Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Honesty and conspiracy theory believers; arbitrary break

This still isn't an appropriate place to debate this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, because conspiracy authors have always been completely honest when reporting their discussions with witnesses and because someone could not possibly have another motive for not wanting to discuss a traumatic event, such as harassment from conspiracy buffs. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Many lone-nut theorists like McAdams and Bugliosi are very dishonest. BrandonTR (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Many lone-nut theorists like McAdams and Bugliosi are very dishonest. Bull. I don't think I've ever read a book like Buglioisi's - at least on the subject of the assassination - which attempts to address each and every objection to the "lone nut" conclusions. You obviously don't agree with his conclusions, but neither Bug nor McAdams ignore the inconvenient evidence or alternate theories. Perhaps they don't get to EVERY theory, but that is because there are literally hundreds if not thousands of claims and counter-claims. The reports of a rear exit wound, for example. What is fascinating from their discussions on that issue is the realization that while there were indeed many who said that, many DID NOT and those claims are either ignored by the CT crowd, or many CT authors simply lie and say "all" Parkland witnesses say there was a rear head wound. And, when they address those who say "side" exit, they routinely invoke vague talk of witnesses either fearing retribution or imply that, well, that witness is clearly lying for "whatever reason." Why am I so passionate about this stuff? Because I read and believed those lies - it took me years to realize how deceptive those people were - and we are still hearing the same lies peddled today. There are genuine differences of opinion on some evidence. But there are many factoids peddled out as truth which were debunked as long ago as 1964 when the WR was published. Yet we keep hearing them. And that is more honest? Canada Jack (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC) The lone-nut theorists, McAdams and Bugliosi, are liars and frauds. As one example, in his book, Bugliosi says, "It is very noteworthy that without exception, not one of these conspiracy theorists knew or had ever met Jack Ruby." In fact, Bugliosi is lying as this information from Wikipedia attests: "About an hour after President Kennedy was shot, White House correspondent Seth Kantor (who was a passenger in the motorcade) arrived at Parkland Hospital where Kennedy was receiving medical care. As Kantor was entering the hospital through a stairway, he felt a tug on his coat. He turned around to see Jack Ruby who called him by his first name and shook his hand. (Kantor had become acquainted with Ruby when Kantor had been a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald newspaper.) Jack Ruby asked Kantor if he thought it was a good idea for him to close his nightclubs for the next three nights because of the tragedy and Kantor responded that he thought it was a good idea." Seth Kantor researched the Ruby case for years and concluded there was a conspiracy. He wrote a book about it, titled, Who Was Jack Ruby? BrandonTR (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Is that the best you can do Brandon? You have got to be kidding. This is why it is hard to take the CT crowd seriously. Are you pretending Bugliosi claiming none of the authors he was referring to knew Ruby rises to the sort of lies routinely peddled by the CT crowd when it comes to what witnesses actually said? Many of the scenarios painted by some of the main players in the CT crowd are out and out lies, and that is a fact. Stone, Lane, Garrison. ALL lied about what witnesses said and skewed evidence, and not mere trivia in regards to who actually knew Ruby or not. I'm talking about evidence which would suggest a conspiracy. Where did Bugliosi do that? Canada Jack (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC) You ask: Are you pretending Bugliosi claiming none of the authors he was referring to knew Ruby rises to the sort of lies routinely peddled by the CT crowd...? From your question, one can see that at least you admit that Bugliosi is a liar. BrandonTR (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I too am not going to give the conspiracy people a bit of credit for honesty unless they stop apologizing for Oswald, who is clearly a huge liar and guilty as hell, and unless they stop dismissing every peice of physical evidence as "faked." We have a mountain of evidence that the bullet entered JFK's skull from behind, and they include Hertzian cone shock beveling like you see from a BB through window glass. The same fiber evidence makes it clear a bullet passes into JFK's back and out his shirt collar. We don't need a front shooter. As for Oswald, who said he didn't own a rifle, he's contradicted not only by photos of himself with the rifle, and a long chain of evidence showing his buying of it, but also the testimony of his wife and Jean de Mohrenschildt, who both saw it. My favorite is Oswald being asked about use of alias Alex Hidell. He denies it. Okay, so what about the fake Hidell ID selective service card in his pocket? "You know just as much about it as I do" says Oswald. This is on par with his claim that somebody stuck a photo of his head on the photo of him holding the rifle, even with his wife saying she took it, and one copy existing of it signed by Oswald and inscribed to de Mohrenschildt! How far do we let this madness go? Was de Mohrenschildt's wife (later ex-wife) in on this plot TOO? Is there anybody implicating Oswald who isn't? SBHarris 18:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC) From your question, one can see that at least you admit that Bugliosi is a liar. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "lie," Brandon. It was a "lie," only if Bugliosi KNEW that what he was saying was untrue. Where is your evidence for that? He simply could have been wrong, or - depending on the context, I don't have the book at hand - accurate if he referred to some specific other authors. Further, and to the point, whether Kantor did or didn't know Ruby is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the question of whether there was a conspiracy. This is in stark contrast to Messrs Lane, Stone and Garrison (there are many others). Lane was caught lying by the Warren Commission in regards to what he claimed Markham said, has had numerous witnesses complain about how he changed the meaning of what they said, and his own notes are on transcripts of his interview with Bowers omitting key testimony which contradicted the grassy knoll sniper theory, a theory he promoted via the interview. Stone, when asked about his blatant misrepresentations in "JFK" lamely spoke of having the right to promote an alternate theory to what the WC promoted, but the difference here is that the WC based THEIR conclusions of evidence, and Stone did not. Which is a lie. And Garrison did so spectacularly, concocted evidence to frame Shaw. How he manipulated the Clinton evidence was not revealed for decades, but it is a lie that even fooled the HSCA. Canada Jack (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC) "I said earlier that the only people who believe Ruby was connected to organized crime and killed Oswald for the mob are those who didn't know Ruby. That is a true statement with one exception, which isn't strong at all, and it's from someone who probably hardly knew Ruby. Seth Kantor was a reporter...." Reclaiming History, page 1134. I am utterly shocked and surprised that a conspiracy theorist such as yourself would take a statement by Bugliosi out of context and use it to slander him. I'm shocked, absolutely shocked! I mean, conspiracy theorists would never do such a thing, and they certainly aren't known for having done it repeatedly for decades! Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC) ...taken out of context... -- this is one of the favorite excuses given by the lone-nut theory crowd. BrandonTR (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Uh, where did I say that, Brandon? Not only did you not take a quote of context, you changed the quote! There you go again... Canada Jack (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Great one, Gamaliel! While I did wonder how Bug got that one wrong, I also wondered if Brandon was, as per usual, posting half-truths and falsehoods. You never disappoint, Brandon. Here's a question - did you find the quote yourself, or did you take it from one of the CT sites? Either way, that is no better illustration of how the CT crowd routinely distort and lies when it comes to this case. Canada Jack (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC) So you just figured out that I was responding to Gamaliel? Time to get a clue Canada Jack. BrandonTR (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Bugliosi quote: I said earlier that the only people who believe Ruby was connected to organized crime and killed Oswald for the mob are those who didn't know Ruby. That is a true statement with one exception, which isn't strong at all, and it's from someone who probably hardly knew Ruby. Seth Kantor was a reporter.... Now I'm going going to have to revise the Jack Ruby article because some lone-nut theorist didn't include Bugliosi's full quote in order to make a false impression. What is it about these lone-nutters that they are always trying to deceive? BrandonTR (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC) http://semiaccurate.com/assets/uploads/2012/03/I-See-What-You-Did-There..png Gamaliel (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Guess how I cracked that one? I looked up Kantor in the index of Bugliosi's book. And that's about twice as much research as most of the posters on Spartacus have done. Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC) It's a strange bit of writing by Bugliosi to state that the only people who believe Ruby was connected to organized crime and killed Oswald for the mob are those who didn't know Ruby; and then for Buglisosi to tell us a few pages later that he has to make an exception to his previous blanket statement. Obviously, this guy is a lawyer. BrandonTR (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, let's blame the victim for your own easily corrected mistake. Gamaliel (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC) We are all victims of Bugliosi's contorted writing. BrandonTR (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC) If only his book had an index where you could look up people like Seth Kantor! Oh wait... Gamaliel (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC) If only that lone nut theorist had not posted an incomplete and misleading Bugliosi quote on the Jack Ruby site. We should all learn to never trust these guys. BrandonTR (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, everyone is to blame for you slandering Bugliosi except you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Slandering Bugliosi? You act as if he's a friend of yours. [comments removed per BLP] BrandonTR (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Okay, it's been fun, but we're done here now. I've had fun poking the troll, but from now on I'm going to be removing your comments per WP:BLP when you use this page as a forum to libel living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Wow, Brandon, you are really on a roll today! More! We want more!! Canada Jack (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to remind everybody that this isn't a forum

Yet it seems I must. It's fun and hard to resist, but there are other places on the Internet to do this, really. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Death

In recent days some changes were made to the wording of Oswald's fatal bullet injuries. In the changes, grammatical error was introduced into the wording. The word "aorta" is not in the proper place, and it is an ungrammatical position. That word should also be next to "vena cava." The changes themselves that were made, are questionable. Where is it verified that the bullet "broke his backbone"? I suspect that that is not true.Cdg1072 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.37.210 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Oswald and alleged double.jpeg

File:Oswald and alleged double.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oswald's revolver

The article says that 4 cases from Oswald's revolver were found at the scene of Tippets death. A revolver retains the cases inside the chamber, it does not eject them like a semi-automatic does. There is no logical reason why Oswald would leave cases from his revolver at the scene of Officer Tippet's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6040:2B:7829:409E:26E5:B9B3 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

He emptied his revolver and reloaded at the scene.. Gamaliel (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If you start looking for logical reasons why Oswald did the things he did, you're going to get a headache. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

disputed -> discredited

I have changed the wording regarding the acoustic evidence from disputed to discredited. Since this is a change to the introduction, I thought it proper to provide a full explanation here. I realize that some dissenters may still hold this evidence to be valid, and such dissents can be discussed in the bodies of the relevant articles, including this one, with reliable sources. But the introduction is a summary of mainstream consensus opinion, and the scientific and historical opinion specifically identifies this evidence as "discredited". The FBI's scientific experts disputed the HSCA's conclusions, and this prompted a large panel formed by the National Academy of Sciences, which included at least two Nobel laureates, unanimously discredited the acoustic evidence, conclusions later published in Science[1], probably the world's most important peer reviewed scientific journal. So much for scientific opinion. I've also found representative sources - academic journals of history from America (Reviews in American History 22.2) and elsewhere (Irish Foreign Affairs, Sept. 2011), and a reference book from a reliable publisher of such books [2] - which all describe the consensus (not just their specific opinion) of opinion specifically as "discredited". With this weight of evidence and the widespread use of this specific term, this change not only seems appropriate, but compulsory. Gamaliel (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No objection. While D.B. Thomas' conclusion from peer-reviewed journal Science and Justice[3] that the dictabelt does show evidence of a second shooter also falls within the realm of scientific opinion, I think you've made a strong argument for the change in question. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I do agree that Thomas' article should be discussed in article text where appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No Such Consensus -- {Removed full text of copyrighted newspaper article. Here is a link. - G} BrandonTR (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no new information in the article. This newspaper article is about the Thomas Science and Justice article. While it does appear in a peer reviewed journal, it is a single article by a single author, and is a minor, almost fringe, dissent from the scientific consensus. A minor scientific dissent does not mean there is no scientific consensus. Consensus does not require unanimous agreement among scientists. Otherwise we would have to describe many decisively proven scientific facts as "in dispute": evolution, global warming, the cause of AIDS, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to reread the article. The article explains how and why the National Academy got it wrong. In summary, over the years, we've had three scientific studies on the dictabelt evidence, two of which say that there was more than one assassin. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence from the studies supports there being more than one shooter. BrandonTR (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it explains how Thomas thinks the NAS got it wrong. There's no indication in that news article that there is a new scientific consensus, and Thomas himself was rebutted in the pages of that same journal in 2006. Gamaliel (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The scientific consensus from two careful studies (the HSCA study and the Thomas study in Science and Justice) is that the NAS got it wrong. If you read carefully, you'll see that Thomas rebutted the so called "rebutters" in 2006. BrandonTR (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't measure scientific consensus by counting up studies. You go by what the secondary sources say, and they clearly say the evidence has been discredited. Gamaliel (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You've obviously been looking at unreliable secondary sources. BrandonTR (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My sources are all listed in the opening paragraph of this section for all editors, including yourself, to examine. Please demonstrate the validity of your claim that they are "unreliable" according to Wikipedia WP:RS policy. Gamaliel (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your first source-link is to the hack McAdams' website which references a now discredited 1982 article in Science magazine. Your other "sources" are incomplete references and so cannot be verified. I should point out, with your recent obsession with secondary sources, that the Washington Post article (see above) is a secondary source, which provides evidence that the NAS got it wrong and that there was a forth shot from the knoll. BrandonTR (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Science is the world's leading peer-reviewed scientific journal. I posted a link to the pdf for the convenience of yourself and other editors who may not have access to databases containing the archives of Science. The source of that pdf has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the journal itself. Please provide evidence that this article in Science is "discredited". Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There you go again ... arguing in circles.... See Washington Post link article. BrandonTR (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Discredited "according to Thomas", as the article repeatedly points out, but Thomas is not all of science. Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Who said that the scientist D.B. Thomas was "all of science"? Here's another reminder of Wiki policy before you start arguing in circles again:

Wikipedia: Neutral point of view

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.

