Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:44, 22 April 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories 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, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 16, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

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. Skepticism High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-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. Alternative views Mid‑importance 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories 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, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

NPOV Train Wreck

If there are three sentences in this supposedly encyclopedic article that offer any counterbalance to the catalog of fringe theories, I could not find them. This article is a POV disaster and needs to be substantially rewritten to comply with guidelines and policy including very importantly, WP:DUE. It is so bad that in its current form it probably should be deleted, the obvious notability of the subject notwithstanding. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You obviously didn't look very hard. Here's just one example from the article:

Author Gerald Posner points out that Marrs' list was taken from the group of about 10,000 people connected even in the most tenuous way to the assassination, one of the multiple official investigations, or the independent research of conspiracy theorists. He notes that it would be surprising if a hundred people out of ten thousand did not die in "unnatural ways" and points out over half of the people on Marrs' list did not in fact die mysteriously, but of natural causes, such as Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who died of heart failure at age 69 in 1984, long after the Kennedy assassination, but is on Marrs' list as someone whose cause of death is "unknown". Posner also points out that many prominent witnesses and conspiracy researchers continue to live long lives and have not made it onto the mysterious death list. BrandonTR (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think it is a train wreck now, you should have seen the lack of organization that it had before I got a hold of it a couple years ago. And I know that I have added more than three sentences to balance various aspects of conspiracy theories. Where would you like to start? Location (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm looking at it and thinking it needs a WP:HEY level rewrite. If it was actually worse a couple of years ago... . We need a section dedicated to criticism of the conspiracy mania with references to the works of Posner and Bugliosi among others. There should also be rebuttals to the various theories in each section, though I concede in some cases that will require some research. And we need to put an end to the abusive out of context quotes that can be found here and there. Example: "According to Vincent Bugliosi, allegations that the evidence against Oswald was planted, forged, or tampered with is a main argument among those who believe a conspiracy took place." True enough. But no mention of the fact that Bugliosi is a fierce critic of the cult of conspiracy who then went on to demolish those claims in detail. Putting those kinds of out of context quotes in the article is misleading to the point of being outright deception. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

One common fringe viewpoint is that evidence had been planted, forged, or tampered with, but in keeping with WP:RS we needed a non-fringe viewpoint in order to include it in the article. In-text attribution was likely used due to frequent placement of {{According to whom}} tags and charges of weasel wording. Your idea is a good one. Perhaps those of us who monitor this page need to start working on an outline. Location (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Moon landing conspiracy theories is a fairly good model for this sort of article. Sunrise (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few bold edits. Another important issue is the use of the term "researchers" for conspiracy theorists, which I would say lends them undue credibility. But someone who already knows who is in which group is probably better suited than I am to fix this. Sunrise (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You just admitted you don't know the subject, so why are you even commenting? BrandonTR (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is successful in part because it is usually relatively easy for newcomers to a topic to reach the point when they can contribute effectively, as long as they already have a good grasp of WP policy. Principles such as RS are quite simple to apply very broadly. But please let me know if I appear to misunderstand anything (along with, of course, your reasoning). Sunrise (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sunrise: A section here similar to that found in Moon landing conspiracy theories#Conspiracists and their main proposals would be helpful. This article has approached it a different way with John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Other published theories, however, it's probably better to list the prominent "lone gunman critics" and their works first, as well as prominent debunkers, as it would give context for material that appears later in the article. Location (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that as well (mainly per the discussion below). Sunrise (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's impossible to structurally simplify the article as you seem to propose. You imply there are basically two groups to deal with: conspiracy theorists and "debunkers". But this is not the case. Within the set of conspiracy theorists, you have many subsets including not just writers and researchers, but government officials, like Robert Blakey and Richard Schweiker, Gary Hart, Senator Yarborough, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and so on. Furthermore, the conspiracy theorists do not just adhere to one or even two two conspiracy theories. Rather the conspiracy theories cover a whole spectrum. Likewise, the so called debunkers are not a monolithic group as you imply. While many attempt to debunk certain conspiracy theories, in doing so some propose their own conspiracy theories, while others propose that a certain commission or study got it right (like the Warren Commission), while other "debunkers" propose that another commission or study is to be believed (like the HSCA). In short the "debunkers" don't agree among themselves on what should be debunked, what is factual, what is theory, what is irrefutable evidence, etc. BrandonTR (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think you inferred that I am proposing to restructure the article and that is not the case. As the OP has suggested, the article refers to various individuals without much context. The idea would be to list near the top of the article the most prominent "promulgators and popularizers" of conspiracy theories and their major contributions to the discussion. (Speculation on the part of LBJ or hearsay on the part of RFK Jr. is certainly not the same.) This material near the top of the article may give more context for everything else that follows. Location (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to give a list of conspiracy theorists, it would be helpful to include what exact conspiracy theory they are promoting. One problem is what category to put certain people in. For example, should HSCA head Robert Blakey be put under the category of "conspiracy theorist" for writing in a book and in the HSAC Report that there was a second shooter; or should Blakey be put in the category of "debunker" for arguing against those who posit that Oswald was not involved at all in the shooting? BrandonTR (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's less complicated than you make it out. There are those who accept the official version of events and those who don't. The latter may fall into many different variations and flavors, but to one degree or another they are almost all subscribers to some sort of conspiracy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that this article is in need of any sort of major rewrite. the current version has emerged based on consensus and based on legitimate wikipedia practices. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are joking... right? Have you actually read WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly. What you're basically proposing is a "JFK conspiracy theories" article without the conspiracy theories. That's absurd. BrandonTR (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. What I am saying is you cannot have an article that serves only as a promotional catalog of Fringe theories without appropriate counterbalance. And per DUE the emphasis on the fringe theories cannot be disproportionate. As there is effectively no counterbalance at the moment this article violates a whole list of WP policies and guidelines. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a vehicle for promoting fringe conspiracy theories. It needs a major rewrite on the WP:HEY level. Absent that, I would have to seriously consider sending it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt an AfD would succeed, as the topic surely passes GNG, but a rewrite would definitely go a long way here. In any case: Brandon, a useful heuristic that I recommend is that the status of claims that are rejected by the mainstream must always be clear. So an incorrect claim should always be clearly marked as such, e.g. by juxtaposing it with an explanation of why it is wrong, phrased factually and without attribution per WP:ASSERT. Sunrise (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability is not even remotely in doubt. But I believe WP:DUE is policy, which trumps guidelines including WP:N. That said, I agree that an AfD would be controversial and frankly I would prefer to avoid it. If this is fixable that is absolutely the preferred course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You're positing the false premise that there is in fact a "mainstream opinion" -- presumably elevating whatever is in the Warren Commission report (but not the HSCA report) to "mainstream opinion." Everything else, as far as you are concerned, is heresy. In fact, a majority of Americans believe that the Warren Report is seriously deficient, with a majority of those polled believing that there was a conspiracy. So we see that those who believe in conspiracy are not "fringe" at all -- they are the majority. Moreover, many of the conspiracy theories presented in the article are already counterbalanced by non-conspiracists, like Bugliosi. Of course, you yourself are free to add non-conspiracy rebuttals as you see fit. My suspicion is that the reason we don't see more rebuttals to the conspiracy theories presented is that those complaining the loudest about "counterbalance" do not know much about the case either for or against conspiracy very well to begin with. BrandonTR (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream expert opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Who are the mainstream experts? Name them, and tell us what makes them experts. BrandonTR (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like, from your link, that this article has meet the reliable sources criteria. BrandonTR (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Gamaliel (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a moment here, folks. "NPOV Train Wreck"?!? C'mon. To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, this is more like the Hindenburg, a giant bag of gas ready to detonate and collapse under its unsubstantiated weight!

