Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:07, 2 April 2013 editBrandonTR (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,540 edits →Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:09, 2 April 2013 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk \| contribs)234,552 editsm Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 60d) to Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 3.Next edit →
Line 25:		Line 25:
	\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes		\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}		}}

	== 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

	Binksternet has finally admitted the WC is the great wrong. While it is clearly outside Wikis scope to right this, it is within its scope to document it. Childish insults and religious conviction are great substitutes for careful consideration and acknowledgement of the obvious- the WC was inspired and performed to convince the public of Oswald's guilt, not find out what happened. The inclusion of Dulles at very least has the conspicuous appearance of taint. WC apologists also believe in such things as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the Iraqi terrorists, which I wish was as harmless as believing in bigfoot and the moon landings being faked. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	A scope on a rifle does not indicate that the rifle was used at all, or that any shooter used either sites. The police have a test to determine that, which to my knowledge was not performed on this rifle. A poorly aligned scope does indicate that that rifle would be poor choice to achieve rapid fire hits on a moving target at distance, along with its inherent inaccuracy and poor general condition. But lets face it, it is Canada Jack who is full of the certainty as to what happened, inferred from the mostly contradictory or controversial data. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Milteer and Finck material ==

	I see problems with regarding Joseph Milteer and Pierre Finck. The part about Milteer's statements (secretly recorded by a Miami police informant) is taken straight from a ] of a kind that is generally not acceptable here as a ]. 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. — ]] <small>''(no relation to Jimbo)''</small> 23:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	:The John McAdams site is a self-published source, yet some of the editors here don't seem to have a problem deeming it as being a reliable source. ] (]) 18:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
	::I agree. I think we can take a look at what is attributed to his website and try to find alternative sourcing, particularly for what may be considered contentious claims by those on one side of the aisle. ] (]) 21:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

	Note, too, that ''"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"'' (see ]). 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). — ]] <small>''(no relation to Jimbo)''</small> 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 ]'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."<ref>, p. 233.</ref>''
	: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". ] (]) 07:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

	:::I don't have anything to add here except to affirm that cherry-picked bits of primary source text should not appear in the article. The only primary source material that might be allowed would be very brief bits of very widely commented-upon portions of the body of evidence. ] (]) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Citations ==

	I have reverted BrandonTR's removal of citation information (). The assertion that is an advertisement and/or promotional is unfounded. Please discuss. ] (]) 21:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
	:BTR: Per the edit summary, I've trimmed the chapter names within the various Select Committee citations. ] (]) 22:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Site should be titled JFK assassination ==		== Site should be titled JFK assassination ==
Line 99:		Line 48:
	{{hab}}		{{hab}}

	==Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers==		== Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers ==

	We shouldn't be cherry-picking lengthy quotes to put in the article, so I re-wrote the bit about what Tip O'Neill (w/ ghost-writer William Novak) claimed Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers said regarding the direction of the shots.() The implication here is that alleged perjury on their part somehow points to a conspiracy either by the placement of a grassy knoll gunman or that they were forced to alter their testimony. Unfortunately, leaving this as an implication makes this OR so we need sources explicitly stating how this points to a conspiracy. The O'Neill book alone is not sufficient because he did not say he thought their alleged contradictory statements were evidence of a conspiracy. ] (]) 03:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)		We shouldn't be cherry-picking lengthy quotes to put in the article, so I re-wrote the bit about what Tip O'Neill (w/ ghost-writer William Novak) claimed Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers said regarding the direction of the shots.() The implication here is that alleged perjury on their part somehow points to a conspiracy either by the placement of a grassy knoll gunman or that they were forced to alter their testimony. Unfortunately, leaving this as an implication makes this OR so we need sources explicitly stating how this points to a conspiracy. The O'Neill book alone is not sufficient because he did not say he thought their alleged contradictory statements were evidence of a conspiracy. ] (]) 03:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Line 106:		Line 56:
	::This material absolutely belongs in the article. Make your case that it doesn't. ] (]) 02:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)		::This material absolutely belongs in the article. Make your case that it doesn't. ] (]) 02:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