Explanation of the neutral point of view

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. BrandonTR (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy also specifically prohibits elevating minority viewpoints to the equivalent of the mainstream consensus. Thomas' minority viewpoints are fairly and proportionately represented in the body of the article. What is at issue is how to describe the mainstream scientific consensus, and according to the secondary sources, the acoustic evidence is specifically and repeatedly referred to as "discredited", both before and after Thomas' dissent. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You've failed to make the case that there is a mainstream scientific consensus on this matter. You've cited one article in Science magazine (which has since been contested in another peer-reviewed scientific journal, Science & Justice) as evidence of consensus. As for your other alleged references, you have given no complete citations allowing for verification. By not doing so, one must assume that these alleged references are fictional. BrandonTR (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Fictional? Well, we're done here. I've tried to be reasonable, you can't be bothered. I will gladly discuss this issue and my sources with other editors who can manage to act like reasonable adults. Gamaliel (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable adult, as you profess yourself to be, would provide complete citations so that they can be verified, instead of adopting the stance, "just trust me." BrandonTR (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable adult requests assistance instead of insulting other editors and bizarrely claiming that they are engaged in deliberate deception. If you can't figure out how to access those sources, ask for assistance instead of lashing out at others. Gamaliel (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Just provide the full sources -- if you have them -- and stop with the drama and the games. BrandonTR (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Since I've already provided what Wikipedia considers to be "full sources" in the article, I'm waiting for you to end your temper tantrum and explain specifically what you find inadequate about these citations. If there is something you don't understand, please ask for assistance instead of lashing out at other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You must have a special search engine because, when I type your posted references (Reviews in American History 22.2 and Irish Foreign Affairs, Sept. 2011) into Google, nothing of relevance comes up. BrandonTR (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reviews in American History and Irish Foreign Affairs are real, non-fictional journals. Not all journal articles are available freely on the internet. Ask your local library if they have databases available that can assist you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you can't list the relevant pages and passages? BrandonTR (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm done trying to reason with you. Find them yourself, full citations are in the article. If you can't figure it out, your incompetence is not my problem. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So, to summarize: Your reference to Reviews in American History 22.2 and Irish Foreign Affairs, Sept. 2011, as well as a 1982 article in Science magazine provides you with enough evidence that a mainstream scientific consensus exists in this matter, and also that the House Select Committee on Assassinations study and the D.B. Thomas study in the journal Science and Justice were wrong in this matter. I would say that you have a different standard of "mainstream scientific consensus" than most of the rest of us do. BrandonTR (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Discredited, for sure. The Oxford book Real Enemies by UC Davis historian Kathryn S. Olmsted says the HSCA conclusion that there was a second gunman (based on the Dictabelt evidence indicating a fourth shot) was "quickly demolished". The word demolished does not give much leeway for 'disputed'; instead, the word 'discredited' is more apt. At any rate, the NAS said the recording was made after the assassination, and the supposed gunshots were various sharp noises but not guns. Dallas policeman H. B. McLain is thought to be the source of the sounds with his microphone stuck 'on', but McLain says he immediately switched his siren on after the shots, and the Dictabelt recording does not have a siren. Nobel physicist Norman Foster Ramsey, Jr. said about Thomas's Dictabelt study, "The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot."[4] I don't think Thomas's rebuttal in 2001 was strong enough to return credibility to his theory. The most reliable post-2001 observers such as Olmsted (the book copyrighted in 2009) still dismiss the Dictabelt. Senior lecturer Peter Knight at the University of Manchester wrote that the Dictabelt has no gunshots, no frantic sounds, no sirens and accelerating motors. He wrote in 2007 the HSCA conclusion was "quickly disproved".[5] Knight and Olmsted were both aware of the Thomas rebuttal in 2001 but they were so dismissive of this second effort that they give it credence at all. Let's not put more lipstick on this pig. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice attempt at revisionist history, but you have merely given a list of researchers that support your particular viewpoint. You have put your own interpretation on why the researchers Knight and Olmsted did not address the D.B Thomas Science & Justice study. A more likely reason that they did not do so was because they had no easy answers to what Thomas's study disclosed -- evidence of a fourth shot. BrandonTR (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

HSC report does not depict (& does not support) LHO as “THE” assassin

1. ‘Can’t count the HSC report as a “govt investigation” saying O “assassinated” JFK for purposes of the “4 govt. investigations” assertion. Even “THE shooter” is troubling. Maybe "the shooter whose bullet(s) actually hit the President…” The law of conspiracy imputes guilt to all who form an agreement to commit a crime and take an active step in furtherance.” So "one of" but not "the." The definite article plus a singular noun means “the only,” wouldn’t you agree? Unless two persons were shooting at JFK virtually simultaneously--entirely by coincidence. What are the odds?

2. I also appeal at once to your academic integrity and the ends of your own apparent objective to inform. You guys haven’t hid your great animosity toward CTs & CT-ists and the "insanity" of their "nonsense." In the world of reigning ignorance, there’s at least a vague awareness among the unwashed masses, I submit, that some Congressional investigation in the late ‘70s contradicted the WC’s lone gunman theory. Let’s face it: It’s what the CT-ists have been waving in the faces of the lone-gunman-ers for decades. Now granted, arguendo at least and certainly as depicted in the LHO article, the HSC report may have been later discredited. Nevertheless, the report was what it was. To include HSCR as one of FOUR investigations supporting O as THE assassin gives a funny taste, I believe, to all your hard work to inform the reader. Rel Canada Jack’s mention of Cletus and whomever, it’s not unlike a raccoon sniffing some baited tuna. The reaction is gonna’ be, “Red, somethin’ don’t smell right here,” even if the common reader can’t readily put his/her finger on WHAT. Paavo273 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm very tired of people coming here to lecture us about things like our "animosity" towards conspiracy when they completely ignore the source of that animosity, the behavior of editors who openly push a conspiracy POV, a pattern of behvaior that has been going on for many years. Note that I'm not saying that every editor whose personal opinion leans towards conspiracy behaves badly, certainly not, I'm saying that those who openly push it in defiance of NPOV also break other rules governing personal behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired of Warren Commission apologists attempting to try to enforce their point of view in these articles. Wikipedia policy calls for all legitimate, sourced points of view to be aired. We really don't need self-appointed gatekeepers acting as if they have some kind of sacred duty to defend officialdom. BrandonTR (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"Lee Harvey Oswald was, according to four government investigations, the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy." NOTHING the HSCA concluded is a contradiction to that line of text, Paavo. You've made your point here, but it seems you are not closely reading what the text here actually says. The HSCA explicitly stated that Oswald in fact shot and killed the president! ANd that is all the line says! Whether he did it alone - as concluded the WC - or whether there was a second gunman - as concluded the HSCA - does not alter the truth of what that line says. And that truth is what the investigations concluded. Later in the lede, we read the caveats attached to those conclusions. And you are further getting your legalities confused, as per the notion of collective guilt when there is a conspiracy. If you look at the Lincoln assassination, which was a conspiracy, there is no need to couch and rephrase there either - Booth shot and killed the president. He and his co-conspirators bore the guilt of that crime. Here, Oswald shot and killed the president. Any additional conspirators would also bear guilt, but that does not alter the fact that Oswald in fact killed the president, as per the conclusions.

"To include HSCR as one of FOUR investigations supporting O as THE assassin gives a funny taste..." Maybe to you, but to any unbiased person, the line reads perfectly accurately and truthfully. That's because that is what the HSCA in fact concluded! He was the assassin who killed the president, and that is all the line says! Canada Jack (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag should be removed

BrandonTR added a neutrality tag on September 2.[6] Because he did not start a discussion specifically about the perceived neutrality problem, it falls to other editors to try and figure out the reasoning for it.

Prior to placing the tag, on August 26 BrandonTR edited the article to give equal weight to the Warren Commission and later, lesser investigations which contradict it. He used the word "disputed" to describe the results of the HSCA, and he equated the results of mainstream researchers with researchers who conclude a conspiracy. He then reverted other editors' reversions on Aug 27, Aug 27 again, Aug 28, Aug 28 again, Aug 28 a third time, Aug 29 (this was a brightline 3RR violation), Aug 30, Aug 31, Sept 1, Sept 2, Sept 2 again, andSept 3. He was reverted by Gamaliel and FreeRangeFrog. On Aug 31 Gamaliel started a discussion at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#disputed -> discredited but in that thread BrandonTR was not getting any traction toward forming consensus for his viewpoint. Gamaliel wanted "discredited" and Joegoodfriend agreed. Later I agreed with Gamaliel about the word "discredited" being appropriate. That makes Gamaliel, Joegoodfriend, FreeRangeFrog and Binksternet agreeing about the issue, and BrandonTR alone, not having convinced even one other editor of the rectitude of his viewpoint. I don't see a good reason for BrandonTR to engage in edit warring when all other editors disagree.

BrandonTR has been using the WP:NPOV guideline as his lever to push his version. Others say he is misinterpreting the guideline, overlooking the part that says a false equality should not be established between sources of unequal authority. I see that the NPOV problem lies with BrandonTR. He is not supported by NPOV and he is fighting against WP:CON. The NPOV tag should be removed and BrandonTR should recognize that consensus has formed but not in his favor. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. In what Bink posted above, he does not explain how I violated the 3RR rule? Nor does Bink explain how my simply requesting that material be sourced (as per Wiki guidelines) amounts to some kind of transgression on my part. Bink left me the cryptic message, don't make this your final battle -- you won't win and it's not that important. Of course, Wikipedia regards sourcing material as important. But why would Bink assume that he has to follow such guidelines when he can make up his own? BrandonTR (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I gave diffs of your editing, and four of those diffs show the same text reverted within a 24-hour period. It was a brightline violation of 3RR and you were lucky nobody took you to WP:3RRN, at the time. Frankly, your absolute 3RR violation is not the only problem here—long term edit warring such as you demonstrated from Aug 27 to Sept 3 can still result in a block. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you've shown no concern for Gamaliel's long term edit warring such as he demonstrated from Aug 27 to Sept 3. This wouldn't be a double-standard on your part, would it? BrandonTR (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the edit warring by both of you and I determined you were creating the problem. If Gamaliel had been trying to equate mainstream with lesser references then I would have identified Gamaliel. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? How did you conclude that the study conducted by The House Select Committee on Assassinations and the study reported in the peer-reviewed journal, Science & Justice weren't mainstream? BrandonTR (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to unilaterally force through changes to a consensus that a wording that was in place for years with zero discussion. Don't try to make this a false equivalence. You knew exactly what you were doing, it was repeatedly pointed out to you by multiple parties, and you did it anyway. Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you review, you'll see that you had recently modified the wording. The "other parties" that you refer to didn't come into the fray until later. BrandonTR (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In a minor way, and the most significant change was that of a single word which I made a case for on the talk page above. You made zero attempt to create discussion or consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you say so ... LOL. BrandonTR (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: The NPOV-dispute tag is not a consolation prize for editors whose position has been rejected by a consensus of other editors, nor is it a substitute for pursuing appropriate dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag. Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Classic case where you guys need to agree a compromise here on the talk page instead of edit-warring over tags. Brandon, can you clearly and succinctly explain your NPOV concern? You should include your references, a suggested wording, and an explanation of why your edit would improve NPOV. Could you do that please? --John (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the wording I came up with. I think it's pretty balanced:

Some researchers contend that forensic and ballistic evidence supports the Warren Commission's lone gunman theory, while other researchers conclude the opposite. Public opinion polls taken over the years have shown that a majority of Americans believe that Oswald did not act alone, but conspired with others to kill the president. In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that Oswald fired the shots that killed Kennedy, but differed from previous investigations in concluding that "scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy". BrandonTR (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

First off, Brandon, what is the "opposite" of the "lone gunman theory"? That is not clear, so you need to be specific. So, is the forensic and ballistic evidence indicative, according to some, of multiple gunmen? Or are we just talking about researchers citing witnesses and claiming the Zapruder film and autopsy photos are faked? Because if it the latter, then they are not assessing what the forensic and ballist evidence points to - they are rejecting it, a different thing entirely. Look at autopsy evidence. I'd say it is pretty hard to argue that that evidence indicates multiple gunmen. But that is what you seem to be saying, that others look at that evidence and see evidence of multiple gunmen. No, almost all those researchers REJECT the evidence as being altered or faked, or they make wild interpretations based on a lack of knowledge of the field of science, or are looking at distant copies of the evidence. Virtually 100 per cent of the experts who looked at the evidence - and not fourth-generation copies, for example - conclude there were only two bullets which struck from the rear. So, we are not talking about an "alternate" interpretation of the evidence as it stands; it's a rejection of it. Even Cyril Wecht agrees that the photos indicate two and only two bullets struck the president. Canada Jack (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Deficiencies: incivility, unsupported assertions, NPOV, etc.

As I see it, the main abuse is in accusing of “incompetence” and a general attitude of hostility toward opposing views from both sides. This article has some good info but still has a long ways to go. Please see WP:civility.

ONE prob. that shows up in the intro & throughout is unsupported use of the words “government investigations.”

1st, I find no FBI investigation cited in the article that concluded O was the assassin. The article says the FBI trailed & questioned O beforehand and interrogated him @ Dallas PD.

Next, Dallas PD’s investigation consisted of an initial effort to find the bad guy and charging O. Does that carry the weight of an actual citable “government investigation”? (What happened to democracy and Presumption of innocence? This “investigation” gets awfully short shrift in the article; ‘don’t think it’s even referred to in article as “investigation.” It’s not. Assuming s.o. intends to elaborate & cite Dallas PD’s work, would it qualify as an “investigation” in support of Oswald’s guilt--HAD HE LIVED? Not in 1963, and at least in some jurisdictions, not even in 2013.

Finally, the House Select Committee found there was a conspiracy. Inconvenient.

So at best you have ONE actual “government investigation,” the WC, that said Oswald was the lone assassin. The 2nd, the HSC’s, should be qualified for what it actually said. The supposed third and fourth “government “investigations” are not established in the article.

All those references to “government investigations” across the article s/b properly elaborated with credible sources OR stricken. It’s an NPOV problem inasmuch as the ‘no conspiracy” view has been covered with a shell of unsubstantiated authority, but also a technical, structural problem in the writing in which what is offered in the intro is never delivered in the body. It seems that whoever "seasoned" the article with the words “governmental investigations” thought using a 5-syllable word has its own authority.

Rel trying to find “consensus,” since WP requires the use of 2nd-ary sources, it ultimately s/b a reflection of scholarly work in print. To dismiss those authors & WP editors who don’t believe Oswald was the lone assassin as kooks and undeserving of space in this article, runs contrary to that idea, and it contradicts a great wealth of research presented on JFK’s death elsewhere in WP.

If the INTRO is going to claim “four government investigations” supporting Oswald as the assassin, the BODY needs to deliver on that assertion with an explicit discussion of each containing credible sources, not an unusual note in the intro merely naming government agencies.

What would help this article is developing the material from both sides with cited sources instead of attacking each other. Paavo273 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, the body of the article should contain substantial cited information on each of these investigations. At one point, it did. I don't know what happened to these sections, but they should be restored or created. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the reply. Actually, I went way back in the article over three years and the info appears substantially the same in prior edits. Also, the way the references to government investigations are copiously placed in the article suggests that they were put there only to bolster prior references; if the article actually provides support, it's not necessary to keep repeating the words "government investigations." It's weaseley, don't you agree? In fact, it draws attention to the lack of actual substantiation. Under these circumstances would you please not make the assertion about the multiple government investigations including prominently in the intro until the article actually supports their existence. Under the circumstances, it violates WP:verifiability as well as probably other rules. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The only issues I see here are referring to the Dallas investigation as a "government investigation" and the lack of mention of the FBI's investigation. Both easy fixes. Say "three" instead of "four" in the first line. The HSCA, btw, concluded Oswald was the one who shot and killed Kennedy, which is all the line says.

Then, if we take this line in the lede - This conclusion was supported by prior investigations carried out by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dallas Police Department., and change it to read This conclusion was supported by a prior investigation carried out by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). then that is fixed. The rest of the lede is correct.

Then, if a line is inserted later on, above the Warren Report, along the lines of "The FBI published a report December 1963 which concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin," then that deficiency is fixed. Canada Jack (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but in the meantime, why did someone delete the tags? The sources are clearly missing. That's the purpose of the tags, rights? So please don't delete them until the problem is fixed. If one of you is committing to fixing the problem, I'll leave off the OR tag up top for now, and revisit this later. Canada Jack's ideas are a partial solution. the FBI investigation, though needs to not be cited or counted until it actually appears in the article. Also, rel my remarks above, do y'all really think the Dallas PD's work qualifies as a "government investigation" in the sense of the WP or the HSC? Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. They caught him, they interrogated him, they put a case together against him, and that would be the only government investigation we'd be talking about if it wasn't for Jack Ruby. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully beg to differ. Wasn't he shot like a day after they charged him? Had LHO lived, we would have had defense counsel. Both prosecution and defense cases would have been prepared whether or not actually presented. A lot more involved than several hours work by some police investigators. Paavo273 (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"why did someone delete the tags?" Not to speak for Devil, but there is little explanation as to how the issues you address constitute "OR". I agree that a quick description of the FBI investigation is warranted, but while it was an indeed a government investigation which concluded Oswald shot JFK, it is almost universally ignored by researchers. For good reason - it was slipshod to say the least. IOW, you've not established that there is some pressing need to insert info about that investigation. Therefore even though I agree it should be mentioned, there is no particular compelling need to do so since the investigations noted are by the WC and the HSCA - with mention of the police interrogation.

"the FBI investigation, though needs to not be cited or counted until it actually appears in the article." Not sure why, see above. The FBI concluded, before the WC, that Oswald killed the president. What else needs to be said? Canada Jack (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So, is there agreement that we refer to three instead of four government investigations? And that we insert a source for the FBI report? Here is a link to it: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402&relPageId=1 No need for tags here, simply some slight adjustment to the text, if there is in fact agreement to those adjustments. Canada Jack (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Canada Jack and thanks for your contributions here. As I understand, WP:Verifiability is one of about three most basic tenets of WP. I quote, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I challenged it. I don't know about it. I don't think anyone should assume that WP readers who click on WP:LHO know about an FBI investigation and its specific conclusions. Paavo273 (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Dallas investigation should be dismissed as "several hours work". For one thing, they painstakingly gathered, processed, and analyzed most of the physical evidence that later investigations relied upon. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If the Dallas Police completed an investigation as you imply, where is their report? You know full well they didn't complete their investigation. They couldn't. The FBI forced the Dallas Police Department to turn over its evidence over the objection of Dallas Police Chief Curry. BrandonTR (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So you think it is bizarre and suspicious that the top criminal investigators in the country should take over the case from the local police force when the leader of the country has been murdered, Brandon? Pissing wars between agencies are everyday things. So it's not surprising Curry would be reluctant to cooperate. But to treat as "suspicious" that the FBI would seek to take over the investigation of the murder of the president is one of the silliest CT claims of them all. Canada Jack (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me derail this by providing what should be a suitable citation for the Dallas PD's work, Bugliosi page 182. Gamaliel (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Oswald was charged at around midnight on the Friday that JFK was killed. Oswald was eliminated by Mafia-connected Jack Ruby on Sunday morning (the official version of things is that Ruby's Mafia ties are coincidental and not important, although the HSCA begged to differ). Lyndon Johnston's political ally FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover next put himself in charge of the investigation, requisitioning that all evidence collected by the Dallas police be sent to the FBI in Washington. (Note: this was reminiscent of the way that the Secret Service illegally transported JFK's body out of Dallas for a military autopsy in Maryland.) So the Dallas Police Department was not able to complete its own investigation and, as I recall the JFK murder is still listed as an open homicide in the State of Texas. Of course, all of this is rather irrelevant to some of the editors here who are only interested in putting together a politically correct, sanitized version of things. BrandonTR (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"(the official version of things is that Ruby's Mafia ties are coincidental and not important, although the HSCA begged to differ)" Yes, the mafia connections were explored by the HSCA and were found to add up to.... nothing. If the mafia were going to "silence" Oswald for whatever reason, Ruby would be last on their list to do this.

"Lyndon Johnston's political ally FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover next put himself in charge of the investigation..." Uh, so Hoover led the Warren Commission? If Hoover indeed was "in charge" then why did the Warren Commission use their own agents to investigate, to interview, often to re-interview and re-investigate people and evidence the FBI had looked at? In Brandon's World of Whacky, the investigation of a nation's leader should not be done by the lead criminal investigative agency in the country, it should be done by the cops and detectives of a second-tier city. The same guys who, uh, kinda screwed up by allowing the accused to be shot to death while in their custody. Right.

"this was reminiscent of the way that the Secret Service illegally transported JFK's body out of Dallas for a military autopsy..." There you go again, Brandon. Who ordered the body to be removed? Kennedy's aide, Joe O'Donnell. Was he part of the "conspiracy"? And who decided that the autopsy would be done at Bethesda? Jackie, that's who. Was she behind her husband's death? And what does the Dallas coroner say about having the president's body taken away? He AGREED it was the right decision!

Only in CT land does it make sense that if a national leader was killed in some hick town that it's "suspicious" that maybe the top investigators and medical professionals in the land should take charge of the investigations. Nope, Cletus and Jethro solved that missing dawg mystery, they can figure out who shot the president too! Canada Jack (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, Jack, misrepresenting what I said. You say, Who ordered the body to be removed? Kennedy's aide, Joe O'Donnell. Not according to Dallas medical examiner Dr. Earl Rose and Parkland's Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Both doctors say that there was a fight for the body and that Secret Service Agent Kellerman pointed a gun at Dr. Rose, demanding the body. Then you say And who decided that the autopsy would be done at Bethesda? Jackie, that's who. That is correct. But Jackie was only asked after the body had already been taken from Parkland and was on the plane. Next you ask rhetorically, ...So Hoover led the Warren Commission? I didn't say Hoover led the Warren Commission. I said that Hoover put himself in charge of the investigation. By that I meant that Hoover took the investigation out of hands of the Dallas Police. You do know that Hoover had the Dallas Police send all of its collected evidence to the FBI, don't you? This was over the objection of Dallas Chief of Police Jessie Curry. BrandonTR (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"Both doctors say that there was a fight for the body and that Secret Service Agent Kellerman pointed a gun at Dr. Rose, demanding the body." Kellerman didn't decide that the body had to leave the hospital despite the objections of the coroner. O'Donnell did. It was O'Donnell and JFK's party who made the call, not the Secret Service, and this has been backed up by the people present - including O'Donnell - and in places like Manchester's book. Jackie wouldn't leave until the body was removed. So the call was made, enforced by the Secret Service but ordered by the aides.

