Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 17 August 2012 (→Brandon inserting material without discussion: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Assassination of John F. Kennedy was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 7, 2005 Good article nominee Listed October 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 12, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Texas / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 22, 2004, November 22, 2005, November 22, 2006, November 22, 2008, November 22, 2009, and November 22, 2010.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Archive 11 (ending 2011 April) Archive 10 (ending 2010 October) Archive 09 (ending 2010 July) Archive 08 (2007) Archive 07 (ending 2006 November) Archive 06 (ending 2006 October) Archive 05 (ending 2006 July) Archive 04 (ending 2006 April) Archive 03 (ending 2006 February) Archive 02 (2005) Archive 01 (2004)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Larry M. Sturdivan

I see how Sturdivan is an authoritative source for scientific matters, but I don't get how's he's an authoritative source on the nature of the HSCA's conclusions (which is what his quote relates to). Could someone clear that up for me? In addition, it's not clear to me how his book meets the criteria of being a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

He observed ballistics tests conducted for the Warren Commission. As a senior researcher, he was the Army's contact with the HSCA as they did investigations and he testified about the would ballistics of the assassination. Bubba73 00:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that Sturdivan can speak to the evidence itself in his own right. But the context of the quote is the HSCA's opinion on the evidence and not the evidence itself. And while Sturdivan was familiar the HSCA's process it's not clear that he's an expert on the committee members' opinions, nor that he was even trying to summarize their opinions in this instance.

There were varied opinions among the members, so much so that there were 3 dissents and 1 separate view included in the report representing 5 members. It's problematic to make any definitive statements about why those concluded what they did. And if you would attempt it then I think you would have needed to have been present the members made their compromises or at least interviewed them afterwards.

Even if Sturdivan did interview the members about why they concluded what they did and was opining on that rather than his own opinions of the evidence, wouldn't it make more sense to reference a committee person themselves or one of their spokesmen?Ggeezz (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not applying the concept of "reliable source" correctly, Ggeezz. Generally, those not accepted are those who post opinions on blogs, those who have no particular expertise on the subject etc. For the purposes of this page, the quotes from Posner and Sturdivan pass muster, so their citations are appropriate. If we were to apply your logic to, say, the conspiracy page, we'd have to remove most of the citations as many authors have been shown at one time or another to be lying or obfuscating the truth, even if their particular claim is demonstrably true, or their quote is an accurate reflection of what it is they are talking about. Hell, even Winston Churchill told a few howlers over the year, do we therefore remove any reference from him as he is, by your logic, not a "reliable source"?

This is all besides the point. As I have shown by getting the HSCA reference, What Posner, Sturdivan and Bugliosi have stated is confirmed by the primary source.

From page 495 of the HSCA Report, Robert Edgar's dissent:

I agree with the December 13, 1978 first draft of our final report which states on page 64: "The committee finds that the available scientific evidence is insufficient to find that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy." Up to that moment, we were prepared to go to the American people with this conclusion. Only after the report of Mark R. Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy, in the 11th hour of our investigation, was the majority persuaded to vote for two gunmen and a conspiracy.

Are the statements of Sturdivan, Posner and Bugliosi at odds with the documentary record? Clearly not, as they weren't expressing their own opinions (which you seem intent on claiming), they were reporting the fact as expressed in the dissent.

Can we know what "might" have happened if not for the dictabelt evidence? YES! Because they had concluded otherwise before that testimony! And we have a quote from that very report, AND we have one of the committee members stating precisely that the dictabelt evidence changed the conclusion! For the purposes of this page, the claim has been established.

Didn't know this before? Not surprising as the conspiracy community likes to pretend otherwise and are not intent on publicizing information which destroys their case: To wit, without the subsequently discredited dictabelt evidence, the HSCA, the most comprehensive post-Warren Commission investigation into the assassination, would have concluded "no conspiracy," indeed they HAD concluded "no conspiracy." Canada Jack (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And in addition to the committee member you cite in the penultimate paragraph, Blakely, chief consul to the HSCA, said that if the dictabelt evidence is wrong then that is the end of the road for the conspiracy. Bubba73 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's put aside the reliability of Posner, Sturdivan, and Bugliosi. That's not really the issue here (though I think the article is improved by referencing Edgar instead of the others).

I will also agree that we know what "might" have happened except for the dictabelt evidence. You're right. I was not aware of the history before. However, you are wrong to associate my ignorance with the conspiracy community. I have purposely stayed away from their writings. The confusion comes from reading this article and the HSCA's report. If you don't know the history of the december draft and you just read the HSCA report summary findings and page 84, the article seems severely slanted and based on books written by people to discredit the HSCA's findings. The article needed improvement.

Now here's the real issue. The previous finding was according to the quote "the available scientific evidence is insufficient to find that there was a conspiracy." And unfortunately we don't have that draft to get further explanation. But you're saying this is the same as finding "no conspiracy" which I take to mean "more likely no conspiracy than conspiracy." My contention is that "lacking sufficient scientific evidence for B" is not the same thing as saying "A is more likely than B." (where A is the opposite of B) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Now we are getting into POV territory, Ggeezz. That is YOUR interpretation. But we have the original source, which sure sounds like "no conspiracy" was the original verdict, unless you want us to believe the American people were parsing the various forms of evidence and cared more about knowing the scientific evidence verdict (no conspiracy) than the, say, organized group evidence verdict (which, not incidentally, was also "no conspiracy"). Not only do we have a primary source, we have three secondary sources saying it means "no conspiracy" until the dictabelt conclusion.

You would need to do the same, find a primary source which says "the conspiracy verdict was not based on the dictabelt evidence, that verdict would have been the same anyway" AND a secondary source saying that. Canada Jack (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "that verdict would have been the same anyway" (without the dictabelt). In fact I conceded the HSCA was going to conclude "lack of sufficient scientific evidence" without the dictabelt. I said there's a difference between "lack of sufficient scientific evidence" and "no conspiracy." When you say that "sure sounds like 'no conspiracy'" aren't you inserting your own POV/interpretation? I'm just saying the quote from the draft is what it is. And the quote did not say "no conspiracy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes me curious. Why do you think they opted for the "less strong" wording in the draft (i.e., we "lacked evidence" rather we "concluded no conspiracy")? Clearly Sawyer was pushing for more definitive statements toward the lone assassin theory and I would think Edgar was too. I realize this is speculation, but I'm curious as to your opinion, given that the final report was critical of the FBI, the WC, and CIA.Ggeezz (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ggeezz, I think you are being a bit disingenuous here. When we have positive evidence of something, we say "there was a conspiracy," as that can be proved, often scientifically. When we LACK the scientific proof we can't definitively say "no conspiracy" as we can't prove a negative. What we CAN say is that, based on the available evidence, there is no evidence of conspiracy. OF COURSE, no one is ever suggesting - not the Warren Commission, not Posner, not the dissent opinions - that we can "prove" there was no conspiracy, as that is an impossible thing to do, which is why when other evidence on mob involvement says stuff along the lines of "no conspiracy was found with the available evidence," instead of "there was no conspiracy" as a "no conspiracy" verdict can't preclude the possibility that unseen positive evidence exists out there or, that even if no positive evidence exists, that a conspiracy in fact happened. It is theoretically possible to prove Jesus existed if physical evidence could be produced. But it is impossible to prove he DIDN'T exist as all evidence of his physical existence may have been destroyed. Canada Jack (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you I am not being disingenuous. You understand the HSCA was not done according to the scientific method. Neither was it a civil or criminal legal proceeding. It was a congressional investigative committee. A scientist, in most cases, sticks to what can be scientifically verified. A criminal prosecutor tries to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. A civil case has different standards. The HSCA had the latitude to choose their own standards of proof and to state their findings however they wanted to. To a scientist things are binary: proven or not proven. That's not the case for the HSCA.

IOW, the wording in the HSCA's finding is important because it tells how compelling the evidence was. And this isn't just me opining. The HSCA criticized the WC for being too definitive in the presentation of its conclusions. In light of that, how can you accuse me of being disingenuous for asking about the significance of the wording in the december draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not enough on final fatal headshot: for example no Mention of testimony of Dallas ED physicians

The article's accuracy suffers from no mention of the original testimony of the Dallas ED physicians who described an entry wound on the right forehead and a large exit wound on the back ('occipital') portion of the head. It also fails to mention the clear movement of the President's head backwards in the Zapruder film. These facts have to be debated before the article can simply state: "Each group concluded that this shot entered the rear of President Kennedy's head (the House Select Committee determined the entry wound to be four inches higher than the Warren Commission), then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side." I'm not sure the second group did conclude this. It's such a crucial finding you'd think a good article would cite the relevant statements in the reports and the facts supporting it. The House committee concluded there probably was a shot from the Grassy Knoll based on the sound recordings particularly. Obviously the idea that LBJ, JEdgar and the CIA would orchestrate something like this is disturbing to the US social fabric. But it seems to be the truth nonetheless. Not much good if Misplaced Pages can't put all the facts on the record on the most crucial moment of the assassination.NimbusWeb (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to mention their testimony as they did not perform the autopsy. The autopsy article explores the autopsy at length. Besides, there were many conflicting accounts from various witnesses - some which match the WC conclusions, others which do not - and the article largely concentrates on the conclusions made by the various investigations. The backward movement of JFK's head isn't significant as his movement is too great to be accounted for by the impact of a bullet (which would be 1 or 2 inches at most), which is why investigations conclude that the movement was likely a neuro-muscular reaction.

