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