	==Hearsay regarding RFK's thoughts on the Warren Commission==		== Hearsay regarding RFK's thoughts on the Warren Commission ==

	I have removed the following from the "Possible evidence of a cover-up" section again:		I have removed the following from the "Possible evidence of a cover-up" section again:
	:''In a 2013 interview with CBS journalist Charlie Rose, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said that his father Robert F. Kennedy "...publicly supported the Warren Commission report but privately he was dismissive of it." He said that his father was "...'fairly convinced' that others were involved."''		:''In a 2013 interview with CBS journalist Charlie Rose, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said that his father Robert F. Kennedy "...publicly supported the Warren Commission report but privately he was dismissive of it." He said that his father was "...'fairly convinced' that others were involved."''

Revision as of 02:09, 2 April 2013

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.

Article policies

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

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

	Politics portal 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

	History portal 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

	United States portal 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.
	Texas portal 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 article was nominated for deletion on December 16, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

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.

Article policies

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.

Site should be titled JFK assassination

No article improvement discussion, hatting. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This site far more evenly and impartially narrates the story of the assassination than does the site titled JFK assassination. With a few changes and additions to scope including the Warren Commission findings, this article would better serve as THE article about the event than the biased article "JFK assassination" which purports the Warren Commission to be a reliable source for the historical narrative. The broad consensus of public, scholarly and expert opinion, investigations and witness testimony support at least 2 shooters and therefore a conspiracy. While the main article gives these a nod, it infers they are "theories" while the WC narrates the actual events. This is scandalous min its conflation of "official" with actual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I agree. Unfortunately, you have a majority group of editors who are wedded to the Warren Commission version of history and look with disdain on anyone who does not toe the line. Moreover, because this is a complicated topic, making appeals against this group of true believers is mostly futile. It seems that other editors either don't want to get involved, or don't have the expertise to render an opinion. But, for now, that is the way it is. At least with Misplaced Pages, dissenting theories get a fairer shake then they could ever get with such outfits as ABC News. BrandonTR (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Is there specific text here or elsewhere you would like to address? Location (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC) I've previously addressed many areas regarding the Oswald article and the JFK assassination article. Unfortunately, there is an editor there, Canada Jack, who has a lock on these articles. He also has what might be called his "groupie" editors who go along with any position he takes no matter how ridiculous. The history of it is all there, but it would likely be a waste of anyone's time who cared to look it up. BrandonTR (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Sure, Brandon. I've hypnotized a pile of editors into believing I am right, while you, God's Lonely Man, stands alone valiantly trying to insert "truth" on the other page. Has the possibility ever entered your mind that, hey, maybe I should follow what wikipedia does and not simply insert arguments which you feel are correct onto a contentious page willy-nilly? Which is exactly what me and others have been saying all along? It's not as if there is no mention of conspiracy on the page, the problem is it is the page on the ASSASSINATION, and what the investigations concluded. There is an entire section devoted to "conspiracy" there, as well as numerous indications that at least one investigation concluded that, which is also in the lede, as is the "conspiracy" belief of a vast majority of people. If one wants to look at an example of how little Brandon thinks before he starts messing with texts or getting things to say what HE wants it to say instead of the actual sources, I point to the top of the page and how he treated the "iron sights" debate. He was clearly wrong, but took it as some sort of "conspiracy" to insert pro-WC stuff. And we now have a mess of a page here, even though I have offered to do the job Brandon clearly can't do - make the coherent case for "conspiracy." Instead we see a "throw the shit against the wall and sees what sticks" approach here. Indeed, if I was one of the paranoid conspiracy types (the ones who accuse me of being Bugliosi or some CIA plant), I'd deeply suspect that the "conspiracy" is at play here, making this page a mess to make the entire "conspiracy" topic look silly and not worthy of serious consideration. So, come clean Brandon - are you a CIA plant to make the CT crowd look bad? Canada Jack (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC) The reason for the iron sights confusion was that the unusual configuration of a side-mounted scope was never brought into the discussion. You're the only one who seems to think that this page is a mess. However, your Oswald article and your JFK assassination article have come in for much criticism -- not just from me. As I recall, your last big project was supposed to be making a case for the Warren Commission's conclusions. What ever happened to that noble project? BrandonTR (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC) The only "confusion" on the iron sights was your own. And then applying you misunderstanding of the issue to the article and your obstruction and obstinacy when I pointed out your error. It was a simple but telling point. For even if you were correct about the inability to use the iron sights without taking off the scope, you STILL were wrong to suggest the HSCA "concluded" he used the scope as they never did. Of course, you were wrong on both points, another reason why your contributions need extra scrutiny. As for "my" JFK article, the only section I had any substantial input was... the conspiracy section. I wrote almost none of the rest. Ditto