These facts have to be debated before the article can simply state: "Each group concluded that this shot entered the rear of President Kennedy's head (the House Select Committee determined the entry wound to be four inches higher than the Warren Commission), then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side." I'm not sure the second group did conclude this. The second groups - the HSCA - DID conclude this, they made the same conclusions in terms of the bullet wounds as the WC did, save for the precise entry point of the head wound (the WC had it lower), but this did not affect the findings in terms of where the shots came from. While the HSCA concluded a bullet was fired from the knoll and therefore there was a conspiracy, they also concluded this shot missed as there is nothing from the autopsy doctors, their report, the photos or x-rays which indicate more than two bullets struck the president. With such an exhaustive investigation which explored the allegations in terms of the bullet wounds, down to expert analysis of the photos and x-rays to determine their authenticity, AND with the "conspiracy" conclusion of the HSCA, one would think that that matter was settled. Guess not. Your rather remarkable opinion that Hoover and the CIA were in cahoots is... interesting... but is, of course, just an opinion. Canada Jack (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles Bronson (not the actor)

Under the 'Recordings of the assassination' section, there is mention of a man called Charles Bronson, folowed in brackets by the note (not the actor). I think it's reasonable to presume most people would accept that there are more then one Charles Bronson in the world, and as such, it seems a bit extraneous to clarify him as not being the actor. If for no other reason then there is no link to the actors Wiki entry. MrZoolook (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Pulling Off of the Secret Service Detail and other failures to address conspiracy questions

Another problem with this article is that given the House Committee confirmed there was a second shooter and a conspiracy the article inadequately addresses these issues: 1) why secret service Agent Emory Roberts commanded the Love Field recall of Agent Rybka from the back of the President's car and Dealey Plaza recall of Agent Ready 2) why no motorcycle escort alongside the President or roof covering 3) the relative advantages of the grassy knoll compared to the book depository for a sniper both in terms of field of fire, distance to target, escape route 4) why the President's car didn't speed up after the first two shots- discuss whether this was or wasn't this contrary to protocol 5) the motivations and capacity of LBJ to organise a hit (accepting VP to 'lose a battle but win a war')- need to cite the statements of his mistress, Jacki's views that LBJ orchestrated it121.127.197.101 (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We have John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories for the wide variety of speculations and theories related to the Kennedy assassination. This article can't address all of the theories and arguments that have been advanced, and by consensus reflects the Warren Commission conclusions as the most widely accepted account in mainstream media, per Misplaced Pages policy. As you say, it's a conspiracy theory. Acroterion (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wonder what criteria is used to decide whether Warren Commission is 'widely accepted' 1) not public opinion 2)probably not academic debate (evenly split). This approach isn't encyclopaedic. It's like saying there's one 'widely accepted' version of what the Catholic Church is up to and that's all wikipedia will deal with. Failing to adequately present the evidence for and against is what will hinder this ever becoming a 'good article'121.127.197.101 (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your issue is, 121. First, in the lede, we have this: "the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979 concluded that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy," so while the scenarios here are largely those as set out by the WC, the article in fact frequently references the HSCA - which concluded "conspiracy." Further, despite the conclusion of "conspiracy," the HSCA nonetheless made identical conclusions about the shots which struck, and the man firing those bullets - Lee Harvey Oswald. And finally, most basically, there is NO agreed-upon counter-argument to the WC and HSCA conclusions. It's all very well to say public opinion believes "conspiracy" - and we quote extensively from one of the investigations which concluded conspiracy - but a quick glance as to those theories reveals that THIS page would have to be multiple times bigger to accommodate the differing scenarios. For example, just on the simple issue of Oswald himself, we'd have to add a) Oswald and another person(s) fired at JFK; b) Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination; c) Oswald was involved, but did not participate in the actual assassination. And from there, we have a myriad of possibilities, tracing Oswald's alleged dealings with the CIA, with anti- or pro-Castro activists... etc etc. Canada Jack (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of conspiracy theories. One of them must be right by the law of averages.  :-) Bubba73 23:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The HSCA was forced to conclude that there were four shots fired, on the basis of a sound recording, and as they could only link Oswald to three shots, there must have been a second shooter. The sound analysis was later found to be flawed, when reëxamined years later, but the report had been written and published by then. There is no evidence that anybody but Oswald knew ahead of time that there would be an assassination attempt in Dealey Plaza, and there is no physical evidence of a fourth shot. if there were any actual evidence of either of these things, it would be included here. Misplaced Pages is not a part of some vast and secret conspiracy to hush up LBJ's grab for power. --Pete (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, I think you're oversimplifying here. The HSCA also concluded that the WC's, FBI's, and CIA's investigations were severely flawed, that information was not properly shared. They found other evidence suggestive of a conspiracy, but the dictabelt was the only conclusive, scientific evidence (though maybe it wasn't so conclusive). Furthermore, the HSCA members themselves were very divided resulting in several dissenting opinions. And we don't know exactly what the HSCA was ready to say before dictabelt evidence, save for 1 sentence of the draft quoted in 1 of those dissenting opinions.Ggeezz (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is, perhaps, one valid point in everything 121 posted. The HSCA concluded that the Secret Service was "deficient in the performance of its duties," but that was mostly due to preparation. I don't know what the HSCA about performance during the actual assassination. Regardless, I don't see where this is mentioned and it probably should be. There's criticism of the Secret Service, but the HSCA's criticism would be the most official and authoritative.Ggeezz (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's Debate Why Article is NOT near good article status

The article needs to set out the contested facts, and cite the available evidence about them. It fails to do this, instead citing heavily contested commissions as 'authoritative' to the point of silencing alternative evidence (not theories). I suggest paragraphs allowing facts from published sources on the main controversial issues

• 1) How many shots were fired? H of R admits 4. Then there's the man injured by the overpass from a fragment, Garrison's police witness who found a bullet fragment with some brain but was killed before he could testify, the bullet hole in the wind shield, the fact that on the Zapruder film Kennedy is clutching his throat while the Governor in front still sits looking forward holding his hat. Published sources can be found for these facts despite the fact that the govt commissions didn't like them

THe HCSA counted 4 shots solely on the basis of an acoustic tape later found flawed (most people heard 3). It was thought to be from the assassination time, but best evidence is that it is not, as it has a message that went out over the air later. See Dictabelt evidence relating to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. There was no hole in the windshield-- only a chipped place where some fragment didn't go through (probably a bit of the headshot bullet). The governor held his hat in the hand with the broken wrist, until they offloaded him onto a stretcher. As you see in Zapruder, he never did make a forward motion, even to the moment of the head shot on JFK, by which time Connally had surely been hit. So you're looking for something that clearly never happened. Connally's reaction to being hit in the side is not like you see in the movies, that's all. Few things are.

• 2) Why were the Secret service body guards removed form the President's car?Evidence for and against published.

Who says they were? Clint Hill hopped off and on the car at several times through the Dallas motorcade trip. He just happened to be off at the moment JFK was assassinated. They never had agents on the car with no place to go in in the backup car.

• 3) why did the car keep travelling slowly despite the first shots, until the final headshot? Evidence for and against published.

The driver obviously was not aware he was being shot at.

• 4) why was Oswald's connections to the CIA via 554 Camp street, Bannister and Hunt, his prior associations with Ruby not investigated?

The HCSA investigated them all, and found them lacking. The 554 Camp address that Stone makes so much of, was the (former) address of an anti-Cuban group that Oswald was making fun of, by putting it on his pro-Cuba literature (he'd been punched out by these people, and made a fool by them in a radio debate). There's no good evidence that Oswald was ever there, and if he had been, he would not have met Banister or Hunt, as they were in the same building but not at that address. They were at 531 Lafayette, which did not connect inside the building, and had a separate street entrance.

• 5) why was the ex-director of the CIA JFK had sacked appointed to the Warren commission. Evidence for and against published.

I have no idea why LBJ chose Allen Dulles. Maybe to piss off Bobby.

• 6) the Dallas ED physicians report and neat throat entry would and an exit wound in the occipital region. The body goes on the plane in one casket and comes out in another with the head and throat wounds altered and brains missing

The Dallas physicians saw a small through hole and assumed it was an entrance since they assumed bullet expansion (with an FMJ bullet through the throat, however, this was a bad assumption). JFK's shirt fiber tear directions make it plain that this bullet entered his back and exited his shirt at the tie knot level, end of tale. Not every Dallas physician reported an occipital wound. The photographic evidence from Dallas (Moorman, Zapruder) shows NO occipital wound. Zapruder's film and his own testimony (see the photo in his bio) clearly has a head side wound. This is testified to by many eye witnesses, including agent Clint Hill and JFK secretary Kenneth O'Donnall, both of whom saw just what Zapruder saw, which was the side of the head blasted away above the right ear. There was no missing brain at the autopsy. A full autopsy on the brain after it had fixed in formalin was performed 2 weeks after the initial autopsy (per usual procedure) and it found a brain with one side blasted to tatters, as expected (there is a drawing of it somewhere). Its weight was about normal, leading to some people protesting it was somebody else's brain (right). Or else JFK's brain was heavier than yours and mine, which seems more likely. The brain was returned to the family (specifically RFK's secretary) and nobody knows what Bobby did with it. Best guess: buried it with his brother when the grave vault was reopened for refurbishment in 1965 (I don't know when JFK's dead infant child was moved there-- perhaps then). But clearly, if Bobby had wanted his brother's brain examined again, or thought there was something funny about it, or missing from it, he had every chance in the world to have the matter looked at. He didn't. Hmmm. Do you suppose he was colluding with LBJ? Okay, what was a joke.

• 7) LBJ's mistress claims LBJ had a meeting in Dallas day prior to the killing and made threats thereafter. The article should mention her evidence. This has been published

So? What LBJ's alleged mistress says he said is not exactly first-quality evidence.

• 8) Did Nixon set up the CIA assassination squad while VP? Is that what the Watergate burglars were trying to cover up?

Sure. They were burglarizing Democratic strategizers during an election to find out what they knew about Nixon's involvement in JFK's assassination. LOL. Hoping, if they knew something, they wouldn't TELL....

• 9) Moorman photo--not mentioned in Warren commission--although it is often crucial headshot. Needs to the cited and the published expert comment about it.

There's nothing crucial about the Moorman photo except for what it doesn't show-- a back head wound. The alleged shadows on the grassy knoll are about 50% human-sized, so perhaps a midget shot JFK.

• 10) Books now out with evidence of LBJ's involvement need to be cited

There's a whole article for that.

At the moment the article is suffering for an 'argument from authority' logical fallacy---all other evidence is being excluded if it is not consistent with Warren C or H of R despite the heavily contested nature of those inquiries.NimbusWeb (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And given the hundreds of books out there with every nutty idea in the world (including JFK being accidently shot by the secret service men in the car behind him), how are we to pick and choose? SBHarris 23:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The article needs to set out the contested facts, and cite the available evidence about them. It fails to do this, instead citing heavily contested commissions as 'authoritative' to the point of silencing alternative evidence (not theories). To be blunt, that is bullshit. The conclusions of the Warren Commission and the HSCA are stated as that - their conclusions. There is nothing "authoritative" about those conclusions which is why the article is sprinkled with phrases such as... "According to the Warren Commission..."

The article instead sets out the conclusions of the major investigations of the assassination. The problem with your approach, Nimbus, is there is NO other investigation which even remotely approaches the HSCA and WC in scale and scope. Is the fact that many disagree with these conclusions avoided on the page? This is in the lede: These conclusions were initially supported by the American public;however, polls conducted from 1966 to 2004 found that as many as 80 percent of Americans have suspected that there was a plot or cover-up. Indeed, much of the evidence garnered in favour of the various conspiracy theories emerges from the evidence and testimony the WC and HSCA gathered.