And you agree that Jackie decided where the autopsy was to be done. Which rather blows up your contention it was an autopsy controlled by the military. Indeed, it was the KENNEDYS who demanded that the autopsy be hastened, not the military and this is corroborated by many sources.

"You do know that Hoover had the Dallas Police send all of its collected evidence to the FBI, don't you?" This is beyond silly. So what! Let me ask you this, Brandon, when the leader of the country has been shot, do you think it is inappropriate for the lead criminal investigative agency in the country to take over the investigation? Or do you believe that it should have been left in the hands of the Dallas police who, it should be noted, rather clumsily allowed the accused under their guard to be shot and killed? Or maybe you think the Mounties should have done it? Soctland Yard? Canada Jack (talk

In this case, it would have been better for the FBI to have allowed the Dallas Police to conduct an investigation, along with the FBI. Historical documents have revealed that Hoover was very corrupt and a Kennedy-hater. On the day of the assassination, Hoover is recorded as already having made up his mind that Oswald was the sole assassin and, not surprisingly, Hoover later disregarded evidence that did not support his lone assassin version. BrandonTR (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As I understand, WP:Verifiability is one of about three most basic tenets of WP. I quote, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I challenged it. I don't know about it. I don't think anyone should assume that WP readers who click on WP:LHO know about an FBI investigation and its specific conclusions. Not sure your issue here, Paavo, I supplied the link to the FBI report. You made the point, I gave you the information requested which was lacking, so I invite you to add the link. Canada Jack (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So, if the Dallas Police Department completed an investigation, where is their report? Bet you can't find one. BrandonTR (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)\

Where did I say the DPD completed an investigation? You got your facts wrong. Again. Canada Jack (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So why is the article talking about the Dallas Police Department's findings, when there aren't any? Are we just surmising what the Dallas Police Department would have concluded had they been allowed by the FBI to complete their investigation? BrandonTR (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

http://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/ Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The link refers to the Dallas Police Department Collection. No conclusions here. As a matter of fact, the 1st paragraph uses the word "allegedly" twice:

The John F. Kennedy/Dallas Police Department Collection contains 404 photographs that include the sniper's nest in downtown Dallas Texas School Book Depository Building, where Oswald allegedly fired on Kennedy's motorcade; the back and front yards of the boarding house at 214 Neely; Dealey Plaza; the intersection at Tenth Street and Patton Avenue where Oswald allegedly fatally shot Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit; interiors of the Texas Theater, where Oswald was arrested by Dallas police; and the basement of Dallas City Hall, where Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald on Nov. 24, 1963. BrandonTR (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)'

You asked where the report was, I told you. We know that the Dallas police investigated and we know they concluded Oswald did it. That's all we need. Gamaliel (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this is a 3 day collection of evidence and not a report. Tell us where in this 3 day collection of evidence does it say that Oswald did it? I only see Oswald referred to as the "alleged assassin." BrandonTR (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You aren't listening. You asked where the report was, I told you. We know that the Dallas police investigated and we know they concluded Oswald did it. That's all we need. Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to answer the question of where in this 3 day collection of evidence it says that Oswald did it, I understand. BrandonTR (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

They charged him with the murder of the president. That means they thought he did it. If they didn't think he did it, he wouldn't have been charged. The evidence gathered in their investigation is the material supporting that charge. The fact of the prosecution BY DEFINITION presumes guilt. To say "where does it say in the evidence that they think he did it" is an example of failing to see the forest for the trees - this is the evidence which supports the charge, a charge which would not be laid unless the police thought he was guilty. Canada Jack (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In the broad scheme things, I think this is a relatively small point. I don't see much sense in arguing it further. BrandonTR (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gentlemen: Rel remark, "The fact of the prosecution by DEFINITION presumes guilt," unless you reject about 2,000 years of Western jurisprudence as in the Presumption of Innocence), IMHO that statement cannot stand. Also, there was NO actual prosecution. Investigation for the prosecution of a homicide is just STARTING at that point. And of course the defense. There never was any 'cuz O got terminated. If they conducted an ongoing investigation afterward, it w/b something to include in an EXPLICIT discussion. I thought the case was closed when he was shot.

A contribution in a WP article has to be backed up by citations if challenged per WP:Verifiability; it's not the responsibility of the person making the challenge to add the missing cite; the rule states the offending info can be removed. (It looks as if the citation Canada Jack provided for FBI is a good one.)

IMHO, it would serve the no-conspiracy cause and the READABILITY to have separate, even if short, sections for all the "investigations." FBI one isn't there and the Dallas PD is shaky as it's STATED (never mind its status as an investigation or no). Readers expect in the body of formal writing what they read in the intro. To have to dig for the info or make inferences, or not find it at all (FBI) gives a bad feeling. The unusual note on the first line of article w/b redundant if those investigations are actually covered in article. Regards, Paavo273 04:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Revised by Paavo273 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confused on the subject, Paavo, repeating a common fallacy. The term "presumption of innocence" refers to the tabula rasa in which defendants in Common Law jurisdictions, in particular, are afforded when on trial. It means that the onus is on the prosecution to establish evidence for guilt, not for the defendant to establish his non-guilt in the absence of evidence. The point I made was in regards to Brandon's claim that in the Dallas Police report, there is no mention there that the police thought he was guilty. But to charge Oswald with the crime, they in fact DID presume he was guilty. IOW, there is NO "presumption of innocence" which applies outside the court setting - police and other agencies indeed DO presume a party is guilty and often try to prove it in a trial setting where, in most jurisdictions, the defendant is presumed to be innocent until evidence is presented to establish guilt. In this adversarial setting, the judge or jury determine if the person is in fact guilty.

The fact there was not a prosecution is irrelevant in this case as there were the investigations, often called the most exhaustive in American - if not world - history, and the conclusions were iron-clad - Oswald shot and killed the president. Many in the CT community have the rather bizarre idea that the fact Oswald didn't stand trial means we can't determine his guilt. Which is, of course, bullshit. The prosecution may have been closed when Oswald was shot - the investigations continued, and his culpability was determined.

"it's not the responsibility of the person making the challenge to add the missing cite". Sure. So I found the citation for you, it just needs to be inserted. Therefore the tags are not needed. And, as I have already stated, concerns regarding the lack of mention of the FBI investigation can be easley fixed. Might be easier to simply have it in a note as the FBI investigation is rarely if ever cited. Canada Jack (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the closest thing to an actual trial Oswald received, the British television staging of a trail with Gerry Spence and Vincent Bugliosi, returned a guilty verdict, and that trial was accompanied by more evidence and resources than your average defendant in the US gets. Certainly your average defendant doesn't get one of the country's leading defense attorneys and thousands of man hours of investigative effort from the conspiracy community. Certainly Leon Czolgosz, Charles J. Guiteau, and John Wilkes Booth did not. Gamaliel (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit more further on the notion of "conspiracy." In terms of the Warren Commission, the Report first established what happened - JFK killed by two bullets - and linked those wounds and bullets to a particular weapon. THEN, it located where the shots came from and linked Oswald to the crime. IOW, in terms of the narrative, the WC established that Oswald in fact was the assassin, THEN it moved on to any possible accomplices he had, either in assisting in the actual assassination or in its planning. So, before it concluded he "acted alone," it concluded he shot and killed the president. Canada Jack (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The record shows that the FBI and the Warren Commission mostly sought out evidence that would support their preordained conclusion of "the double lone-nut theory" -- Oswald (a lone-nut) assassinated Kennedy and was in turn killed by another lone-nut, Ruby. Regarding trials of Oswald, another one was conducted this year and resulted in a hung jury. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20130621-lee-harvey-oswald-gets-hung-jury-at-mock-jfk-murder-trial.ece

The record shows that the FBI and the Warren Commission mostly sought out evidence that would support their preordained conclusion of "the double lone-nut theory" Well,the gullible have been fed that line for some 40 years, so I'm not surprised you are repeating it. But if you read the Warren Report's discussion of conspiracy, I'd say it's a bit hard to argue that they chose not to explore that side of it. You have read the Report, have you? As for the trial, it was a 6-3 hung jury in favour of "GUILTY," which is a remarkable decision given that something like 75 per cent of Americans believe in a conspiracy, yet it took only several hours of this swift, mock trial to convince 2/3 of the jury that Oswald was guilty. Obviously, most people are completely oblivious to the mountain of evidence pointing to Oswald as the lone gunman. It was telling to read some of the accounts, in particular of one of the 3 who said "not guilty" - he was convinced 2 were behind the fence, even though the only witness to ever say that came up with his story some 30 years later - and it contradicted the testimony of others who were there. So, no amount of evidence was going to sway his view. Canada Jack (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth -- the FBI's priorities as enumerated by the government's top investigator, J. Edgar Hoover:

"The thing I am concerned about, and so is [Deputy Attorney General Nicholas] Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."

--FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, speaking on the telephone to Johnson aide Walter Jenkins two hours after Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby, HSCA Report, vol. III, pp. 471-73. (The Warren Commission -- charged with determining the truth in the JFK assassination -- relied upon Hoover's FBI as its primary investigative arm.) BrandonTR (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the oldest, most irrelevant canards from the CT crowd, who misleadingly and dishonestly imply that Hoover was engaged in a cover-up before the president was even buried. In fact, Hoover is simply stating what at that moment was seen to be a glaringly obvious fact to the FBI and the Dallas police - that Oswald was the killer of the president - and that, given the media was reporting and polling the public who - without any evidence at all - assumed there was in fact a conspiracy behind the assassination, Hoover states that the public must be convinced of the truth as was then known, that "Oswald is the real assassin."

If, for example, Hoover had information which indicated Oswald had accomplices, or that witnesses saw another gunman, or that a preliminary investigation showed a glaring inconsistency - like, say, Oswald had no access to guns, or the autopsy saw 5 bullet wounds when everyone was reporting 3 shots fired - then we could conclude Hoover was up to no good. But nothing in the near half-century since has shown that Hoover had ANY such evidence. Indeed, what is consistently reported is that he and the agency were desperate to influence the investigation, not to hide a conspiracy, but to hide or downplay their incompetence in tracking a man who had mere days earlier threatened the agency and its agents. This was borne out in the 1970s when it was revealed the threatening note Oswald wrote was destroyed. The operative phrase here is NOT "hide the conspiracy," it's "cover your ass."

So, what was known at the time of the call? Already the FBI knew a) the rifle which presumably killed the president and the gun found on his person which they were almost certain he used to kill Tippit - as witnessed by numerous people who saw him shoot Tippit or flee the scene - were purchased by a person using the identical alias found on him and shipped to a mailbox he was known to own. B) He was the only employee to have no alibi at the time of the shooting and the only employee to flee the TSBD afterwards. He had routine access to and his rifle was found on the floor where a man - the only sniper seen that day - was seen to be shooting at the president. No other gunmen were seen, no other guns or rifles were found in the vicinity. And Oswald's actions showed obvious signs of a consciousness of guilt. He attempted to shoot the arresting police officers, for example, not the actions of an innocent man. The general public was unaware of most of these facts, rumours were flying around, and suspicions of conspiracy were rife. So it is not surprising Hoover said they had to be convinced that Oswald was the sniper - as that is what all the evidence indicated. There was little, if any, doubt at that moment.

As for Jack Ruby, since he was already well known to Dallas police, Hoover by then also knew who he was dealing with - a self-important clown. While his background had by then been lightly investigated, a cursory look at the shooting showed Ruby was a rank amateur and not a person carrying out an ordered execution.

The Warren Commission -- charged with determining the truth in the JFK assassination -- relied upon Hoover's FBI as its primary investigative arm. So, who would have been an appropriate investigative agency in the United States for the murder of their leader? The Boy Scouts of America? How about our fine police force here in Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? It's a bit more than silly that one finds it "suspicious" that the FBI was the main investigative body, especially given the massive scope of the investigation which needed to be done, and which WAS done. There was NO other more appropriate American agency to do most of the investigative work than the FBI, a point seemingly forgotten or conveniently overlooked by those who shout "conspiracy."