Note to Brandon: Gee, seems a lot of neutral observers are flagging the same points I made about this page a while ago, eh? It's not just we "lone nutters" who think this page is a train wreck/giant bag of exploding gas! Canada Jack (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

section break 1

"What I am saying is you cannot have an article that serves only as a promotional catalog of Fringe theories without appropriate counterbalance." Just out of curiosity, are ALL JFK assassination conspiracy theories "fringe" as far as you're concerned?

"Who are the mainstream experts? Name them, and tell us what makes them experts." Excellent question. Gam and I had this discussion a while back. I hope we're not defining "mainstream" as "agrees with the official conclusions" and "fringe" as "disagrees with the official conclusions."

In the talk thread , as I said Gam and I had this discussion.

Gam asked, On authors of published research suggesting a conspiracy: "are they representative of mainstream academic thinking?"

I responded, that, for example, "David Scheim: PhD, MIT. Edward Epstein, PhD, Harvard. Gerald McKnight, Professor, Hood College. Joan Mellen, Professor, Temple University. Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, participated in HSCA. David Wrone, Professor, U. of Wisconsin. Walt Brown, PhD, former Justice Department employee. John Newman, Professor, University of Maryland. Henry Hurt, journalist, Rockefeller Foundation. Gaeton Fonzi, Federal investigator for the HSCA."

Gam, countered with the point, "A few academics, a number of them in non-relevant fields like mathematics, do not necessarily represent the mainstream historical viewpoint."

So is that where we're going, folks? The "mainstream historical viewpoint" is that the official conclusions are correct, therefore all other research and opinion is to be minimized as "fringe"? Please tell me that's not where we're going. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind, I'm not attacking the premise of this thread. On the contrary I agree that the article needs work. And I'd like to think I have some street cred on the subject. Years ago, I created the "Other Published Theories" section of the article specifically to minimize some of the fringe theories that were being given hundreds of words and undue weight in the article. Among the few notes in the article you'll see counter-pointing various theories is the text I added calling Judyth Baker a hoax. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me respond to Joe here. The "mainstream experts" are those who actually assessed and weighed in with their opinions on the evidence as presented to the Warren Commission and the HSCA. And, with very few exceptions, when the ACTUAL evidence was examined (and not, say, a photograph of a piece of evidence, or a multi-generational copy of an x-ray or photograph of Oswald), they concluded the evidence established Oswald's guilt and culpability.

It should also be noted that while there indeed were several prominent members of the HSCA who believed there was a conspiracy, the SOLE piece of evidence to drive that conclusion was the dictabelt evidence, now thoroughly debunked. For all the talk of "conspiracy" at the HSCA, there was NO convincing evidence that Oswald was involved in one, despite the bias of many on the committee, and they acknowledged that - as they had to to be intellectually honest, hell honest, period - when they wrote the final report. Even Cyril Wecht, who believes there was a conspiracy, agrees that the autopsy material, including the photographs and x-rays, support the conclusion that two and only two bullets struck the president, and that they were fired from behind where the HSCA elsewhere concluded was where Oswald was.

It is for these reasons that we describe "mainstream" experts as being on-side with the "Oswald" conclusion as that is what they concluded given actual access to the evidence. The conspiracy crowd cites "experts" such as David Groden and Jack White who, before the HSCA not only demonstrated they had not the slightest clue what they were talking about in terms of doctored photographs, they continue to this day to cite "problems" with the photos, such as the backyard ones, WHICH WERE ANSWERED IN 1978. THAT is why these guys are "fringe." If they were intellectually honest - they aren't - they would see that the evidence does NOT support their tightly held-to-the-chest conclusions. At least Wecht, who knows his pathology, is intellectually honest (usually) in acknowledging what the evidence suggests. Not so people like White and Groden - stars of the conspiracy crowd - and many, many others who routinely lie and obfuscate over long-established evidence which establishes Oswald as the lone gunman. THAT is why this is a fringe belief, not because it is at odds with "official" opinion. Canada Jack (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with the above; I don't see how anyone can read all the authors I mentioned and reach a sweeping conclusion that they are all "intellectually dishonest." If there's conclusive evidence that they are not just premature or wrong in their conclusions, but actually lying, I'm not aware of it.