As for "contested facts" just about every single piece of evidence in this case is contested. Let's take a look at the number and sequence of shots. If we were to include all the various theories, we'd have to make the section ten times the length. Even the HSCA and WC disagree on important aspects of the shots they say Oswald took (let alone the "grassy knoll" shot), down to precise timing, when the "missing" shot happened, etc.

In the end, most of the points raised in your post ARE addressed - in particular on the conspiracy theory page. Your point that this is an "argument from authority" is misplaced - nowhere are the conclusions of the WC or HSCA stated to be definitive, indeed, the various conclusions by them are identified as THEIR conclusions. And to pretend that it is never mentioned that there are alternate theories tells me you've not read the page closely. Canada Jack (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Canada Jack here. The article does a fair job of laying out the controversy and pointing to where you can find more information. There's no reason to turn this article into a morass about all of the details/questions turned up by everyone. You can put that stuff in other articles.

Unfortunately the article suffers badly from being poorly worded, too wordy in places and too thin in others.

The HSCA section especially is woefully deficient. The lead discusses the HSCA's evaluation of previous investigations extensively. One would expect the HSCA section to expound on why the HSCA found those investigations to be deficient. Instead that section comes off as dismissive of the HSCA and its conclusions.

There's also the matter of the HSCA being deeply divided. There's a discussion about the WC's members and their reluctance to participate but nothing like this about the HSCA. That section should tell us something about the nature of the committee itself.Ggeezz (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree, Ggeezz. While I don't agree with the premises Nimbus states for the reasons this article does not have "good" status, I'd agree for the reasons you state. I think the basic structure is good, but we have way too much detail in some areas and too little detail in others. Maybe we can disagree with what Nimbus says in terms of his specific critiques, but his overall point that this article isn't "good" is a valid point. Canada Jack (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

People who've studies the areas know this is not a balanced, but a partisan article. I agree with NimbusWeb, but would add that the fact of why JFK's brain went missing is another major controversy. If he was shot from the GK, then the bullet in that brain would have been different from those fired by Oswald's gun.139.130.166.199 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The big problem with the article is that the dominant editors aren't simply including published well referenced material, but acting as a type of jury as to whether it is 'widely accepted.' Basically there view is that if it doesn't support the Warren or H of Reps Commission then it falls into the 'conspiracy' second class. This is why the public would probably regard this article as pushing an agenda rather than being balanced. If someone adds properly referenced published material that puts a contrary view it should go in. FOr example on the trajectory of the fatal head shot. It wouldn't take much to have a second sentence that says. "An alternate view that the shot came from the front right is claimed to be supported by initial back and to the left movement of JFK's head in the Zapruder film (ref) (ref), by the number of witnesses who claimed to hear shots from the GK (ref ref), the initial description of an occipital head exit wound by the Dallas ED physicians (ref). If such material is attempted to be included, would the dominant editors block it. If so, this would reveal they are working to an agenda and not seeking to be balanced.109.202.226.195 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, a specific question. If someone were to add page-referenced material from James H Fetzer, editor, Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK, Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1998 would that also be refused entry to this article and if so why?109.202.226.195 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

James H Fetzer, editor, Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK

The above is an excellent antidote to Warren and H of R and references to it would add value to the article.144.82.250.133 (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The big problem with the article is that the dominant editors aren't simply including published well referenced material, but acting as a type of jury as to whether it is 'widely accepted.' Perhaps you didn't bother to read the response above, 109. It's not about "well-referenced," it's about what are the major investigations. You'd have a case to make if the article reads as if this is "the truth" and there are no alternate theories as to what happened. But, as I pointed out, 1) the conclusions are explicitly stated to be those of the various investigations; 2) the fact that there is major disagreements is mentioned in the lede, indeed, one of those major investigations concluded "conspiracy"; 3) there has been NO investigation even remotely approaching the ones taken out by the WC and the HSCA which we could call "definitive" and therefore would be one to quote from.

Basically there view is that if it doesn't support the Warren or H of Reps Commission then it falls into the 'conspiracy' second class. Uh, the HSCA concluded "conspiracy." Further, if one concludes that Oswald did not act alone, or had accomplices, in contrast to the WC conclusions, then what does that mean? It means... "conspiracy."

FOr example on the trajectory of the fatal head shot. It wouldn't take much to have a second sentence that says. "An alternate view that the shot came from the front right... I ask again, have you or any of the other anonymous IPs even bothered to read the article, or the response above? As I have pointed out, once you get into the various theories, by necessity the article is greatly expanded. Which is why we have the page for conspiracy theories. So it's not simply "adding a second sentence," as there are disputes with almost each and every point here.

Alright, a specific question. If someone were to add page-referenced material from James H Fetzer, editor, Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK, Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1998 would that also be refused entry to this article and if so why? What is special about Dr Fetzer's opinion? Why are the opinions of this individual so important to be on equal standing with the exhaustive government investigations of 1964, 1979, etc.? And how is this person's opinions representative of those who take issue with those conclusions? This is why we have a conspiracy page where this specific author and his book are referenced. Canada Jack (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You muppet CJ, it's an edited volume of expert opinion, not a single author. All experts. Of course it should go in if properly referenced. Need to get external review if it was blocked.203.118.57.177 (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

??? ...and how does this "edited volume of expert opinion" rise to being the definitive take on conspiracy theories in relation to the assassination? That's the problem we have here. Some would argue, for example, that Mark Lane has the definitive take on it. Or Garrison. Your premise that the article requires "balance" presupposes there is a definitive counter-argument to the conclusions of the WC. Unfortunately, that simply is not true. Which is why the conclusions of the two major investigations are here, and reference is made to other theories, which can be found on its own page. Other pages explore issues - such as the rifle, the autopsy, the SBT, etc.

Additionally, Fetzer's reputation even within the conspiracy community is controversial. Many see his theories - such as the Zapruder film alteration, x-ray alterations, brain substitution - as bizarre and/or implausible. And, he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to photo manipulation, accepting Jack White's measurements of the backyard photos as "proof" of alteration, this from a man who didn't even know what photogrammetry is. Canada Jack (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that there are some four anonymous IPs here making essentially the identical points. And raising Fetzer to the status of the representative of the conspiracy community seems strangely... coordinated. But, I'd submit, if we were to delve into the critiques of the WC, I'd say we start with Lane, then Garrison - who derailed the CT crowd for several years with his insane prosecution of Shaw - go through the Church/HSCA reinvestigations, to Lipton, to Stone then Marrs and Fetzer. But to do so requires its own article, and we have one with the conspiracy theory page. Brandon is largely the one doing that page and while I think that would be a better structure, he has a different approach. I'd suggest you IPs go to that page and make adjustments along those lines, or at least suggest it and see what kind of consensus emerges. Personally, I not only think this page could stand some improvement, so could that page. A historical approach to the conspiracy community would be a more appropriate place to discuss Marrs/Fetzer as they are two of the current leading conspiracy theorists. Canada Jack (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How conspiracy theories are addressed

There's a lot of contention regarding this article about how it treats conspiracy theories (i.e., whether it implies they are valid or invalid and how prominent they should be.) IMO, the fight over whether the WC should be viewed as correct is distracting the focus of the article from some important points it needs to address.

Over 30 years after the assassination, the most popular show on US television (Seinfeld) did a whole episode based on JFK conspiracy theories. The basis of the episode had nothing to do with who's right or wrong (WC, HSCA, or any of the various theorists) but rather America's fascination with a great mystery.

What this article lacks is an explanation of why American's haven't agreed with the WC, why so many conspiracy theories have survived and thrived, why people are still researching the topic today, how it could still be at the very center of American pop culture 30 years later.

I think that should be the focus of the "Assassination conspiracy theories" section. There should also be a section explaining the U.S.'s relation to the assassination over the decades. It should have a "references in popular culture" section at the bottom. And the lead should at least allude to this event's importance in the culture.

What do you all think?Ggeezz (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But the WC conclusions are not depicted as being "correct," they are simply reported as being their conclusions. And, the Seinfeld episode had more to do with the MOVIE JFK rather than the assassination per se. Again, the problem here is there are literally hundreds of conspiracy theories, with nothing like a consensus of who "really" was behind the assassination. So we can't say "Many researchers have concluded that LBJ was behind a conspiracy to kill JFK," and explore that contention, as many others point to the CIA or to the Mafia or others. Further, the numerous official investigations have ALL reached identical conclusions in terms of a) what the autopsy shows, b) how many bullets struck JFK and c) Oswald's culpability. Only the HSCA came to a conclusion of "conspiracy," but even there they concluded all the wounds were caused by one gunman, and that gunman was Oswald. They found NO convincing evidence pointing to any other players.

I think the "conspiracy" section could stand a re-do, for sure. But it doesn't need to be much longer as there is, as I said above, nothing like a consensus as to who was behind this. What I think the conspiracy page needs is something to flesh out the history of the conspiracy movement. I;m not sure if anyone else has done this, but Bugliosi has an excellent history of the movement, tracing the early rumblings from Mark Lane - who Buliosi says is the true father of the conspiracy movement - through some of the big media suggesting problems with the WC starting in 1966, through the analysis of the autopsy photos, to the Garrison trial, etc. Indeed, I thgink the "conspiracy" page really needs this.

As for its role in culture, since the fact that the idea of "conspiracy" is already in the lede, along with the large number of Americans who believe a conspiracy/cover-up, that has been addressed. The practical problem is there is no room to properly address the various theories here. For example, one of the best-selling books on the subject was Lipton's where he says JFK's corpse was altered for the autopsy. But many conspiracy theorists dismiss his theory as being implausible, so what do we do? And, easily the most prominent "conspiracy" argument that people are familiar with is Oliver Stone's "JFK" - but much of THAT film is dramatic fiction. And, the film focuses on several people in New Orleans without ever explaining how Clay Shaw and the others were connected to the military types who are also said to have behind the assassination. Even the most basic thing - who fired the knoll shot, one of the New Orleans boys, someone from the military, what have you - is not prooffered. By the logic of using the most prominent sources, we'd need to reference the problematic book, and the film with gaping holes of logic, but I submit that the conspiracy theories would not be fairly represented. Canada Jack (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the conspiracy page needs an explanation of the history of the movement. And that explanation should stay on the conspiracy page.