But your premise - that Hoover had "decided" Oswald was guilty, end of story, and therefore the WC would conclude the same as the FBI presumably would hide any evidence of conspiracy - is undercut by numerous realities here. First, much to the consternation of Hoover, Johnson named a Commission to run the investigation, and NOT the FBI. Johnson, one of the greatest readers of men in American politics, knew Hoover and the FBI were more concerned about covering their asses then in producing a credible investigation. So he created a Commission led by what he viewed - and most observers - as unimpeachable men. He was almost instantly proven correct in his read of Hoover, as within a month they had issued a report on their investigation, getting many basic facts wrong. Once the Warren Commission received the report from the FBI, they tossed it in the garbage as it was a slip-shod mess. What was going on with the FBI was clear - they wanted to gloss over their screw-ups with a rushed investigation. Once they realized - Hoover realized - the WC would be truly running the show, they fell back into line. From a bureaucratic perspective, their main concern was that they'd be skewered for tracking but not stopping this individual, NOT in covering up some conspiracy.

Your contention is further belied by the fact that is was the Warren Commission and its counsels - not the FBI - who directly interviewed hundreds of witnesses. And they re-interviewed many witnesses who had already been interviewed by the FBI. And they used many other agencies besides the FBI to assess forensic and other evidence. For example, they didn't rely solely on the FBI on fingerprint evidence as to interpretation. They also interviewed other experts. And, far from the FBI investigating on their own and the WC relying on what avenues the FBI decided to explore, the WC routinely made requests of the FBI to interview person x in the field, or investigate y in terms of bank records, etc etc etc. The FBI may have indeed done much investigating - but following the WC's lead. Still further, the WC used the investigative services of literally dozens of other agencies.

One thing is for certain: If Hoover had indeed led the investigation, it'd have been one of the most slipshod investigations in history, making the Warren Commission - with all its omissions and errors - seem the gold standard in comparison. How paranoid was Hoover? He received reports from Gerald Ford, at least initially, to ensure the agency's interests were protected.

But to claim that Hoover had "decided" Oswald was guilty ignores what was by then known by the investigators - what we'd now call a "slam-dunk" case - and that the press and public were already talking of conspiracy even though the evidence as then known pointed directly to a single person - Lee Harvey Oswald. Canada Jack (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"The thing I am concerned about, and so is [Deputy Attorney General Nicholas] Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." - Hoover.

I've never seen anything to indicate that Hoover ever thought anyone besides Oswald was involved. Johnson said he never believed Oswald acted alone, but Hoover never said anything like that.

Quotes like this don't prove anything. But I've seen the same logic used to establish other conspiracies. For example, some people believe that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, and the smoking gun is his message to General Short, "the U. S. desires that Japan commit the first overt act." Another example, when asked by Rolling Stone what the #1 piece of evidence proving that 9/11 was an inside job is, the leader of a 9/11 conspiracy group replied that it's the Project for the New American Century quote that their goals might be furthered by, "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."

Did the FBI deliberately try to steer the investigation in only one direction because they were concerned what the public might find out? There's certainly evidence that the FBI pressured witnesses who tried to go on record with statements that tended to establish a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. But that doesn't mean that anyone at the FBI thought those witnesses had any credibility. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

We know from the record that FBI Directer Hoover was a Kennedy-hater. Time to stop ascribing benign motives to this pig. BrandonTR (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether Hoover loved or hated Kennedy is completely irrelevant, as is whether he was a pig. What is relevant is whether he deliberately disrupted or obstructed the investigations into the assassination. So far, the only things we see, 50 years after the fact, is the rather unsurprising news that Hoover (gasp!) was certain Oswald killed Kennedy very early on, and he and the FBI hid their incompetence in tracking an individual who had issued threats shortly before Kennedy's trip to Texas. None of which suggests a conspiracy or cover-up of a conspiracy, as the CT crowd like to pretend. Canada Jack (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Was just going to say (but got beat out on the timing of my edit) that it's refreshing and at least in principle a cause for hope that we all--CTists, lone-gunman-ers, those who might be susceptible to persuasion, etc.--can agree on one thing: the low quality of JEH's contribution. Paavo273 (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC

In terms of Hoover's political machinations, one basic fact which argues against FBI involvement in a plot to assassinate the president was who JFKs successor would be - LBJ. Hoover could run circles around Kennedy and his naive Harvard boys, but LBJ was more than Hoover's equal as a political animal. In terms of the investigation, Johnson quite quickly demoted the FBI to a secondary role. While Brandon is partly correct in that much investigative work was done by the FBI - not a surprise as they were by far the most competent and capable in terms of the breadth of the investigation required - what is NOT true is that Hoover had any serious hand in guiding that investigation. And while it is at least arguable that Hoover had a preordained conclusion vis a vie Oswald, and this may be reflected in their embarassingly inadequate Dec 1963 report, it's a bit harder to argue the same in terms of the Warren Comission given the large scope of their investigation. And while the HSCA put both under heavy criticism, nearly all the assessments done by the HSCA reached identical conclusions as the WC. Indeed, the one piece of evidence which made the HSCA conclude conspiracy - the dictabelt evidence - wasn't even seen by the WC. Canada Jack (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The WC also didn't see the evidence that the CIA had used the Mafia in its attempts to kill Castro, thanks to Kennedy-hater and Nazi sympathizer Allen Dulles. Regarding the FBI, under Hoover it had become one of the most corrupt institutions in America. Hoover had friendly ties to Mafia hoods and for many years (until the revelations of Valachi forced his hand) Hoover denied that the Mafia even existed. The FBI even resorted to state terror in the case of Martin Luther King when it sent him this letter:

King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do it (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significance). You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.

In the case of the FBI's collection of evidence in the JFK assassination, it was basically, "garbage in -- garbage out." BrandonTR (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hoover was a thug, you'll get no debate on that. One of the more distasteful moments was when RFK got the news in a phone call from Hoover. You can just imagine the relish he had in telling Bobby his brother was likely dead. As for King, THAT's a case worthy of exploring in terms of conspiracy. I go by one of the flats James Earl Ray rented here in Toronto after fleeing Memphis almost every day. 962 Dundas W, by Trinity Bellwoods Park, a block west of where Sammy Yatim was shot a few weeks ago, for those in the area who may be familiar with the city.

As for the pertinence of whether Hoover's personality impeded the investigations, once the WC took charge, I've not seen or heard of obstruction from the FBI in terms of the avenues of investigation. Revelations during the Church committee etc of assassination attempts by the CIA and others of world leaders like Castro would have presumably stoked further looks at possible Cuban involvement by the WC, but these avenues were explored by the HSCA anyway and aren't limited to Hoover's FBI. The bottom line assessment by the WC was that an assassination attempt by the Cubans or Soviets would have been an irrational, suicidal move by those regimes. History shows we weren't dealing with irrational, suicidal players in those countries. Canada Jack (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You're putting the typical right-wing spin on the CIA assassination attempts against Castro -- the notion that there could have been a conspiracy by the Cuban government against JFK in retaliation for the attempts on Castro's life. A more likely scenario (and one that the WC and the HSCA refused to explore) is that the CIA used its Mafia assets (the same Mafia assets that it had previously used to try and kill Castro) to help it kill JFK. The right-wingers in the CIA were especially antagonized because JFK refused to order a full scale invasion of Cuba during the Bay of Pigs. The CIA right-wingers saw JFK's refusal to do so as betrayal. BrandonTR (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how a CIA/mafia plot is more "plausible," Brandon, unless your only criterion is who is perceived to have the biggest ax to grind in regards to JFK. The very notion that government agencies would kill their leader, especially given the relatively constrained power of the Executive somewhat diminishes any notion of plausibility. Besides, we need evidence, not armchair speculation of qui bono.

But, if we put aside the prima facie implausibility of a CIA/mafia plot, what evidence is there for such a scenario. None, really. A single witness claimed Oswald was seen at Bannister's New Orleans office, a person who had anti-Castro ties. And the HSCA found nothing to substantiate that years-after-the-fact claim. Indeed, we'd expect, if Oswald was "groomed" to appear to be a Cuban leftist so as to provoke a retaliation against Castro, then why not plant some fake evidence of direct contact? As it was, all the evidence agai st Oswald pointed to him as being a disenchanted loner. So that doesn't add up. Further, there is no evidence besides a few clumsy attempts to infiltrate anti-Castro groups in NOLA that Oswald had any serious contact with these people. All that has surfaced is a photo at Ferrie's cadet thing which we already knew Oswald attended, and a now-discredited sighting in Clinton which we now know was a manufactured claim by Garrison that Oswald was seen with Shaw and Ferrie.

Even the Mexican consulate visits make zero sense under this scenario. If the CIA wanted to establish Oswald wanted to go to Cuba, well Oswald himself said that! Further, what would be the point of having someone photographed who obviously wasn't Oswald if the CIA was in a plot? They supplied the photo!

Finally, the basic question to be asked is what could be gained by JFKs assassination? If it was get rid of Castro ultimately, well that was a spectacular failure! No "green light" came from LBJ to get him! And the efforts against the mafia certainly didn't stop either. So on all counts, the theory makes no sense. And this is putting aside the obvious point of all the evidence pointing to Oswald acting alone which would presumably need to be planted. Canada Jack (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi thought that a CIA-Mafia alliance to assassinate JFK made sense. Fonzi reported how he and his fellow investigators were blocked from fully pursuing this angle by HSCA Chief Council Robert Blakey. Fonzi even wrote a book about it called The Last Investigation.

"[W]hat could be gained by JFKs assassination?" Answer: REVENGE for B of P disaster/"betrayal"/etc. and/or for AG RFK's war on unions and organized crime. ('Just responding arguendo since you asked the rhetorical Q and some of us aren't that well versed on the whole subject.) Paavo273 (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

America's right-wing elite may not have gotten the invasion of Cuba that it wanted, with the ascension of LBJ to the presidency, but the right-wing did get the bombing and invasion of Vietnam it so badly wanted. We also know that America's right-wing often behaves vindictively and not completely rationally. We saw this back in the 90s with the impeachment of Clinton, which could have resulted in the ascension of Gore to the presidency, and likely would have increased the chance of Gore being elected President in 2000. BrandonTR (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So you figure it would count as vindictive but "not completely rational" for America's "right wing elite" to send young Lee Oswald, unpaid CIA spy, to kill JFK in Dallas with a $29.95 WW II surplus rifle that had sights that weren't exactly on, and couldn't be fixed? Perhaps they included a note that said "aim a bit low" or "don't correct for upward lead." ;)

Personally, I've always wondered how Oswald complained to his mafia/CIA handlers about the whole thing. I can imagine: Oswald: "You tell me I'm James *&^%ing Bond, but do I get paid like him? I can't even drive because I can't afford a CAR! Come on, guys, if I'm gunna do this one for you, I want something up front." I can imagine the comeback: "Lee-arino! Haven't we-ah always been-a fair to you? Eh? Marina she wants gifts, don' we send friends with-a the gifts? Sure-a we do! We're a gunna give you like a COOL car, man-- maybe like a Mustang! You just gotta do this one little thing for us." Oswald: "Okay, so where's this hit gunna be in Dallas?" "From the building where you're gunna be working in a few months, amigo. We got it all arranged." Oswald: "From where I'm GOING TO BE WORKING? You crazy wop, don't you think they're going to know it was me?" "Never min', we're going to get you outa the country. Someplace like Cuba. Don' worry." Oswald: "You'd better have a car waiting on the front step. Or where I'm staying. If you think I'm gunna be hiking or taking a cab or bus around Dallas with the cops looking for me, forget it. Get me a limo, or I'll sing like Caruso." "Don' worry, Lee-oh! Only singin' is you in Havana, in like a conga line on the beach..."

