Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

Topic critical of use of Warren Commision as a source of historical record censored

I thought recent trumped preponderance in evolving or contentuous articles. I am sorry if I left the impression I was angling for removal of the WC. This would be extreme and untenable. I merely objected to it serving as the source of the historical narrative, when it has been so thoroughly and completely discredited so widely and universally by all subsequent expert investigations, and is at diametric opposition to consensus opinion and the historical record and as it has emerged. Recent photographic analysis techniques have finally confirmed scientifically what the parkland doctors have been saying for so long- the official autopsy photos were altered. All sources I know of line up in the same way on this, and this is merely a microcosm of all other aspect of the WC position- it doesn't line up with the witnesses, the evidence, or any other professional analysis. Garrison is merely one of these, I would be equally happy to see ANY source other then the WC serve as the backbone of the article when it comes to the historical narrative. Having seen Garrison on Carson and elsewhere, he struck a chord of accuracy with me personally, but I realize this is personal perspective, and would not push for HIS perspective uniquely, altho it certainly lines up with the evidence, witnesses and preponderance of recent reputable sources better then the WC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like advice as to how to go about this properly. I have read the sources page pointed out to me, but I need more specific advice. I would like to avoid edit wars, which I have already inspired. can I merely list the doctors names, or can I include links to interviews, or merely cite their books name? Of course universally accepted is an impossible criteria for recent revelations in a crime where the perpetrators and their children are still the power elite in America will be impossible. How about universally accepted by WITNESSES of professional repute? How about applying this standard to the article as it stands? I would argue the WC, not the Garrison version IS the contentious version of history, as cited in the article itself- 80% of Americans believe the WC version is a coverup. Can the fact that major media won't report this really make it not so- even on Wiki? Is it not fact that the article sites a 50 year old inquiry as its source of the historical record which flies in the face of every other expert and investigator since, which has accelerated in recent years? Are we not conflating "official" with accepted, consensus, scholarly, scientific and historical?

I concede the article cleverly addresses alternative veiws while untenably holding the WC to be a valid source. Edits would have to equally clever. Inteluck (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't been involved in an edit war that I know of: that's defined as a series of edits in which two or more editors repeatedly change each others' edits - see WP:EW for what they are and how to avoid them. We've had a frank, polite exchange of views, which is what we're supposed to do. Please be careful about drawing conclusions in Wikipedia's voice (better to work in terms of "so-and-so said" or "Mr. X claims"), See the policies on verifiability, reliable sourcing and biographies of living persons (for assertions about conduct of living or recently deceased individuals), as well as discussions of synthesis, undue weighting, original research, neutral point of view, Wikipedia's role as a tertiary source and avoidance of primary sourcing, and fringe theories (of which there are an abundance on this particular topic, which makes us wary). You need to avoid injecting your own opinions concerning the Warren Report (and everything else): you must stick to what reputable scholars on the subject have demonstrably stated, in due proportion to their emphasis in the literature on the subject. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

See [1] first for facts. Then consider that not only the autopsy photos must be altered but also the Z film and the autopsy docs must be in on it. And all the people in the trailing car who saw the same thing we see in the Z film, which is the right side of JFKs head blasted away above the ear.

FYI when Garrison died he went to Heaven and his first question for God you can guess. God then answered "Oswald acted alone." To which Garrison responded "Wow, the conspiracy goes WAY higher than I thought.. " SBHarris 05:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A I will read the suggested articles. Sorry if I offended with my edit war comment Acroterion. Wiki automessaged me that someone had deleted or altered my post. I do not know who it was, or if it was my own lack of proficiency with this medium. I appreciate your neutral, considered tone, and your helpful suggestions (as well as your correction of my occasional embarrassing "typo"). and certainly agree and support your wariness- I have seen enuf of the fringe theories about this topic- in which the WCR clearly fits. The single bullet theory alone, with its pristine bullet places the report firmly in this camp, which is why it is not a credible source for the historical narrative on this topic. In my opinion this is the accepted, consensus view, supported by the HSCA, and all but one recent mainstream media article by Peter Jennings, while a slew of reports have been aired supporting Garrisons work or slight variations thereof. the autopsy docs a Bethesda, while not "in on it" clearly performed a highly suspect autopsy IMHO, with the notes burned. That the doctor admitted to burning the notes from an autopsy of this importance alone is instructive as to the quality of this autopsy. That anyone seriously considering shooting a moving target at distance with multiple shots fired in quick succession would choose the rifle the WC claims to have killed the President is an insult to intelligence. I do not claim to know exactly who killed the President or why, but the WC claims are among the most outlandish of all theories. In my opinion Garrisons investigation makes less outlandish claims, and better corresponds with the scientific and factual evidence, and while he may have overstated the reach of the conspiracy, especially when implicating god almighty, as in the humorous comment from Sbharris, it is matter of historical record that several government agencies who had been previously supportive at very least refused to co-operate with his investigation, even if it was to provide contrary evidence to his tentative conclusions. To me, this suggests these agencies knew he was on the right track, as does the government feeling the need to bug his office and mount a media campaign to discredit him, as opposed to simply providing contrary evidence to discredit his theories. At very least the conduct of Hoover, the CIA and the Johnson administration would have appeared to Garrison highly suspect. Several points which Garrison made and the government hotly contested at the time have since been proven correct, such as the involvement of Clay Shaw with the CIA. As far as I know none of his conclusions have thus far been empirically proven false. As for tone I was unaware that the talk page had to follow all the rules of neutrality and clearly stating what is my opinion and what (I think) is fact. I concede I found the article so contentious I responded without adequate research to conform to the standards here and for this I apologize. I will arm myself withe articles cited by Acroterion before I attempt any discussion regarding edits. In the meantime I suggest this article be named Warren Commission theories on JFK Assassination. I would like to feel out whether there is consensus that multiple gunmen were involved in the Kennedy assassination (at least 2)? Does anyone feel the evidence supports the conclusion that one gunmen performed this assassination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.64.58 (talk • contribs)

Of course Oswald acted alone. His cheapo rifle is evidence *against* a conspiracy unless you think somebody else in Oswald's workplace was shooting at JFK with Oswald's old rifle. But bullet fragments from the front of the limo, no doubt from JFK's head, were matched to that weapon. The best recreation of the shooting so far finds the bullet went through the JFK manikin, took out two ribs of the Connolly doll, broke its wrist and bounced off its thigh. It was damaged a bit more than CE399 but close enough and the two ribs rather than one explains the difference. As for Clay Shaw and Trial of Clay Shaw, read the articles to see just how nutty Garrison was. SBHarris 18:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence for any other shooter but Oswald. No bullets from any other weapon, for example. Oswald, once you look at him, was nutty enough to carry out this lunatic plan all by himself. It wasn't difficult for him to buy a rifle, smuggle it in, wait for the shot and make it. His target was moving slowly at short range directly away from him and he had an excellent position. He had the skills needed. What he didn't have was the mental stability or self-control to get away with it. Nobody had a good word for him before or after the assassination. If there had been a conspiracy, the plotters would have had to have been out of their heads to choose Oswald as their shooter. It's been fifty years and nobody in what would have had to have been a massive conspiracy has broken their silence? No deathbed confessions, no betrayals, no states witnesses? Fifty years of long and detailed examination of a few bullets and we have nothing but suppositions and theories. Not one solid piece of evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Come on! We have Oswald, we have his rifle, we know exactly how many bullets he fired and where they went, we know what he did down to the last minute. If he had stood trial, he would have been found guilty. If there had been anybody else, Oswald would have dumped them in it so he could walk away. There was nobody else. --Pete (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

People don't support the WC because of any rational reason. They don't support the WC because their full extent of the subject is one stupid Oliver Stone film staring Kevin Costner, based on Garrison's book (and incidentally with Garrison himself in a cameo playing Earl Warren, as you probably know). In that nicely shot film you'll see such hilarities as the idea that JFK and Connelly are sitting exactly at the same level and in-line. And the idea that we know for sure that JFK was shot a second before Connelly, because Connelly doesn't react instantly to being hit in the right side. (Why should he? The impact is about like being glancingly hit by a baseball in the ribs, as a surprise, and that's more or less what you see Connelly do in the Zapruder film-- act like somebody suddenly hit him in the right ribs with a baseball). And be treated to the idea that the momentum of a bullet is so large as to be able to knock a head attached to a body the same direction the bullet was going (which is nonsense, but "back and to the left" is now a cultural iconic saying). Add to this, a bunch of hearsay from Jack Martin, a hysterical disgruntled employee of Guy Banister's, and it all looks vaguely believable. Unfortunately, it doesn't accord with the physics. And the rest of it is... hearsay. SBHarris 03:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hearsay is testimony you don't agree with. Oswald and Rubys comments are the diamtric opposite of hearsay. Most people nuts enuf to shoot the President would then happily admit it. I concede it has taken a long time, and most of the preliminary evidence has been suggestive of inferential. I would argue the acoustic evidence has emerged, Ruby spoke out about the conspiracy. We have photos of a bullet being picked up which never made into evidence. For me, personally, and I realize thishas no place out of (or maybe in) the talk page take a look at Oswald s face when he hears he has been charged with the presidents murder. This is the look of someone realizing they are the patsy, or he can add incredible actor to his resume as marksman extraordinaire. It seems to me if he was the assassin all he had to do was disappear after he cleared the SBD. Running around shooting cops and attracting attention by entering the theater without paying just doesn't fit, like the bullets lined up nicely, anyone who has ever fired a gun knows that doesn't happen. As a policemen might say, the whole story just doesn't smell right, never has, and many other people (most) have always felt this way, except for a brief period immediately after the WC release. The Oliver Stone film merely accelerated this. The movie makes Garrisons ideas seem like a slam dunk- not vaguely believable, and many people have been influenced, perhaps unduly by this.The WC was expressly formed to counter this rather than to investigate the evidence and come up with a conclusion. perhaps what we need is more focus on the effects of the assassination on policy, as this is the relevant aspect of a coup, even if Oswald did do the shooting. Something the movie does not dep[ict is the fact J. Edgar went to the races the day after the assassination. The nations highest law enforcement official apparently did not feel the need to lead any kind of investigation. Perhaps he just hated Kennedy so much he wanted to make a statement, perhaps he already knew what he needed to know. Did CanadaJack write the article on the dictabelt recording as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical perspective and incomplete evidence