But on this page we explain what the WC and HSCA concluded and that most Americans disagree. We also sort of explain the fractured nature of the public's dissent. If you came to this article and didn't know anything about the assassination the biggest question you'd have is "Why doesn't America believe the WC's version and secondly, why is America's view so fractured? *(i.e., why is there no consensus?)" Furthermore, you wouldn't have any idea that the topic has such a prominent place in American culture as this fantastic mystery of great import.

The importance of Stone's film has nothing to do with the specific theories he proffered. Rather, the film thrust and further entrenched the event into the American culture as an unsolved mystery.

Even the most niche of Misplaced Pages subjects will list the references to it in pop culture. Yet this article mostly ignores the event's affect on the culture. The reason the Texas School Book Depository draws over 325k people each year is not solely because JFK was the last president to be assassinated. Yet that's the impression this article gives.Ggeezz (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a simple thing to do, Ggeezz. About the only measure we have of disagreement with the WC etc is in the form of polls. Why do people disagree? That's not such an easy thing to address. But, as I said, the history of the conspiracy movement as discussed in Bugliosi's book is a good starting point. He traces the movement from Mark Lane on and how the mainstream media at the time voiced many of the doubts. SO, once those doubts were voiced they were embraced by the public and to this day that has been the general belief. Further, probably 90 per cent of books published on the subject voice doubts with the WC conclusions.

I'd say that what we have in the lede pretty well can stand, but that in the conspiracy section we can discuss how a movement was sparked, per Bug, by Lane and gained momentum with Life/NY Times circa 1966, etc. But this would have to be referenced to the author who traces that history. If there is anyone besides Bugliosi who has done that, then they should be referenced as well. This is why I think the conspiracy article falls short, as there is little context at all there.

The problem is always when discussing the development of a cultural phenomena, we must reference those who trace that development, and not simply create our own history as that would be OR. Canada Jack (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The importance of Stone's film has nothing to do with the specific theories he proffered. Rather, the film thrust and further entrenched the event into the American culture as an unsolved mystery. That's your opinion. I've talked to people who site stuff in the film, so it is a point of reference as well for many no doubt. And, well, that's the problem. There is no "unsolved mystery" here at all. Stone misrepresented and often made up facts to create an alternate narrative. And when that was pointed out to him he'd speciously reply that that was what the Warren Commission did so he could do it too. Which ignores of course that the WC relied on actual evidence to come to their conclusions and Stone didn't, he largely relied on conjecture and proven falsehoods. Like "the route was changed." Canada Jack (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is there are two distinct cultural phenomena: the conspiracy movement and the disbelief of the general public. To the general public the event is a "great mystery." As a side note, that's basically what the HSCA said too: there was probably a conspiracy but we don't know what kind, the original investigations were botched and now it's too late to find out. Of course, the mystery according to the HSCA (and me for that matter) is Oswald's history and connections. They would say there's little to no mystery about the actual shooting and Kennedy's wounds (and I would agree). But the fact that the shooting exists as a mystery in the American psyche is undeniable.

And unfortunately, everyone seems to be more interested in the shots and the wounds than Oswald's history, but I digress.

I'm not saying it's easy to describe why the general public doubts the WC. I don't even understand it myself. Apparently, the demographic with the highest doubt in the WC is young people to whom Stone's film was "before their time." Each age group in the US has a different relationship to the assassination. Some people were alive at the time and watched the national news through those first years. Some people were introduced to the subject through Stone's film. For people 25 and under, I don't know where they predominantly get their information about this.

I'm not saying it's easy. But I think the article is remiss if it doesn't address the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Misplaced Pages has a great many articles on Christianity, a belief for some 2 billion people. But beyond describing the various beliefs and history of the religion, the question "why do 2.2 billion people believe in Christ" is not addressed per se. The same should be so here. We can describe the beliefs. We can describe the conclusions. But as to WHY most Americans believe something or not isn't really something we'd normally address. Why are there more Yankees fans than Royals fans? I can think of some reasons, but it isn't really a subject we address in general. Canada Jack (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Christianity is little broad to be dissected, but the article for the Yankees does delve into why people like (and dislike) the Yankees. It's in the lede and there's a section on their popularity. It's hard to explain why the Yankees attract more attention outside of their home area than other teams, but the article attempts to do it. And more importantly, it's a thing. It's part of the Yankees and part of understanding what the Yankees are. (I wonder if the article for the Braves explains how TBS created a lot of Braves fans outside of Atlanta? It should.)

I'm not suggesting we go into why individual people like the Yankees, believe in Christ, or believe in a conspiracy theory. But when something becomes a cultural fixture, like Roswell, part of understanding it is knowing that people are fixated on it and in a general way why/how it became popular.Ggeezz (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I more or less wrote the "Roswell" page so perhaps I shouldn't comment too closely on it, but in that case we had the incident, then we had the evolving stories. In the lede we mention that it is a cultural touchstone, but we don't delve into the sociological reasons for that. I think here, it'd be a good plan to dissect a bit of that in terms of the history of the conspiracy movement. The only problem is Bugliosi is the only one who I am aware of who has done that. And... it would be an intro into the "conspiracy" section. Canada Jack (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree the conspiracy movement history should go on the conspiracy page. But don't you agree that there's a cultural phenomena outside that movement that deserves a mention (sort of like the bleacher creatures vs. widespread Yankee support/hatred outside of New York)? If I search "Who shot JFK" on google this page comes up first. But in my experience that phrase is more often used as an idiom than a question. And I suspect it's more likely that someone unfamiliar with the phrase first heard it as an idiom rather than a question. And while the article should mostly deal with the assassination itself, if you read the whole thing you should at least learn of it's status as a cultural mystery, just as you explained that in the Roswell article.Ggeezz (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what. I'll try to write something on the history of the conspiracy movement over the next few days, as per Bugliosi's treatment of it. From that, one can see that from about 1966, when the mainstream media like Life and The New York Time Review of Books started to ask pointed questions about the Warren Commission conclusions, the notion of "conspiracy" being a common belief was reflected in polls from the day. Garrison can be seen in this context.

My only problem here is that it is only Bugliosi who has done this, as far as I know, tracing the movement to the 2000s. It'd be better to have additional sources for this.

Or... if you want to try this. I'd suggest putting this in the "conspiracy" section. But to get into the specifics of "why", well that is a sociological question. But one could see that from Lane, through 1966 and Garrison, questions were being raised. COnferences were being held, and student movements from the 60s perhaps formed a grassroots movement to reopen the case, culminating in the 1975 Geraldo show which arguably led directly to first Church and then then HSCA, that the general movement was to question the WC. However, post-HSCA, it is a bit more murky until Stone.

What do you think, and do any other editors have any objection to a treatment such as I have described? Canada Jack (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think something along those lines would increase the quality of the article.Ggeezz (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started on this thing... coming soon... Canada Jack (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest by Editors and their Replacement

This article is substandard mainly because it seems to be edited by an editor/s who have a bias towards the Warren Comm/H of Reps Comm. Whilst the bulk of academic and public opinion finds the methods and conclusions of such commissions dubious they are here promoted as a type of orthodoxy. Better to have separate articles each for Warren Comm/H of Reps and so-called Conspiracy Theories, with a summarised amalgam in the separate main article. CanadaJack (whoever he is) must disclose if he has any financial or other conflict of interest. Is he Bugliosi or some other apologist for the standard view, is he being paid by CIA for example? Who has appointed him the controller of this article? How can he be replaced? At the moment he is pedalling the view that many reasonable people would see as encouraging the bullet to replace the ballot box and employing a 'growing mushrooms' approach to editing which is always denigrating points of view opposed to Warren and H of Reps58.164.113.45 (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. You are welcome to add information with reliable sources to this article if something is missing. ProhibitOnions 10:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think from reading the above that's all the critics above were asking for--the opportunity to present brief properly referenced alternative views which could be expanded in the 'Conspiracy Theory article but flagged here. Likewise the Warren and H of Reps views could be briefly cited here and then expanded in a separate article on the Warren and H of Reps comms.58.164.113.45 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaking consensus of reliable sources for "conflict of interest." Misplaced Pages gives appropriate weight to the prevailing opinion in reliable sources, with lesser weight to other views. Acroterion (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages represents mainstream sources as being of the first importance. Binksternet (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My, my. If any of these anonymous IPs would care to bother to engage in discussion, we are willing to discuss. AGAIN, there is NO consensus from the conspiracy crowd as to many of the basic questions. Which of the literally HUNDREDS of conspiracy theories should be here? And why? Who says which ones are the main ones to focus on? And, on specifics, for example, how many people were firing at the president? One, two, three - or more? Are we to spell out each scenario? And which scenarios of the perhaps 100s out there, are the ones to focus on? How many shots were fired? Three, four, five, six - or more? Was Oswald involved? Some CTs say "yes," with either him firing alone, but put up to it (very few say that, admittedly), or with accomplices? or not taking part, but part of the conspiracy? or not taking part and NOT part of the conspiracy? And that is just Deally Plaza. What about the numerous players said to have taken part in the assassination? (And this is not even getting into the "Two Oswalds" claims, of which there are many variations.)

So far we've had a flurry of IPs suggesting Fetzer. With suspicious coordination. But why him? Why not Lane, Lifton, Stone or any number of the others? What makes Fetzer the single source for the definitive conspiracy angle, as if there is such a thing? And why has no one bothered to answer that basic question?

I have repeatedly made these points to complete silence in response. It's fine to demand an expansion of this page, it's not fine to pretend that there are no issues in so doing. Instead, we read this: This article is substandard mainly because it seems to be edited by an editor/s who have a bias towards the Warren Comm/H of Reps Comm. Whilst the bulk of academic and public opinion finds the methods and conclusions of such commissions dubious they are here promoted as a type of orthodoxy. AGAIN, the article quite clearly states that the scenarios are ACCORDING TO THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. There is NO suggestion that "this is correct," indeed the notions of conspiracy are in the lede, the FACT that the HSCA concluded "conspiracy" is in the lede, and the FACT that the public believes "conspiracy" is in the lede.

Since the only comprehensive investigations carried out were those two, how are we to assess which alternate research we should highlight? Indeed, since we had a suspiciously coordinated flurry of posts here, suggesting we quote from the Fetzer books, one wonders if there is a conflict of interest from those anonymous IPs? Why have NONE of them engaged in a response with me or any of the other editors?