Hey, we could turn this into a pretty good comedy sketch. Lee Harvey Oswald and the Tight-Fisted Texas Mafia. Running gag is that they never give him a dime, and yet he gives them the most clever high-level assassination in history, all done working with junk equipment, no money, and no back-up-- certainly nobody bothering to provide even minimal getaway for a schmuck, on foot, with no car. This gets him arrested, something that did NOT need to happen, and would not have, even with minimal care (they could have had a car waiting at his rooming house-- and if they intended to kill him, they should have done it THERE, not let the cops nab him 10 blocks away and grill him for two days). But then, after two days of him NOT being Caruso (and how could they count on that?), they do send Jack "Bugsie" Ruby to shoot him, just once, in the gut. Evidence of more brilliant planning. Oswald here says: "Oh!! You Guinea baastards...." SBHarris 01:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

America's right-wing elite may not have gotten the invasion of Cuba that it wanted... Which destroys the premise of the CIA/Anti-Castro claim. As for the Vietnam claim - the right-wing did get the bombing and invasion of Vietnam it so badly wanted - are you now claiming that the CIA-engineered coup in Vietnam which was hoped to get the government there cracking against the insurgency was calculated to fail? And did the CIA play both sides by ensuring the new government there would be faced with a, presumably, CIA-guided Viet Cong insurgency? Because that is where all this leads, down the rabbit hole of whacky agency interventions... The point here is that the main thing driving the Vietnam policy of the government was NOT the person of the president, but events in Vietnam itself. And given that Kennedy - not Johnson - was the cold-war hawk (who stood by Joseph McCarthy? It wasn't LBJ), it is a stretch to say that given the events on the ground which emerged during 1964 that Kennedy would NOT have escalated in Vietnam, something he surely would have preferred to have avoid. Even if you try to claim that that wasn't known in November 1963, what is also true is that those in power DID know that events on the ground would force the presindent's hand and it didn't matter who was president given the state of the American cold war commitment at that time. The famous memo the CT crowd likes to point as a "reversal" of JFK's policy there was, inconveniently for the CT crowd, written under Kennedy, issued under Johnson. Canada Jack (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"In retrospect, the reason for the assassination is hardly a mystery. It is now abundantly clear ... why the C.I.A.'s covert operations element wanted John Kennedy out of the Oval Office and Lyndon Johnson in it. The new President elevated by rifle fire to control of our foreign policy had been one of the most enthusiastic American cold warriors.... Johnson had originally risen to power on the crest of the fulminating anti-communist crusade which marked American politics after World War II. Shortly after the end of that war, he declaimed that atomic power had become 'ours to use, either to Christianize the world or pulverize it' -- a Christian benediction if ever there was one. Johnson's demonstrated enthusiasm for American military intervention abroad ... earned him the sobriquet 'the senator from the Pentagon....'"

--Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins

In Garrison's Playboy interview that you quote above, Garrison gets LBJ quite wrong. LBJ was not the Pentagon-loving warmonger that Garrison portrays. You might want to read the several LBJ books by Robert A. Caro who is acclaimed the master biographer of Johnson's political career. Caro states very plainly that he looked hard for conclusive evidence to link Johnson with Kennedy's assassination but he came up short. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lyin Lyndon was a Texas hick, a criminal, and a war pig. Upon his death, he should have been tossed into a sewage dump. After a bombing strike on a North Vietnamese petroleum depot, the pig Johnson gloated, "I didn't just screw Ho Chi Minh. I cut his pecker off." BrandonTR (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The premise that the CIA engineered the assassination to get Johnson in power begs the question why did the CIA just weeks before engineer the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem. If they truly were intent on ensuring American involvement in Vietnam, why assassinate Diem mere weeks earlier? Wasn't the point there to get more effective leadership to counter the communists? Wouldn't it have been far, far simpler to keep Diem in power and thus almost certainly force America's hand in terms of escalation? Of course, logic is not the hallmark of most of these conspiracy theories, putting aside the basic problem of zero evidence of direct involvement in Kennedy's assassination.

This is the problem with the armchair speculations from those like Garrison. Once you proclaim the motives of everyone, you simply take the ball and run with, making up any silly and outlandish theory that happens to occur to you. Unfortunately for all these theories they are that - theories - lacking any basis in reality. In other words, we need evidence of involvement in the Kennedy assassination, not evidence that player a and player b had motive. Canada Jack (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"When I mentioned about Adlai Stevenson, if he was vice-president there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy." --Jack Ruby's comment to reporters while being transferred to his prison cell. When asked to explain what he meant, Ruby (Oswald's killer and a probable conspirator in the JFK assassination) replied, "Well the answer is the man in office now [Lyndon Johnson]." Note: Adlai Stevenson advocated a conciliatory approach to international affairs in stark contrast to Democratic Party hawks like Lyndon Johnson. Johnson assumed the presidency following JFK's murder and escalated the Vietnam War exponentially. With his comment, it seems that Ruby was dropping a hint about the assassination -- that the JFK conspirators could not have achieved their goal of putting a hawk in the White House had Stevenson been Kennedy's vice-president instead of Johnson. BrandonTR (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If Stevenson was on the ticket, Brandon, there definitely would not have been an assassination of a president Kennedy as the president would have been Nixon.

But it shows the breathless inanity of the CT crowd when they start pulling quotes from Jack Ruby - yes, I repeat, Jack Ruby - as if this delusional clown had any special insight into who "really" killed Kennedy. It's one thing to post quotes as many do where he seems to want to "spill the beans" on what "really" happened if only he could testify in Washington, yet those same who post those quotes conspicuously omit the following words he often said - that there was no conspiracy. Something he repeatedly and vehemently claimed - he was part of no conspiracy. I also notice that we don't see his other claims - that there was a massacre of Jews happening at that moment in America, that Jews were being blamed for the assassination, etc. If anyone has doubt what a nutbar he was, read the transcript of his testimony with Chief Justice Earl Warren for the WC. Canada Jack (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Websites as sources

Instead of the revert war that is going on, let those who are disputing what websites can be used as sources - or whether websites can be used as sources, come and resolve it here! Canada Jack (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I would love to know what the hell is going on here. Brandon obstinately insists "a website is not considered a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy" despite adding dozens of citations to websites himself! It makes zero sense. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I did a check of the policies and see no restrictions on websites per se, nor a determination that websites are not considered reliable sources. Perhaps you can elaborate, Brandon. Perhaps Gamaliel's quote from you does not accurately describe the policy you are referring to? Canada Jack (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked User:BrandonTR to quote and/or link this alleged policy and he has refused. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Gam, Brandon, I'm disappointed in you. ;)

Is this whole argument about a citation for the fact that Oswald was transferred to El Toro? I have to agree with Brandon: John McAdams' personal blog about the JFK assassination is not a reliable source for wikipedia when he does not cite other sources.

But why the edit war? Just replace the cite with a better one and be done with it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel says I have added dozens of citations to websites. I'd like to see them. According to Gamaliel, it's OK to cite Warren Commission apologist McAdams' website, but it's not OK to cite politically incorrect websites like: "JFK Lancer", or "Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination" or Professor James Fetzer's JFK assassination website. Anyone see a double-standard? BrandonTR (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a double-standard; I think it's ultimately up to the editors to form consensus on which sources are reliable according to the encyclopedia's guidelines. But I still think that personal web sites, where they contain information that is not otherwise cited by reliable sources, should not be used. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, there is no double standard. The standard is WP:RS. Professor Mcadams' website meets WP:RS criteria, as it is a widely praised source created by a recognized, credentialed expert in the field. The Lancer, written by uncredentialed amateurs, does not meet RS criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your capacity to deny reality continues to amaze, Brandon. Your edit history is full of you adding citations to websites: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Now you complain about a "double standard". Does this mean you've abandoned your contention that "a website is not considered a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy"? Or are you just making this up as you go along? Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a blog, it's a website from a university professor widely acknowledged as the best website on the JFK assassination. I have no objection to your replacement with a superior source, but that was not Brandon's complaint. His complaint was that "a website is not considered a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy", which is blatantly untrue. If he had the same issue you did, I would have raised no objection to him replacing it with a solid RS book source. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

An accurate statement would be that McAdams' website is acknowledged almost exclusively by Warren Commission apologists as being the best website on the JFK assassination. BrandonTR (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel states, regarding myself: Your capacity to deny reality continues to amaze, Brandon. Your edit history is full of you adding citations to websites: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] However, Gamaliel disregards an important distinction -- there are websites that just regurgitate facts, such as the ones that I have referenced. (In this case, sites that mirror and quote investigations like the Warren Commission and the HSCA verbatim.) But, of course, Gamamiel is trying to obfuscate the fact that the McAdams website is not just about quoting official reports verbatim. Rather, McAdams has his own agenda of interpreting these reports and offering his own opinions and theories on many aspects of the JFK assassination. BrandonTR (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are still websites, Brandon, and not all of them that you added are of the type "that just regurgitate facts". What you said was "a website is not considered a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy". Are you now abandoning that claim? Gamaliel (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, references to websites that I have made are mirrors of official reports. Regarding Wikipedia policy, you will see that it is somewhat ambivalent on this subject. However, I believe that I have interpreted Wikipedia's intentions correctly, or as some might say, "in the spirit of the law." BrandonTR (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

untrue, not all of the citations you have added are to "mirrors of official reports." Even if they were, so what? You said "a website is not considered a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy". Are you abandoning this claim, yes or no? What policies are you attempting to interpret or apply here? You have refused to specify thus far, so we have no idea what law you are attempting to follow the spirit of. Please be clear and specific, with a quote of the relevant passages. Gamaliel (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia more precisely says that "personal" websites are not to be used as citations. The McAdams website would appear to fall under the personal category, since he freely expresses his personal theories and opinions on just about every matter concerning the assassination. You state: not all of the citations you have added are to mirrors of official reports. Which citations are you referring to? BrandonTR (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I have to spell this out for you. Just look at the links: The Portal to Texas History; whatreallyhappened.com, whatever that is, probably a conspiracy website; www.jfkresearch.com, a broken link to what appears to be a conspiracy website; and Time magazine.

It's a moot point, since it seems clear, though you refuse to explicitly spell it out, that you are abandoning your claim that "a website is not considered a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy". Now that you have finally attempted to explain your reasoning here, I believe you may be referring to the WP:RS caution that self-published sources, including books and not just websites, "are largely not acceptable", but it does allow such material to be used "when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." I have repeatedly referred to this part of the rule in reference to McAdams' website, as he clearly meets that criteria.

In the future, if you are going to continue edit war over your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policy, it would be helpful to the editors of this article if you used the talk page to explain your reasoning and the specific policies you are invoking. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel says: I don't believe I have to spell this out for you. Just look at the links. But then Gamaliel refuses to provide "full" links so that they can be examined. In fact, I'd be happy to look at the links, if you would provide them. As for your assertion that Time magazine constitutes a personnel website, I have to take issue with that. Regarding your assertion that McAdams is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications, I must ask, "how did his expert status become established, and what are these reliable third party publications?" Assuming that you are correct about McAdams, then that would mean that the website, "Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination" can also be sourced, since its author, James DiEugenio is at least as much of an expert on the assassination as McAdams is. Furthermore, DiEugenio's work has been published by reliable third-party publications. As for your claim about "edit warring", one can see that I am all over this talk page, and I am using it again now to correct your errors. BrandonTR (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I am baffled at your response. Are you really having this much trouble understanding this? I've already provided the links above. You included the links in response me. Now you claim there are no links?! I never claimed Time was a "personal website". YOU claimed that websites were prohibited, I provided links to websites YOU included. Only after the links were provided did YOU change YOUR claim to say that "personal websites" were prohibited. YOUR original claim was that "a website is not considered a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy", the Time link was provided in response to YOUR claim. This was before YOU changed YOUR original claim. Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue? The only errors here are yours stemming from either your deliberate misunderstanding or inability to comprehend basic English sentences.

McAdams has a PhD from Harvard, is a professor at Marquette University, has been published in numerous peer-reviewed journals, and has published a book on the JFK assassination from a reputable academic publisher. James DiEugenio has none of these qualifications. 17:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your began this conversation by listing these websites: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

You later said, Just look at the links: The Portal to Texas History; whatreallyhappened.com, whatever that is, probably a conspiracy website; www.jfkresearch.com, a broken link to what appears to be a conspiracy website; and Time magazine. But I have to ask "which of these links references the list of websites you originally presented?"

When I said that websites were prohibited, I assumed that this would be understood to mean personal websites, since obviously there are many links to such things as government websites in all of these articles. BrandonTR (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm

• This edit is YOU adding a citation to the website The Portal to Texas History
• This edit is YOU adding a citation to the website jfkresearch.com
• This edit is YOU adding a citation to the websites whatreallyhappened.com and www.time.com

What part of this do you not understand? Do you not know what a diff is? Or did you just not bother to look at the links repeatedly posted here?