for the Oswald page. You're the only one who seems to think that this page is a mess. Anything you say, Brandon. Seriously - are you some sort of CIA mole, deliberately gumming up this page into the incoherent mess it is? For example... when discussing the myriad conspiracy/cover-ups etc, has it ever occurred to you that you might actually begin at Deally Plaza - where, after all, the actual assassination took place - instead of with critiques of the investigation? And then accounts of witness intimidation? I mean, is the main "conspiracy" that the casual reader might be interested in the cover-up... or the assassination itself? Just saying. Canada Jack (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Regarding the rifle, you weren't even aware that it had a side-mounted scope. Regarding conspiracy, you might want to consult your favorite historian, Robert Caro, who as you know wrote a long biography on Lyndon Johnson. I'm not sure whether Caro included in his book Johnson's conspiracy theory that Castro was behind the JFK assassination, or Johnson's other theory that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination, but responsible editors like myself had to include Johnson's conspiracy theories in this article because they are historically documented. BrandonTR (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC) There you go again, Brandon. I told YOU that it was a side-mounted scope. YOU were the one claiming otherwise. To refresh your memory: Boy, how many screw-ups can we count on one page with Brandon? "A scope mounted on a rifle, de facto, means that the shooter's only option for aiming is to use the scope." Uh, no, Brandon. If the scope was mounted on this particular rifle in the way you describe, the bolt could not be operated.(!) Which is why the scope was mounted slightly off-centre to the left so as to allow the bolt to be operated. Accordingly, the iron sights could be used even with the scope in place. For example, the FBI's Robert Frazier tested the rifle with the scope AND with the iron sights - without removing the scope. As for your irrelevant aside about LBJ, no one disputes that he was pretty sure that there was a conspiracy. This has been known for, what? 40 years? I think a better question for the non-credulous crowd (which excludes most conspiracy believers) is if there WAS a conspiracy, why didn't LBJ have some concrete information on that as he surely would through his numerous government links? Or RFK? Who was in a better position to have information in that regard, arguably? Instead, the two men stated their opinion that others may have been behind it, with no evidence that was in fact so. Of course, to the CT crowd, having prominent believers in "conspiracy" is "evidence" of conspiracy, a logical fallacy. It's evidence of a belief, nothing else. Canada Jack (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC) There you go again, Jack. Your description of the scope being "off-centre" implies that there was something wrong with the scope which was not the case. The correct terminology is, "side-mounted scope." Regarding conspiracy, it's OK for you to attack and ridicule the messenger, but you should attack and ridicule the real messenger. The real messenger, in this case, was conspiracy theorist, President Lyndon Johnson. BrandonTR (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No article improvement discussion, hatting. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This site far more evenly and impartially narrates the story of the assassination than does the site titled JFK assassination. With a few changes and additions to scope including the Warren Commission findings, this article would better serve as THE article about the event than the biased article "JFK assassination" which purports the Warren Commission to be a reliable source for the historical narrative. The broad consensus of public, scholarly and expert opinion, investigations and witness testimony support at least 2 shooters and therefore a conspiracy. While the main article gives these a nod, it infers they are "theories" while the WC narrates the actual events. This is scandalous min its conflation of "official" with actual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, you have a majority group of editors who are wedded to the Warren Commission version of history and look with disdain on anyone who does not toe the line. Moreover, because this is a complicated topic, making appeals against this group of true believers is mostly futile. It seems that other editors either don't want to get involved, or don't have the expertise to render an opinion. But, for now, that is the way it is. At least with Misplaced Pages, dissenting theories get a fairer shake then they could ever get with such outfits as ABC News. BrandonTR (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there specific text here or elsewhere you would like to address? Location (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've previously addressed many areas regarding the Oswald article and the JFK assassination article. Unfortunately, there is an editor there, Canada Jack, who has a lock on these articles. He also has what might be called his "groupie" editors who go along with any position he takes no matter how ridiculous. The history of it is all there, but it would likely be a waste of anyone's time who cared to look it up. BrandonTR (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, Brandon. I've hypnotized a pile of editors into believing I am right, while you, God's Lonely Man, stands alone valiantly trying to insert "truth" on the other page. Has the possibility ever entered your mind that, hey, maybe I should follow what wikipedia does and not simply insert arguments which you feel are correct onto a contentious page willy-nilly? Which is exactly what me and others have been saying all along? It's not as if there is no mention of conspiracy on the page, the problem is it is the page on the ASSASSINATION, and what the investigations concluded. There is an entire section devoted to "conspiracy" there, as well as numerous indications that at least one investigation concluded that, which is also in the lede, as is the "conspiracy" belief of a vast majority of people. If one wants to look at an example of how little Brandon thinks before he starts messing with texts or getting things to say what HE wants it to say instead of the actual sources, I point to the top of the page and how he treated the "iron sights" debate. He was clearly wrong, but took it as some sort of "conspiracy" to insert pro-WC stuff. And we now have a mess of a page here, even though I have offered to do the job Brandon clearly can't do - make the coherent case for "conspiracy." Instead we see a "throw the shit against the wall and sees what sticks" approach here.