This is why we have a separate page for the conspiracy theories. There simply is not enough room to incorporate all this in a coherent fashion. Which is why I have said (noted above) that I am writing a short history of the conspiracy movement here, which rightly should introduce the "conspiracy" page. Pro-conspiracy editors, such as Brandon, no doubt will have something to contribute to that. The only reason I am going ahead to do that is no one else has said they will do it. It's not because I "own" the page, it's because those who generally subscribe to those theories haven't done that aspect of it here.

I happen to agree that the conspiracy section is far too short here. And I have said so above. The page needs work. But given the enormity of the subject - I mean, with the WC and HSCA there are basically 1 1/2 scenarios, but there are literally 100s of conspiracy scenarios - "conspiracy" needs its own page.

As for THIS: CanadaJack (whoever he is) must disclose if he has any financial or other conflict of interest. Is he Bugliosi or some other apologist for the standard view, is he being paid by CIA for example? I guess that I should take that as a compliment. That my knowledge of the events and my responses could be seen as possibly being from Bugliosi, or the CIA. Sorry, but the "conspiracy" doesn't extend to yours truly. I am a Canadian television promo producer who first got hooked on the assassination in 1972 upon seeing old Life magazine articles on it, then reading "Six Seconds in Dallas." On the 10th anniversary of the assassination, I saw "Executive Action" here in Toronto. To me, the idea that Oswald acted alone was, in a word, ludicrous and I wondered how the WC could have saw fit to peddle such an obvious lie. And that is what I believed until roughly 2000. When the high-resolution versions of the Zapruder film started to be disseminated, I was stunned to realize that the SBT was not only possible, it was probable. From there, the CT house of cards started to fall apart as many claims were, I started to realize, distortions or out and out lies. For example, Mark Lane's interviews with key witnesses, like Lee Bowers who, because Lane avoided asking him directly, had to say "by the way" and point-blank told him that there was no one behind the fence at the moment of the assassination. Lane omitted this from his film, a rather massive omission. Or the lies peddled as "cover-ups" for decades, such as the Mauser issue, such as the "changed route" issue, and the false claims that "all" Parkland doctors saw a rear head exit wound. IOW, the conspiracy community routinely lied and misrepresented evidence in order to promote the idea of conspiracy. Not all, there are honest ones out there, but far too many who should know better. And were routinely doing what they accused the Warren Commission of doing. The hypocrisy is staggering. And, since I have been on this for 40 years and now believe Oswald did it unaided these "citizens seeking the truth" accuse me of being some CIA mole or what have you? And this is being a "free thinker?" Earth to CT crowd: There are a great many people who have no motive to believe one thing or the other who happen to have researched the subject and come to the same conclusion as me. It's beyond insulting to treat those who believe this as "useful idiots" when the focus should be on discussing. Which, I note, these "free thinking citizens" conspicuously avoid doing. I'm not the one who is pretending to have some received wisdom. Even if I believed that, it is intellectually dishonest to believe those beliefs need not be justified.

For the record, I have NO ties to any American - or Canadian for that matter, or ANY for that matter - agencies. To suggest I am some sort of CIA stooge... well, that's so laughable, I don't know know what to say.

My bias? That is clear. The Warren Commission botched a lot of the investigation, but they got most of it right. Besides, it is a fallacy to conclude that if someone was inept at investigating that that means what was being investigated was not disclosed. IOW, however competent or incompetent the WC was does not alter the facts of the case, a point seemingly lost on critics of the WC. Besides, most of the issues left unaddressed - the grassy knoll, the autopsy, the real roles of the CIA etc., substantial claims of groups behind a possible conspiracy - were addressed by the later investigations. If we were talking 1972, many of these important issues were thus far unaddressed in a serious comprehensive manner. That can no longer be said. Those questions have been answered and the conclusions of the WC, however flawed the investigation was in 1964, stand the test of time.

What this page ideally should be is an exploration of the assassination as per the main investigations, with more of a history of the questions raised afterwards and the various responses to those questions. The page in my view is partly there, but it needs a greater exploration of that. In particular, a history of the conspiracy movement. On that, I agree. As others have correctly pointed out, much of the reason we are talking here now is because of the conspiracy movement, and it deserves more than the short shrift it gets here. But to properly explore the issues raised by those researchers requires other pages, as is already the case in many instances. Canada Jack (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

did JFK have back brace on, and did it play a role?

I have just seen the suggestion that the 1st shot would have knocked JFK over if he didn't have the back brace on. The theory is that the back brace helped keep him upright, just before he got the fatal shot to the head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A rifle kicks no harder on one end than the other, and the kick of a 6.5 mm Carcano is milder than most hunting rifles. So, no, the shot would not have knocked JFK over, even if the neck bullet had spent all its momentum in JFK (which it most certainly did not, as it continued on to knock the wind out of Connally, or at least cause him to puff out his cheeks from shock and pain). JFK might have naturally doubled-over while coughing up blood from that wound to his trachea (it's bit like vomiting), and perhaps indeed the back brace prevented that natural reaction. But the force of the bullet doesn't enter into that question. Whether JFK would have done this or not, from coughing, will never be known. Perhaps. SBHarris 19:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and another point here, as it is not obvious from the Zapruder film as we are seeing him nearly straight-on from the side, but Kennedy is actually toppling over to his left after that shot. He is at something close to a 45 degree angle when the fatal shot struck. It's a bit more obvious in the photos and films shot from the other side of the street. So the brace while it may have prevented him from easily slumping forward, did not prevent him from falling over to the left. Canada Jack (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the best shot of that tilt (or lean toward his wife) is the Moorman photo, taken just after the head shot. Connally DID fall over to the left into his wife's lap, and probably JFK would have also. Actually, he did fall over unconscious/comatose leftward into the seat after the head shot, brace and all. That's just not a good position to cough from. Would he have leaned FORWARD more if he could have? Hard to say. SBHarris 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the photo. JFK is seen toppling to his left. A clearer example is here. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT: Yes. If you look at the high res Moorman and you know what to look for (from looking at the Z. film) you see that the extra light on the top of JFK's head is not from sunlight. It's not seen from his hair in front. Rather, what you're seeing is the white underside of a flap of scalp that has been folded over to lie on top of his head, anchored over his right ear. That scalp flap will be put back down in placed by the time he gets to the ER. Looking at the right side of his head in the photo that begins the autopsy, you can see that there's something not quite right about his scalp, since there's stuff coming out from underneath the scalp above his right ear. We have one photo, shot from behind, with this flap entirely reflected, and it shows the entire quadrant of skull gone on that right side. But it's hard to get your bearings unless you know what you're seeing there (you're essentially looking at the back of a skull with scalp pulled back, and no brain inside). SBHarris 22:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Need for Separate Pages on Warren and H of Reps and on Conspiracy Theories and this article to better reflect both

I have read the comments by Canada Jack and though remaining sceptical and that few items of non central evidence he mentions lead him to focus on Oswald as a lone gunman. He conveniently disregards (just as a sample) the H of Reps admission from the sound recordings that there was a 4th shot, the fact that most Dallas ED doctors did report an occipital exit wound, the doubt raised by the loss of teh brain, the cleaning of the windscreen of the car, the meeting of LBJ with J Edgar H and others in Dallas the day before the shootings, the connections of Oswald to the CIA. One needn't go on except to say there is clearly a controversy, and I can't understand who has appointed him editor in chief of this article. He is clearly biased against versions of the truth that aren't Warren Commission or H or Reps and he will now probably fill this page with more rubbish so it won't be apparent to subsequent readers how distorted his involvement is making this article.124.176.246.111 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If Canada Jack wants us to believe his bonafides he should disclose his real name.124.176.246.111 (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So should you, bub. This is MY real name. What of it? SBHarris 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop attacking other editors. Demands for real names are completely inappropriate. You disagree with him, and the changes you demand are not in accordance with consensus or policy.. Acroterion (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no actual evidence of any second (or third or fourth) shooter, nor of a conspiracy. The sound evidence noted by HSCA has been reanalysed and there is now no evidence of a fourth shot, which is what led HSCA to conclude a conspiracy. For Oswald, we know pretty much everything there is to know about his activities in connection with the assassination. He fired three shots, we know where they hit, where the casings fell, when they were fired. For anyone else, we have zip. If editors pushing some alternate theory cannot produce any actual evidence and are reduced to making personal attacks on those who can, then it would be better if they removed themselves from this article and found a more appropriate place. --Pete (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why I am the issue here? While I certainly defend the structure of the article to a point, my actual participation in creating what is here now was relatively slight. My name? Jeremy Gilbert. Want to see my photos? Go here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jer1961/ Want my shoe size? 12. As for your comments on Oswald, 124, I have to ask you - Have you bothered to read the article? This is in the lede: "there was '...a high probability that two gunmen fired at President.'" and further on, we have the conclusions of the HSCA which stated there was a likely conspiracy. The Dallas doctors? The details of the condition of the president in Parkland are not discussed at length here, nor are the conclusions of the autopsy (which has its own page). So your objections to what is here are moot.

One needn't go on except to say there is clearly a controversy, and I can't understand who has appointed him editor in chief of this article. Read the article. In the lede: "polls conducted from 1966 to 2004 found that as many as 80 percent of Americans have suspected that there was a plot or cover-up." And... "Kennedy's assassination is still the subject of widespread debate and has spawned numerous conspiracy theories and alternative scenarios." So would the casual reader coming to this page be under the impression that what the WC said was the final word on the subject and everyone agrees with its conclusion Oswald did it? I think not. And, to the extent that the conspiracy viewpoint is not represented here (despite the conclusions of the HSCA, and despite the fact there is no single viewpoint), I have already indicated I agreed there needs to be a bit more in that section on this page and have proposed to do it, also indicating HOW I will do it. Far from being "editor in chief," I have offered to write that section - with input from others, even mentioning by name one possible pro-conspiracy editor who may have suggestions - because no one else has offered to do it! And, thus far, no one has raised objections to my proposal. Because of the basic problem that there is no agreed-upon conspiracy scenario - there are in fact 100s - I have suggested a history of the movement here would suffice and the redirect to the conspiracy page would be where these arguments would live.

As I have said before, critiques are fine here, but thus far I have had no suggestions from those complaining on how to accomplish this given the basic problems on how this would be done. I have offered my solution. If you have a better idea, let's hear it. Canada Jack (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Pete, I'm curious. Are you speaking from your opinion here or from "reliable sources?" I don't agree with all of the chatter from the unregistered users as of late and I support CanadaJack's efforts in making the page better. But your characterization of the situation does not accurately represent the findings of the HSCA. When I started to examine the various pages related to this issue (JFK, Oswald, HSCA, Dictabelt, etc.) than handling of the HSCA was rather poor. In fact the JFK lede stated that the HSCA concluded Oswald was the lone assassin. A false statement in the JFK lede?!?! The fact that the HSCA found the previous investigations were flawed was downplayed and mostly unexplored. The further examinations information on the dicta belt evidence were biased.

