by generating a highly biased free-for-all of confusing and discrediting propaganda. This "Hegelian dialectic" manipulation method generates mass confusion by mixing polar opposites; truths versus lies. This manner of "mixing-it-all" up leaves truth-seekers overwhelmed, confused, and psycho-socially disabled to discern anything, or choose what's best for self or society. Thus, the objectives of COINTELPRO are achieved, exclusively benefiting the controllers at the expense of the controlled."

While I understand that part of that "Hegelian dialect" is a desired aspect of Wiki, it also leaves the door open for information to be modified or excised for the purposes of intentional propaganda. And if, by your logic, enough people say it's true it must be, even though it might not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.183.10 (talk • contribs)

It has long been the case that major conspiracy theories are cited in the main body of the article, while the more fringe theories get a line or two in the Other Published Theories section. The Greer theory is no more far out than the theory that JFK was shot by Secret Service Agent George Hickey, and that theory appears in the article in the 'Other' section. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears as if you wish to Right A Great Wrong. If so, you are in the wrong place, not to pun.

The awful Cooper book slews this way and that on his slippery and illogical road of aliens and conspiracies. He contradicts himself so often that it appears to be written by two people not talking to each other. We are not here to present such wacked out sources as valid fringe theories. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is called, "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories." Is it not called, "Credible John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories." It's a published theory, and several well-known researchers have commented on it. Specifically, they've commented on it to criticize it. I can't agree that the theory has to be blackballed from the article simply because it's especially outlandish. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And then there is the well-researched and published book by Russ Baker called "Family of Secrets" that implicates George H.W. Bush in the assassination, not as trigger man but involved nonetheless. And yet, well researched, published, or not, I suspect that this information wouldn't stand up to the delete button either.

Actually, you will find details on the strange connections to the life of G.H.W. Bush and the JFK assassination in the wiki article on the Zapata Corporation. The reason why there's nothing on it here is because there's no theory which connects Bush to an assassination conspiracy, only possible connections between Bush and the investigation. If you look through the archived talk on this article, you'll find that the editors (including me) talked about including the Bush stuff in this article, but decided against it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

NOT "Conspiracy theories" =

"conspiracy theory" is a contemporary PEJORATIVE term used to DENIGRATE as IMAGINARY or FOOLISH any theory by someone seeking TRUTH. For example, 9/11 truth researchers are pejoratively called "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS" ... why? ... Precisely BECAUSE they think that there WAS . A . C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y whereas their detractors claim there was NO CONSPIRACY.

It is therefore outrageously idiotic to apply the term "conspiracy theory" to theories of how President Kennedy was ASSASSINATED .... when obviously there WAS a CONSPIRACY because he WAS ASSASSINATED. Nobody can argue that he died of natural causes; if they could, they could THEN point to theories of an "assassination" in lieu of the explanation of natural causes and say, "CONSPIRACY THEORY" -- using that term as it has been added (quite unfortunately) to our contemporary vocabulary.

HIGHLY RECOMMEND NOT WANTONLY USING THE TERM, i.e., FOR THE TITLE OF THIS PAGE, and anywhere in its contents. Since, obviously, the man WAS assassinated, there HAD to be a CONSPIRACY, and therefore all theories are more or less legitimate, they are not de facto LOONEY, as the implication is sometimes nastily applied to 9/11 truth seekers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.208.137 (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A conspiracy is an agreement between persons to break the law in the future. If Kennedy was assassinated by a single actor, acting alone, then there was no conspiracy. A conspiracy means at least two people involved in the planning and execution. The term "theory" is not pejorative. If one of the theories is ever shown to be factual, it ceases to be a theory. —Stephen (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Secret Service YouTube video

I have deleted the new text re this video. Text such as The footage also shows that the two Secret Service agents clearly did not want to leave the back of JFK's motorcade, were confused by their orders and were dismayed, and, At no time does it appear that the assassinated president was the one to tell the men to leave, needs to be backed up by a reliable, published source, not just the opinions of those who have seen the video. Otherwise, the text violates wikipedia's policy of No original research. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Military-industrial complex section

Ghostofnemo added a quote from Eisenhower's farewell speech when leaving the office of the President. It's relevant to the MIC concept, but it's not tied in any way to the Kennedy assassination. I question the relevance/usefulness of the quote here (certainly not at the MIC page itself - it should be there if it's not). GoN and I have a history, so seeking some input from others here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination used as ref

I've added a dubious tag to a ref from the above group - appears to be a purely activist group that does not meet the criteria for a reliable source. Only related discussion I could find on a noticeboard is here. Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Listed on WP:RSN for more exposure. Direct link - WP:RSN#Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination. Ravensfire (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that as a reliable source for information on the assassination, it fails to meet the criteria. But it certainly is an example of the depth and breadth of the conspiracy community, and if we were to include a section detailing some of those players, it would warrant a link. Hell, it even has an article suggesting how wikipedia ominously represses non-government sanctioned views on the assassination. Even though one of those government entities concluded a conspiracy was likely! Canada Jack (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

GoN, I reverted your edit earlier today as I want to see how the discussion on RSN goes. If you've got any suggestions on adding it, please continue the discussion there. Ravensfire (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted the wrong line. The line in question is the line that is sourced to Palamara's book review. You removed the line that was sourced to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story, which no one has challenged as an unreliable source, so I'm reverting your deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that new ref is reliable. But thanks for not bothering to remove the right line. No worries - I'll take care of that for you. Ravensfire (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, please be careful about not copy-pasting information from a source into the article. I've rephrased that for you. Original - "Palamara also claims that Secret Service driver Sam Kinney told him that Kennedy did not tell agents to remove the bubble top from the limousine in Dallas, or order agents off his limousine, or request a reduction in the number of Secret Service motorcycles in the motorcade - all actions that have been attributed to the president" Source - "He said Kennedy did not tell agents to take the bubble top off the limousine in Dallas, did not order agents off his limousine and did not reduce the number of Secret Service motorcyles in the motorcade. All those actions have been attributed to the president.

" Ravensfire (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lane quote re: [caliber] vs. size

Firearms are routinely classified by caliber. They are not usually identified by precise length. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's likely that Lane misspoke or was "speaking down" to his audience. He mentions the calibers of both weapons to point out the difference, and then refers to a difference in "size". Since he hadn't said anything about the length, girth or weight of the rifles, it's unlikely he was referring to their external dimensions, so "size" is confusing to the reader. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with GoN on this. Given the context of the conversation, it's pretty clear he was referring to the caliber of the gun when talking about size. I don't have a problem with the change. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The simple fact is Lane said "size" not "caliber." To insert "caliber" is an interpolation.

Since he hadn't said anything about the length, girth or weight of the rifles, it's unlikely he was referring to their external dimensions, so "size" is confusing to the reader. Sure, it's unlikely, but that in fact may have been what he meant. I agree it's probably what he meant, but the fact is he didn't say caliber. Period. And since the article itself refers to "caliber" I see no problem with allowing the reader to draw his own conclusion, not sure why we "need" to replace the word. Canada Jack (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And, rereading the text in the article, since there are numerous mentions of a 7.65 Mauser and a 6.5 Carcano, none of which mention what the "7.65" or "6.5" mean, this insistence of inserting "caliber" seems misplaced. The casual reader, seeing those different numbers, will appreciate that a different "size" refers to those numbers in some way, or to the dimensions of the guns (which may be what Lane meant in the first place). Lane's ultimate point, after all, is that these are two entirely different guns, not that the calibers are different, per se. If the casual reader doesn't know about guns, the term "caliber" will not have much meaning. If they already DO know what "calibre" means, the section is quite clear and obvious in "size" probably referring to the differing mentioned calibers. Canada Jack (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad that each of these theories doesn't have a few lines of rebuttal. It's present only on a few of them. For example, it may be significant to Mark Lane that the cops thought the rifle was a 7.65 (mm) Mauser for a day or so, but nothing of the sort is stamped on the weapon itself (see John F. Kennedy assassination rifle) and how do we expect the average policeman to identify a European WW II surplus rifle?? Or tell 7.65 mm from the very unfamiliar 6.5 mm caliber (which actually is 6.8 mm, meaning you're comparing .27 to .30 caliber), by looking at the hole in the barrel, or the bullet in the cartridge (there was one unfired round left in the weapon when discovered)? Even the Warren Commission seems to have been under the impression that the rifle was a "Mannlicher-Carcano" when actually, no such rifle exists. The assassination rifle was made at the Royal Arms Factory (and has a crown imprint to show that) in Terni, Italy. The original model was invented in 1890 by an Italian named Carcano, but not named for him. It says these things nowhere on the rifle. It is simply a infantry rifle Model 91 (the original model that came out 1891), variant 1938 (M91/38), but all it says on the arm itself is “MADE ITALY” “CAL.6.5” and “1940”. There is a stamp of a crown for the Royal Arms Factory in Terni (I believe the Warren Commission even satisfied itself on that point, directly from the serial number). The "1940" is the manufacture date. M91/38 type rifles made from 1940 onward are all chambered for the 6.5x52 mm Italian cartridge, and NOT the 7.35 mm cartridge that the M91/38 originally came out in, in 1938. Oswald's weapon is a "post-1940" variant of the M91/38-- hope that's clear. They should have called these 6.5 mm weapons "M91/40"'s, but for some reason, never did that I know of.

Oswald's rifle was advertised in the American Rifleman of Feb, 1963 as a surplus "Italian carbine," and that is what it basically is (although with a 4x Japanese scope fitted by Crescent, the importer, in America, shortly before it was sold by Klein's in Chicago, to Oswald in Dallas. This would make it a poor carbine in practice). Alas for Lane, he can say whatever he likes about the rifle being misidentified, but reporters were at the TSBD when the rifle was found, an hour after the assination, and carried out by a strap, where it was photographed. http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/day_clip.gif There are a number of such photos available, inluding a video. In them, the weapon that appears is unmistakably an Italian M91/38, not a Mauser. So that's pretty much the end of Lane's theory, right there. Any sane person would stop at that point. The weapon in the photos is an Italian M91/38, end. Now... if we could only find somebody who owned such an unusual weapon....? SBHarris 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems extremely unlikely that a weapon suspected to have been used to assassinate a president would be misidentified by the police. Weitzman, the deputy who signed the affidavit, was a former gun shop owner. It doesn't take a Ph.D to identify most weapons - unless they have been tampered with, the information is clearly stamped into the metal, because it's dangerous to use the wrong size or type of ammunition in a firearm. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This is from an article about Carcano rifle identification: "The Italian government sought to produce their guns entirely within Italy. Various manufacturers had produced Carcani since 1892, most guns having been manufactured in the Terni and Brescia Arsenals, with other manufacturers coming and going over the years depending on demand. Some may have been final assembly plants of subcontracted parts made elsewhere. The "manufacturer" of each gun imprinted their identifying name or logo on the chamber end of the barrel. In addition to the manufacturer's identifying logo, the year of production (up until mid-1943) and the serial number should be imprinted on the chamber end of the barrel. The year of production is typically a 2 to 4 digit number indicating the year. For example a gun manufactured in 1918 may have a shortened year such as '918' or "18" imprinted. In addition to the A.D. Christian year, there is from 1929 until 1943, the year of the Fascist Era (which was counted from the March on Rome in autumn 1922) also stamped in Roman numerals on most barrels. Since Fascist year and common era year are not identical (just like secular and liturgical year diverge from each other), this allows to identify whether a gun was produced before or after the anniversary day of the March on Rome in a given year. Typical serial numbers of Carcani consist of either 1 or 2 letters followed by 4 numbers. Guns produced at Roma in late World War I often have a 'OR-' prefix before their whole serial number. Some guns with a number only also exist." Emphasis is mine, from the section "Manufacturers" at http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/models.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And here's more: "The caliber of a Carcano, actually just the bore diameter, can be found imprinted either on the Mod. 38 and Mod. 91/38 fixed rear sight, or as a later proof mark on the barrel's muzzle end (United Kingdom proof) or breech end (German proof). In the case of 7,35x51 Carcano chambered guns, the left side of the buttstock should also be imprinted with a large-lettered "CAL. 7,35", unless the gun has been re-fitted with a M91/38 stock." Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so? The thing says "1940." Since the model is M91/38, we know it had to have been manufactured after 1938. And since the M91/38 from 1938 to 1939 were manufactured in 7.35x51mm we know it's surely not one of those. It really was made in 1940, just as it's stamped. It's stamped with a crown to show the ROYAL arms factory in Terni. It was made THERE. It's stamped "6.5 mm" because that's what it is, not the previous 7.35 mm that that model also was made in. When found, it had a live 6.5x52mm round in it, so I would hope it wasn't a 7.35! (in any case, the feds put a number of test rounds through the rifle, and of course they used 6.5x52mm ammo). Just what is it that you're arguing? The only possibility that the M91/38 we see recovered from TSBD was not a 6.5 mm, is that it was the (rarer) 7.35 mm. But then what do we do with the 6.5x52 mm brass, and one live round recovered with it?? SBHarris 00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems extremely unlikely that a weapon suspected to have been used to assassinate a president would be misidentified by the police.

But that is precisely what happened. How do we know this? Because the recovery of the weapon was filmed, and that rifle is the identical rifle we have come to know as the murder weapon. And that weapon was the Italian rifle, not a Mauser. End of story. Or, it should be. It never ceases to amaze me how normally rational people are bamboozled by the old rhetorical trick of an appeal to authority. To wit: Witness X is an unimpeachable source. Therefore his testimony is ironclad and irrefutable. But, people screw up and make errors ALL THE TIME. Even these normally "unimpeachable" sources. ESPECIALLY when a snap decision has to be made, or an instant identification is requested. Which is what happened here. Further, human pride frequently steps in, so often we see a witness, too embarrassed to admit they were wrong or too full of pride to acknowledge even the possibility of error, suggest everyone else is wrong. The problem is in this case the rifle's recovery was filmed so we know the initial identification was in error. Which is why we see increasingly desperate and unlikely explanations as to how the police could have said "Mauser" initially but have a filmed recovery of a Carcano. The simple and obvious explanation: They were wrong and misidentified the rifle initially. But a lot more books are sold if we suggest a rifle switch, even though we know it had to be switched BEFORE the discovery and BEFORE the initial identification(!). Canada Jack (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If the name of the manufacturer was stamped on the weapon, and the caliber of the weapon was stamped on the weapon, and "Made in Italy" was stamped on the weapon, how could the police department (not one officer, several, and it was officially announced to the press) possibly misidentify it as a German 7.65 Mauser? They were on drugs? Complete idiots? Visually impaired? Anyway, we are straying into general discussion. I guess "size" can stand, but I'm certain he meant to say "caliber". Readers will have to sort it out for themselves. BTW, I've heard the filming of the rifle discovery was a "re-creation" - no film crew was present when officers were searching for the weapon right after the shooting. Do police departments investigating shootings (of a president) allow the press into the crime scene to take pictures while they are collecting evidence? But IF you were going to switch the rifles, it would be very useful to have footage of the "discovery" of the substituted rifle, filmed after the fact. Just sayin'. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That takes the cake, ghost. Talk about desperation. How the hell could a "re-creation" be done without a pile of people witnessing it? Remember, the film was not a police film which, presumably, could be a re-creation done well after the fact, it was the press. Another example of why many can't take these conspiracy theories seriously. Because to make these sort of contentions work, you start having to invent scenarios as to how this would be done - and by necessity widen the web of conspiracy to include the media who filmed the recovery. And the very cops who disputed the identification! If they were to be so vocal about saying it was a "Mauser," why the silence on revealing that a second rifle was planted and THAT recovery was what was filmed? Makes no sense. As usual, there is no evidence for this contention. It's just another desperate attempt to explain inconvenient and irrefutable evidence. To wit: The rifle's recovery was filmed; we can see the make of the rifle; it ain't a Mauser.

So, how could these cops misidentify it? Probably because one guy said "Mauser" - an easy mistake to make if one just had a cursory look - and the rest repeated that erroneous information. Then, when the specifics of the model of rifle were looked at, the error was caught. These guys fucked up, that's all. Happens every day. All the time. No mystery at all, except to many in the conspiracy community who don't seem to have a keen grasp on human nature.

Do police departments investigating shootings (of a president) allow the press into the crime scene to take pictures while they are collecting evidence?

They did in 1963, a glaring deficiency addressed by the Warren Commission. What some don't appreciate is that the "norms" of criminal investigation of serious crimes - especially high-profile ones - emerged out of the chaos of the Kennedy assassination and its investigative aftermath.