However I don't consider this fundamental disagreement with Jack to be a roadblock to improving the article. We've exchanged this sort of argument many times, but as far as I know I've never disagreed with any edit he's made. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. here is the key issue here.

Let me respond to Joe here. The "mainstream experts" are those who actually assessed and weighed in with their opinions on the evidence as presented to the Warren Commission and the HSCA. And, with very few exceptions, when the ACTUAL evidence was examined (and not, say, a photograph of a piece of evidence, or a multi-generational copy of an x-ray or photograph of Oswald), they concluded the evidence established Oswald's guilt and culpability.

well, the purpose of this article is to examine theories which disagre with those conclusions. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Canada Jack says: It should also be noted that while there indeed were several prominent members of the HSCA who believed there was a conspiracy, the SOLE piece of evidence to drive that conclusion was the dictabelt evidence, now thoroughly debunked. Actually, it's the so-called debunkers who have been debunked, but we'll leave that argument for another time. In fact, the HSCA presented other evidence that led it to conclude conspiracy. Here's one example from the HSCA Report: Ruby's shooting of Oswald was not a spontaneous act, in that it involved at least some premeditation. Similarly, the committee believed it was less likely that Ruby entered the police basement without assistance, even though the assistance may have been provided with no knowledge of Ruby's intentions… The committee was troubled by the apparently unlocked doors along the stairway route and the removal of security guards from the area of the garage nearest the stairway shortly before the shooting… There is also evidence that the Dallas Police Department withheld relevant information from the Warren Commission concerning Ruby's entry to the scene of the Oswald transfer. BrandonTR (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of using this space to reiterate our perspectives regarding historical events, it would be more productive if we discussed potential edits. Ad Orientem raises an important point and discussion of that issue should not be sidetracked by irrelevant discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think people are responding directly to Ad Orientem's points. I don't think their responses constitute irrelevant discussion. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

To what Joe said - you are wrong on the conspiracy angle. The committee was ready to conclude no convincing evidence of conspiracy was seen by them, until the dictabelt evidence was presented at the last minute. Members of the committee have made this precise point. The "evidence" you supply of the Dallas police force not guarding exits etc can also be interpreted as simple incompetence. In fact, that is what really was going on there, not some Rube-Goldberg-style scheme. Indeed, most of the "conspiracy" claims arise not out evidence of some nefarious plot, but out of routine incompetence by the Dallas police, the FBI and the CIA, and their efforts to hide and minimize their bumbling security fiasco which not only allowed the president of the United States to be killed in broad daylight, but also allowed his accused assassin to be killed while in custody. The defector Oswald went to Mexico City and the CIA couldn't even photograph the right guy, calling some schlub Oswald? The FBI receives a death threat from Oswald days before Kennedy comes and they don't bother as a simple precaution to increase surveillance on him despite his possible propensity for violence? The Dallas police can't secure the basement of their own headquarters and some bar owner blows away the chief suspect? Did they deliver mea culpas afterwards? No, they employed a strategy of "Cover Your Ass."

As to the structure of the page, it seems to me we should bring over as an intro the history of the conspiracy movement the bit I wrote on the main conspiracy page, or do some similar history which puts a lot of this into context. It seems to me that the movement as described there had a key role to play to re-opening the case in 1977 and identifying many of the troubling issues either left unaddressed or inadequately addressed by the Warren Commission. For example, the fact that the wounds to the president were described via the testimony of the pathologists, without reference to the photos and the x-rays, while many witnesses described head wounds at odds to this. Further, as an example, the grassy knoll as a source for the shots was virtually ignored by the WC, despite many witness claims who stated they thought the shots came from there.

So, I'd say, the conspiracy crowd was and reflected mainstream thought - until about 1978. The trouble is, the HSCA in exhaustively re-examining the evidence, (and this is the ACTUAL evidence - the rifle, the bullets, ORIGINAL negatives/slides first-generation prints etc, not a photo in a book somewhere) came to near-identical conclusions: 1) Oswald fired the shots which caused all the injuries; 2) Oswald had no known associates who may have put him up to the assassination; 3) No convincing evidence linking any of the usual suspects, like the Mafia, the CIA, to the crime. The major difference, of course, was the finding of "conspiracy" based solely on the dictabelt evidence (presented days before the mandate of the committee was to expire, the original conclusion of "no evidence of conspiracy" was hastily changed).

Following the HSCA report, I'd argue that the conspiracy movement became the fringe movement it is today. They routinely ignore evidence which had been thoroughly examined and which established Oswald as the culprit, and when they do address it, they, without any rationale other than an apparent attempt to explain away evidence, declare most of this evidence to be planted or forged. As only a small example, on the backyard photos, which were claimed to be forged, I did a search, found an article talking about the "evidence" these photos were forged, but they cite "anomolies" which were addressed and answered in 1978. They even claim a Canadian expert who thought there was evidence of forgery, but who changed his view once he saw the original negative/prints, STILL says they were forged. If the article had dated from 1977, okay. But that's not the case. It is dated 2009. This is why these guys are "fringe" and in most cases can't be taken seriously. Canada Jack (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

you are offering opinions on the veracity or validity of the theories presented in this article, based upon their content. all of these have been included here as examples of theories about this event. as the title of this entry indicates, presenting theories is one major part of this article. the inclusion of these theories is based upon their coverage in third-party sources, as per Misplaced Pages policy.--Sm8900 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

here are some links from reliable sources indicating that conspiracy theories cannot validly all be labeled fringe based on individual people's opinions.