There are, what we would have to consider Reliable Sources on both sides of the issue of the dicta belt. The HSCA contradicts you on this statement: For Oswald, we know pretty much everything there is to know about his activities in connection with the assassination. The HSCA said the FBI and CIA did not share information with the WC and the HSCA was not able to get this information when they investigated. Furthermore, the HSCA did not initially share information they used to determine that Oswald was actually in Mexico City. I don't whether that's been released yet or not. Regardless, it was the finding of the HSCA that we don't know everything there was to know about Oswald's activities related to the assassination. Also, before the dictabelt analysis the HSCA was merely going to say they "lacked sufficient scientific evidence" to conclude there was a conspiracy. Presumably, they were still going to say the previous investigations were flawed, that information was missing. There's no way for us to know. Furthermore, the members of the HSCA were initially divided, were divided during the process and were divided after it. (There were several dissents.) Blakey seems to have made contradictory statements over the years.Ggeezz (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ggeez, are you sure the lede said the HSCA concluded Oswald acted alone? I don't recall that at all, what I recall is that it always stated that a) Oswald fired the bullets that struck and b) there was a second gunman (whose shot missed). Perhaps you misread this. As for the dictabelt evidence, I'd have to agree that though it seems clear that that conclusion was flawed, there are strong rebuttals suggesting the dictabelt evidence is bona fide.

AS for the conclusions from the HSCA that the previous investigations were flawed, while certainly true, that doesn't mean the previous conclusions were wrong. For example, there were strong words said on the conduct and conditions of the autopsy, especially that the conclusions were based on the TESTIMONY of the pathologists. It was less than ideal. But all the forensic pathologists who investigated this nevertheless stated - unanimously - that, flawed or not, the conclusions of the original autopsy were correct given the evidence they examined. The bottom line is that though the HSCA lamented the fact that some 15 years had passed and some questions could never be answered because the WC did not aggressively explore those questions, they nevertheless found nothing in the issues raised by the conspiracy theory that credibly indicated "conspiracy." And they were able to vigorously investigate most of the issues. Bottom line, stating that the WC was "flawed" does not mean, therefore, there was a conspiracy. Which is why the issue, while important, does not have an overly strong bearing on a page which mainly focuses on the assassination, rather than on the investigations, flawed or not, of that assassination. A secondary issue, IOW. Canada Jack (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The lede said all the investigations concluded Oswald was the "lone assassin" with the HSCA "allowing for the possibility ... " If you stretched your imagination it wasn't technically false, but it was an intentionally misleading way to state it.

I think the HSCA was able to vigorously investigate most of the issues. And that's why I don't question the autopsy, bullets, Zapruder film, etc. so much. But what the HSCA was not able to investigate vigorously 15 years later was Oswald's activities and connections prior to the assassination. Thus why I said Peter was wrong to say "we know pretty much everything there is to know about his activities in connection with the assassination." In fact the HSCA concluded there's much we don't know, that we might have known if a proper investigation had been done (and the willful withholding of information didn't happen). In particular, Mexico City is mostly a black hole and the HSCA certainly didn't say or imply that they had a good handle on what went down there. The Lopez report is a bizarre, scandalous thing filled with contradictory evidence and few conclusive findings. Ggeezz (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The lede said all the investigations concluded Oswald was the "lone assassin" with the HSCA "allowing for the possibility ... " The lede says no such thing. It says "( (HSCA) ruled that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy... While agreeing with the Commission that Oswald fired all the shots which caused the wounds to Kennedy and Connally, the HSCA stated that there were at least four shots fired and that there was "...a high probability that two gunmen fired at President." The HSCA did not identify any other person or group involved in the assassination besides Oswald..." Nowhere in the discussion of the HSCA conclusions is the phrase "lone gunman" used and Oswald is said to have been in a conspiracy with unnamed others. Canada Jack (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about the main JKF page, not this page. It's fixed now because I fixed it. I'm talking about this version which is how it was for a while.Ggeezz (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, gotcha on the JFK page. As for Oswald, there were very few "black holes" left uninvestigated by the HSCA. The main claim in terms of Mexico was that Oswald was impersonated at the consulates. But this was deemed unlikely by the HSCA as Oswald presented his credentials - included a photograph - and signed papers in the presence of officials. AND Oswald admits he was in Mexico. Further witness statements confirm Oswald's activities were likely not outside of his attempts to go to Cuba, though there is an interesting contention of him hanging out with a beatnik crowd which, even if true, goes nowhere. Otherwise, there are very few days where Oswald's activities are not accounted for upon his return from the Soviet Union. Subsequent revelations from Russia and from the initial Garrison investigations of the Clinton, Louisiana "witnesses" reveal that Oswald had no known outside contacts of significance. The bottom line is that all that is left unknown are his activities over the span of a few days here and there, where it strains credulity he could have been recruited or otherwise engaged in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, or to have been involved in other illicit activity. It can't be disproved, as it is nearly impossible to prove a negative (Oswald had zero contact with agents involved in a conspiracy), but the likelihood is exceedingly remote, given the coordination presumably required and the (eventual) thoroughness of the investigations. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That Oswald was likely not impersonated at the consulates was in fact the conclusion of the HSCA. But there was a considerable amount of evidence to the contrary. One of the two people that mainly dealt with Oswald stated emphatically that it was not Oswald who visited the Cuban consulate. The other person gave a description that did not match Oswald. They said the individual spoke rough, broken Russian, while Oswald is known to have spoken fluent Russian. The Lopez report also questions whether Oswald did in fact sign the papers in front of an official.

Page 242 of the Lopez report starts the section addressing the question of whether there was an imposter, here. I don't know whether there was an imposter or not. But that section of the report makes it crystal clear that there's far more we don't know, than what we do know. And any conclusion is a matter weighing one pile of unreliable evidence against another pile of unreliable evidence.

Have you ever read that part of the Lopez report?Ggeezz (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the HSCA report on this issue, but the problem has always been that Oswald presented documentation, which included his photograph, and he signed the documents in the presence of the officials, and those documents are in the handwriting of Oswald. We also have to remember that, fearing a finger pointed in their direction, the Soviets early on engaged in a disinformation campaign to implicate American intelligence agencies (which was not generally known at the time of the HSCA investigations). Further we have many witnesses in Mexico City, and on the buses, who positively identified Oswald. Further, and most glaringly, Oswald HIMSELF said he went to Mexico and went to the consulates, which has been confirmed by his letters, the testimony of his wife and other evidence.

In the end, it only makes sense to have had Oswald impersonated in Mexico City to underline his Marxist tendencies so as to implicate him. But how likely is that if there is no serious doubt that Oswald in fact made the trip? And given that Oswald in multiple ways indicated his intention - and his ultimate frustration in failing - to go to Cuba? So we are left with an exceedingly implausible scenario, where Oswald indeed goes to Mexico City, but inexplicably spends his days there doing basically nothing even though he had the intent of going to the consulates, then an imposter going there for real. Huh? Given his cheap and misanthropic ways, this seems very unlikely. And here is something even weirder. It is usually the CIA who was accused of pulling off this imposter ruse. But who supplied the photo of "Oswald" who looks nothing like Oswald? The CIA! Why the hell would they want to implicate Oswald with a photo of someone who looks nothing like him - and supply the investigation with this photo? Surely they would have supplied some sort of doctored image or whatever of Oswald himself.(!) Because surely, if we are to believe the accusations, they would have been aware he was there and would have ensured to get an image. This is the recurring problem with conspiracy scenarios... they make zero sense. Canada Jack (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ggeez, a bit of both. Reliable sources and personal opinion. Death of a President is what got me going, twenty-odd years back, and since then I've read other books and material on the subject. I've been to Dealey Plaza, visited the museum, bought the seedy pamphlets pushed on the street. I keep an open mind, but above all, I look for facts, not suppositions. Sure, we don't know every single detail of Oswald's movements, and who he spoke to, but we do not have any record of him being hired or set up. We likewise have no record of any second shooter. Not just the official inquiries, but in all the material published by both sides, there is no hard evidence that demonstrates that anybody other than Oswald knew about the assassination ahead of time. Not a scrap, just suppositions and couldabeens. It's been fifty years, almost, and despite the most intense scrutiny in that time, the supposed conspiracy has not unravelled. It is quite appropriate that Misplaced Pages have articles on the various theories, but to state in this article anything other than factual evidence from reliable sources is inappropriate. For example, it is a fact that the HSCA on assassinations concluded a conspiracy. If I have a source that I like above all others, it is not the WC or HSCa, it is Bugliosi's book, where he addresses all the various theories, points out the holes and contradictions and repeatedly highlights the lack of evidence. The alternatives to the blindingly obvious - that Oswald, a loopy ex-Marine, bought a mail order rifle and fired three shots at JFK when he took the opportunity - are based on shadows and hearsay. --Pete (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@CanadaJack, addressing your first paragraph, are you aware that the HSCA was not convinced by this evidence? It was consulate policy to sign the documents in the presence of officials, but Lopez said that wasn't always the case in practice. Furthermore, I believe it was Duran who said Oswald signed them in front of her and Lopez treats Duran as unreliable (for obvious reasons). If the imposter was allied with Oswald then it's not surprising he had the documents and the photo. None of the people on the bus to Mexico actually knew Oswald, they just know a person on the bus said they were Oswald.

So none of what you are talking about constituted credible evidence that Oswald was in Mexico. And that's exactly what the HSCA said. But the HSCA report goes on to say the CIA presented them with some information that did convince them Oswald was in Mexico, but they couldn't share that information. Thus, according to the HSCA we (meaning the general public) don't have conclusive evidence that Oswald was ever in Mexico. And Lopez also says you can't state anything definitively either way.

I know you're quite knowledgeable on the subject. But I feel like you're trying to "make the case" for me. You realize the witnesses on the bus are meaningless, right? You can't positively identify someone if you don't know them. Why bring it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What you say is true, Ggeez, but this is a case of an event which is hard to prove but in the end... goes nowhere. Which is why it's a big "so what," especially since Oswald himself confirmed he certainly intended to go to Cuba and that he went to Mexico City with the intention of so doing. It's sorta like the argument about someone else shooting Tippit. We are not sure 100 per cent where Oswald was from leaving his door to escaping the scene of the Tippit murder. So, CTs ask us to believe, by discounting one witness's testimony, that Oswald's actions and all the other witnesses who saw him flee and identified him are irrelevant because that one witness can't be 100 per cent certain that was him. It's POSSIBLE that another person appeared all of a sudden and disappeared in a flash. It just isn't terribly likely. It strains credulity that several uncertain witnesses in Mexico means all the other positive evidence can be tossed out the window. The CT crowd spend a lot of time pointing out uncertainty here and there. But they generally don't even attempt to address the other evidence which establishes what is being claimed. Which is why they don't make convincing cases.

