Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Conspiracy theory section greatly expanded

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

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

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

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

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

Shouldn't Lyndon Johnson, when listed as a possible conspirator, be described as Vice-President, since that would have been his position at the time of any involvement in any conspiracy to have JFK assassinated? 203.9.151.254 (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I described him as "president" as per the convention where an individual is given his highest honourific, just as we routinely call Jimmy Carter "president" Carter even though he's not been that for 32 years. That's my rationale, any other thoughts on this question? Should we instead refer to him, as 203 suggests, by his title when he presumably plotted? Canada Jack (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Gov. & Mrs. Connally also seated LOWER than President & Mrs. Kennedy?

In the Others wounded" section, it currently states tbat Governor Connally was seated 3 inches further left than President Kennedy. Were the Connallys in what we call "jump seats", LOWER than where the Kennedys were seated? Wasn't this also pointed out in some critique of the "JFK" movie (which erroneously placed Gov. Connally directly in front of President Kennedy)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

According to several sources, the rear seats could be raised ten inches or so.[1] Here is a good photo of the difference in height. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and when seen from the side, Connally is clearly a lot lower and inboard. see here. SBHarris 00:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That "seen from the side" photo doesn't show the SEATS. Anyway, it should be edited into this Wikipedia article that Gov. Connally was seated in front AND 3 inches to left AND lower w/r to President Kennedy. (So Mrs. Connally would be in front AND 3 inches to **right** AND lower w/r to Mrs. Kennedy?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Warren Commission inappropriate as historical source

There was only ever one official criminal investigations into the Kennedy assassination, that of Jim Garrison. The Warren Commissions purpose was set out before it was ever formed- to frame the lone nut in public perception. Johnson and Hoover are frank about this when forming the Commission. Any "investigation" which is given its consl;usion prior to the investigation is null and void on the face of it. Garrison's record prior to his investigation of the assassination was a conservative professional who had never failed to convict those he indicted. The attempts to discredit and marginalize him by the government largely failed as Garrison was an exceptionally law abiding individual with a strong moral compass. Any article about JFK's assassination should outline HIS findings, not the Warren Commission's, which has been so widely discredited, was never a criminal investigation, was appointed and led by some of the suspects in the murder, and formed with the now proven (by Johnson's phone recordings with Hoover) intention to convince the public of Oswald's guilt. Outlining the findings of the Warren Comnmision tells us nothing (except by inference and ommission) about the Kennedy assassination, and a large consensus of the public knows it. I am shocked to find this article accepted on Wiki, it discredits the entire site.Inteluck (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. As a useful next step, please look at our sourcing policy. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So, you'd like references to the Warren Commission removed from an article concerning Kennedy's assassination? Would you also like to see the HCSA expunged? Anything else you want cut that would interfere with promoting Garrison's theories? Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

sorry for lack of sources. This is meant more as a broad perspective edit. I am reading the sources policy and will source the phone calls I reference, although I am sure most of you will know exactly what I am talking about. Of course the Warren commission has to be referenced, and should be included, along with the HCSA and everything else. The Warren Commission is less appropriate as the source of the historical narrative than the only criminal investigation into the matter. This does not mean it is not an huge part of the story, and I find your comment hard to take seriously, except as an indication of your passionate attachment to a particular viewpoint.Inteluck (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Whose "passionate attachment?" Thank you for your clarification, but your initial post proposed to essentially remove or disregard the Warren Commission report in favor of Garrison's investigation. You'll have to make a case that the Garrison investigation should be emphasized above all else by referring to a preponderance of material in mainstream accounts that prefers Garrison's material over other sources. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said to disregard or remove the Warren commission from the article. That would be ludicrous. I said it was inappropriate as the source of the historical narrative, which it clearly is, most people agree it is, and have for decades, the HSCA agrees, as do the preponderance of recent and or current published articles from reliable sources. In fact, every study and investigation since has refuted and criticized the Warren Commission, and line up more with Garrison than Dulles.If we go back far enough, the preponderance of articles from (unreliable) major media sources will support the Warren Commission and further yet, slavery. Almost all the witnesses, and ALL surviving witnesses, including Parkland doctors with impeccable professional records (like Garrison) line up with Garrison because Garrison formed his conclusions from interviewing them and investigating other aspects of the event. The Warren Commission started with a conclusion, then worked backwards from this. It is a matter of historical record, call the Parkland doctors and nurses who will gladly tell anyone who cares to ask, and agree to a man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on major media and scholarly sources, so you'll need to work within the consensus of those sources. However, those same sources don't uniformly endorse (and some harshly criticize) the Warren Commission. I suggest you re-read your first comment with a detached eye: it appeared to me to amount to a request to eliminate the Warren Commission from the discussion, which struck me as an extreme position. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought recent trumped preponderance in evolving or contentious articles. I am sorry if I left the impression I was angling for removal of the WC. This would be extreme and untenable. I merely objected to it serving as the source of the historical narrative, when it has been so thoroughly and completely discredited so widely and universally by all subsequent expert investigations, and is at diametric opposition to consensus opinion and the historical record and as it has emerged. Recent photographic analysis techniques have finally confirmed scientifically what the parkland doctors have been saying for so long- the official autopsy photos were altered. All sources I know of line up in the same way on this, and this is merely a microcosm of all other aspect of the WC position- it doesn't line up with the witnesses, the evidence, or any other professional analysis. Garrison is merely one of these, I would be equally happy to see ANY source other then the WC serve as the backbone of the article when it comes to the historical narrative. Having seen Garrison on Carson and elsewhere, he struck a chord of accuracy with me personally, but I realize this is personal perspective, and would not push for HIS perspective uniquely, altho it certainly lines up with the evidence, witnesses and preponderance of recent reputable sources better then the WC- no contest there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 03:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood: that clarifies things considerably. You're going to have to provide some sources for your assertions, and I'd be very cautious about a major alteration based on recent developments concerning a controversial event that happened almost 50 years ago. You'll need to make rather specific proposals and use good sourcing, and consensus will be required for major changes. Recent doesn't usually trump preponderance unless the new material is universally accepted as obvious fact. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost all the witnesses, and ALL surviving witnesses, including Parkland doctors with impeccable professional records (like Garrison) line up with Garrison because Garrison formed his conclusions from interviewing them and investigating other aspects of the event.

??? Not sure how many witness accounts you have been reading, but there were multiple Parkland witnesses who stated the head wound matched what the WC concluded, as well as numerous other witnesses who said the same. AND many Parkland witnesses who said "rear head exit wound," changed their minds upon seeing the autopsy photos when they realized, for example, they had mistook crenelated brain tissue for the cerebellum. Further, and most importantly, the pathologists testified to the head wounds. To claim Garrison was an "impeccable professional" is, in a word, ludicrous. Look, for example, at his treatment of Clay Shaw, a completely and utterly innocent individual against whom Garrison led a witch-hunt against, and whom he brought perjury charges against after his acquittal, an almost unheard-of example of judicial vindictiveness.

can you give me another example of his work which has been discredited before or after the JFK related stuff? I understand he went on to re-election and eventually was elevated to the bench. None of the interviews I have seen of him suggest to me he is unbalanced of insane. He was on Carson for nearly an hour, and refused to discuss anything to do with the Shaw case because the case was open before the courts. To me he had a firm grasp of his correct role in the judicial process. Many others felt the same way.

Recent photographic analysis techniques have finally confirmed scientifically what the parkland doctors have been saying for so long- the official autopsy photos were altered.

This is a rather incredible assertion. First, the photos and, more importantly, the negatives, are at the Archives and haven't been scientifically analyzed since the HSCA hearings. So what "recent photographic analysis techniques" could possibly be done? NONE. At least, not on the original images. As one photographic expert admitted at the HSCA upon seeing the analysis done on original negatives in regards to the backyard rifle shots, his conclusions on their authenticity were of little weight as he was analyzing mufti-generational copies. The HSCA determined no manipulation with the x-rays or autopsy photos and they were analyzing the actual original exposed mediums. And, again the "parkland doctors" are in fact split on the wounds. A good number of them say that the wounds match what the WC said.