Indeed, if I was one of the paranoid conspiracy types (the ones who accuse me of being Bugliosi or some CIA plant), I'd deeply suspect that the "conspiracy" is at play here, making this page a mess to make the entire "conspiracy" topic look silly and not worthy of serious consideration. So, come clean Brandon - are you a CIA plant to make the CT crowd look bad? Canada Jack (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the iron sights confusion was that the unusual configuration of a side-mounted scope was never brought into the discussion. You're the only one who seems to think that this page is a mess. However, your Oswald article and your JFK assassination article have come in for much criticism -- not just from me. As I recall, your last big project was supposed to be making a case for the Warren Commission's conclusions. What ever happened to that noble project? BrandonTR (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The only "confusion" on the iron sights was your own. And then applying you misunderstanding of the issue to the article and your obstruction and obstinacy when I pointed out your error. It was a simple but telling point. For even if you were correct about the inability to use the iron sights without taking off the scope, you STILL were wrong to suggest the HSCA "concluded" he used the scope as they never did. Of course, you were wrong on both points, another reason why your contributions need extra scrutiny.

As for "my" JFK article, the only section I had any substantial input was... the conspiracy section. I wrote almost none of the rest. Ditto for the Oswald page. You're the only one who seems to think that this page is a mess. Anything you say, Brandon. Seriously - are you some sort of CIA mole, deliberately gumming up this page into the incoherent mess it is? For example... when discussing the myriad conspiracy/cover-ups etc, has it ever occurred to you that you might actually begin at Deally Plaza - where, after all, the actual assassination took place - instead of with critiques of the investigation? And then accounts of witness intimidation? I mean, is the main "conspiracy" that the casual reader might be interested in the cover-up... or the assassination itself? Just saying. Canada Jack (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the rifle, you weren't even aware that it had a side-mounted scope. Regarding conspiracy, you might want to consult your favorite historian, Robert Caro, who as you know wrote a long biography on Lyndon Johnson. I'm not sure whether Caro included in his book Johnson's conspiracy theory that Castro was behind the JFK assassination, or Johnson's other theory that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination, but responsible editors like myself had to include Johnson's conspiracy theories in this article because they are historically documented. BrandonTR (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, Brandon. I told YOU that it was a side-mounted scope. YOU were the one claiming otherwise. To refresh your memory: Boy, how many screw-ups can we count on one page with Brandon? "A scope mounted on a rifle, de facto, means that the shooter's only option for aiming is to use the scope." Uh, no, Brandon. If the scope was mounted on this particular rifle in the way you describe, the bolt could not be operated.(!) Which is why the scope was mounted slightly off-centre to the left so as to allow the bolt to be operated. Accordingly, the iron sights could be used even with the scope in place. For example, the FBI's Robert Frazier tested the rifle with the scope AND with the iron sights - without removing the scope.