But it is also true that the HSCA agreed it was most probable that Oswald indeed visited the consulates. Canada Jack (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you know it goes nowhere? If someone else visited the consulates we don't know what that means. You'd have to track that guy down to find out whether it "went anywhere" or not. That's what a proper investigation would have done.

Perhaps all there is to this is that the CIA had their eye on Oswald and had some contact with him, merely hoping to gain information about Cuba or Russia. Maybe they wanted him to go Cuba because they thought it might lead to more information, so when he was going there anyway they got "involved." Maybe they got him laid in Mexico. And then when he assassinates JKF the CIA says "oh crap, erase everything we have on Oswald, no one here has ever talked to him or even heard of him." Maybe that's all there is. But we don't know because there was never a timely, proper investigation.

And you keep bringing up that Oswald said he went to Mexico to go to Cuba. You know that Oswald is an unreliable witness. Why would he lie about that? I have no idea. I'm not saying I know what happened in Mexico. I'm saying it's filled with unknowns and you have to guess at happened. That's also the definitive version according to Reliable Sources.

When you say "... all the other positive evidence can be tossed out the window?" Are you talking about Mexico specifically or the case in general? You keep bringing up other parts of the case where a thousand cooks have said a thousand ridiculous things when there's fairly reliable evidence we can turn to. But I'm not part of the CT crowd. But for Mexico there's not a single piece of credible evidence (released to us) that establishes Oswald even went to Mexico. I can go through them one by one, but you already know the details. You also know that's what the Lopez report says. It's also what the HSCA at large said, except they were given an additional piece of evidence (that we don't have) that convinced them Oswald was in Mexico. So if you trust the HSCA it's established he was there, but it was not established he went to consulates, it was just most probable according to the HSCA.

But the Mexico visit is not like the Tippit murder. We have multiple pieces of evidence that suggest something else happened (the two main witnesses gave descriptions that didn't match and the taped phone calls). In Mexico the best evidence we have, the preponderance of evidence suggests someone else visited the consulate posing as Oswald. On that point, the HSCA disagreed (though Lopez did not give an opinion either way).Ggeezz (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The HSCA didn't even explore the issue of whether Oswald in fact went to Mexico or not. Why? "It is the conclusion of this committee that the Warren Commission correctly established that Oswald had travelled to Mexico City." It's not an issue, Ggeez, despite the incessant questioning, there is just too much positive evidence to establish that Oswald in fact travelled to and stayed in Mexico City. OBVIOUSLY the WC and the HSCA weren't going to rely on Oswald's word, they corroborated his claims to have gone. Those who pretend otherwise also need "proof" that the sun rose in the east on any day in question.

When it comes to actual consulate visits, then we have some questions, I agree. But I submit that it makes little sense for such an elaborate ruse, especially given that Oswald himself would have to have been part of the ruse, knowing that someone had visited the consulates in his name (because he repeatedly made the claim that he did so.)

As for "this goes nowhere," let's ask a basic question: Why would Oswald involve himself in a ruse as to who actually went to the embassy? This is what makes zero sense. It WOULD make sense if someone else was trying to establish that he was semi-desperate to go there, but as I said, lying or not, Oswald himself said he went! So what's the point of trying to incriminate him if he says he did the deed?

Further, for the sake of argument, if the Cuban trip attempt was a simple ruse to hide the "real" reason he went to Mexico - to meet with confederates involved in a plot, one could make a plausible argument that these unknown people could not enter the United States and therefore had to meet in a "neutral" location - the question still arises: Why the elaborate trickery? He'd presumably have had plenty of time to engage in his meetings AND go to the embassies. If these were non-CIA confederates, he'd want to make sure any surveillance the CIA would carry out - surely he'd assume movement at the consulates would be monitored - would show HIM as the person attempting to get a visa.

Still further, WHAT IF HE GOT THE VISA? If this was a "ruse," well what if he got the visa? There was no guarantee that the Cubans/Soviets would reject him, the plotters - even if they were the CIA - likely could not be sure that Oswald would have his request rejected. Wouldn't a granting of the visa screw up the conspiracy? And, don;t forget, if there were spies around, the KGB might have twigged on to the "CIA plot" and LET HIM IN, to tail Oswald or "Oswald" and see where he led them.

Well, you might say, the plotters weren't the CIA. Okay, then these people were even LESS likely to know the reactions of the Cubans/Soviets to a visa request then. So, the mere attempt to get a visa potentially would torpedo any plots they might have had. And still further, any non-CIA plotters risked having their plans exposed by the sudden focus on their man Oswald through a very incriminating visit to the consulates. Going there, IOW, risked having the "plot" exposed as the CIA would presumably now be tailing this guy Oswald, clearly a Marxist and Castro sympathizer, or some sort of agent provocateur. Either way, if you were not the CIA behind the plot, the LAST place you'd have your man go to would be the Cuban and/or Soviet embassies. You might just as well climb the fence of the White House with a flag saying "LOOK AT ME!!!"

But if the plotters WERE the CIA, then why all the crap with another man being photographed and tapes of someone not Oswald? Wouldn't the CIA want everyone to think Oswald was at the consulates if they were in on a plot? Why, IOW, have "evidence" which raises red flags? THAT makes no sense either.

In the end, establishing Oswald was there may be difficult, but as I said this goes nowhere as there is no logical reason for having Oswald go to Mexico City, admit to attempt to going to the consulates (whether he in fact did or not), and have someone impersonate him and go in his name. And that's the problem with the scenarios we keep hearing. When you sit down and try to figure out what is going on, it makes no sense for the simple reason Oswald HIMSELF said he did so. If he hadn't said so, that'd be a different story.

In the end, the presence of unanswered questions simply is that - unanswered and perhaps unknowable. And most likely the anomalies and other "mysteries" are down to the everyday things in life - mistakes from witnesses, confusion over details, and perhaps even a bit of disinformation. This is everyday stuff and in the end it adds up to... zero. Canada Jack (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"...this goes nowhere as there is no logical reason for having Oswald go to Mexico City," Can we agree that people don't always do the logical thing? We recently had Secret Service hire prostitutes while on duty and then not pay them. Furthermore, sometimes people do things that don't make sense to you because you don't know the whole story. There are too many possibilities to cover them all. The CIA could have treated Oswald as a Soviet agent, a double agent, merely a source, or a crazy person. The CIA may have dealt with Oswald as the CIA or they may have pretended to be Soviets, Cubans, or Mexicans. Maybe someone there was in the plot. Maybe it was a false flag operation, or a Fast and Furious type operation where you float the idea and the means and grab anyone who takes the bait.

I'm not saying I think any of those are the reality. I'm merely pointing out that there are more possibilities than you have enumerated. And the form of your argument was to enumerate all of the possibilities and rule them out. That only works if you enumerate ALL of the possibilities. Correct? Of course, it's impossible to enumerate all of the possibilities. I'm not suggesting you'd have to. I'm just suggesting you can't argue that it goes nowhere because there's nowhere for it to go. There's always somewhere for it to go.Ggeezz (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry Ggeezz, but as I have spelled out, it really makes no sense at all for Oswald to be in on a plot to have an impersonator go to the consulates while he was there! I suppose in the next 50 years someone may come up with a rational scenario, but I'm not holding my breath. And, this is not a case of horny secret service guys hanging out with hookers, this would been a relatively elaborate and carefully planned operation designed to... well, that's the problem. It's hard to see the point. I can see understand the secret service guys taking that risk. I simply cannot comprehend the point of a duplicat Oswald plot with Oswald in on it.

BTW, I may have made the "mystery" of the "second Oswald" appear more likely to have happened than I intended. There is more than enough evidence to allay any doubt for a reasonable on-looker to conclude that it was Oswald at the consulates. In this instance, I wanted to underline that while many of the CT crowd raise issues about some pieces of evidence, they don't often employ common sense. So while they pile up ambiguous evidence to establish a premise of "conspiracy" (while ignoring other evidence), they fail to appreciate that their arguments make no sense at all. The Oswald imposter in Mexico is a classic example. Canada Jack (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The staffers writing the Lopez reports had serious doubts that Oswald visited the consulates. Did they not have any common sense?

Here's a rational scenario for Oswald being in on the plot to have an impersonator. The CIA was watching the consulate and when a person of interest showed up in town, they paid Duran to flirt with Oswald and get him to a party. When he had the mother of all hangovers the next morning, they convinced him that it would be better for this other guy to go to the consulate in his place; they do it all the time. The guy goes in with all the proper papers but acts like a complete jerk on purpose and he doesn't get a visa. And Oswald wouldn't be able to get a visa later. The CIA thought they were doing their country a service until it turns out they inadvertently got the president shot. So they cover everything up.Ggeezz (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for this scenario? I may be wrong about Oswald, but it seems reasonable to me that he was capable of acting like a complete jerk all by himself. --Pete (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. I'm merely creating a plausible scenario where Oswald was in on the "impersonator scheme" because CanadaJack said no such thing exists. CanadaJack said the impersonator scenario "goes nowhere" because there's no where for it go. I'm merely saying it could have went here, or in a hundred other directions. Although I do think this is one of the more likely scenarios considering all of the evidence. But the evidence we have is just a few puzzle pieces that could fit a myriad of broader pictures.Ggeezz (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The staffers writing the Lopez reports had serious doubts that Oswald visited the consulates. Did they not have any common sense? Obviously, you've not researched Lopez. I suggest you do.

As for your scenario, you've not shown us any plausible reason as to why the CIA would want to go through so many hoops to prevent Oswald from going to Cuba. Further, you now have TWO Oswalds showing up at the consulates - and no one would find this suspicious at their end? No one would notice this? And the CIA would see this as an acceptable risk in terms of blowing the covers on their operations? Again, if the Cubans/Soviets didn't have Oswald on their radar, they would after such shenanigans.

CTs have spent almost 50 years trying to come up with something here... they have utterly failed. When Lopez's report came out in 1996, the CT crowd were sure they'd have a smoking gun. Nope. Putting aside the positive evidence which places Oswald in the consulate, when one scratches the surface, we don't have any scenario that doesn't sound like it was created by Rube Goldberg.