In sum, Inteluck, you are not only mischaracterizing what many witnesses in fact said, you have risen one of American jurisprudence's most embarrassing frauds as some holy saint on this issue. Hell, even most of the conspiracy crowd disowned him over his kangaroo-court trial against Shaw. You have a rather large hill to climb here if you want to make Garrison's investigation the focal point of the page. Canada Jack (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If Garrisons case against Shaw was so seriously flawed why did the government bother monitoring it and refuse to co-operate with it? If the government was in possession of contrary/exculpatory evidence and supplied this to Garrison this would of ended the case. The intelligence agencies acted like intelligence agencies, they discredited him in the press, killed witnesses, bribed or attempted to bribe others, including Garrison. Irrespective this is all a distraction from the evidence, but does provide important context. The lack of other bullets is an important point you bring up, although I have seen photographs of an agent picking up a bullet, and putting it in his pocket, which was never entered into evidence. again inconclusive and conflicting evidence which can be taken either way- exactly the way the article needs to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If Garrisons case against Shaw was so seriously flawed why did the government bother monitoring it and refuse to co-operate with it? Hmmm. So a DA implicates the government and its agencies in a plot to kill the president? And it's somehow bizarre for the government to monitor the case? On which planet do you reside, inteluck? As for "distractions," the trial was a fraud not because of what "the government" did or didn't do, it was because Garrison was on a witchhunt against a completely innocent man. He based his case on dubious testimony from a hypnotized witness, had witnesses in Clinton change their stories to connect Oswald Ferrie and Shaw, and when Shaw was acquitted owing to the complete lack of evidence against him, what did Garrison do? He dragged him through the courts AGAIN on a perjury charge - saying that this man who was just acquitted nevertheless lied at trial. Charging a defendant who has just been ACQUITTED is almost unheard-of and is measure of Garrison's obsession and apparent disdain for a man who he seemed to think was "fair game" owing to his personal sexual preferences. And you are defending this guy? HE was the one who had a foregone conclusion from the start - there was a New Orleans-based conspiracy to kill JFK - and he didn't care whose lives he destroyed in the process. 40+ years, NOTHING has been shown to establish that Ferrie, Oswald and Shaw were connected other than what was already known - a photo has emerged of Oswald at one of Ferrie's air cadet meetings. Ferrie arguably died owing to the pressure brought upon him by Garrison's crazy investigation, and he deliberately and ruthlessly hunted down and ruined a man - Clay Shaw - who had NOTHING to do with any of this. And this guy is a hero? Canada Jack (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If he was a hero it was related to his actions in combat in WW2? He certainly stood by his convictions, and refused to comment about Shaw while the case was open, . He also had never been any kind of radical or anti-government agenda prior to his investigation. I believe he reluctantly drew his conclusions as the evidence led him. Shaw's links to the CIA are well known now. What you don't state is that Garrison convicted Shaw of perjury. Why was Shaw lying? Garrison never implicated any government agency, in fact he expressly said that even the CIA as an organization was NOT implicated, nor was the FBI except in the context of their refusal to conduct a proper investigation. Of course its not bizarre they bugged his offices- it is exactly what you would expect from an intelligence agency evaluating a threat. It is just illegal, and again provides us with historical context in which to evaluate the agencies involved. Otherwise it proves little, except that somehow Garrison's suggestion that the American intelligence community had rogue elements involved in the illegal assassinations of heads of state which had been redirected at Kennedy was a threat. It is a matter of historical record, even on the CIA's webpage, that they engaged in illegal assassinations of foreign heads of state, and operated outside and even against executive oversight and direction. JFK had to have the FBI shut down training camps run by the CIA, as the CIA would not take direction from its commander-in-chief. It is on the record that these elements were in the business of insubordination if not treason. No proof here, just more historical context. Perhaps we should consult an actuary about the odds of a JFK's murder by a lone nut being followed by Oswald's murder by a nut acting alone, followed by dozens of other witnesses unexpected deaths, including Ferries- oh, and that Robert Kennedy being killed by- here it comes- a lone nut. Actually an actuary has done the calculation- 100 trillion to one- about the same odds of a bullet causing 6 major wounds and emerging virtually pristine. If you want to endorse the WC as a plausible story fine, but don't be surprised that you are NOT with consensus opinion. To try to present it as uncontested fact, while it would not lead me to question what planet you live on- I find this a distasteful tactic for those with intense conviction in place of coherent argument- I would question you sober impartiality. It seems you concur that his case was monitored by the FBI. Does this mean you recognize Garrisons claims that his office was illegally bugged? Ferrie and was seeking protection by Garrisons office when he died. For the record, movies depicting broadly the same themes as Stones JFK emerged as early as the early 1970's- Executive Action. Parallax View also suggested the same themes. I expected an (valid) arguement that the article is not based on the WC for its historical narrative, and provides balance with its reference to contesting theories. I could never of imagined that someone would actually argue that the WC IS a valid source for the historical narrative.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button oder located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic critical of use of Warren Commision as a source of historical record censored