This is devolving into a forum discussion unrelated to article improvement. Please confine your discussion to specific suggestions for article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Definitive conclusions are being drawn and presented as fact about an event that has no consensus even among the various investigations by government agencies, let alone the scientific evidence or consensus opinion. The WC the HSCA and the Garrison investigation all drew different conclusions, yet we are presented here by Sbharris with the definitive and conclusive answer. While I find the WC highly suspect, as do most people, I cannot completely rule out the possibility that Oswald was invlolved, or even acted alone, as I am not god, and much conflicting and confusing evidence exists- or does not exist. In my opinion, and I represent the broad consensus here, as supported by many polls, the Zapruder film clearly shows the fatal shot was not fired by him, and the acoustic evidence and eyewitness testimony certainly do not make this seem likely, but again, I cannot categorically rule it out. The context of the assassination, including Eisenhower's warning about the power of military industrial complex, and the Richard Starnes warning that if there was ever a coup in the US it would come from the CIA, the fact that Kennedy had promised and begun to break the CIA into a thousand pieces, had begun pulling advisers out of Vietnam, and in my opinion was planning to end the cold war, had printed "silver certificates" which put the power of issuing currency back into the hands of the US government instead of the Federal Reserve, and had allowed Robert to aggressively pursue the mob all suggest his assassination was NOT a historical coincidence. Of course it does not prove it, it merely provides context with which we can evaluate the existing incomplete and conflicting evidence. This is especially true in light of the rapid and complete reversal of these policies by Johnson. Which individual, group or coalition of groups were involved in the assassination will likely never be definitively proven but it is certainly irresponsible to present the WC findings of the lone nut solely responsible as more likely- it is merely “official”, which in this particular historical context, may be viewed as an inherent weakness. In this regard I would again claim this as broadly consensus opinion. The obvious (and I would argue consensus-view) violations in security and investigational protocol and the unusual cluster of unexpected and conspicuously suspicious deaths surrounding each of the investigations, which Oswald categorically could not have influenced, especially post mortem, also provides context with which to view our incomplete evidence. . If these same events happened in any South American country, the obvious conclusion would be drawn that a coup had occurred, and we would not debate minutiae of the event, but rather focus on the broader implications of its ramifications- changing policy and its consequences. It is a matter of historical fact that Ruby's statements support or even augment Garrison’s conclusions, and he asked to be taken to Washington to elucidate his role in the assassination AND WAS REFUSED by "investigators". Oswald’s statements support Garrisons conclusions -"I am just a patsy", language which would not likely be used by someone NOT involved with intelligence. Again I do not propose any special elevation of Garrison’s conclusions. I object to the elevation of the WC conclusions to the role of providing a historically accurate narrative. I suggest all plausible theories be presented evenly with enough historical context to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. The artificial division of “conspiracy theories” from the WC findings itself predisposes the reader to be dismissive of alternate scenarios. While certainly I agree there a lot of crazy theories poorly supported by the evidence, again the WC findings with its impossible single bullet fit there. I note Wki rules do not place any special preference for “official” and I suggest that we have confused “official” with plausible, likely, scholarly, scientific and accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Garrison did not do an "investigation." Garrison performed a witchhunt that a jury rejected in less than an hour, and that doesn't look any better to later history. Oliver Stone's film could not even help it much, and relied on showing us a "Star Trek holodeck" montage of the hearsay that Garrison relied on, to make it look even vaguely believable. And, of course, setting up a fake scenario for the "magic bullet"-- something not even Garrison did during the trial (no judge would have allowed it). I don't know why Garrison wasn't disbarred. Unfortunately prosecutors often have near-total immunity even when they are totally insane. As for Wikipedia, we are placed in bad situation, as there are dozens of theories about the JKF assassination, and none of them agree with each other. There are theories that Oswald was a government agent and a hero, despite him trying to shoot a cop when he was captured. There are theories that Oswald had a double. There are theories that JFK's body was pulled out of its casket on the plane while his wife and personal physician sat next to it to maintain chain-of-evidence, and spirited off for head surgery (or perhaps this was done is an airplane bathroom on Airforce One-- talk about Mission Impossible). We can't include them all. What we've done is take the three government investigations and use mostly their conclusions, noting where they disagree (specifically number of shots, location of entry wound in the back of the head, etc). That's the best we can do. The HCSA did a relentless investigation of conspiracy ideas, including Garrison's, and could find no evidence of any of them, except for the acoustic radio recording, which it accepted as evidence of a 4th missed shot. Nobody today believes that acoustic evidence is good, including the man whose motorcycle it supposedly came from. So here we are. The Zapruder film shows a completely believable scenario for somebody shot through the head, and your idea that somebody's head must move in the same direction as a bullet has been disproven countless times. It might seem "obvious" to you, but is not in fact what happens. And by the way, could you please use paragraphs? SBHarris 03:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Garrison was subsequently elevated to Judge, after getting re-elected DA.This is historical fact. What you say about him is clearly hearsay. His attempt to convict Shaw was, I concede, a toehold at best, and perhaps ill-conceived. Jurors were convinced the assassination was a conspiracy, if not that Clay Shaw was demonstrably part of it. This still leaves the WC alone in its conclusion of the lone nut theory. I have shot at and killed enough things to be immediately and irretrievably convinced by the Zapruder film that it shows a bullet from the front and side, and not just because of the violent back and to side movement of JFK. I have seen some evidence which suggests he was shot from the rear almost simultaneously, which of course would still leave us with- a conspiracy. Peter Jennings is the only source I can think of who purports to show that the Zapruder film shows a shot from the back. His article lacks any balanc e and is obviously contrived to continue the WC legacy- something I am sad to see wiki do. Garrison was subsequently elevated to Judge, after getting re-elected DA. While I realize this is original research, I fail to see why the film took 5 years and had to be subpoenaed before even a Jury could see it. Clearly someone thought it contained something damning. If it supported WC conclusions, in the climate of the day, it would of been on every news article for weeks. Clearly even a deathbed confession would not change your mind on this matter, as anything but the discovery the Vietnam War and the Federal Reserve were a hoax perpetrated by leftish loons to discredit the Johnson administration would convince me Kennedy's killing was a historical coincidence. I guess it becomes a numbers game then, what is the consensus opinion- which you have already conceded to me is against the WC- tho you blame it on the JFK movie. In my opinion, even if Oswald did the shooting, the important thing is the impact of the shooting- the recall of silver certificates, the reversal of the Vietnam withdrawal and the renewal of the cold war. You can have your Oswald, it is still just a detail in the historical context. This is one thing the JFK movie got right, the who and the how are just scenery to stop us asking why- who benefited and how policy changed. Of course it still remains the historical record that 2 of 3 official investigations found evidence of a conspiracy- which leaves the WC- all alone. Garrison was subsequently elevated to Judge, after getting re-elected DA. And George W. Bush, arguably the worst president since Buchanan, was re-elected. The list of idiots and incompetents winning re-election or re-appointment is long, so your point does nothing to suggest his prosecution of Shaw was warranted, competently carried out, or rational. I fail to see why the film took 5 years and had to be subpoenaed before even a Jury could see it. Clearly someone thought it contained something damning. If it supported WC conclusions, in the climate of the day, it would of been on every news article for weeks. Migod, inteluck, if you come here proposing that the article, the result of years of debate and honing, be tossed aside, you should be at the very least aware of the basics of the case! (And, for that matter, have a clearer understanding of what "original research" means!)The Zapruder film was OWNED by Time/Life! And, while it is true the film wasn't seen until the Shaw trial, it had been subject to meticulous examination, its frames published in the WR, and authors, most particularity Josiah Thompson, publishing detailed reports on what the frames supposedly revealed. In my opinion, even if Oswald did the shooting, the important thing is the impact of the shooting- the recall of silver certificates, the reversal of the Vietnam withdrawal and the renewal of the cold war. Migod. Where to start. What "reversal"? The famous memo Johnson released several days after the assassination was drafted while JFK was still president! Silver certificates? Are you kidding? Renewal of the cold war? If you understood JFK and LBJ's political stances - it is abundantly clear you do not - you would know that JFK was very much in the fervent anti-communist strain of the democrats. JFK and RFK were very much "red scare" politicians. RFK was an assistant to Joe McCarthy and JFK never publicly rebuked McCarthy. Further, JFK was criticized for his tepid support of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, legislation pushed through by LBJ. Johnson was an FDR democrat, FAR more of what we would call the "liberal" strain of the party. Too many people are dazzled by JFK's charisma to forget it was Johnson who passed the major liberal legislation of the day. In the end, one can come with hundreds of possible motives for the death of JFK. But evidence of motive is not evidence of murder. And the evidence for the latter in this case points to one man and one man only - Lee Harvey Oswald. Of course it still remains the historical record that 2 of 3 official investigations found evidence of a conspiracy- which leaves the WC- all alone. The ONLY evidence which the HSCA found which suggested "conspiracy" was the dictabelt evidence, which has now been seen as invalid. Otherwise, they concluded Oswald fired all the shots which struck, and there were no known links between Oswald and the claimed groups/individuals which may had had a role. So, while your statement it trivially true, it is highly misleading as the most exhaustive investigation done in 1978 found NO evidence of conspiracy - svae for the recording - while examining the years of claims and "evidence" others put forward as proof. It says a lot that an investigative body which was obviously willing to conclude "conspiracy" did NOT conclude that any of that evidence touting by theorists was worthy of anything. Canada Jack (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Is "are you Kidding" a bona fide rebuttal? Please suggest why I would be kidding about silver certificates. Lincoln was assassinated shortly after issuing his "greenbacks". Point taken regarding Bush. Period. I never defended Garrisons selection of Shaw as the vehicle for his investigation of the Assassination, rather I always viewed it as weak, but the fact remains the Shaw jurors felt convinced there was a conspiracy- at least some of them I have seen interviewed, who seemed to represent it as a consensus among jurors. Kennedy publicly unilaterally declared a nuclear test ban moratorium, and was clearly on the way to end the cold war on a number of fronts to the horror of the arms industry. Watch the Kennedy clips nicely assembled in the front of "Executive Action" if you haven't seen them, and if you have, how do you reconcile these with your statements? I concede your point about Johnson, the civil rights and Kennedy and McCarthy, but JFK was deeply affected by the Cuban Missile Crisis and the attitudes of the Joint Chiefs- whom he described as having a collective death wish for humanity, and had changed his policy and attitude about communism, to the dismay of the Joint Chiefs and war industry. Not surprising the CMC inspired an Aha! moment in an intelligent and educated man. So while what you say is trivially true it mischaracterises the situation as it was when JFK died. Please provide a source for your claim that the reversal of Kennedy's withdrawals was drafted by the executive branch BEFORE JFK died. If the document was drafted by the pentagon, without the executives knowledge, I would contend that supports conspiracy, as the bureaucracy of war moved to reverse Kennedy's withdrawal before he was even dead. If not then it would be an important detail on which I am mistaken and would need to update my perspective. Please provide source for audio recording data being largely or even marginally refuted. In the works I have seen the audio lines up perfectly with the Zap film. The testimony of the MC cop it came from can hardly be considered expert besides the true audio experts at the HSCA. How do you reconcile your assertions that "nobody believes the audio evidence" with the consistent polls whoich show a vast majority of Americans suspect something is fishy with the WC, the assassination, and the Vietnam war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 03:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC) As I troll the Wiki I find a lot of the JFK material infected with this same tone........And i am just wondering if you feel adding the slightly hysterical oh my gods and are you kiddings emphasize or undermine your perspective to other readers? I find then slightly undermining, along with the tone of certainty, which you will note I have carefully avoided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 03:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Semantics

The article says:

At 2:38 p.m. CST (20:38 UTC), Vice-President Johnson took the oath of office on board Air Force One...

By that point, LBJ was already president. I know it's nitpicking of the highest degree, but should it not read:

At 2:38 p.m. CST (20:38 UTC), President Johnson took the oath of office on board Air Force One...

in order to make the timeline make sense? Your mileage may vary, of course. 94.192.225.169 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I have checked Article Two of the United States Constitution, also the Presidential Succession Act, and it's not clear whether the vice-president becomes President immediately on the death of the latter, or only upon taking the Oath of Office. Your proposed change needs further discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Still not sure myself. The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not codified until 1967. It appears as though there was a precedent to recognize the VP as President that was never really challenged, but he may not have actually been President by the Constitution. Location (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

See John Tyler#"His Accidency": By the time Tyler arrived in Washington at 4:00 a.m. on 6 April 1841, he had firmly resolved that he was now, in name and fact, the President of the United States, and acted on this determination by taking the oath of office in his hotel room. He considered the oath redundant to his oath as Vice President, but wished to quell any doubt over his accession. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Acting President of the United States outlines what could be interpreted as a contradiction in the Constitution, but it does appear that by precedent he was... President. Location (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Caro addressed this point in "The Passage of Power" and he says that LBJ became president the moment JFK died. And in the famous conversation LBJ had with RFK that day on taking the oath I believe there was no question he was indeed president, so when and where the oath was taken was a moot point. We should also note that often, when a new president takes the oath, he is not president - if the oath is administered before noon on the January 20th in question. He becomes president at the moment his predecessor's term expires. When Bush Sr became president, he actually took the oath several minutes after noon, but America didn't lack a president as a result for those few minutes. (thoufh some wags have argued that Quayle having taken the oath earlier was president for a few minutes...) Canada Jack (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Dan Quayle was president? Dear God... --Redrose64 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. A comedy of errors. Nothing says a judge or anybody must administer the oath. Or how soon the new president must take it. Or even if witnesses are required. Or forbid it from being taken twice or as many times and places as seems good. Nobody for awhile after the assassination even realized the oath is to be found in the US Constitution (no Internet, no iPhones-- they relied on libraries and asking around).

Kenny O'Donnell, JFK's secretary, was particularly pissed that LBJ kept the jet with JFK's body and Jackie on the runway for this, as any minute it might have been held up by Texas police. Johnson could have done whatever he liked on his own jet which was identically equipped and would have become Air Force One the moment LBJ boarded it. Whatever aircraft the president rides on is Air Force One. But LBJ shoehorned himself into the front of JFKs jet as though it was a shrine to be occupied and taken over. Such is the power of habit under stress. He flew back with JFKs body too. Leaving his own identical jet to straggle home without him. SBHarris 05:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of avoiding controversy in the absence of certainty, might I suggest:

At 2:38 p.m. CST (20:38 UTC), Johnson took the oath of office on board Air Force One...