During the edit war and later on the talk page you were repeatedly asked to clarify your statements. Instead of using the edit summary to taunt other users you should have explained your reasoning. You repeatedly refused to explain or to even cite a policy. Next time, don't waste everybody's time and just use the talk page to explain when you are asked to. This nonsense could have been avoided had you just taken a moment to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Time to get a clue Gamaliel. The website: http:/texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/ John F. Kennedy, Dallas Police Department Collection is not a personal website, but is a website maintained by the University of North Texas.

The reference: http://www.jfkresearch.com/prologue.htm%7Cauthor=James H. Fetzer, PhD|title=Murder in Dealey Plaza, Prologue: "Smoking Guns" in the Death of JFK|publisher=Open Court|year=2000}} is a reference to Professor James Fetzer's book "Murder in Dealey Plaza" and is verbatim text of the short chapter "Smoking Guns" which appears in his peer-reviewed book.

The reference to the website: whatreallyhappened.com is mirror, verbatim text of George Lardner Jr., Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, March 26, 2001; Page A03.

Several days ago, you could have cited the Wikipedia policy that led you to believe that the McAdams' personal website could legitimately be used as a source, but you were too stubborn to do so. In the future please don't waste everybody's time on these sorts of things. As for myself, I have too many important things to do, like correcting your mistakes in other articles. BrandonTR (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I think the quality of the content as based on reliable (preferably secondary) research is what matters for inclusion in WP articles, whether it be on paper, on the WWW, an oral interview, on papyrus, or whatever. :-) Paavo273 (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You mendacious buffoon, I never said those were personal websites. Your inability to grasp simple English language sentences continues to amaze me. And I have repeatedly cited, even before this edit war you started, both WP:RS and the specific part of WP:RS that allows McAdams' website to be used. The fact is that you were repeatedly asked to cite policy and you refused to do so. You might not understand what this is, so let me explain. This is a link to your edit where, in response to being asked to cite the policy you were invoking, you wrote in the edit summary "don't be lazy; you can look this up yourself". I know that conspiracy buffs have difficulties understanding evidence, but the evidence is clear that you were the one refusing to specify and discuss policy here. So for you to say the opposite is actually true is a particularly absurd and transparently ridiculous claim, but I doubt you have the intelligence to recognize that, given that you're engaging in a schoolyard taunt of "I know you are but what am I" and have mistaken it for a Wildean riposte. You have once again proven yourself a colossal waste of time for Wikipedia editors who can manage to pass a Turing Test without the assistance of a Personal Care Assistant. Gamaliel (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Mendacious buffoon? Lying clown or fool? And it only gets better! What ever happened to collaboration, to WP:Civility and WP:Consensus? Paavo273 (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd love nothing more than to collaborate in a civil manner and I've repeatedly asked Brandon to act in such a manner, but he has refused. It is particularly difficult to collaborate with an editor who taunts you for asking what policy he claims you are violating then makes up things you didn't say and accuses you of behaving exactly how he is. So he reaps what he sows. Gamaliel (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

An accurate statement would be that McAdams' website is acknowledged almost exclusively by Warren Commission apologists as being the best website on the JFK assassination. I think it would be more accurate to say that McAdams' is one of the best resources on the Kennedy assassination on the web, and that pro-conspiracy advocates do their best to villify McAdams as a "shill" and dismiss the site as a "blog," or "his personal opinion."

What would make a "good" site? How about an offering not only of the non-conspiracy material but also of pro-conspiracy material? Well, McAdams provides a link to dozens of sites offering that material and the link is not only on the front page, it's the FIRST link there. Do conspiracy sites routinely offer the "other" side, even if only with a link? Further, far from simply stating "his own opinion," as if he proclaims the "truth" as he sees it and proceeds onto the next topic, pontificating all along, McAdams frequently links to numerous secondary and primary sources who spell out the argument in question. IOW, it's often not McAdams who is writing here, he supplies the arguments of those who make the case, and those are often conflicting arguments. Indeed, he often supplies the PRO-CONSPIRACY arguments while offering the counter-argument - something the majority of pro-CT sites avoid doing.

Take the rather convoluted tale of the claim, explored by Garrison, that Oswald was seen in the company of Clay Shaw and David Ferrie in Clinton LA in the Summer of 1963. Instead of avoiding or dismissing out of hand the claim which, if true, would have established a possible conspiratol relationship, he dives right into the claims. He first notes that the Clinton witnesses were believed by the HSCA and Norman Mailer. Then, he links to Posner's passage in "Case Closed" which first explored the early interviews with those witnesses. Then, another link to Dave Reitz who is in general agreement with Posner, but notes some of his factual errors. Then, a link to the early testimony of one of those witnesses, Corrie Collins. Then, Reitz again, reviewing Patricia Lambert's book "False Witness" which revealed yet more facts about the Clinton witnesses. Finally, a link to Reitz's debunking of the entire episode. In the end, you may not agree with the conclusions, but you are given enough of the basic facts to a) understand the claim and b) understand the problems with those claims. And you can decide, as he states at the beginning, what the most credible scenario is. CT sites don't even hint that there is any issue with this testimony. The claim was made, therefore Oswald was in the company of Shaw and Ferrie. End of discussion. This is what separates the amateurish pro=-CT sites from the more scholarly approach done by McAdams. You don't have to rely on his word - you have an opportunity to assess the evidence, or understand how evidence was assessed and interpreted.

What McAdams does is often supply the source material for a claim. The autopsy photos were fake? You can read the entire section from the HSCA which spells out how they determined they were not faked. Not only that, you can read the 1981 Boston Globe account of how photo "expert" Bob Groden tried and failed to convince the experts the Globe gathered that the photos were fakes. And, if the photos and x-rays were indeed faked, he provides a link to an essay which spells out who and how many would have had to have been involved in such a conspiracy. Further, a link to the 1967 report of the three autopsy surgeons after seeing the autopsy photographs, vouching for their authenticity. Finally, a link to the full text of the 1968 Clark panel authenticating the autopsy conclusions based on the photographs.

How good a source is McAdams? He is frequently cited, as Gamaliel notes, by others, a raw indication of the utility and reliability of his site. You certainly are not required to agree with him, but as a resource to much primary and secondary material, he is unmatched AND he provides those links, as mentioned, to pro-conspiracy sites, often expressing how a pro-CT site is an excellent resource for much source material, even if he doesn't agree with their conclusions. Just the other day I picked up the latest issue of "Skeptic" magazine which offers scholarly articles on contentious subjects, the current issue discussing the assassination. There are 163 references cited in the article, several dozen are from McAdams' site of his 2011 book. Concrete evidence that McAdams' meets the criteria of reliable source and the other criteria as noted by Gamaliel. Canada Jack (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I see James H. Fetzer discussed above. Fetzer may hold the record for 'most conspiracy theories ever endorsed' and his opinions have been so widely debunked that I submit that James Fetzer is never a credible source for wikipedia. In fact, there is probably no other "historian" in America who has done a greater disservice to the study of history. The six lunar landings were not faked. Paul Wellstone was not murdered. The x-rays of the deceased President and the Zapruder film were not elaborate (and yet somehow easily detectable) forgeries. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Professor James Fetzer and others got it right in the case of Watergate and Iran-Contra. The historical record reveals that there really were conspiracies in the cases of Watergate and Iran-Contra, despite the predictable denial of America's right-wing at the time. One can only wonder what other American conspiracies have yet to be revealed. BrandonTR (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There was very little doubt, from about April 1973, there was in fact a conspiracy in regards to Watergate - the main question was what were Nixon's roles in planning the break-in and the cover-up. And in regards to Iran-Contra affair, once news of that broke in November 1986, it was clear it was a conspiracy as well. Very few people seriously believed this was the action of a single, rogue officer. And very quickly, it was clear it wasn't the actions of one man, as documents came to light. So, it's not as if Fetzer is or was leading the vanguard here, Brandon, it was known early on in both cases that these were conspiracies, the questions were how deep they went. And those "denials" from the Right were not that there were in fact conspiracies, they were chiefly on whether the president in question knew.

Besides, no one pretends, unless you are part of the rabid CT crowd, that conspiracies haven't happened frequently or don't happen. The rabid CT crowd seems to think that if you deny there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination then, somehow, you don't think conspiracies happen. No, the difference is too many in that crowd, Fetzer is a prime example, see EVERYTHING in the context of a conspiracy. When there in fact WAS a conspiracy, like in Watergate, it doesn't mean that Fetzer now is credible, prescient, etc. Most people from the Spring of 1973 knew that! Canada Jack (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Fetzer does not see everything in the context of conspiracy. As far as I know, he does not believe that Obama's birth certificate is illegitimate and he does not believe that the recent mass shootings in this country were orchestrated by supporters of gun control (unlike some of our right-wing conspiracy theorists). However, Fetzer does question things like whether the moon landings were faked, which most people would consider pretty off the wall. With conspiracy theories -- since it is very difficult to absolutely disprove many of them -- one might consider assigning a probability to them. For instance one might assign only a 5% chance that the moon landings were faked. Regarding the RFK and Martin Luther King killings, the probability of conspiracy might be placed at around 95%. Whereas, in the case of JFK assassination, the probability of conspiracy might run as high as 99.9999 percent. BrandonTR (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Formal considerations: Organizing discussion of and citing "investigations"

If you think Dallas PD's work was an "investigation," fine. But you need to call it that when you discuss it in the body and explicitly organize it and cite it in such a way that the reasonable reader "GETS" that that is what you are talking about for one of the investigations. This is not a substantive content argument. 'Need to follow standard style, including WP's (WP:Manual of style). Cullen328 is correct: You don't need the citation in intro if it's properly covered in the article. But the reader must not be asked to dig to find out what the editor(s) is/are talking about.

You ALSO DON'T NEED the unusual "note." IMHO, as a writing instructor and a reader and editor, the note in intro is non-standard, even bizarre. 'Dont recall ever seeing that exact kind of thing before. If you properly organize and cover the material in the body of your article you don't need it. And the note absolutely does NOT cite any source; it only NAMES these supposed FOUR investigations, at least TWO of which totally miss the radar as "investigations" in the discussion. If the material is organized &discussed properly in the article, then what the fuzz is that note needed for?

In expository writing, the body/article content must deliver overtly and explicitly on what the introduction sets up. Sticking citations or explanatory notes in the intro is no proper substitution for following this basic rule. Instead of making kneejerk reverts (Originally, I think I had placed a banner need citation tag at the top of the article, and it was immediately reverted) of edits by those of us who have pointed out this glaring problem in the article, whoever is/are wedded to this idea of "four investigations" ought to clean up the discussion first, instead. Paavo273 (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Antecedent of Pronoun

The article states, "Jarman testified that Oswald was not in the domino room when he was there." Following the antecedent rule, that statement means, "Jarman testified that Oswald was not in the domino room when Oswald was there." Don't you really mean, "Jarman testified that Oswald was not in the domino room when Jarman was there." I suggest the pronoun he be deleted and "jarman" substituted. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC))

You don't need to ask for permission for routine copy editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Problem was acknowledged: On 5 September, User:Gamaliel wrote: "You are correct, the body of the article should contain substantial cited information on each of these investigations. At one point, it did. I don't know what happened to these sections, but they should be restored or created."

Never uncovered any deleted citations: I hunted back several years in article history & never found ANY such citations for the contested material. If s.o. else wants to hunt & actually finds some, I'd be glad to be involved if invited in restoring the missing text & citations. Absent that, whoever wants to keep the info here has the burden to produce valid source cites.

One-off hit and run tag-teamers: In the meantime, why do people who have no recent involvement in this article (& little or no prior involvement ever) jump in & start reverting tags which clearly belong? I recognize LHO is a highly emotional topic for many. The I.D.d problem with the article, however, is not primarily even a substantive (anti-CT or pro-CT) one.