One last comment. I'm just suggesting you can't argue that it goes nowhere because there's nowhere for it to go. There's always somewhere for it to go. Which is the problem with the CT crowd. Anyone can come up with scenarios on any aspect of the assassination, be they plausible or just plain silly. But what the CT crowd seems not to get is we need EVIDENCE of any of these scenarios actually being carried out. And that "evidence" isn't in the form of what possible motives a person or group might have, a recurring fallacy from the CT crowd, it's in something linking those groups to the actual scene of the crime. We never get that. Canada Jack (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A few notes on my "scenario." The CIA operatives used that particular method to prevent Oswald from going to Cuba not because it was the easiest method, but because it was the most fun/cool. The real Oswald never went to the consulate. The CIA "intercepted" him before he got there. (In an alternate scenario he did go there, but he only talked to Duran and she told him to meet her later. No one else at the consulate paid any attention to the real Oswald and never knew the name of the real Oswald.)

I'm not advocating any specific theory, for the same reasons you state. There's not enough credible to evidence to come to any solid conclusion about what happened in Mexico. Our difference seems to be that you think the available evidence supports the WC conclusion. I do not. I think the available evidence leads us to no conclusions. Ggeezz (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Ggeezz, but there is ample evidence to establish that Oswald indeed likely went to the consulates. More than enough. Even Lopez acknowledged that Oswald in all likelihood went. "While the majority of the evidence tends to indicate that this individual was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald, the possibility that someone else used Lee Harvey Oswald's name during this time in contacts with the Soviet and Cuban Consulates cannot be absolutely dismissed." Yeah, and the "possibility" that Roswell aliens also visited the consulate at the time also cannot be absolutely dismissed. Why? Because you can't prove a negative.

This is only an issue because the CT crowd choose to make it an issue. Because the level of evidence isn't definitive (hell, even to them the Zapruder film can't be trusted), and because in this case the CIA itself was involved and were, not surprisingly, reluctant to be totally open about their surveillance methods when it involved two of America's chief Cold War rivals. In the normal course of events, the conclusion is obvious, Oswald went. But in the alternate universe in which many of the CT crowd lives in, no evidence can be trusted, no scenario is implausible no matter how silly or unlikely it is on its face, and every participant in the "cover up" does their job perfectly without detection. It's all very silly, but here we are 49 years later yapping about it, eh? Canada Jack (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A while back you accused me of being disingenuous. I'm tempted to accuse you of the same thing here, but I won't. Clearly Lopez didn't mean the possibility could not be dismissed the same way that nothing can be dismissed because you can't prove a negative. In the discussion on the matter several things were noted:

- Azcue stated the man was not Oswald.

- Duran gave a description that did not match Oswald.

- The CIA notes of the phone taps said the man spoke broken, rough Russian, while Oswald was believed to speak fluent Russian.

- Presumably some of the discussions were in Spanish and it was believed Oswald did not speak Spanish.

- The CIA probably did obtain photographic evidence of "Oswald" visiting the consulate, but they did not share it.

There's independent, corroborating evidence suggesting the man who visited the consulate was not Oswald, as noted by the Lopez report, not some nut speculating on motives. Ggeezz (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not read all of the above, but just wanted to say that Jack is on the right track; there are very few real mysteries concerning Oswald in Mexico, and what is still unclear is probably easily explained (other than why he wanted the visa I guess, that will never be known).

Oleg M. Nechiporenko has discussed at length his meetings with Oswald at the Russian consulate. Oswald sought his assistance in obtaining a Cuban visa. Yes, it's true that the CIA released a photo of a different man, whom they said was Oswald emerging from the consulate. And yes, they sent the FBI a recording of a man calling the consulate who they said was Oswald but who was clearly not Oswald. Very likely, the CIA just screwed up.

The Cuban consulate employees have made statements that tend to suggest that they were visited by an Oswald impersonator. However, the visa application left at the consulate includes actual photos of Oswald. It strains credulity that the employees would not notice a dramatic discrepancy between a visa applicant and the applicant's photos. If you're looking for an Oswald double, go back to Dallas. There's some rather interesting stuff there.

PS for Ggeezz. You are not the first person Jack has accused of being disingenuous. Try not to let it get you down. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point about the photo on the application. I believe Azcue said he'd never seen that photo in his testimony to the HSCA. The person interviewing should have pressed him on that point (was there a different photo originally attached to the application?) But none of that really matters. It all comes down to Azcue's reliability. If he lied about the person not being Oswald, then surely he'd lie about the picture, right? Likewise, most of the evidence suggesting the real Oswald was there comes down to Sylvia Duran's word. She's the one that supposedly witnessed the signature. But we have good reason to doubt Duran's reliability. At least there aren't any contradictions in Azcue's testimony. But then there's Azcue's successor who said it was the real Oswald. It's essentially he said/she said.

These mysteries may be easily explained, but I don't see how you can logically say they are probably easily explained. If we had a lot of solid evidence from Mexico affirming the WC, then I would dismiss Azcue, dismiss the photo and the call as mistakes, and dismiss the CIA's refusal to turn over the photo they probably did have as stubbornness. But unfortunately we don't have that lot of significant evidence. Ggeezz (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In this article, we go by the evidence, as published by reliable sources. Perhaps this fascinating discussion could be continued in another place? --Pete (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory section greatly expanded

I have written what amounts to a new section on the history of the conspiracy movement, which I will post shortly. It will replace the short and frankly inadequate paragraph on the subject that is there now. AS I have said before, and I have agreement on this from others, to delve into the various theories would make this page highly unwieldy. So, instead of that, a history, largely drawn from Bugliosi (as I am unaware of another account of the history of the movement to 2005 or so) which gives a greater idea of the scope of the subject, without going into the various contentions in any detail.

I'll try to get this posted later today. Canada Jack (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is now up. I hope this is seen as a good-faith attempt to address concerns that the conspiracy aspect of the assassination had been given skimpy coverage.Canada Jack (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this does a good job of not only introducing the history of conspiracy theories, but describing the "public at large's" relationship with the topic (or at least giving the reader enough facts for them to draw their own conclusions).Ggeezz (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well done! Very good summary of the history without going into the messy specifics of each theory. Location (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Brandon inserting material without discussion

Brandon has plonked, for no particular reason, material on Oswald's stashing the rifle and descending the stairs of the TSBD. The problem is, the section is about the events in Deally Plaza, and the reactions of the crowd, and how Oswald was later noticed to be missing and arrested after an altercation with a policeman. IOW, it is a narrative of the developing event NOT a narrative exploring the movements of the accused. Once he was noticed missing, and once he was arrested for shooting a cop, he enters the narrative. If Brandon feels that this needs inclusion despite the structure of the page, he now has the opportunity to make that case. Canada Jack (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Canada Jack first argued that Oswald's actions after the shooting were out of place in the section about Dealey Plaza. Canada Jack, for some unexplained reason, is changing his story and is now arguing that Oswald's actions after the shooting don't belong in the article at all. I wish this guy could make a consistent argument and stick to it. BrandonTR (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Canada Jack has been editing on Misplaced Pages for some time. One would think that he would have learned by now that the onus is on the editor deleting material, as stated in Misplaced Pages's NPOV section: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia...." BrandonTR (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor inserting material, per WP:BRD, and I don't see you attempting to make your case on behalf of your proposed addition. GRAPPLE X 19:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor deleting material, as stated in Misplaced Pages's NPOV section: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia...." I don't see you making the case for deletion. I only see you parroting what your buddy Canada Jack has said. BrandonTR (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Buddy? Never interacted with them, but by all means, continue casting personal aspersions instead of focussing on content and why this should remain in the article or not. And note that "a general rule" does not mean "absolute law"; WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS are the guidelines to follow here. GRAPPLE X 20:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You have not make an argument why the material should be excluded, because obviously you have no argument. 70.196.195.52 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You ADDED the material, Brandon. It doesn't make any sense where you've put it. I've flagged that, removed it as it has no place here, and offered you a chance to make the case. All we have from you so far is some nonsense which you feel, it seems, gives you license to plonk down any garbage at all, as long as it is "sourced." Give me a break. As for the substance of your response above, it's very simple. 1. As written, the part about Oswald makes no sense where it is. It doesn't fit in a section discussing the aftermath in Deally Plaza. And, no, renaming the section to accommodate your addition (an old Brandon tactic) is a no-go as well. 2. Further, as the ARTICLE is written - as a narrative of the events, and a narrative of the investigations - it is very hard to see how this part might fit into any of the narrative. IOW, The page is NOT about the case against Oswald. It's a quick examination of the assassination itself - focusing on the details of the murder which is, after all, the page's topic - the aftermath, how Oswald came to be a suspect, and subsequent investigations.

As for your tendency to plonk down material willy-nilly without bothering to discuss with anyone else, one needs only to look at the embarrassing, disorganized mess the conspiracy page has become under your sage tutelage. Which is why many here agree that your contributions need to be closely scrutinized. Canada Jack (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What follows is the material I have attempted to add under the caption: "Lee Harvey Oswald"

According to the investigations, after Oswald shot President Kennedy with his rifle, he immediately hid the gun under some boxes and descended from the sixth floor of the building using the rear stairwell. About ninety seconds after the shooting, while in the building's second floor lunchroom, Oswald encountered police officer Marrion Baker who was accompanied by Oswald's supervisor Roy Truly; Baker let Oswald pass after Truly identified him as an employee. According to Baker, Oswald did not appear to be nervous or out of breath. Mrs. Robert Reid, clerical supervisor at the Depository, returning to her office within two minutes of the assassination, said she saw Oswald who "was very calm" on the second floor with a Coke in his hands. Oswald descended using the front staircase, and left the Depository through the front entrance just before police sealed it off.

Canada Jack says that the above material does not belong in an article about the assassination of President Kennedy, but he wont tell us why. So far, it's his own little secret. BrandonTR (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, all the references in the above material are cited to the non-conspiratorial Warren Commission. BrandonTR (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Canada Jack is also being disingenuous when he says: "And, no, renaming the section to accommodate your addition (an old Brandon tactic) is a no-go as well." I have not renamed any section. The section remains what it has always been: "Lee Harvey Oswald."

If BrandonTR is going to quote WP:NPOV I suggest he quotes it properly instead of truncating sentences to change their meaning. The actual quote from the policy is "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Texas articles
• High-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• C-Class history articles
• Mid-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Selected anniversaries (November 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2010)