As for "caliber" over "size," I don't think any casual reader will have difficulty knowing what Lane is saying here. His language is a little loose and open to some interpretation, but there is little here "size" could be referring to. And I agree it is most likely he is referring to "caliber." Canada Jack (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

my edit reverted

Someone claimed my edit changed the meaning and reverted it [1], and I would really like to ask how, because I don't see it. FYI, a motorcade is a event, so during is the correct word there, and the conspiracy theories did popularize soon after the assassination as the sources clearly implied. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Btw, I'll redo the edit if the reverting person never comes. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your version introduced problems, especially exchanging the solid and cited conspiracy theory with fringe theory. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And also introduced several grammatical problems, for example, "injured from the event". The conspiracy theories were not pre-existing and became "popularized" after the event, but the theories themselves developed after the event (therefore "arose" is the correct term). His car was actually part of the motorcade ("in" it) not merely happening at the same time ("during"). DMacks (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

during implies the car was apart of it, and popularized only implies they came to view in that time, and shouldn't always mean it was pre-existing. BTW, Please clarify whats wrong with "injured from the event" 173.183.79.81 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No. A time is definitely not the same thing as a place or event. Likewise you are incorrect about the meaning of "popularized" (it may be that it wasn't pre-existing, but your wording intentionally makes that ambiguous). DMacks (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Did I say a time is the same thing as a place or event? I only said during implies the car was part of the motorcade. This is because the motorcade is written as a motorcade, and if his car was not in the motorcade, which motorcade the event happened during will be explained. "It happened during the grand motorcade of Antarctica" doesn't state whether or not the event is related to the motorcade, but "It happened during a motorcade" implies the event is related to the motorcade, otherwise it wouldn't make sense if the motorcade was unrelated. Also, I didn't make anything ambiguous, as "arose" does not imply it cannot be pre-existing, for example, "the whale arose from the water" in no ways imply the whale didn't exist before. Yet you say I intentionally [make] that ambiguous. You should read WP:assume good faith. BTW, you still haven't explain why you think "injured from the event" is grammatically incorrect. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the original text was fine. 173's changes, even if perfectly grammatically correct, don't read as well as the original IMHO and unless there is some compelling need to make these changes (i.e., 173 has to answer the question "why change" rather than ask of others "why not change") we should keep the original text. Canada Jack (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't look at this for a while, and now I do see it doesn't really matter, and there is not point in caring much as it makes little difference. I was just kinda frustrated when people deliberately revert edits only just because they can, but I guess there's no damage done by the revert, and sometimes I do that too. I only made a big deal of this because it's just so tempting to argue against flawed reasons (ex: yer grammar iz incorrect! It's deliberately making da page ambiguous! You're saying time n place r the same ting!). You should know the feeling you get when there is an potential argument you know you'll win. It's hard to resist :) 173.183.79.81 (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Ultimate Sacrifice"

There is a bit if edit war here over the inclusion of the following text, referencing allegations of mob involvement in the assassination -

Ultimate Sacrifice, by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartman, synthesizes these theories with new evidence. The authors argue that government officials were (unwillingly) obliged to help the assassins cover up the truth, because the assassination conspiracy had direct ties to American government plots to assassinate Castro. Outraged at Robert Kennedy's attack on the mafia, mob leaders had President Kennedy killed to remove Robert from power; however, investigation of their plot was impossible because it would have led to evidence of mob participation in the government's plot to kill Castro.

I think the original poster has a point inasmuch its a bit of a hill to climb to determine what is a "major" theory worthy of inclusion here. It's a POV determination, IOW. Here are some points to consider. One, is it a published theory? Two, is the inclusion of this reference adding a new angle, a new conspiracy theory, something not already covered on the page? Three, is too much emphasis being made about this theory in comparison to other theories on this page? Four, is the theory on its face ludicrous - say, Roswell aliens engineered it to hide Area 51 - Five, is the person who posted this one of the authors, and therefore in a conflict of interest?

I would say in all fairness that the text satisfies all these requirements, save for the last which is unknown as we don't know the connection the editor has to the authors. So, unless there is some compelling unaddressed reason to NOT include the text, and I don't think the "not a major theory" reason suffices in this case, the text should be included, as long is it is clear the theory is from the authors and not presented as "truth." Canada Jack (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with a simple listing of the book under Further reading? Why single this book out in the article body and devote a paragraph to it? Also, Hartmann has two ens. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Ultimate Sacrifice" and its sequel "Legacy of Secrecy" run to nearly 1,000 pages each, and yes I've read all of both of them. I'd say a line or two in the "other published theories" section should about cover them.

I'd like to add that the authors' conclusion is perfectly reasonable. They document that the assassination happened mere hours before a US-backed coup attempt was scheduled to come off in Cuba. The planned coup involved in one way or another persons suspected by some of involvement in the assassination, namely, Trafficante, Marcello, Cuban counter-revolutionaries and CIA contract people like Guy Bannister. Given that Bobby Kennedy was using these people as part of a coup, is it likely that after the assassination that he'd use all the powers at this disposal to investigate and reveal to the public everything they'd been doing? Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

External link edit war

FYI, the same dispute over the validity of an external link by McAdams appears to be taking place at Single bullet theory. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Belle News??

Regarding this reversion, I confess I'm confused by the source cited in the reverted material. I had never heard of "Belle News" before, and when I went to their web site, I couldn't find any information telling me who or where they are. I tried a Google search, but I couldn't find anything that clearly referred to this particular site. It may or may not be noteworthy that the cited story had several grammatical errors of types strongly suggesting English is not the first language of the story writer (or the copy editor). The IP editor needs to realize that without being able to know anything at all about a source, it's impossible to evaluate whether any material from that source is reliable. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The same story also appears to be here (Daily Mail) and here (Huffington Post]. However, details of the story are being disputed; see here (Los Angeles Times) and here (Boston Herald). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have blocked 64.136.26.22 for one week for edit warring. Hopefully everyone working here — including the IP, after his block is up — will do whatever is possible to ensure that (quoting WP:NPOV) the article represents "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Richwales (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported Hathcock Tale

Concerning the item:

BEGIN QUOTE:

Former U.S. Marine sniper Craig Roberts and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, who was the senior instructor for the U.S. Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Quantico, Virginia, both said it could not be done as described by the FBI investigators. "Let me tell you what we did at Quantico," Hathcock said. "We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?"

END QUOTE

I have not been able to find any biographical information on Hathcock that confirms this story. I contacted the USMC historical branch at Quantico, and the response was that they had no record of any such test. It is suspected this tale was an exercise in imagination by Craig Roberts. Greg Goebel 70.56.53.105 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Assassination versus blackmail

I don't know whether this has been discussed and archived:

Given that JFK's proclivities and associations would probably be known among certain circles, it would have been practical to exert pressure on him ('you do what we wish, or we reveal what you do and your reelection campaign is toast'). The legal penalty for blackmail discovered would be far less than for killing the President or plotting to do so (I read somewhere that it was not then a Federal offence to assassinate the President - is this so?) - not to mention popular outrage against whoever did so. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A sentence that makes no sense.

The last part of " ... the plane was watched by numerous people that bathed the far side of the plane in lights and provided a public stage for any body snatchers. " is very confusing. Does he mean "...bathed the far side of the plane in lights to discourage body snatchers"?. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported Hathcock Tale

This article references a supposed test by sniper Carlos Hathcock at Quantico trying to duplicate the JFK assassination shots. I contacted the Quantico historical office and they have no record of any such test. I am not very familiar with the various biographical materials on Hathcock, but from what I have seen the tests are not mentioned. The tale appears to be a fiction created by Craig Roberts. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the comment about "no record" to the article. If anyone wants to contest it, they are welcome to contact the USMC historical office to confirm. There is an email request form at: http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/General/Contact_Us.htm MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. Before again attempting to edit-war this private email back into the article, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Restored. Annette Ammeman of the USMC Historical Office has stated in official capacity that the USMC has "no record" of the test. I have given the email to the USMC Historical Office and anyone can validate what I have written here who is actually interested in the facts -- I am Greg Goebel, I am sure they keep records of their correspondence. More to the point, where *IS* the official USMC record of the test? If it was not recorded, it is forensically worthless, if it ever even happened. If there's a concern for validation here, it cuts both ways -- actually, I think it cuts harder against the Craig Roberts story than it does the USMC story. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've mentioned this issue at WP:RSN in hopes of getting additional perspectives. In the meantime, I believe it would be better not to wage an edit war over the issue. In my opinion, neither the addition of this material, nor its deletion, falls into the category of "obvious vandalism" that would exempt either of you from a 3RR/EW block. Let's see what the reliable source experts say. — Richwales (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will be happy with that for now. However, I would emphasize that the lack of any official report (AFAIK) on the Carlos Hathcock story is more significant than the validity of what one will be told on emailing the USMC historical office. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems the suggestion of the discussion was that the paragraph on the Hathcock test ought to be struck if nobody can come up with reasonable source corroboration. Comments? I am more willing to add something to an article than delete something, it feels like high-handed censorship, but it does seem a sensible solution. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, basically right. Wikipedia policy demands that material in an article must be backed up by references to reliable sources. See WP:V (the "verifiability" and "reliable sources" policy), and also WP:NOR (the "no original research" policy). Further, the policy on verifiability and reliable sources prefers the use of secondary sources — i.e., we should report what reliable sources have said about a topic if possible, rather than directly cite primary source documents (and possibly contaminate our reporting of the primary sources by our own interpretation thereof, in violation of the ban on original research). I agree this is sometimes frustrating, especially when we know something about the subject but are forbidden to share our personal knowledge directly, but the consensus is that these policies are necessary in order to preserve Wikipedia's reliability as a reference. — Richwales 16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem when we get to discussing conspiracy theories is that many of the sources for these theories are not typically considered reliable sources. However, if we are simply replicating claims in connection to the assassination, the bar is somewhat set lower, focussing more on whether in fact the claim has been made, rather whether the claim itself withstands scrutiny. Personally, THIS claim always sounded silly as it was never clear how exactly the tests were carried out as this would have a large bearing on its reliability (what if, for example, they assumed the three shots were done in 4 seconds? That would render the tests meaningless).

But it is clear that affixing a reference to a personal e-mail is "original research" and has to go. Whether the claim itself also has to go is not so clearcut, IMHO. Canada Jack (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I keep saying this repeatedly: the issue is not the validity of the email as a source, it isn't valid. The issue is that there is no official report backing up the Hathcock story. The only source is Craig Robert's book, and it apparently provides no specifics of the matter. It is suspected to be a hoax, and it falls on anyone who wishes to retain it to provide some backup. If it is retained, it should at least be pointed out that the only known source is Roberts' book, and be placed in the context of other assassination marksmanship tests -- the 1964 tests the Army Ballistics Branch performed for the Warren Commission (not very well), the 1967 tests by CBS News (about as accurate a setup as could be imagined), as well as the testimony of marksmanship experts such as Sgt. James Zahm to the Warren Commission or the HSCA, all of which give to a greater or lesser degree a different message than the Hathcock story. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The only source is Craig Robert's book, and it apparently provides no specifics of the matter. It is suspected to be a hoax, and it falls on anyone who wishes to retain it to provide some backup.

It is suspected to be a hoax? By whom? If we have a published source which says "hoax," then that should be attached to the claim. Since, as I said above, the bar is set such that the existence of the claim is indeed verifiable, as opposed to whether the claim itself stands scrutiny, we aren't really quibbling about what is indeed likely true. Otherwise, frankly, we'd have a blank page. There are a ton of claims here which are, and I am being charitable, flimsy. The Mauser? We have the filmed recovery of the Carcano. Yet this canard is being repeated nearly 50 years after the fact. How about the wound alteration and the decoy hearse? Provable bullshit. Yet this was a best-selling book and is still cited by many critics. Many if not most of the conspiracy theories here have little or no basis in fact. Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Aw jeez, Murphy's law of online discussions: everyone grabs onto everything but the essentials. Again, the only known source for this tale is Roberts book. There is no official record of it. Is it improper to mention that? And, if it is retained, should it not be included in the (verifiable) context of known marksmanship tests and expert testimony? I'm getting less and less to care what happens here, but can we start to converge to a solution instead of diverging from one? If the solution is "let it stand as is", what more can I say? Proposals, please. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, MrG, you seem to be missing the essential point here. We're not assessing the veracity of a claim here, we are assessing whether the claim has been published and therefore verifiable in that sense - that someone is making it. Not sure why you are wasting your time on a page of conspiracy theories which are, by and large, without merit or even logic, let alone with any evidence to back them up. As I said, if the criteria included the veracity of what is being claimed, we'd have a blank page. Canada Jack (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals please. If you just want to leave it stand, fine, say so. But if you have a constructive proposal to make, kindly get to it. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) None needed. It wouldn't be strange if Hathcock never filed an official report concerning this matter. He had a lot of discretion in how they conducted the sniper school and other involvements. No where did Roberts or Hathcock say "In an official simulation conducted by the USMC..." so no pretense of that has been presented. The letter from USMC is original research and needs to be left out. I don't know if this simulation ever occurred or not but Roberts who was an associate of Hathcock has published this then that may be presented here. If another author has published a rebuttal in a book or magazine then that could be mentioned. Your advocacy and attempt to right great wrongs against Roberts is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, cutting out the overhead, you're saying "leave it as is". Good enough for me. Any problems with deleting this talk topic? It has no value to me or anyone else. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't delete. We preserve them so we don't have to rehash later. It won't hurt our servers. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'm history. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Something being overlooked here is the fact that, as I mentioned in the RSN discussion, Roberts' "published" statements are in a self-published book, which should normally exclude them from Wikipedia unless discussed in a secondary reliable source – which the currently cited blog is not. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Roberts is an established author and although I don't have this particular book, I have one of his from Pocket Books (Simon & Schuster) since 1990. I'm not supporting the claims made in the article but he isn't an upstart from a vanity perspective. That said, I have no dog in this fight and it doesn't bother me if a citation needed is placed or if it is removed altogether. Your call. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignored testimony

I'm going to change:

Jim Marrs recorded the accounts of several people, observing from the triple overpass overlooking Dealey Plaza, who pointed to a shooter on the "grassy knoll", but who were not asked to testify by the Commission.

back to...

Jim Marrs wrote that the accounts of several people on the triple overpass whose testimony pointed to a shooter on the "grassy knoll" were not asked to testify before the Commission.

The first sentence appears to say that the people on the triple overpass literally pointed to a shooter on the grassy knoll, however, the full context of the statement in the book is that Marrs believes their accounts "point to" (i.e. indicate, suggest, reveal) that there was a grassy knoll shooter. The first sentence also presents as fact that the "several people" mentioned were not asked to testify by the Warren Commission. This is an error on Marrs part in that at least two of the five people he refers to in the cited paragraph actually did testify to the WC (i.e. Austin Miller and Frank Reilly). The idea here is that we are not stating as fact testimony was ignored, but that we are attributing that belief to a researcher who believes it was ignored. Location (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

References

The following references do not appear to have inline citations, so I have moved them to the talk page for ease in moving them back to mainspace as they are used for specific citations:

• Benson, Michael (2002). Encyclopedia of the JFK Assassination. Facts on File library of American history. New York: Checkmark Books. ISBN 978-0816044771.
• Blakey, G. Robert; Billings, Richard N. (1981) [1980]. The Plot to Kill the President. New York: Times Books. ISBN 978-0812909296.
• Connally, Nellie (2003). From Love Field: Our Final Hours with President John F. Kennedy. New York: Rugged Land. ISBN 1590710142. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Hancock, Larry J. (2006). Someone Would Have Talked: Documented! the Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the Conspiracy to Mislead History. Southlake, Tex: JFK Lancer Productions & Publications. ISBN 978-0977465712.
• Kelin, John (2007). Praise from a Future Generation: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the First Generation Critics of the Warren Report. San Antonio, Tex: Wings Press. ISBN 978-0916727321.
• Piper, Michael Collins (2005). Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy (6th ed.). Washington, D.C: American Free Press. ISBN 978-0974548401.
• Russell, Dick (2008). On the Trail of the JFK Assassins: A Groundbreaking Look at America's Most Infamous Conspiracy. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1602393226.
• Thompson, Josiah (1967). Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination. New York: Bernard Geis Associates. ISBN 978-0425032558.
• Waldron, Lamar; Hartmann, Thom (2008). Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination. Berkeley: Counterpoint. ISBN 978-1582434223.

Location (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

My additions regarding Donald Gibson were revered per this edit with the edit summary explanation that "(I don't think Gibson counts as a reliable source. WP:RELIABLE)". I'm going to change it back. Gibson is a university professor who has written at least five books, with three on Kennedy. Given that this article is about the views of those who promote various conspiracy theories, I think he qualifies as reliable source for the opinions of assassination researchers/conspiracy theorists. Location (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it again. You need to build consensus first if bold changes are challenged. WP:BRD

First, what are Gibson's qualifications? His opinion would only be relevant if he was a relevant expert, such as a historian. And as written, they were presented as facts. That may be giving undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to a possible minority position. For instance:

According to John Gibson, neither expert marksmen or the "not very proficient" Oswald was capable of firing three shots in the time purported by the Warren Commission, therefore, the Commission downplayed the amount of time necessary for Oswald to fire the shots.

The Lee Harvey Oswald WP article and their sources seem to contradict that:

Like all Marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting, scoring 212 in December 1956 (slightly above the minimum for qualification as a sharpshooter) but in May 1959 scoring only 191 (barely earning the lower designation of marksman).

So, it would seem incorrect to call Oswald "not very proficient".

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Conspiracy theories contradict the official view, therefore, we have to be able to show how and where they do contradict it... and with proper attribution. The assertion here is not a statement of fact that Oswald was or was not a good shot, but that some conspiracy theorists (of which John Gibson is one) believe - in contradiction to the WC's final report - that he was not. This is why I have gone to the "trouble" of giving proper attribution to the various views (i.e. "The Warren Commission report stated that the capabilities of the rifle and ammunition as well as Oswald's military training and post-military experience were evaluated, and it was determined that Oswald had the ability to fire three shots within a time span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds." and "According to John Gibson, neither expert marksmen or the "not very proficient" Oswald was capable of firing three shots in the time purported by the Warren Commission, therefore, the Commission downplayed the amount of time necessary for Oswald to fire the shots."). In other words, Gibson is a reliable source for the conspiracy theorists' BELIEF of Oswald's marksmanship. Location (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I have asked for additional opinions from the RS Noticeboard and a half dozen editors, without regards to they are pro-WC or pro-conspiracy, who appear to have edited here relatively recently.) Location (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Gibson is ok. The author has academic credentials, and his theories are published and reasonably well-known.

This discussion reminds me of a classic we had on the Lee Harvey Oswald talk page. One of the things I argued was, (T)he (pro-conspiracy) authors I’ve mentioned are serious historians who represent mainstream institutions and whose original research and thorough analysis has been published by major publishing houses and universities and favorably reviewed by other historians. You can conceivably dismiss them as sources if you demonstrate specific flaws in their methods, treatment of facts and/or conclusions, but NOT just on differences of opinion.

No one has yet demonstrated that Gibson is unreliable on the facts. Re: Oswald's marksmanship. First of all, whether Oswald was "proficient" at anything is entirely subjective. Second of all, what Gibson says on the subject is arguably true. None of the highly skilled marksman employed by the Warren Commission were able to repeat the shots that Oswald was alleged to have made. Furthermore, there is evidence that Oswald was nothing like the caliber ;) of those marksmen. Oswald is not known to have ever practiced firing his Carcano or and other rifle after leaving the Marines, and furthemore, to quote wikipedia, "Nelson Delgado, a Marine in the same unit as Oswald, used to laugh at Oswald's shooting prowess and testified that Oswald often got "Maggie's drawers"; meaning a red flag that is waved from the rifle pits to indicate a complete miss of the target during qualification firing." Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that Gibson probably rates as a "reliable source," given that he can be said to reliably reflect some of the major criticisms of the WC etc., as far as I can see here. Recall that this page by definition reflects the views of, in general, non-official investigations. The basic criteria here should be a) is the author published (as opposed to some blogger on the internet, for example); b) is he a "known" critic of some prominence; and c) are his views somewhat representative of the subject in question, i.e., conspiracy theories/critiques of the WC, etc. I think Gibson passes muster on all counts. If he, say, was suggesting that Roswell aliens were involved, I'd say that would be a non-representative view. We have to try to be representative without allowing every viewpoint onto the page as that would be too unwieldy. It's not always obvious whose viewpoints should be here.

Joe, I don't agree that we have to determine whether Gibson is reliable or unreliable on the facts. If that were the case, some of the more prominent critics, like Mark Lane, would have to be removed as he has been shown to repeatedly lie and mislead in his books. I think it suffices to say "author x claims..." and leave it at that (though the excised edit seems to need a bit of editing, there was some confused text there).

But, since I can't resist... "None of the highly skilled marksman employed by the Warren Commission were able to repeat the shots that Oswald was alleged to have made." Not true. Miller hit 2 of 3 targets in 4.6 and 5.15 seconds, without practice with the Carcano. Oswald was "said" to have struck with 2 of 3 shots, in a time range as long as 8 seconds. Later recreations which had moving targets, and ample practice times and shots using the iron sights easily replicated the Oswald achievements. But you are, simply put, repeating a complete lie about what the Warren Commission found. The only wiggle room you have is to shorten the firing time, but this dishonestly reflects the timelines the WC was testing.

"Oswald is not known to have ever practiced firing his Carcano or and other rifle after leaving the Marines." Joe, where do you get this stuff? Marina saw him practice using the bolt on numerous occasions, and she said he admitted to firing at Walker. IOW, Oswald's own WIFE said that he admitted firing live ammunition with that rifle! If Oswald was capable of taking a shot at Walker, the issue of his practice/non-practice is moot. As for his "lack of proficiency," his initial Marine score suggests otherwise. Indeed it proved he was capable of the shooting he was said to have done. As for Delgado, funny how he is always quoted and not the Marine instructors who deemed him a good shot. Trouble with Mr Delgado is that when he was asked to rate his OWN proficiency, he rated himself as a "good shot." Trouble was, he had a LOWER score than Oswald. Canada Jack (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy theories are an example of a fringe historical theory (WP:FRINGE). We must adhere to those policies. We can't present their claims unchallenged, as that gives them undue weight (WP:UNDUE). --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, WP:FRINGE starts off: "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." If we address the broader issue of whether of not there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, approximately 3 out of 4 people believe there was a conspiracy (i.e. the opinion that there was a conspiracy is significant). Similarly, a large number of conspiracy theorists hold the opinion that Oswald was not a good marksman. All I was attempting to do with the Gibson quote/cite was demonstrate that opinion, and I stressed that it was an opinion by prefacing the statement with "According to Gibson...". I agree with you that there should also be some "challenge" to that opinion and there is (i.e. "The Warren Commission report stated that the capabilities of the rifle and ammunition as well as Oswald's military training and post-military experience were evaluated, and it was determined that Oswald had the ability to fire three shots within a time span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds.")

Please note that this is also in keeping with WP:V: "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." I wasn't passing Gibson's opinion off as truth; I was merely attempting to provide a verifiable and relatively significant opinion about one facet of the conspiracy view. Location (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the fact that I can't say anything around here without being challenged to the last word, forcing me to either come back with copious research or look like I'm making stuff up. But I don't appreciate being told that I'm telling "a complete lie." All right, let's attack this in microscopic detail.

The testers first put a shim under the rifle scope, allowing it to be fired accurately when aiming through the scope, invalidating the tests right from the start. Then they allowed the testers to fire at three stationary silhouettes large than Oswald's actual targets from a 30-foot tower. Oswald of course would have been shooting at a moving car, receding from the rifleman, on a downgrade, and from twice the elevation (but same total target distance). Even if you ignore the many ways in which the Commission gave the testers all the help they could, none of them did what they claimed Oswald did: hit the second and third targets on the first try. And remember, we're talking about the greatest marksmen that could possibly be found. And unless I'm mistaken, no subsequent tests have ever used Oswald's rifle.

Again there is not documented evidence of Oswald practicing with any rifle in the years after he left the Corps. Or of his owning more than 4 bullets, for that matter. What did Marina see? Well, she was interviewed 4 times by the FBI in December, 1963. And since I know I can't say this without a demand for citations, they are: CE 1785, 1401, 1790 and 1403. Marina was asked in each of these interviews whether or not Oswald had engaged in rifle practice. On each occasion she replied that Oswald had never left or returned to their home carrying a rifle; that he had never mentioned that he intended to practice shooting; that he had never practiced shooting to her knowledge; and that she had never seen him clean the rifle or hold it. Later, she starts changing her story. In February, 1964 (CE 2694) the story now becomes that Oswald did tell her that he practiced with the rifle, and she had seen him cleaning it in January of the previous year. Later still, she changed the story about seeing him cleaning it.

Can I point out that through all her contradictory testimony, Marina never claimed that she "saw" Oswald practice? You just repeated "a complete lie!" (Now don't get me wrong, I am smiling as I write all of this.) Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Joe, Joe! You wrote this: "None of the highly skilled marksman employed by the Warren Commission were able to repeat the shots that Oswald was alleged to have made." Now, if one did not know better, you'd think that those "highly skilled marksm[e]n" were incapable of replicated the stupendous marksmanship of this guy Oswald; that indeed what Oswald was said to have done was not possible as the feat could not be replicated even by the most skilled people! Why else mention "highly skilled marksm[e]"? But of course, this is a simple lie, since we had at least one of those guys beat the time of Oswald while hitting two targets!

Of course, once this is pointed out, the CT crowd likes to have it both ways. The argument is suddenly switched to "the conditions weren't even the same," meaning it didn't matter if one of those "highly skilled marksm[e]n" in fact DID match Oswald. The problem with that argument is that that deficiency has been rectified by numerous recreations which match as close to possible the exact conditions - heights etc., movement of the target, with an identical rifle. But the CT crowd likes to pretend this hasn't been done.

If the CT crowd was honest - they are not - they'd say something along the lines of "while the WC managed to match the timeframe and targets hit by Oswald, they did so under conditions which did not accurately replicate the conditions Oswald would have faced. Subsequent accurate reenactments have shown that the shots may have been achieved, but since the actual rifle used was never the alleged murder weapon, relevant conclusions can not be made." Of course, others beg to differ, but THIS would be an honest way of dealing with the issue.

But what is so ludicrous about this debate is what the CT crowd likes to ignore. Close to a 100 people said they heard shots fired from the TSBD. Several people actually SAW shots being fired, the rifle being discharged, while, obviously, many saw the president hit twice. One would think that this alone establishes that, even if this person was not Oswald, the shots were doable as many SAW the shots being fired!

As for his lack of practice, he was not accused of testing a rifle, he was accused of firing the rifle at the motorcade. It is completely IRRELEVANT if Oswald never once practiced if it can be established that he was in the window and firing the shots. If someone was to high jump eight feet in front of you, you'd not say "we never saw him practice, so he couldn't have done what my lying eyes saw him do!" Further, we KNOW he fired shots with the rifle as he ADMITTED to it to Marina when the Walker shooting happened. And we have separate evidence which does not rely on Marina which establishes that Oswald indeed fired the shot and made arrangements for his presumed capture or death. Yet, when asked about ever firing or owning a rifle he told provable lies, establishing a consciousness of guilt. Still further, he was conclusively linked to the rifle in question, despite decades of nonsense from the CT crowd spinning silly implausible tales.

Finally, in the end, we also have to ask "how stupendous was Oswald's alleged marksmanship that day?" The "alleged" should apply not to Oswald as an assassin, but to calling him a "marksman." The first shot not only missed the president, it seems it completely missed the limo. Shot two hit the president, but in the back when, presumably, the head was a target. Finally, he hit his mark with the third shot. This ain't marksmanship, Joe, it's sloppy shooting. Canada Jack (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of being told I'm a liar and dishonest. Some of our discussions have been quite stimulating, so I regret they cannot continue. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Joe. But to claim that the WC couldn't match Oswald's feat is a lie which has been repeated for decades. There's no other word for it. However, claiming the WC didn't adequately recreate the shooting conditions is fair comment. Your are entitled to your own opinion, as in the latter, but you are not entitled to your own facts, as with the former. In your defence, you are repeating the mendacity of many authors on this subject. Canada Jack (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Responding to a few things Location said:

"approximately 3 out of 4 people believe there was a conspiracy "

The average person's beliefs on the subject are irrelevant. JFK Conspiracy theories are a fringe theory among historians. There's lots and lots of people (especially in America) who think creationism is a valid alternative to evolution, but that doesn't mean that creationism is not a fringe theory. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE applies to non-notable opinions. Are you saying that there are no notable opinions that run contrary to the Warren Commission? There are hundreds of books on the subject. Creationism has an article and so should John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Now which sources are acceptable to present the view of conspiracy theorists? Location (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. If "The average person's beliefs...are irrelevant," why do so many wikipedia articles (including this one) cite public opinion polls? And can I see your survey of historians that demonstrates that nearly all believe that Oswald acted alone? I guess what some people need is a "Sith" encyclopedia where everything is in absolutes. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There are hundreds of books on the subject.

Well, how many books published by Academic presses assert that there was a conspiracy? How many how many scholarly papers in peer reviewed Historical journals? Conspiracy theories are a currently a fringe historical theory. They deserve an article not because they are compelling, but because of the social interest. So we must make sure to not give specific claims undue weight (WP:UNDUE.

Now which sources are acceptable to present the view of conspiracy theorists?

Not 100% on that myself, actually. Apparently it is supposed to be the "most notable", but I am not fully clear on the criteria for that. Probably it means the ones that have been cited by reliable sources and are most prominent. I'm going to request some assistance from people from a few Wikiprojects to assist in this. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If "The average person's beliefs...are irrelevant," why do so many wikipedia articles (including this one) cite public opinion polls?

The public's views on a topic are worth noting, and might be of interest to readers. (Example, Level of support for evolution). However that does not mean that those positions have factual relevancy. Also opinions on topics vary geographically, and we should not represent the opinions of one geographic location. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Well, how many books published by Academic presses assert that there was a conspiracy? How many how many scholarly papers in peer reviewed Historical journals?"

Relatively recent peer-reviewed articles in historical journals include DB Thomas' study of the acoustic evidence in Science and Justice, the journal of Britain's Forensic Science Society,[2] and David Wrone's critique of Posner's Case Closed in Journal of Southern History[3]. Perhaps you'd care to cite some journals suggesting the Warren Commission was actually correct? Among the publishers of research with pro-conspiracy viewpoints, the most common names I see are Holt Rinehart and Winston and McGraw Hill. Since I guess those aren't "academic" enough for you, you might be interested by the very good Breach of Trust by Gerald McKnight or the less-good The Zapruder Film, both published by the University of Kansas. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Joe here. Even if we want to toe the "official" line here, the HSCA concluded a "conspiracy" was likely, did it not? On this case, while we cite the official investigations and their conclusions on the main page, there is a significant body of research and opinion which is citable under the rules of wikipedia as "reliably sourced." However, the biggest challenge is to fairly represent the main counter-scenarios as there is no single agreed-upon scenario. Even if we go by the HSCA conclusions, it pretty well stops with the conclusion of conspiracy, with a second gunman by the knoll. But just about every other aspect investigated comes to the same conclusions as the WC. So, any inclusion of conspiracy theory has to be a rather subjective exploration of which theories are more plausible. And who is most prominent as an author. One approach could be to quote Bugliosi who has a pretty decent chapter tracing the history of the conspiracy movement in his JFK book. But I;m sure many in the conspiracy community would object to his views as forming a basis for addressing his views.

In the end, I believe this page, just as the 911 conspiracy page, should and must exist and is entirely defendable under wikipedia rules. Canada Jack (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think is entirely possible to present a neutrally worded article using the sources of lone gunman supporters (e.g. Bugliosi, Posner, etc.) and conspiracy theorists (Lane, Lifton, Kurtz, etc), as long as proper attribution is used for assertions on which the two sides disagree (i.e. comply with WP:RSOPINION). These people are reliable sources for their opinions. Location (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Umbrella Man

I am putting Umbrella man in this because he is believed by many to be a conspirator. Some may even want to question his actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.130.189 (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a relevant addition, however, please remember to note which theorists or researchers believe this. Location (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Acoustical evidence

I heard a new theory on the acoustical evidence, The HSCA stated that it was the microphone of Officer H B MacClain which picked up the sounds and that he was near to the School Book Depository when the first shot was fired. A documentary used this as the basis for attacking the HSCA conclusions on this matter. They used Dale Myers's computer model which showed that MacClain was a long way from the School Book Depository at the time of the first shot.

However, researcher Michael T. Griffith wrote an article in 2003 on this subject in which he argues that the microphone of Officer Bobby Hargis could have been the one which was open and that he would have been in the right position to record all the shots. If this is true then the argument put forward by the documentary is invalid. http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Acoustical_evidence.html

This area is highly controversial with different experts reaching very different conclusions about the validity of analysing the dictabelt recording to determine the origin of the shots fired at Kennedy. However, if the dictabelt evidence is faulty this does not mean that there was not another gunman firing from the grassy knoll it just means that this type of evidence cannot be used to determine if this really happened.

I am not trying to defend the conspiraces or disprove them, I just wonder if this should be on here or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.130.189 (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is here. The HSCA based their conclusion of "conspiracy" on this acoustic evidence. That evidence was interpreted by them and others to indicate there was a knoll assassin, though this conclusion is controversial. But this information is on the page. What are you proposing? Canada Jack (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The ISP's proposal appears to be to include information that conspiracy theorists think refutes Myers model showing that the HSCA was mistaken. Myers made a very strong argument that via the position of McClain in the motorcade that the HSCA's conclusion of a conspiracy based upon acoustic evidence was mistaken. The resulting take among theorists is this: "Ah, hah! It was Hargis - not McClain - whose mic was stuck open. The acoustic evidence is still valid. And that evidence proves there was another assassin." The opinion that it was Hargis, and not McClain, does hold some traction among theorists (e.g. the above link and this one), so I'm OK with a blurb about it if we can find sources that meet either WP:RSOPINION or WP:SECONDARY. (Personally, I think we need book sources and not just things posted on internet sites.) Location (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What Im saying is that the officer who the HSCA thought was the one with the micophone open was in the wrong poistion but one theroist suggests it may have come from Bobby Hargis or it just cannot be used to to determine what actually happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.130.189 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.130.189 (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dal-Tex Building

The article states:

Also of note is the scientific acoustic evidence presented to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 which pinpointed the Dal-Tex building as a possible source of gunfire.[89]

I can find nothing of the sort in the HSCA documents. In the absence of better sourcing, I propose that this sentence be deleted. Thoughts? Location (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't believe the HSCA concluded this at all. Since the HSCA concluded that three shots were fired by Oswald from the TSBD and one likely from the knoll, there was no acoustic evidence which would correspond with another (fifth) shot. Even if the HSCA saw acoustic evidence which did not rule out a Dal-Tex source, other evidence they assessed DID rule out the Dal-Tex source and they concluded correspondingly. Canada Jack (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've removed the sentence. I will also remove it from the Dal-Tex Building article. Location (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Section regarding J.D. Tippit

I am wondering if anyone else sees this section as violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and what, if anything, should be done about it. In my opinion, stringing together a bunch of findings from the Warren Commission to suggest something is fishy is SYNTH and OR. In my opinion, if something is "fishy", then the article needs to attribute the allegations of "fishiness" to a primary or preferably secondary source. Location (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The section has only been in the article a short time. I deleted it yesterday, then someone restored it without explanation. Two reasons why it doesn't belong.

One, it does not detail a JFK assassination conspiracy theory. While there certainly is such a thing as a theory involving Tippit, there's no mention of that in the text.

Two, it's a word for word copy for the Criticism of the Case against Oswald section of the Tippit article (80% of which I wrote, if you have any questions). Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The "conspiracy" would need to involve somebody trailing Oswald as he walked from his apparentment to the theater after the assassination (Oswald has just been the only person to leave his building near where the president was assassinated, and he feels the need to spend the day watching a Korean war film matinee). This second person killed Tippit and scattered spent ammo cases from Oswald's pistol at the scene. Or else these were somehow mixed up in the evidence dept with shells from ammo later fired from Oswald's pistol in tests.

The rest of it is taking the earliest times anybody ever gives for Oswald's presense after the shooting, and suggesting that this doesn't leave him time to do the deed. Unfortunately for that argument, plenty of other times other people have, give Oswald plenty of time to walk the distance. See this: [4] and see what you think, afterward. SBHarris 19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the section could stay, but it needs to be more clear as to why the killing of Tippit belongs as part of a page dedicated to exploring conspiracies to kill JFK. To be specific, why would the killing of a police officer with no connection to JFK have a bearing on the killing of Kennedy? Even if one says "well, Oswald was accused of killing both," we still need to know why the WC thought this was significant and why conspirators would want Tippit killed. To the average reader, it is not obvious why this is here. So this needs to be reworked to establish its relevance. Canada Jack (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

To rework it, we need at least some primary sources (per WP:RSOPINION) but preferably some secondary sources (per WP:SECONDARY) that assert that something was fishy about the killing of Tippit. YouTube sources generally won't work. Do we have something from the bigger names on this? Location (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course some witnessess said the killer was somebody else other than Oswald.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyAtfK79AuA&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBo3xeVANiI&feature=player_embedded

http://giljesus.com/Tippit/jacket.htm New video shows the jacket was white

Problems with the gray jacket's chain of custody

Evidence that the witnesses described the jacket of the Tippit murderer as white

Evidence that the police radio description of the jacket found was white

Evidence that the witnesses refused to identify the gray jacket as the jacket the killer wore

Skeptical witness identification of the gray jacket as the jacket the killer wore

More problems with the evidence

Once again to remind you, I am not trying to defend or disprove those theroies, it just what I think but have you own thoughts anyway.

My guess is that the conspirators were trying to kill Oswald when he had left the rooming house and "stage" it as a "suicide to escape the cops". This way, there's would have been certainly no need for Jack Ruby's mission two days later, but my guess is that Tippit found the conspirator sent to kill Oswald and the conspirator panicked but that just my guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.130.189 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The YouTube videos show interviews with eyewitnesses. We can't just put those in the article to say, "Look at what these witnesses saw. There might have been a conspiracy." We need a source outside of Wikipedia that says, "Look at what these witnesses saw. There might have been a conspiracy." Also, giljesus.com will fail WP:RS. Location (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Some seem to be missing the point. It's not that there aren't questions raised about the Tippit killing. It's how this is connected to the Kennedy Assassination. The way the section stands, it lists all these discrepancies. But it doesn't say why this suggests a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. That needs to be explicit. Canada Jack (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I see there has been a lot more work on the Tippit section, but the basic question has been left unanswered: Why are we talking on a page concerning conspiracies in the killing of Kennedy with questions over the killings of a police officer? I'm not suggesting it is irrelevant, rather the relevance of the issue has yet to be added. The average reader would be mystified as to why this is an issue at all as it stands. Canada Jack (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I (still) agree. While I appreciate the work User:BrandonTR has put into the section, there needs to be some assertion as to how these discrepancies are connected to a conspiracy and it needs to be attributed in the article to someone who has put that assertion in writing. Most people understand that people recall events slightly differently and that discrepancies in witness testimony are not that unusual. Location (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've omitted the section on the killing of Tippit. As it stood, despite repeated requests to include reasons why this is relevant to a page on conspiracies to kill JFK, there is no stated connection of JFK's murder to Tippit's. As I have said, some make the argument they ARE connected, yet we don't see anything here about that. Any casual reader would rightfully ask themselves what the murder of a policeman has to do with a conspiracy to kill the president. Canada Jack (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your edit has already been reverted without any discussion here. As is, the section only implies a conspiracy through various discrepancies. I'll see what I can do to tie this in with the conspiracy theories. I did add a blurb regarding the allegation that Tippit was sent to silence Oswald. Location (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen claimed that Ruby said that he was involved with Tippit.[5] You only need one theory to keep the section germane to the article, and I suppose that theory is no more or less outlandish than any other. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The above article/book excerpt repeats the allegation already in the article that Tippit met with Ruby and Weissman, but it doesn't allege that Tippit was killed due to a conspiracy. The section needs more sourcing for that allegation. Location (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the section again. Just to re-iterate, I am not pretending there is no connection in terms of claims of a conspiracy to kill JFK. The problem is there is NO indication as currently written as to how this has anything to do with a conspiracy to kill JFK!

"The two murders are intimately intertwined, and both committed by Oswald on the same day. They fall underJFK conspiracy claims." ??? It may be obvious to you, it sure isn't obvious in the section as written. If Oswald did both murders, where's the conspiracy? If he DIDN'T kill Tippit, where is the conspiracy to kill Tippit and how is this connected to a conspiracy to kill JFK? Finally, even if someone other than Oswald killed Tippit, why was this not some random killing and how is it connected to JFK's assassination?

NONE of those basic questions is addressed in the section.

Since this page is "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories," and not "Stuff Oswald may or may not have done," we need an EXPLICIT connection to a conspiracy to kill JFK. It could be an author's claim that the WC trumped up the charges so as to establish Oswald's guilt in the JFK murder. Or, it could be Tippit's connection to the assassination, again a claim from an author. Etc. Canada Jack (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you, it needs to be on here because there are theroies about the murder, for example.

The killing of Tippit has always been controversial. The movements of Oswald on that day seemed strange. The movements of Tippit also seemed strange.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/car10.htm and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL8u1qFW8B8

And another conection for it has to be Earlene Roberts, Oswald's housekeeper who reported that an police car with two men in uniforms turned up outside her house a short while after Oswald had walked in; one of them beeped the horn twice and then proceeded to drive away at speed. A friend of mine said that he thinks that one of the men in the police car which turned up outside, the one Earlene Roberts saw, was J. D. Tippit who some suspect was in on the plot. Some even say this was what he doing, he and Oswald knew each other from their participation in the plot to murder Kennedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.152.60 (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada Jack's point is that allegations of Tippit's involvement in a conspiracy need to be explicitly stated in some source. As is, the section just says that a bunch of stuff contradicts other stuff. The YouTube link does not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria. The article may fulfill the criteria for WP:RSOPINION if Bill Drenas has credentials other than being just someone who posted his opinion on the web. Obviously, we cannot post that a friend of User:92.15.152.60 thinks Tippit was in the police car outside Roberts house. Location (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In his book, Who Killed Kennedy? (May, 1964) Thomas G. Buchanan suggests that J. D. Tippit was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. Buchanan, who was living in France at the time (he had lost his job with the Washington Evening Star in 1948 because of his alleged membership of the American Communist Party). He claims that there were several stories circulating in Europe at this time that Tippit was a member of the team that was involved in the plot against Kennedy.

Buchanan refers to an article written by Serge Groussard in L’Aurore (a right-wing newspaper which had supported the O.A.S. during the Algerian War). Groussard claimed he had received information that Tippit had been employed to help a man escape from Dallas. He was not told what crime the man had done (or was about to do). When he realised that the man who he was supposed to help had killed JFK, he changed his mind and tried to arrest Oswald. When Oswald realized what was happening, he killed Tippit.

Buchanan accepts that Oswald did kill Tippit, but he does believe that Tippit was involved in the conspiracy. He puts forward the following points to support this view:

(1) The physical description of Oswald giving out by the Dallas Police was not accurate enough for Tippit to have recognized him. What is more, as Oswald had already returned home to change, the description of his clothing was no longer valid.

(2) Tippit was alone at the time that he apprehended Oswald. According to Buchanan: “Standing orders for police in Dallas, as in other cities, are that radio cars of the type Tippit was driving must have two policemen in them.”

(3) Tippit was not in the sector of Dallas where he had been assigned the day before. He should “have been in downtown Dallas at the time he intercepted Oswald half way between Oswald’s room and Ruby’s”.

(4) Tippit violated police procedure by “failing to make use of the radio beside him to notify his fellow-officers that he was stopping to question a suspect in the Kennedy assassination”.

(5) According to one witness “Oswald smiled at Tippit when he saw him, ambled over to the scout car, and they had an amicable conversation for almost a minute. Tippit staying in the car and Oswald standing in the street beside his rolled-down car window.”

(6) Buchanan claimed that Eva Grant had told reporters that Ruby and Oswald “were like brothers”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.152.60 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This is good stuff. Since I don't have the book, do you happen to have page numbers that can be used for a citation? Location (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly no, and although I do believe in conspiracy, his theory is full of errors, he suggests the single bullet missed and passed over Kennedy’s head at an angle of 45 degrees. It hit the floor of the car, disintegrated, put a small round hole in the windshield, and later reappeared almost intact on the president’s stretcher. A second killer, on the railroad overpass (in spite of the two policemen and thirteen railroad employees there), fled and left his rifle behind(Who would do that?!). Altogether, the plot involved two shooters and four accomplices and at least eight conspirators were actively involved, including officer J. D. Tippit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.152.60 (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding citations

In the J.D. Tippit section, I added the following sentence with citation to state an official position:

The Commission stated that the evidence that formed the basis for this conclusion was: "(1) two eyewitnesses who heard the shots and saw the shooting of Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit and seven eyewitnesses who saw the flight of the gunman with revolver in hand positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw fire the shots or flee from the scene, (2) the cartridge cases found near the scene of the shooting were fired from the revolver in the possession of Oswald at the time of his arrest, to the exclusion of all other weapons, (3) the revolver in Oswald's possession at the time of his arrest was purchased by and belonged to Oswald, and (4) Oswald's jacket was found along the path of flight taken by the gunman as he fled from the scene of the killing."

BrandonTR has inserted the {{citation needed}} template for three of the four points here and here. Given that the material in quotes is all from the same source, is it necessary to use four separate citations in this instance? Location (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Secret Service conspiracy

BrandonTR, I added a relevance tag to the bit about the Secret Service destroying records. I assume the implication here is that they were covering-up something, but that is not stated or attributed to anyone. Location (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am dumbfounded that there is no mention of the standdown here on here, Several researchers spotted it in the video when the the motorcade leaves lovefield. No, although I do believe that a conspiracy did exist, I do not believe the the serect service were in on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

I know it is just a youtube video but who the guy talking and what do others think?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.133.41 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 April 2012‎ (UTC)

I think the allegation is worth a mention, however, the rebuttal is less sinister. Allegations usually need proper attribution to the person or persons making the allegation. Location (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to add information on the stand-down to the article, a good place to start your research is: Turner, Nigel. The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 7, "The Smoking Guns", 2003. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkH2ILChHo Also see Vince Palamara's blog; specifically regarding the stand-down order given by Shift Leader Emory Roberts to Secret Service agents in the follow-up car. http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2011/04/emory-roberts-real-story.html BrandonTR (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada Jack reverts

This editor has repeatedly been requested, in light of his reverts of material which other editors see as constructive to the page, to engage in discussion before excluding material. Thus far, he has refused to engage in a discussion on this page. He's reverted the same material several times. If he continues to revert without first engaging in discussion, I suggest it would be time to put a stop to this silliness.BrandonTR (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit, Brandon. The precise reverse is true. I have raised this basic issue several times this past month and NOTHING has been done to address these concerns. Simply put, as written, there is NO connection between the murder of Tippit and a conspiracy to kill JFK, which is the subject of the page. This is pretty basic stuff. So, since it is clear no one is bothering to make these needed changes, the text has to be removed until changes are made. This isn't a sandbox, folks.

This is not a trivial concern. Any person not well-versed in assassination lore will justly question what this has to do with the killing of JFK. Are we to assume that, say, the mafia wanted JFK dead for whatever reason, and, while we're at it, let's kill that cop who gave the don a speeding ticket? Huh? And, even if that silly scenario was one being claimed, IT HAS TO BE STATED.

"I think that "JFK assassination" implicitly includes all the significant events of that day connected with it, including Tippit's murder." "Implicit"? If that is your claim, then you agree with what I am saying as wikipedia is clear that material must be EXPLICITLY connected when there is no prima facie connection. The murder of Tippit wasn't in Dealy Plaze, wasn't in the motorcade, he had no known connection to JFK. The links to conspiracy claims therefore has to be explicit. Canada Jack (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't know what the problem here is, Brandon. Why haven't you, since you've put a lot of work into this page, made the obvious changes to the Tippit section which would justify inclusion here? It's not like it's too complex. We just need some authors who claim the murder was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK, either directly or indirectly (implicating Oswald in the JFK killing via his flight from justice, etc.). In the meantime, the page is not a sandbox where changes which justify the very inclusion on this page are left to some indeterminate future time. Canada Jack (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit, Jack. Your "raising of this basic issue several times this past month," as you put it, has not been to argue your position on the talk page -- the civilized response. Rather, your response has been to delete the material that you don't like, several times. Your argument that the Tippit murder is unrelated to JFK assassination conspiracy theories has about as much validity as arguing that the "three tramps" are unrelated to JFK assassination conspiracy theories. BrandonTR (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't be more wrong, Brandon. I have REPEATEDLY raised this issue, I've had at least one other editor agree. This is NOT a matter of "deleting material I don't like," it's a matter of having the material on this page conform to the BASIC tenets of wikipedia.

The killing of Tippit is neither here nor there in terms of the claims and counter-claims, the IMPORTANT issue is RELEVANCE. As written THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A CONSPIRACY TO KILL JFK. NOTHING. This is a complete no-brainer, and if you want to bring in outside editors they will agree with me. They'd say "what is the subject of the page," and then ask "how is this incident related to the subject of the page." If there is nothing connecting it to the subject of the page, the material should be removed.

Your argument that the Tippit murder is unrelated to JFK assassination conspiracy theories has about as much validity as arguing that the "three tramps" are unrelated to JFK assassination conspiracy theories. Obviously, Brandon, you completely miss the point here. I have NEVER pretended that the Tippit murder has no connection to the JFK assassination. What I AM saying is that AS WRITTEN there is no connection to CONSPIRACIES to kill JFK. The page - and I've said this numerous times - is NOT a sandbox. The section lacks the basic connecting text to the very subject of the page. I've repeatedly flagged this, there was no response, no action taking, so the material MUST be removed until the connections are made. My actions were Bold, which is encouraged here. Because no one has lifted a finger to make these corrections, indeed some here seem to completely misunderstand the issue here. Canada Jack (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your argument that the Tippit murder is unrelated to JFK assassination conspiracy theories has about as much validity as arguing that the "three tramps" are unrelated to JFK assassination conspiracy theories.

Seems that you inadvertently underlined my point here. So, what does the section on the Three Tramps say in regards to a conspiracy to kill JFK? According to Bugliosi, allegations that these men were involved in a conspiracy originated from theorist Richard E. Sprague who compiled the photographs in 1966 and 1967, and subsequently turned them over to Jim Garrison during his investigation of Clay Shaw.[118] Appearing before a nationwide audience on the December 31, 1968 episode of The Tonight Show, Garrison held up a photo of the three and suggested they were involved in the assassination.[118] Later, in 1974, assassination researchers Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield compared photographs of the men to people they believed to be suspects involved in a conspiracy and said that two of the men were Watergate burglars E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis.[119]

As you can see, in terms of a conspiracy to kill JFK, the section is EXPLICIT in describing numerous claims that the tramps were involved. That's all that needs to be done for the Tippit section. Canada Jack (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tippit section contains EXPLICIT claims from eyewitnesses who said that two individuals were involved in Tippit's murder, neither of whom resembled Oswald. The section also contains EXPLICIT claims from eyewitnesses who said that Oswald was somewhere else at the time of the shooting. Such accounts should definitely be part of any article on JFK assassination conspiracy theories. BrandonTR (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tippit section contains EXPLICIT claims from eyewitnesses who said that two individuals were involved in Tippit's murder, neither of whom resembled Oswald. Brandon, what do you not comprehend here? The facts of the Tippit killing are IRRELEVANT in terms of what appears on this page. What IS relevant is whether someone claims that the Tippit murder was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK! THAT information is completely lacking as the text stood. Other editors have made the same point as I have. Canada Jack (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the material AGAIN as it clearly has NOTHING to do with the subject of the page - which is "JFK assassination conspiracy theories." Brandon in particular seems to be completely oblivious to the issues here at play, given his "Three Tramps" response and his note about claims from eyewitnesses in regards to the Tippit murder. Which are issues COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO WHY THE MATERIAL HAS NO PLACE ON THE PAGE.

AGAIN, as long as there is no EXPLICIT link of the killing of Tippit to a CONSPIRACY to kill JFK, the material has no place on the page. It is NOT SUFFICIENT to simply note that researchers find fault with the WC conclusion Oswald killed Tippit. Why? Because whether Oswald or someone else killed or didn't kill Tippit doesn't preclude or imply a conspiracy to kill the president. UNLESS SOMEONE IS MAKING THAT SPECIFIC CLAIM. When those claims are inserted into the section, then the section can come to the page. The WC found that Oswald's actions in killing Tippit were corroborative in his killing the president. However, if he WASN'T involved, that still doesn't affect the WC conclusion of culpability in Kennedy's assassination. It's as simple as that.

To be specific, even if it is established that Oswald did not kill Tippit, that the WC conclusions were wrong, THIS SAYS NOTHING ABOUT A CONSPIRACY TO KILL THE PRESIDENT. This is as opposed to, say, claims that the bullets recovered from the president's limo were fired from separate rifles, or that there are claims of a knoll assassin. Or the TSBD rifle was switched. THOSE claims DIRECTLY imply a conspiracy as there is a suggestion of at least two gunmen and therefore a conspiracy to kill the president. Canada Jack (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There he goes again. World to Brandon: This is NOT your personal wikipedia page. You've rewritten perhaps 3/4 of the page, and there is a SINGLE major problem with it - and that is the Tippit section. I've carefully described what the issues are, and Brandon, clearly, does not understand the issues as he discusses irrelevant topics such as witness statements. His misreading of what we are saying was on display when he said why not remove the Three Tramps section as being "irrelevant," a section which makes the EXPLICIT "conspiracy" claims that this section lacks.

The material MUST be removed until it falls into wikipedia guidelines. And that most basically is: The section must be relevant to the subject of the page. The section describes problems with the conclusions that Oswald killed officer Tippit. The subject of the page is conspiracy theories in the killing of JFK. There is no explicit link between the section and the subject of the page.

Since Brandon seems to think he has free reign here, let me remind Brandon that you do NOT have free reign on this page. THREE editors have made the precise point I have made in regards to the relevancy of this section. One of them has set up a sandbox to make the section accurate. Since you don't seem to comprehend the issues at play here, I suggest another editor redo the section appropriately. A section, incidentally, which I have said from the start warrants inclusion once it has the proper set-up.

Further, when we say "see discussion page" we expect to see reasons for your reverts. We've not seen that. Instead, we've seen responses to my posts which reflect a complete ignorance of what the issues are, instead debating the subject instead, which is not anything I or the other editors are taking issue with. Canada Jack (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

For one, RELEVANCE. The page is about conspiracies to kill JFK. Tippit wasn't JFK. Therefore there MUST be a stated link here.

I agree! look at my list down below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.152.60 (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What you do not know is that the events from Nov 22 to 24 are all conspiracy.

Firstly, many people who had contact with Oswald during his life had positive things to say about him. Writer Sylvia Meagher comments that most members of the Russian-speaking community in Dallas spoke well of Oswald were astounded by the news of his arrest.

Sam Ballen was unable to conceive of Oswald harbouring any hostility toward the President; it was his impression that, on the contrary, Oswald had warm feelings for him. George De Mohrenschildt considered him to be a man "with no hatred in him." and said he liked Kennedy. Anna Meller was "completely shocked" at the news of Oswald's arrest and could not believe that he had done such a thing.

Buell Wesley Frazier, who regularly drove Oswald to work at the Book Depository, said of him: "The side I saw of him was a very kind and loving man, and that's the way I like to remember him."

Secondly, extra security from the 112th Military Intelligence Group could have stopped the assassination from occurring but, by chance, when an offer of their services was made to the Secret Service it was categorically refused on the one occasion it was really needed.

Thirdly, a press car with TV cameras and press photographers would usually have been following just behind the Presidential Limousine but, by chance, they were put back several places in the motorcade so that no film or photographs of the actual assassination were taken by any professional press photographers or TV cameramen.

Fourthly, about twenty five minutes after the assassination, Oswald was traveling by taxi over the Houston Street Viaduct to Oak Cliff. By chance, Officer Tippit was in his car watching the traffic come over the viaduct at that time. He had not been ordered to go there that morning but five witnesses saw him watching this traffic and then suddenly head off at speed.

Fifthly, Benavides was never taken to a police line up. However, he was interviewed by the Warren Commission but when shown a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald all that he could say was that Oswald resembled the man he saw shoot Tippit.

Mrs Markham spoke with a newspaper reporter not long after the 22nd of November 1963 and described the killer as being short, kind of heavy and with bushy hair. Oswald was reasonably tall, very slim and had short straight hair. She was interviewed by the Warren Commission and she told them that if she ever saw the face of the man who shot Tippit she would recognise him. However, at the start of her interview, she repeatedly told the Commission that she could NOT recognise any of the men in the police line ups that she had viewed, which of course included Lee Harvey Oswald.

The killing of Tippit has always been controversial. The movements of Oswald on that day seemed strange. The movements of Tippit also seemed strange. Witness statements seemed to suggest that Oswald could not have been at the scene of the murder.

There have also been concerns about ballistic evidence and finger print evidence on the police car that seemed to show that Oswald was not the killer. These are only a few of the many issues relating to this case.

Sixthly, Ruby's employee, a dancer named Joyce Gordon, was interviewed for the programme but she had only been dancing at the Carousel Club from September 1963. The spring and summer of 1963 was the time that most people had recalled seeing Ruby and Oswald together.

Another dancer at the club, Janet Conforto, told Dallas newsmen immediately after the assassination that she had seen Oswald in the Carousel Club and another dancer, Kathy Kay, told the Dallas Times Herald the same thing in 1975. William Crowe, an entertainer who performed at Ruby's Carousel Club, within days of the assassination, told an Associated Press reporter that he was positive that he had seen Oswald in the club and he told Dallas Morning News reporter Kent Biffle the same thing several days later. In fact researchers have found more than 30 people who can place Ruby and Oswald together.

Seventhly, within hours of Oswald's death Jack Ruby asked attorney Tom Howard to represent him. Earlier that day, by chance, Howard had walked into Police Headquarters and looked through the jail office window at the time that Oswald was being taken off the jail elevator. According to Detective H.L. Mc Gee, he said "That's all I wanted to see” and left the building less than a minute before Ruby shot Oswald.

There seems to have been rather a lot of happenstances of history going on that weekend!

I think that "JFK assassination" implicitly includes all the significant events of that day connected with it, including Tippit's murder. If we can talk about Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater, and his leaving his appartment a little over an hour before, and we know he walked from one to the other, why can't we include the policeman murdered by a man who looked like Oswald, on the way, and in a time about in the middle of Oswald leaving and his arrest? Especially since shells from Oswald's pistol were found near the murder scene. And Oswald, who was seen wearing his jacket when he left his apartment, very certainly wasn't wearing it when arrested an hour later after his walk. So where did it go-- down a black hole?

Oswald's murder of Tippit says volumes about his own guilt. Why would you kill a police officer who'd stopped you for a routine check, unless you'd just done something at least as bad? And Oswald's attempted murder of police in the theater says volumes about whether or not he'd just murdered one minutes before. Oswald the patsy who'd never shot at a soul, had no reason to shoot a policeman. And yet THAT fictional Oswald had no reason to try to shoot a cop, either, and yet we know he did try, as Oswald in the theater drew his revolver on police there, and the only reason he didn't shoot one of them was a revolver misfunction (these days the cops would surely have killed him on the spot). So we're supposed to believe that Oswald was innocently spending his afternoon watching a film, having escaped from the TSB Depository, and was willing to pull a pistol on police and did *try* to kill one, but yet we are to believe he did NOT shoot that cop laying dead about a mile away and about half an hour before, directly between his position and his apartment, along the general route he must have just walked? Right. If Oswald didn't kill Tippit, he must have been walking very close to the site when somebody else did. Okay, so this was done by some *other* people, perhaps following Oswald and scattering shells from Oswald's pistol at the crime? And picking up Oswald's jacket and throwing another of a different shade, along the route? When they could just as well have used the actual jacket that Oswald surely shed somewhere on the route? Oh, come on! What kind of people believe such crap?

Anyway, something should in here about this, but it should be a lot more condensed (example-- the second shooter who supposedly got away in a car is mentioned twice as though seen by two different people). And there's a lot of crappy stuff, like Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig stated that when he heard the news that Tippit had been shot, he looked at his watch and noted that the time was 1:06 p.m.[178][unreliable source?] However, in a later statement to the press, Craig seemed confused about the time of the shooting.[179]

The problem here being that Craig could not have heard except the same way everybody else did, which was citizen Benvavides calling in the shooting on Tippit's own car radio, and the time stamp from the dispatcher just before that call is 1:16. So Craig's watch is wrong or else the dispatcher's clock is. Which is more likely? SBHarris 22:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not for the editors to decide which witnesses are more credible and which scenarios are more likely. Wikipedia states that all sides should be presented. If we were to judge the credibility of witnesses ourselves, we would have to remove the Warren Commission's star witnesses in the Tippet case, Helen Markham, who initially told the FBI that the shooting occurred "possibly around 1:30 p.m.,"[175] but later told the Warren Commission: "I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1."[176][177]BrandonTR (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It is for us to use sources more credible, which means we use secondary sources of a commission, like the WC, that has already sifted and synthesized primary sources like witness accounts, and come to a reasoned and published conclusion, which has some amount of expertise. We can't pick and choose witnesses in writing. So, no, we don't get to choose which witnesses we quote in WP, since that's SYNTH and because also there just isn't room. Perhaps it also serves no purpose to discuss witnesses on this TALK page, except in order to explain the WC's conclusions.

WC's synthesis is needed since witnesses always contradict each other. Example: if somebody saw Oswald go into the theater before the police shooting, then how do we exlpain Oswald in the shoe store? We know he went into the theater AFTER the shoe store, because the shoe store salesman who saw him go into the theater, said he entered the store AFTER the sirens signaling the police shooting, and it was he who tipped off the theater employee (who was also out of the boxoffice, looking toward the same sirens) that somebody had gone in, without paying, while the theater person was out gawking. So we throw the first thing out because there are two strong bits of evidence against-- sirens were going by two accounts before Oswald went into the theater. And yes, some policeman did say, on the spot of the murder, over the radio, that the shells he had just been given by witness Benavides were from an automatic-- but he may well have been wrong. Benavides states clearly that the way he found those two shells just after the shooting, was by seeing Oswald extract them from his pistol as he was walking off, and throwing them (in two separate acts) near a bush and into the center of a bush. So Benavides went to look and found them and gave them to the cop on the scene. That's credible, since how else could Benavides (who had been just passing by in his truck when he saw the shooting) find such things on the lawn immediately, except by seeing them discarded? Yet, an automatic weapon kicks out shells, erm, automatically-- so nobody would be extracting fired empty cases from an automatic and separately tossing them into shrubbery![6]. They'd have been ejected onto the road or the gutter. Also, these cases were not lost to history, but were later matched to Oswald's pistol.

Similiarly, people have made a big thing about Earlene Roberts testifying that Oswald left his rooming house at 1 or a little after, but she didn't look at a clock and only said she thought so because she'd just heard about the president being shot on TV. It could have been 5 or 10 minutes earlier. She was actually trying to explain why her own estimate of the time might be off, when the commission cut her off! Read it yourself. And to pick and choose the commission's own "longest time" for Oswald to walk from bus stop to the Tippit murder site as being over 17 minutes, is really outrageous, as the man who timed it said this was the longest possible walking route, and Oswald may well have taken several shorter ones, as the WC noted. And might have moved faster than a normal walk speed-- even a fast walk takes minutes off that time.

Finally, one of the policeman who grabbed Oswald's pistol stated that the web of his hand between thumb and fingers wedged between hammer and weapon, and when the hammer came down and hit the web, it kept the pistol from firing. All police testimony agrees that Oswald drew the weapon on the cops in the theater. SBHarris 21:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum, folks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"If Oswald didn't kill Tippit, he must have been walking very close to the site when somebody else did. Okay, so this was done by some *other* people, perhaps following Oswald and scattering shells from Oswald's pistol at the crime?" An assumption, at best. he is just assuming that Oswald killed Tippit. This is despite the fact that the shells found that the scene were from an automatic pistol and Oswald had a revolver. The automatic shells were marked by Dallas Officer JM Poe as this video shows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjRHGZQXRxM&feature=plcp&context=C4a5234cVDvjVQa1PpcFODZCf6ftkFlHzx4_4W-nmO9kyilFsZm2Y=. But because they did not match Oswald's handgun, they disappeared from evidence. As far as the witnesses who did not support the "Oswald did it" scenario--they weren't even scrutinized--wary eye or not. In fact, some of the witnesses that reported that the gunman was someone other than Oswald (Acquila Clemons, Mr. and Mrs. Wright in particular and possibly Helen Markham). In addition, Ms. Clemons was told to keep her "mouth shut" about what she had seen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyAtfK79AuA&feature=channel&list=UL Aquilla Clemons interview with Mark Lane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBo3xeVANiI Helen Markham interview for the Men who killed Kenendy And one witness said Oswald came into the theater he was arrested in BEFORE Tippit had been shot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p4AvezLnG0 "So we're supposed to believe that Oswald was innocently spending his afternoon watching a film, having escaped from the TSB Depository, and was willing to pull a pistol on police and did *try* to kill one, but yet we are to believe he did NOT shoot that cop laying dead about a mile away and about half an hour before, directly between his position and his apartment, along the general route he must have just walked?" Cortland Cunningham of the FBI agreed that there was a mark on the primer of one cartridge, but that it was not made by a firing pin: Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, returning to Exhibit 145, do either of the two cartridges in Exhibit 145 bear any signs of having suffered an impact from the firing pin in the revolver, Exhibit 143? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. An examination of these two cartridges, the primers of these two cartridges, reveals no marks that could be associated with the firing pin in Commission Exhibit 143, OR ANY OTHER WEAPON. Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up near the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge. Mr. EISENBERG. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no indication, from an examination, that that nick had been so caused by a firing pin. First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0234b.htm On page 463, Cunningham repeats his conclusion: Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Officer McDonald's statement that the primer of one round was dented on misfire: as far as you can tell, could this statement be confirmed? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; we found nothing to indicate that this weapon's firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges. The significance of this testimony is that there is a cartridge with a marking on the primer THAT WAS NOT CAUSED BY THE FIRING PIN OF OSWALD'S REVOLVER or ANY OTHER WEAPON. If this is the case, then it must mean (depsite witnessess hearing it) that the handgun did NOT misfire in the Texas Theater. That conclusion is supported by the testing conducted by the FBI on it: Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I personally have fired this weapon numerous times, as well as Special Agents Robert Frazier and Charles Killion. At no time did we ever attempt to fire this weapon that it misfired. It operated excellently and every time we have tried to fire it, it has fired. If true, it means that this particular piece of evidence was tampered with by the Dallas Police. Dallas Police officer Bob Carroll admits that he hitted Oswald when he was unarmed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58y_ZofCXe8 Remember we are not here to discuss the case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.152.60 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/sandbox

I have re-created the J.D. Tippit material in Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/sandbox. I think Canada Jack's objections could be rectified if for the time being we concentrated on adding information about the big picture (e.g. "Researcher X states Tippit was a conspirator.", "Researcher Y suggests that Tippit was killed by a conspirator.") rather than the little picture (e.g. "Markham said Tippit was shot at 1:06 pm."). I can help integrate this material into the article if anyone cares to provide links. Most YouTube links contain WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or are self-published works by non-notable researchers, so book links are best. I have also been trying to avoid AuthorHouse and other self-published stuff. Also, please remember to read the top of this page regarding how to sign your comments and in what order to place them. Some indentation of comments would help, too. Thanks! Location (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

For future reference:

• THE ROSETTA STONE OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION? by Donald E. Wilkes Jr

Location (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This is good stuff, Location. But I think we still have a problem. The premise of the Rosetta Stone page, at least, is that the WC found the killing of Tippit as corroborative evidence that Oswald killed JFK, but evidence suggests Oswald didn't kill Tippit. But to cite evidence calling that conclusion into doubt does not in itself suggest "conspiracy" - it just refutes the WC claim that the killing is corroborative.

So the section is not yet ready to be re-inserted.

How about expanding this: Some researchers have alleged discrepancies in evidence and witness testimony which they feel calls into question some of the Commission conclusions regarding the murder of Tippit. According to Jim Marrs, Oswald's guilt in the assassination of Kennedy is placed in question by the presence of "a growing body of evidence to suggest that [he] did not kill Tippit".

Recall, the while the WC certainly saw the Tippit as corroborative, they DIDN'T say it was conclusive in terms of Oswald killing JFK despite what some authors claim. (What if, for example, Tippit was actually killed by an unrelated felon who just blew up? It says nothing about Oswald's culpability in terms of JFK as there is no relation.) So, debunking the WC conclusion on Tippit wouldn't change the WC conclusions on Oswald/JFK. What we need is NOT an author saying the WC was wrong about Tippit, we need an author to say either a) the "true" killers of Tippit did so in connection with a conspiracy to kill JFK, or b) the WC conspired to trump up the Tippit killing as corroborative of their claim Oswald killed JFK. Canada Jack (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. We don't need some all encompassing conspiracy theory of the Tippet murder, formulated by some author out there, in order to include information on the Tippet killing. The many contradictions in eyewitness accounts of the Tippet killing are more that enough reason to include this material as it relates to the possibility of conspiracy. BrandonTR (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments like that tell me you don't understand the issues here, Brandon. Eyewitness contradictions in the killing of Tippit says NOTHING about a conspiracy to kill Kennedy - they simply suggest Oswald didn't kill Tippit! There's nothing "obvious" or "implied" here by not having Oswald kill Tippit. As opposed to if we say the same about witnesses in Dealy Plaza. There, if it was not Oswald shooting JFK, then there was a likely conspiracy to kill JFK - which is the subject of the page. And, again, lacking an explicit claimed link (from any number of authors) of the Tippit killing to a conspiracy to kill JFK, the section does not belong. Canada Jack (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I now agree with Canada Jack, I know, in my opinion, it does have to be on here but it needs something so it CAN be conected to the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.152.60 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, 92. That makes four editors who agree on this issue. As 92 says, the material should be on the page, but it has to have that explicit link. Canada Jack (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Canada Jack and I leave you with this. I have shown this video not as a soucre but as the thing that both Conspiracy theroists and lone assassin believers can agree on, that is the tragedy that happend on that day. Go to the 2:38 of this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r09rHUEKsY

Thanks for that. Yes, I have seen that one before, and it is good to be reminded of what was lost that day. And it wasn't just Kennedy. Canada Jack (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. One has to feel for Oswald's family and Tippit's family also. Whether it was Oswald or a conspiracy, JFK's death ended a  dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.152.60 (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I have to mildy disagree with Canada Jack on this, as the Tippit murder is part of the case against Oswald for the JFK murder, inasmuch as if Tippit was killed by some random guy on the street for no reason, that makes Oswald look a lot less like a killer (and thus must be a victim of a frame up) instead of an actual desperate assassin with nothing to lose. If Oswald didn't kill Tippit the whole thing starts to smell. Alas, a "random killing" of Tippit would have to occur just minutes from the time we know Oswald happened to be passing that position (no more than a block or two away) on his walk from his apartment to the theater, on the day of the murder, and done by a random guy who nevertheless (at least from one witness) matched Oswald's description very well (told before Oswald was apprehended). Unfortunately, the idea that this cop was killed by somebody else randomly, just as Oswald passed that position give or take a few minutes (and near where Oswald shed his coat in a parking lot for some reason), is too much for even conspiracists to believe. Tippit's shooting, after all, result in Oswald's arrest (talk about the unluckiest guy in the universe if Oswald had nothing to do with Tippit!) But even if so, we must have a conspiracy of cops to take shells from the ballistics tests on Oswald's pistol, and substitute them for the shells Benavides gave the cop at the scene of the crime. That puts the cops in on a conspiracy to frame Oswald for Tippit, at least. Bummer-- this guy cannot keep from being framed by everybody he meets, for every crime in Dallas.

So what do we get? A bunch of conspiracists who don't believe that, but claim Oswald is being framed for Tippit by the same people who tried to frame him for JFK. And now the poor dead cop becomes a target, since why else is he killed by the true bad guys? Tippit with a second cop in another marked car (107, not his own 10) honk in front of Oswald's house, is suggested. Or the inevitable "I saw Tippit at Ruby's club." Or "Tippit and Oswald had breakfast in Oak Cliff." Or "Tippit with shiny badge was on the grassy knoll." I saw JD Tippit drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's. And his hair was perfect! Sigh. SBHarris 16:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be obvious to you or me or others well-versed on the assassination SB, but it needs to be written so as to be obvious to someone who comes here randomly with no knowledge of the event. The section failed the test. It would seem now that changes which make the explicit link to claims of conspiracy have been inserted. I knew those claims were there - lighting a fire under everyone's butt is sometimes the best way to get an article in proper shape. A conspirant nod to Brandon for making the changes. Canada Jack (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Nice job, BrandonTR! Location (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Should there be one on the Single Bullet theory?

I think there should also be a section about the SBT on here. On why the conspiracy people reject the theory, now in case you wondering, no I do not mean to disprove the Single Bullet theory, in fact, although I do believe a conspiracy did exist and that Oswald was framed, I do think the Warren Commission got the SBT right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.128.47 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to write up one if you like. I don't know where the theatrics in the JFK film come from-- I think it's from On the Trail of the Assassins by the late now-discredited looney Jim Garrison. What that film says about the SBT has been shown numerous times to be nonsense, and what Garrison says about Oswald's connections was thoroughly looked into by the HSCA and discredited also. If you think somebody fired the bullet of the SBT, and you think Oswald was framed, who do you think fired it? The angle shows it came from Oswald's workplace, and two bullets recovered (one from the limo itself) came from Oswald's rifle, found in the TSBD. The more you learn about all this, the more you realize that the WC got just about everything right. SBHarris 17:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Now listen to me, keep you opinion on the assassination and let me keep it in mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.128.47 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The SBT is not a conspiracy theory. Views or evidence that is alleged to contradict the SBT would likely fall in the section entitled "Allegations of multiple gunmen" or the subsection "Origin of the shots". Location (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the SBT is not a conspiracy theory. It is instead the basis for much speculation about conspiracy, simply because the SBT is so unsatisfactory an explanation. If we discuss it anywhere it should be in the "Background" section. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Concur. It's the mainstream view, not a conspiracy theory and shouldn't be lumped with those views simply because it's viewed by those on the fringe as a conspiracy theory. Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Critics of the Single Bullet Theory regard what they see as contradictions in this account as evidence for conspiracy, just as critics of the official account of the Tippit murder regard what they see as contradictions in that account as evidence for conspiracy, just as critics of the official account of the direction of the shots see contradictions in that account as evidence for conspiracy, just as critics of the official account of the identity of the the rifle see contradictions in that account as evidence for conspiracy, etc. Referring to those who see contradictions in the the Single Bullet Theory as "fringe," (as the previous poster does) is silly. The Warren Commission version of the JFK assassination is not the mainstream view, if one defines mainstream by what the majority of the American public believes. BrandonTR (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Warren Commission findings are by definition the mainstream view. You are talking about the view that the Warren Commission is part of a conspiracy, and the SBT is only an element of that view. It is not by itself a conspiracy theory. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article is "John F. Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories"; not "John F. Kennedy Assassination -- The Mainstream View". BrandonTR (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but if you saying you do not believe the Single bullet theory, I disagree. Do I believe there was a conspiracy and that Oswald was framed? Yes. Do I think the SBT was impossible? No.

Watch this video. I am not a fan of Dale myers and I believe the SBT was fired from the Dal Tex building(do not ask me why). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVOhk63dEIQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.128.47 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of what you or I believe to be possible, or impossible. Conspiracy theorists, in an article of this type, should be allowed to present a view as to why they think the SBT is unlikely to be true. After all, the article is entitled, "John F. Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories". BrandonTR (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Views or evidence that contradicts the SBT essentially supports a theory of multiple gunmen (i.e. a conspiracy theory), so I would be OK with a brief discussion of the SBT as long as it is in the Multiple Gunmen section and does not duplicate the content that already exists in Single bullet theory. Location (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Views or evidence that contradicts the SBT essentially supports a theory of multiple gunmen. I'd quibble with this assertion, to the extent that the Warren Commission did not consider the theory as crucial to the claim that Oswald fired all the shots. However, as others such as Bugliosi point out, without the SBT, almost all on both sides of the fence here agree that there had to be multiple gunmen. I thought this was at least somewhat alluded to on this page, so I am surprised to see little mention of it here. This subject deserves a bit more coverage. Canada Jack (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the WC did not consider the SBT crucial to the lone gunman scenario, however, my point was virtually all of the critics of the SBT are conspiracy theorists alleging that there were multiple gunmen. Location (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. Commission members Richard Russell, Hale Boggs and John Cooper all thought the theory "improbable" yet all signed on to the statement "There was no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President’s and Governor Connally’s wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository." The person who fired those shots, the WC concluded, was Lee Harvey Oswald. Canada Jack (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought the terms "essentially" and "virtually" provided room for exceptions, but I will rephrase: Most of the critics of the SBT are conspiracy theorists alleging that there were multiple gunmen. There is very little criticism of the single bullet theory outside the context of a conspiracy. Location (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of quotes from Warren Commission member, Hale Boggs: "[FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover lied his eyes out to the [Warren] Commission – on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it." --Hale Boggs, speaking to an aide, cited by Bernard Fensterwald, Coincidence or Conspiracy? "Several years after [Hale Bogg's] death in 1972, a colleague of his wife Lindy (who was elected to fill her late husband's seat in the Congress) recalled Mrs. Boggs remarking, 'Hale felt very, very torn during his work [on the Commission] ... he wished he had never been on it and wished he'd never signed it [the Warren Report].'" --Bernard Fensterwald, Coincidence or Conspiracy?

Caro's "Passage to Power" on LBJ as vice president

Robert Caro's 4th volume of his incredible (there is no other word for it) biography on LBJ is soon to be published - May 1st - and will, no doubt, cause many in the conspiracy crowd to yell "cover-up" as there will be no hint of a conspiracy or cover-up to be found therein. (At least based on what I saw in the New Yorker excerpt.) The New Yorker excerpt had an account of Johnson on that day, it was a totally engrossing read and a perspective - from Johnson's POV - that I had not heard before, at least not in this complete a form.

It will be interesting to see how some in the conspiracy crowd will react to this. (They sure didn't like Stephen King's recent novel about a fellow who goes back in time and attempts to prevent the assassination by stopping Oswald alone.) Already, I have seen this on-line: Robert Caro's 4th book about Lyndon Johnson "Passage of Power" is due out May 1st. It should be an interesting book, but it looks like Caro is not going to address exactly how that "passage to power" for Lyndon Johnson occurred. The author of the post then discusses a book on LBJ called "LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination". Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Here we go [from http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18928], the public needs to be "educated" about Caro's LBJ: The JFK assassination research community, in all it various strains, needs to carpet bomb the review section of Robert Caro's "Passage of Power" with high quality, information filled reviews that address Caro's treatment of the JFK assassination. I don't mean just negative reviews, I mean using the pages of Amazon and other web sources as a way of delivering high quality JFK research to the public. Why not slip in discussion on the "truth" of the Roswell aliens, while we are at it? Canada Jack (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Although the Warren Commission apologists like to obfuscate the fact, Lyin' Lyndon was a conspiracy theorist. He told several prominent news reporters that he thought that Communist Cuba was behind the assassination. At another point in time, he implicated the CIA. From the article: "According to an FBI document released in 1977, Johnson's postmaster general, Marvin Watson told the FBI '...that [President Johnson] was now convinced there was a plot in connection with the assassination. Watson stated the President felt the CIA had something to do with this plot.'" BrandonTR (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Take it somewhere else, Brandon. This article is built from published theories, not your own conclusions. Reliable sources talk, everything else walks. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, you missed the the boat Binksternet. My previous comment cites reliable sources. BrandonTR (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources says that LBJ is a conspiracy theorist. That's your conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again, Binksternet. Documented cases of Lyndon Johnson telling cronies that he thought that Castro, or the CIA was behind the assassination, de facto makes LBJ a conspiracy theorist. To conceptualize this, go to Websters and look up the definition of "conspiracy" (see also, "conspiracy theory"). BrandonTR (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

LBJ cannot be a conspirator and a conspiracy theorist at the same time. Anything he said could just as well be a smokescreen as the truth. If he said that Castro or the CIA was behind the assassination, that does not mean he believes this to be true. He may very well have intended his words to have a specific effect. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about LBJ being a conspirator? Using your logic, anyone espousing conspiracy theory may not in actuality be a conspiracy theorist, but only intend that their words have a specific, deceptive purpose. However, I think that we can agree that LBJ was either a conspiracy theorist, a liar, or perhaps both. I vote for both. BrandonTR (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To state the obvious, this article contains an six-paragraph section describing how LBJ might be a conspirator. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And, according to you, LBJ espoused conspiracy theories that he may not have actually believed in, in order to throw certain people off for unknown or unmentioned reasons. Very interesting! BrandonTR (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, dunno about LBJ, but the Soviets did in fact espouse conspiracy theories to throw people off, we know that now. As for LBJ's possible role, and I am getting to this part in "Passage of Power," he may have indeed personally believed in a conspiracy, and I doubt he actually read the Warren Report, but Caro says this in terms of LBJ personally being either responsible or aware of the assassination beforehand (p.353): "It is possible - probable in fact - that he [LBJ] had thought through long before November 22 what he would do if he suddenly became President. But unless one believes that he planned or in some way was aware in advance of the assassination (and nowhere in the letters, memoranda and other written documents in the Lyndon B. Johnson Library, the John F. Kennedy Library and the other public and private collections the author has reviewed - and nowhere in the interviews that the author has conducted - has he found facts to support such a theory), he couldn't have foreseen the unprecedented circumstances under which it actually happened." Once I get to the Warren Commission section - over the next few days - I will see what Caro concludes there in terms of what LBJ personally thought. I think it is fair to say that for the sake of the stability of the country and the continuity of government, he wished for, if he couldn't guide the Warren Commission itself, for them to conclude "Oswald alone, no conspiracy," even if he personally suspected there was a conspiracy. It is clear he had no personal knowledge of the actuality of a conspiracy post-assassination, at least that is what I have read so far (to p.400). Canada Jack (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There is much more evidence that high-level CIA officers, including David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt, espoused communist conspiracy theories to throw the American pubic off and deflect attention from themselves and other right-wing Kennedy-haters in American society. BrandonTR (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Near the end of "Passage to Power," Caro has a chapter on Robert Kennedy, and his terrible grief after the assassination of his brother. There is an interesting section of that chapter which provides a possible source of that intense grief, outside of the obvious loss, but a sense of guilt from Robert. This isn't anything new, but it's an interesting aside.

[John] McCone of the CIA, a close friend, remembered that, when he arrived at Hickory Hill [RFK's home] not long after the terrible news, Bobby had asked him whether his agency was connected with the assassination; Bobby was later to say that he had asked McCone, a fellow Catholic, "in a way that he couldn't lie to me," and that McCone's answer had satisfied him that the CIA had not been involved. In 1975, when, during a congressional investigation, the CIA's assassination plots against Fidel Castro were revealed. McCone, suddenly recalling that question, had a "flash of recognition." "He had felt at the time that there was something troubling Kennedy that he was not disclosing," Thomas says [Evan Thomas, RFK's biographer].... Did the assassination in Dallas have anything to do with the attempts in Havana? During that 1975 investigation, as he learned more about anti-Castro intriques, McCone, as Thomas writes, "began to suspect that Kennedy felt personally guilty" for what had happened in Dallas. Friends remembered remarks Kennedy had made not about Cuba but about the target of his other unrelenting campaign. On December 5 [1963], Arthur Schelsinger asked Robert "perhaps tactlessly, about OSwald. He said that there could be no serious doubt he was guilty." But, he added, there was doubt - "argument" was the word he used - about something else: "whether he did it by himself or as part of a larger plot, whether organized by Castro or by gangsters." Ben Bradlee remembered President Kennedy, "obviously serious," telling him once that the Justice Department had discovered that an underworld enforcer had been given a gun fitted with a silencer and sent to Washington to assassinate the attorney general. When later, the publicity-hunting New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison claimed to have discovered that the Dallas shootings - the two shootings - were part of an elaborate conspiracy, Kennedy asked his press secretary, Frank Mankiewicz, if he thought Garrison "had anything." "No, but I think there is something," Mankiewicz replied. "So do I," Bobby said.

Caro continues with several accounts of Kennedy's public support of the Warren Commission and its conclusions, along with his private doubts and complaints that the WC did a poor job, and his reluctance to complain publicly and therefore risk re-opening the painful business. Then:

Half a century after John F. Kennedy's death there is still speculation among his brother's intimates about whether he was aware of any hard fact that might indicate that his crusades against the Cuban dictator or the underworld (or the Teamsters' boss) had backfired against his brother, about whether his grief was intensified by a sense of responsibility, even of guilt, about his brother's death. The fact that this speculation has never stopped is testimony not to any hard fact about his grief but rather to its unusual depth and duration, and to its effect on the man so many of them worshiped.... Interview these men and women over and over, and one hears, over and over, the same phrase: "He changed." Canada Jack (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the correct title is "The Passage OF Power." Canada Jack (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an old theme -- the Castro retaliation theory of the JFK assassination. What the supporters of this theory usually leave out is that the CIA/Mafia plots against Castro began not under Kennedy, but under Eisenhower. That aside, obviously the Mafia didn't like the Kennedys -- not just because of their crackdown on organized crime -- but because JFK refused to authorize the US Navy to conduct a full scale invasion at the Bay of Pigs to overthrow Castro. The Cuban exiles not only regarded this as betrayal, but the Mafia as well, since the Mafia lost its $1 billion investment in casino operations in Cuba. Most of the threats against JFK, before his assassination, came from not from Castro supporters, but from anti-Castro Cubans, the Mafia, and other assorted right-wingers who voiced the opinion that JFK was soft on communism. As for why Robert Kennedy did not voice his suspicions of conspiracy, it's likely that he knew that had he done so, he would have been pilloried by our mainstream media and corporate elite, just as those who espouse conspiracies are today. BrandonTR (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the possible use of Caro in this article, not sharing personal analysis. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Caro (perhaps Castro did it/perhaps Bobby thought Castro did it) conspiracy line is hardly a new one. It has been around in different variations for several decades. It was recently resurrected, in its most sophisticated form, in the book Ultimate Sacrifice. My critique of the Caro "perhaps Castro did it" conspiracy line stems not so much from my own analysis, but from the analysis of such authors as Mark Lane, Gaeton Fonzi, David Talbot, and James Dougless. Naturally, the use of the Caro material will be critiqued, just as the many other conspiracy theories in the article have been critiqued. BrandonTR (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Jim Braden

I am also going to put Jim Braden in the Alternative gunmen section because of this video from one of my all time favorite researchers from the JFK Assassination case, Bob Harris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.143.112 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Please be sure to note a reliable source when adding content to the article. Given the vast numbers of people who have been implicated as being assassination gunmen, I think we should only include those who are the most notable within the various books or those who have their own Wikipedia articles. My own opinion is that listing names without any context is not helpful in building a meaningful article. Location (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A youtube video doesn't cut it. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I found Harris's theory on Braden very interesting, and I engaged in discussion - but as soon as I pointed out some flaws, he blocked me on YouTube from commenting not only on the Braden video, but on any of his videos. I was quite surprised as Harris, unlike most there, is relatively careful in his research. He accepts the SBT as largely correct, for example, which an intellectually honest research really has to do. But it seems he can't stand someone who knows what he is talking about pointing out flaws in his research. Like he calling Braden's description to the investigators of what he was doing in Dealy Plaza (he said he arrived after the assassination to make a phone call) as "changing his story" when the first cop to talk to him, C.L. Lewis, reported he was in the building at the time. The very real possibility that Lewis got that information from the person who brought Braden to Lewis rather than Braden himself is not even contemplated. IOW, we don't "know" if Braden changed his story or if Lewis got that information wrong or from someone else. (or just put "in the building" down by mistake as most he talked to at Dal Tex were in the building when the assassination happened.) The other basic problem I also pointed out was that being a felon isn't synonymous with being a trained sniper. There is no evidence - none - that Braden had any sharpshooter skill, indeed if he even ever fired a gun. Another rather basic flaw is he seems to measure off of video screens, ignoring basic photogrammetry. He places JFK and Connally WAY too far apart.

I agree with Location - if this theory rises above Harris, to a reliable sources, only then can it be included, but since there are several hundred "gunmen" implicated, it'd be hard to argue for its inclusion unless the theory becomes widely known. Canada Jack (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I also found this video very compelling and a new theory for the Single Bullet theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

I am not trying to defend or disprove the conspiracies, I just think his research is excellent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.135.183 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

He is good, but there are glaring flaws. His premise rests - it seems - on a laughably wrong read of the Dale Myers computer reconstruction of the SBT trajectory. He obtains a shallower angle of descent by having JFK and Connally too far apart - they were something like 26 inches exit to entry- and this has the effect of allowing a source on a lower-floor Dal Tex location. IOW, he doesn't employ basic photogrammetry, at least as far as I can tell. Further, while trumping up Braden, he ignores the basic question as to why Braden would choose to hang out in the building for a half hour or so after the assassination. Lewis was at home when the assassination happened and only went to help with the investigation when called in. So Braden, a "sniper," decides to wait in the building all that time? Braden's own story is more logical and consistent than Harris'. Canada Jack (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually he said something about that to me when I had the chance to ask him.

Guss what he said.

I asked him First.....If you're Braden and you've just shot the President of the United States (or at least conspired to do so with the actual shooter), wouldn't you get your butt out of the area immediately? I mean, the place was crawling with police officers. Why go walking around and increase your chances at capture? To not leave immediately makes no sense.

Second.....If you're Braden and you've just shot the President and you were lucky enough to get your butt out of the building, isn't re-entering the building the absolute last thing that you would do? Was Braden wanting to get captured?

He said. The answer to both your questions is a resounding YES!! In his shoes I would have never set foot in Dealey Plaza or for that matter, the state of Texas for the rest of my life!!

But you know what Bill? I am not a mafia hoodlum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.132.83 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make any sense to me. If Braden was acting like a mafia hoodlum, then presumably so were his supposed accomplices. So why then did Oswald - or whomever fired from the TSBD, and we know someone did as multiple witnesses saw shots fired from there - make sure to leave the building ASAP? And, if there was also a Knoll assassin, he also made himself scarce very quickly. But not Braden. He decides to stick around for something like half an hour, if we are to believe these claims, even as most cops and people were going to the TSBD and Knoll, a time when he would easily be lost in the crowd. Like Oswald. But this is what we are forced to believe if this theory is to be considered plausible. Plus, no one saw a gun firing from there, no firearm was located, the "suspect" was not known to be anywhere close by at the moment of the assassination, not known to ever have fired a gun, let alone be a trained assassin, etc. Funny how Oswald, who was rated "sharpshooter" by the Marines, is said to have been incapable of doing this by many in the conspiracy crowd, yet Braden is elevated to being an assassin based on... well, nothing. It's a theory based entirely of flimsy conjecture, lacking in evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If you had a time machine and could interview Johny Brewer and Officer Nick McDonald in place, about Oswald before capture

No discussion of article improvement here. Let's keep the discussion strictly focused. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You would have a remarkable five minutes: [7]. BrandonTR, I want you to watch this carefully. Brewer tells how he heard about JFK's assassination over the radio, and then the police officer being shot, and THEN Oswald walked into his shoe store. He trailed Oswald out of the store, saw him go into the Texas Theater, and asked the woman if he'd bought at ticket. What isn't mentioned is that Oswald had managed to get past the box office because the cashier was out on the sidewalk gawking at the police sirens, which were going off due to the officer's shooting. Clearly, Tippet had been shot, and reported shot, long before Oswald got to the theater. Indeed, before he got to the shoestore and incited Brewer's interest in him. Brewer went into the theater and pointed Oswald out to the cops when they arrived, and that's how they got him. Oswald's pistol "misfire" is discussed in detail, here. It caught in the web of McDonald's hand as he wrestled it away from him. Not a real misfire. Oswald clearly tried to kill McDonald. So why do you all think he didn't actually kill Tippit? SBHarris 23:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC) As Jim Marrs said in the introduction to his great book Crossfire, "...when it comes to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, don't trust any one source or even the basic evidence and testimony. In the case of the JFK assassination, belief and trust have long been part of the problem." In regard to the contradictory versions of the Tippit shooting and what to make of these, much depends on which witnesses one chooses to believe. Part of the Wikipedia mission is to present all sides, and let the chips fall where they may. In the case of contradictory evidence, it is up to readers to weigh the evidence and form their own conclusions. See: Did Brewer lie about Oswald matching the broadcast description of the Tippit shooter? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbO4rahqwx4 BrandonTR (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Did you actually watch the dang thing? Unless Brewer too was part of the vast conspiracy (perhaps being placed in the shoestore like Oswald being placed in the TSBD?), then SOMETHING made Brewer watch Oswald suspciously, track him outside, see him go into the theater without paying, and then have the staff call the cops for something that would ordinarily rate no more than a shrug from your average citizen. It is beyond question that Brewer went into the theater and pointed out Oswald to the arriving officers, as a possible suspect for both shootings. Now, think about this. Are you telling me that this was a COMPLETE coincidence? Brewer lies. Oswald has nothing to do with either shooting (but strangely, has been at the scene of both at the time of both) and he looks nothing like the broadcast descriptions... AND YET some shoe salesman with nothing better to do, sees him in the store, not knowing him from Adam, and fingers him ANYWAY? Telling Postel, the theater lady, to call it in as a possible murder suspect? Which she does? Following which, Innocent Oswald, pointed out in the theater by Brewer to the cops, obligingly takes out the pistol he's carrying, and tries to shoot a police officer with it? Which would be the first violent thing he's ever done in his life? Say what? SBHarris 21:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC) This isn't a forum to debate the credibility of witnesses. You have your opinion; others have theirs. BrandonTR (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Sure. And the alien abduction and alien contactee people have theirs. And you cannot seem to tell the difference between them and us. Indeed your guru Jim Marrs above is a great fan of alien abduction [http://www.amazon.com/Alien-Agenda-Investigating-Extraterrestrial-Presence/dp/0060955368] and thinks that not only are their alien bodies in Roswell that the gov is keeping secret, but that aliens live among us. Perhaps some of them edit Wikipedia, hey? Perhaps, with your open mind, you could go hang out on the alien abduction article and help them there with Marrs Attack quotes, instead of here? Marrs also believes the government conspired in the 9/11 attacks, so there's another WP article you could use Marrs stuff to help improve. Please? As for the rest of us, we employ ordinary human common sense. Brewer might not have a perfect memory, and perhaps misremembered a few things (as we all do). But the record shows that he was just a clerk in a shoe store and that he did what he did, which was help catch Oswald, and he surely had a reason for doing what he did (which was extraordinary), and if you (or Marrs) think you have a better reason for Brewer's actions than the one Brewer himself gave, then you're welcome to your opinon. But this is not the majority opinion. In fact, it tends (as with the alien rectal probing of random humans) to be an idea held generally by nut cases. SBHarris 23:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC) You say that the record shows that Brewer was just a clerk in a shoe store. Likewise, the official record shows that Oswald was just a lone nut, even though he had intelligence connections, and that Jack Ruby was also just a lone nut, even though he had both Mafia and intelligence connections ... so much for the official record. According to polls, two-thirds of the American public believe there was a conspiracy in the case of the JFK assassination. That you think otherwise indicates that you believe that you have some special knowledge that the majority of the public doesn't possess. BrandonTR (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, it's called the Warren Report, which I've actually read (along with a shocking amount of the many appendix volumes of supporting testimony and evidence). Ruby's supposed mafia and intelligence connections are a joke. What counts as a "connection"? Even the HSCA concluded Ruby was a dumb wanabee, and THEY thought there were two would-be assassins for JFK. When Oswald was officially scheduled to be transferred on Nov 24 (the time given to the public and the reporters), our super-assassin Ruby was up the street wiring money to one of his strippers. Why did Ruby manage to make it? Oswald delayed the transfer at the last minute only because he wanted to change clothes at the last minute, but how could Ruby have known he would do that? Ruby should have been there on time. The reporters WERE there on time, but had to wait. Ruby wasn't there, and would have missed Oswald, if Oswald hadn't felt sweaty. Ruby had seen Oswald with reporters the day before, and had been armed then (as he always was). Why didn't he shoot him then? He couldn't be sure of a chance the next day, and indeed should not have had one. This just doesn't work. The HSCA concluded that there was a conspiracy on the basis of one single (bad) piece of evidence-- the supposed sound recording of gunfire at Dealey Plaza. They found nothing to implicate Ruby. Or for that matter, to implicate a conspiracy with Oswald and anybody else. They even concluded that Oswald fired all the bullets that hit JFK, and that the second assassin must have missed. Too bad. The recording has since been thorougly discredited. As for the general public, they don't count in what is a rather technical subject. Two-third of Americans do not understand the basic scientific process, and nearly 60% believe in ESP. Half don't believe in evolution (that humans evolved from animals) and half do believe in ghosts. [8]. Only 20% of Americans have minimal scientific literacy. I don't know what fraction have read even the synopsis of the Warren Commission report, but it must be a lot less than have seen that stupid JFK Costner film with the bad magic bullet mock-up. You know-- the one where Costner puts the JFK model right exactly in front of Connally model? Due to that film, the public thinks the Warren Commission are idiots, if they think about them at all. But they weren't, and the single bullet theory looks better and better the more it is analyzed. The WC report, complete with 26 volumes of supporting evidence, is the most thorough investigation of a small number of homicides ever done, and it all points straight at Oswald and Ruby, and nobody else.SBHarris 00:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for setting us all straight. It looks like your ready for your first book tour, just as soon as you write your book. BrandonTR (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Anybody can write a book. Jim Marrs and his aliens-among-us theories have done a lot of book tours. So what? People selling nutty books do book tours, too. The theshhold of inclusion in Wikipedia is publication, but that doesn't mean everything published deserves mention. That only means that publication is required. It's necessary but not sufficient. It's easy to tell if a statement is verifiable, since that only means it has a published source and cite, per WP:V. But verifiability per se is not sufficient. The statement also needs to be from a source that is reliable, which is much more difficult. Jim Marrs is not reliable, since he sells fiction as reality (unless you really believe in alien abduction yourself, Brandon-- now's the time to come clean if you do). His books do not rise to the level of WP:IRS, since there is hardly a conspiracy he doesn't like. So again, you and your aliens from Marrs and the 9/11 conpiracists can all go off and have a giant party at some hotel complete with booksignings that make Marrs more money (hmmm-- maybe he's not so crazy at all; just his clueless readers). But it doesn't belong on Wikipedia except as a documentary of what some lunatics believe, ala Moon landing conspiracy theories. Enjoy. SBHarris 03:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Tippit as a conspirator

I heard from several people that Earlene Roberts claimed the number on the police car that turned up outside the rooning house was the same number that Officer Tippit was driving that very same day.

