Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 66:
Line 66:
::April 21, 2011 - Wolchover's story is re-published by , , and and many other smaller sources.
::April 21, 2011 - Wolchover's story is re-published by , , and and many other smaller sources.
I guess I'm not sure if this should go under "Other published theories", under the section regarding CIA involvement, or keep as a separate section. *sigh* ] (]) 19:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess I'm not sure if this should go under "Other published theories", under the section regarding CIA involvement, or keep as a separate section. *sigh* ] (]) 19:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
:OK. In reliable sources, this theory was only very briefly covered in the news and is actually only a blip in the world of JFK conspiracy theories. Given consideration to ] and ], I have removed the content from this article and merged it with ] and ]. ] (]) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
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
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.
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
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.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Iron sights
Just wanted to clarify the issue of whether Oswald used iron sights or not. "both the WC and the HSCA agreed that Oswald used a scope on the rifle -- the rifle was found w/ a scope mounted on it" said Brandon when he reverted my clarification of this issue. Brandon isn't quite accurate here - the HSCA, as can be seen in the very link to this section, concluded that Oswald - or the shooter - could have refired as quickly as within 1.66 seconds if the iron sights were used. While the scope was on the rifle, the iron sights could still be used, and it is unknown whether the assassin (we know SOMEONE was firing shots from the TSBD) used the scope or the sights. The HSCA, IOW, did NOT conclude Oswald/the assassin used the scope. Which is why the HSCA did their tests using the iron sights. Canada Jack (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Here we go again. Brandon has re-inserted the false claim that the HSCA concluded Oswald had used the rifle scope, not the iron sights. And, true to form, he hasn't bothered to address the subject even though the very reference for this section says that Oswald could have used the iron sights! Here is the pertinent HSCA passage from the page referred to in the section about the iron sights: "Accordingly, the 1.66 seconds between the onset of of the first and the second impulse patterns on the tape are not too brief a period of time for both of these patterns to represent gunfire, and for Oswald to have fired both of the shots." Since the 1.66 seconds is the time established in using the iron sights, the HSCA concluded Oswald could have fired the shots using the iron sights. To the contrary, if they had somehow determined, as Brandon claims, that Oswald had instead used the scope, they would have NOT been able make the conclusion that Oswald could have fired the shots as he needed 2.3 seconds to do so with the scope. Canada Jack (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Here we go again. Canada Jack has made the false assertion that "...while the scope was on the rifle, the iron sights could still be used." Obviously, Canada Jack is not familiar with firearms. Scopes are mounted on rifles in front of the iron sights. The scope and its mount obstruct the shooter's view through the iron sights, rendering the iron sights useless. A scope mounted on a rifle, de facto, means that the shooter's only option for aiming is to use the scope. Are there any hunters, or people familiar with firearms, out there to confirm this? BrandonTR (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Boy, how many screw-ups can we count on one page with Brandon? "A scope mounted on a rifle, de facto, means that the shooter's only option for aiming is to use the scope." Uh, no, Brandon. If the scope was mounted on this particular rifle in the way you describe, the bolt could not be operated.(!) Which is why the scope was mounted slightly off-centre to the left so as to allow the bolt to be operated. Accordingly, the iron sights could be used even with the scope in place. For example, the FBI's Robert Frazier tested the rifle with the scope AND with the iron sights - without removing the scope.
Secondly, wikipedia 101 for you, AGAIN. You made the specific claim that the HSCA concluded Oswald fired with the scope. That factoid is nowhere to be found on the attendant page (the Warren Commission's conclusion IS there, however), indeed the attendant page comes to precisely the OPPOSITE conclusion - that Oswald could have fired the rifle in the required time if he used the iron sights. Which I pointed out to you several times. And now we realize where the claim for the HSCA supposedly "concluding" that Oswald used the scope - it comes from YOUR assessment that since they agreed the scope was on the rifle when found, and therefore was on the rifle when fired, Oswald MUST have used the scope as YOU believed the presence of the scope blocked use of the iron sights. That is called Original Research, Brandon. And even if you were correct - you aren't - you'd STILL have to supply a citation for that claim of what the HSCA said.
Your only out here, Brandon, is to quote some conspiracy author here who makes the inane claim that Oswald HAD to have used the rifle as the scope blocked the iron sights, even though that is not true. Rest assured, a note to clarify that erroneous point would have to be added. Canada Jack (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Which conspiracy theorist are you referring to? I'm sure it's not President Lyndon Johnson who told several prominent newsmen that he thought that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy. BrandonTR (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Johnson knew his rifles, from what I've read. So he wouldn't have made the rather amazing claim that this rifle with a scope couldn't also be aimed with its iron sights. Further, I said conspiracy "authors" not theorists. How many books did Johnson write on the subject of his predecessor's assassination? I think we know the answer to that one. Nice try in changing the subject though, Brandon. Next time you challenge me over facts, you might do a bit of research to see if I am on to something instead of putting your foot into your mouth. I suggested you check the source, clearly you didn't. Obviously, we have different conclusions on the assassination, but you of all people should know I am not going to change something on a point of fact without being pretty sure I am right on the question at issue. Canada Jack (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Johnson would likely have gone public with information about a conspiracy had he ever been able to confirm it. He never did. He thought there was a conspiracy but he had no compelling evidence. At any rate, he has nothing to do with scope vs iron sights. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
However, many Warren Commission apologists espouse the false narrative that those who believe in a JFK assassination conspiracy also believe in such things as Big Foot and faked moon landings. Whereas we see that prominent people, including Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, as well as some congressmen and Kennedy aides, are on record saying that they believe there was a conspiracy in the case of JFK. BrandonTR (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not here to Right the Great Wrong. Apologists have nothing to do with the scope vs iron sights question which is what this discussion thread is supposed to be about. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Nobody said anything about righting a Great Wrong. However, the Warren Commission apologists should stop with the childish insults -- it gets a little tiring. BrandonTR (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
NASA
Please feel free to update/add to the NASA section. It was based off of a single author's work. There is video and other media available online somewhere, but the purpose of adding the section was just to be inclusive.69.146.144.86 (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The "Other Published Theories" section of this article was designed with this sort of thing in mind. This theory does not merit an entire subsection of the article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this. I am also inclined to believe that books within that section should also have some sort of secondary coverage, which this one does. Location (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This theory - that the CIA killed Kennedy to keep him from learning (and sharing with the Soviets and the public) a secret UFO reverse-engineering program - appears to have been around while in different forms (i.e. ).
It seems to be a combination of the CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory and the CIA's involvement in the UFO conspiracy theory. (The CIA has something to say about the later: .) Lester's book is self-published, however, the coverage in secondary reliable sources seems to stem from an article by AOL's Lee Speigel:
April 18, 2011 - Lee Speigel of AOL publishes a story discussing William Lester's book; the author also tracks down Robert Wood.
April 18, 2011 - Weekly World News (!!!!) publishes a story referencing the AOL story.
April 19, 2011 - Daily Mail publishes a story referencing the AOL story.
April 20, 2011 - Natalie Wolchover of Life's Little Mysteries publishes story discussing Lester's book.
I guess I'm not sure if this should go under "Other published theories", under the section regarding CIA involvement, or keep as a separate section. *sigh* Location (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I see problems with this material regarding Joseph Milteer and Pierre Finck. The part about Milteer's statements (secretly recorded by a Miami police informant) is taken straight from a self-published source of a kind that is generally not acceptable here as a reliable source. Quoting from WP:SPS: "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Similarly for the Finck testimony at the Clay Shaw trial; if you must quote directly from the trial transcript, find a more reliable source. And in both cases, extensive verbatim quoting from primary source material is discouraged — not absolutely prohibited, to be sure, but it should be limited to "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". In this situation, I believe these extensive primary-source quotes are inappropriate because the reader is being implicitly called upon to conclude from these quotes that Milteer's death was "suspicious" and that Finck's testimony supports allegations of a government conspiracy. If these allegations are credible, find reliable secondary sources which discuss them. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)23:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Note, too, that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (see WP:PROVEIT). This also applies to the reliability of a source: If a source that appears to be unreliable is in fact reliable, the editor who wants to use the disputed source needs to present a satisfactory case for its usability (e.g., if you think jfklancerforum.com is a well-respected, reliable source and not a self-published blog, you need to establish this to the satisfaction of reasonable people). — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)23:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the quotes and that the forum is not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards. The Milteer quote can be obtained from reliable sources, including the HSCA Report (and even John McAdams's book in a rebuttal to Marrs's POV on this); however, I agree it doesn't give the full picture of what the HSCA concluded. Given the hundreds of people who were witnesses or claimed to have knowledge of something, we need to be careful not to give undue weight to certain items... particularly when they are the items that have not received those most coverage in secondary reliable sources.
The following should also be removed, not because it is unreliable but rather because it is cherry-picked primary source information which without context is tantamount to OR:
The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported in 1979 that while the information on the alleged threat to the president "was furnished the agents making the advance arrangements before the visit of the President" to Miami, "the Milteer threat was ignored by Secret Service personnel in planning the trip to Dallas." Robert Bouck, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Secret Service's Protective Research Section "...testified to the committee that threat information was transmitted from one region of the country to another if there was specific evidence it was relevant to the receiving region."
In my opinion, it is sufficient for that particular section simply to say that "X believes Y, who knew Z, died suspiciously" with maybe a little more detail given to one or two of the most prominent "suspicious deaths". Location (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
.svg)