I thought recent trumped preponderance in evolving or contentuous articles. I am sorry if I left the impression I was angling for removal of the WC. This would be extreme and untenable. I merely objected to it serving as the source of the historical narrative, when it has been so thoroughly and completely discredited so widely and universally by all subsequent expert investigations, and is at diametric opposition to consensus opinion and the historical record and as it has emerged. Recent photographic analysis techniques have finally confirmed scientifically what the parkland doctors have been saying for so long- the official autopsy photos were altered. All sources I know of line up in the same way on this, and this is merely a microcosm of all other aspect of the WC position- it doesn't line up with the witnesses, the evidence, or any other professional analysis. Garrison is merely one of these, I would be equally happy to see ANY source other then the WC serve as the backbone of the article when it comes to the historical narrative. Having seen Garrison on Carson and elsewhere, he struck a chord of accuracy with me personally, but I realize this is personal perspective, and would not push for HIS perspective uniquely, altho it certainly lines up with the evidence, witnesses and preponderance of recent reputable sources better then the WC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like advice as to how to go about this properly. I have read the sources page pointed out to me, but I need more specific advice. I would like to avoid edit wars, which I have already inspired. can I merely list the doctors names, or can I include links to interviews, or merely cite their books name? Of course universally accepted is an impossible criteria for recent revelations in a crime where the perpetrators and their children are still the power elite in America will be impossible. How about universally accepted by WITNESSES of professional repute? How about applying this standard to the article as it stands? I would argue the WC, not the Garrison version IS the contentious version of history, as cited in the article itself- 80% of Americans believe the WC version is a coverup. Can the fact that major media won't report this really make it not so- even on Wiki? Is it not fact that the article sites a 50 year old inquiry as its source of the historical record which flies in the face of every other expert and investigator since, which has accelerated in recent years? Are we not conflating "official" with accepted, consensus, scholarly, scientific and historical?

I concede the article cleverly addresses alternative veiws while untenably holding the WC to be a valid source. Edits would have to equally clever. Inteluck (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't been involved in an edit war that I know of: that's defined as a series of edits in which two or more editors repeatedly change each others' edits - see WP:EW for what they are and how to avoid them. We've had a frank, polite exchange of views, which is what we're supposed to do. Please be careful about drawing conclusions in Wikipedia's voice (better to work in terms of "so-and-so said" or "Mr. X claims"), See the policies on verifiability, reliable sourcing and biographies of living persons (for assertions about conduct of living or recently deceased individuals), as well as discussions of synthesis, undue weighting, original research, neutral point of view, Wikipedia's role as a tertiary source and avoidance of primary sourcing, and fringe theories (of which there are an abundance on this particular topic, which makes us wary). You need to avoid injecting your own opinions concerning the Warren Report (and everything else): you must stick to what reputable scholars on the subject have demonstrably stated, in due proportion to their emphasis in the literature on the subject. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

See [2] first for facts. Then consider that not only the autopsy photos must be altered but also the Z film and the autopsy docs must be in on it. And all the people in the trailing car who saw the same thing we see in the Z film, which is the right side of JFKs head blasted away above the ear.

FYI when Garrison died he went to Heaven and his first question for God you can guess. God then answered "Oswald acted alone." To which Garrison responded "Wow, the conspiracy goes WAY higher than I thought.. " SBHarris 05:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A I will read the suggested articles. Sorry if I offended with my edit war comment Acroterion. Wiki automessaged me that someone had deleted or altered my post. I do not know who it was, or if it was my own lack of proficiency with this medium. I appreciate your neutral, considered tone, and your helpful suggestions (as well as your correction of my occasional embarrassing "typo"). and certainly agree and support your wariness- I have seen enuf of the fringe theories about this topic- in which the WCR clearly fits. The single bullet theory alone, with its pristine bullet places the report firmly in this camp, which is why it is not a credible source for the historical narrative on this topic. In my opinion this is the accepted, consensus view, supported by the HSCA, and all but one recent mainstream media article by Peter Jennings, while a slew of reports have been aired supporting Garrisons work or slight variations thereof. the autopsy docs a Bethesda, while not "in on it" clearly performed a highly suspect autopsy IMHO, with the notes burned. That the doctor admitted to burning the notes from an autopsy of this importance alone is instructive as to the quality of this autopsy. That anyone seriously considering shooting a moving target at distance with multiple shots fired in quick succession would choose the rifle the WC claims to have killed the President is an insult to intelligence. I do not claim to know exactly who killed the President or why, but the WC claims are among the most outlandish of all theories. In my opinion Garrisons investigation makes less outlandish claims, and better corresponds with the scientific and factual evidence, and while he may have overstated the reach of the conspiracy, especially when implicating god almighty, as in the humorous comment from Sbharris, it is matter of historical record that several government agencies who had been previously supportive at very least refused to co-operate with his investigation, even if it was to provide contrary evidence to his tentative conclusions. To me, this suggests these agencies knew he was on the right track, as does the government feeling the need to bug his office and mount a media campaign to discredit him, as opposed to simply providing contrary evidence to discredit his theories. At very least the conduct of Hoover, the CIA and the Johnson administration would have appeared to Garrison highly suspect. Several points which Garrison made and the government hotly contested at the time have since been proven correct, such as the involvement of Clay Shaw with the CIA. As far as I know none of his conclusions have thus far been empirically proven false. As for tone I was unaware that the talk page had to follow all the rules of neutrality and clearly stating what is my opinion and what (I think) is fact. I concede I found the article so contentious I responded without adequate research to conform to the standards here and for this I apologize. I will arm myself withe articles cited by Acroterion before I attempt any discussion regarding edits. In the meantime I suggest this article be named Warren Commission theories on JFK Assassination. I would like to feel out whether there is consensus that multiple gunmen were involved in the Kennedy assassination (at least 2)? Does anyone feel the evidence supports the conclusion that one gunmen performed this assassination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.64.58 (talk • contribs)

Of course Oswald acted alone. His cheapo rifle is evidence *against* a conspiracy unless you think somebody else in Oswald's workplace was shooting at JFK with Oswald's old rifle. But bullet fragments from the front of the limo, no doubt from JFK's head, were matched to that weapon. The best recreation of the shooting so far finds the bullet went through the JFK manikin, took out two ribs of the Connolly doll, broke its wrist and bounced off its thigh. It was damaged a bit more than CE399 but close enough and the two ribs rather than one explains the difference. As for Clay Shaw and Trial of Clay Shaw, read the articles to see just how nutty Garrison was. SBHarris 18:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence for any other shooter but Oswald. No bullets from any other weapon, for example. Oswald, once you look at him, was nutty enough to carry out this lunatic plan all by himself. It wasn't difficult for him to buy a rifle, smuggle it in, wait for the shot and make it. His target was moving slowly at short range directly away from him and he had an excellent position. He had the skills needed. What he didn't have was the mental stability or self-control to get away with it. Nobody had a good word for him before or after the assassination. If there had been a conspiracy, the plotters would have had to have been out of their heads to choose Oswald as their shooter. It's been fifty years and nobody in what would have had to have been a massive conspiracy has broken their silence? No deathbed confessions, no betrayals, no states witnesses? Fifty years of long and detailed examination of a few bullets and we have nothing but suppositions and theories. Not one solid piece of evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Come on! We have Oswald, we have his rifle, we know exactly how many bullets he fired and where they went, we know what he did down to the last minute. If he had stood trial, he would have been found guilty. If there had been anybody else, Oswald would have dumped them in it so he could walk away. There was nobody else. --Pete (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

People don't support the WC because of any rational reason. They don't support the WC because their full extent of the subject is one stupid Oliver Stone film staring Kevin Costner, based on Garrison's book (and incidentally with Garrison himself in a cameo playing Earl Warren, as you probably know). In that nicely shot film you'll see such hilarities as the idea that JFK and Connelly are sitting exactly at the same level and in-line. And the idea that we know for sure that JFK was shot a second before Connelly, because Connelly doesn't react instantly to being hit in the right side. (Why should he? The impact is about like being glancingly hit by a baseball in the ribs, as a surprise, and that's more or less what you see Connelly do in the Zapruder film-- act like somebody suddenly hit him in the right ribs with a baseball). And be treated to the idea that the momentum of a bullet is so large as to be able to knock a head attached to a body the same direction the bullet was going (which is nonsense, but "back and to the left" is now a cultural iconic saying). Add to this, a bunch of hearsay from Jack Martin, a hysterical disgruntled employee of Guy Banister's, and it all looks vaguely believable. Unfortunately, it doesn't accord with the physics. And the rest of it is... hearsay. SBHarris 03:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hearsay is testimony you don't agree with. Oswald and Rubys comments are the diamtric opposite of hearsay. Most people nuts enuf to shoot the President would then happily admit it. I concede it has taken a long time, and most of the preliminary evidence has been suggestive of inferential. I would argue the acoustic evidence has emerged, Ruby spoke out about the conspiracy. We have photos of a bullet being picked up which never made into evidence. For me, personally, and I realize thishas no place out of (or maybe in) the talk page take a look at Oswald s face when he hears he has been charged with the presidents murder. This is the look of someone realizing they are the patsy, or he can add incredible actor to his resume as marksman extraordinaire. It seems to me if he was the assassin all he had to do was disappear after he cleared the SBD. Running around shooting cops and attracting attention by entering the theater without paying just doesn't fit, like the bullets lined up nicely, anyone who has ever fired a gun knows that doesn't happen. As a policemen might say, the whole story just doesn't smell right, never has, and many other people (most) have always felt this way, except for a brief period immediately after the WC release. The Oliver Stone film merely accelerated this. The movie makes Garrisons ideas seem like a slam dunk- not vaguely believable, and many people have been influenced, perhaps unduly by this.The WC was expressly formed to counter this rather than to investigate the evidence and come up with a conclusion. perhaps what we need is more focus on the effects of the assassination on policy, as this is the relevant aspect of a coup, even if Oswald did do the shooting. Something the movie does not dep[ict is the fact J. Edgar went to the races the day after the assassination. The nations highest law enforcement official apparently did not feel the need to lead any kind of investigation. Perhaps he just hated Kennedy so much he wanted to make a statement, perhaps he already knew what he needed to know. Did CanadaJack write the article on the dictabelt recording as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button oder located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical perspective and incomplete evidence

This is devolving into a forum discussion unrelated to article improvement. Please confine your discussion to specific suggestions for article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Definitive conclusions are being drawn and presented as fact about an event that has no consensus even among the various investigations by government agencies, let alone the scientific evidence or consensus opinion. The WC the HSCA and the Garrison investigation all drew different conclusions, yet we are presented here by Sbharris with the definitive and conclusive answer. While I find the WC highly suspect, as do most people, I cannot completely rule out the possibility that Oswald was invlolved, or even acted alone, as I am not god, and much conflicting and confusing evidence exists- or does not exist. In my opinion, and I represent the broad consensus here, as supported by many polls, the Zapruder film clearly shows the fatal shot was not fired by him, and the acoustic evidence and eyewitness testimony certainly do not make this seem likely, but again, I cannot categorically rule it out. The context of the assassination, including Eisenhower's warning about the power of military industrial complex, and the Richard Starnes warning that if there was ever a coup in the US it would come from the CIA, the fact that Kennedy had promised and begun to break the CIA into a thousand pieces, had begun pulling advisers out of Vietnam, and in my opinion was planning to end the cold war, had printed "silver certificates" which put the power of issuing currency back into the hands of the US government instead of the Federal Reserve, and had allowed Robert to aggressively pursue the mob all suggest his assassination was NOT a historical coincidence. Of course it does not prove it, it merely provides context with which we can evaluate the existing incomplete and conflicting evidence. This is especially true in light of the rapid and complete reversal of these policies by Johnson. Which individual, group or coalition of groups were involved in the assassination will likely never be definitively proven but it is certainly irresponsible to present the WC findings of the lone nut solely responsible as more likely- it is merely “official”, which in this particular historical context, may be viewed as an inherent weakness. In this regard I would again claim this as broadly consensus opinion. The obvious (and I would argue consensus-view) violations in security and investigational protocol and the unusual cluster of unexpected and conspicuously suspicious deaths surrounding each of the investigations, which Oswald categorically could not have influenced, especially post mortem, also provides context with which to view our incomplete evidence. . If these same events happened in any South American country, the obvious conclusion would be drawn that a coup had occurred, and we would not debate minutiae of the event, but rather focus on the broader implications of its ramifications- changing policy and its consequences. It is a matter of historical fact that Ruby's statements support or even augment Garrison’s conclusions, and he asked to be taken to Washington to elucidate his role in the assassination AND WAS REFUSED by "investigators". Oswald’s statements support Garrisons conclusions -"I am just a patsy", language which would not likely be used by someone NOT involved with intelligence. Again I do not propose any special elevation of Garrison’s conclusions. I object to the elevation of the WC conclusions to the role of providing a historically accurate narrative. I suggest all plausible theories be presented evenly with enough historical context to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. The artificial division of “conspiracy theories” from the WC findings itself predisposes the reader to be dismissive of alternate scenarios. While certainly I agree there a lot of crazy theories poorly supported by the evidence, again the WC findings with its impossible single bullet fit there. I note Wki rules do not place any special preference for “official” and I suggest that we have confused “official” with plausible, likely, scholarly, scientific and accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Garrison did not do an "investigation." Garrison performed a witchhunt that a jury rejected in less than an hour, and that doesn't look any better to later history. Oliver Stone's film could not even help it much, and relied on showing us a "Star Trek holodeck" montage of the hearsay that Garrison relied on, to make it look even vaguely believable. And, of course, setting up a fake scenario for the "magic bullet"-- something not even Garrison did during the trial (no judge would have allowed it). I don't know why Garrison wasn't disbarred. Unfortunately prosecutors often have near-total immunity even when they are totally insane. As for Wikipedia, we are placed in bad situation, as there are dozens of theories about the JKF assassination, and none of them agree with each other. There are theories that Oswald was a government agent and a hero, despite him trying to shoot a cop when he was captured. There are theories that Oswald had a double. There are theories that JFK's body was pulled out of its casket on the plane while his wife and personal physician sat next to it to maintain chain-of-evidence, and spirited off for head surgery (or perhaps this was done is an airplane bathroom on Airforce One-- talk about Mission Impossible). We can't include them all. What we've done is take the three government investigations and use mostly their conclusions, noting where they disagree (specifically number of shots, location of entry wound in the back of the head, etc). That's the best we can do. The HCSA did a relentless investigation of conspiracy ideas, including Garrison's, and could find no evidence of any of them, except for the acoustic radio recording, which it accepted as evidence of a 4th missed shot. Nobody today believes that acoustic evidence is good, including the man whose motorcycle it supposedly came from. So here we are. The Zapruder film shows a completely believable scenario for somebody shot through the head, and your idea that somebody's head must move in the same direction as a bullet has been disproven countless times. It might seem "obvious" to you, but is not in fact what happens. And by the way, could you please use paragraphs? SBHarris 03:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Garrison was subsequently elevated to Judge, after getting re-elected DA.This is historical fact. What you say about him is clearly hearsay. His attempt to convict Shaw was, I concede, a toehold at best, and perhaps ill-conceived. Jurors were convinced the assassination was a conspiracy, if not that Clay Shaw was demonstrably part of it. This still leaves the WC alone in its conclusion of the lone nut theory. I have shot at and killed enough things to be immediately and irretrievably convinced by the Zapruder film that it shows a bullet from the front and side, and not just because of the violent back and to side movement of JFK. I have seen some evidence which suggests he was shot from the rear almost simultaneously, which of course would still leave us with- a conspiracy. Peter Jennings is the only source I can think of who purports to show that the Zapruder film shows a shot from the back. His article lacks any balanc e and is obviously contrived to continue the WC legacy- something I am sad to see wiki do. Garrison was subsequently elevated to Judge, after getting re-elected DA. While I realize this is original research, I fail to see why the film took 5 years and had to be subpoenaed before even a Jury could see it. Clearly someone thought it contained something damning. If it supported WC conclusions, in the climate of the day, it would of been on every news article for weeks. Clearly even a deathbed confession would not change your mind on this matter, as anything but the discovery the Vietnam War and the Federal Reserve were a hoax perpetrated by leftish loons to discredit the Johnson administration would convince me Kennedy's killing was a historical coincidence. I guess it becomes a numbers game then, what is the consensus opinion- which you have already conceded to me is against the WC- tho you blame it on the JFK movie. In my opinion, even if Oswald did the shooting, the important thing is the impact of the shooting- the recall of silver certificates, the reversal of the Vietnam withdrawal and the renewal of the cold war. You can have your Oswald, it is still just a detail in the historical context. This is one thing the JFK movie got right, the who and the how are just scenery to stop us asking why- who benefited and how policy changed. Of course it still remains the historical record that 2 of 3 official investigations found evidence of a conspiracy- which leaves the WC- all alone. Garrison was subsequently elevated to Judge, after getting re-elected DA. And George W. Bush, arguably the worst president since Buchanan, was re-elected. The list of idiots and incompetents winning re-election or re-appointment is long, so your point does nothing to suggest his prosecution of Shaw was warranted, competently carried out, or rational. I fail to see why the film took 5 years and had to be subpoenaed before even a Jury could see it. Clearly someone thought it contained something damning. If it supported WC conclusions, in the climate of the day, it would of been on every news article for weeks. Migod, inteluck, if you come here proposing that the article, the result of years of debate and honing, be tossed aside, you should be at the very least aware of the basics of the case! (And, for that matter, have a clearer understanding of what "original research" means!)The Zapruder film was OWNED by Time/Life! And, while it is true the film wasn't seen until the Shaw trial, it had been subject to meticulous examination, its frames published in the WR, and authors, most particularity Josiah Thompson, publishing detailed reports on what the frames supposedly revealed. In my opinion, even if Oswald did the shooting, the important thing is the impact of the shooting- the recall of silver certificates, the reversal of the Vietnam withdrawal and the renewal of the cold war. Migod. Where to start. What "reversal"? The famous memo Johnson released several days after the assassination was drafted while JFK was still president! Silver certificates? Are you kidding? Renewal of the cold war? If you understood JFK and LBJ's political stances - it is abundantly clear you do not - you would know that JFK was very much in the fervent anti-communist strain of the democrats. JFK and RFK were very much "red scare" politicians. RFK was an assistant to Joe McCarthy and JFK never publicly rebuked McCarthy. Further, JFK was criticized for his tepid support of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, legislation pushed through by LBJ. Johnson was an FDR democrat, FAR more of what we would call the "liberal" strain of the party. Too many people are dazzled by JFK's charisma to forget it was Johnson who passed the major liberal legislation of the day. In the end, one can come with hundreds of possible motives for the death of JFK. But evidence of motive is not evidence of murder. And the evidence for the latter in this case points to one man and one man only - Lee Harvey Oswald. Of course it still remains the historical record that 2 of 3 official investigations found evidence of a conspiracy- which leaves the WC- all alone. The ONLY evidence which the HSCA found which suggested "conspiracy" was the dictabelt evidence, which has now been seen as invalid. Otherwise, they concluded Oswald fired all the shots which struck, and there were no known links between Oswald and the claimed groups/individuals which may had had a role. So, while your statement it trivially true, it is highly misleading as the most exhaustive investigation done in 1978 found NO evidence of conspiracy - svae for the recording - while examining the years of claims and "evidence" others put forward as proof. It says a lot that an investigative body which was obviously willing to conclude "conspiracy" did NOT conclude that any of that evidence touting by theorists was worthy of anything. Canada Jack (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Is "are you Kidding" a bona fide rebuttal? Please suggest why I would be kidding about silver certificates. Lincoln was assassinated shortly after issuing his "greenbacks". Point taken regarding Bush. Period. I never defended Garrisons selection of Shaw as the vehicle for his investigation of the Assassination, rather I always viewed it as weak, but the fact remains the Shaw jurors felt convinced there was a conspiracy- at least some of them I have seen interviewed, who seemed to represent it as a consensus among jurors. Kennedy publicly unilaterally declared a nuclear test ban moratorium, and was clearly on the way to end the cold war on a number of fronts to the horror of the arms industry. Watch the Kennedy clips nicely assembled in the front of "Executive Action" if you haven't seen them, and if you have, how do you reconcile these with your statements? I concede your point about Johnson, the civil rights and Kennedy and McCarthy, but JFK was deeply affected by the Cuban Missile Crisis and the attitudes of the Joint Chiefs- whom he described as having a collective death wish for humanity, and had changed his policy and attitude about communism, to the dismay of the Joint Chiefs and war industry. Not surprising the CMC inspired an Aha! moment in an intelligent and educated man. So while what you say is trivially true it mischaracterises the situation as it was when JFK died. Please provide a source for your claim that the reversal of Kennedy's withdrawals was drafted by the executive branch BEFORE JFK died. If the document was drafted by the pentagon, without the executives knowledge, I would contend that supports conspiracy, as the bureaucracy of war moved to reverse Kennedy's withdrawal before he was even dead. If not then it would be an important detail on which I am mistaken and would need to update my perspective. Please provide source for audio recording data being largely or even marginally refuted. In the works I have seen the audio lines up perfectly with the Zap film. The testimony of the MC cop it came from can hardly be considered expert besides the true audio experts at the HSCA. How do you reconcile your assertions that "nobody believes the audio evidence" with the consistent polls whoich show a vast majority of Americans suspect something is fishy with the WC, the assassination, and the Vietnam war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 03:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC) As I troll the Wiki I find a lot of the JFK material infected with this same tone........And i am just wondering if you feel adding the slightly hysterical oh my gods and are you kiddings emphasize or undermine your perspective to other readers? I find then slightly undermining, along with the tone of certainty, which you will note I have carefully avoided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteluck (talk • contribs) 03:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there any more comments related directly to the improvement of this article? If not, I am going to request that this thread be closed per the "not a forum" header at the top of this page. 04:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)