—sroc (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Time formats

This article uses a variety of formats for expressing times of day:

• "12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time (18:30 UTC)" — a 2-for-1 with 12-hour and 24-hour
• "…a planned arrival time of 12:15 PM." — 12-hour with "PM"
• "…which departed at 11:10 and…" — 24-hour
• "At 12:29 p.m. CST…" — 12-hour with "p.m." and bonus time zone
• "…from 12:33 to after 12:50 p.m." — is that first one 24-hour or are they sharing "p.m."?
• "At 1:00 p.m., CST (19:00 UTC)…" — 12-hour with added comma before time zone

WP:TIME allows for either 12- or 24-hour formats, but they should be consistent and follow these:

* 12-hour clock times are written in the form 11:15 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., or the form 11:15 am and 2:30 pm, with a space (preferably a non-breaking space) before the abbreviation. Use noon and midnight rather than 12 pm and 12 am; it may need to be specified whether midnight refers to the start or the end of a date.

* 24-hour clock times are written in the form 08:15, 22:55, with no suffix. Note that 00:00 refers to midnight at the start of a date, and 24:00 to midnight at the end of a date.

I presume 12-hour times are preferred in this article, but do UTC times always need to be represented in 24-hour times? —sroc (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Misspelling

The word "assassination" is misspelled as "assasination" on the section "Zapruder Film". Republican12 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done - correction made, thanks for spotting that.--JayJasper (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 May 2013

Please include (Suspected) or (Not proven) after Lee Harvey Oswald's name after 'Perpetrator', as he was only a suspected shooter and there is evidence and testimony to suggest that there were other shooters.

Lioness11 (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Two major investigations concluded that Oswald, indeed, was the perpetrator, the only identified person conclusively connected with the assassination. There is no need to qualify it with "suspected," no more than we need to affix "alleged" to the crimes of Hitler or Stalin as they never stood trial. Canada Jack (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Given the amount of 'negatively creative rearrangement', oddball theories promoted etc likely to occur near the anniversary, should this page (and possibly JFK, Jackie Kennedy, LHO and Jack Ruby pages) be protected then? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of "perpetrator" instead of the correct "alleged assassin suspect"

A "perpetrator" is the person(s) actually convicted in an actual court of law trial. Oswald was never convicted in a court of law trial, therefore, he was an alleged assassin suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.79.162 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that "perpetrator" is incorrect, the correct alternative would then seem to be "assassin", not "alleged assassin suspect". 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We use whatever reliable sources call him, which is not "alleged assassin suspect". Also, see the first two sections on this page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

They definitely aren't "reliable sources" then Neil, only ones you choose to find reliable and suit your own personal viewpoint.

This entire article is a joke. 82.1.73.23 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence

The following sentence needs rewording: "When Governor Connally testified to this, the doctor who operated on him measured his head facing direction at 27 degrees left of center." It sounds like the doctor measured his head while he was testifying, and the phrase "facing direction" is nonsensical. The technical details of this sentence are obviously pretty important, so I'll leave it to someone who knows what they're talking about, but I'd suggest something like "attending physician Dr. Robert Shaw estimated that Connally was facing 27 degrees left of center." Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the doctor testified that his torso was facing this angle, not his head. But again, I'll leave this to someone with more expertise.Sadiemonster (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

“every employee was accounted for at the moment of the assassination. Save one.”

Recent quote from editor CanadaJack:

“We also know that every employee was accounted for at the moment of the assassination. Save one. We also know that all employees returned to the building to be interviewed etc. Save one. We also know, with the exception of an elderly man being escorted to the washroom, that NO unknown persons were in the building. So, for there have to been multiple gunmen in the building, or a professional sniper, REQUIRES pretty well every employee there to be in on the plot.”

The depth and breadth of the factual errors here is considerable. Let’s clear up this nonsense right now.

Portions of the first four floors of the TSBD building were leased to textbook publishers not directly connected with the TSBD company itself[2]. It is reasonable to assume that that not all TSBD company employees knew and would have recognized all of the employees of these other companies, and vice-versa. In any case, there were many people in the building that would not have been part of a TSBD company roll-call, had there been one. But no such roll-call actually took place, and if it had taken place it would have turned up many missing employees besides Oswald.

There is no evidence that any such roll call, in the normal usage of that phrase, ever took place.(1.) None of the 73 statements of SPD employees (including the one signed by Roy Truly) (CE 1381 pps. 667-668) mention a roll-call. At the most, there was an informal head count by Roy Truly of his own employees, and the time for it is not definite. And even there, Oswald was not the only one missing. Several people were missing from the TSBD from their lunch hour until 1: 30.(2.) The statements made in Commission Exhibit 1381 in March, 1964[3]— also reveal that several of them, like Gloria Holt (CE 1381 pps.652-3) and Carolyn Arnold (CE 1381 p.635) were locked out or failed to return to the TSBD after the shooting. Charles Givens stated to the WC[4] that he was locked out and he and others could also not get back in. Gloria Holt stated that she was told by others the building would be shut down and so she went home. If other people said this to her, then they must have done the same thing. Before the WC, Truly would later say,[5] “There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.” “So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not.” The “Oswald was the only one missing” myth originates with reporter Kent Biffle(4), who supposedly saw two roll calls and said that at the second one everyone was there but Oswald. The second roll call supposedly happened at 2:30 PM when Oswald was already in custody.(3) A statistical breakdown of the 73 SPD employee FBI statements reveals that 17 were never in the building after 12:30 PM, 41 had left by 2:30 PM, 3 left between 2:30 PM and 3:00 PM, 4 were only in the TSBD briefly (after 2:30) and only 8 stated that they left at times after 2:30 PM. Not only is there no mention of any "gathering," but the great majority of those who worked in the building had left by 2:30 PM.[6]

Footnotes:

1. Jerry Rose, “Important to Hold that Man,” The Third Decade, Vol. 2 No. 4, p. 17. Also James DiEugenio, "Reclaiming Parkland: Tom Hanks, Vincent Bugliosi, and the JFK Assassination in the New Hollywood."

2. 195 Mark Bridger, “The Myth of the Depository Roll Call,” Dealey Plaza Echo, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 38. 196 Ibid, p. 40. Also, James DiEugenio, ibid.

3. Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993.

4. Kent Biffle, "Reporter Recalls the Day Camelot Died in Dallas," Dallas Morning News, April 5, 1981.

Oh, and one more factual error from CanadaJack in the same thread.

“We have several witnesses who saw him carry a lengthy package when he went into work.”

Perhaps he’d consent to read the WC Hearings VI, testimony of Jack Dougherty[7]:

Mr. Ball: In other words you would positively say (Oswald) had nothing in his hands?

Mr. Dougherty: I would say that – yes, sir.

Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The depth and breadth of the factual errors here is considerable. Let’s clear up this nonsense right now. Hmmmm. Problem is, Joe, nothing you've added here contradicts what I've said.

It is reasonable to assume that that not all TSBD company employees knew and would have recognized all of the employees of these other companies, and vice-versa. Hmmmm. "Reasonable to assume?" C'mon, Joe. The question is: Did ANY person in the building, or an employee of the building who may have been outside, report seeing any unfamiliar person in the building before and during the assassination? The answer is, quite simply, NO. Yet, for 50 years while trying to dismiss the role Oswald is said to have had in the assassination, we are still left with the rather massive hole in the premise most conspiracy theorits put out - if Oswald didn't do it, the guy who DID do it - multiple witnesses saw a sniper shooting - apparantly vanished into thin air.

So, if there was no unfamiliar person in the building, then maybe it was a KNOWN person, other than Oswald, who did it. Okay, then who was it? We know all the people in the building, or those employed in the building - but ALL of them are accounted for at the time of the assassination, unless you have contrary information, an employee whose alibi can not be corroborated. But what do the CT crowd do when faced with this rather logical point - there was no one but Oswald there left to be the sniper - they start selectively rejecting testimony. So, were the employees lying, Joe? Were they in on the plot too? Given the inability of many of the CT crowd to even admit that, for example, that's Billy Lovelady in the photo on the street during the assassination, claiming it is "proof" Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor - even though ALL the witnesses there say it was Lovelady, HE says it was himself, photo analysts agree, and Oswald HIMSELF says he was inside the building at the time - we can be rest assured that nothing will sway these people from their pre-determined "truth." Heck, many in that same crowd can't admit that the witnesses who said the rifle was a Mauser were mistaken, even though we have photos of the rifle before it was touched and FILM of it being recovered - and it is clearly the same Carcano now in the Archives. You are entitled to your own opinion, CT crowd, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

There is no evidence that any such roll call, in the normal usage of that phrase, ever took place. Not sure why you spend so much time on this entirely irrelevant question of the roll call, Joe. Whether Truly realized Oswald was not there via a roll call, or whether he asked others who said Oswald had apparently left, makes no difference here. And that's because whether at that moment of the (real or imagined) roll call some were not present is not germane as it is DURING THE ASSASSINATION that the presence of everyone is relevant. Oswald, after all, wasn't sought for the simple reason he missed the roll call. It was because at that moment, he couldn't be accounted for, so it was reasonable to search him out for the very least to be interviewed about the assassination, as all others there were being interviewed for the investigation.

A statistical breakdown of the 73 SPD employee FBI statements reveals that 17 were never in the building after 12:30 PM, 41 had left by 2:30 PM, 3 left between 2:30 PM and 3:00 PM.... Sorry, Joe, how is this relevant? You seem to miss the point. We don't care where people were at 1 or 2 or whenever - we want to know where they were at the moment of the assassination. My original point stands - NO UNKNOWN PERSON was in the building at the time of the assassination, NO UNKNOWN PERSON was seen leaving the building shortly thereafter. Of all the people who WERE in the bu7ilding or were employed at the building, ALL were accounted for, their whereabouts at the moment of the assassination known, their alibis corroborated. Save for one person. Lee Harvey Oswald. The conspiracy theorists fail to account for who could have been firing from the TSBD if not Oswald.

Oh, and one more factual error from CanadaJack in the same thread. “We have several witnesses who saw him carry a lengthy package when he went into work.” Hmmmm. So... this is wrong? Joe cites the testimony of Jack Dougherty who says he saw Oswald go into work, but with nothing in his hands. We will set aside that this is in direct contradiction to what one other witness - AND Oswald himself claimed - but, again, how is this relevant to what I said? I simply said we have two witnesses who saw him carry a lengthy package into work. The first was Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle, who saw Oswald place a package about 28 inches in length on the rear seat of her brother's car. That brother, Buell Wesley Frazier, saw the package once they got in the car, and was told by Oswald it was "curtain rods" and they drove to work. He additionally saw Oswald carry the package into work. So, what is your point, Joe? Are you suggesting that these two witnesses were lying? Since Oswald was holding the bag oddly - clearly trying to conceal it from view - perhaps he saw Dougherty and held the bag in against his far side. What the CT crowd never address, after taking the "24 inches" as gospel, is Why would Oswald not admit he carried in curtain rods if that is in fact what he did? and Why would he carry the bag in a manner, cupped with his hand, flush against his body, instead of holding it in his hand from the middle, the package parallel to the ground, or braced under his arm, like every other human on the planet would do, unless he was deliberately trying to conceal as best he could what he was carrying?

As I said previously, the only "out" here is that the length of the bag found by the sniper's nest would be about 34 inches, rather than the 24-28 inches reported by the two witnesses. The Warren Commission concluded they were wrong in their estimate of the size of the package. The descriptions of the dimensions are at odds with each other, after all. But both witnesses said the bag found WAS consistent with the bag they saw; Oswald denied he carried anything into work other than his lunch, despite these 2 witness statements; his fingerprints were found on the bag.

In the end, the most inane part of this is if one supposes the witnesses "lied," one wonders "why?" Oswald had presumably numerous other opportunities to smuggle the rifle in the building, and when, precisely, he did so is not a crucial part of the Warren Commission's case. IOW, why concoct a story when it was not necessary to do so, and when any number of people could have seen him walk into the building carrying only his lunch, as he claimed. Canada Jack (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"ALL were accounted for, their whereabouts at the moment of the assassination known, their alibis corroborated." No, that's not what happened. For example, Vickie Adams is the TSBD who gave testimony controversial to the WC that she was on the staircase the same time as Oswald must have been there if he was the assassin. Her testimony states that she was with Sandra Styles of the TSBD, and Elsie Dorman and Dorothy May Garner of another company. None of those 3 people were interviewed by the WC, making it easy for it to conclude that Adams was wrong.