Veteran editors abusing process: I can’t fathom how veteran editors with huge numbers of combined years of participation (with glowing depictions of their contributions) on the site can reasonably feel good about stifling discussion and quashing the attempt to require fundamental WP rules be followed, i.e., in this case that the missing cites be added or the material deleted. IMHO the mentality is, "It's good enough; we like it how it is. And anyway, CTists--and now ANYBODY else who would challenge our m.o. even when it clearly violates basic WP citing rules--are all kooks anyway. So we don't have to follow the rules."

In actual fact as presented, these underpinning pillars of WP are not discretionary, not for some editors to follow and others to ignore.

“Coop-guarders” hurt Wikipedia: IMO this kind of issue-avoidance, tag-teaming approach to "GUARDING" an article’s “status quo,” even when plain error has been shown, doesn’t serve the interests of WP. IMHO it's a fundamental defect of the current WP editorial “process,” including the IMO inane dispute resolution procedure (in its current form), that just wears reasonable people down, that allows mediocrity to happen, that allows less than stellar work product to represent the WP brand. IMO it drastically reduces the quality of WP for all (including the rules violators/disregarders) in the long-term. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please confine your discussion on this page to suggestions for improving content, and avoid commentary on other contributors. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, rel Dallas PD, need secondary research backing up the specific assertion of contributing editor to not violate synthesis rule

There's an additional problem, I believe, with the "four investigation" model introduced in the lead of this article: WP is entirely derivative. We can all agree on that, right? We don't add our own ideas; that would be original research. So in addition to the the problem with form--the article currently saying in the intro there are FOUR official government investigations but then only establishing TWO investigations in the body of the article, one of which actually concluded (rightly or wrongly) that Oswald was not the only one involved--there's the issue of what the Dallas PD's work did or established. We had a big go-round on that, remember? But I don't think it occurred to me that how you or I or anyone CONSTRUES it, even if we all AGREED, is not what matters. There has/have to be source(s) cited (preferably secondary ones) that refer to the Dallas PD's work EXPLICITLY as an "investigation that concluded LHO was the assassin" or words to that effect. Otherwise, it violates the no synthesis rule, however reasonable an INFERENCE it may be. That WP standard is quite rigorous and carefully laid out. See link.

As to the FBI investigation, largely discredited apparently, at least according to Canada Jack, I don't think there's any objection to that. CJ even provided the primary source document in our prior discussion. But there needs to be a discussion of it in the ARTICLE (preferably under the official investigation heading) to clearly and directly support its one quarter of the "four investigations" thesis (or one-third of the three?) that the intro greets the reader with. Paavo273 (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that this boils down to a semantics argument regarding what constitutes an "investigation." While The FBI and the Dallas Police Department did gather evidence, neither conducted hearings into the matter. The Warren Commission and the HSCA, on the other hand, took the evidence gathered by the FBI and the Dallas Police Department and did conduct hearings. In other words, the Dallas Police Department and the FBI gathered evidence, while the Warren Commission and the HSCA weighed the evidence. The Warren Commission and the HSCA came to the same conclusions on certain matters, and to different conclusions on other matters. BrandonTR (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever in the word "investigation" that implies or requires that hearings must be held. When a police agency takes a look at the evidence collected concerning a crime, and then recommends that the district attorneys prosecute the accused, then that is an investigation involving weighing the evidence. If the accused is killed a few days later, then it is a brief investigation or an aborted investigation, but it is still an investigation. I see no basis for claiming otherwise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

While The FBI and the Dallas Police Department did gather evidence, neither conducted hearings into the matter. The Warren Commission and the HSCA, on the other hand, took the evidence gathered by the FBI and the Dallas Police Department and did conduct hearings. I have to agree with Cullen in his comments on this, an "investigation" need not require hearings. But while I agree there is a question whether the Dallas police's work was an "investigation" outside of normal police work - depends what one means by "investigation" of course - I DON'T agree that the FBI merely "gathered evidence" and did not assess it. They in fact DID assess the limited evidence they had gathered within the short weeks after the assassination and issued a report, pretty well universally seen as seriously flawed. It was, nevertheless, an investigation. Canada Jack (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen: It's refreshing that occasionally reasonable minds actually more or less agree. What each of you said makes good sense IMO. It might be a lot easier to clean this up than it originally looked--couple ideas: Rel FBI, just as CJ originally suggested, one could add a few sentences under an "FBI Investigation" subheading about it AND a short 2nd paragraph critiquing it the way CJ has done here. (When I pored over this in September, FBI was missing altogether.) (Also, 'could move the Ramsey Clark panel out of the way so n.o. mistakes that for 1 of the 4.

Rel the Dallas PD, for simplicity's sake 'could just leave the prior chronological discussion alone and raise a short paragraph (under, e.g., a "Dallas PD Investigation" subheading) that focuses on the findings rather than the chronology. A little repetition isn't a bad thing, esp. for readers new to a subject. And IMO it would definitely be worthwhile to mention, if the primary source,i.e., the file, OR a secondary source is available that says so, what Brandon earlier mentioned about the Dallas PD file still being open. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've provided an official government report that explicitly specifies that these were all investigations. How on earth is this a non-citation? Gamaliel (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Gamaliel:

Rel Dallas PD: Okay, maybe I was precipitant in saying that second citation (#3) you made in the intro was not germane--as to the Dallas PD. Between cite #3 and the cited material in the body of the article rel Dallas PD, that may almost get us to where we need to be rel DPD. (IYO would it be helpful to your reader to re-label the heading "DPD interrogation" to "DPD Interrogation and investigation"?) Also, there was some very relevant material in the Bugliosi book--pp. 182 et seq. I think. Weren't you the one who referred to that recently?

" FBI Investigation: But IMO you really need something in the body that at least minimally discusses "FBI investigation." There never was any disagreement that that was an "official investigation," especially after CJ gave the primary source citation in talk. The only problem is it doesn't appear anywhere in the body (except maybe in the DPD section it mentions that the FBI also interrogated LHO).

SS: I'd have to go back and look rel SS. Is that in the body anywhere?

Re WHERE the cites belongs: You're absolutely correct in questioning why were the cite tags placed in the intro. The problem was I had placed a banner cite tag, and it immediately got removed by an otherwise uninvolved editor, just as happened today. So then I put it inline--the logic being there was no cite anywhere and one was for sure needed SOMEWHERE in article. Sadly, that too got immediately deleted. Then another editor came along and put the tag back in the intro, and it "stuck." Well mostly until today. So it'd be fine IMO to remove those cites to the body where the actual discussion is. I never alleged they belonged in the intro. It just seemed like no objection was being allowed at all (mainly thanks to once-and-done H&R reverters) to what seemed to be a definite omission. You've obviously done a lot of work on this article; I just think it would be even stronger if the "investigations" were all called "investigations" and covered with citations in the body of the article.

One other line of inquiry: If I might ask out of curiosity, do you ever contemplate who your readership of this article consists of? Clearly there are the strong anti-CTists and the strong CTists. But aren't there also many who are pretty open and just want to be informed? I know I've learned a lot from studying this. The more authority you cite, IMO, the more your words will persuade.

Also rel that U of Texas website, it looks like a place where some excellent primary source material could be found if one knew how or where to search there. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

'Need to follow WP rules WP:No original research, WP:Citing sources, etcetera. Citation tags belong in text until these rules are met

The first "citation" is a non-citation because it is not a source dealing with the material. Ditto the newest source added at which point you deleted the need citation tags. The only mention I can find in the most recently added source cited says, "Aside from the assassination investigations that the Dallas police, the FBI, and the Secret Service conducted..." Assuming this is a valid source for anything, which I do not contest, it appears you have authority to call these investigations, but the citation makes no mention of what these "investigations" concluded. You are specifically forbidden under WP:No original research and the discussion found there from drawing your own conclusions from source material. As such, if you want to include investigations, you need primary (which CJ previously provided for the FBI investigation) or secondary sources that state what the "investigations" concluded.

Back on 5 September User:Gamaliel and User:Canada Jack acknowledged in talk that this problem existed, but so far nobody has corrected it, and the latest non-citation #2 and defective citation #3 certainly do not fix the problem. Paavo273 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP:lead summarises the main. We don't need to put sources in the lead if the main is adequately sourced, What's the problem? --Pete (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Skyring and thanks for the inquiry. Your second statement is accurate. The problems is the "main" as you call it does NOT cite sources for any FBI investigation, DPD investigation, or now SS investigation, at least as of ten minutes ago. If I am wrong, please point out the source citations I've missed. As noted above, this is a problem User:Gamaliel and User:CJ acknowledged, but nobody ever fixed. BUT you're right: If sources WERE cited in the body, they wouldn't be needed in intro. I still think the body is the ONLY place to cite that info. But then I'm not the editor contributing this info. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to ask precisely why you want the cites? --Pete (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, User:Skyring, As stated by WP, it is one of the three or four cornerstones of all WP editorial participation to cite sources. People just can't make their own stuff up. That's OR. It's reasonable for any editor to expect other editors, however long they've been involved in the project or whatever other WP hat(s) they wear, to follow the most fundamental rules of the project. The sources are NOT there. I have pored over this article at length, going back to 5 September. It is an ACKNOWLEDGED problem (including by Gamaliel and CJ). BTW, I also believe it serves the interests of the anti-CT side to follow the rules. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The five government investigations all concluded LHO shot JFK. Hardly a surprising result, given the weight of evidence. Is it your belief that we don't give links to these five investigations? If that's the problem, why not fix it, instead of creating a fuss? --Pete (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

On “weight of evidence,” “making a fuss,” and “fix it”:

Rel the "weight of evidence," in WP articles (as per WP:Verifiability), info has to be tied to valid primary or (preferably) secondary sources. Those are the only kinds of evidence allowed to which weight may be given.

Simplest way w/b to just delete the material until whoever wants it in the article comes up with valid source cites for it. Is everyone okay with that fix for now?

Also, the cite tags have been in place for months (w/ infrequent other H&R reverts) and were deleted today (except for the first time) by multiple editors who either didn’t bother to self-educate about the issue by reading the talk page or who willfully ignored/disregarded what is found there. Paavo273 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you able to respond to my questions above, please. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to AGF on this. --Pete (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The government report I cited specifically mentions all of those investigations. If your problem is that this is cited in the lede and not the main, then why place a citation needed tag in the lede? Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

To respond to both questions: If you're talking about current "cite" #3 ('cuz #2 says NOTHING on point), it calls them "investigations" but doesn't say what they concluded. At this point, if you or anyone would properly cite valid sources for FBI, SS, and DPD ANYWHERE in the article, I'd be happy. I've made suggestions in talk that I really believe would improve your article's readability, but if you disagree or don't care, that's up to you. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So we're not talking about whether or not they are actually "investigations" anymore? Good. But now you're suggesting that they concluded something besides the guilt of Oswald? Seriously? Gamaliel (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. So that is kind of a milestone in a way in this whole talk page discussion the last three months. I'M not suggesting ANYTHING. I'm only saying that you need to cite valid sources for whatever you say per the "canons" of WP. I've actually learned a lot from this article. For WP contributing, it's not what you or I suggest or think that matters. It's what relevant source material says. It MAY be that you CAN cite valid sources.

BTW, did anyone see the Frontline program last night on LHO? They did a lot of research and analysis of their own to come up with that two-hour piece. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop gaming the system and trying to use some bogus request for better sources as an attempt to advance conspiracy theories. JOJ ^Hutton 00:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Mexico City twist party

While in Mexico City, Oswald attended a party also attended by individuals working for the Cuban embassy and some pro-Castro Mexican citizens.^{Rosenbaum, Ron. "Philip Shenon's A Cruel and Shocking Act: Stunning reporting in new book may reveal why Oswald shot John F. Kennedy". Slate.com. Retrieved 2013-11-22.}--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is rather old news. It's no more shocking or amazing than a revelation he attended a party in Minsk or in Dallas. To claim he was socializing with pro-Castro Cubans is as astonishing as to claim Pope Francis was seen socializing with Catholics while in some foreign land. If some wonder why it only was revealed years later, one need only appreciate the fear for pro-Castro Cubans that their leader would be blamed for the assassination. Canada Jack (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Acoustic Evidence

Most of the sources listed in the general section regarding acoustical evidence are outdated.

See http://www.duq.edu/events/jfk/agenda/thursday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.147.59 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to bring forward new sources. --Pete (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)