Tippit's own actions leading up to his death are also very bizarre. Shortly before he was to die he sped to a local shop where he frantically asked to use a phone which was at the counter, all the while pushing others out of the way according to those who were there.

Upon dialing an unknown number and receiving no answer, Tippit then once more ran outside, pushing people out of the way yet again, got in his car and speeding off once more. Witnesses say he was upset. Then according to a man called James A. Anderson, Tippit came up behind him shortly after this incident, and physically caused him to stop by the roadside by cutting directly in front of his car.

He then ran out to the car, frantically looked inside, and once more looked extremely disappointed. Without saying a word to Anderson, he got back inside his car and sped off. It was after all of this incredibly suspicious behavior that Tippit was shot dead.

Suspicious? I think so..

Oh, and in case you was wondering what eventually happened to Mrs Roberts, the one who made these original startling claims....

In an article published in Ramparts, David Welsh claims that Roberts was subjected to intensive police harassment. "They visited her at all hours of the day and night, contacted her employers and identified her as the Oswald rooming house lady. As a result she was dismissed from three housekeeping and nursing jobs in April, May and June of 1964 alone; no telling how many jobs she lost after that."

Earlene Roberts died of a heart attack in Parkland Hospital on 9th January, 1966. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrobertsE2.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.136.227 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is any action required on our part here. 1) The allegations of Tippit as a conspirator are covered in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#J.D. Tippit. 2) A lengthy discussion of other allegations noted to be "suspicious" are also already covered here and in the article about Tippit. 3) The "suspicious deaths" allegations are already covered as well. Should this be marked as resolved? Location (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Three tramps

Wikipedia has various article on relatively minor individuals (e.g. Julia Ann Mercer, Gordon Arnold, Faye Chism, etc.), but not one specifically for the "three tramps" that are a large part of the assassination lore. Is there any support or opposition to moving the majority of this section to Three tramps with an appropriate redirect? That might help alleviate some of the bulkiness of this article. Location (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. The section takes up a lot of space. Although it is definitely part of "JFK conspiracy theories," it appears to be of somewhat lessor importance than some of the other material, especially considering the amount of text devoted to it. BrandonTR (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm the original author of about 90% of 'three tramps.' A lot of it had to be over-detailed in order to achieve compromise with other editors. I'll be interested to see any changes you want to make. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now I'm simply suggesting a move to lighten the load here. Any objections? Location (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved the section to Three tramps. Location (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Article improvement? Okay, here's how

What do you want us to focus on? The credibility of sources is key to WP:IRS. Thanks in large part to the editor I'm arguing with, We now have Jim Marrs mentioned by name 15 times in the article body, and his one book referenced 19 times. The reader cannot discover by reading this article that the man also thinks space aliens live among us, abducting humans regularly, and that this is covered up knowingly by our government. We could improve the article by deleting his opinions entirely, or mentioning their source, as being from somebody who obviously doesn't have a very good filter when it comes to conspiracy theories.

The article is large and bloated and must soon be split. It would be improved by patterning it after Moon landing conspiracy theories where there is a crisp format of putting the best arguments for each conspiracy first, then the best reasons why most people who know the subject well don't believe this particular one (note that no single conspiracy theorist believes even a fraction of what the others do, so many serve as rebuttals for yet others). Instead, this article is a hash of sources-- good, bad and ugly. The Warren Commission is quoted when it suits the editors, and ignored when it suits the editors. The WC is quoted as the last word when it suits, the HCSA as the last word when it suits, and later research (like how long it actually takes a man of Oswald's size to walk 0.9 miles from Oswald's rooming house to the Tippit scene) is ignored. This produces the expected confusion. E. Roberts estimated Oswald left at 1 PM simply because she was hearing the president had been shot on TV. She didn't look at a clock. Local stations had started announcing the president had been shot at 12:45 [9] There is no reason on Earth that Oswald could not have left at 12:55 instead of exactly 1. The Tippit killing was called in by an eyewitness at 1:16 according to the central dispatch time-clock, and the witness said he waited "a few minutes" to see if the assassin would come back. How good is your sense of passage of time time when you've just watched a cop killed, you think it might be you next, and you're sitting in your car where you've stopped a short distance away? Suppose Tippit was killed at 1:14 or 1:13? Does it matter? Clearly, no. But we do not get this sense from the article, which suggests there must be something badly wrong with the standard model. Well, there isn't. Or of there is, I have yet to read the good argument.

Do you think JFK's car driver turned around and and shot him? Or, that the secret service agent in the car behind the JFK car shot him accidently with an AR-15 and nobody else in the backup car noticed the rifle go off next to their ear? That JFK's body was gotten out of his coffin on board the airplane, while his widow and his personal physician Dr. G. Burkley, charged with watching it as chain of evidence, just sat there next to it-- and didn't notice? Don't you think this article might be improved by putting in the skeptical view for all this, which we have many sources for? It's done in some cases, but it's very patchy. SBHarris 02:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a wild idea. If you're so concerned about the direction of the article, why don't you make an actual edit? When was the last time you made an actual text contribution to this article? You don't like Jim Marrs? Find a reason within the rules of wikipedia to remove the references. The deleted talk topic above was really something. You invite Brandon to answer a question, and when he does you the courtesy of responding, you ask him to stop editing here. Did you start the topic just to bully him? Perhaps you're bothered by the fact that he's made scores of edits to the article that no one's found reason to revert, so you have to pick a fight with him so you get the chance to call him crazy? Article improvement: Okay, here's how: spend 1/10th as much energy editing the article as you do attacking everyone whose edits you don't like. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In fairness to BrandonTR, he has done a pretty good job of making sure that his additions have some sort of sourcing which - even though I'm probably on the other side of the aisle - is much appreciated. Location (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding format: Can you be more specific in how you would like to see the article formatted or outlined? I will take responsibility for much of its current state due to the changes I made at the end of February. In my view, the article was a jumble mess of many of the various inconsistencies and random thoughts that conspiracy theorists have posited over the years... which are used to formulate various conspiracy theories, but are not conspiracy theories in and of themselves. I also attempted to preface sections pertaining to various allegations with the official view (e.g. the allegations pertaining to witness deaths). Yes, it's patchy, but I haven't gotten any help from anyone else on this and I do have interests outside of this article that I would like to spend time on.

Regarding sourcing: I think we need to agree on some general format before discussing which sources that can and should be used per WP:RS, WP:ITA, and WP:RSOPINION (in the case of notable CTs). Location (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Tippit section: There is no need to have more than a very brief mention here and a "See also" tag or something redirecting the reader to the duplicate section in J.D. Tippit. There is no need to have two nearly identical sections in two separate articles. A few attempts to do this have already been attempted (at least one of these was by Joe), but it keeps coming back. Incidentally, I believe the allegations in this section are also heavily built upon primary sources (i.e. WC testimony) rather than secondary sources (i.e. the CTs who have made the allegations, or the skeptics who attempt to refute them). Location (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion that the great majority of the Marrs book references be removed along with assertions taken from them, and whatever is left over should be clearly attributed to Marrs. Nothing unique to Marrs should be presented without attribution. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that virtually all unique allegations from any CT requires attribution, and that there currently appears to be UNDUE weight given towards some of Marrs' views. Given that Marrs is a notable CT whose views are discussed in even skeptic secondary sources, one way to address this is to cite those secondary sources discussing Marrs' views. Another is to drop Marrs by name and keep the citation where it is not a unique view. For example: "Jim Marrs also wrote that the weight of evidence suggested shots came from both the grassy knoll and the Texas School Book Depository." This is not a view unique to Marrs. I'm also wondering which CT will be next on the chopping block, if we eliminate Marrs entirely. Location (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Should authors like Jim Marrs be censured in regard to the JFK assassination because they hold unconventional views in other areas, such as UFOs?

Let's look as some well respected figures who have held unconventional views, starting with Curtis Lemay, former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "In 1994, in an interview conducted by Larry King and broadcast on CNN, Goldwater said, "I think at Wright-Patterson, if you could get into certain places, you’d find out what the Air Force and the government does know about UFOs. Reportedly, a spaceship landed. It was all hushed up. I called Curtis LeMay and I said, ‘General, I know we have a room at Wright-Patterson where you put all this secret stuff. Could I go in there?’ I’ve never heard General LeMay get mad, but he got madder than hell at me, cussed me out, and said, ‘Don’t ever ask me that question again!’"

Now let's look at one of our well respected presidents, Ronald Reagan: "Ronald and Nancy Reagan had a long history of involvement with astrologers and psychics. During the 1950's and 1960's, Ron and Nancy enlisted the services of Hollywood astrologer Carroll Righter, and later Jeane Dixon. In his 1965 autobiography, Where's the Rest of Me?, Reagan said that he and Righter were "good friends," and that "every morning Nancy and I turn to see what he has to say about people of our respective birth signs." (It was on Righter's advice that Reagan arranged his swearing-in as governor at the odd time of 9 minutes past midnight.)"

Finally, we have the example of our likely Republican nominee for president, Mitt Romney who holds unconventional religious views, which many would regard as at least as bizarre as a belief in UFOs.

So the question is: should figures like Jim Marrs, Curtis LeMay, Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney be censured just because they hold what many would consider bizarre views? BrandonTR (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If Marrs believes in little green men then he's not a reliable source for anything except his own opinion. Binksternet (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Using the same logic: If the Mormon Mitt Romney believes that his religion's founding father Joseph Smith had conversations with a white salamander, as he professed he did, then Mitt Romney is not a reliable source for anything except his own opinion. BrandonTR (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is pushing Romney as a reliable source for JFK's death. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Using your logic, Mitt Romney would not be a reliable source for anything, given his beliefs. BrandonTR (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we are getting off topic again. I haven't read Wikipedia from front to cover, but it's unlikely that the statements or views of Romney, Reagan, or LeMay are going to be used anywhere without attribution. That appears to be what Binksternet has stated of Marrs' views, too. To all: Is there currently anything in the article that is not attributed to Marrs that should be attributed to him? Location (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that you can't impugn the credibility of Jim Marrs (as some have tried to do) by linking what he has written on the Kennedy assassination to what he has written on other subjects. BrandonTR (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Marrs unorthodox beliefs are of any relevance here, unless it has been established he is mentally ill or delusional. Canada Jack (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the editors says: "The article is large and bloated and must soon be split." It's interesting to note that the article has received many ratings and that it is rated very highly. BrandonTR (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A rating of B or C is not high. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Site should be titled JFK assassination

No article improvement discussion, hatting. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This site far more evenly and impartially narrates the story of the assassination than does the site titled JFK assassination. With a few changes and additions to scope including the Warren Commission findings, this article would better serve as THE article about the event than the biased article "JFK assassination" which purports the Warren Commission to be a reliable source for the historical narrative. The broad consensus of public, scholarly and expert opinion, investigations and witness testimony support at least 2 shooters and therefore a conspiracy. While the main article gives these a nod, it infers they are "theories" while the WC narrates the actual events. This is scandalous min its conflation of "official" with actual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I agree. Unfortunately, you have a majority group of editors who are wedded to the Warren Commission version of history and look with disdain on anyone who does not toe the line. Moreover, because this is a complicated topic, making appeals against this group of true believers is mostly futile. It seems that other editors either don't want to get involved, or don't have the expertise to render an opinion. But, for now, that is the way it is. At least with Wikipedia, dissenting theories get a fairer shake then they could ever get with such outfits as ABC News. BrandonTR (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Is there specific text here or elsewhere you would like to address? Location (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC) I've previously addressed many areas regarding the Oswald article and the JFK assassination article. Unfortunately, there is an editor there, Canada Jack, who has a lock on these articles. He also has what might be called his "groupie" editors who go along with any position he takes no matter how ridiculous. The history of it is all there, but it would likely be a waste of anyone's time who cared to look it up. BrandonTR (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Sure, Brandon. I've hypnotized a pile of editors into believing I am right, while you, God's Lonely Man, stands alone valiantly trying to insert "truth" on the other page. Has the possibility ever entered your mind that, hey, maybe I should follow what wikipedia does and not simply insert arguments which you feel are correct onto a contentious page willy-nilly? Which is exactly what me and others have been saying all along? It's not as if there is no mention of conspiracy on the page, the problem is it is the page on the ASSASSINATION, and what the investigations concluded. There is an entire section devoted to "conspiracy" there, as well as numerous indications that at least one investigation concluded that, which is also in the lede, as is the "conspiracy" belief of a vast majority of people. If one wants to look at an example of how little Brandon thinks before he starts messing with texts or getting things to say what HE wants it to say instead of the actual sources, I point to the top of the page and how he treated the "iron sights" debate. He was clearly wrong, but took it as some sort of "conspiracy" to insert pro-WC stuff. And we now have a mess of a page here, even though I have offered to do the job Brandon clearly can't do - make the coherent case for "conspiracy." Instead we see a "throw the shit against the wall and sees what sticks" approach here. Indeed, if I was one of the paranoid conspiracy types (the ones who accuse me of being Bugliosi or some CIA plant), I'd deeply suspect that the "conspiracy" is at play here, making this page a mess to make the entire "conspiracy" topic look silly and not worthy of serious consideration. So, come clean Brandon - are you a CIA plant to make the CT crowd look bad? Canada Jack (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC) The reason for the iron sights confusion was that the unusual configuration of a side-mounted scope was never brought into the discussion. You're the only one who seems to think that this page is a mess. However, your Oswald article and your JFK assassination article have come in for much criticism -- not just from me. As I recall, your last big project was supposed to be making a case for the Warren Commission's conclusions. What ever happened to that noble project? BrandonTR (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC) The only "confusion" on the iron sights was your own. And then applying you misunderstanding of the issue to the article and your obstruction and obstinacy when I pointed out your error. It was a simple but telling point. For even if you were correct about the inability to use the iron sights without taking off the scope, you STILL were wrong to suggest the HSCA "concluded" he used the scope as they never did. Of course, you were wrong on both points, another reason why your contributions need extra scrutiny. As for "my" JFK article, the only section I had any substantial input was... the conspiracy section. I wrote almost none of the rest. Ditto for the Oswald page. You're the only one who seems to think that this page is a mess. Anything you say, Brandon. Seriously - are you some sort of CIA mole, deliberately gumming up this page into the incoherent mess it is? For example... when discussing the myriad conspiracy/cover-ups etc, has it ever occurred to you that you might actually begin at Deally Plaza - where, after all, the actual assassination took place - instead of with critiques of the investigation? And then accounts of witness intimidation? I mean, is the main "conspiracy" that the casual reader might be interested in the cover-up... or the assassination itself? Just saying. Canada Jack (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Regarding the rifle, you weren't even aware that it had a side-mounted scope. Regarding conspiracy, you might want to consult your favorite historian, Robert Caro, who as you know wrote a long biography on Lyndon Johnson. I'm not sure whether Caro included in his book Johnson's conspiracy theory that Castro was behind the JFK assassination, or Johnson's other theory that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination, but responsible editors like myself had to include Johnson's conspiracy theories in this article because they are historically documented. BrandonTR (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC) There you go again, Brandon. I told YOU that it was a side-mounted scope. YOU were the one claiming otherwise. To refresh your memory: Boy, how many screw-ups can we count on one page with Brandon? "A scope mounted on a rifle, de facto, means that the shooter's only option for aiming is to use the scope." Uh, no, Brandon. If the scope was mounted on this particular rifle in the way you describe, the bolt could not be operated.(!) Which is why the scope was mounted slightly off-centre to the left so as to allow the bolt to be operated. Accordingly, the iron sights could be used even with the scope in place. For example, the FBI's Robert Frazier tested the rifle with the scope AND with the iron sights - without removing the scope. As for your irrelevant aside about LBJ, no one disputes that he was pretty sure that there was a conspiracy. This has been known for, what? 40 years? I think a better question for the non-credulous crowd (which excludes most conspiracy believers) is if there WAS a conspiracy, why didn't LBJ have some concrete information on that as he surely would through his numerous government links? Or RFK? Who was in a better position to have information in that regard, arguably? Instead, the two men stated their opinion that others may have been behind it, with no evidence that was in fact so. Of course, to the CT crowd, having prominent believers in "conspiracy" is "evidence" of conspiracy, a logical fallacy. It's evidence of a belief, nothing else. Canada Jack (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC) There you go again, Jack. Your description of the scope being "off-centre" implies that there was something wrong with the scope which was not the case. The correct terminology is, "side-mounted scope." Regarding conspiracy, it's OK for you to attack and ridicule the messenger, but you should attack and ridicule the real messenger. The real messenger, in this case, was conspiracy theorist, President Lyndon Johnson. BrandonTR (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)