"But both witnesses said the bag found WAS consistent with the bag they saw; " -and- "the only "out" here is that the length of the bag found by the sniper's nest would be about 34 inches, rather than the 24-28 inches reported by the two witnesses." Also factually wrong. Frazier claimed that the bag Oswald had carried was a standard grocery store bag rather than a hand–made package like the one that the Dallas police brought out of the building. The WC also claimed that Oswald took tape home from the TSBD and used it to tape the bag up at home. But this is impossible - the tape on the bag was the archaic kind that had to be wetted down and used as soon as it was cut off the huge roll. Frazier maintains to this day that the bag was not large enough or big enough around to contain ANY disassembled rifle.

"What the CT crowd never address, after taking the "24 inches" as gospel, is Why would Oswald not admit he carried in curtain rods." Because Oswald lied his way through his interviews, even lying about things that the police could check out immediately. Are curtain rods and Oswald's rifle the only two things that could conceivably been in the bag? Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what happened. For example, Vickie Adams is the TSBD who gave testimony controversial to the WC that she was on the staircase the same time as Oswald must have been there if he was the assassin.

This is what we call picking and choosing our evidence, a typical Conspiracy Theorist tactic, which often includes CONTRADICTORY testimony. This is a classic example – they embrace Adams’ testimony as “proof” Oswald couldn’t have gone down the stairs, but at the same time embrace the Truly/Baker testimony ALSO as “proof” Oswald didn’t have time to descend the stairs. What’s the problem here? Well, if Truly and Baker had been on the first floor as quickly as claimed, then Adams would have seen them, either there, or as they ascended! But they saw NO ONE. OBVIOUSLY, either Adams or Truly, Baker have their timeline wrong. They CAN`T both be correct.

But what is the bottom line, completely unaddressed by Joe and the CT crowd? We know SOMEONE was shooting from the 6th floor window. We have at least half a dozen witnesses who saw a sniper firing! We even have the guys directly below on the 5th floor hearing the shots and the shells hitting the floor above them! What happened to him, if this was not Oswald? As for not seeing anyone on the staircase, we had Truly and Baker - at the very least, we all agree on this- ascending the staircase. Yet Adams saw "no one" on the staircase? How is that possible? Only if she descended AFTER Truly and Baker did, which would have been well after the sniper - whoever he was - descended. This is the sort of contradictory inanity we've been getting from the CT crowd for a half century. And they never address how this obvious problem is resolved, even if you grant for the sake of argument that Oswald didn`t descend the stairs. This is in contrast to the “dishonest“ Warren Commission who, far from “ignoring“ Adams testimony, addressed it in the main body of the Report, and explained why her testimony was, in their view, likely wrong in terms of her stated timing. You may not agree with their interpretation, but they address the inconsistencies in the witness statements, even with witnesses who they cite as being a linchpin for their arguments. The CT crowd does not. Or, they disingenuously merely brush aside troublesome evidence as "lies" or "planted evidence" with no support for such wild claims other than the fact, it seems, that that evidence destroys their case for conspiracy. They claim, and it is a lie, that the "facts" don`t jibe with the Warren Commission`s version of events. Sure, but only if you only focus on the "facts" they cite and ignore the rest of the "facts" in the case which suggest otherwise.

None of those 3 people were interviewed by the WC, making it easy for it to conclude that Adams was wrong. Not sure what you don't understand, Joe. Did ANY of those employees see anyone on the staircase? No? Then they HAD to have descended AFTER Baker and Truly ascended. Period. Why do we know this? Because a) Truly and Baker were at the base of the stairs likely within 2 minutes, and b) Adams and crew lingered at the bottom of the stairs once they got there. Yet none of these people reported seeing each other! Besides, Billy Lovelady, who arrived several minutes after the shooting to the first floor says he saw her arrive AFTER his arrival. What does the CT crowd say about this? Lovelady Lied! The WC "ignored" Adams testimony! (Even though her testimony is part of the sequence in the main part of the Warren Report!) Further, and more to the point, did they see any unknown persons in the building? No? Then who, if not Oswald, was the sniper?

"But both witnesses said the bag found WAS consistent with the bag they saw; " -and- "the only "out" here is that the length of the bag found by the sniper's nest would be about 34 inches, rather than the 24-28 inches reported by the two witnesses." Also factually wrong. Frazier claimed that the bag Oswald had carried was a standard grocery store bag rather than a hand–made package like the one that the Dallas police brought out of the building.

Here we go again. So, Joe, what happen to Doughtery`s statement he saw nothing in Oswald`s hand? And how come, after your sanctimony towards the WC in "ignoring" the testimony of Adams you don`t bother to even acknowledge the second witness who saw Oswald with the package? Would it be because it destroys your argument about the bag? Yet another example of selectively using evidence, and even of citing contradictory evidence. Quoting Frazier`s descriptions of the bag when previously you quoted another employee who said there was no bag… so, what is it then? There was no bag, but if there was a bag, it was not the same bag. Huh?

When it comes to Frazier, Joe, what you say he said is not what he testified to at the Warren Commission. When questioned, Frazier thought the bag was too short, but that the colour was right (and it’s the only part where he alludes to a "standard grocery store bag" though not in the manner suggested by Joe): "Mr. BALL - The color of this bag, the colored bag, has not been treated. Take a look at it. Is that similar to the color of the bag you saw in the back seat of your car that morning? Mr. FRAZIER - It would be, surely it could have been, and it couldn't have been. Like I say, see, you know this color, either one of these colors, is very similar to the type of paper that you can get out of a store or anything like that, and so I say it could have been and then it couldn't have been. Mr. BALL - Do you mean by that that it is similar to the color? Mr. FRAZIER - Right." And, further, when asked about tape, this is the exchange: "Mr. BALL - Did it have tape on it or did you notice it? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, like I say, I didn't notice that much about it as I didn't see it very much."

Frazier was never that specific in front of the Warren Commission. Why? As he repeatedly said "I didn't see it very much." So, his vague descriptions - which are in general agreement with the actual package - are seized upon as "proof" the bag he saw was not the one found. Right. He is also one of those witnesses whose memory, over the years, "improved." In front of the WC, he is clearly suggesting it is paper which one could get in a shop, then later, he suggests the bag was a grocery-type bag… yet another contradiction if that is what he later claimed. Of course, the CT crowd embraces his later more embellished statements. But... what about the OTHER witness? What about Linnie Mae Randle? Funny how the CT crowd basically ignores her testimony. So, what did she see? "Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he? Mrs. RANDLE. That is right. Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package? Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that. Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir." Well, that sure sounds consistent with a bag of sufficient length to carry the rifle. Was it the right colour? "Mr. BALL. Was the color of that package in any way similar to the color of this package which is 364? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Similar kind of paper, wasn't it? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir." As I already noted, she thought this package was too long, the only out for the CT crowd. But was it a regular grocery-style bag, as Joe suggests? "Mr. BALL. Looking at this part of the bag which has not been discolored does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw Lee carrying that morning? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper." The paper was described by her as being EXACTLY the sort of paper the bag in question was made of. Let me guess. She was lying. And, finally, how was the package weighted? "Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice. You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy. Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to-- Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom. Mr. BALL. To the bottom? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way. Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top? Mrs. RANDLE. That is right."

Finally, this howler from Joe: "The WC also claimed that Oswald took tape home from the TSBD and used it to tape the bag up at home. But this is impossible - the tape on the bag was the archaic kind that had to be wetted down and used as soon as it was cut off the huge roll." So, Joe, it would be "impossible" to use this tape at home? Maybe your home lacks the high-tech equipment which would be required to wet the paper tape so it could be applied, but here it is – a bowl of water and a sponge. I worked in a mailroom, it would actually have been easier to use this tape, peel off a few feet, stuff it into your pocket, then to use scotch tape which requires a dispenser.

Taken together, the two witnesses describe a bag consistent with the bag the WC determined likely held the rifle. Sure, it doesn`t 100 per cent match, but no one but the rabid CT crowd expects witnesses to be 100 per cent accurate in their descriptions, even, as I have shown, when different witnesses THEY CITE contradict each other!

The bottom line: No unknown person was seen in the building. All people who were in or employed in the building were accounted for – save for Oswald. Oswald had ample time to get to where he was seen, as the one witness who the CT claims would have seen him could not have been on the staircase when she claims. His rifle with his fingerprints, the bag which carried the rifle with his fingerprints, the sniper`s nest with his fingerprints all point to an inescapable conclusion – he was the sniper. And the bag, not a duffle bag, not a satchel, not a suitcase, but a paper bag, was seen carried by Oswald by several witnesses, one of whom described it in a fashion which makes clear no "curtain rods" were inside. So, you still claim "the facts" are at odds with what the Warren Commission concluded, Joe? Canada Jack (talk)

"Finally, this howler from Joe: "The WC also claimed that Oswald took tape home from the TSBD and used it to tape the bag up at home. But this is impossible - the tape on the bag was the archaic kind that had to be wetted down and used as soon as it was cut off the huge roll." So, Joe, it would be "impossible" to use this tape at home? Maybe your home lacks the high-tech equipment which would be required to wet the paper tape so it could be applied, but here it is – a bowl of water and a sponge. I worked in a mailroom, it would actually have been easier to use this tape, peel off a few feet, stuff it into your pocket, then to use scotch tape which requires a dispenser."

I'll this address point first, since it makes a very telling point about CanadaJack's conduct. CanadaJack has shown himself incapable of using the wikipedia talk pages in a civil or reasonable manner. His constant bullying and false accusations of lying and stupidity on the parts of others is exhausting. Consider what happened here. My statement that Oswald could not have taken the tape home to make the bag was factually accurate. Jack could have verified it with a couple of minutes of research on the internet. Instead, he viciously accuses me of lying and/or idiocy. Here is “the tale of the tape”:

The WR quotes questioned-documents experts to show that CE 142 had been constructed from paper and tape taken from the Depository’s shipping room, probably within three days of November 22 (R135-36). Troy Eugene West, a full-time mail wrapper at the Depository, worked at the same bench from which the materials for the paper sack were taken. As Harold Weisberg points out in Whitewash, “West had been employed by the Book Depository for 16 years and was so attached to his place of work that he never left his bench, even to eat lunch.” Although West was the one man who could know if Oswald had taken the materials used in constructing CE 142, he was never mentioned in the Report. In his deposition, he stated that Oswald had never borrowed wrapping paper, had been seen using it, or been near the wrapping machine. Expert examination showed that one long strip of tape had been drawn from the Depository’s dispenser and then torn into smaller pieces to assemble the bag (R579-80). West told Counsel Belin that the dispensing machine was constructed so that the dried mucilage on the tape would be automatically moistened as tape was pulled out for use. The only way one could obtain dry tape, he added, was if he removed the roll of tape from the machine and tore off the desired length (6H361). However, the tape on CE 142 possessed marks that conclusively showed that it had been pulled through the dispenser (R580). Thus, the tape used in making CE 142 was wet as soon as it left the dispenser; it had to be used at that moment, demanding that the entire sack be constructed at West’s bench, and indicating that the rifle parts would have had to have been sealed in the bag at that time. The fabricator of CE 142 had to remain at or near the bench long enough to assemble the entire bag. West never saw Oswald around the dispensing machines, which indicates that Oswald did not make the bag.

As to the other remarks above,

Re Vickie Adams. Again, clearly you didn't bother to read what Adams said.[8] You can't be bothered to do research, you just announce her statement cannot be right then launch into another tirade about how everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. Adams said, (1) she was on the stairs between 15 and 30 seconds after the shooting, (2) while on the stairs, she heard no one else running down the stairs, including Truly or an officer, and (3) when she got to the first floor, she encountered Truly. The statement is totally consistent with other known facts.

"Truly and Baker were at the base of the stairs likely within 2 minutes, and b) Adams and crew lingered at the bottom of the stairs once they got there. Yet none of these people reported seeing each other!" See the above paragraph. Jack gets another fact wrong.

"Taken together, the two witnesses describe a bag consistent with the bag the WC determined likely held the rifle." No, they made three separate, consistent statements (length when carried under Oswald's arm, length when held at his side, length when lying in the car) describing a bag too short to hold the rifle. A few other notes about the bag. Jack suggests that the descriptions of the length of the bag is the only thing inconsistent with the bag containing the rifle. This is totally wrong, and shows once again why Jack shouldn't style himself as a expert on what doubters of the Lone Gunman Theory believe and argue. Besides the length issue, we also have the previously mentioned tape issue, AND (3) the WC says that all these pieces of the “well-oiled” disassembled Carcano were carried in this bag without leaving any identifiable marks or oil stains, (4) There is no crease in the bag where it would have been folded over had it contained the disassembled rifle, (5) Oswald’s careless handling of his package is not consistent with its having contained so many loose parts.

"So, you still claim "the facts" are at odds with what the Warren Commission concluded, Joe?" I don't see things in the purely black-and-white way you do. If I were on the jury at Oswald's trial, my comments would have been along these lines. “The prosecution, in some ways, made a persuasive case. There are many facts consistent with Oswald as the guilty party. The fact that no other name has turned up as a suspect is significant. However, I have serious doubts that Oswald had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime. I'm not saying he definitely didn't do it. I am saying that the prosecution's summation was inconsistent with the facts. And if he did do it, he definitely did not, as the prosecution alleges, act alone.” Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll this address point first, since it makes a very telling point about CanadaJack's conduct. CanadaJack has shown himself incapable of using the wikipedia talk pages in a civil or reasonable manner.

Joe, you were the one who said "the facts" are at odds with what the Warren Commission concluded. Not "some facts" or "another interpretation," but "the" facts. There is no way around that, Joe, that is a complete LIE. And you refuse to acknowledge your gross misrepresentation of the facts of the case. You may not like the conclusions of the Warren Commission, but they are the best interpretation of the events of the day. The CT crowd typically refuses even to attempt to address questions like "what happened to the sniper if it wasn't Oswald." They seem so intent on denying that Oswald could have done it they forget that evidence indicates shots were fired - and someone fired them - and that person, whoever he was, has to be accounted for.

Further, we have words such as this sprinkled along: The depth and breadth of the factual errors here is considerable. Let’s clear up this nonsense right now. And now you are saying I am incapable of using the talk pages in a civil or reasonable manner? Give me a break!

But, all that aside, I do apologize for going hard on you here, Joe. Perhaps it is a reflection of the personal resentment I hold for the CT crowd who had me in their sway for some 25 years. It took me a long time to realize that these people who I thought were leading the vanguard against your government lies were themselves lying and hiding evidence (Mark Lane, in particular, Garrison), or promoting long-refuted theories (Mauser rifle! Route change! Oswald backyard photo with rifle faked! etc). So, Joe, don't take this personal. I'll keep you on your toes as you do with me, but I figure you are likely a good guy. (I'm not sure I can say the same for some others here.) Maybe one day you will realize as I did that the CT version of events makes no sense and is wildly improbable (if a working theory is ever proffered) and that what the Warren Commission concluded is essentially correct. If that doesn't happen, if I at least make you have another thought about what evidence you cite, well, that's good enough. At the very least you will have to defend your beliefs and ask other questions, which is what you are asking of me, even though I've already been where you are now.

The running theme here is the CT crowd misrepresents witnesses and cites evidence which contradicts each other. Or, they simply fail to use common sense. Which is why I have kept hammering away on a simple, basic question: What happened to the sniper seen shooting from the TSBD? (We are, after all, ultimately asking: Who shot JFK?) The discussion here on the bag which the Warren Commission says Oswald used to conceal the rifle and carry it into work is a case in point. Oswald was seen by several witnesses with a long paper bag which he claimed was containing "curtain rods." A bag close to that description was found by the sniper's nest, this bag had held a heavy object - one of the witnesses said the package was heavy, seemingly too heavy for "curtain rods" - had Oswald's fingerprints AND fibres which matched the blanket the rifle was wrapped in in the Paine garage. Despite this witness and physical evidence, Oswald denied carrying anything other than his lunch into work.

Joe has cited the testimony of Jack Dougherty who said he didn't see Oswald carrying anything, then he next cited Frazier's testimony which described the bag in a different way than the bag the WC claimed carried the rifle. This is witness evidence which directly contradicts each other - both can't be true, so why cite both? Further, the testimony of Randle is consistent with the known bag - and ignored by Joe. True, the descriptions from the two don't precisely match the known bag, particularly in terms of length, but are generally close and Oswald denied even having a bag let alone curtain rods. So, why did Oswald deny this? And why deny if there was an innocuous explanation? The most probable explanation is that he couldn't explain away a bag which carried the murder weapon. Maybe he was just being a contrarian, but surely a man accused of such a serious crime would want to counter the suggestion he was seen carrying what seemed to be a murder weapon into work! But that's just me. The CT crowd doesn't seem to have a problem with a suspect avoiding every effort to exonerate himself.

Despite the obvious evidence that this bag - which had Oswald's prints and fibres from the garage blanket (and, no, contrary to CT claims, the blanket and bag were NOT in contact before that FBI photo of the two together, they were tested separately) - was assembled by Oswald and he used it to wrap the rifle in the garage, we have the CT crowd desperately trying to change the channel with ever more-improbable scenarios. Enter Eugene West. The tape used to seal the paper - both of which likely came from the shipping room West more or less ran in the TSBD - had been drawn through the dispenser (as per distinctive marks on the tape found on the bag), the tape would have been moistened as it was drawn out, therefore the bag HAD to have been constructed in the mailroom, not back at the Paine residence or whereever. Joe goes even further, saying it was "impossible" for Oswald to have made the bag at home.

Of course, it would make zero sense for Oswald to have made the bag at work - as it likely was made while actually wrapping the disassembled rifle within - since Oswald would have been making the bag to conceal the rifle, the very rifle he wanted to presumably smuggle into work! So what is going on here? The CT crowd likes to pretend that the Dallas police or FBI or whomever made the bag after the fact to show how Oswald got the rifle into the TSBD. Putting aside the West testimony for the moment, one has to ask Why bother?

Why make a fake bag? It presupposes that there would be a big question on how the rifle got into the building. But Oswald could have brought a rifle into the building and hid it on likely numerous occasions, or if he was seen with a bag walking in, as he was, he simply could have taken the bag as he left and disposed of it say when he was trying to get the bus or taxi. So the entire premise that the police or the FBI "needed" to have a bag defies common sense. Second, as noted, Oswald's fingerprints were on the bag as were fibres from the garage blanket. Third, the bag was photographed that afternoon - so the police would have had to have constructed the bag that day - unlikely, as that would have been seen - or on a previous date. If that is what the CT crowd claims, then Oswald could have done the same. Even though it makes little sense for Oswald to have done that, but in my view it makes little sense for the police to do it as well!

Finally, despite all this, the claim is that the bag "had to have been" made in the mailroom, indeed that it was "impossible" to have been made in the Paine garage, or any other place for that matter. Joe has supplied the rationale for all this. It all rests on the claim by packing clerk Eugene West, that there was simply no way to draw the tape through the dispenser without getting it wet, meaning the bag had to be made there and then. But to me, this doesn't sound plausible at all. I worked in mailrooms when I was younger, and I know these sorts of tape dispensers. They have a little container, the ones I have seen, which holds water, often with a sponge sitting on top to transfer the water, or a little well, with water, through which the tape runs under a rotating cylinder, or brushes to transfer the moisture. But there is one thing in common with these sorts of dispenser - the water has to be replenished! Which means the water well can be removed so it can be easily refilled with water. There is no doubt that West claimed the paper "had" to run through the dispenser and get wet. Sure. But only if there was water in the well! If the water is low or empty, or if the dispenser and sponge/brush is removed, then the tape can be drawn through dry. If Oswald could assemble a rifle, he could figure out this high-tech device for delivering water and disable it so he could pull out a few feet of dry tape.

Re Vickie Adams. Again, clearly you didn't bother to read what Adams said.[10] You can't be bothered to do research, you just announce her statement cannot be right then launch into another tirade about how everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. Adams said, (1) she was on the stairs between 15 and 30 seconds after the shooting, (2) while on the stairs, she heard no one else running down the stairs, including Truly or an officer, and (3) when she got to the first floor, she encountered Truly. The statement is totally consistent with other known facts.

Ouch. Joe, read the testimony you linked to. I don't think you read it carefully. She testified that she encountered Lovelady, not Truly, just as I said. "Mr. BELIN - Now, as you were running down the stairs, did you encounter anyone? Miss ADAMS - Not during the actual running down the stairs; no, sir...." Then... "Mr. BELIN - When you got to the bottom of the first floor, did you see anyone there as you entered the first floor from the stairway? Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN - Who did you see? Miss ADAMS - Mr. Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady." Then, just in case there was any confusion, or any missed detail on seeing/hearing someone, this: "Mr. BELIN - Now when you were running down the stairs on your trip down the stairs, did you hear anyone using the Stairs? Miss ADAMS - No, sir. Mr. BELIN - Did you hear anyone calling for an elevator? Miss ADAMS - No, sir. Mr. BELIN - Did you see the foreman, Roy Truly? Did you see the superintendent of the warehouse, Roy S. Truly? Miss ADAMS - No, sir; I did not. Mr. BELIN - What about any motorcycle police officers? Miss ADAMS - No, sir. Mr. BELIN - Now what did you do after you encountered Mr. Shelley and Mr. Lovelady? Miss ADAMS - I said I believed the President was shot. Mr. BELIN - Do you remember what they said? Miss ADAMS - Nothing. Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do? Miss ADAMS - I proceeded out to the Houston Street dock."

What is the most logical explanation? Since Lovelady arrived several minutes later and he was already there when she got down the stairs; Truly/Baker were no longer down there as per Lovelady AND Truly/Baker; and Truly/Baker would have been seen either there or going up the stairs if Adams immediately went down the stairs, it is reasonable to conclude that Adams in fact waited several minutes before she made her descent, despite her claims otherwise. The best I can come up with to help you out here, Joe, is that Adams descended when Baker encountered Oswald and somehow Truly didn't notice Adams and vice versa, but I deem this improbable. Even so, Oswald would have had sufficient time to get to the 2nd floor. Unless you can come up with a better scenario.

"Taken together, the two witnesses describe a bag consistent with the bag the WC determined likely held the rifle." No, they made three separate, consistent statements (length when carried under Oswald's arm, length when held at his side, length when lying in the car) describing a bag too short to hold the rifle.

As I said, Joe, both witnesses only got fleeting glimpses. But your claim about their "three separate, consistent statements" describing a package too short to carry the rifle, ignores Randle's initial statement. When interviewd by the FBI on Nov 23, 1963, she said the package was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches." Which is 36 inches, which is longer than the 34 inches of the actual package in question.

the WC says that all these pieces of the “well-oiled” disassembled Carcano were carried in this bag without leaving any identifiable marks or oil stains, An old CT canard. The "well-oiled" quote is from Commission testimony, but it refers to the firing pin and spring, both internal components which would not leak oil, even if the rifle was dissembled.

There is no crease in the bag where it would have been folded over had it contained the disassembled rifle, Uh... so? Not sure that the lack of a crease proves anything here, Joe. It just means the paper wasn't firmly folded. Oswald’s careless handling of his package is not consistent with its having contained so many loose parts. Well, that's a rather desperate objection. I mean, if it was "curtain rods," wouldn't that also be a "careless" way to carry the bag? As long as the paper was sealed - and packing paper is pretty tough - one shouldn't need to worry. If this was, say, a shopping bag as they had back then, but it's not claimed to have been that is it!

“The prosecution, in some ways, made a persuasive case. There are many facts consistent with Oswald as the guilty party. The fact that no other name has turned up as a suspect is significant. However, I have serious doubts that Oswald had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime. I'm not saying he definitely didn't do it. I am saying that the prosecution's summation was inconsistent with the facts. And if he did do it, he definitely did not, as the prosecution alleges, act alone.”

If Oswald had gone to trial, the prosecution may have said something like this. "Oswald had access to the 6th floor of the TSBD. A sniper was seen firing from that floor. A rifle, which was purchased by on Alex Hidell, was found on that floor. Oswald, when arrested, had fake identification cards with that same name. Oswald owned the postal box the rifle was shipped to. And his handwriting was confirmed to be on the order form for the rifle. Oswald's fingerprints were found on the weapon which was the weapon which fired the bullets which struck the president. Oswald's fingerprints were found on boxes in the snipers nest which were placed for the purpose of a gun rest. Oswald, and Oswald alone, of all people employed or normally at the TSBD, was not accounted for at the time of the assassination. He was seen shortly thereafter doing what any person would do after the most shocking event in American history had happened mere feet away - he was going to get a Coke. I'm being sarcastic here, folks.