• One JFK conspiracy theory that could be true, By Thom Patterson, CNN, Mon November 18, 2013.
• Kerry doubts Warren Commission report --Sm8900 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, now you start to get into the sticky juxtaposition of public and lay opinion versus expert opinion and reliable sources. Sure, most Americans don't believe Oswald acted alone. Half the country doesn't believe that humans evolved from a lower order of species. However, the number of peer-reviewed studies supporting the Intelligent_design_movement is zero. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

hm, so now, sources are not acceptable unless they are peer-reviewed journals? so if that's the case, I guess that no Misplaced Pages article has ever cited the New York Times, BBC, Bloomberg.com or CNN? --Sm8900 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. But I think we have fairly clear guidelines as to who qualifies as RS on historical subjects. Someone with academic credentials in history who is published on a given subject, quite possibly. John Kerry, probably not. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

okay. in that case, I will not use him as a citation for any material within the entry. glad that we could reach resolution on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"They routinely ignore evidence which had been thoroughly examined and which established Oswald as the culprit, and when they do address it, they, without any rationale other than an apparent attempt to explain away evidence, declare most of this evidence to be planted or forged." Factually, this is false. While certain authors have claimed planted or forged evidence, the vast majority have not. Did any of the nine I listed above declare ANY, much less "most" of the evidence planted or forged? Apparently you simply cannot stand the fact that many of historians who have studied the subject for years simply disagree with the official conclusions. And yes, I'm aware that you don't consider any of those analyses valid because they didn't have access to the evidence in the same way that the official investigations did. I disagree with that. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"And yes, I'm aware that you don't consider any of those analyses valid because they didn't have access to the evidence in the same way that the official investigations did. I disagree with that." The assessment of the evidence by the experts establishes Oswald's culpability. The experts on the HSCA were near-unanimous on what the evidence states. To deny the veracity of this evidence REQUIRES you to deny the veracity of forensics and forensic pathology. You MIGHT have an argument on some specific aspect - like the NAA tests - but there are probably 100+ pieces of evidence which establish a lone gunman and Oswald as that lone gunman. And that's the reality that these people are denying. You CAN'T seriously deny Oswald's guilt and the lone gunman conclusion without ignoring this evidence. There is more latitude when it comes to others who may have put him to the task. Canada Jack (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

section break 2

Three of the seven Warren Commission members had doubts about the single bullet theory. Commission member Hale Boggs once commented, 'I had strong doubts about it.' Commission member Richard Russell adamantly opposed the Warren Commission's single bullet theory. Russell expressed his vehement disagreement with the single bullet theory in a proposed dissenting statement dictated on Sept. 16, 1964; he argued against the theory at the final meeting of the Commission on Sept. 18, 1964 (although the doctored transcript of this meeting contains no reference to Russell's arguments), and then criticized the single bullet theory again that very day in a telephone conversation with LBJ; and he emphatically rejected the theory in interviews with the press in 1966 and 1970. The two principal reasons Russell rejected the single bullet theory: (1) Connally's Warren Commission testimony, in which Connally absolutely, positively, and unequivocally asserted that before he was hit he heard a previous shot that struck JFK ("It's a certainty. I'll never change my mind"), and (2) Russell's own examination of the Zapruder film. In a conversation with Lyndon Johnson, Russell said, “They were trying to prove that the same bullet that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connally, went through him and through his hand, his bone, into his leg and everything else. … The commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it.” Johnson, presumably out of politeness, replied, “I don’t either.” Russell’s fellow dissenter at the 18 September meeting, Senator John Cooper, wrote that “it seems to me that Governor Connally’s statement negates such a conclusion.” BrandonTR (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Brandon's remarks are typical of many in the conspiracy community. It's as if nothing has happened since 1977 on the subject. In other words, he, like most in the conspiracy crowd, completely ignores the extensive re-examination done by the HSCA which answered most of those doubts. Up to 1977, one could raise many basic questions on the SBT, among other things, as there were troubling discrepancies in the WR. But those issues WERE raised when the HSCA re-examined the case. They concluded - to the surprise of many on the committee - that the SBT WAS correct and was entirely consistent with both the forensic evidence and the photographic evidence. High-resolution versions of the Zapruder film since have further corroborated the SBT. Those who ignore the evidence - in the conspiracy crowd - routinely mischaracterize what in fact the evidence was that the SBT accounted for. You can still find all over the internet the complete lie that the SB had to do a "zig-zag" to hit both men - a bold-face lie which was highlighted in the film "JFK," and became such a cultural meme that even Seinfeld referenced it. So what do these intellectually dishonest people do? They IGNORE the evidence and dredge up the quotes from Connally, and from the one member of the committee who couldn't be bothered to be there when most of the testimony was delivered - Richard Russell.

As for your Connally comments, you forget the one assumption he made - that Kennedy was hit by the first bullet. We see him turn after hearing the first shot, but he never turned to see the president until he - Connally - was hit. This is clear in the Zapruder film. So, how could he know JFK was hit by the first bullet? He CAN be certain a shot was fired before he was hit. He CAN'T be certain JFK was hit by that first shot as he didn't see the president until he himself was injured. This is obvious from anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of the assassination, but is another example of the misleading arguments made by the conspiracy crowd, desperate to avoid actually addressing the analyses which form the basis of the SBT. Canada Jack (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

From "they, without any rationale other than an apparent attempt to explain away evidence, declare most of this evidence to be planted or forged." we mysteriously switch to "there are probably 100+ pieces of evidence which establish a lone gunman and Oswald as that lone gunman." Sorry, the damage is done. You made a patently false statement, and now you're trying to dance around the fact that you made it. You haven't actually read the works of the better-regarded authors doubting the official conclusions, or I don't think you would have made the statement in the first place. Which I find very telling for someone who's made these talk pages the subject of a roughly 900-part series on why he's the world's greatest expert on what these authors do and do not say. You're simply taking the position that one side is right, so everyone else is crazy/stupid/disingenuous rather than simply expressing a different interpretation of the same evidence. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the damage is done. You made a patently false statement, and now you're trying to dance around the fact that you made it. ??? Are you kidding me, Joe? Do you want me to list say 100 occurrences where conspiracy theorists claim evidence was planted or forged with no evidence in fact this was the case? You know it'd take me about 5 minutes to find those examples on the internet! Far from being a non-sequitor as you imply ("...we mysteriously switch to..."), the evidence which many claim was planted or forged is the very evidence which establishes a lone gunman/Oswald as the assassin!

Here are few examples I can think of off the top of my head. Do you want me to cite each one? The Zapruder film is a sophisticated forgery; The backyard photos are forgeries; Witness Howard Brennan who identified Oswald is a liar; Witness Helen Markham who identified Oswald as the man who shot Tippit is a liar; bullet casings from the TSBD were planted; the Oswald rifle was planted; Oswald's fingerprints on the rifle were planted; Bullet casings at the Tippit murder scene were planted; Oswald's gun bag was forged by the police; mail-orders for the rifle and gun under alias Hidell were forged; the Hidell ID on Oswald was planted; the "single bullet" was planted; the recovered rifle was a Mauser, replaced later by Oswald's Carcano; the Autopsy photos are forgeries; the x-rays are forgeries; the pathologists were liars when they made no mention of a massive rear head wound; bullet wounds to the president were faked; etc etc.

You're simply taking the position that one side is right, so everyone else is crazy/stupid/disingenuous rather than simply expressing a different interpretation of the same evidence. No I take the empirical position that the masses of physical evidence which point to a) a lone assassin and b) Oswald and which were assessed by two of the most exhaustive investigations not only in American history but world history firmly establish the truth of those conclusions. And I further make the underlying point that BEFORE one starts to point fingers at other players, you HAVE to start with the evidence establishing Oswald as the lone assassin. To do otherwise is to pretend that forensic science is a lie. To do otherwise is to pretend that virtually ALL of these experts called to testify and assess this evidence were liars and complicit in a cover-up of one the most heinous crimes in American history, which in ITSELF would be a heinous crime. And that is PRECISELY what most of these authors do, either by baldly saying so, or ignoring the work of these investigations. Either way, "fringe" beliefs ignore evidence or dismiss evidence which establishes mainstream historical verities. This is, in other words, not a mere "interpretation," whereby one could look at a piece of evidence and say it doesn't establish what some claims it establishes. We are talking about somewhere in the area of 100 pieces of evidence which establish Oswald as the killer. It's not a question of "interpretation" if you claim Oswald didn't do it based on the evidence; it's a matter of denial.

So, Joe, to be a true account, using standard historical analyses, a non-fringe author HAS to acknowledge first that Oswald shot and killed the president. THEN, and if you had bothered to read what I posted above ("There is more latitude when it comes to others who may have put him to the task"), you could start importing other players who may have somehow got Oswald to do their bidding. But, unless you can prooffer some evidence that, say, the CIA directed Oswald to do it, we are stuck with by and large elaborate speculations about how this may have come about. And just because, say, Dulles hated Kennedy, doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that Dulles had Kennedy killed. No serious historian would make such a claim. Canada Jack (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Zapruder film is a sophisticated forgery." "the Autopsy photos are forgeries; the x-rays are forgeries" Fetzer says this, as have a few others. But the vast majority of researchers, those taken seriously by the research community, have not. "The backyard photos are forgeries." Groden says this, maybe a couple of others. Groden also points out a lot of other evidence questioning the official conclusions, and Oswald as lone gunman, that has nothing to do with the photos. "Witness Howard Brennan who identified Oswald is a liar; Witness Helen Markham who identified Oswald as the man who shot Tippit is a liar" "the pathologists were liars" Suggesting that various people were wrong in their assertions is very different from declaring, "most of this evidence to be planted or forged." "bullet casings from the TSBD were planted" and "Oswald's gun bag was forged by the police" "the recovered rifle was a Mauser" Some authors have pointed out inconsistencies in the evidence chain which bring the official conclusions into question. That is not declaring the evidence planted or forged.

You said, "They routinely ignore evidence which had been thoroughly examined and which established Oswald as the culprit, and when they do address it, they, without any rationale other than an apparent attempt to explain away evidence, declare most of this evidence to be planted or forged." That is a patently false statement. You are wrong. Period. Full stop. Are you telling me that David Scheim, Edward Epstein, Gerald McKnight, Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, Cyril Wecht, David Wrone, Walt Brown, John Newman, Henry Hurt, Gaeton Fonzi, Anthony Summers, James Dieugenio, Jim Davy, Josiah Thompson, John H. Davis, Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann have declared most of the evidence to be planted or forged? I'm telling you they have not. I'm not sure any of them have called any of the evidence planted or forged. And as for, "They routinely ignore evidence which had been thoroughly examined and which established Oswald as the culprit," that's false as well. The fact that you disagree with their conclusions doesn't make their analysis wrong. I'm more convinced than ever you haven't read any of these books. "They routinely ignore evidence." How would you know? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, Canada Jack, I'm not sure what your suggestion is on this. are you seriously saying that an article on conspiracy theories should simply state that there are no conspiracy theories? clearly, some sources say that they do exist. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Very late response to Joe and Sm here... No, Sm, I don't suggest conspiracies shouldn't be on this page. What I am suggesting is MOST of the conspiracy crowd lack credibility because they exonerate Oswald of involvement, at least directly in terms of firing the shots. It's not a matter of "interpreting" evidence differently, it's making the intellectually dishonest claim that the mounds of evidence which link Oswald to the murder somehow don't matter. IOW, one can quibble with, say, the presence of a palmprint on the box the sniper sat on. If that was the only piece of evidence linking him to the crime, that'd be a weak case against him. But that's not what we have here. We have multiple fingerprints, a bag which he was seen carrying with his fingerprints which he denied having, we see a rifle, purchased by him, with his fingerprint and his denial he had it, the photo of him with the rifle which he also denied, the bullets which killed Kennedy matched to that particular rifle, etc etc. Even if you don't use the words "planted" or "forged," to pretend Oswald didn't shoot the president requires the a priori assumption that all that evidence was planted or forged.

"Are you telling me that David Scheim, Edward Epstein, Gerald McKnight, Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, Cyril Wecht, David Wrone, Walt Brown, John Newman, Henry Hurt, Gaeton Fonzi, Anthony Summers, James Dieugenio, Jim Davy, Josiah Thompson, John H. Davis, Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann have declared most of the evidence to be planted or forged? I'm telling you they have not." If they say Oswald didn't fire the shots, then they are denying the evidence against Oswald is valid. They are therefore, even if not directly saying so, suggesting that evidence was either planted or forged. Canada Jack (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"If they say Oswald didn't fire the shots, then they are denying the evidence against Oswald is valid. They are therefore, even if not directly saying so, suggesting that evidence was either planted or forged." No, they are saying that the official investigations, where they conclude that the evidence points exclusively to Oswald, are wrong or premature. I understand how fundamental our disagreement is here, we'll just have to leave it that way. You believe that there is no possibility that a reasonable person can study the evidence and testimony and conclude that there was or could have been a shooter other than Oswald. Therefore if someone claims to reach this conclusion, they must be uninformed, lying or crazy. I disagree. Many researchers, as do I, find the case for a second shooter on the grassy knoll quite convincing. And I don't understand the point of view that says the ballistics evidence can only be interpreted one way. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, Joe. Once one looks at the evidence which the Warren Commission and the HSCA used to conclude Oswald indeed fired the shots which hit Kennedy, which I did not do for years as I was immersed in the lies of the conspiracy crowd, the ONLY intellectually honest position one can take is that it is highly likely Oswald shot Kennedy. Period. The evidence for it is overwhelming, so overwhelming that the CT crowd, after 50 years, can't account for it, so they either ignore it, deny the evidence is valid, or claim it was faked/planted. All intellectually dishonest positions to take. In other words, the level of denial REQUIRED to suggest Oswald had no hand in the actual shooting means you have to throw out reams of forensic evidence and conclude those investigators either are liars - which many authors indeed claim - or that the evidence has been planted and/or forged.

I am just talking about Oswald here, Joe, so quit pretending I am saying that saying this means a conspiracy was impossible or that I am saying to think a conspiracy happened means you are a fool, the typical strawman argument you raise when I discuss how many - most - in the CT crowd deal with the evidence against Oswald in the case. "Many researchers, as do I, find the case for a second shooter on the grassy knoll quite convincing." That's a different argument. I dismiss the second gunman claim as there is no evidence of a second shooter, though I acknowledge it is POSSIBLE there was a second or even third sniper, just that only Oswald hit his mark. What I am talking about is the notion that Oswald didn't fire those shots from the TSBD. And on THAT score, some counts have more than 50 pieces of evidence, a lot of it physical, which directly links Oswald to the shooting. Canada Jack (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The ultimate irony here in terms of what the Conspiracy crowd believe is that they will deny and try to explain away the mounds of actual forensic evidence which firmly establishes that shots, fired by Oswald, struck and killed the president, yet, on the flimsiest of premises, say they have "solved" the case, citing "evidence" like a single fingerprint which "proves" a LBJ associate was behind it, or a photo of tramps, one of whom was Hunt, "proves" the CIA was involved etc etc. Sure, not all in the CT crowd do that, but far, far too many do.

When it comes to Oswald, my premise is that the physical evidence - what we know for a fact - firmly establishes Oswald's guilt. However, the LACK of evidence does not in a similar manner "establish" there was, say, no second gunman, or others involved conspiracy somehow connected to LHO. So, while I say Oswald's guilt is established, I only say that the evidence which we have does not speak of a conspiracy. This does not preclude the possibility of evidence emerging which might suggest Oswald had a helper or was otherwise involved. But, and this is my ultimate point, it is hard to see how any emerging evidence would counter the evidence we have against Oswald. You'd have to get into the realm of Alien intervention or time portals or other wackiness. Canada Jack (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Without picking that apart, let me see how far I can go in your direction. Clearly, there is no "babe in the woods" innocence for Oswald. Leaving all his money and wedding ring at home on the morning of the assassination is the act of a man not coming home again. Also, it IS the routine of authors doubting that Oswald acted alone to say that evidence was planted, provided we're talking about evidence planted by other conspirators to make sure only Oswald is blamed. That's not the same thing as the investigators framing Oswald (some say that, most don't). Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Three questions, Joe - #1 - In your opinion, did Oswald fire the shots that struck Kennedy? - #2 - Of that list of authors you posted, how many claim that Oswald fired no shots? - #3 - Is it credible, in your opinion, to claim that Oswald was not involved in the actual assassination as a sniper (whether alone or with others)? Or that claim merely an "opinion" or an alternate "interpretation" of the evidence, much as, for example, historians debated whether Hitler was a deranged lunatic or an encapsulation of the average German writ large, aiming to right some historical wrongs and not aiming to take over the world (or, at least, Europe) until events led him down that road (a historiographical debate in the 1960s)? Canada Jack (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, this is the kind of insightful discussion I'd hoped we have before we mostly started calling each other names. Hopefully now we're in a what soccer players would call a "friendly." I'd like to address all these questions, I plan to do so at a relaxed pace.

Question #1. Oswald. The case against Oswald is very strong:

I. A whole lot of evidence points straight to him.

II. It's established beyond a reasonable doubt Oswald was prepared to kill - I'm satisfied he killed Tippitt.

III. There is no other suspect.

IV. The idea that someone else could have committed the crime and gotten away is pretty remote.

---

Would I convict Oswald in a court of law? Only if at least some of the following was resolved. Until then, I have a reasonable doubt.

I. Oswald had no motive.

II. I see serious problems with Oswald's opportunity to commit the crime.

A. Oswald claimed to have spent his lunch hour where he normally would - in the lunch and snack rooms, where he was seen just over one minute after the crime. Witness testimony sort of, possibly, independently corroborates Oswald's claim to have been downstairs between 12 and 12:30. It's not clear. If Oswald was downstairs at that time, there's no case against him.

B. How did Oswald think this was going to work? The President was supposed to pass at 12:00. Oswald would have no expectation of being alone on the upper floors at that time. There were two versions of the mortorcade route published, one of which showed it not passing the SBD. He did not, according to one witness, attempt to immediately leave the building after his release by Truly, but strolled around drinking Coca Cola. When he did leave, he clearly had no working plan to get away.

C. Oswald was working until 11:50. Between 12 and 12:15-20, another employee was eating lunch on the 6th floor. He even left his lunch sack on, or very close to, the sniper's nest. No explanation has ever been offered as to when Oswald was supposed to have built the sniper's nest and assembled the rifle.

D. Witnesses statements were that persons other than Oswald were seen through the 6th floor windows.

E. You know from other discussions that I'm of the opinion that Oswald could not have gotten to the second floor in under 90 seconds and would have been seen descending the stairs if he had been there.

Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

section break 3: a bloated mess

Demonstrating again what a bloated mess this article has become, I have for a second time spent a fair amount of time expanding and citing John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Bernard Weissman. The article now devotes 10 sentences (and I could write more) related to one allegation that stems from a lush who wanted some attention... and Mark Lane decided he would give it to him and take some for himself, as well. Ad Orientem, is this how you want the article to be counterbalanced per your OP? If so, we might as well replace the entire article with "Please read Reclaiming History" because I don't have the time to give this the Bugliosi treatment and no one else seems to be lifting a finger. Location (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor who added the RS and fringe tags has not edited or participated in TALK regarding the changes he demanded. That's not how the game is played. Unless someone is going to outline why the article still violates RS and Fringe, and makes it clear that they are going to make the necessary edits, I'm going to remove the tags.

Location, I believe you suggested spinning off some of the bloat into separate articles. What about New Orleans conspiracy, possibly LBJ or Mafia? How about 'wintness deaths'? Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies but I have been busy in the real world dealing with a major health crisis in the family. For now my editing is going to be very limited. As soon as I have a little time I intend to do some heavy editing. With respect to tags, if there is consensus that the problems have been resolved then by all means remove them. But I don't think that my absence or lack thereof from this article should be a factor in that decision. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking forward to reading the updates. Thanks and good luck. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am in favor of some spin-offs to reduce the bulk here and make the sub-topics more manageable, however, I think we would need some consensus to ensure that a particular spin-off is not viewed as a WP:POVFORK that ends up in an Afd discussion. You have some good ideas. Of the four mentioned, the topic of "mysterious deaths" would probably be the easiest to handle. Questions: How would the article be titled? Would be provide the material as a list with some discussion of each, or in paragraphs of prose? How would we decide what names would be mentioned? Would mention of a name only in a conspiracy source be sufficient, or would we require mention in a neutral or non-conspiracy source, too? - Location (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good questions. The Three tramps spin-off as a possible model? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I just found this discussion, and plan on making some of the edits that Ad Orientem proposed, because I think they're worth implementing. I'll be WP:Bold, but measured and incremental. If anyone wants to yell at me, do it here! Thanks--Shibbolethink 17:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is PERFECT, exactly provides what I wanted to know AND MORE. To say this article is a "bloated mess" is a very weird point of view... this article is about a major historical presidential assassination! It's easy enough to read and has plenty of cited sources. Please keep this article. Better yet, aim for the same level of depth and quality in all articles from now on. 92.40.250.78 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Medical evidence

I am removing the following paragraph:

Robert McClelland, one of the Parkland Hospital doctors who attended to Kennedy, testified to the Warren Commission that the back right part of Kennedy's head was blown out, with posterior cerebral tissue and some cerebellar tissue missing. McClelland later said: "My supposition, and that of a lot of people, is that the first shot probably was fired from the sixth floor of the ... whether by Oswald or someone else, I don't know. The next shot apparently came from behind the picket fence by the grassy knoll — all kinds of things indicate that is indeed what happened."

The first source, McClelland's WC testimony, is primary source material and we cannot provide original analysis of it to make a case for conspiracy. We need a reliable secondary source stating that someone makes a case for conspiracy based on his testimony. The second source is a sketch McClelland made after his WC testimony, therefore, it does not support the the sentence anyway. The third sentence is about McClelland's general views on conspiracy and doesn't touch on what this section is about (i.e. conspiracy allegations involving the medical evidence). McClelland's assertion that "all kinds of things" point to a grassy knoll shooter is not a discussion about the section's topic. - Location (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Two sets of tramps arrested

An IP account was reverted twice for posting the following, which I believe to be true but maybe should be rephrased and referenced better:

There were two sets of three tramps picked up that day. The first were picked up right after the event at 12:30 as shown in the Forester arrest document Also The other police reports back this up such as arrest record of Abrams The second set of tramps were picked up at 2PM This apparent from the time that elapsed in the Elkins Deposition between the event and when the tramps were picked up.

I carefully read the whole website and also believe the author is a reliable source.

1. DPD document reprinted on http://theoswaldcode.com/trp5.jpg
2. http://theoswaldcode/trp6.jpg
3. Warren Commission document reprinted on http://theoswaldcode.com/trp9.jpg
4. http://theoswaldcode.com/trp8.jpg

Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether there were two sets of tramps or a thousand sets of tramps arrested that day is completely irrelevant to the standard "tramp" claims. The standard conspiracy claims focus on the identity of the three who were photographed, not on how many tramps were in the area (as opposed to, say, how many snipers were in the area).

The thrust of the webpage seems to be to sell a book in regards to an elaboration of this multiple-groups-of tramps claim. Frankly, I fail to see the importance of this, even if it is true. And the other claims of Oswald "hiding" the names of CIA people in his address book are bizarre and far-fetched, IMHO. So, if you were hoping to separately include these claims, as they are not as far as I know well-known or oft-cited, I'd say they don't warrant inclusion as we'd be giving undue weight to fringe theories.

Tell us, Raquel, what connection do you have, if any, to Mr. Weberman? Canada Jack (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No relationship. I would redo the ref-links to the book (I just ordered it on Amazon, I would not link to the website) and to the document, i.e., some of the documents are Warren Commission Exhibits. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell us, Canada Jack, what connection do you have, if any, to John C. McAdams? BrandonTR (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

None, Brandon. It's clear you have no connection to any conspiracy theorist we should take seriously, so I'll not bother to ask you the same irrelevant question. Canada Jack (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Jack has summarized the situation pretty well. This is the kind of thing the Other Published Theories section if for: ideas from a published, reliable ("reliable" being used very loosely here) source, but basically suggested by that source only. One two sentences should cover it.Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Raquel - why is the second set of tramps relevant? If you want to add this to the section, you need to specify why this has any bearing on the issue. I fail to see how it is relevant. The issue is who were those three tramps photographed, not whether there were other tramps in the vicinity. Canada Jack (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

On removal of information contained in FBI report

User Location has removed the following text that has been included in the article for many months:

According to W. Marvin Watson of Lyndon Johnson's White House staff, Johnson told the FBI "...that he was now convinced there was a plot in connection with the assassination. Watson stated the President felt the CIA had something to do with this plot." Assistant Director of the FBI Cartha DeLoach testified to the Church Committee that he believed this allegation regarding CIA involvement was "sheer speculation".

User Location's justification for removing this text is that "We don't know what Watson actually said." However this is not a legitimate justification for removing said test as Misplaced Pages policy states as follows:

Editors are not truth finders

• WP:!TRUTHFINDERS

Misplaced Pages doesn't reproduce verbatim text from other sources. Rather, it summarizes content that some editor(s) believes belongs in the Misplaced Pages in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources. This process involves editors who are not making claims that they have found truth, but that they have found someone else who is making claims that they have found truth. Since there may be more than one set of facts or explanations for the facts in the article, there's a guideline for that where multiple points of view (the Misplaced Pages's term for versions of truth) are included.

Misplaced Pages editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Misplaced Pages.

BrandonTR (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

1) If you check the edit history, you find that the material as worded above has not been in the article for many months.

2) As above, you have not summarized nor have you attributed the relevant material accurately. Watson never said that Johnson told the FBI that he was convinced there was a plot in connection with the assassination. This is factually incorrect, therefore, I am reverting it again.

3) An accurate summary with appropriate attribution already appears in the main article related to conspiracy theories involving the CIA. See CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory#Proponents and believers. It's one thing to clutter that article with trivial assertions based on hearsay (or double hearsay in this case) that are tangential to the topic, but you would think that this article - as the parent of the sub-article - would outline the most germane points regarding the CIA conspiracy allegations. Please make your case as to why this material should be retained here instead of in the appropriate sub-article. - Location (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeaaaaah. This is the only reliable source I can find that shows anything about the Lyndon-Watson claim. Is it reliable enough for this paragraph? Unsure.--Shibbolethink 06:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It is essentially the same report that appeared a month earlier in The Washington Post. - Location (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

References

1. DeLoach to Watson, FBI document 44-24696, April 4, 1967.
2. Marrs 1989, p. 298. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMarrs1989 (help)
3. The Washington Post, December 13, 1977.
4. Testimony of Courtney Evans and Cartha DeLoach, Church Committee Reports, vol. 6, Federal Bureau of Investigation, p. 182.

Wow, this article hasn't had an edit war like this in a long time. This one is also a little unusual -- typically when both parties are very well-read in the facts and theories underlying the debate, as I know they are in this case, we don't get edit warring. Who can summarize what the point or points of contention are? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the passage in CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory#Proponents and believers discusses the material more accurately and in fuller context than what BrandonTR has tried to insert here. (For example, he cites a non-existent document "DeLoach to Watson, FBI document 44-24696, April 4, 1967.") Conspiracy believers tend to think that a memo to Tolson in which DeLoach SAID Watson SAID Johnson SAID something implicates the CIA in a conspiracy. Given that we have already farmed out a discussion of CIA conspiracy-related material to the sub-article, is this material - as double hearsay - even significant enough to include here? - Location (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Solidly argued. Brandon, why should the text in question be included? Also, I love disputes where the existence of evidence is in question. Brandon, what more can you tell us about this document? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Joegoodfriend: Despite having added it to the article in 2012, my belief is that he cannot tell you anything more about the document because he has not actually seen it. Do you have an opinion as to whether the material should stay since it is already in the appropriate sub-article? I am happy to open an Rfc to solicit more opinions. - Location (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I’m coming down against inclusion. Here is my reasoning.

Misplaced Pages articles are not made better by the inclusion of unverifiable claims, based on hearsay-style remarks. Let me take an example.

Some people will cheerfully tell you that Frank Marshall Davis was a “card-carrying communist.” Consensus of the editing community has kept the charges against Davis out of his Misplaced Pages article, despite the fact that the FBI claims they were given the information by communist informants.

But what does the FBI file on Davis actually say? Case in point: the charge Davis was involved in underground communist activities is backed by the following report:

"On 10/6/53, (name redacted), former CP member, advised that in September of 1950, he was told by (name redacted) that the CP in Hawaii was going underground and reorganize into “groups of threes.” (Name redacted) was to contact man for four groups which included group #10 with Marshall Davis as the Chairman."

I agree that in an article about a controversial and contentious subject, the unverifiable claims of one source regarding something they allegedly heard from some other source are not strong enough material for an encyclopedia article. Even when those claims find their way into an FBI file. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the text, you'll see that multiple sources are given for the FBI memo, including the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune. Don't be baffled just because you cannot find this particular FBI memo on the internet. BrandonTR (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The newspaper references do not cite the memorandum that you placed in the article (i.e. "DeLoach to Watson, FBI document 44-24696, April 4, 1967."). Can you clarify where you read it prior to placing a citation for it in the article? - Location (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A reference to this document appears in Anthony Summers' book on J. Edgar Hoover. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Finally. Summers botched the file number, then you botched the recipient. In other words, you cited the primary source without reading it. By the way, there are at least two scans of the full memorandum to be found if you look hard enough. - Location (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• C-Class history articles
• Mid-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Texas articles
• Low-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• C-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles