Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Secondary/Primary source dispute

I had an edit of mine undone and got this message: I undid your recent edit in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Per WP:PSTS, it is preferable to have secondary sources rather than primary sources. The addition of primary sources indicates that we think something is important (i.e. original research), whereas the addition of secondary sources indicates that someone else thinks something is important. Location (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Location does not understand the wiki article that s/he referenced. An primary source, to quote form the reference, "are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." Hence, in this case, the Zapruder film is the primary source. What the prohibition is: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." In other words, if I or someone else attempted to directly interpret the film, that would be prohibited.

A secondary source, on the other hand, "are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."

Every one of my cite changes was to a secondary source. The sub-section in question is analysis about the primary source, the Zapruder film, and the view that it is comprised evidence. I put those cites so that a wikipedia reader could read their arguments directly. Instead, the single-source, Bugliosi, is someone who is clearly not unbiased or independent, but wrote his book with the avowed purpose of refuting all the existing theories of the actual subject of the article.

Now, what I think you might have meant—and you have a better argument—is that my sources weren't "reliable". There is the article that says that self-published books aren't reliable in general. It goes on to say: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In the case of David Lifton, this is certainly the case. But it is true that most of the theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination have been self-published. However, take the five-volume "Inside the AARB"—a cite you kicked out. This book meticulously cites evidence in the public record, i.e. primary sources. To not be able to cite it does a tremendous disservice to the readership and to truth.

If one can only cite books like Bugliosi's, the article itself becomes patently unfair. As you know well, the whole point of the various rules that are in place is to create a fair, balanced look at the subject—a neutral point of view. This is impossible if one can't cite the sources that give the evidence. At this date - almost 50 years after the assassination — there are very few books or articles that can be said to have a "neutral point of view". And, very few mainstream press articles or books are being written, even as new primary sources continue to develop. Every thing out there at this point argues one side or the other. Therefore, to be fair, to create that neutral point of view, both sides, via cites, must be given so that someone can look at the evidence and evaluate for themselves. This edit creates bias that should not be there. Ramcduff (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, THIS is the edit in question and WP:PSTS is the link for the relevant policy. Not sure why there would be objection to using Bugliosi here since he is a secondary source in this context and is not stating anything in opposition to the primary source. Location (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am clear on what you kicked out. Again, I didn't put in primary sources, which is the reason that you claimed you removed it. This seems to be — I assume — a long-standing confusion that you have. The Zapruder film is the primary source. All the others are secondary sources, including Bugliosi (which is a single-source, which should be avoided per wikipedia guidelines on controversial matters). He references these theories for the purpose of debunking them, thus he is not a disinterested third party source (upon which wikipedia articles are supposed to be built) but an interested secondary source as are the others. They are all analyzing evidence related to the primary source, the film and documents related to the film at the time of the assassination. Thus, there is no place where the theory itself (that the film was altered) is described without bias, nor is there a link to the primary sources that prove their points (which they have references in their books, but Bugliosi does not.) Look, after reading all the wikipedia articles related to sourcing, I think there is a good argument to just get rid of this article all-together, as each article needs to be established on the basis of a disinterested and reliable third party sources and I don't think that they exist on this topic. But given the topic is here, then it should be balanced within itself, both giving cites to the actual reputable theories (one based on evidence that is verifiable) and to those sources, such as Bugliosi, who question those theories. Could you please give me a quote that supports your position that these were primary sources. I have showed above that, my wikipedia's definition, they are classic secondary sources.Ramcduff (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

1) The links I provided above were for the reference of other editors since they were not included in your copy and paste of my original post.

2) Per WP:PSTS: "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context." The context for this discussion are the allegations that the Zapruder film has been altered. Per secondary source: "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person." Who are the primary sources of the allegations that the Zapruder film has been altered? I would assert that they are the conspiracy theorists noted in that section of the article. Who is the secondary source relating or discussing those allegations that were presented elsewhere? Bugliosi. Location (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are my two cents. I think Location is correct here. When it is discussing the Zapruder film, the various authors are secondary sources, the actual film the primary source, true. However, when discussion is of the range of authors who have theories in regards to the Zapruder film, those authors are in this case the primary source, (i.e., the primary sources of critiques of the Zapruder film) and Bugliosi's listing of them (for whatever purpose) is the secondary source. Otherwise, we are applying a POV assessment of who the "main" theorists are. These are the main proponents? Says who? You, Ramcduff? No, Location is correct to insert Bugliosi. Not sure if you have read the Bugliosi book, Ramcduff, but he actually gives a very good overview of the history of the conspiracy theories, who has been promoting them, and their influence on the subject in the public sphere. Sure, he takes issue with almost all of them, but he is one of the very few who has gone to the trouble of grouping them and tracing the evolution of the various arguments and theories. The fact he picks apart their various theories is neither here nor there for the purposes of what we need him here for. He is an excellent source in terms of tabulating the various theorists by particular aspects of the assassination. Canada Jack (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Re Location point number 1 - I understand, sorry I didn't include links

Re Location point number 2 (and Canada Jack)

Basically, what you two are saying is that secondary sources are rendered into primary sources by being the object of an article. However, I don't think anything that was pointed to within the wikipedia article indicates that should be the case. It is clear by the definition of primary source "which is the original source of the information being discussed" that this information is the Zapruder film and the documents (i.e. chain of evidence) about it. The people who have studied the film and associated documents and have come to the conclusion from that, that the film was altered, does not constitute "direct knowledge of a situation" (necessary to be a primary source as you quoted above), but is classic "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information."(secondary source) Their knowledge is indirect, via the primary evidence. An "allegation" made through analysis of a primary source does not then become a "primary source" in most cases. The article does state "some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used" with links to various articles about it. They conclude that a secondary source may become a primary source if it is the object of a critique of that secondary source. [Emphasis added] An example given is this: "But a source may be primary or secondary, depending on what the researcher is looking for. Smith’s American Reading Instruction (1965), for instance, is obviously a secondary source, based mainly on the study of a large number of children’s readers. Her book could also, however, be used as a primary source if Smith herself and her views on reading instruction were the object of investigation." (italics added) From footnote 6 in WP:PSTS</ref> This is the only case given in the wikipedia article's or supporting footnotes in which a secondary source of a historical nature changes to a primary source: when it is the object of critique. Therefore, from Bugliosi's point of view, yes those critiques became his primary sources. However, Wikipedia article's are not suppose to be critiques of material they present. This is encylopedia, and is not suppose to take sides. This section is suppose to present information neutrally about this particular piece of evidence. That is: "This is what they secondary sources have concluded by their studies about the Zupruder film" (with cites to their work) There then could be a sentence disputing that, with cites to those works. Or, of course, Wikipedia would prefer an independent third-party but, as I have already argued, they really don't exist in this realm so to create balance is important that both sides are represented in an even-handed manner.

There is another point I would like to make. The article is chock-full of cites just as I had tried to do. That is: a secondary analysis of primary source material. I am not going to give the full list, but just look at 17-28, 32-37 to see what I mean.

I would be perfectly happy to keep Bugliosi as a cite—and yes, I have read him—but also feel that the actual material should be cited as it is with most other theorist presented in the article otherwise this section is rendered into a critique contrary to Wikipedia policy.Ramcduff (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is some of the text in question: According to Vincent Bugliosi, the film was "originally touted by the vast majority of conspiracy theorists as incontrovertible proof of [a] conspiracy" but is now believed by many assassination researchers to be a "sophisticated forgery". Then come the cites we are discussing. But Bugliosi's mention is not in context of a "critique" of those theories per se (other than the implication that the CT crowd likes to have it both ways) - Bugliosi simply points out what many students of the assassination know to be true - that the forgery claim has emerged over time as a conspiracy theory, even as the film has been seen as, unaltered, a potent source of evidence for conspiracy for the conspiracy community.

In this context, it is entirely appropriate to list the cites as per Bugliosi as it is HE who is making the observation and it is HE who lists those who support the statement he has been making. The primary source here? The theory of alteration. The secondary source? Bugliosi identifying that theory and his list of proponents of it. Again, while he certainly critiques those theories, it is odd to suggest as you seem to be suggesting, Rams, that the very list he has is somehow "tainted" by the fact of Bugliosi's attitude towards them. This might be an issue if the author deliberately ignores the most potent proponents of the theory, but I'm not sure that case can be made. Canada Jack (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see that sentence that way—that the lists those who made the argument was part of his critique (and to say it isn't a critque is odd since it certainly is, however limited)—but I am willing to see it from your angle and drop this discussion with this: so if I understand this, I should simply leave those sentences alone and then add my own text that makes the point I wish to make with cites within Wikipedia standards?

I do want to add that I do think that, per the plea to shorten this article with summary and put relevant portions on other pages, that this section should properly be a sentence of two summary with redirection to a Zapruder film page with a section on critiques of it there. As a newbie, I am not going to do that at this point unless others think it is a good idea.Ramcduff (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I, too, think the subsection pertaining to the authenticity of the Zapruder film could be merged and redirected to an appropriate section in Zapruder film where allegations could be covered in more depth without bloating this article. BTW, there also already exists a section regarding Lifton's would alteration theory here, so much of the information in the subsection pertaining to allegations that Kennedy's body was altered could be moved there. Location (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point, the Lifton article is still without a summary of his thesis, so it would be premature. There is, in fact, more about his thesis here than there. That said, I am working on a summary there and, at that point, I will come back and make this one leaner. Then, once I really get the hang us this, perhaps do the Zapruder film move. Thanks to you two for explaining your viewpoint, I appreciated the dialogue.Ramcduff (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ramcduff, I was referring to the section within this article: John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Decoy hearse and wound alteration. Location (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a kind of obsession with shortening the article and breaking it up into a series of subtopics. However, in comparing the article to other momentous articles, for example "World War II", the article does not appear to be that long -- especially considering that at least one thousand books have been written on the subject of the JFK assassination. BrandonTR (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not very neutral phrasing of your statement. One could easily say there seems to be some kind of obsession to unnecessarily lengthen the article. It's not an obsession to want to clean-up the article and prevent the duplication of material in multiple articles. For example, Lifton's theory does not need to be detailed in two spots in this article AND in his article. I'm sure there are some guidelines somewhere regarding appropriate splits and redirects. BTW: World War II lasted for six years. Location (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, we have the example of the article on Lee Harvey Oswald. That article was butchered by a group of editors that decided that they were obliged to remove all information that might have hinted at a conspiracy. BrandonTR (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories belong on this page, Brandon. Not on the Oswald page. Canada Jack (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

...but I have partly written a page along the lines of "LHO and the assassination of JFK" which will be specifically on the WC case against LHO, the objections from critics and the HSCA's re-evaluation of his culpability in light of various contentions. Once this is ready to go live, I'd say you, Brandon, would be a good candidate to line up the main arguments in regards to Oswald's involvement in possible conspiracies, and the arguments which are used to point to his non-involvement. Canada Jack (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would argue along the lines of a growing number of researchers who say that Oswald was not part of a conspiracy, except in so far as he was set up to take the fall by a treasonous cabel of CIA conspirators. BrandonTR (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Have we done everything?

I think we have done enough on here, it needs no more edits unless they have to be impoved... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.136.227 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Some things to work on or discuss:

1. Streamlining the format or outline of the article.
2. Trimming discussion of information about the murder of JD Tippit.
3. Adding reliable secondary sources in place of primary sources.
4. Adding official or skeptic viewpoints where appropriate.

- Location (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the biggest things missing from the article is 'Person(s) impersonating Oswald.' Evidence exists for one or more men impersonating Oswald in Texas (the Mercury Car dealer incident, the Sylvia Odio incident) and in Mexico city [1].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joegoodfriend (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading over the text here and while the page is long, I don't see an easy way to shorten it as the subject is quite broad. However, there is a lot of improvement possible here with some rewriting. A lot of clunky phrasing here. I'll start some of that now... Canada Jack (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Canada Jack, I don't understand your reasoning behind this edit in the section pertaining to "suspicious deaths". I thought the idea here was to present an official explanation to balance the allegations from CTs. Location (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Are we truly expected to supply all the "official" responses? Because there are a lot of allegations on this page with other explanations that don't seem to have an explanation supplied. If we are to do so, as in some cases we have the "official" line and then the allegations, it makes more sense to have the HSCA response AFTER the allegations as it responded to the claims, rather than the other way around. Canada Jack (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Medical evidence

Instead of removing the following text, I decided to give other editors an opportunity to fix this text. No need to repeat the back-and-forth edit warring which happened with the Tippit stuff. Here is the text:

Paul O'Connor, a laboratory technologist who assisted in the autopsy of President Kennedy, claimed that the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital was conducted in obedience to a high command of admirals and generals. O'Conner's fellow hospital corpsmen, James Jenkins, said:

We were all military, we could be controlled.... I was 19 or 20 years old, and all at once I understood that my country was not much better than a third world country. From that point on in time, I have had no trust, no respect for the government.

One member of the autopsy team, Lieutenant Colonel Pierre Finck, testified at the trial of Clay Shaw that the autopsy doctors were ordered not to talk about what they had seen in the autopsy room. Finck said:

...when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders, and at the end of the autopsy, we were specifically told—as I recall it, it was by Admiral [Edward C.] Kenney, the Surgeon General of the Navy—this is subject to verification—we were specifically told not to discuss the case.

The issue here is that there is nothing to indicate "conspiracy" or other relevant suspicious activity. As it stands, we have one guy saying the military was in charge of the autopsy and this caused him to lose faith in his country, and the other saying he was told not to discuss the case. In both instances, this is pretty standard practice in a military setting (which Bethesda was). What we need here is something more explicit, such as claims that the military took control and didn't allow a proper autopsy to be carried out, in connection with a cover-up, and in Finck's case, someone who claims that Finck was told not to discuss the case so as to cover up a conspiracy or what have you. Canada Jack (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And then we have this:

Paul O'Connor, a laboratory technologist who assisted in the autopsy of President Kennedy, claimed that the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital was conducted in obedience to a high command. O'Connor stated:

There were kind of mysterious civilian people, in civilian clothes — were there [at Bethesda]. It seemed like they commanded a lot of respect and attention — sinister looking people. They would come up and look over my shoulder, or look over Dr. Boswell's shoulder, and run back, and they'd have a little conference in the corner. Then all at once the word would come down: "Stop what you're doing and go on to the other procedure." And that's the way it was all along. We just jumped back-and-forth, back-and-forth. There was no smooth flow of procedure at all.

This doesn't seem like standard practice -- even for the military. BrandonTR (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Brandon, that new O'Connor quote fits in with the theme of the article, but that doesn't fix the other two quotes. There is still nothing within those two quotes to suggest "conspiracy" or "cover-up." Officious, control-freak military types aren't synonymous with conspiracy/cover-up. And, I don't need to tell you this, combining quotes to suggest a conclusion is OR, especially given the fact that Finck did not consider the autopsy "guided" by the military. We need someone or something to explicitly state coverup/conspiracy with those two people. With Jenkins, I'm sure we can find him saying that the actions of the military there indicated that to him. With Finck, you won't find him saying those actions meant coverup/conspiracy, but there are certainly many authors who say as much, so we need someone inserted saying that about his experience. Canada Jack (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to fix here -- the quotes speak for themselves. Sensible readers will agree that each of these quotes suggest a possible conspiracy. Cherry picking evidence is not what this article is about. If you want to add some kind of disclaimer or context to any of the quotes, add it. Don't look for some "expert" published author out there to provide context. BrandonTR (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope you are joking, Brandon. All those quotes say is a) 19- and 20-year-olds are easily controlled by the military and b) personnel were told not to talk to anyone. The article is about cover-ups and conspiracies related to the Kennedy assassination not about the persuasive sway of the military. As for "cherry-picking," if anything the only thing here being "cherry-picked" is Finck's quote, as Finck has been quite explicit from Day 1 about there NOT being any interference by the military, that the autopsy was above-board, that there was no cover-up. Yet you want to imply with a cherry-picked quote from Finck something he never believed - that there was a conspiracy/cover-up in terms of the circumstances of the autopsy.

As I indicated earlier, we need an author stating the quotes are indicative of cover-up/conspiracy or, at least in the case of Jenkins, an additional quote from him saying that. Otherwise, the content will be removed. Canada Jack (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Canada Jack (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No material will be removed without consensus. Surely you must have learned by now that this is the proper course of action as per Wikipedia policy. BrandonTR (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not about consensus, Brandon. The quotes violate wikipedia policy as they constitute Original Research as they are a synthesis of published material. WP:SYN. Arranging quotes in the manner you have without a source EXPLICITLY linking them to the theme of the page is Original Research, pure and simple. As stand-alone quotes, there is NOTHING within the quotes linking them to the subject of the page which is on cover-ups and conspiracies related to the Kennedy assassination. In this situation, military control and/or military orders per se does not mean "conspiracy" or "cover-up." We need someone to say as much. Here is the policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

I have flagged this for you, suggested a simple fix, and all I am getting from you is a lot of hue and cry, not really sure what you don't get here. So, if there is nothing changed, I will remove the text on Tuesday. Canada Jack (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And the text will be restored on Wednesday, as per Wikipedia's policy of consensus. 70.189.205.138 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Brandon, in case you haven't noticed, there is no consensus that the quotes can stay. Besides, the relevant policies here are the fundamental policies of wikipedia, in particular the No Original Research (SYN) one. There is no such thing as gaining a "consensus" to ignore these basic policies. In good faith, I've flagged the quotes in question, and what needs to be done. You've chosen to pretend there is no issue with these quotes.

If you insist on refusing to make these simple changes (as you did with the Tippit section until an edit war was upon us) and revert the deletions I make, even though I have spelled out the simple changes which are needed and readily doable, I will initiate a dispute mechanism. Frankly, I am mystified as to what your issue here is. I have operated here in good faith and see no need to get into a silly debate when these changes, once made, will make this a better page. Canada Jack (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work Brandon. Listen, I am getting a bit turned off by your insistence on fighting some of these basic changes which need to be done. One of your edit lines made it seem that if not for my temper tantrum, this section would not need to have been changed. No, as soon as outsiders look at this section as it stood, the flagged quotes would have to be modified or removed. And that's a fact, not an opinion. Obviously, we are on different sides of the fence when it comes to the interpretation of the assassination. But I think I have shown a greater interest in properly producing the cases, and doing so in terms appropriate for wikipedia.

Too often here you seem to interpret what are suggestions for improvement from a more-experienced editor as attacks on the article itself.

The very fact that I felt compelled to rewrite the lede which, I should point out, makes the basic case for "conspiracy," should tell you that I have a greater interest in presenting the case than in grinding some pro-WC ax.

What I pointed out in this section on the medical quotes was not an attempt to remove material that suggested "conspiracy," it was to make the text actually reflect the article. In other words, to make the case the section purports to make. It simply did not do that, and that needed to be addressed, and I KNEW it could be addressed as, recall, I was someone who believed "conspiracy" for some 25 years. I know the material, IOW. Now, with the author and the quotes, we have something which actually better makes the case for "conspiracy." I'd still quibble with this section, though perhaps in not the way you'd expect. It still doesn't make the strong case for "conspiracy/ Cover-up" which many authors in fact make, and it SHOULD make that case. I could do it, but you are the one making the main contributions here. In terms of wikipedia, the section is now fine, I believe, as there are no red flags along the lines of POV or OR, etc. But in terms of making the strong case as per the conspiracy authors, I think this section should be rewritten to emphasize the contention that the autopsy was not only led by the military, but the results were manipulated so as to suggest "single gunman." Canada Jack (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Brandon insists on calling the post-WC investigations "federal government" investigations

Hmmmm.... seems the only "consensus" that counts is what Brandon determines is "consensus." When it's text I want to change - actually text I asked HIM to change - I can't because of what he describes as lack of "consensus." However, when I write something and HE wants it changed, well, it seems that there is suddenly no "consensus" and the onus is on me to supply a reason why HE can't change it.

I advise you, Brandon, to review wikipedia policies on Ownership of Articles: WP:OWN.

Here is what I had originally written: "Subsequent official investigations confirmed most of the conclusions of the Warren Commission."

He wants the words "federal government" investigations instead. I pointed out that "official" is better as the CT crowd sees "government" wording as intrinsically suspect. "Official" is neutral in this context, and in an article which deals with a contentious subject, more neutral wording is preferred.

But there are several other good reasons to use "official." For one, on the assassination page, we see, in terms of the investigations, the term "Official investigations" to describe them. So, being consistent, we should say "Official." Indeed, "federal government" or "government" is lacking in terms of describing ANY of the investigations.

The Clay Shaw trial is not listed as an "official investigation" in that "Official investigations" section, nor is it described as an "official investigation" on its own page. Of course, there was an investigation by the NOLA DA for a trial, but this is not what we normally consider an "official investigation," I submit. The only person who sees it as an "official investigation" I am aware of is... Brandon. So that line of logic is, by definition, POV. Here is the policy, Brandon: WP:POV.

Further, there was arguably only a single "federal government" investigation - the Warren Commission. The "federal government" comprises the executive, judicial and legislative branches of the American government. The WC, appointed by the Executive, comprised the Supreme Court chief justice, and members of the legislative branch. Subsequent investigations, such as the House Select Committee, involved one branch of the "federal government," but not the federal government itself.

Even if you dismiss that line of argument in terms of "federal government," the Ramsey Clark Panel was not a "federal government" or even "government" investigation, it was a panel of medical experts who investigated the medical evidence, including the autopsy photos. While this was an "official" investigation as the panel was set up by the Attorney General, it was not, per se, a "government" investigation as opposed to the others who consulted medical experts etc as WITNESSES and came to their own conclusions based on their expert testimony. And it was the FIRST "Official" investigation post-WC, and it agreed with the basic medical conclusions of the WC, as per the paragraph in question. Canada Jack (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No reason to nitpick here -- I think that most people would agree that "federal government" is a more precise, descriptive term than the word "official." BrandonTR (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You're being the nit-picker, Brandon. The main page has a header for these investigations which is called... "Official investigations." As I said, the Ramsey Clark wasn't a "federal government" investigation anyway. Canada Jack (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed stupid alleged theory about the driver braking

Removed this stupidass uncited theory:

"Another theory says that it was the braking of the car by the driver William Greer which caused Kennedy's head to move forward in the moment before a frontal shot, which caused Kennedy's head and torso to violently move backwards and to the left."

The car can clearly be seen not changing momentum basically whatsoever. Also, you don't see any violent forward motion at all. And acceleration of that kind of car would not be able to cause a more violent backward motion than forward. Stupidass theory, and uncited too. So removed. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and J.V. Baker

Three years ago, the New Orleans Conspiracy section was added to this article[2]. It included text regarding the claims of Judith Vary Baker. The Baker text was the upshot of a long discussion regarding what, if anything, should be said about her on wikipedia.[3] An editor would now like to remove the text, she has failed to produce evidence that she was acquainted with Oswald. That change in the text has been reverted. The editor wishing to make the change must now build a case here on the talk page. It's all right here in black and white: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle[4]. "If your edit gets reverted, look at the article's talk page and its edit history for an explanation... If you have reason to disagree with the explanation given, or you don't see any explanation at all, start a new discussion (section) on the article's talk page to request an explanation for why your edit was reverted, or to present your argument."

To summarize, if Brandon wants to go bat for JV Baker (please tell me this is not happening), then he needs to present an argument here on the talk page. I think the current text has consensus among the editors, and the change does not.Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Joe. btw, does anyone agree with my use of ""official investigations" above? Canada Jack (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Jack on 'official investigations.' Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

HERE'S THE CASE: Even Warren Commission apologist John McAdams acknowledges that Baker has produced evidence, including a book she owns with Oswald's alleged handwriting inscribed on it. Ergo: Baker has produced evidence, so the current claim made in the article that she has not produced evidence is incorrect. BrandonTR (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you link us to that information? Thanks.

I submit that Baker's claim does not rise to the level of "evidence." First of all, Baker has been well-documented as someone who has continuously contradicted herself, radically altered her story as her contradictions have been exposed, and generally has just said of lot of stuff that is at variance with known facts. When confronted with these contradictions, she has said (paraphrasing here), "the reason I made a bunch of things up was because I was afraid of someone stealing my story before I could get the true facts published myself." I submit that she is not a reliable source of information, and unless this handwriting business is somehow otherwise substantiated, it should be ignored as "evidence." Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

We have Google now, so it's easy to look up. Just type in keywords: "McAdams" and "Judyth Baker". You many not regard Oswald's alleged handwriting as "good evidence" but it is evidence nonetheless. BrandonTR (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're going to try to convince us by making us do the research. Well, all I can find is "Baker claims to have the handwriting." Wait a minute, she has not even made the "handwriting" public for examination? Sorry if this is a false equivalency, but if the schizo guy on my corner starts ranting about aliens, does that constitute "evidence" of extraterrestrials on earth? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Google makes it easy to look up even for the mentally impaired. BrandonTR (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I see you edited John Clem. I created that article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"HERE'S THE CASE: Even Warren Commission apologist John McAdams acknowledges that Baker has produced evidence, including a book she owns with Oswald's alleged handwriting inscribed on it. Ergo: Baker has produced evidence, so the current claim made in the article that she has not produced evidence is incorrect." Nope. "Producing" evidence means you submit something you say establishes a claim for examination. She's never done that, as far as I can see, for the central claim that she and Oswald were involved. She DID "produce" evidence - that she was employed at the same company as Oswald, etc., but she has NOT produced evidence that could establish that she and Oswald were connected intimately. She certainly CLAIMS she has evidence which establishes her involvement with Oswald, but nothing she has let others examine actually establishes that, and she hasn't allowed assessments of evidence which theoretically could establish her claim, via handwriting analysis, etc. So she's not "produced" the required evidence, credible or not. Canada Jack (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The question to be asked is once again obfuscated and hides in plain sight. The question is not whether JVB is being honest. The question is why was David Ferrie carrying on a Cancer Research project in his spare time, and with thousands of white mice stored in his own apartment...? Why had he been studying Cancers since the mid 50's..?

Why was he carrying on experiments in his apartment? Probably for the same reason he was describing a tank in the backyard as something he was going to convert into a submarine to attack Castro. He was a certified whack-job. If you can't understand why someone who does "cancer experiments" with mice in his apartment shouldn't be taken seriously in being considered some big-time intelligence operative, I'm not really sure what else can be said. We could just as well try to "read between the lines" of every utterance of the Three Stooges, it'd be just as relevant to getting to the "truth" of the JFK assassination. Canada Jack (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

He walked around New Orleans with carpeting glued to his head. Something was a little off. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

David Ferrie was just the type of misfit the CIA has historically looked for to carry out its dirty jobs. Contract killers like Ferrie have allowed the CIA to operate as puppet master and to hide its own role as orchestrator. To illustrate, consider the following:

"If possible, professional criminals will be hired to carry out specific selective 'jobs' [assassinations]." --Clandestine Operations Manual for Central America, a training manual written by the CIA

"It's called in the intelligence lexicon, 'plausible deniability.' If they [CIA hired guns] perform actions that might embarrass the United States government, they can be denied [as being under the control of the government]." --William Leary, Merton Coulter Professor of History and winner of the Central Intelligence Agency's Studies in Intelligence Award, interviewed in the documentary, Air America: The CIA's Secret Airline

While we do not yet have confirmation that the CIA attempted to give Castro cancer, another CIA plot against Castro involved dusting "thallium powder into Castro's shoes when they were put out at night to be shined" during a trip he made outside Cuba. This diabolical plot co-incided with a Castro appearance on the David Susskind Show. Thallium salts have depilatory effects; the CIA's plan was to "destroy Castro's image as 'The Beard' by causing the beard to fall out." The plan went as far as testing on animals, but it fell through when Castro didn't make the trip (IG's Report, page 13).

Is it just an amazing coincidence that Judyth Baker, David Ferrie and Dr. Mary Sherman -- who were all performing cancer experiments -- would happen to end up working in New Orleans within a few blocks of each other during the Spring and Summer of 1963? Indeed, amazing coincidences surround many aspects of the JFK assassination case. BrandonTR (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Grassy Knoll reference on radio on Nov. 22/63

I don't know how this can be worked in, but it's interesting to note there were media reports of shots fired from the grassy knoll (the exact term is even used) on at least one radio broadcast of the day: Voice of America. An MP3 of this recording is under the JFK assassination section of this webpage. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Cronkite actually used the term that day, but the initial reports, at least from CBS, talked of a couple huddled on the grass and them being suspects and surrounded by spectators. But there were also many other erroneous reports, such as LBJ having been shot, which was soon dismissed, and the early "confirmed" report that a Secret Service agent was killed. The only initial reports I am aware of which have witness accounts of someone actually firing a shot come from the TSBD, though on different floors. Canada Jack (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Lee Bowers - A Murdered Witness

(deleting a mass of material copied from abovetopsecret.com, a discussion forum site that does not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia) — Richwales 21:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Cuban Conspiracy

The movie Rendezvous with Death by German director Wilfried Huismann deserves mention in the Cuban Conspiracy section. The comments of Alexander Haig from the movie are notable. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

References

I am deleting On November 22, 1963, from Testimony of Eyewitness because it make the page shorter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.171.215 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

NASA

Please feel free to update/add to the NASA section. It was based off of a single author's work. There is video and other media available online somewhere, but the purpose of adding the section was just to be inclusive.69.146.144.86 (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Other Published Theories" section of this article was designed with this sort of thing in mind. This theory does not merit an entire subsection of the article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I am also inclined to believe that books within that section should also have some sort of secondary coverage, which this one does. [Edit: The book appears to be self-published through Wasteland Press.] Location (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This theory - that the CIA killed Kennedy to keep him from learning (and sharing with the Soviets and the public) a secret UFO reverse-engineering program - appears to have been around while in different forms (i.e. [5]). It seems to be a combination of the CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory and the CIA's involvement in the UFO conspiracy theory. (The CIA has something to say about the later: [6].) Lester's book is self-published, however, the coverage in secondary reliable sources seems to stem from an article by AOL's Lee Speigel:

April 18, 2011 - Lee Speigel of AOL publishes a story discussing William Lester's book; the author also tracks down Robert Wood.

April 18, 2011 - Weekly World News (!!!!) publishes a story referencing the AOL story.

April 19, 2011 - Daily Mail publishes a story referencing the AOL story.

April 20, 2011 - Natalie Wolchover of Life's Little Mysteries publishes story discussing Lester's book.

April 21, 2011 - Wolchover's story is re-published by Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, and MSNBC and many other smaller sources.

I guess I'm not sure if this should go under "Other published theories", under the section regarding CIA involvement, or keep as a separate section. *sigh* Location (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. In reliable sources, this theory was only very briefly covered in the news and is actually only a blip in the world of JFK conspiracy theories. Given consideration to WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:UNDUE, I have removed the content from this article and merged it with CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory and UFO conspiracy theory. Location (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Iron sights

Just wanted to clarify the issue of whether Oswald used iron sights or not. "both the WC and the HSCA agreed that Oswald used a scope on the rifle -- the rifle was found w/ a scope mounted on it" said Brandon when he reverted my clarification of this issue. Brandon isn't quite accurate here - the HSCA, as can be seen in the very link to this section, concluded that Oswald - or the shooter - could have refired as quickly as within 1.66 seconds if the iron sights were used. While the scope was on the rifle, the iron sights could still be used, and it is unknown whether the assassin (we know SOMEONE was firing shots from the TSBD) used the scope or the sights. The HSCA, IOW, did NOT conclude Oswald/the assassin used the scope. Which is why the HSCA did their tests using the iron sights. Canada Jack (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. Brandon has re-inserted the false claim that the HSCA concluded Oswald had used the rifle scope, not the iron sights. And, true to form, he hasn't bothered to address the subject even though the very reference for this section says that Oswald could have used the iron sights! Here is the pertinent HSCA passage from the page referred to in the section about the iron sights: "Accordingly, the 1.66 seconds between the onset of of the first and the second impulse patterns on the tape [i.e. the recording the HSCA based their conclusion on that there was a second gunman] are not too brief a period of time for both of these patterns to represent gunfire, and for Oswald to have fired both of the shots." Since the 1.66 seconds is the time established in using the iron sights, the HSCA concluded Oswald could have fired the shots using the iron sights. To the contrary, if they had somehow determined, as Brandon claims, that Oswald had instead used the scope, they would have NOT been able make the conclusion that Oswald could have fired the shots as he needed 2.3 seconds to do so with the scope. Canada Jack (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. Canada Jack has made the false assertion that "...while the scope was on the rifle, the iron sights could still be used." Obviously, Canada Jack is not familiar with firearms. Scopes are mounted on rifles in front of the iron sights. The scope and its mount obstruct the shooter's view through the iron sights, rendering the iron sights useless. A scope mounted on a rifle, de facto, means that the shooter's only option for aiming is to use the scope. Are there any hunters, or people familiar with firearms, out there to confirm this? BrandonTR (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Boy, how many screw-ups can we count on one page with Brandon? "A scope mounted on a rifle, de facto, means that the shooter's only option for aiming is to use the scope." Uh, no, Brandon. If the scope was mounted on this particular rifle in the way you describe, the bolt could not be operated.(!) Which is why the scope was mounted slightly off-centre to the left so as to allow the bolt to be operated. Accordingly, the iron sights could be used even with the scope in place. For example, the FBI's Robert Frazier tested the rifle with the scope AND with the iron sights - without removing the scope.

Secondly, wikipedia 101 for you, AGAIN. You made the specific claim that the HSCA concluded Oswald fired with the scope. That factoid is nowhere to be found on the attendant page (the Warren Commission's conclusion IS there, however), indeed the attendant page comes to precisely the OPPOSITE conclusion - that Oswald could have fired the rifle in the required time if he used the iron sights. Which I pointed out to you several times. And now we realize where the claim for the HSCA supposedly "concluding" that Oswald used the scope - it comes from YOUR assessment that since they agreed the scope was on the rifle when found, and therefore was on the rifle when fired, Oswald MUST have used the scope as YOU believed the presence of the scope blocked use of the iron sights. That is called Original Research, Brandon. And even if you were correct - you aren't - you'd STILL have to supply a citation for that claim of what the HSCA said.

Your only out here, Brandon, is to quote some conspiracy author here who makes the inane claim that Oswald HAD to have used the rifle as the scope blocked the iron sights, even though that is not true. Rest assured, a note to clarify that erroneous point would have to be added. Canada Jack (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Which conspiracy theorist are you referring to? I'm sure it's not President Lyndon Johnson who told several prominent newsmen that he thought that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy. BrandonTR (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Johnson knew his rifles, from what I've read. So he wouldn't have made the rather amazing claim that this rifle with a scope couldn't also be aimed with its iron sights. Further, I said conspiracy "authors" not theorists. How many books did Johnson write on the subject of his predecessor's assassination? I think we know the answer to that one. Nice try in changing the subject though, Brandon. Next time you challenge me over facts, you might do a bit of research to see if I am on to something instead of putting your foot into your mouth. I suggested you check the source, clearly you didn't. Obviously, we have different conclusions on the assassination, but you of all people should know I am not going to change something on a point of fact without being pretty sure I am right on the question at issue. Canada Jack (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Johnson would likely have gone public with information about a conspiracy had he ever been able to confirm it. He never did. He thought there was a conspiracy but he had no compelling evidence. At any rate, he has nothing to do with scope vs iron sights. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

However, many Warren Commission apologists espouse the false narrative that those who believe in a JFK assassination conspiracy also believe in such things as Big Foot and faked moon landings. Whereas we see that prominent people, including Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, as well as some congressmen and Kennedy aides, are on record saying that they believe there was a conspiracy in the case of JFK. BrandonTR (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to Right the Great Wrong. Apologists have nothing to do with the scope vs iron sights question which is what this discussion thread is supposed to be about. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about righting a Great Wrong. However, the Warren Commission apologists should stop with the childish insults -- it gets a little tiring. BrandonTR (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet has finally admitted the WC is the great wrong. While it is clearly outside Wikis scope to right this, it is within its scope to document it. Childish insults and religious conviction are great substitutes for careful consideration and acknowledgement of the obvious- the WC was inspired and performed to convince the public of Oswald's guilt, not find out what happened. The inclusion of Dulles at very least has the conspicuous appearance of taint. WC apologists also believe in such things as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the Iraqi terrorists, which I wish was as harmless as believing in bigfoot and the moon landings being faked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 00:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A scope on a rifle does not indicate that the rifle was used at all, or that any shooter used either sites. The police have a test to determine that, which to my knowledge was not performed on this rifle. A poorly aligned scope does indicate that that rifle would be poor choice to achieve rapid fire hits on a moving target at distance, along with its inherent inaccuracy and poor general condition. But lets face it, it is Canada Jack who is full of the certainty as to what happened, inferred from the mostly contradictory or controversial data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 00:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No one pretends that the HSCA tests proved Oswald or anyone else used the iron sights or the scope. Just that using this particular rifle, those are the times the firearm was capable of shooting within depending on which sighting method was used. As for determining via tests whether someone used the sights or the scope, I'm not aware there is any test which could possibly determine this. The best we have is that if it can be proved that several bullets were fired with that rifle in under 2.3 seconds, we can infer the iron sights had to have been used. Canada Jack (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Milteer and Finck material

I see problems with this material regarding Joseph Milteer and Pierre Finck. The part about Milteer's statements (secretly recorded by a Miami police informant) is taken straight from a self-published source of a kind that is generally not acceptable here as a reliable source. Quoting from WP:SPS: "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Similarly for the Finck testimony at the Clay Shaw trial; if you must quote directly from the trial transcript, find a more reliable source. And in both cases, extensive verbatim quoting from primary source material is discouraged — not absolutely prohibited, to be sure, but it should be limited to "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". In this situation, I believe these extensive primary-source quotes are inappropriate because the reader is being implicitly called upon to conclude from these quotes that Milteer's death was "suspicious" and that Finck's testimony supports allegations of a government conspiracy. If these allegations are credible, find reliable secondary sources which discuss them. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The John McAdams site is a self-published source, yet some of the editors here don't seem to have a problem deeming it as being a reliable source. BrandonTR (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think we can take a look at what is attributed to his website and try to find alternative sourcing, particularly for what may be considered contentious claims by those on one side of the aisle. Location (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Note, too, that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (see WP:PROVEIT). This also applies to the reliability of a source: If a source that appears to be unreliable is in fact reliable, the editor who wants to use the disputed source needs to present a satisfactory case for its usability (e.g., if you think jfklancerforum.com is a well-respected, reliable source and not a self-published blog, you need to establish this to the satisfaction of reasonable people). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the quotes and that the forum is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. The Milteer quote can be obtained from reliable sources, including the HSCA Report (and even John McAdams's book in a rebuttal to Marrs's POV on this); however, I agree it doesn't give the full picture of what the HSCA concluded. Given the hundreds of people who were witnesses or claimed to have knowledge of something, we need to be careful not to give undue weight to certain items... particularly when they are the items that have not received those most coverage in secondary reliable sources.

The following should also be removed, not because it is unreliable but rather because it is cherry-picked primary source information which without context is tantamount to OR:

The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported in 1979 that while the information on the alleged threat to the president "was furnished the agents making the advance arrangements before the visit of the President" to Miami, "the Milteer threat was ignored by Secret Service personnel in planning the trip to Dallas." Robert Bouck, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Secret Service's Protective Research Section "...testified to the committee that threat information was transmitted from one region of the country to another if there was specific evidence it was relevant to the receiving region."

In my opinion, it is sufficient for that particular section simply to say that "X believes Y, who knew Z, died suspiciously" with maybe a little more detail given to one or two of the most prominent "suspicious deaths". Location (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add here except to affirm that cherry-picked bits of primary source text should not appear in the article. The only primary source material that might be allowed would be very brief bits of very widely commented-upon portions of the body of evidence. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Citations

I have reverted BrandonTR's removal of citation information (diff). The assertion that is an advertisement and/or promotional is unfounded. Please discuss. Location (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

BTR: Per the edit summary, I've trimmed the chapter names within the various Select Committee citations. Location (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers

We shouldn't be cherry-picking lengthy quotes to put in the article, so I re-wrote the bit about what Tip O'Neill (w/ ghost-writer William Novak) claimed Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers said regarding the direction of the shots.(diff) The implication here is that alleged perjury on their part somehow points to a conspiracy either by the placement of a grassy knoll gunman or that they were forced to alter their testimony. Unfortunately, leaving this as an implication makes this OR so we need sources explicitly stating how this points to a conspiracy. The O'Neill book alone is not sufficient because he did not say he thought their alleged contradictory statements were evidence of a conspiracy. Location (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

We've already dealt with this some years ago, and this material still doesn't belong in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This material absolutely belongs in the article. [personal attack removed] your reference is [personal attack removed] pointed to another article "Assassination of President Kennedy" and not to this article which has to do with JFK assassination theories. BrandonTR (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The subject matter is the same, therefore, the discussion is relevant. Do you intend to supply a source that explicitly states how O'Neill's statement is connected with a conspiracy? Location (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the subject matter is the same. That's why there are two separate articles. [personal attack removed]BrandonTR (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The material is relevant here. Do you intend to supply a source that explicitly states how O'Neill's statement is connected with a conspiracy? Location (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Just as soon as you provide evidence that what O'Neill reported Powers as saying does not indicate conspiracy. BrandonTR (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is about presenting information that indicates that there is a conspiracy, so the burden is on you to present sourced material that points to a conspiracy... not original research or analysis. You inserted the material so you must be familiar with a conspiracy author who first brought this to your attention. Location (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The material speaks for itself. [personal attack removed] BrandonTR (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it is your interpretation that the material points to a conspiracy... and the article is not about what you think. Those who think that everything points to a conspiracy need to get a clue. If you do not intent to supply a secondary source that explicitly states how O'Neill's alleged statement is connected with a conspiracy, then this should be removed. Location (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary source? Where is that in the Wikipedia guidelines? BrandonTR (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed: O'Neill's book would appear to be a secondary source as per Wikipedia guidelines (The primary source would be Powers himself.) In either case, primary sources may be used according to Wikipedia, but sparingly. BrandonTR (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, Brandon? You don't know what Wikipedia guidelines say about secondary sources? Time for you to start over again at square one. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, Steven. You don't know what Wikipedia guidelines say about secondary sources, or you would state them along with how they apply in this case. BrandonTR (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The primary source, Brandon, is O'Neill's book which says NOTHING about the testimony indicating a conspiracy or cover-up. You are confusing "secondary" with "second hand," which is what the account O'Neill is describing, a second-hand account of what someone else said, but the book itself is the primary source. A secondary source in this regards would be ANOTHER author taking what O'Neill has written and saying something like "the testimony related by O'Neill is evidence of a conspiracy/cover-up." Why? Because MANY people thought shots came from the Grassy Knoll, but this does not automatically mean there was a second gunman. The confusing acoustics of the plaza is a common explanation for this for those who argue only a TSBD shooter. As for the FBI, since there was no evidence of a knoll gunmen outside of some witnesses thinking the shots came from there, in contrast to the wealth of evidence pointing to the TSBD, if the FBI in fact had "pressured" them to say a different direction, a "lone gunman" interpretation of that is this was an example of the FBI, obviously inappropriately, trying to avoid bogging down the WC with investigations for gunmen there was no other evidence of who ever existed, not necessarily supressing "proof" of a second gunman, since the evidence was far from "proof" in the first place. The same goes for the Johnson phone call with Hoover - one could see that as two men - LBJ and Hoover - discussing what was known in the fall of 1963 - that LHO was the sole assassin, which then was a very obvious conclusion - and a desire to tamp talk of "conspiracy" when there was no evidence any existed. I'm not saying those interprations are the correct ones, just that it is the INTERPRETATIONS which are needed to include this on the page, as the testimony does not explicitly point to a conspiracy/cover-up. If, on the other hand, O'Neill said they said "they wanted to hide the truth about the conspiracy and so we had to change our testimony," that would be a different matter. But that's not what we have here. The POINT here is that the text as it stands does not say "conspiracy" or "cover up," and should not therefore be in a section on this page which is described as such, UNLESS a secondary source characterizes what O'Neill has described as being that. Canada Jack (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care." Regarding whether we need another secondary source to interpret Powers statement of shots from the grassy knoll as an indication of conspiracy -- I think not. The well-known official version is that all shots came from the 6th floor window of the Book Depository -- therefore, the logical deduction is clear. BrandonTR (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding whether we need another secondary source to interpret Powers statement of shots from the grassy knoll as an indication of conspiracy -- I think not. Wikipedia 101, Brandon. The WC had many witnesses say they heard shots from the knoll area or elsewhere. Yet they concluded that all shots came from the TSBD. Why? They interpreted those other reports as being confused as to the true origin of the shots owing to the acoustics of the plaza. So someone saying "the shots sounded like they came from the direction of the knoll" doesn't mean the shots in fact came from the knoll. The quotes above could be just as easily interpreted as being as per the acoustics of the plaza. So you need something else, a SECONDARY source with a different conclusion - i.e. that this was NOT a result of confusing acoustics, but an indication as the "true" source of the gunfire and a further attempt by the FBI to cover up that "truth." What don't you get here? Canada Jack (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What I don't get is your ignoring of The House Select Committee on Assassination's conclusion that at least one of the shots came from the grassy knoll. If you want to inject the Warren Commission's version that what witnesses actually heard were echos then do so. But don't just dismiss out of hand what witnesses said they heard about shots coming from the grassy knoll, just because the Warren Commission did so. BrandonTR (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

As usual, you completely miss the point. Thanks for agreeing that there are many interpretations here on the raw evidence. Because of that simple fact, we need a SECONDARY SOURCE who declares, to be included on this page, that what was quoted by O'Neill is evidence of a knoll shooter and/or the FBI engaging in a cover-up. Again, what don't you get here? How many times does this have to be spelled out? Canada Jack (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There were several witnesses who claim to have heard at least one shot from the grassy knoll, as you acknowledge. The prima facie evidence for witnesses hearing shots from the knoll is that there were indeed shots from the knoll. While the WC dismissed what these witnesses heard as echoes, it conducted no scientific analysis to support its claim. The only scientific evidence on this matter was conducted by the HSCA, and this secondary source concluded that the prima facie evidence of what witnesses like Powers reported is what actually had occurred -- that shots had come from the knoll. BrandonTR (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'll get to it this evening, but I think I've found a couple of secondary sources that should work to everyone's satisfaction. I'll put something together, then post it (subject to WP:BRD, of course). Location (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I added this after the Powers info to hopefully mollify some of the critics by providing the Warren Commission's counter-argument: Other witnesses, who appeared before the Warren Commission, also reported hearing shots from the grassy knoll. The Commission discounted such testimony, pointing to "the difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots" due to the disparate noises produced by a bullet, including: muzzle blast, the shock wave produced by the bullet, the noise produced by the impact of the bullet, and echos. BrandonTR (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The prima facie evidence for witnesses hearing shots from the knoll is that there were indeed shots from the knoll. While the WC dismissed what these witnesses heard as echoes, it conducted no scientific analysis to support its claim. Bullshit. And this is where the argument collapses. If there were at least one shot from the grassy knoll, we'd expect that many witnesses would have described shots coming from TWO directions, since we KNOW someone fired shots from the TSBD - too many witnesses actually SAW a sniper fire from there. Yet virtually no witnesses, only a small handful, said two directions. So "prima facie," Brandon, since we KNOW someone fired from the TSBD and something like 98 % of witnesses reported shots from ONE direction (be it from the TSBD or the knoll), the logical inference is there was confusion over the direction the shots came from. Remember also that many witnesses routinely lumped together by the CT crowd as saying "knoll" in fact described another location - like closer to the TSBD or the the underpass.

Your qualification does not pass muster - you MUST supply a secondary source which describes that testimony as evidence of a knoll assassin. You CAN do this for those witnesses who testified to the WC to that effect, as authors have cited THAT evidence as being indicative of a knoll assassin, (and that needs to be cited), but you can't apply that analysis to these guys who didn't testify as THAT is YOUR conclusion about what the evidence indicates, just as if I was to say this indicates Deally Plaza was an echo chamber. It's Original Research, pure and simple. Canada Jack (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is getting sidetracked with insults and irrelevant grievances. I've removed it for a very simple reason: as I pointed out here eight (!) years ago, the anecdotes in O'Neill's book are disputed and their factual accuracy is in doubt. Furthermore, O'Donnell himself says "The story is an absolute lie...whoever gave that story is lying. It's an absolute, outright lie." Gamaliel (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel appears to be incorrect. He says that House Speaker Tip O'Neill's account was disputed by Kenneth O'Donnell himself, citing this: "The story is an absolute lie...whoever gave that story is lying. It's an absolute, outright lie." - Kenneth O'Donnell, qtd. in Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1975. Wherever Gamaliel managed to find this quote, it can't be referring to O'Neill's account, as O'Neill's account first became public knowledge in his 1988 book, "Man of the House." Moreover, O'Donnell died in 1977, 11 years before O'Neill's book was published. In light of this, we have to be careful before we allow misinformed editors to remove text willy-nilly. BrandonTR (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada Jack, I've found some secondary sources that explicitly tie the O'Neill allegations to a conspiracy, but I'm still working on it. Gamaliel, I've also found secondary sources challenging the veracity of O'Neill's allegations, including the statement from Powers that you've mentioned. BrandonTR, the quote is real, but it actually comes from Powers. Location (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The quote is real -- OK. Please give a reference so we can take a look at the entire article, not just this snippet. And since the quote goes back to 1975, please explain how the quote can be referring to information revealed 13 years into the future, in O'Neill's book. BrandonTR (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I confused that statement with one that Powers gave after O'Neill's book came out. Although not a link to the original article, this one mentions the quote in that article: [7]. It appears as though similar allegations were leveled against O'Donnell back in '75. Location (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Found an unofficial transcript of the Chicago Tribune article here. Location (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I no longer have access to the database I used to find the article, so before you posted this link I posted a resource request. In the interests of accuracy, transparency, etc., I'll let the request stand in case someone can find an unassailable copy of the original. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I now have a copy of the newspaper article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"spewing nonsense"? Seriously? Can't you for once just disagree with something without acting in such an immature manner? Gamaliel (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

OK -- I changed it to "incorrect." BrandonTR (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

O'Donnell indeed made the statement in 1975, as the story made the rounds back then. So, it is true that he didn't respond to O'Neill's quote in his book, but it is also true he denied the allegation as it didn't originate with O'Neill. Further, Powers actually said in an affidavit to the Warren Commission "My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead, but I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass." [8] So, in the end we have a categorial denial from one of the two men which predates the O'Neill book, and we have the other man - Powers - supposedly saying he changed his testimony yet who testified to the Warren Commission that he had the impression the shots came from the underpass! So, yet another poorly researched CT contention, easily checked. But hey, the CT crowd doesn't care, so as long as Location finds someone saying this is indicative of whatever, it should be okay. Canada Jack (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear that O'Donnell initially denied this assertion to a reporter at the Chicago Tribune. But that doesn't mean that O'Donnell did not later confirm it in private to House Speaker Tip O'Neill. Remember, what O'Neill said about O'Donnell telling him that the reason that he had lied to the WC is that he didn't want to stir up any more trouble for the Kennedy family.

Also, here is the relevant part of David Powers affidavit to the Warren Commission "My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead, but I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass. This may have resulted from my feeling, when I looked forward toward the overpass, that we might have ridden into an ambush." BrandonTR (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Brandon, I believe that O'Neill said the comments came in 1968, not after the 1975 allegation by the CIA operative which O'Donnell was responding to. As for Powers, his comments to the Commission sure don't sound like he was toeing some line fed him by the FBI. Recall, the allegation was he CHANGED his testimony to match the Single Gunman theory, not that he simply was pressured to do so and didn't. Besides, what rings false about all these allegations, besides the rather inconvenient fact of what Powers in fact said, was that numerous witnesses testified to the WC that the bullets seem to come from other locations other than the TSBD, so why were THEY allowed to testify such? It seems rather implausible that the FBI would focus on O'Donnell and Powers as if their testimony was somehow more crucial than all those other witnesses? It makes little sense. Canada Jack (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that we have his denial in 1975, and we have information that much of the O'Neill book is factually dubious, and that, according to Aloysius Farrell in 2001, he "failed to support" O'Neill's claims, we can't have Wikipedia saying in any way that this story is accurate. Sure, he may have recanted his denial in private and then denied doing so later, but that's just conjecture and we can't state something as fact, or even as a possibility, on the basis of conjecture. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should just succinctly present the different accounts and their chronology, without speculating too much on the veracity of the accounts. With changing stories and alleged motives, it would seem impossible to determine who was telling the truth or not at which point in time. BrandonTR (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If we have conflicting sources of equal potential validity, sure, we just throw them both in there. But in this case, we have the man himself saying "no, it didn't happen" repeatedly and other sources of disputed accuracy disagreeing. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

But, according to House Speaker Tip O'Neill, we have a man later saying that it "did" happen and even giving a motive for why he earlier said that it "did not" happen. BrandonTR (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Brandon, the O'Neill account was from an incident in 1968, O'Donnell's denial was in 1975 referring to the CIA operative's claim. Unless you have other information, O'Donnell did not discuss this with Tip after 1968. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Make this chronology part of the article, but don't deny the possibility that O'Donnell may have said one thing to a reporter (which was published at the time in 1975) and something else to Speaker Tip O'Neill, in private, (which was published 13 years later). BrandonTR (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Tip wrote nearly 20 years after the fact, he may have got the story confused, or misunderstood it. Not sure the exact quote about Powers, but it is clear HIS testimony wasn't coerced. What exactly does Tip say about Powers? Canada Jack (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC

Once again, you're speculating too much. Present the case and let the reader speculate. BrandonTR (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why I am asking what he says about Powers - what did he say Powers said? Canada Jack (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

wikipedia does not present dubious information and leave it up to the reader. We make decisions based on the reliability of the sources. In this case, we have a book whose accuracy on many matters has been called into question, and in this specific matter it has been disputed by the principal party at least twice that we know of. To present this material as factual and reliable is ridiculous, and this is compounded by the fact that you are repeatedly reinserting this dubious material without any reference to O'Donnell's repeated denials. This latter act appears to indicate that the accuracy of the encyclopedia is not your concern, only your pro conspiracy agenda. If I am wrong, you can prove me wrong my simply refraining from repeatedly reintroducing this material without reference to those denials. Gamaliel (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Where has the book's accuracy been called into question? Be specific for a change. You obviously have an agenda of promoting the lone-nut theory in opposition to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. BrandonTR (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

UTC)

obviously. And your habit of making this accusation towards everyone who disagrees with your edits only adds to the credibility of this current accusation. The problems with the book have already been spelled out here repeatedly and specifically, and since you've been participating in this discussion your claims of ignorance make little sense. I will, however, summarize AGAIN: the specific account was denied at least TWICE, in 1975 and 2001, and O'Neill's biographer details the dubious factual accuracy of the anecdotes in O'Neill's book in general. If your interest is in the factual accuracy of the encyclopedia, then you would familiarize yourself with the details of the discussion in which you yourself are participating in regarding the factual inaccuracies in the material which you are repeatedly reinserting and refrain from reinserting it until you are familiar with that material. Your beliefs regarding the events in 1963 are irrelevant, as are mine. What matters is how we we edit the encyclopedia, and reinserting factually inaccurate material which you admit here you aren't even completely familiar with is just poor editing and harmful to the encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So O'Neill's "official" biographer has detailed "the dubious factual accuracy of the anecdotes in O'Neill's book in general." Really? So tell us what this biographer has to say. BrandonTR (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, really. Everything you need to know is in or linked to in the discussion above that you've been participating in, Gamaliel (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, you are not going to enlighten us ... just as I thought. BrandonTR (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

it is your responsibility to actually read the discussion you are participating in. I'm not going to restate and resumarize everything everytime you want to score a cheap point in your own mind by claiming ignorance. You must enjoy this on some level, otherwise you wouldn't keep wasting our time, if you were acting like a collaborative editor [personal attack removed], we could have wrapped this discussion up days ago. Gamaliel (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Learn to speak for yourself, instead of pretending to speak for everyone. A quick search reveals no reference to what you refer to as O'Neill's "biographer". BrandonTR (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

John Aloysius Farrell wrote Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century. Farrell called Man of the House "Tip O'Neill's (only somewhat fictional) memoir".[9] Thus far I've limited my search to hits related on O'Donnell and Powers, but it appears quite a few individuals have challenged the veracity of some of the claims in Man of the House. Still, I think there is some secondary coverage that is applicable. Working on other things right now. About to leave town for a few days, too. Location (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

An author, writing a biography of Tip O'Neill, claiming O'Neill's memoir was "only somewhat fictional" is just the conjecture and opinion of the author. If we were to not use any politician's memoir because some biographer called it "somewhat fictional", we would have to omit, for example, Richard Nixon's memoir, Six Crises, since many biographers of Nixon claim that he gave a fictional account of Watergate among other things. BrandonTR (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not just "conjecture and opinion" but the judgment of reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is John Farrell a more reliable source than Tip O'Neill? Do you have some insight into their character that the rest of us don't? BrandonTR (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you capable of discussing this without snark? Just try. Think of it as a challenge. Gamaliel (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you address the point just raised, instead of pretending to have gotten your feelings hurt? BrandonTR (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What is your point, besides an insult? Obviously a professional biographer is more reliable than a politician recounting decades-old anecdotes. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. LOL. I'm surprised this is not the Bible's Eleventh Commandment. BrandonTR (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there an actual response to the point I made in there or are you just practicing for the state championship? Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I know it's hard for some to fathom, but "professional biographers" can and do have opinions and points of view. Some biographers are sympathetic to their subject, while others are not. One need only look at the various biographers of Reagan, Clinton, and Nixon for evidence of wide-ranging points of view. BrandonTR (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable point. But for us to dismiss the work of this particular biographer, we must have a specific reason that causes us to conclude that he has a particular bias or point of view that makes his work unreliable. Otherwise, we're just speculating. Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There are other opinions that the O'Neill book makes some dubious allegations. In addition to Powers, Rowland Evans and Robert Novak of Evans and Novak, Bruce Faulkner Caputo, John Seigenthaler, Barbara Mikulski, William Safire, and Robert H. Michel have challenged various accounts. The Callahan article below even states: "Ghostwriter [William] Novak said the alleged inaccuracies would be in the book even if O'Neill wrote it himself." This is what I've found just looking for more information on the O'Donnell-Powers allegations:

• Evans and Novak (September 15, 1987). "Another Tall Tale From Tip O'Neill". The News & Courier. Charleston, South Carolina. p. 10-A. Retrieved April 3, 2013.
• Callahan, Christopher (October 15, 1987). "Tip O'Neill memoir readers challenging his memory". The Free Lance–Star. Fredericksburg, Virginia. AP. p. 12. Retrieved April 3, 2013.
• "Former speaker's book criticized on accuracy". Record-Journal. Meriden, Connecticut. AP. October 15, 1987. Retrieved April 3, 2013.

-Location (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So what do have now? An allegation contained in a book which has numerous people disputing other allegations within the same book! Further, we have 1) the subject of the allegation - O'Donnell- talking about specifically denying the allegation. And, 2) we have Powers in the same allegation "confirming" the story per O'Neill EVEN THOUGH HE TESTIFIED HE THOUGHT HE HEARD SHOTS FROM THE DIRECTION OF GRASSY KNOLL.

In the end, what does the O'Neill anecdote claim? Simply that these two changed their testimony to "rear shot" so as to protect the Kennedys from the ordeal. But how big a deal is this? Especially given that we already had numerous others testifying that a knoll/front shot happened? It's not a big deal at all, IMHO. EVEN IF THE ALLEGATION IS TRUE. As for the FBI, it is entirely ambiguous as to whether the FBI "coerced" them into changing their story, even if it seems they led their witnesses. O'Donnell, after all, cites the feelings of the Kennedys here, NOT pressure from the FBI - as his motivating factor. He may have felt that he should give the "expected" answer for the sake of the Kennedys - not that the FBI wanted that answer. As for evidence of this, again, we have the statement from Powers. HE obviously didn't feel "coerced," given his testimony, he simply felt he needed to protect the Kennedys as per their words.

In the end, I feel we CAN include this on the page, but we need to be careful what, exactly, is being claimed. That O'Donnell and Powers changed their story to spare the Kennedys. And that the FBI questioned their stories (or at least O'Donnell's, it's not clear what story is being "confirmed" by Powers). THEN we can mention that some authors interpret this to mean the FBI coerced them into changing their story. While others feel it was, if true, simply that their motive was to spare the Kennedys. THEN we can mention that O'Donnell specifically denied the allegations O'Neill has (albiet as presented by a CIA operative in 1975) AND Powers in fact testified that he thought he heard shots from the direction of the underpass. AND that O'Neill's book has been widely critisized by many for factual innacuracies. Canada Jack (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for allegations regarding O'Donnell and Powers

Relevant secondary sources found by Location for this discussion

Books Chambers, G. Paul (2010). "The Witnesses". Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 63. ISBN 9781616142094. Retrieved April 3, 2013. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Janney, Peter (2012). "Part Three". Mary's Mosaic. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. pp. 284–285. ISBN 9781620872826. Retrieved April 3, 2013. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Russo, Gus (1998). "The Investigations". Live by the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK. Baltimore, Maryland: Bancroft Press. p. 370. ISBN 9781890862015. Retrieved April 3, 2013. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Talbot, David (2007). "The Awful Grace Of God". Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years. New York: Free Press / Simon & Schuster, Inc. pp. 293–294. ISBN 9780743269186. Retrieved April 3, 2013. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Waldron, Lamar (2006). "Introduction". Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK. Berkeley, California: Counterpoint. p. xxxvii-xxxviii. ISBN 9781458760630. Retrieved April 3, 2013. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Waldron, Lamar (2008). Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination. Berkeley, California: Counterpoint. pp. 182, 307, 778. ISBN 9781582434223. Retrieved April 3, 2013. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Scheim, David E. (1988). "The Warren Commission Cover-Up". Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy. New York: Shapolsky Publishers, Inc. pp. 209–210. ISBN 9780933503304. Retrieved April 3, 2013. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Hennelly, Robert; Policoff, Jerry (1992). "How the Media Assassinated the Real Story of JFK's Assassination". In Stone, Oliver; Skylar, Zachary (eds.). JFK: The Book of the Film : The Documented Screenplay. New York: Applause Books. p. 496. ISBN 9781557831279. Retrieved April 3, 2013. (originally published in the March 31, 1992 edition of Village Voice) Kelin, John. Praise from a Future Generation: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the First Generation Critics of the Warren Report. San Antonio, Texas: Wings Press. p. 214. ISBN 9780916727321. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Newspaper articles Callahan, Christopher (August 25, 1987). "Reagan a 'Great King' Tip O'Neill Says in Book". Schenectady Gazette. Schenectady, New York. AP. p. 4. Retrieved April 3, 2013. Dallek, Robert (September 13, 1987). "And Now, A Few Words From the Speaker : MAN OF THE HOUSE: The Life and Political Memoirs of Speaker Tip O'Neill with William Novak (Random House: $19.95; 387 pp.)". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles. Retrieved April 3, 2013. Evans and Novak (September 15, 1987). "Another Tall Tale From Tip O'Neill". The News & Courier. Charleston, South Carolina. p. 10-A. Retrieved April 3, 2013. Callahan, Christopher (October 15, 1987). "Tip O'Neill memoir readers challenging his memory". The Free Lance–Star. Fredericksburg, Virginia. AP. p. 12. Retrieved April 3, 2013. "Former speaker's book criticized on accuracy". Record-Journal. Meriden, Connecticut. AP. October 15, 1987. Retrieved April 3, 2013.

Above is a proposal for text that should satisfy the secondary source requirement linking O'Neill's allegations with those of various conspiracy authors. I spent hours digging these up and formatting them, so I hope certain people will keep this in mind when they say I am attempting to suppress a particular point of view.

In my opinion, the O'Neill book is in and of itself a sketchy source, but the claims been discussed in enough other sources that were not self-published. Kelin's Praise from a Future Generation: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the First Generation Critics of the Warren Report appears to discuss it, too, but I can only get a snippet view in GBooks. The allegations in the 1975 Chicago Tribune article were also discussed in one of the above sources, so we may choose to include that with O'Donnell's denial. There are plenty of source discrediting the veracity of O'Neill's book but I'm not sure it is appropriate to put here per Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode. It's probably best to create an article entitled Man of the House (book), place reviews of the book there, and link it here where appropriate.

There are so many examples of allegations stating that people thought there was a grassy knoll shooter or that people were intimidated to change their testimony that it almost seems silly to single out one and give this much coverage to it. We would certainly have a book longer than Bugliosi's if we gave this much coverage to all of them. Location (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your last paragraph is exactly how I feel about this silly matter. I don't think it should be included at all. Should consensus disagree, I have two notes about your proposed paragraph: 1) I suggest we include the quote "an outright lie" to indicate the vehemence of their objections. 2) I suggest we note that "O'Neill's book is widely considered to be inaccurate about numerous anecdotes included in the text" or somesuch, sourced to the Farrell bio and the articles you found. Gamaliel (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Where does this quote come from?: "O'Neill's book is widely considered to be inaccurate about numerous anecdotes included in the text." BrandonTR (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a quote from a source, I included it as proposed article text summarizing several sources. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is a silly allegation, and this singles out one claim over many other similar claims, but because of its relative prominence in the conspiracy community, it should be included on the page. A few slight tweaks, though. Powers in fact said in his WC affidavit "My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead, but I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass," so while he testified about rear shots, he also testified about forward shot(s). And, as Gamaliel says, O'Donnell's denial from 1975 should be in there, along the lines of "in 1975, a CIA operative testified to a House committee on CIA activity that O'Donnell and Powers had been pressured by the FBI to change their testimony. O'Donnell called the claim 'an absolute lie.'" Canada Jack (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Motives? =

No mention of a motive, ANYWHERE. WHAT IS GOING ON?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.164.8.110 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A Gentle Reminder

This is a topic which tends to lead to heated disagreements. I would remind everyone involved that the best way to deal with these disagreements is found at WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Following the advice on those two pages not only makes things go much more smoothly, it maximizes the chances of getting your way in the end. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

J.D. Tippet Murder by Dallas Cop Roscoe White

Recent hire to the Dallas PD, Roscoe White, claimed in his diary that after the shooting of JFK, as he, Tippet, and Oswald were driving to the airfield, Oswald started to question what was going on, so White admits he had to shot Tippet who was not privy to the Conspiracy, as reported by Roscoe's son Ricky White in his diary; moreover his mom worked at Jack Ruby's nightclub.

So far the best explanation for why Tippet was killed. Timing and motive don't make Oswald a logical suspect.

Hovering over the Dallas PD scene is that Mayor Cabell's brother had great motive and many means to kill the President. More specifically, why did the Dallas PD hire Roscoe White as a motorcycle officer in Sept. 1963 whose national security credentials would have obviously be known to the Dallas Chief who hired him; and, no doubt, to the Mayor's brother, who had been fired along with Allen Dulles in 1961 after the 'Bay of Pigs' Event they organized became a total fiasco. Constitutional capers (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It can not be proven that said diary ever existed. Years ago I cut out the 'Roscoe White' subsection of this article, and replaced it with a short entry in 'Other Published Theories.' There is nothing to support the claims of the White family, and this particular theory is too fringe to require its own subsection in this already way overlong article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding what RFK, Jr. said his father thought about the Warren Commission

I have removed the following from the "Possible evidence of a cover-up" section again:

In a 2013 interview with CBS journalist Charlie Rose, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said that his father Robert F. Kennedy "...publicly supported the Warren Commission report but privately he was dismissive of it." He said that his father was "...'fairly convinced' that others [besides Oswald] were involved."[29]

Even if RFK believed it was shoddy work, we cannot imply something that the source doesn't state (i.e. that RFK believed there was a cover-up). Location (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

BrandonTR, the section you are attempting to edit is entitled "Possible evidence of a cover-up", but the material you are attempting to insert into the article only states that RFK, Jr. says that RFK believed there was a conspiracy. The AP report says: "He said his father, later elected U.S. senator in New York, was 'fairly convinced' that others were involved."[10] The full statement was: "I think my father was fairly convinced at the end of that that there had been involvement by somebody..."[11]

Ignoring for a moment that this is only hearsay, it is possible for a person to believe that there was a conspiracy and that the Warren Commission did a poor job, but not believe that there was a cover-up. The material might be be acceptable in a section entitled "People who believed there was a conspiracy"—or more accurately "People who are alleged to have believed there was a conspiracy"—but there is nothing in the material that says RFK had evidence of a cover-up or even thought there was a cover-up. Location (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually that's not the full statement, but nice try. The full statement is as follows:

KENNEDY: I think my father was fairly convinced at the end of that that there had been involvement by somebody … [at this point Charlie Rose cuts Kennedy off when he says]

ROSE: Organized crime, Cubans …

KENNEDY: Or rogue CIA …

Also, your objection has changed. Your original objection was that there was no allegation of conspiracy. Now your objection is that this material does not belong in the section under coverup. Very well. I have moved this material (or I should say some of it) to the section "Role of Oswald." BrandonTR (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Nice try" to you, too. You inserted material that indicated a statement of fact that RFK Jr said RFK was "fairly convinced". The source I provided indicates only that RFK Jr thinks he was "fairly convinced".

And, yes, my objection changed because it is different than the original objection in which the material you inserted did not reference a conspiracy.(diff) I now object to you placing it in the section entitled "Role of Oswald" because... wait for it... it doesn't say anything about the role of Oswald. It belongs in a section "People who are alleged to have believed there was a conspiracy". Why do all these conspiracy allegations rest on someone stating what some dead person said... or in this case... what someone thinks a dead person thought? Weak. Location (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes your argument is weak -- nitpicking over words like "think" vs. "fairly convinced." And yes, the fact that Kennedy mentioned "rogue CIA" means that he thought others, besides Oswald, were directly involved. By the way, there is other material that doesn't necessarily fit exactly, precisely within one particular category or another. That's just the nature of writing. Learn to deal with it. BrandonTR (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

So RFK Jr. says that RFK thought rogue elements within the CIA might have been involved. That's it? Any clues on what Oswald's role was? Does WP:WEIGHT not apply here? Location (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to pass judgement on people's opinions, or pass judgement on what witnesses say, you would have to remove much of the material already present in the article. For example, the previous paragraph says:

According to Richard Buyer, Oswald never fired a shot at the President.[164] James W. Douglass described Oswald as "a questioning, dissenting CIA operative who had become a security risk" and "the ideal scapegoat".[165] According to Josiah Thompson, Oswald was in the Texas School Book Depository during the assassination, but it is "quite likely" he was not the shooter on the sixth floor.[54]

As for RFK Jr. commenting on what his father actually thought about the assassination of JFK, he might actually know something about it. After all, they lived together as father and son for almost 5 years after the assassination, before RFK himself was assassinated. By the way, the title of the article is "JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories." That's THEORIES, not FACTS. Once again, THEORIES. Are we now going to start weighting the theories as to which is a good theory and which is a bad theory? BrandonTR (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If we abide by WP:WEIGHT, there is a good argument to include Buyer, Douglass, and especially Thompson due to the amount of material they have presented relevant to various conspiracy theories and how frequently they have been cited in regards to that material. If we abide by WP:WEIGHT, what do have for RFK Jr.? A few sentences in a Charlie Rose interview. Location (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. RFK Jr. lived with his father, RFK, while none of these authors did. Wikipedia makes no reference to the amount of published material by authors as a gauge of WEIGHT. This is your own invention. BrandonTR (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]" An allegation is an allegation and some allegations have more prominence. Location (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why there is only one sentence devoted to this. BrandonTR (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

By that line of reasoning, every conspiracy allegation could have one sentence devoted to it. Get real. The most appropriate place for this allegation, apparently not found anywhere else, is in the RFK Jr. article. Location (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

[personal attack removed] BrandonTR (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments such as "Get real" and "Just admit it" do not lead to working together and resolving disputes through consensus. Instead they cause people to dig in and fight harder. Please stick to logic and evidence, and avoid anything that even resembles a personal comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Brandon, you'll see from the edit history of the article that I've done a pretty good job of taking a jumble mess of conspiracy thoughts and placing them in some reasonable order. This particular assertion is incredibly weak as there is no substantial coverage about any particular conspiracy theory... and that is what this article is about. So, since you stuck the material in the section entitled "Role of Oswald", what does RFK Jr. say what RFK thought about Oswald's role in a conspiracy theory? Location (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, makes no sense to be in the "Oswald" section. As I've pointed out before, if I was as conspiracy-obsessed as some, I'd wonder why this page is such a confusing jumble, and likely conclude the conspirators or their useful idiots were at work to ensure the conspiracy side didn't get a coherent presentation. As for RFK, not really sure how one's opinion should carry so much weight, particularly from one who, like LBJ, would no doubt have contact with many sources which would have the goods on what "really" happened. Yet, by all accounts, while both men suspected there was more going on here, neither had any indication that their suspicions were correct. IOW, these opinions undermine conspiracy theories as these men who presumably would have known something apparently knew nothing. Far from me to suggest a better organization here as my contributions are not typically embraced by Brandon, but it makes sense to me to have a section which simply lists the suspicions of prominent people of a cover up and/or conspiracy. Of course, I'd title the section "Argument from authority fallacies," so I'm sure Brandon won't go for that.... Canada Jack (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

LBJ would appear to be a special case, in that he benefited directly from the assassination and may have been privy to facts about it that others were not. Moreover, because witnesses have come forward and presented evidence of LBJ's involvement in the assassination, anything that LBJ said about the assassination could be construed as self-serving. Nevertheless, LBJ's comments have been included in the article (I think appropriately).

Regarding this article being a mess, I think just the opposite. I feel that the average person can learn a lot about the assassination (including conspiracy theories -- pro-and-con) quicker than with just about any other source I have seen. Typically sites take a pro-conspiracy point of view (like CTKA) and other cites take an anti-conspiracy point of view (and, in the case of the McAdams site, I think, a fallacious and disinformative point of view). In contrast, the mostly Canada Jack inspired article on Oswald was a serious mess until I and a few other editors stepped in and corrected the most serious errors, to the point that I now feel that the Oswald article too is a pretty good article. BrandonTR (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this article being a mess, I think just the opposite. We know. Trust us. This is a disorganized, incoherent mess. And your inability to properly address let alone recognize that does a disservice to the conspiracy community who would want their views coherently and logically presented. Your confusion on wikipedia 101 subjects - such as what a "secondary source" is - is part of the problem. The other is your inability to accept constructive criticism and your apparent belief that those who disagree with you are part of if not the JFK conspiracy cover-up then the Canada Jack posse. As for the Oswald article, I've barely written anything on that page and all you have done is rephrase a lot of stuff which was for the most part perfectly fine to begin with. Has the page been re-organized? Not that I can tell. More like re-phrased. And we can thank you for it now being "a pretty good article"? Knowing you, you aren't joking. There have been a few instances where you've supplied a better source, but in terms of building a page, if I could use a construction analogy, we can trust you to do some of the painting, we can't trust you to build the house. Canada Jack (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this article being a mess, I haven't heard too many editors agreeing with you. BrandonTR (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this article being a mess, I haven't heard too many editors agreeing with you. Location agrees with me and has made a good effort in cleaning it up. Seems one would not need a broom if there was no mess to begin with, eh? But, judging from the comments above, few agree with you on your rather unique take on wikipedia policies let alone on what you feel can go on the page. Maybe you should start Brandonpedia and go from there? Canada Jack (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Location has done much of the restructuring of the article to make it very readable. Unfortunately, he has fallen under the sway of certain editors who believe that the article should be about something other than JFK conspiracy theories, despite its title. Rather than just omit conspiracy theories that you don't happen to like, or that you don't think have much to support them, why not just throw in a couple of sentences that critiques them. It would seem to be so much easier, and given the difficulty of establishing consensus, fairer. BrandonTR (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, he has simply realized that to be credible, the page should follow wikipedia rules. And he, like many others here, are sick and tired of having to explain again and again and again why these rules have to be followed. Rather than just omit conspiracy theories that you don't happen to like... Right. This is what we are up against. The argument about the Tip O'Neill stuff above is a case in point. There was NO "conspiracy theory" at all there, WHICH IS WHAT THE PAGE IS ABOUT, just an account of what some said they heard. As a stand-alone, it is MEANINGLESS. You HAVE to supply a reason for this, along the lines of "author x says this is evidence ignored by the WC pointing to a conspiracy" and the simple fact that we've had this same discussion again and again and again tells us more [personal attack removed] than this mythical band of pro-WC editors trying to "hide" the "truth." Canada Jack (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

My response has already been given regarding the Powers stuff in the previous section. Guys like Canada Jack seem to believe that repeating their same discredited points ad nauseam somehow adds to the discussion and will convince others. BrandonTR (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I can dig on what Jack is saying here. Once upon a time, there was a very long, impressively researched, well-written, extensively-cited section of this article on the many strange parallels between the assassination investigation and the life of G.H.W. Bush and Zapata Corporation. But the author (who never chose to comment on TALK) never did tie the whole thing to an assassination conspiracy theory. So it didn't belong in the article, and was deleted. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I remember it a little differently. The section you refer was not "impressively researched, well-written, or extensively-cited." BrandonTR (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the discussion was six years ago[12] and you have only be contributing to wikipedia for two years, I would say...uh, you have an amazing memory? Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: How far are you guys willing to go with the hearsay? RFK's son said he heard RFK say something one time (even if RFK didn't say it on record). Tip O'Neill said he heard Kenny O'Donnell say something one time, even if O'Donnell denied it on record? Hearsay can sometimes be valuable if there is no other evidence to oppose it, but it's surely being misused here, I would think, when there are better classes of evidence to the contrary. Hearsay might be helpful in locating opinions that are truly valuable when the speaker would have direct knowledge, as for example when person A confesses being a murderer to person B. But who cares what RFK thought about JFK's assassination, if RFK was working from the same evidence that everybody else is, but at remote distance? SBHarris 01:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Warren Commission seemed concerned what RFK thought about the assassination. Indeed the article, under the heading Background even states that the Commission "...indicated that Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State; Robert S. McNamara, the Secretary of Defense; C. Douglas Dillon, the Secretary of the Treasury; Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General" reached the conclusion on the basis of information available to them that that Oswald acted alone and that no credible evidence supported the contention that he was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the president. You opine that RFK was working from the same evidence that everybody else was. In fact, you don't know that. People in positions of power are often privy to information that others are not, and RFK was after all Attorney General before he was axed by Johnson. On a different subject, Robert F. Kennedy was quoted as saying that LBJ was "mean, bitter, vicious—[an] animal in many ways.... In this example, we see that RFK had information on Johnson that others did not. BrandonTR (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What? Are you suggesting that LBJ was "really" best described as a mean, bitter, viscious animal, and that this is history's view of the man, and that Bobby somehow detected it before everybody else caught on? I'm afraid if you read some biography you will be sadly disappointed. RFK's description of "mean, bitter and vicious" fits J. Edger Hoover (or perhaps Nixon) better than LBJ (though LBJ was a complex man who certainly could be all those things occasionally). And as for being an animal, I'd hate to go down the scale comparing animal qualities between LBJ and JFK... Bobby always gave Jack a free pass when it came to morality. JFK wins out over LBJ in sense of humor and ability to stand aside and look at himself, but very few presidents have that, even the smart ones. Nixon had none of that, nor FDR nor TR, smart as all these men were. It's not a common trait of politicians. J. Edgar Hoover didn't have it either, for that matter (RFK may have hated Hoover even more than he hated LBJ).

Perhaps the Warren Commission kept RFK better informed than the general public. But by now we all know what the Warren Commission knew and how they knew it. We also have access to a great deal of evidence about conspiracy that the WC did not, through the HSCA. And basically, there wasn't one. The HSCA screwed up on the acustics, but it's easy to see that in light of later evidence also-- their dictabelt clearly could not have recorded the assassination, and that's that. End.

I'm reading the above stuff about Oswald being an orthodox CIA agent that the "rogue CIA" decided had to go, and so framed. Very funny. I guess the rogue elements (who must have been anti-Cuba) thought it would be good to shoot at General Walker (their buddy) as early as April, 1963, and then procede to frame Oswald for it by hiding film of Walker's house in Oswald's effects, to be found after the JFK shooting? That's forsight, given that JFK hadn't even decided to go to Dallas in April. When was the CIA planning to do the Oswald/Walker frame, and why the long wait? And how did they get Marina Oswald to tell the cops her husband had taken a shot at Walker, and told her he had? If he didn't. Boy that theory really blows. SBHarris 23:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk about getting off the subject.... BrandonTR (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You opine that RFK was working from the same evidence that everybody else was. In fact, you don't know that. People in positions of power are often privy to information that others are not, and RFK was after all Attorney General before he was axed by Johnson. Well, this is an interesting point. RFK and for that matter LBJ would have had unique access to many unofficial sources as well as official sources. Yet while both men harboured suspicions that there was a conspiracy, it is clear from the documentary record and from those who knew them, neither had any actual evidence that this was so. RFK, we know, almost immediately went to those he knew in the CIA and got what he considered to be a definitive "no" when he asked if they were involved. However, some have speculated that his very dark depression following his brother's death was in part fueled by guilt - guilt that his actions towards the Mob may have somehow led to JFK's assassination. If one looks at a history of who was suspect in a possible conspiracy over the years, one must remember that there was a general "consensus" in much of the 60s and the 70s that the mob did it - today the "consensus" seems to be that the CIA was behind it. As for your remarks on LBJ "axing" him as AG, RFK quit to run as Senator, and LBJ pulled out all the stops to help him get elected. If anything, LBJ preferred to have him close at hand despite their hatred for each other, as he feared him as a potential political rival which, of course, he became in 1968. Canada Jack (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

LBJ did not run for reelection in '68; he had made a mess in Vietnam and knew he could not get reelected. Johnson supported Humphrey in '68. RFK did not enter the presidential race until very late, and was quickly eliminated under suspicious circumstances. Also:

"Sometimes people sort of glaze over about the notion that the Mafia and U.S. intelligence and the anti-Castro activists were involved together in the assassination of President Kennedy. In fact, there's no contradiction there. Those three groups were all in bed together at the time and had been for several years in the fight to topple Fidel Castro." --Anthony Summers BrandonTR (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You were wrong about LBJ "firing" RFK in 1964, and you are wrong about LBJ not running. He in fact was on the primary ballots and as incumbent president, no Democrat was going to run against him in 1968. Except McCarthy who sought to bring the Vietnam controversy front and centre and shockingly very nearly won the New Hampshire primary. It was only after that - and RFK's entry into the race 4 days later (not "very late"), a FAR more formidable candidate than McCarthy - that LBJ, realizing he would not even win the Democratic nomination, let alone the presidential election, withdrew his name. (If you doubt that LBJ somehow didn't realize it was a lost cause even in 1967, then read up on how he ran for the 1956 and 1960 presidential nominations, two delusional campaigns on his part.)

"In fact, there's no contradiction there. Those three groups were all in bed together at the time and had been for several years in the fight to topple Fidel Castro." Not saying there was a "contradiction," just that the focus in the past had been on the Mafia, indeed it was the working theory for some in the HSCA. But, why stop at those 3? Why not also bring in the FBI, LBJ and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir while we are at it?

But, in terms of Cuba, again, the logic fails. If, by Summers' analysis, the 3 were in bed together on Cuba and went after JFK presumably for being "soft" on Cuba (for not ordering air support at the Bay of Pigs, what have you), one wonders how these 3, working super-efficiently together to eliminate JFK and cover their tracks, couldn't do the same with this petty dictator in a 3rd-world country? Further, what would have been gained in terms of Cuba from JFK's death in getting LBJ in there anyway? JFK was the cold warrior, LBJ was an FDR liberal! Did they expect an invasion? Perhaps I didn't see the newspaper that day when LBJ, in gratitude towards the CIA, anti-Castro Cubans and the Mafia for "arranging" his presidency, ordered an invasion of Cuba?(!) And, still further, if we are to suppose that they wanted Oswald to seem like he was operating under Castro's orders so as to ensure a response which would topple that regime, why did the CIA, for example, not try to forge material pointing in that direction? They even had the wrong photograph at the Cuban embassy! As per usual, these conspiracy authors talk a good talk, gravely intoning to we naive useful idiots on such weighty matters as "realpolitik" and how the world "really" works, yet their theories are silly, inane, utterly naive and make no sense on the face! Canada Jack (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"President [Kennedy] heroically kept the country out of war — against relentless pressure from hard-liners in the Pentagon, CIA and his own White House, who were determined to militarily engage the enemy in Berlin, Laos, Vietnam and especially Cuba. Kennedy knew that any such military confrontation could quickly escalate into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. And he realized that a full-scale invasion of Cuba or Vietnam could become hopelessly bogged down, turning into a bloody and endless occupation.... The only reason Cuba didn't become the Iraq of its day was that Kennedy was too wise to be snookered by hard-liners into this trap. He had already been misled early in his administration by the CIA, which convinced him that its ragtag army of Cuban exiles could defeat Castro at the Bay of Pigs. JFK vowed that he would never again listen to these so-called national security experts...." David Talbot, "The Kennedy Legacy vs. the Bush Legacy," Salon, 2 May 2007 BrandonTR (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Talbot's quote is fine and dandy, Brandon, except it is contrasting the pressures he had to deal with and what he did in comparison to Bush Jr., not LBJ. So it is of little relevance to the topic at hand, ESPECIALLY given the implication in terms of our topic that once Kennedy was gone, then Cuba, Laos and Berlin would be the site of American military actions (Vietnam, of course, already was). History, of course, tells a different story. Kennedy had troops in Vietnam, if he was truly intent on ending that, he would have simply ended American operations there - he didn't. (That famous memo issued shortly after the assassination was drafted when Kennedy was president, btw) As for Johnson's escalation in 1965, we simply don't know whether Kennedy would have followed a similar path as Johnson. Johnson had many of JFK's team advising him, and Kennedy himself indicated on many occasions that Vietnam was a crucial front in the Cold War. Which is why the United States engineered the assassination of the ineffectual and corrupt South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem early that same fateful month. To pretend that within three weeks JFK had decided with finality what was going to happen in terms of America's role in Vietnam is pure hogwash. Those who say there was "no way" JFK would escalate are indulging in fanciful speculation. It's not like "would Gore have invaded Iraq in 2003?" The facts on the ground in 1964/5 were such that an increased American role was an obvious and defensible - if ultimately disastrous - policy direction for the United States. Anyone who pretends otherwise is full of shit and indulging in Kennedy hero worshiping. Canada Jack (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy sent advisers -- not combat troops into Vietnam.

"I don't recall anyone who was strongly against [sending ground troops into Vietnam], except one man and that was the President. The President just didn't want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do.... It was really the President's personal conviction that U.S. ground troops shouldn't go in." --Maxwell Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy, in a recorded interview with I. J. Hackman, 13 November 1969, cited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Robert Kennedy and His Times

"When Kennedy took office ... the first thing Kennedy did was to send a couple of men to Vietnam to survey the situation. They came back with the recommendation that the military assistance group be increased from 800 to 25,000. That was the start of our involvement. Kennedy, I believe, realized he'd made a mistake because 25,000 U.S. military [advisers] in a country such as South Vietnam means that the responsibility for the war flows to [the United States] and out of the hands of the South Vietnamese. So Kennedy, in the weeks prior to his death, realized that we had gone overboard and actually was in the process of withdrawing when he was killed and Johnson took over." --John McCone, CIA Director under President Kennedy, interviewed by Harry Kreisler, 21 April 1988

"I’ve just been given a list of the most recent casualties in Vietnam. We’re losing too damned many people over there. It’s time for us to get out. The Vietnamese aren't fighting for themselves. We’re the ones who are doing the fighting. After I come back from Texas, that’s going to change. There's no reason for us to lose another man over there. Vietnam is not worth another American life." --President Kennedy, speaking to Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff in the Oval Office on 21 November 1963, the day before his assassination, cited by James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters BrandonTR (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy sent advisers -- not combat troops into Vietnam. Migod, Brandon, you should really get up to speed on this. Eisenhower had 900 "advisors" who may have been in fact largely "advisors." But by 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel on Vietnamese soil. That represented a significant commitment in comparison to what Eisenhower had. Funny you have a quote from JFK saying "we're losing too many people over there" - what, his "advisors" were stepping into traffic foolishly? The hope was that Diem would handle the insurgents - but the battle of Ap Bac where Diem's forces showed their ineptness early in 1963 and other incidents - such as the massacre of Buddists - started State to consider regime change mid-1963 which occurred shortly before Kennedy's assassination. IOW, the situation in Vietnam was deteriorating by the time JFK was assassinated. Indeed, one of the consequences of the American-engineered coup was political chaos. Kennedy may indeed have realized his error - but with the assassination of Diem, all bets were off. The HOPE was that Diem's ouster would change things in America's favour. Indeed, the Pentagon predicted the Viet Cong would be eradicated by Xmas 1963. The reality was the precise opposite. How bad a miscue this was was not yet clear by Nov 22, but it became more clear into 1964. Even so, shortly before JFK's assassination, McBundy drafted the memo reversing the troop withdrawal of OCtober as it was becoming clear little on the ground had changed in their favour. Of course, this memo has been grist for the CT crowd even though it was Kennedy's team who drafted it, reflecting the fluidity of the situation. In the end, there is NO way we could anticipate what the result would have been if JFK had lived. His pressure on Diem's successors in threatening to withdrawal was continued by Johnson, but by 1965 it was clear that without American intervention, the cause would be lost. Would JFK have allowed Vietnam to fall? Because that is what was going to happen. Given he was FAR more of a cold warrior than Johnson was, I'd say he would have been forced by circumstance to escalate. In the end, America was fucked whatever they did - Vietnam was going to the Communists - but to not escalate, he'd have to repudiate the policies of Truman and Eisenhower. The salient point is it was the Vietnamese who were driving America to make this tough decision, not who was in the Oval Office. And to think that America's interests in the region and in the world were altered by the events of Nov 22 ignores the history of America in Asia in that time, and the near-collapse of the Vietnamese regime at the end of 1963 and into 1964. The Viet Cong, which numbered only about 5,000 before JFK came into office was a force 100,000 strong in 1964. Canada Jack (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In the end, Brandon, Vietnam, unlike Iraq in 2003, was NOT a war of choice, given America's foreign policy in the region post WWII. And given what was happening in Vietnam in 1963 and 1964, events largely out of the control of the United States. Kennedy may well have NOT escalated in 1964/5, but it would have been hard for him to follow this policy as it was clear that without significant American intervention, the country would fall to the Communists. This war, in the end, was driven by events in Vietnam itself and America's 2-decade commitment to containing Communism. It was NOT a result of various military and industrial interests concocting a war for their own financial and institutional interests, though there were clear benefits for them (at least, it seemed so). Iraq 2003, in contrast, is a better candidate for those who argue that military and industrial interests drive conflicts. Because the question is "could America tolerate, in 1965, a major Asian country falling to the Communists after they 'lost' China in 1949?" You forget the climate of the times, Brandon. Canada Jack (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy evidently thought Vietnam was a war of choice, as he told several confidants that he intended to pull out. The Vietnam War was essentially a civil war, with the French having invented the country of S. Vietnam. Most US policy makers fell for the "domino theory" (another French concoction) of why we had to intervene. As it turned out, the domino theory -- the major justification for the war -- turned out to be dead wrong as neither Thailand or Malaysia fell to the Communists. Even Cambodia would would have never come under the power of the Khmer Rouge had Nixon and Kissinger not undermined the government of Prince Sihanouk. Douglas MacArthur -- who had experience fighting in Asia and who is widely regarded as a hawk on military matters -- told Kennedy: "Anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland of Asia should have his head examined." You almost never see this quote in our sanitized version of history. There's also this:

"Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in his book 'Robert Kennedy and His Times,' documents other episodes showing President Kennedy's determination not to let Vietnam become an American war. One was when Gen. Douglas MacArthur told him it would be foolish to fight again in Asia and that the problem should be solved at the diplomatic table. Later General Taylor said that MacArthur's views made 'a hell of an impression on the President ... so that whenever he'd get this military advice from the Joint Chiefs or from me or anyone else, he'd say, 'Well, now, you gentlemen, you go back and convince General MacArthur, then I'll be convinced.'" --Roger Hilsman, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs under President Kennedy, letter to The New York Times, 20 January 1992 BrandonTR (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Brandon, all you are doing is underlining the divisiveness of this conflict. Many people saw the disaster this war would be, there is nothing new here. But the question pertinent to this page was whether dark forces within America, sensing Kennedy would never go deeper into Vietnam, decided he had to go and had him killed, installing someone who, presumably, would. Many, like you, pull quotes which seem to indicate Kennedy was aiming to end American involvement. However, a closer look at the situation in Vietnam when he was assassinated reveal that a) Kennedy had already massively increased American involvement in Vietnam, including engineering a coup, and b) the situation as of November 1963 was getting worse, not better. Far worse. Why did Kennedy increase American involvement and identify Vietnam as a priority (in contrast to Johnson, actually)? Because he was more hawkish as a Democrat and bought the "domino" line. Sure, it was bullshit, but we didn't know that then and a great many people believed it and pointed to how America "lost" China. Was Kennedy determined not to escalate? OF COURSE. NO president wants to go that extra step, to war, (with the possible exception of Bush Jr) and OF COURSE the preference was to solve this on the diplomatic table. But the Viet Cong in 1963 and 1964 were very quickly gaining the upper hand and were no longer in a position where they felt more could be gained via negotiation.

Too many of these analyses of the war focus on memos and what can be gleaned from Kennedy's words and come from Kennedy supporters who want to make Kennedy look a lot better than Johnson, and from others defending their institutions with 20/20 hindsight. But in 1964, Kennedy running for re-election would have been feeling a lot of heat from the Republicans and a lot in his own party if he was taking out all the troops while Vietnam was descending further into war and the Viet Cong strengthening. And to do so, he'd have to repudiate the dominant foreign policy consensus of the United States in the post-war period: containment. In sum, the premise that whomever had JFK killed did so to ensure an escalation of the war in Vietnam ignores the fact that the involvement there was driven more by the reality on the ground rather than internal debates on the utilityu of the war. Those debates in 1959, 1960-1962 saw a real possibility that enabling the Vietnamese would contain the problem. By the end of 1963, that strategy was shown to be dead wrong. Yet critics still pretend the choices Johnson made were ones Kennedy would never have considered. But Kennedy wasn't face with the mess that Vietnam was by 1964, so we can never know that for sure. Canada Jack (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, much of the criticism of JFK comes from Johnson supporters and establishment figures in general who want to steer the discussion away from the possibility of conspiracy, unless Castro or the Soviets can somehow be implicated in it. It mostly comes down, as Jim Marrs once said, to whom one chooses to believe. BrandonTR (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

if JFK and RFK had 25,000 special forces people in Vietnam, they seem unlikely to have just decided to pull them out and let the Communists, backed by the Chinese, have another country. JFK was smarting from Cuba, that had been backed by the USSR. To let another country fall to the Commies, this one backed by the Chinese, might well have been intolerable. And the new training role of Special Forces with the resurrected Green Berets in Vietnam, was JFK and RFK's baby. RFK himself probably coined the word "counterinsurgency." So now he's going to give up his counterinsurgents in 1964? I don't think so.

How many fighting ground troops I don't know, but it seems likely the Kennedys would not have given up Vietnam without trying a lot more people and a sea and air blockade, ala Cuba. And run into the same Ho Chi Minh Trail Cambodia problems that Nixon eventually did. But had JFK survived to early 1969 and the end of his second term, that would not have been his problem.

It's worth remembering that before Vietnam, the U.S. hadn't had a Vietnam (unless you count the Bay of Pigs). The US had fought in Korea. Before Korea, the U.S. action that finally drove Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor was cutting off Japan's credit and freezing their assets and trade in July 1941. This provoked by Japan's 1940-41 incursions into... Vietnam. Then called southern French Indochina, and weakened by the French loss to Hitler and their conversion to puppet Vichy and unwilling Japanese allies in the last half of 1940. The Japanese took Saigon in late 1940 and again in July 1941, and that was the U.S. last straw, as it gave Japan bases only 800 miles from the Philippines. So the US had a long history of sticking their necks out with regard to Southeast Asia. JFK was aware that the last time an enemy had taken Saigon, they had gone on to take the Philippines, Malaya, the Dutch Indies, and Guam. JFK had been there for part of that show, himself! So he'd been personal witness to a sort of dominos in that part of the world, featuring the Japanese. Yes, protecting Saigon meant the U.S. was going to ignore the French loss at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. But then, they were the French. ;). Oliver Stone's idea of JFK just tucking his tail in and going home in 1964, is about as fantastic as Stone's vision of a magic bullet. SBHarris 23:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If JFK and RFK had 25,000 special forces people in Vietnam, they seem unlikely to have just decided to pull them out. That's your opinion. The people I have quoted above say otherwise. As it turned out, withdrawing and letting the Vietnamese fight it out themselves would have been the correct course. The United States blew off a lot of goodwill around the world, as well as treasure, when Lyin' Lyndon chose a course of saturation bombing, followed by the invasion of half a million US troops. In the end, Ho Chi Minh succeeded in unifying the country under a Communist government. Meanwhile, the losses totaled 58,000 Americans and about 2 million Vietnamese. BrandonTR (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

25,000 "Special Forces" troops? Such a number has never existed. As for "2 million" Vietnamese, that's civilians deaths included, not just military. 82.1.73.23 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we know all this. It's hindsight, not obvious at the time. After his brother's death RFK still pushed his special forces, and only came around to opposing Vietnam after all the bad stuff above, had already happened. He certainly didn't come out against it in 1964! Tonkin Gulf hadn't happened yet. RFK could have quit, saying "my brother wouldn't have done this!" He didn't. SBHarris 00:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The consequences of invading Vietnam were obvious to Douglas MacArthur. See above.... BrandonTR (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This material has been included in the section "Role of Oswald", but it says nothing as to what RFK Jr. thought RFK thought what Oswald's role might be. Is there any relevance to this section or are we just trying to get random items into the article? -Location (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

NON-CONSPIRACY : THE 'ACCIDENTAL' FATAL SHOT

why cant we have non-conspriacy viewpoint?

so heres mine for consensus...

A non-conspiracy assassination review is probably the final an least theatrical analysis when compared the many cloak & dagger tales of an evil government killing their own good-hearted leader. This less Hollywood-style analysis was shown on a channel 5 documentary broadcast in 2013, where a 'professional' investigator decided to mount a cold case review on the assassination, as was surprised that no one else had done so.

By the programs end it was revealed that a secret-service agent 'accidentally' shot the president with an AR-15 rifle, while returning fire. This explains why kennedy's head was knocked backward, which a bullet shot from behind wouldn't have caused. It also explains why the establishment didn't admit this serious mistake, due to the obvious embarrassment that such a person is hired to protect the president. However it was ironic that his presence, and in a forward car, placed him in this position. The agent was named as William hickey after using CGI simulation trajectory tracing an gunpowder notice reports from witness statements. Though an obvious witness, to prevent perjury he wasn't called to trial, an died of old age 2005. There were many other revelations on other mistakes made by both conspiracy theorists and the official ballistic analysis.

The title of the article, "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories", makes it pretty obvious why not. And your text suffers from WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's already covered in the "Other published theories" section. Please read our page on WP:UNDUE weight, it should give you some idea as to why your change was reverted. Ravensfire (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Vcorani went off and created Cold case review, now a redirect, but see his version.[13] For that and other reasons I've taken him to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Ravensfire. This "theory" has no serious support among the research community. The 'other published theories' section was created specifically as a catch-all to keep theories like this one from making an already over-long article that much longer. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

FALLACIOUS BINARIZATION, BINARY FALLACY

The proper question is not so much was there a conspiracy, but how much conspiracy. It is common knowledge that many documents were kept from public release. Thus there was conspiracy after the fact. I am adding again my contribution to this article and ask that persons kindly refrain from reverting and edit-warring. I am not reverting nor removing what anyone has written. (EnochBethany (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC))

If you do I will refer your edits to WP:AN3. You've been advised to stop inserting unreferenced opinion at Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Please stop reinserting (effectively reverting) the removal of unsourced or improperly sourced opinion that violates Wikipedia policy: spreading out across several articles doesn't address our concerns, although at least this article is slightly more appropriate for a discussion of degrees of conspiracy. Acroterion (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

EnochBethany, that's your view about the proper question. Sorry, but that's it. It's also impossible to quantify. Wikipedia uses reliable sources for information in the articles. We include polls that say what percentage of Americans believe the various reports/theories. Ravensfire (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not "my view." Binary fallacy is a well-recognized fallacy relevant to this article. I used reliable sources like from University journal articles. The polls are irrelevant to my contribution to the article. In any discussion of whether something is A vs B (conspiracy or non-conspiracy), a consideration needs to be made as to whether the question is not binary at all, but how much. (EnochBethany (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC))

@EnochBethany As you keep wiping out your talk page I want to note you've been advised of WP:SYNTH and what edit warring is [14]. Whatever sources you use must refer specifically to the JFK assassination. Persist with your current course and it'll be an easy block block for any admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, content does not have to be from a secondary source on the assassination. It can be on a broader category that includes the assassination. For example, if there were a reliable source that stated, "In the USA, no president was ever shot riding in a car," that would be relevant. In this case, the logic (or lack of it employed) in discussing a subject is relevant. If someone concluded that 2 + 2 = 5 proved a JFK conspiracy, that could be refuted with a reliable 2ndary source that said 2 + 2 = 4, even though not addressing the assassination. It would be relevant to the discussion. A conspiracy theory might say, "JFK had to have been killed by a conspiracy of Lower-Slobovians; for 2 + 2 = 5." A legitimate edit could say, "The Lower Slobovian theory is unproven because it depends on the POV that 2 + 2= 5; but 2 + 2 = 4. The citation then would be to a mathematics journal article having nothing to do with the assassination. But at this point, I can leave this at that. Perhaps you would profit by reading the section(s) on WikiLawyering. And kindly drop your threats. Best Wishes. (EnochBethany (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC))

Julia Ann Mercer article merge

I'm proposing the merger of this article into this one. Anyone care to weigh in on where it should go and/or reasons against the merger? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The text is misleading in that it says Mercer wasn't called to testify to the Commission. While that may be true, they did investigate the incident and had reports from the police in question who observed the truck and its occupants, and there are documents which list the efforts made to locate the vehicle. A problem I see with the page is there is no explicit link to the assassination, just the claim that the tool box could have been a gun case and that one of the guys resembled Ruby. Not sure how "conspiracy" plays in here. Canada Jack (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I know I suggested that the article be merged here, but Jack makes a good point. Merge to Jack Ruby? Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the article make a more explicit link to a conspiracy. Mercer herself seems to limit herself to saying one of the guys was Ruby, and that the cops seemed to want to steer her from her claims, but this doesn't really say "conspiracy," so if there is a mention of one of the authors who make that specific claim, then fine. Otherwise its link to "conspiracy" is rather thin. Canada Jack (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, and thank you for the analysis, its appreciated. I'm not sure that there's much more that can be added to the Mercer article that is supported by sources. So we're still left with an orphan article. Any suggestions as to where in the Jack Ruby article to add the info? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Surely one of the claims Garrison or Lane etc made would add the necessary conspiracy link. Canada Jack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Icarus4 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Marrs and Fetzer are not reliable sources

"However, other researchers, including Jim Marrs and James Fetzer, have concluded the opposite—that Baker's claims are credible."

I would like to delete this text. I submit that (1) James Fetzer is never a RS for wikipedia, as he has embraced (or created) a number of conspiracy theories that are not supported by any other reliable researcher, and (2) Jim Marrs is a highly questionable source whose un-cited opinion is not relevant and does not add value to this article. What do the editors think? Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In general, a RS should be someone on whose word a credible assertion can be based. In this case, we are talking about claims and counter-claims on various theories, some of which are not necessarily credible or based on concrete facts, so it need only suffice that said authors made the claim/counter-claim, not whether they are in the normal sense of the term a RS. Canada Jack (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If the editors agree that a claim or counter-claim is not based on fact, tends to be a non-credible POV, and that it adds no value to the article, does it belong in the article? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of unreliable sources with these conspiracy theories, but if they were said they should be added. We all know that Muammar Gaddafi blames Israel, but even thought it's complete WP:CB, it ought to be left in. If David Icke went on TV tomorrow, and said aliens from the planet zippotron killed Kennedy, it shouldn't be left out no matter how much of a non-RS it is. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Marrs and Fetzer are good sources for conspiratorial claims, but not for factual assertions like the credibility of a particular witness. Gamaliel (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Does every conspiracy theory listed need a paragraph with a laundry list of names of people who've endorsed that specific conspiracy? How about at least moving the names to citations? Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this too. It is sufficient to note the originator of he theory. Gamaliel (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Icarus4 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean

I would welcome help with Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean if anyone has any expertise there. An anti-Castro group with links to Guy Bannister. Interesting article but needs an expert eye. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

no "conspiracy theory"

The term "conspiracy theories" was originally circulated in the immediate aftermath of the assassination as a means of distancing anyone who doubted the official narrative from the discussion, and there have been and continue to be ongoing efforts to discredit anyone who expresses such doubts. The term "alternative versions" would be more accurate, since it takes into account the fact that the research done by alternative historians of the JFK assassination, as a whole, is at least as competent and exhaustive as the research advanced in support of the official version. Lestrad (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase "conspiracy theory" was seen as a pejorative in the aftermath of the assassination, though it was clear to those who were close to the evidence at the time that this was a one-man job and the evidence had to be presented to quell "conspiracy" talk. Most people then knew almost none of the evidence. Remember, at the time, this was seen as a pretty straight-forward case. Only one sniper was seen, the bullets came from the rifle which was traced to Oswald, at least one positive ID of him existed, and he shot a cop in an attempt to avoid arrest. This wasn't a question of hiding a conspiracy on the part of the authorities - it was clear and blindingly obvious to them that Oswald did it alone. Even with Ruby's actions. Ruby was well-known to Dallas police as an idiot and none who actually knew him suspected he was carrying out the orders of others. Later, doubts emerged. For example, when the Zapruder film was closely examined by the WC in early 1964 there was a brief time when it seemed there could have been at least two snipers, until the apparent timing discrepancy with JFK and Connally's bullet strikes was resolved with the single bullet theory. Then, of course, many other doubts were expressed, but they didn't emerge in a serious way until 1966 with Lane etc.

As for the other term, "alternate theory" is rather vague, and it doesn't address the fact that one of those official investigations concluded there WAS a conspiracy. But, since the most commonly known official conclusion is the "lone gunman" theory, and the "alternate" is that Oswald didn't act alone or was set up, well that is, by definition, a "conspiracy theory." Canada Jack (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with "conspiracy theories." Of all the alternative explanations of the crime, I'm aware of exactly one that does not involve conspiracy. That would be Norman Mailer's suggestion that a second shooter, purely by coincidence, was behind the grassy knoll. This is not a theory that has earned widespread endorsement. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"physical evidence"

Instead of me renaming this section or otherwise omitting this, I want to flag that the following paragraph is not what we'd call "physical evidence" per se, that being Tague's bullet wound, his "physical location" (not the same as "physical evidence") and the suggested trajectory from a place other than the TSBD: "Several conspiracy theories posit that at least one shooter was located in the Dal-Tex Building, which is located across the street from the Texas School Book Depository. According to L. Fletcher Prouty, the physical location of James Tague when he was injured by a bullet fragment is not consistent with the trajectory of a missed shot from the Texas School Book Depository, leading Prouty to theorize that Tague was instead wounded by a missed shot from the second floor of the Dal-Tex Building."

Why not fix the name of this section or otherwise adjust this, Brandon? Canada Jack (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Section regarding prominent critics

In response to the earlier suggestion by Sunrise, I cobbled together the following list of people known for their criticism of the lone gunman theory that could be placed in the article similar to what appears in Moon landing conspiracy theories#Conspiracists and their main proposals. Perhaps there are individuals that should be removed from this list or others that should be added, but I'll let whatever discussion follows shape the consensus for that information. I have also not taken the time to summarize each person's views (perhaps Joegoodfriend or BrandonTR would like to assist if they think this is a good idea), and sourcing is incomplete but what I have noted is from what I would consider to be neutral, non-primary sources. Understanding that some think that "conspiracy theorists" is non-neutral and others, myself included, think that "researchers" is non-neutral, I've tried to label the list or section as neutrally as I can. Again, let's discuss to form some sort of consensus. - Location (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

List of people known for their criticism of the lone gunman theory

James W. Douglass — author of JFK and the Unspeakable (2008) Edward Jay Epstein — author of Inquest: The Warren Commission & the Establishment of Truth (1966), Counterplot (1968)[15] Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978), The Assassination Chronicles: Inquest, Counterplot, and Legend (1992) James H. Fetzer — Jim Garrison — author of On the Trail of the Assassins (1988) Dick Gregory — Robert J. Groden — author of multiple books, including author of High Treason: The Assassination of JFK & the Case for Conspiracy (1990) Henry Hurt — author of Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (1986) Penn Jones, Jr. — one of the earliest critics of the Warren Commission and author of Forgive My Grief Mark Lane (author) — author of Rush to Judgment (1966) and Plausible Denial (1991)[16], and Last Word (2011) [17] David Lifton — author of Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (1981) Harrison Livingstone — author of High Treason: The Assassination of JFK & the Case for Conspiracy (1990), High Treason 2: The Great Cover-Up: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1992)[18][19], and Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century: And the Hoax of the Century (1995)[20] Jim Marrs — author of Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy (1989)[21], inspiration for Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK Gerald McKnight — author of Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (2013) Sylvia Meagher — author of Subject Index to the Warren Commission Report (1965), Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, the Authorities and the Report (1967)[22], and Master Index to the J.F.K. Assassination Investigations (1980) Bonar Menninger — author of Mortal Error (1992) Barr McClellan — author of Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK (2003)[23] Michael Collins Piper — Richard Popkin — author of The Second Oswald (1966)[24] L. Fletcher Prouty — author of JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy Gus Russo — author of Live By the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK (1998) Vince Salandria — early critic of the single bullet theory[25] Léo Sauvage - author of The Oswald Affair (1966)[26]; first to raise issue of an Oswald impersonator Peter Dale Scott — author of Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993)[27] Richard E. Sprague — author of The Taking of America (1985) Oliver Stone — director of JFK (film) (1991), based on the books On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison and Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs Roger Stone — author of The Man Who Killed Kennedy (2013)[28] Anthony Summers — author of Conspiracy (1980)[29] and Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the JFK Assassination (2013) Josiah Thompson — author of Six Seconds in Dallas (1967)[30] Richard Trask — author of Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the Assassination of President Kennedy (1994) Lamar Waldron — author Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK (2005)[31], Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination (2009), and The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination (2013)[32] A. J. Weberman — author of Coup D’Etat In America: The CIA and the Assassination of JFK (1975) Harold Weisberg — author of Whitewash (1965), inspiration for Garrison's investigation into the assassination of Kennedy[33] David Wrone — author of multiple books

I don't have a strong opinion on this; if the editors feel it adds value to the article, fine. If not, also fine. Rather than a "who's who" within the article, I'd be more inclined to tack on a "Written Works" section (something like this)[34] with the better known published authors and titles on both sides of the issue. Moon landing hoaxes are much more closely identified with a specific list of believers, so it makes more sense to outline them by name in the article.Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just another attempt to defame critics of the lone gunman version by making a false comparison to some absurd conspiracy theory. In point of fact, 3 of the Warren Commission members themselves expressed doubts regarding the single bullet theory. And, as Charles Manson's attorney (and for some JFK assassination expert) Bugliosi says, you can't have a single gunman without a single bullet theory. BrandonTR (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll take that as one editor opposed to the idea. Location (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And for good reason. BrandonTR (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Joegoodfriend, if we were to do that, I think there would need to be brief synopsis of each book. As far as the order, would you list by date of publication, title of the book, or the author's last name? How would you handle those who have multiple publications? - Location (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Organized alphabetically by author's last name. Best know title or titles. Possibly a single sentence describing the author's focus.

We seem to run into some disagreement about how to proceed. Personally, I think the article is much too heavy on expounding on the opinions of various researchers. In other words, the article should cover theories, their origins and the relevant facts without quite so many observations from Jim Marrs. Or Bugliosi for that matter. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually think we are in agreement on that point, that is, we can't see the forest for the trees. I also think we will encounter a fair amount of squabbling if we attempt to eliminate or significantly reduce the material attributed to various individuals. Rather than rewriting the article, perhaps an alternative outline for the material is in order. - Location (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Schweiker's opinion

The section titled Possible evidence of a cover-up states:

Richard Schweiker, United States senator and member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told author Anthony Summers in 1978, "I believe that the Warren Commission was set up at the time to feed pabulum to the American public for reasons not yet known, and that one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of our country occurred at that time." On the CBS News program Face the Nation, Schweiker also said: "I think the [Warren] report, to those who have studied it closely, has collapsed like a house of cards ... the fatal mistake the Warren Commission made was to not use its own investigators, but instead to rely on the CIA and FBI personnel, which played directly into the hands of senior intelligence officials who directed the cover-up."

There appears to be an edit war brewing over the second sentence, so this should probably be discussed here rather than in the edit summaries. Please discuss. Location (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Why the edit war? What part of Wiki neutrality policy does this second sentence violate? BrandonTR (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There are several problems with it; the first is that primary sources are not typically sufficient to establish that an opinion is significant enough to be included in an article. Relevant links are WP:PSTS and WP:UNDUE; the second of those is part of the neutrality policy.

This particular quote was picked up by my (very preliminary) check for undue content mainly because of the easily identifiable primary source. There is a lot more content in the article that needs to be removed or de-emphasized, especially per UNDUE, but secondary sources take longer to evaluate in this regard so I haven't gotten a chance to do that yet. I could add further comments about e.g. the need for counterbalancing viewpoints and the policies on fringe content, but that's not even necessary in this example. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is an example of the logical fallacy of an argument from authority. Despite Schweiker's impressive position as senator and his membership on the intelligence committee, he offers nothing in the way of evidence for his views. In his quote he says the Warren Commission was set up "for reasons not yet known..." to lie to the public. In other words, he has no evidence for his views, it's merely his opinion. Canada Jack (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, opinions aren't necessarily bad to include in Wikipedia; it’s just that they need to be established as significant by sufficient reporting in reliable secondary sources. But of course there are the other problems. :-) Sunrise (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

hm, sorry, but I disagree. comments by prominent U.S. government officials about official government agencies and reports produced by the government are perfectly relevant and acceptable, which is what this is. furthermore, this entry refers to "theories." it could just as easily be titled "Controversy about John F. Kennedy assassination theories." with that title, statements by prominent public officials become perfectly relevant to any such controversy, as far as I'm concerned. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The material in question discusses Schweiker's criticism of the Warren Commission and belief in a cover-up, but does not actually fit in a section entitled "Possible evidence of a cover-up" since he offers nothing as evidence. I have no objection to creating yet another subsection that discusses the opinions of relevant individuals, however, there would need to be some consensus on how this is done and how much WP:WEIGHT is given to each opinion. Location (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Citing opinions of individuals, no matter how prominent, is not evidence. The section is about "possible evidence" of a cover-up, and the quote from Schweiker is not "evidence" by any definition, except to those in the conspiracy crowd. I have no particular objection either to a section of prominent people who believe there was a conspiracy/cover-up, but unless any of those individuals possess specific knowledge that a conspiracy/cover-up occurred, the section should be prefaced by a note of the "argument from authority" fallacy in case people are misled into thinking opinions somehow reflect fact. Canada Jack (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)