Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 4

message: Hmmmm.... seems the only "consensus" that counts is what Brandon determines is "consensus." When it's text I want to change - actually text I asked HIM to change - I can't because of what he describes as lack of "consensus." However, when I write something and HE wants it changed, well, it seems that there is suddenly no "consensus" and the onus is on me to supply a reason why HE can't change it.
I advise you, Brandon, to review wikipedia policies on Ownership of Articles: WP:OWN.
Here is what I had originally written: "Subsequent official investigations confirmed most of the conclusions of the Warren Commission."
He wants the words "federal government" investigations instead. I pointed out that "official" is better as the CT crowd sees "government" wording as intrinsically suspect. "Official" is neutral in this context, and in an article which deals with a contentious subject, more neutral wording is preferred.
But there are several other good reasons to use "official." For one, on the assassination page, we see, in terms of the investigations, the term "Official investigations" to describe them. So, being consistent, we should say "Official." Indeed, "federal government" or "government" is lacking in terms of describing ANY of the investigations.
The Clay Shaw trial is not listed as an "official investigation" in that "Official investigations" section, nor is it described as an "official investigation" on its own page. Of course, there was an investigation by the NOLA DA for a trial, but this is not what we normally consider an "official investigation," I submit. The only person who sees it as an "official investigation" I am aware of is... Brandon. So that line of logic is, by definition, POV. Here is the policy, Brandon: WP:POV.
Further, there was arguably only a single "federal government" investigation - the Warren Commission. The "federal government" comprises the executive, judicial and legislative branches of the American government. The WC, appointed by the Executive, comprised the Supreme Court chief justice, and members of the legislative branch. Subsequent investigations, such as the House Select Committee, involved one branch of the "federal government," but not the federal government itself.
Even if you dismiss that line of argument in terms of "federal government," the Ramsey Clark Panel was not a "federal government" or even "government" investigation, it was a panel of medical experts who investigated the medical evidence, including the autopsy photos. While this was an "official" investigation as the panel was set up by the Attorney General, it was not, per se, a "government" investigation as opposed to the others who consulted medical experts etc as WITNESSES and came to their own conclusions based on their expert testimony. And it was the FIRST "Official" investigation post-WC, and it agreed with the basic medical conclusions of the WC, as per the paragraph in question. Canada Jack (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason to nitpick here -- I think that most people would agree that "federal government" is a more precise, descriptive term than the word "official." BrandonTR (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brandon insists on calling the post-WC investigations "federal government" investigations 

message: Removed this stupidass uncited theory:
:"Another theory says that it was the braking of the car by the driver William Greer which caused Kennedy's head to move forward in the moment before a frontal shot, which caused Kennedy's head and torso to violently move backwards and to the left."
The car can clearly be seen not changing momentum basically whatsoever. Also, you don't see any violent forward motion at all. And acceleration of that kind of car would not be able to cause a more violent backward motion than forward. Stupidass theory, and uncited too. So removed. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed stupid alleged theory about the driver braking 

message: I don't know how this can be worked in, but it's interesting to note there were media reports of shots fired from the grassy knoll (the exact term is even used) on at least one radio broadcast of the day: Voice of America. An MP3 of this recording is under the JFK assassination section of this webpage. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cronkite actually used the term that day, but the initial reports, at least from CBS, talked of a couple huddled on the grass and them being suspects and surrounded by spectators. But there were also many other erroneous reports, such as LBJ having been shot, which was soon dismissed, and the early "confirmed" report that a Secret Service agent was killed. The only initial reports I am aware of which have witness accounts of someone actually firing a shot come from the TSBD, though on different floors. Canada Jack (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grassy Knoll reference on radio on Nov. 22/63 

message: (deleting a mass of material copied from abovetopsecret.com, a discussion forum site that does not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia)  — Richwales 21:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee Bowers - A Murdered Witness 

message: The movie Rendezvous with Death by German director Wilfried Huismann deserves mention in the Cuban Conspiracy section. The comments of Alexander Haig from the movie are notable. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuban Conspiracy 

message: I am deleting On November 22, 1963, from Testimony of Eyewitness because it make the page shorter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.171.215 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

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

message: Books
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* (originally published in the March 31, 1992 edition of Village Voice)
*
Newspaper articles
*
*
*
*
*
Above is a proposal for text that should satisfy the secondary source requirement linking O'Neill's allegations with those of various conspiracy authors. I spent hours digging these up and formatting them, so I hope certain people will keep this in mind when they say I am attempting to suppress a particular point of view.
In my opinion, the O'Neill book is in and of itself a sketchy source, but the claims been discussed in enough other sources that were not self-published. Kelin's Praise from a Future Generation: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the First Generation Critics of the Warren Report appears to discuss it, too, but I can only get a snippet view in GBooks. The allegations in the 1975 Chicago Tribune article were also discussed in one of the above sources, so we may choose to include that with O'Donnell's denial. There are plenty of source discrediting the veracity of O'Neill's book but I'm not sure it is appropriate to put here per Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode. It's probably best to create an article entitled Man of the House (book), place reviews of the book there, and link it here where appropriate.
There are so many examples of allegations stating that people thought there was a grassy knoll shooter or that people were intimidated to change their testimony that it almost seems silly to single out one and give this much coverage to it. We would certainly have a book longer than Bugliosi's if we gave this much coverage to all of them. Location (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last paragraph is exactly how I feel about this silly matter.  I don't think it should be included at all.  Should consensus disagree, I have two notes about your proposed paragraph: 1) I suggest we include the quote "an outright lie" to indicate the vehemence of their objections. 2) I suggest we note that "O'Neill's book is widely considered to be inaccurate about numerous anecdotes included in the text" or somesuch, sourced to the Farrell bio and the articles you found. Gamaliel (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does this quote come from?: "O'Neill's book is widely considered to be inaccurate about numerous anecdotes included in the text." BrandonTR (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a quote from a source, I included it as proposed article text summarizing several sources. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree this is a silly allegation, and this singles out one claim over many other similar claims, but because of its relative prominence in the conspiracy community, it should be included on the page. A few slight tweaks, though. Powers in fact said in his WC affidavit "My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead, but I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass," so while he testified about rear shots, he also testified about forward shot(s). And, as Gamaliel says, O'Donnell's denial from 1975 should be in there, along the lines of "in 1975, a CIA operative testified to a House committee on CIA activity that O'Donnell and Powers had been pressured by the FBI to change their testimony. O'Donnell called the claim 'an absolute lie.'" Canada Jack (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for allegations regarding O'Donnell and Powers

message: No mention of a motive, ANYWHERE. WHAT IS GOING ON?!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.164.8.110 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motives? = 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Gentle Reminder 

message: Recent hire to the Dallas PD, Roscoe White, claimed in his diary that after the shooting of JFK, as he, Tippet, and Oswald were driving to the airfield, Oswald started to question what was going on, so White admits he had to shot Tippet who was not privy to the Conspiracy, as reported by Roscoe's son Ricky White in his diary; moreover his mom worked at Jack Ruby's nightclub.Star Aug. 28, 1990 pg. 22-23 with photos . 
So far the best explanation for why Tippet was killed. Timing and motive don't make Oswald a logical suspect. 
Hovering over the Dallas PD scene is that Mayor Cabell's brother had great motive and many means to kill the President. More specifically, why did the Dallas PD hire Roscoe White as a motorcycle officer in Sept. 1963 whose national security credentials would have obviously be known to the Dallas Chief who hired him; and, no doubt, to the Mayor's brother, who had been fired along with Allen Dulles in 1961 after the 'Bay of Pigs' Event they organized became a total fiasco. Constitutional capers (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It can not be proven that said diary ever existed. Years ago I cut out the 'Roscoe White' subsection of this article, and replaced it with a short entry in 'Other Published Theories.' There is nothing to support the claims of the White family, and this particular theory is too fringe to require its own subsection in this already way overlong article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  J.D. Tippet Murder by Dallas Cop Roscoe White 

message: why cant we have non-conspriacy viewpoint?
so heres mine for consensus...
A non-conspiracy assassination review is probably the final an least theatrical analysis when compared the many cloak & dagger tales of an evil government killing their own good-hearted leader. This less Hollywood-style analysis was shown on a channel 5 documentary broadcast in 2013, where a 'professional' investigator decided to mount a cold case review on the assassination, as was surprised that no one else had done so.
By the programs end it was revealed that a secret-service agent 'accidentally' shot the president with an AR-15 rifle, while returning fire. This explains why kennedy's head was knocked backward, which a bullet shot from behind wouldn't have caused. It also explains why the establishment didn't admit this serious mistake, due to the obvious embarrassment that such a person is hired to protect the president. However it was ironic that his presence, and in a forward car, placed him in this position. The agent was named as William hickey after using CGI simulation trajectory tracing an gunpowder notice reports from witness statements. Though an obvious witness, to prevent perjury he wasn't called to trial, an died of old age 2005. There were many other revelations on other mistakes made by both conspiracy theorists and the official ballistic analysis. http://www.channel5.com/shows/jfks-secret-killer-the-evidence
:The title of the article, "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories", makes it pretty obvious why not. And your text suffers from WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV issues. --NeilN talk to me 17:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already covered in the "Other published theories" section.  Please read our page on WP:UNDUE weight, it should give you some idea as to why your change was reverted.  Ravensfire (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Vcorani went off and created Cold case review, now a redirect, but see his version. For that and other reasons I've taken him to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Ravensfire. This "theory" has no serious support among the research community. The 'other published theories' section was created specifically as a catch-all to keep theories like this one from making an already over-long article that much longer. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NON-CONSPIRACY : THE 'ACCIDENTAL' FATAL SHOT 

message: The proper question is not so much was there a conspiracy, but how much conspiracy.  It is common knowledge that many documents were kept from public release. Thus there was conspiracy after the fact.  I am adding again my contribution to this article and ask that persons kindly refrain from reverting and edit-warring.  I am not reverting nor removing what anyone has written. (EnochBethany (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do I will refer your edits to WP:AN3. You've been advised to stop inserting unreferenced opinion at Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Please stop reinserting (effectively reverting) the removal of unsourced or improperly sourced opinion that violates Wikipedia policy: spreading out across several articles doesn't address our concerns, although at least this article is slightly more appropriate for a discussion of degrees of conspiracy. Acroterion (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text: EnochBethany, that's your view about the proper question.  Sorry, but that's it.  It's also impossible to quantify.  Wikipedia uses reliable sources for information in the articles.  We include polls that say what percentage of Americans believe the various reports/theories. Ravensfire (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not "my view." Binary fallacy is a well-recognized fallacy relevant to this article.  I used reliable sources like from University journal articles.  The polls are irrelevant to my contribution to the article.  In any discussion of whether something is A vs B (conspiracy or non-conspiracy), a consideration needs to be made as to whether the question is not binary at all, but how much.  (EnochBethany (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @EnochBethany As you keep wiping out your talk page I want to note you've been advised of WP:SYNTH and what edit warring is . Whatever sources you use must refer specifically to the JFK assassination. Persist with your current course and it'll be an easy block block for any admin. --NeilN talk to me 23:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, content does not have to be from a secondary source on the assassination.  It can be on a broader category that includes the assassination.  For example, if there were a reliable source that stated, "In the USA, no president was ever shot riding in a car," that would be relevant.  In this case, the logic (or lack of it employed) in discussing a subject is relevant.  If someone concluded that 2 + 2 = 5 proved a JFK conspiracy, that could be refuted with a reliable 2ndary source that said 2 + 2 = 4, even though not addressing the assassination.  It would be relevant to the discussion.  A conspiracy theory might say, "JFK had to have been killed by a conspiracy of Lower-Slobovians; for 2 + 2 = 5."  A legitimate edit could say, "The Lower Slobovian theory is unproven because it depends on the POV that 2 + 2= 5; but 2 + 2 = 4.  The citation then would be to a mathematics journal article having nothing to do with the assassination.   But at this point, I can leave this at that.  Perhaps you would profit by reading the section(s) on WikiLawyering.   And kindly drop your threats.  Best Wishes.  (EnochBethany (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FALLACIOUS BINARIZATION, BINARY FALLACY

message: I'm proposing the merger of this article into this one. Anyone care to weigh in on where it should go and/or reasons against the merger? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is misleading in that it says Mercer wasn't called to testify to the Commission. While that may be true, they did investigate the incident and had reports from the police in question who observed the truck and its occupants, and there are documents which list the efforts made to locate the vehicle. A problem I see with the page is there is no explicit link to the assassination, just the claim that the tool box could have been a gun case and that one of the guys resembled Ruby. Not sure how "conspiracy" plays in here. Canada Jack (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I suggested that the article be merged here, but Jack makes a good point. Merge to Jack Ruby? Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the article make a more explicit link to a conspiracy. Mercer herself seems to limit herself to saying one of the guys was Ruby, and that the cops seemed to want to steer her from her claims, but this doesn't really say "conspiracy," so if there is a mention of one of the authors who make that specific claim, then fine. Otherwise its link to "conspiracy" is rather thin. Canada Jack (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Surely one of the claims Garrison or Lane etc made would add the necessary conspiracy link. Canada Jack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Julia Ann Mercer]] article merge 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Icarus4 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :"However, other researchers, including Jim Marrs and James Fetzer, have concluded the opposite—that Baker's claims are credible."
:I would like to delete this text. I submit that (1) James Fetzer is never a RS for wikipedia, as he has embraced (or created) a number of conspiracy theories that are not supported by any other reliable researcher, and (2) Jim Marrs is a highly questionable source whose un-cited opinion is not relevant and does not add value to this article. What do the editors think? Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, a RS should be someone on whose word a credible assertion can be based. In this case, we are talking about claims and counter-claims on various theories, some of which are not necessarily credible or based on concrete facts, so it need only suffice that said authors made the claim/counter-claim, not whether they are in the normal sense of the term a RS. Canada Jack (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If the editors agree that a claim or counter-claim is not based on fact, tends to be a non-credible POV, and that it adds no value to the article, does it belong in the article? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of unreliable sources with these conspiracy theories, but if they were said they should be added. We all know that Muammar Gaddafi blames Israel, but even thought it's complete WP:CB, it ought to be left in. If David Icke went on TV tomorrow, and said aliens from the planet zippotron killed Kennedy, it shouldn't be left out no matter how much of a non-RS it is. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  03:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Marrs and Fetzer are good sources for conspiratorial claims, but not for factual assertions like the credibility of a particular witness. Gamaliel (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Does every conspiracy theory listed need a paragraph with a laundry list of names of people who've endorsed that specific conspiracy? How about at least moving the names to citations? Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this too.  It is sufficient to note the originator of he theory.  Gamaliel (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marrs and Fetzer are not reliable sources 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence  until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Icarus4 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence]] for deletion 

message: I would welcome help with Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean if anyone has any expertise there. An anti-Castro group with links to Guy Bannister. Interesting article but needs an expert eye. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean

message: Instead of me renaming this section or otherwise omitting this, I want to flag that the following paragraph is not what we'd call "physical evidence" per se, that being Tague's bullet wound, his "physical location" (not the same as "physical evidence") and the suggested trajectory from a place other than the TSBD: "Several conspiracy theories posit that at least one shooter was located in the Dal-Tex Building, which is located across the street from the Texas School Book Depository. According to L. Fletcher Prouty, the physical location of James Tague when he was injured by a bullet fragment is not consistent with the trajectory of a missed shot from the Texas School Book Depository, leading Prouty to theorize that Tague was instead wounded by a missed shot from the second floor of the Dal-Tex Building."
Why not fix the name of this section or otherwise adjust this, Brandon? Canada Jack (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "physical evidence"