No unknown person was seen in the building. Oswald, and Oswald alone, almost immediately fled the scene after the assassination. Oswald then did what any innocent person would do when stopped by a police officer on the street. He shot him dead. I'm being sarcastic again here, folks. A total of nine witnesses positively identified Oswald as the man who either shot and killed officer J.D. Tippit or immediately flee the scene.

And what is the defence response to this torrent of evidence which points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the killer of the president? One witness says the bag he carried which held the rifle was too short. The other witness said it was long enough, but then changed her story. And you can't get dry tape from the mailroom tape dispenser. Further, what is the defence response to the fact that no other person was seen in the building who may have fired the shots - and we know someone fired the shots as we have many witnesses who saw a sniper fire shots from the very floor that Oswald had access to? Well, we've not heard who this vanishing sniper could possibly be or, more to the point, could have possibly escaped the notice of all the people who were employed or normally in the building. But it's not even that, it's not even a question of "If not Oswald, then who then?" it's a question of "How can all this evidence which not only places Oswald in the sniper's nest, but shows him trying to flee the scene and, apparently, kill a police officer in a vain attempt to escape, be explained as anything other than evidence which inescapably leads to the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed the president?" The defence, as we have shown, has no answer to that. Canada Jack (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"But, all that aside, I do apologize for going hard on you here, Joe."

Apology accepted. Gracefully done. Whatever else I may have said, as I have noted before, Jack's edits to articles have always been accurate and added value. The upcoming anniversary will generate a lot of talk about the assassination, and I'm glad we'll be kicking it off in a positive manner. And thank you again. You have challenged my assumptions and conclusions more than anyone else. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Joe. I should add, for the sake of accuracy, that there is in fact one employee besides Oswald whose whereabouts at the time of the assassination are not certain. That would be the person you referred to here on another matter, Jack Dougherty. His WC testimony is confused and inconsistent, but he claims to have been on the fifth floor, hearing shots above. He seems to be mentally impaired, judging by his confused testimony, and he is described elsewhere as being impaired. But the three employees who were on the fifth floor where he claims he was saw no one else was on the floor and their testimony is clear, lucid, and self-corroborating. He says he was by the elevator and took it down after the shots. If so, the three others would not have been able to see him as there were stacks of boxes blocking the view. (Jarman, Williams and Norman couldn't see Truly and Baker when they soon after crossed the floor at the back). But partial corroboration for Dougherty's story comes from Truly who says he looked up and saw the elevator on the fifth floor. By the time Truly and Baker arrived there, it had descended and Piper confirms the story that Doughtery tells of the two of them speaking on the first floor once he got off the elevator. But the bottom line is there doesn't seem to be any other person who can verify that Dougherty was where he says he was. Of course, there is no physical evidence which places him at the sniper's nest Canada Jack (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Jack I've continued reading about this too and encountered some interesting stuff I never knew before.

There's an argument to be made that the FBI's conclusion that the bag was made from paper and tape from the TSBD was just wrong. That opens things up a bit. And if you're willing to go a little further, there were three or four bags in the mix! (1) Oswald's bag, (2) the bag made from TSBD paper and tape, (both 1 and 2 may have been found in the TSBD?), (3) the "replica" bag made by the FBI to show to witnesses and (4) the mysterious "dead letter" bag that Oswald may have mailed to himself.[9].

James DiEugenio, a researcher who firmly believes in a Claw Shaw/Ferrie/Oswald conspiracy argues persuasively that ALL of Frazier and Randle's statements are a load of junk. So you've got me on that one.

Most interesting to me, did you know that Officer Baker significantly changed his signed statements? We may have been arguing the finer points of a bunch of made up stuff for years. Baker's original statement said nothing about the second floor lunchroom, confronting Oswald as gunpoint, etc. His 11/22 signed statement said only that he'd encountered a man about 5'9', 30 years old, 165 lbs, wearing a brown jacket on the third or fourth floor, then continued upstairs. Still sort of a match for Oswald, but what the hell, officer Baker? Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time reading this talk page in recent days, and have read on and off about the assassination for all these years. I was 11 years old when the shots were fired. I commend Canada Jack for his command of the facts and the evidence. The more I have learned about Oswald over the years, the more convinced I have grown that he did it and acted essentially alone, though I am sure he craved and sought assistance, but was rejected. No alternate theory I've read comes off as persuasive in any way, and none has even 1% of the evidence as does the conclusion that Oswald did it alone. Accordingly, I will oppose any attempts to convert this article into anything that supports fringe conspiracy theories, and I am very grateful that Canada Jack is here with the facts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Dammit, now I'm jealous. Our side never compliments each other. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me compliment you as well, Joegoodfriend, for being more reasonable than most opponents of the "Oswald did it" camp. In my opinion, you don't really have a "side", but rather a stewpot of mutually contradictory speculations supported only by vigorous cherry-picking. I am sure you see matters differently, and are sincere in your beliefs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And if you're willing to go a little further, there were three or four bags in the mix! The problem with most of these sorts of speculation is that it is just that - speculation. So "what if" there was a second bag which accounts for the discrepancies in Frazier/Randle's descriptions and the bag the WC said Oswald used - one Oswald carried in, a second one which actually held the rifle. But there is no "other bag," save for the one the FBI made from materials at the TSBD. The bottom line, and this applies to almost all of the evidence, is the evidence was found, was fingerprinted and photographed once removed and found to have Oswald's prints, AND fibres consistent with the blanket the rifle was in AND had markings consistent with having held a rifle. THAT is the evidence which we have, not some imaginary "other" bag which would account for discrepancies some feel need to be addressed. To try to pretend there was another bag AND account for the fingerprints etc requires a Rube Goldberg scenario which avoids the obvious explanation - the Frazier/Randle descriptions weren't 100 per cent accurate!

James DiEugenio, a researcher who firmly believes in a Claw Shaw/Ferrie/Oswald conspiracy argues persuasively that ALL of Frazier and Randle's statements are a load of junk.'

This falls in the category of "common sense." If what they said was a load of junk, designed, presumably, to frame Oswald, then why have these "liars" supply details which don't match 100 per cent the bag they were supposedly trying to frame Oswald with? Wouldn't it make more sense for the two to get their stories straight so there'd be no question that the bag very likely was holding a rifle? Instead, we are debating whether the bag described as being "28" inches or whatever was the 34" bag we know.

Most interesting to me, did you know that Officer Baker significantly changed his signed statements? We may have been arguing the finer points of a bunch of made up stuff for years. Baker's original statement said nothing about the second floor lunchroom This is one of those "so what" inconsistencies which add up to... nothing. Baker didn't know the building, so he was understandably imprecise about where the encounter took place. And he didn't go into great detail as there was little which actually happened. But, is it possible the encounter took place on the 4th floor? Not according to Truly, and not according to OSWALD HIMSELF. Further, we have the other witness on the 2nd floor who saw him with the coke. What is constantly amazing is the CT crowd seems to see as "suspicious" obvious errors and inconsistencies which are everyday normal occurrences. If you listen to the live coverage of the assassination, you will hear it "confirmed" that a Special Agent was shot and killed in the motorcade, and the assassin was eating chicken and Dr Pepper on the sixth floor before he shot the president. The first "fact" simple never happened; the second is a case of people coming to the wrong conclusions. Let's use some common sense here, folks. What possibly benefit would it be to have Truly LIE about this encounter, making it up? Does that make ANY sense if one wants to argue that this was part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald? Isn't the entire incident one of the cruxes of the case to establish Oswald couldn't have done it? This is why the CT crowd all too often goes on to ask silly questions. "Truly and Baker lied! Which means Oswald WASN'T on the 2nd floor he... uh... was escaping.. uh..." I am constantly astounded by the silliness of some of the CT claims. Canada Jack (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I must say that outside of an understandable reaction to my snarkiness, the discussion has been rather straightforward and to the facts. The case is complicated and convoluted, but I like to point out that the scenario painted by the Warren Report - if one actually cares to read it (most haven't) - actually makes sense and, more importantly, is backed by evidence. The CT crowd likes to pounce on discrepancies, which are an expected thing in criminal cases, but almost never explain an alternate scenario which explains the evidence. Indeed, all too often they are left with the intellectually dishonest position of simply declaring evidence which supports the case against Oswald as being "faked." Of course, in their mind, evidence which supports their case is 100 per cent bona fide, unimpeachable and 100 per cent accurate. But life simply isn't like that, and the scenarios they paint are flimsy and fall like a house of cards upon close examination. For me, one of the main objections to the "not Oswald" camp is their complete inablity to rationally explain how the "real" assassin(s) fled the TSBD undetected. It's a glaring and fundamental omission if one argues Oswald didn't do it. Canada Jack (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"the other witness on the 2nd floor who saw him with the coke." That would be Mrs. Reid. I don't know about her; her testimony seems kind of shaky considering how quickly Oswald got out of the building. So maybe there was no Coke bottle at all?

My "favorite" conspiracy theory is "The Coca-Cola Theory." The editor of the magazine Organic Gardening suggested that Oswald killed Kennedy due to mental impairment stemming from an addiction to refined sugar, as evidenced by his need for his favorite beverage immediately after the shooting. Ok this is my last comment on this thread, you have a free shot at anything I've said. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

One argument in support of the WR is the fact that Oswald was only ever observed to drink Dr Pepper, not Coke. But the Dr Pepper machine was on the first floor. So he changed his brand of drink to have an alibi to go to the 2nd floor... not much, I admit, but there you go... Canada Jack (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

External links

Looking at the External Links, we have an editor repeatedly adding a link to an e-book of very dubious relevance:

• 12:45, 10 November 2013
• 23:21, 9 November 2013
• 22:08, 9 November 2013
• 14:59, 4 July 2013

This appears to be an advert for a self-published e-book. I do hope that this is not going to be the subject of some slow-motion edit war with the link being re-added every few days. --Pete (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The link to my article "Some Observations Regarding the Kennedy Assassination" is a self-contained series of sketches and is not an advert for a self-published e-book. Yet even if it was why should that disqualify it? Are you biased in favor of corporate booksellers and against independent publishing? My work contains no profanity; is polite in tone; and offers perspectives on the tragic and momentous event that have no parallel, and thus is unique and original in its perspective. Moreover, my case is made rationally and if of "dubious" merit, would you mind furnishing some little measure of rebuttal? The JFK assassination is, as is well known, a matter of extreme controversy, do you mean to take charge of that controversy by censoring my work? After all, what is the big fuss about including such a trivial link? Again, you (or someone else who has written here) seem to suggest the work is somehow frivolous. It is interesting that it should be characterized as such; since I have had unknown persons elsewhere successfully attempt to hack and prevent my article being seen at the Internet Archive. What a coincidence that the person who keeps taking off my link from Wikipedia and such vandals should be in such overt concurrence. [redacted], 7:02 pm (PSSST), 9 November 2013; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunjones (talk • contribs) 03:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to promote your self-published material, and I too vigorously oppose its inclusion. Wikipedia is a private website, and its editors have no government power, so removing your link is not censorship. It is instead editorial judgment. Yes, we do have a preference for sources from major publishing houses with professional editorial control and an established reputation for fact checking. That is a well-established principle here on Wikipedia, and simply isn't going to change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter seems to be that you are not interested really at all in getting at the truth of what is, after all, a great crime mystery. How, for example, can you fault my text as being factually in error when you cannot identify a single instance of such? When you say you are "vigorously opposed" to inclusion of a mere link to my article, I take it to mean also that you are opposed to free, honest, rational discourse, and to that extent it may even be argued you towing the conspirators line in support of Kennedy's murderers. Corporate publishing, by the way, does not necessarily imply automatically imply reliable factual information or undistorted, honest truth telling; nor does it follow that because someone does not have corporate ties or sponsorship that what they say is somehow necessarily wrong or implausible. The measure of truth, where there is a question, is honest reasoned argument and analysis. Can you, then, list some points in my article, indeed ANY, which are indisputably not true? Why further do you remove the link to my article on this editor's discussion page? How can my article be judged on its merits if it can't even be seen and read by you or anyone else in a position to consider the matter? Finally, is there a reason you hide your last names? Seems very strange. Wm. Thomas Sherman, wts@gunjones.com, 11 Nov. 2013; https://archive.org/details/ObservtnsReJFKAssnl P.S. My earlier response is given as "unsigned" when in point of fact I included my name, home street address and zip code, phone number and email. These, in addition to the links to my article and the Scribd page, where all of my writings are available, has been deleted by someone. Why and then have it implied that I am interacting with you anonymously and secretively? [redacted] Gunjones (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop spamming our encyclopaedia. There is no support for the link to be included. May I suggest that you learn Wikipedia's policy and procedures - it will help you and everyone else for you to know why we work the way we do. Nothing personal. We encourage all, but we do insist that the established procedures, styles and rules be observed. --Pete (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You call it "spamming" to post a SINGLE link to the External Links LIST; to an article you cannot even answer or to which you cannot identify a single factual error. Because at this point I can see that the Wikipedia page on the JFK assassination is not to be taken all that seriously, I will desist from including the link. But, on parting, I think all can readily see that your behavior is extremely childish and wholly inconsistent with the academic credibility you PRETEND to stand for. Gunjones (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't post personal information like an address on Wikipedia, even if it is your own. The link to your webpage should suffice for your purposes. Gamaliel (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Including web addresses in Wikipedia gives them a higher visibility in search engine results. I don't think we should aid this chap in what looks like a self-promotion exercise of yet another fringey Kennedy assassination book. --Pete (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk page

No doubt this is one of the top discussion topics in any venue of society. But does anybody think maybe this talk page needs some editing? In so many Wikipedia talk pages, anal retentive editors delete comments and remind people that talk pages are not supposed to be a forum. well this talk page has become a forum. When its a discussion of the JFK assassination, does that blur the lines between opinion and fact? Can we cut the useless fat on this talk page? marc s. dania fl. 2602:304:AE91:EB49:31DF:A947:FBA:5B34 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC) This is what Talk Pages are for on Wikipedia. This is one of the most interesting Talk Pages on Wikipedia and valuable in its own right. It is simply obvious to all that something different than what was reported happened. That may be the only fact we know with certainty. It is a fact demonstrated by the talk page itself. Scottprovost (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

NOT ovular, a botanical term!

According to the Warren Commission . . . "created a large, roughly ovular hole". Inasmuch as ovular refers to the seed-producing apparatus of plants I would have thought it would not be so grotesquely misused. How many times has this article been reviewed? OVAL hole. And if the Warren Commission calls it ovular it should be accompanied by [sic]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.145.6 (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Warren Commission definitely did use the term "ovular" in this way. You are correct as to the primary definition, but the word is occasionally used or misused to describe oval or elliptical shapes. We should quote the source accurately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The term ovular used by a doctor describing a wound would be in the medical context. The national library of medicine returns many references and none of them refer to plants or botanical objects. The doctor was likely describing the overall nature of the wound including the tear of flesh and underlying damage and intended to describe the 3 dimensional structure and tensions as similar to the ovular structure in the human body. This type of analogy is common in medical literature. Scottprovost (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I say accompany the word "Ovular" with [sic]. "Ovular" and "Oval" originate from the same source (i.e. the latin Ovum, meaning egg) but they do not mean the same thing. If the doctor were describing the shape of the wound as being an oval, it should have read "ovoidal in nature"; if he were referring to a three dimensional oval-shaped wound, it should have read "Ovoid in nature". --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The summary is

JFK was assassinated (in part because of the open car). LHO had the means and the location (from which at least one of the bullets was fired). There is a certain amount of 'evidence of peculiarities' - in part because of the unexpectedness of the situation and people trying to link up things which seem relevant in retrospect etc. A number of people and groups have been posited as being responsible for the assassination (or causing it to happen).

The main problems are: LHO did not put his motives on record - the most that can be said is 'a Scots Not Proven verdict.' The SNP also applies to many of the proposed 'persons causing the death of JFK.'

Any other additions? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Oswald's Rifle"

There's enough of a controversy surrounding the events of 22nd Nov 1963 that we can't just say it was 100% Oswald's rifle; can we? Especially since the man never stood up to a fair trial. It's not exactly "fridge theories" who dispute the official story. LHO may very well have shot the president, and I wouldn't want the article to suggest too heavily that he didn't, but I think the wording of this needs to reflect the ongoing debate. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The evidence that Oswald bought that rifle is overwhelming: The order form in his writing and in the name of his known alias, the backyard photographs taken by his wife, and his wife's own statements are together quite convincing. To equivocate in any way on this well-established fact is not permissible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Today's Featured Picture" text

I'm not going to engage this myself, but those with more fortitude may wish to pursue how in the world the text for Today's Featured Picture (for today) ends with

The FBI and the Warren Commission officially concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin, but conspiracy theories persisted. In 1978, a select committee concluded that both investigations were flawed and that the assassination was probably the result of a conspiracy.

...as if somehow that's the appropriate last word on the subject. EEng (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Security procedures prior to the assassination

On Ebay a few years ago, I bought documents regarding Jackie's trip to India: Documents from the estate of Secret Service agent James Jeffries, and documents from the estate of Secretary Leticia Baldridge. For the secret service planning, the plan was to transport Jackie Kennedy betweet towns in a covered car, and then transfer her to a convertible when they arrived at a town. Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request November 22, 2013

There is a ton of evidence implicating George Bush Sr. as having been in Dallas on that day, and also in the CIA. There should at least be a mention!

207.109.251.244 (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Unless that "ton of evidence" can be substantiated by a reliable secondary sources, it falls into WP:FRINGE.--JayJasper (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And also discussing how this is relevant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

FBI

This doesn't explain why and how the FBI took over the investigation from the Dallas police.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oswald not in narrative

I just thought I'd make a note here as I see Devil has, correctly in my view, reverted some good-faith edits which replaced "a sniper" or similar language with "Oswald." The sequence of events is written more or less as it happened, as a narrative, so while the assassination plays out, it is in a manner which describes the events as most agree upon. Where there are differing opinions, such as the exact nature of the head wounds, it's "The Warren Commission concluded" etc.

One will see, for example, there is no mention of where these shots were being fired from until we move to the aftermath sections, and the identification of Oswald.

So, for this reason, Oswald enters the picture once he is arrested, and then charged, the various investigations later concluding that he was the sniper in question. Canada Jack (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that this was correct. The main problem with this article is that it doesn't describe the narrative of what happened, instead it uses senselessly neutral language like "the sniper" instead of "Oswald". All rational people know what happened, and there are many reliable sources that describe what happened, but the article is written as though this is still some kind of mystery, to the article's great detriment. 76.244.69.198 (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

New Linked Article Appears to Promote Conspiracy

The article Attempted assassination of John F. Kennedy created today (Nov 22, 2013) and linked in the bottom of this article strikes me as dicey on a number of levels. It makes some claims of fact that are controversial and many of the sources cited also strike me being questionable (i.e. nakedly pro-conspiracy). Among other things it claims that Oswald was a CIA operative. I have tagged it for POV and questionable facts and sources but would like some opinion from others more knowledgeable on articles relating to controversial subjects like conspiracy theories etc. But yeah it does sound a tad fringy to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The primary sources are Edwin Black (award-winning investigative journalist who carried out a five-year investigation, detailed in the source in the article) and James W. Douglass (a professor who supplements Black's work with interviewing the son of one of the police officers) and sources describing Abraham Bolden's claims (Bolden a primary witness). If these sources are not acceptable for describing facts that could be taken to weaken the Lone Gunman theory (actually the Chicago plot doesn't preclude Oswald acting alone), then we may as well give up and pretend that we've learned nothing since the Warren Commission published its report. As to the CIA operative issue (CIA fake defector not live operative, as previously corrected, but never mind) - that's the only specific problem raised, and it's such a teeny tiny part of the article that if it's going to be used as an excuse to destroy the article then the claim can very, very, very, very, very easily be excised. Podiaebba (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of John F. Kennedy

I fail to see why the Background section on previous assassination attempts has been repeatedly removed. Admittedly the attempted assassination of John F. Kennedy is a new article, and the section should be expanded to cover other attempts and threats, but that's hardly going to happen if the section keeps being removed. The successes and failures and behaviour of the Secret Service on and prior to 22 November, in relation to Dallas and elsewhere, are highly relevant regardless of what you think about who shot Kennedy and why: they failed in their fundamental duty of preventing the US President from getting killed. Podiaebba (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• As another editor noted, there are lots of different kinds of backgrounds that could be called relevant. You link to an attempted assassination but here you're arguing something about a failure of security; this sounds like synthesis to me. Regardless, I'm the third editor to remove it (after EEng and Fat&Happy), so taking it up on the talk page is the right thing to do. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Reinforcing Drmies, I repeat my edit summaries::

Many things could be called background(e.g.Bay of Pigs,LHO's activities re Cuba, organized crime prosecutions),& quite bluntly given the rough quality of the article linked I don't think it should be given such prominence on this day of all days

and

Relevance isn't the issue, rather whether it improves reader's understanding of subject given (a) it's itself poorly written&links to poorly written new article;(b)is spotty in its selection of material;(c)comes at start of mainpage article today

Your contributions are appreciated but 24 hrs before the 50th anniversary was not the time to start a new related article and link it from the very start of the main article. EEng (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

well, firstly, I don't see how the timing matters. I came across the Chicago plot yesterday and that's why I did it now. As for relevance: in general, what you put in a background section depends on who you hold responsible for the assassination (unless you want to cover all possible bases, which would make it huge). This isn't true of previous assassination attempts and threats, or more generally a discussion of the Secret Service protection and how it worked on previous occasions and was supposed to work in Dallas, and that sort of security-related thing. I mean, right now the article has just a "Route to Dealey Plaza" section, which includes some security issues, but the route choice is obviously only a small subset of the issue. Oh, wait, there's a "Criticism of Secret Service" subsection, but that's an "investigation" issue which hangs there oddly contextless without a description earlier in the article of what the Service did or didn't do and should have done. Podiaebba (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is sounding more and more like you have theories. In other words, OR and SYNTH. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In other words, OR and SYNTH. - gee thanks for being so open. All I'm asking for is description of what the Service did, and what its procedures mandated it to do - descriptive things of that type. HSCA has already done analysis of what it should have done, which is briefly mentioned here but not really understandable without more information. Any further analysis (from RS) would go in that Criticism section, not in the description section. Podiaebba (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please correct a spelling mistake?

Have noticed a spelling error in the second sentence under the sub-heading...

Others wounded

Second sentence as follows... Doctors later stated that after Connaly was shot, his wife pulled…

"Connaly" should be spelled with TWO Ls, not one, thus - Connally

It's not rocket science is it?

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 May 2013 LHO was only a suspect, never concluded to be the "perpetrator"

It says on the right side "Perpetrator Lee Harvey Oswald" The word "Perpetrator" should be changed to "Suspect".

Reasons, including quotes from established wording on this very same page:

1. "In contrast to the conclusions of the Warren Commission, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded in 1978 that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."

2. "To date, there is no consensus on who, among many players, may have been involved in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy."

3. Sgt. Lee Harvey Oswald never received a trial, and was never pronounced as the "perpetrator" by a Judge or jury.

4. Other suspects exist, such as LBJ, the primary beneficiary with means, motive, and opportunity - plus confessions that he did it by E. Howard Hunt and Barr McCLellan Esq. in his book "How LBJ Killed JFK".

So, it should say "Primary suspect Lee Harvey Oswald" if anything. But at LEAST it should say "suspect" because he was never concluded to be the perpetrator, and Wikipedia should be all about established truth.

The word "suspect" has the most consensus, because even those who think LBJ was an organizer, and Malcolm Wallace was the sharp shooter, would have to admit that Sgt. Oswald was a suspect. That is a word that everyone can agree on. Thank you.

Whacktabby (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. "Suspect" gives undue weight to fringe sources. 1) Even the HSCA state that Oswald shot Kennedy.[10] 2) Among those who assert that there was a conspiracy, there is no consensus who might have been involved in it. 3) Irrelevant (e.g. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not tried either). 4) John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories is the appropriate forum for views on other "suspects". Location (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. The opposition did not cite any sources proving that Lee Harvey Oswald was ever found guilty in a court of law. Just the same old baseless and much questioned accusations that have been going on for 50 years. A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are not "irrelvant".

The phrase "no consensus who might have been involved in it" means just that. Read it again. No consensus means we cannot accuse anyone as the perpetrator. So it is improper to make a conclusion on Wikipedia that the HSCA did not after months of investigation and hearings. Who are you to say you know better? Accusations against LHO are increasingly fringe views from gullible official story believers and should not be stated as fact on Wikipedia.

There are many articles, books, TV specials and documentaries casting doubt on that lame story about LHO, too many to list here. Just google JFK Assassination. Wikipedia should be up to date and not promoting increasingly fringe 50 year old propaganda that most intelligent people do not swallow any more.

Let remind you that the HSCA stated that the JFK assination was the result of more than 1 person. By definition that is a conspiracy. So "conspiracy theory" should no longer be used as a pejorative term. Police arrest people in conspiracies every day, any time there is more than one criminal. The official "Lee Harvey Oswald Conspiracy Theory" is the one with the least evidence and should be relegated to the bottom of the list. Using the word "perpetrator" is not a neutral point of view. The word suspect is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whacktabby (talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 May 2013‎ 67.55.221.6 (UTC)

Oppose. There are any number of reliable sources describing LHO as the assassin. We can point to many other cases where assassins have died in or shortly after the act, without benefit of trial, but are identified as the perpetrator. eg. Indira Gandhi, Reinhard Heydrich, Henry III of France and so on and on. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. "perpetrator" is not being used in the legal sense here, it doesn't matter if a court hasn't found him guilty. Furthermore, we need to go by what the sources say. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even if we accept that there might have been a conspiracy, no one seriously questions Oswald's involvement as a trigger man. The term "perpetrator" is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Otherwise John Wilkes Booth will forever only be a "suspect". SBHarris 00:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Support.

>"identified as the perpetrator" Identified by who? History is written by the victors. People can be set up.

"and so on and on. " You named 3 dubious cases out of hundreds of assassinations in history. That is not "on and on". Even in those cases the person accused was not found guilty in a court of law. In America that is important.

>"any number of reliable sources "
What number? Name a number. 3? A low number of "reliable" sources. Who is to say what is "reliable" - those that spout the official propaganda?

>"'perpetrator" is not being used in the legal sense here"
Read a dictionary. Perpetrator means the one who is blamed. We use common sense definitions on Wikipedia. There is hard evidence that LHO did it.

>"we need to go by what the sources say"
OK, then cite some. Do you have anything other than bogus, biased bought-and-paid-for media "reports"? There are many more sources that question whether LHO did it.

>"no one seriously questions Oswald's involvement as a trigger man"
"No one"? Are you kidding? That is an absolutely false statement. There have been so many books, movies, documentaries, and articles questioning the official theory. How can you seriously make such an utterance?

Until there is solid proof of LHO's guilt, to maintain credibility Wikipedia should at LEAST put "Alleged perpetrator" and not add to the increasingly fringe speculation about Sgt. Oswald. Otherwise Wikipedia will increasingly be known as a U.S. Government monitored and controlled propaganda tool. Maybe that is for the best, so people will not rely on Wikipedia for historical purposes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.221.6 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. That's it. Wikipedia is an arm of the US government. The secret's out. Seriously now, if you think the edit request has been denied unfairly, may I suggest that you look at how we work through such issues. Start by looking through the copious Help system. Look at how similar edit requests on other semi-protected articles are resolved. Try to gain a feel for how the community works. And, if you truly have an interest in this particular subject, read the full reports, rather than work off whatever TV special you just saw. It helps to have an open mind - let reason rather than emotion be your guide. --Pete (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Support.

Someone would have to have his "head in the sand" and have read no newspapers, magazines, books, or documentaries to be unaware that there has been a 50 year controversy about who were the perpetrators who shot President Kennedy. The House Special Committee on Assassinations determined there was more than 1 gunman involved. So it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to try to claim that it is more informed than the HSCA and promote the fringe idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. Wikipedia is not for fringe "lone gunman" theories. Wikipedia is not place to make unfounded accusations. It helps to have an open mind, and let reason be your guide, instead of your religious beliefs in "magic bullets" and other nonsense. Carl Sagan said that "extaordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You have no hard evidence to back up your claim that LHO was the "perpetrator", so we must change it to "alleged perpetrator" until you have extraordinary evidence that no one else has brought forward. It is also responsible journalism to call the accused a "suspect" until a court judge or jury finds the defendant to be guilty. Wikipedia should adhere to proper standards of reporting. For example, the Boston bomber is called a suspect by main stream media. 67.55.221.6 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That is because the Boston Bomber (one of them) is going to stand trial. His older brother, however, will not. Will good old patsy Tamerlan Anzorovich Tsarnaev remain, therefore, a mere "suspect" forever, just because he's no longer with us and will never be convicted? Along with Osama Bin Laden who is suspected of funding 9/11, and Adolf Hitler, who is suspected of perhaps having something to do with the Nazi prison camps and World War II (but who got no trial or guilty verdict, so we can't ever be sure)?

FYI, even the House Select Committee (not Special Committee) on assassinations believed Oswald fired all the shots that hit JFK. That makes him guilty, don't you think? The HSCA's one and ONLY piece of evidence for a second gunman was the belief that they the assassination had been recorded and showed a forth shot (which missed). But the FBI, Justice Department, and the National Academy of Sciences all disagree with them. The recording contains the words "hold everything secure" at the supposed time of the assassination, which were picked out by civilian listening to a cheap duplicate.[11]. Can it be coincidence that those were WERE spoken, a minute later, at the scene? The recording was not made at the stated time, and the timestamps mean little because dictabelt recordings weren't continuous, but only recorded when there was talk. SBHarris 00:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I know this discussion is several months old, but given the imminent 50th anniversary which will no doubt raise the profile of the case to its highest level since the founding of wikipedia, a few notes on the issue of Oswald as "perpetrator."

1) As noted above, whether Oswald did or did not stand trial is irrelevant in terms of calling him "perpetrator" as opposed to "accused" or what have you. There is some understandable confusion here since as in most Common Law jurisdictions, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Oswald, of course, did not stand trial. But calling a person an "accused" is the case when someone is FACING TRIAL - in front of judge or jury, a person is presumed innocent, meaning the Crown (as in Canada, Britain) or prosecution (as in America) has to present evidence which establishes the person's guilt in relation to the charge. But the police, in charging, most definitely presume guilt. As does the Crown/prosecution making the case that the defendant is guilty. The press during a trial is enjoined to note, no matter the evidence, that the defendant is presumed innocent until the verdict is rendered. But since Oswald didn't stand trial, this "presumption of innocence" became a moot point as it is before or during a trial that it is in force. AND it didn't preclude investigations to in fact find him culpable in the crime. The best one can say is Oswald wasn't found guilty at trial, which is the specious argument we hear from many in the conspiracy crowd. But we can say he WAS guilty as per the conclusions of the investigations.

It is a useful comparison to take a look at the second most-famous assassination case in America - that of Lincoln. Who was the perpetrator? As noted on the page, John Wilkes Booth, and several co-conspirators. But those others faced trail, while Booth did not as he, like Oswald, died beforehand. Should we, using the logic from the originator of this thread, therefore list Booth as "accused" even though there is no dispute he shot Lincoln yet call his co-conspirators "guilty" even though they didn't actually kill Lincoln? I think we can all agree that this would be ludicrous.

2) Wikipedia is not for fringe "lone gunman" theories. Wikipedia is not place to make unfounded accusations. It helps to have an open mind, and let reason be your guide, instead of your religious beliefs in "magic bullets" and other nonsense. Carl Sagan said that "extaordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You have no hard evidence to back up your claim that LHO was the "perpetrator", so we must change it to "alleged perpetrator" until you have extraordinary evidence that no one else has brought forward.

Most people, the person quoted here included, clearly have never read the Warren Report. One needs not agree with their findings to do so; but if one does so, one realizes that the evidence they used to conclude Oswald was the killer was not incidental, the Warren Commission was not "picking and choosing" evidence to make their case. Many critics have seen the film "JFK" which makes a compelling case that Oswald was not involved - even though much of the "evidence" presented therein is wrong - or made up - and even though "JFK" addresses NONE of the evidence the Warren Commission used to conclude Oswald was the killer. Indeed, there are something like 50+ separate pieces of evidence which link Oswald directly to the crime, from his fingerprints on the murder weapon and at the sniper's nest - where, it must be noted, multiple witnesses actually SAW a sniper fire from - to his ownership of the rifle, to a forged card found on his person with an identical alias of the purchaser of the murder weapon, to his rental of the box it was shipped to. Further, Oswald was the ONLY employee who had no alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the shooting; no unknown people were seen by other employees of the Depository; Oswald had access the the floor the sniper shot from and was seen on the floor before the assassination, and was seen with a package which was found at the sniper's nest which was likely how the rifle got into the building. Further, Oswald alone among employees there, chose to flee, AND he shot and killed a police officer who wanted to talk to him, presumably because he resembled the radio description of the assassin. NINE witnesses positively identified Oswald as the person who shot Tippit and subsequently fled the scene.

CT people have tried to dismiss this evidence, and while something here or there could be explained away, the immensity and the totality of the evidence points irresistibly to Oswald and Oswald alone.

3) Conspiracy. While many critics say that the Warren Commission barely touched on the question, it is clear they, again, did not read the Warren Report or hope that others do not. The question was heavily investigated, though there were notable gaps. These gaps were largely addressed by the HSCA, which in fact DID conclude there was a conspiracy. Problem is, the SOLE piece of evidence they based this conclusion on was found to be wanting, as noted above. When it came to all the physical evidence, they reached near-identical conclusions - Oswald alone killed the president - the supposed knoll assassin, which they concluded fired a shot, missed.

The HSCA thoroughly investigated the claims of the CT crowd, analyzing all the autopsy photos and other evidence, and concluded that the Warren Commission, for all its faults, made the correct conclusions in terms of Oswald. It's a bit hard, therefore, to claim that "the government" is lying about who killed Kennedy when that same "government" concluded there was a conspiracy! The CT crowd twist themselves into knots trying to explain the logic of a government investigation concluding "conspiracy" was lying about the "fact" there was a conspiracy, but they do it again and again. In terms of Oswald, there is NO doubt he killed the president, and two of the most thorough investigations in not only American history but world history concluded the same in terms of his culpability.

The problem with those authors and others who have claimed "conspiracy" is that almost 100% of those others have NOT had access to the original evidence, as the Warren Commission and The HSCA did. They are therefore making conclusions they have no place in making in terms of what the evidence says. Claims, for example, on what the x-rays show aren't particularly relevant if one is going from a low-grade photograph of an x-ray. The conspiracy theorists had their chance with the HSCA - a body which was eager to conclude "conspiracy." They chased all the leads - in New Orleans, Mexico, with CIA operatives, etc etc. Yet, save for the single piece of bogus dictabelt evidence, there was no case there to be made. And 50 years hasn't changed the basic facts of what happened that day in Dallas, even if some think that "new research" can somehow change reality. Alas, that is what too many believe. Canada Jack (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Oswald is the shooter. The bullets that killed JFK came from his gun, and his gun alone. United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded in 1978 that Oswald shot and killed JFK, but that he may have conspired with others who were aware of his intention or encouraged him in some way. But there is no doubt from reliable sources that Oswald did not fire both of the 2 bullets that hit and killed JFK. Walterego (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Support.

There is a debate here as to which is the "fringe" position, Oswald acted alone, or it was a conspiracy. According to CBS News, already 15 years ago only 1 in 10 Americans believed Oswald acted alone. With only 10% support (in spite of mass media efforts to emphasize the Warren report version), one must agree with the above commenter that the official version is a failed fringe theory and that Oswald should be referred to as alleged perpetrator.JPLeonard (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And 46% of Americans believe that God created humans within the last 10,000 years. Thank God (pun intended) we don't rely on polls of Americans to decide article content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Whereabouts of James Tague during President Kennedy Assassination

According to the text James Tague is placed on the sixth floor of the Texas school Book Depository building.

According to the "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" presented by jack White. There is photographic evidence that places James Tague below the triple underpass of Main Street and Commerce. <youtube video account> <The Great Zapruder Film Hoax> Rogerd67 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

James Tague's own eye witness testimony that he gave in the 60's also reports that he was, "standing under the triple underpass between Main and Commerce".

<youtube video account> <What They Saw - James Tague> Rogerd67 (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please give serious editors here a break, and take your poorly sourced conspiracy theories to a blog or something. This is an encyclopedia after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

~

Careful, Cullen. He's right. He's just pointing out an error introduced here [12] but now fixed. The conspiracy nuts have made everyone around here trigger-happy, if the choice of words may be pardoned. EEng (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)