As for your irrelevant aside about LBJ, no one disputes that he was pretty sure that there was a conspiracy. This has been known for, what? 40 years? I think a better question for the non-credulous crowd (which excludes most conspiracy believers) is if there WAS a conspiracy, why didn't LBJ have some concrete information on that as he surely would through his numerous government links? Or RFK? Who was in a better position to have information in that regard, arguably? Instead, the two men stated their opinion that others may have been behind it, with no evidence that was in fact so. Of course, to the CT crowd, having prominent believers in "conspiracy" is "evidence" of conspiracy, a logical fallacy. It's evidence of a belief, nothing else. Canada Jack (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, Jack. Your description of the scope being "off-centre" implies that there was something wrong with the scope which was not the case. The correct terminology is, "side-mounted scope." Regarding conspiracy, it's OK for you to attack and ridicule the messenger, but you should attack and ridicule the real messenger. The real messenger, in this case, was conspiracy theorist, President Lyndon Johnson. BrandonTR (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers

We shouldn't be cherry-picking lengthy quotes to put in the article, so I re-wrote the bit about what Tip O'Neill (w/ ghost-writer William Novak) claimed Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers said regarding the direction of the shots.(diff) The implication here is that alleged perjury on their part somehow points to a conspiracy either by the placement of a grassy knoll gunman or that they were forced to alter their testimony. Unfortunately, leaving this as an implication makes this OR so we need sources explicitly stating how this points to a conspiracy. The O'Neill book alone is not sufficient because he did not say he thought their alleged contradictory statements were evidence of a conspiracy. Location (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

We've already dealt with this some years ago, and this material still doesn't belong in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This material absolutely belongs in the article. Make your case that it doesn't. BrandonTR (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hearsay regarding RFK's thoughts on the Warren Commission

I have removed the following from the "Possible evidence of a cover-up" section again:

In a 2013 interview with CBS journalist Charlie Rose, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said that his father Robert F. Kennedy "...publicly supported the Warren Commission report but privately he was dismissive of it." He said that his father was "...'fairly convinced' that others were involved."

Even if RFK believed it was shoddy work, we cannot imply something that the source doesn't state (i.e. that RFK believed there was a cover-up). Location (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

BrandonTR, the section you are attempting to edit is entitled "Possible evidence of a cover-up", but the material you are attempting to insert into the article only states that RFK, Jr. says that RFK believed there was a conspiracy. The AP report says: "He said his father, later elected U.S. senator in New York, was 'fairly convinced' that others were involved." The full statement was: "I think my father was fairly convinced at the end of that that there had been involvement by somebody..."

Ignoring for a moment that this is only hearsay, it is possible for a person to believe that there was a conspiracy and that the Warren Commission did a poor job, but not believe that there was a cover-up. The material might be be acceptable in a section entitled "People who believed there was a conspiracy"—or more accurately "People who are alleged to have believed there was a conspiracy"—but there is nothing in the material that says RFK had evidence of a cover-up or even thought there was a cover-up. Location (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually that's not the full statement, but nice try. The full statement is as follows:

KENNEDY: I think my father was fairly convinced at the end of that that there had been involvement by somebody …

ROSE: Organized crime, Cubans …

KENNEDY: Or rogue CIA … BrandonTR (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, your objection has changed. Your original objection was that there was no allegation of conspiracy. Now your objection is that this material does not belong in the section under coverup. Very well. I have moved this material (or I should say some of it) to the section "Role of Oswald." BrandonTR (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A Gentle Reminder

This is a topic which tends to lead to heated disagreements. I would remind everyone involved that the best way to deal with these disagreements is found at WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Following the advice on those two pages not only makes things go much more smoothly, it maximizes the chances of getting your way in the end. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories: