Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

---

George H.W. Bush

Can anyone give me an explanation as to why the mob, Jimmy Hoffa, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover and others can be accused in the Kennedy assassination, but that Bush cannot? Is this only because he is still alive? Or because there is no single, smoking-gun, but a mountain of associations that put Bush in the middle of the conspiracy?

If you signed in, and cited your references, you might get an explanation. andreasegde 11:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Los Alamos

Investigates the use of lead fingerprinting. To me the title is misleading as it doesn't really challenge the lone gunman theory but tries to challenge the lead batches that were analyzed. I thought this was interesting in that the lead batch angle isn't in the Wikipedia article. Lead fragments left in Connelly and Kennedy had identical compositions of impurities (i.e. the magic bullet is real). This story attempts to repudiate it from a legal admissibilty point-of-view but I think it's still very strong evidence that their was only one shooter. Someone with more experience with this article might want to add this in. I oringinal posted this on JFK assassination talk but probably fits here better. --Tbeatty 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Tbeatty. I have just read it and it looks like an "I say-you say" piece. It should go in, but only if both points are included. I´ll do it if no-one else has time...? andreasegde 12:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not. --andreasegde 11:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Casket was swapped?

There is evidence from witnesses that the casket that landed in Washington was not the same as the funeral home provided in Dallas, and there was a rough "V" cut on Kennedy´s head/forehead that was seen in Washington, but not seen on photos in Dallas. andreasegde 13:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any photos from Dallas of sufficient quality to show anything like absense of such a wound (a triangular scalp flap which barely extends past the hairline over the eye, and might be the forward-most extent of the very large scalp flap wound seen in the Z. film).

As for a casket switch on a 1.5 hour flight, while Jackie Kennedy is sitting there watching you in the back of the airplane in the president's section, that's a neat trick. Maybe a quick swicheroo when she had to go the little girl's room? But what would the point be? Oh, I know. You're up to your wrists in gore, getting bullets out of the president's head. Hoping Jackie powders her nose long enough. Since otherwise it's hard to explain what you're doing. "Ah, hi, Ms. Kennedy. Just tidying up, here..." But why change caskets while you're up to this? Don't you have enough problems? SBHarris 01:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. O´Connor would not agree with you - no Sir-ee-bob. [1]

andreasegde 14:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

O'Connor has said various things to various people over the years. I'll have to discuss what he said to Livingstone presently. In any case, who's this Admiral Galloway he talks about? I'll bet he must have really made Admiral Burkely mad, trying to run things <g>. What, you say, maybe O'Connor's memory wasn't too good? Do tell. SBHarris 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting bullets out of ol´ Kennedy´s head would have been real easy, ´cos his fruit bowl didn´t have much gore left in it to fill a couple of coffee cups. Mebbe they put that ol´ "V" on his head as "V fer Vietnam"? But mebbe they put him another casket to fool those gore-seekers with them big flashy cameras who wanted a shot of a dead president. Anyways, little Bobby had that big ol´ casket dumped in the big blue briny ´cos he didn´t want them thrill-seekers to get a hold of it. (Dumped from a helicopter with parachutes an´all...) He said sump´n like, "It´s our casket, and we can do what we like with it." Good on yer, Bob. So mebbe they changed the casket just to show the middle finger to a lot of folks. I kinda agree with that. andreasegde 14:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Don´t ferget that Bobby was first with Jackie off the plane, even though he weren´t on it from Dallas. They pushed ol´ Johnson to the back. And Bobby didn´t want his big brother to be showed off like some spectacle in a musee-um. Mebbe that´s why he got rid of the brain. Didn´t want it to be showed in a glass jar fer people to gawp at fer a dollar a time. Makes sense to me. andreasegde 18:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. By the time Bobby and Jackie were accompanying the casket off the back of the plane though the cargo door, everybody else had long exited off the front passenger door and passenger ramp, including Johnson. And that of course was how Bobby got ON the plane.

And yes, they sank in the ocean the casket they hurredly bought in Dallas to put JFK in, which of course it wasn't the one JFK lay in state in, and was buried in, which was some kind of monstrous thing which was far heavier. As for the president's brain, the archives hold 7 B&W photos of it and some colors, and the HSCA got the Bethesda docs there to certify that it was the brain they removed from JFK's head. No, it wasn't buried with JFK. It was autopsied 2 weeks later after being fixed, and after that, given to Bobby's secretary. I suspect Bobby had it put in JFK's grave when it as reopened for some reason or other in 1964 (or was it 1965?). But nobody really knows. I suspect that one day in the future when all this stuff gets dug up, they'll find the jar. The brain, alas, will probably be long gone. SBHarris 21:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bobby and Jackie exited thru´ the little back cargo door? Them cargo doors don´t have no big steps, ´cos it makes it sure hard to unload them big boxes, and things. I´m sure them fellas with the cameras were sure waiting for them there at the back, when any fool and his Mom knows they would be hanging around the front door for the big shoot. Ever seen a dead president, his ex-spouse and his little brother exit through a cargo door? I personally would like to see that thing, yes I surely would. Ol´ Johnson was most likely making up his speech about how sad a time it was fer him personally, while he hot-footed it down the front stairs, but the poor fool didn´t know that the cameras were at the back waiting for Jackie and little Bobby to come out the itty-bitty cargo door. You ever seen a plane close-up from the bottom-side? andreasegde 23:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if you knew what you were talking about, but in any case, photos of the event exist. Johnson went out the normal front passenger door. Jackie and Bobby Kennedy did go out the rear passenger door (not technically a cargo door because not an entrance into the cargo compartment), because the casket went out that door from the rear of the passenger compartment, where 4 seats had been removed to make room for it during the flight. The steps to the rear door on a 707 are normally narrow, but in this case the casket was removed not down the steps but with a cargo lift, and Bobbie and Jackie did go down with it [2]. After which the casket team, which had handled all this, put it on an ambulance. Into which Jackie and Bobby were placed also.SBHarris 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you done come to your senses ´bout that door. I´m real glad fer ya. Mebbe these guys is nuts: [3] (pushed Johnson back). And these guys sure take the biscuit, ´cos they is hell-fire sure that there was two caskets: [4] but they is from jfklancer and not mcadams, I suppose that says sump´n, don´t it? andreasegde 12:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Generally duplication theories are a sign of paranoid thinking. Hence two Oswalds, two rifles, two caskets, two shooters, 2 sets of different wounds in Dallas and Bethesda, a second bullet trailing lead after the magic one, etc, etc. [5] Two JFK brains. One of Garrison's top witnesses [6] was a guy named Speisel who thought people were trying to control his thoughts, and who required fingerprinting of his daughter everytime she came back from college, in case she'd been replaced by a double. Riiight. We have two sets of curtain rods. Two rifle bags for Oswald-- a short one he carried, and a longer one they found in the depository. For a paranoid person there is no such thing as human error. If two witnesses do not agree, it is because somebody possessed of incredible skill and evil intent, actually set things up with a second sham.

The problem, unfortunately, being that this is generally not the way the universe works. Laboratory tests of witness testimony of set-up events under totally controlled circumstances shows that it is NORMAL for witnesses of the same event to disagree as to what they have seen. But if somebody posits duplication conspiracies for every time we get conflicting testimonies, we'd have duplication conspiracies for every single major crime. Which, by the way, we do. Since there are always a significant number of totally paranoid people. Did you know the World Trade Centers weren't just knocked down by jets? No, it took a second set of previously planted duplicate explosives, fired off with split second timing, to do the job. SBHarris 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I hates to say this to ya, but you´ve got yourself two colours in your very own user name. Getting all fired up ´bout number two. You got a twin? andreasegde 10:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Look again: three colors. SBHarris 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

THREE colours? Good-gosh. Ain´t one color good enuf´? andreasegde 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No. And 7-color rainbows is too many. And do turn off the Edgar Guest cant; it's getting really old. Gayly Yrs,

SBHarris SBHarris

Roscoe White

That entire section is up for deletion as it probably contains original research and the one cite in the section is not considered a reliable source by Wiki. Please delete the section or provide reliable sources, i.e. secondary sources that have been through peer review for mistakes and credibility or a similar process. Ramsquire 22:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, Ramsquire, be bold... :) Either delete it, or look up some verifiable sources yourself. I don´t mind... P.S. I have just added 4 links in the White section; two for, and two against. andreasegde 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would feel very uncomfortable deleting an entire section, especially if the editor simply forgot to add cites. I'd prefer to give them the opportunity to add reliable sources before deleting. Ramsquire 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. I put it in, so I am the person responsible. I have added some links (for and against.) BTW, I deleted the whole Vietnam President piece, because it had been there for a long time, and had absolutely no citations. I think that if the original editor disagrees, he/she can just revert it and put citations in. That´s easy enough. Ho-hum. andreasegde 15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Critics and contributors

One thing that I have noticed is that there are more critics than contributors on lots of WP pages. I fixed quite a few broken links on this page a short time ago. I was very surprised that nobody had done it before. There were lots of grammar mistakes as well. (I do as much as I have time to do.) The question to all you editors out there is: Are you a critic or a contributor? We need more contributors to do some work. andreasegde 10:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Two shooters removal

Removed the following from Two shooters:

• President Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI were informed within hours after the assassination that someone impersonating Oswald was seen and heard by the CIA and FBI trying to contact a communist hit man in Mexico within two months of the assassination. This news "electrified" Washington insiders and was covered up for almost 40 years. [7]

• Several of the Bethesda autopsy photos are now missing.

These have nothing to do with establishing two shooters at Dealey Plaza. The news electrified insiders because of a possible communist connection to Oswald, not indicating a hit man participated in shooting the President. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have left a few for awhile, bacause I didn´t want to be so bold (and lightning to strike me from above...) andreasegde 14:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no problemo. Did some more clipping. I remove the following as well:

• Connally was definitely sure that the first of the supposed "three shots" did not hit him, so it must have been the second shot - according to the Warren Commission - that did, but experts testified that the first shot is almost always more accurate than later shots. [8]

Removed the following:

• The Dealey Plaza area was not sealed off by the Dallas police, and photographs show that vehicles were driving down Elm Street - through the crime scene - within nine minutes of the assassination.

Again this has nothing to do with two shooters, conspiracy maybe... if you're the paranoid type, second shooter no. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Right - it has nothing to do with two shooters. It should be somewhere else though. I´m not quite sure about "if you're the paranoid type" comment. andreasegde 23:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well every single mistake seems to branch out into a vast conspiracy. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Too true. It seems that very few (on both sides) are willing to admit that any kind of mistake was made by anybody at all. A policeman didn´t do something by the book = conspiracy. Anybody that doesn´t agree with the offical version is "nuts". Both sides confuse, hide the weak points in their respective cases/theories, and then defend them to the death. Ho-hum... andreasegde 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Rifle discussion

• Connally was definitely sure that the first of the supposed "three shots" did not hit him, so it must have been the second shot - according to the Warren Commission - that did, but experts testified that the first shot is almost always more accurate than later shots. [9]

I did a find on "first shot" in the reference, and its talking about hunting. The idiom the first shot is the best shot is referring to the well known concept if you miss with the first shot your target will start running; and the element of surprise is gone. Kennedy in a far away moving car in a crowded noisy plaza isn't analogous to a deer grazing on grass in a tranquil forest. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh... I agree with that. Connally did say (on film) that he was positive that the first shot did not hit him. If the first shot didn´t hit, then why should the second and third be more accurate? The car supposedly slowed down, which is the opposite of what Bambi would have done :) What do you think? andreasegde 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. While I'm no expert, I would think the first shot would allow Oswald to adjust and increase his accuracy with each subsequent shot as the car was moving in a predictable and slow path. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have been reliably informed (as we always are in these cases) that the first shot is always the best. If he only had a few seconds (with an old rifle sighted for a left-handed person) his first shot would always be better. This is one of the strangest things about the whole scenario. Maybe he struck lucky, as they say... andreasegde 23:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Both the Gov. and his wife were adamant that JFK was struck by the first shot, and the Gov. by the second. And since the rifle's scope wasn't properly sighted, those would be some lucky shots indeed.

As for waiting for a good target opportunity, why would Oswald not shoot when the car was on Houston, with the target growing larger in his sight, moving in a straight line, on a flat plane, with speed decreasing to make the turn? Instead he chose to shoot while the car was on Elm, where had would have to wait for it to emerge from the tree blockage, and where it would then be getting smaller in his sight, increasing speed, and moving on a curve and on a downward plane. Makes no sense in a one-shooter scenario. Joegoodfriend 19:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since we're speculating here, the Houston shot may be more difficult because the angle of the shot is decreasing as Kennedy approaches the TSBD. Leading to more downward shot and at some point Kennedy disappearing entirely. Also, he would have had all the secret service men in the motorcade looking directly at him on Houston. It could have spooked him on trying the shots in that scenario. Ramsquire

Also allowing the target (and Secret Service) to see you setup your shot isn't a good sniping tactic. As to the rifle not being properly sighted; I cannot understand that point. In who's opinion? As far as I'm concerned it's been rigorously established Oswald got some time prior to the assassination. Do you think he just looked at it and decided not to sight it? It simply doesn't make sense to assert this despite the FBI testing; it does not establish Oswalds familiarity with the weapon. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The rifle needed metal shims placed under the telescopic sight before the Army testing laboratory could determine the weapon's accuracy. The metal shims had to be used because the telescopic sight was so unrelated to the rifle's line of fire, and so inexpertly attached, that it could not even be adjusted. Also, there is no record of Oswald having practiced with the rifle. Furthermore, the evidence before the Warren Commission precludes, in many opinions, the possibility that Oswald had enough time to assemble the rifle and the 24 fifty-pound boxes that composed the sniper's nest. Joegoodfriend 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Oswald an Army testing laboratory? No, and the condition they received it in isn't necessarily the condition Oswald used it under. Why the hell would there be a record of Oswald practicing with it? (which there is, kind of, consult Frontline's: Who is Lee Harvey Oswald?) If Oswald knew about the President's visit I imagine he could have assembled the nest ahead of time; and/or some/many of the boxes where in or close to the proper position. To sum up and repeat, none of this establishes Oswald's familiarity with the weapon; practice makes perfect... even with poorly assembled rifles. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The rifle was found carefully slipped between two tall stacks of boxes. There is no reason to believe that the scope could have gone from 'sighted' to 'not capable of being sighted' between the shooting and the tests due to mishandling, and again, in any case, the rifle could not be sighted without the shims. Also, considering that Oswald is supposed to have assembled the rifle moments before the shooting, he would have had no opportunity to sight it anyway. As for your question of there being a record of Oswald's having practiced with the rifle, the FBI spent hundreds (thousands?) of man hours documenting Oswald's every movement and contact between his return to the US and the shooting, looking for any scrap that would help convict him in the eyes of the public. How could Oswald be a crack shot with a poor weapon with which he did not practice?

Regarding Oswald's ability to assemble the sniper's nest ahead of time: The 6th floor was under constant use and construction during the days before the shooting. Not even the Warren Commission had the audacity to suggest that Oswald had assembled a nest of 2 dozen fifty-pound boxes days ahead of time without anyone noticing. Joegoodfriend 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was little traffic on the 6th floor. Due to the books people on the sixth floor could not see the rest of it (although Charles Givens did see Oswald there 35 minutes before the assassination, acting "suspiciously."

Oswald had every reason to be on that floor. A few feet from the rifle in the northwest corner, Oswald's clipboard was found, with book orders for Nov.22. For books on the 6th floor. Which were never filled. So if Oswald was supposed to be on the 6th floor filling orders for books there, and spent several hours NOT doing that on the AM of Nov.22, just what WAS he doing up there? Hmmm? SBHarris 07:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would it have to be "days ahead of time" and why does it matter if someone saw/noticed the boxes were stacked weird? Perhaps someone did notice, but didn't care; I certainly wouldn't care. And there are several blatant contradictions (depending on which conspiracy you feel is most likely) with the FBI surveillance factoid; which even if entirely true does not mean he was under consistent surveillance during the crucial time period(s) of his purchase of the weapon, his trips to Mexico (where he was watched) and New Orleans (where he wasn't, officially at least) and his setup for the assassination of (arguably) the most powerful man in the world. Oh yeah, and don't forget his failed assassination attempt on an anti-communist General, the FBI didn't catch that one too. LOL... that indicates to me he could get some private practice in; moreover a miss would provide obvious impetus for practice. Watch the documentary if you haven't already, its a good one. As to the shims, keep in mind when you get lemons, the driven person turns it into lemonade. Meaning, there could be a way to hold the rifle which makes it adequately sighted; the laboratory doing it the "right way" by no means makes it the only way. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"there could be a way to hold the rifle which makes it adequately sighted" Um, how would Oswald have known this magic way to hold the rifle considering that he has just assembled it on the spot, and thus would have no idea how far off the sight would be? Point two, you guys are staking out some interesting new territory as historians. According to the Warren Report, and even to the partron saint of Warren believers, Gerald Posner, Oswald DID assemble the sniper's nest and the rifle in the few minutes before the shooting. Of course Warren chose to ignore its own testimony that numerous people saw Oswald as late as 12:20 on the lower floors (5 minutes before the scheduled motorcade) and one person was on the 6th floor between noon and 12:20 and did not see Oswald. Joegoodfriend 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, by practicing the optimum assembly and position beforehand. I don't think it too much to think a trained sniper know his rifle before using it. I have no idea what you are getting at with 12:20 testimony, so he waited until the time was right and/or that last person went to lunch, at... wait for it, 12:20. If I were a sniper, I'd select a floor that should be vacated at the appropriate time and try and ensure the floor is empty before I did my snipin. Let me clarify something for ya, there is absolutely nothing to indicate it was difficult for one person to assemble (and perhaps hide a rifle) and then finish a nest in time. Oswald worked there, he was comfortable lifting boxes. In my younger (smaller) years I helped with library book sales, its not particularly hard... going up and down stairs; now that sucks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the Warren Hearings, B.R. Williams was alone, eating his lunch on the 6th fl. and left at 12:20pm (3H 173). The remains of his lunch were found, and were initially believed to have belonged to Oswald. So now you have Oswald trying desperately to assemble everything in the last seconds before the motorcade arrived. Are you not aware of the testimony of multiple persons outside the building who saw a man with a rifle waiting coolly several minutes before the motorcade arrived?

If you would describe Oswald as a trained sniper who practiced with the Cacarno, you must know something about the facts I don't. Regarding the inaccurate rifle, the position of Warren believers is something which I just cannot understand. The scope was inaccurate. The degree of inaccuracy would vary somewhat every time the rifle was disassembled and reassembled. The suggestion is that Oswald was able to guess the degree of inaccuracy, point the rifle at somewhere other than his target, and somehow pull off two accurate shots in three tries in a few seconds, with a poor weapon at a target that was getting smaller in his sight, as well as changing its speed, direction and angle of descent. This is a miracle that makes the parting of the Red Sea look mundane. You're prepared to question Warren's interpretation of the evidence, but never its conclusions. That also makes no sense to me. Joegoodfriend 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a problem really, the WC found the rifle to be accurate. Actually one of the tester's described it as "quite accurate". Therefore, a Warren believer would not believe the scope was innaccurate, as you do. They'd believe the scope aided in the overall accuracy of the weapon as the WC states. Here's something else about the Warren report-- according to it, Oswald was sighted on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the assassination by Charles Givins. This testimony is weird when one considers B.Williams testimony of eating lunch until 12:20 and not seeing anyone. Maybe Oswald was in the sniper's nest all that time waiting for Williams to leave, or planned to shoot Williams on his escape. Who knows? Ramsquire 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Williams didn't see Givens either. That was the nature of the place. I would presume that all these people arguing about the 6th Floor, have been there, as I have? The 6th Floor Museum exists today, and it's clear the 6th floor is a broad flat musty place, and would not have been well-lit except for windows along one side, full of close supporting pillars, and when filled with stacks of cardboard boxes, it would have been a large maze. Big enough for several people to hang out there, and not see each other. Oswald's little corner of it, far away from everything else, and which which BTW still exists in pristine condition, original boxes and all (now all behind plexiglass, of course) consists of a few boxes to support the rifle, but mainly of stacks of boxes to hide Oswald's corner from view of other parts of the floor (not that other parts of the floor didn't have many stacks of boxes and pillar to hide it from view of many other parts). I cannot over-emphasize how much of a warehouse maze this place must have been. Oswald could have assembled his rifle there and left it here assembled in the corner at any time that morning. And he could have moved the boxes that made up the snipers nest at leasure, since moving those precise boxes is what his work order said he was supposed to be doing (apparently he lifted the clipboard from somebody else who was supposed to be moving those texts that morning). In any case, the boxes were being moved, but significantly, they were weren't going downstairs as the work order said they should have been. And as noted, the rifle could have been put together and put on the floor under the paper making up the bag, anytime. No reason for Oswald to do a scramble for ANY of this in the last few minutes. Oswald had nothing to do the last 10 minutes but get to his corner, pick up his rifle off the floor, and wait. Basically, so far as I can see, Oswald did nothing at all that morning but avoid other employees (mostly), assemble the 6th floor corner stacks of boxes, and put the rifle together, all probably in spurts of work which looked just like his normal work (except of course for the rifle, but that work would have been left until the boxes in the corner got high enough that Oswald could sit in the corner behind them, and do work while not being seen). SBHarris 17:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been there, done that. And it is as you have described it. This is totally, off topic, but did you ever try to imitate the shot of badgeman from behind the picket fence? When I tried it, I made a very interesting discovery. Ramsquire 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, what'd you find? I've stood out on Zapruder's pergola pedestal, of course, but the fence as you know has no gate or hole in it, so it looked to me as though you really had to go around it somehow to get in back, or maybe start out in the TBDB parking lot, so it never occured to me to try it. I did go over and look over it, into the TBDB parking lot (trainyard in those days). SBHarris 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The WC believed the rifle to be accurate WHEN SIGHTED. According to the FBI, the rifle was unable to be "sighted-in", using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing.

2. "a Warren believer would not believe the scope was innaccurate" Untrue. The editor clearly believes that Oswald could have simply conpensated for the innaccurate scope by firing off target. Furthermore, some have gone so far to say that the inaccurate scope may have actually made it easier for Oswald. Haven't you read McAdams' stuff?: "if it had been misaligned before the assassination, (it) may have aided Oswald in hitting JFK"[10].

I'm playing devil's advocate here. You said "the position of Warren believers is something which [you] just cannot understand." Well, the WC found the weapon accurate. Therefore a WC believer, as you termed it, would also believe the weapon accurate when Oswald was assassinating Kennedy. I'm not arguing the facts of the case. Ramsquire 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Of course Oswald was seen 35 minutes before the shooting on the 6th floor, that would be at 11:55, just before they knocked off for lunch. Williams left at noon, came right back and saw no one there. As for Oswald being there the whole time, that contradicts the people who sighted Oswald on the lower floors between noon and 12:20, and suggets that Oswald could assemble the rifle in the sniper's nest without being heard, which I seriously doubt. Joegoodfriend 00:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As quiet as the sixth floor seemed; I simply can't agree with that and find such a notion based on an offhand observation of a particular instant (being very quiet) unconvincing. Plaster falling on your head from the 3 shots you do hear from above is convincing. As to the timeline, that is intriguing; but my understanding is the timing cannot be exact nor synchronized with a degree of certainty of Oswald's and the motorcades movements, AND the quietness observation. Meaning there is a gray area of 5 minutes or more, that is more than enough time to assemble the nest and lay in wait; assuming it needed significant assembly (Oswald may have started it before noon, then finished it after 12:20? Did the lunch guy make note of the nest or not?). Given Oswald understands the acoustics of the building, he would intuitively understand how much noise he could make without arousing suspicion... further I doubt everyone was on the fifth floor just waiting around; I imagine they were walking and talking and making noise of their own. Besides, snipers tend to do their jobs quietly. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said, and thanks for a good debate. Now for a really interesting argument, sometime we'll have to do Oswald's movements right after the shooting. Joegoodfriend 13:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, indeed. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

I took out the President Diem conspiracy because it had no citations at all. It was just a story about spying and drugs. The oil industry theory has gone because of the same reason. If any editor can find citations they would be welcome. andreasegde 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC) If we left them in, then

Added Dispute Tag

Can this article ever be wikified? With the exception of the introduction, the one shooter paragraph and the the Books section, this entire article is in danger of being original research and/or listing unverifiable claims. In addition, I had to delete the Bush innuendo as it was unsourced and seems to present an author's opinion. Ramsquire 19:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is unsourced, or a POV, you have every right to delete it. I have just counted three (citation needed) in the whole article. I could find many more on other pages. Put more in if you think they should be there. Why not?

Sorry, but I feel compelled to point this out. You seem to be the only one that is disputing the page. andreasegde 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the only one? Don't make me do an RfD on it! LOL!!! It seems that we are the only one's on this page trying to fix it, so there is some symmetry there. Ramsquire 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I want the article to stay, that's why I am putting these tags and warnings in the article and talk page. Seriously though, if the information here cannot be sourced, then it will eventually be deleted and this article will be a stub, or a duplication of the JFK assasination article, which would make it a prime candidate for deletion. If no one else sees that situation, then I guess I'm the lone voice in the wilderness. Ramsquire 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I´m with you on everything but this one point: Put "citations needed" where they are needed. If a certain amount of time (?) has elapsed, then get the scissors out. Yes, you are right about another thing - we do seem to be on our own here, don´t we? Have fun. andreasegde 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Which section?

I'm sorry, but a fail to see why you feel the need to delete this entire section? While I take your point about POV. The section dscussing the 'change of plans' section, regarding Johnson's decision to reverse Kennedy's' now contains links to the orginail sourse material. why do you feel the need to delete this? Wm.Blake 00:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Which section? andreasegde 02:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The section referencing possible conspiracy involving the Pentagon.('Military-Industrial Complex conspiracy') You removed the section for lack of citations, even though some of the theory now contained references to original documentation. seems a little extreme. Also wondering why you chose to separate out my comments from the discussion concerning the removal of the 'Military-Industrial Complex conspiracy', which made it clear what section I was referencing. I do not mean to sound antagonistic, just a little mystified why you chose to move my comments and then ask which section I was referencing? Wm.Blake 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry, Wm.Blake, but answers get so long sometimes it helps to start a new section. If you can put citations in for the ´Military-Industrial Complex conspiracy´ it would be most welcome. andreasegde 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree, some of the threads have become rather long and complex! I added the citations referencing the source documents for the apparent reversal of US policy towards the Vietnam war. I will endeavour to add more Wm.Blake 16:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Section

After a few warnings, I had to delete the following section as containing original research:

====Military-Industrial Complex conspiracy====

The U.S. "military-industrial complex," which had been preparing for an escalation of the Vietnam War since the French withdrew from Vietnam in 1954 after France's defeat at Dien Bien Phu, knew that President Kennedy had seriously discussed plans and implemented actions to gradually withdraw all U.S. military advisers from Vietnam by the beginning of 1965.

Compare wording of NSAM (National Security Action Memorandum) 263, signed by J.F.K. on OCTOBER 11,1963 including the following proposal "plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963." [11]

With the wording of NSAM 273, signed by L.B. Johnson on NOVEMBER 26, 1963, stating that "It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The test of all U.S. decisions and actions in this area should be the effectiveness of their contribution to this purpose", therefore proposing the continuation of the U.S.A.'s commitment to the Vietnam situation, essentially reversing a decision made by JFK only 6 weeks previously.[12]

At the moment that President Kennedy was killed, 1,100 U.S. troops were in the air on their way home as part of President Kennedy's initial steps of withdrawing from Vietnam.

President Kennedy's vice-president, L.B. Johnson, undertook a major escalation of the war against Vietnam after he succeeded President Kennedy.

In addition, elements of the U.S. military/intelligence apparatus were upset about President Kennedy's decision not to provide major overt U.S. military support for the CIA-organized Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba, and his pledge as part of the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis to refrain from further attempts to invade Cuba. Ramsquire 22:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, because it is only a collection of facts that happened. It has no basis as a theory. If it had citations, it would be very interesting... andreasegde 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that A 'collection of facts' does not necessarily constitute a theory, nevertheless these fact are pertinent to the case. We it's difficult to construct a theory without adding one's own view on how this information connects together, without appearing to offer POV, not allowed by Wiki's rules. And yet, when we are dealing with a conspiracy it is, by virtue of its nature, going to have to include POV and incomplete facts. If you, or anyone else, were to be as rigours with the other theories then this page would be virtually blank. For example the 'Friendly fire' entry is based on one book, by one person, based on the account of individual who 'admits' responsibly for firing the shot. The authors arguments is based of very selective reading of the evidence and far from conclusive. yet it remains a theory displayed on this page. Wm.Blake 12:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points, and I agree with you. I have had exactly the same thoughts myself, but the number one rule is no POVs. No way around that one. If you write a book yourself, it would go in. It´s strange, isn´t it? Ho-hum.... andreasegde 17:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is why I am always hesitant to delete large sections or chunks of an article. But the reason this was deleted out is that we cannot use primary sources here unless it has been published by a reliable publisher. The book is a secondary source and therefore we can summarize the book. But this section was based on one editor's reading of two memos and is thus original research. Feel free to add it back to the article if you can find reliable secondary sources. Ramsquire 17:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikified and LBJ

Look, I normally do IT stuff, so this is just my passing comment, but the demands for references seem to be bordering on the absurd in places. Someone asked for a reference for the claim LBJ gained from the assassination by becoming President. Why does that need a reference? Is the fact LBJ became President in doubt? Is the fact being President carries power and privilege in doubt? I appreciate the need for references, but really, I am forced to agree that the page has too many critics, and not enough writers.

• http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/300806jfk.htm

LBJ does seem to be a key suspect. His mistress is quite explicit about the matter, and provided detailed comments on who did it and why. If thats not in, it should be. Timharwoodx 01:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. You both "drop in", and leave a criticism, and you do not contribute. Hit those keys, and do something... andreasegde 02:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is very subjective if he gained "the most" from the assassination (which I believe was the original quote. If it wasn't then I stand corrected). Ramsquire 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"arguably gained the most from Kennedy's death", which is the ultimate POV, and stating the obvious. andreasegde 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Critics and contributors

Before anyone else makes a comment, you should first ask yourselves if you have contributed. This page (and many others) needs contributors, and not critics. Find the citations, refine your style, and hit those keys. andreasegde 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dulles

"Allen Dulles was fired by President Kennedy for presiding over the disastrous invasion of Cuba by a small army of Cuban nationals, but was then appointed by Johnson as one of the seven members of the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination." (fact needed)

This is common knowledge. andreasegde 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That he was "fired" is common knowledge, but I added the tag because I didn't know if that was the official reason or explanation given or whether he was asked to resign (which technically is something different than a firing). Ramsquire 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he was. Kennedy felt very "let-down" by the CIA. There are a few good comments here and there that has Kennedy saying they had to be fired, even though he personally took on the responsibilty for the failure. If anything goes wrong, somebody (apart from the Prez) gets the chop... andreasegde 17:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To use an example from current US politics. Everyone knows that George Tenet was fired as head of the CIA because of the failure to find WMD's in Iraq. However, officially, Tenet resigned to spend more time with his family. That's my question here, did Dulles "resign" or "retire" for some other stated reason or was the Kennedy administration up front that Dulles was getting the ax for the Bay of Pigs. If some other official reason was given for the firing of Dulles, we may need to cite the Bay of Pigs explanation given here. I am not sure though, that is why I tagged it. I wanted to see if there was some consensus on information like that. Ramsquire 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but Dulles didn´t retire from the CIA. He was later appointed to the Commission (a lot of work) and still had other duties. (The WC has lots of places where Dulles says that he must leave because he has a Hearing somewhere else...) andreasegde 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Did some limited research on Dulles. As I suspected, he was not fired but resigned (under similar cirmustances as Tenet coincidentally) in the fall of 1961, almost six months after the Bay of Pigs. So if we are going to make that connection (obvious as it is) we may need to cite it. Also, he was put on the WC on the urging of Bobby Kennedy.

Finally, the CIA and the WC are two separate unrelated entities. Apparently Dulles did retire from the CIA, although he remained active by writing books on intelligence and geopolitics after his official career ended. Ramsquire 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bobby wanted him on the WC? Good grief; that´s interesting. This changes the whole scenario. This information about Dulles should definitely go in, as he was potrayed as the big bad wolf for years. The other person is General Cabell (?) - I think - who was also supposedly fired (his brother was the mayor of Dallas.) If the same story applies to him then that would answer a lot of things. andreasegde 10:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

Here is Wiki's policy on primary sources:

In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher.

I deleted the military-industrial complex section because the editor uses the NAM memo's to extrapolate ideas and theories without citing to a secondary source as required. As is, those links are unusable per the guideline above. Ramsquire 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible Re-Order

As it stands now, the article has three different mafia conspiracies and four government conspiracies. I'm wondering if there is any way to reorder the section so as to keep the theories together by theme. Any ideas would be nice. Ramsquire 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but I have absolutely no idea how we could do it. Being a theories page (with inter-mingled theories) it would be hard to sort them out. I would go for fattening out the individual articles with specific reasons (with citations) about why they wanted Kennedy dead, and not only because they "hated the S.O.B". An emphasis/piece on how many ´institutions´ hated Kennedy would be good to bring the article together. andreasegde 23:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy dropping Johnson

I have put in something to contradict the idea that, "Kennedy had discussed with his closest aides (including his personal secretary, Evelyn Lincoln) that he was considering dropping Johnson as vice-president before the 1964 U.S. presidential election."

Jackie Kennedy had a very different viewpoint. andreasegde 13:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Castro

It has been very difficult trying to track down anything definite on RFK´s involvement with the assassination of Castro. One side says no, the other yes. Recently found cryptic memos do not make it clearer. andreasegde 14:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone clicks on this [13] and types in Castro and clicks on Search, you will find a very interesting piece about The Bay of Pigs. Kennedy not allowing air cover is absolute rubbish.

He allowed WWII bombers (painted in Cuban colours) to attack, allowed fighters to defend the landing craft (fighters showed up too early) and said he would not allow another air attack, but changed his mind and allowed it. They didn´t drop a single bomb because of cloud cover.

"Wouldn´t allow air cover" is complete nonsense. He wouldn´t allow American planes to attack.

Quote: On Saturday, December 30, surviving Brigade members gathered for a ceremony in Miami ’s Orange Bowl, where the Brigade’s flag was handed over to President Kennedy. “I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this Brigade in a free Havana,” the President announced that day. andreasegde 09:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Windshield

I have put in a windshield piece in Two Shooters (with for, and against, links). andreasegde 14:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Statements

I've deleted the following unsourced statements from the article:

Claims were made that it had numerous motives for removing Kennedy from power.

In September 1963 Castro publicly warned the U.S. about American leaders not being safe if they think they could kill him.

It is notable that in 1962 the Kennedys had ordered the CIA to cease the assassination attempts against Castro. The CIA ignored the president's order, and continued with assassination training and attempts, unbeknownst to the president or Robert Kennedy.

In fact, Castro had been meeting with Daniel the moment Kennedy was shot.

When he was selected for the role of Vice-President. Proponents suggest that Johnson thus had active reason to seek Kennedy's murder, as he was supposedly not a man who would be able to get elected on his own.

Johnson biographers agree that Johnson was politically aggressive and power-hungry. Others have written that Johnson was an agent of the mafia — blackmailed by organized crime with revelations of Johnson's past criminal actions. [14]

("Johnson was politically aggressive and power-hungry" could be said about every politician...) andreasegde 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Some theorists claim that an unidentified fingerprint found on a cardboard box on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository Building is that of a known associate of President Johnson, one Malcom Wallace, a convicted murderer.

It is clear from this conversation that Hoover believed there was a second person at the Soviet Embassy who was impersonating Oswald. The tape is available, but there is an unusual 14-minute gap in the conversation, which was deleted at sometime in the past.

He did not want to retire even though he was approaching, in January of 1965, the then-mandatory government retirement age of 70, and would have been retired by President Kennedy had Kennedy lived to be re-elected.

After President Kennedy was killed, Justice Department mafia prosecutions dropped sharply, reverting to pre-Kennedy administration levels.

This was a decision which would have had to have been, by law, reapproved by the President every year.

The CIA - during the Kennedy administration - approached the Mafia because the CIA recognized the mutual benefits to both by ousting Castro. The Mafia's interest lay in reclaiming the billions of dollars lost from gambling, drugs, and prostitution rackets, when Castro seized the Mafia's gambling and narcotics trafficking assets in 1959.

Files´ testimony has been subject to detailed cross-corroboration with other possible suspects and witnesses during investigation by retired FBI agents, according to their information the assassination has been thoroughly compartmentalized among the mob, CIA and local police squad.

Files' story can not be fully validated to prove that he had any involvement in the JFK assassination plot.

Kennedy was perceived by Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev as too young and inexperienced to be taken seriously.

This attitude was taken after the meeting between Kennedy and Khrushchev in Vienna. Khrushchev knew that Kennedy was younger than his (Khrushchev's) oldest son. Kennedy was also suffering from constant back problems during their summit in Vienna, which left him feeling weak.

Ramsquire 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. Three or four can be verified (without a doubt) but Ramsquire is totally correct to delete them as no citations were forthcoming. Well done.

To any editors that disagree: Cite the references and then they will be most welcome. (I have also been guilty at times of being lazy and not putting citations/references in, so you are not alone...) andreasegde 18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To the Judith Campbell Exner edit, I added a verification tag because we need to be sure it was a BBC documentary and not simply the BBC replaying someone else's documentary and we also need a 3rd party source that Exner was in fact a Kennedy mistress. We can also fix that problem by saying that Exner claims she was a Kennedy mistress with a cite to her claim.Ramsquire 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have it on video (four 40 min. episodes). I have sent an e-mail to the BBC asking for more information. andreasegde 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have put the relevant links in. --andreasegde 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also deleted

Also deleted, for the same reason above:

• Kennedy was thought to have been killed so to preserve the status-quo of the ongoing Cold War (i.e. instead of a "hot war", WWIII —direct nuclear war with the Soviets).

• Kennedy's inexperience, and hesitance, was believed by some to be the cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Ramsquire 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Jack Ruby had grown up working for Mafia leader Al Capone in Chicago. Ramsquire 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons

I have been finding links and putting in information about Kennedy´s attitude/actions (self-explanatory) about why organisations may have wanted him dead. andreasegde 09:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealey Plaza

I've been there, done that. And it is as you have described it. This is totally, off topic, but did you ever try to imitate the shot of badgeman from behind the picket fence? When I tried it, I made a very interesting discovery. Ramsquire 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, what'd you find? I've stood out on Zapruder's pergola pedestal, of course, but the fence as you know has no gate or hole in it, so it looked to me as though you really had to go around it somehow to get in back, or maybe start out in the TBDB parking lot, so it never occured to me to try it. I did go over and look over it, into the TBDB parking lot (trainyard in those days). SBHarris 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To get there was sort of easy. I just got on the triple underpass and walked across right to the spot I wanted. You can also get there by walking behind the pergola and walking past a few homeless "tour guides" to get right into that spot. When I stood in the spot where Badgeman is located in the Moorman photo, the wall to the right of where Zapruder was standing blocked my view of the location of the fatal shot. Even if you stand on the bumber of a car (or milk crate as I did) I don't think most of us still could make the shot. I'm a little over 6 ft, which would make me slightly taller than average, but I wonder how tall badgeman would have to have been to make that shot. Of course if you slid down the fence towards the underpass, you do get a great shot. No matter your height. Also from the sewers, which are inexplicably easy to get into, you only see car tires driving by, there is no shot there. Ramsquire 23:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I've seen an analysis of how big badgeman had to be in the Moorman photo, and his torso size gives him a height of about 4 feet. A midget. So it would have had to be a pretty big milk crate, with Mini Me on top. Yes the sewer is right out. Not only cramped, but no shot through the side of the car (or the windscreen if taken way before that). And there are not connections down there a man could get through. You can get into the curb sewer drain on Elm and hide, but you have to get out the same place you got in. I think somebody would notice, unless you were prepared to stay down there all day with a black cloth over you and your fingers crossed. I guess if somebody stole the Stemons sign that night, sometime could have gotten out of the sewer. Had there been a shot there. SBHarris 07:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No criticism here, just a couple of FYI's. Before drawing any conclusions where the fence in involved, be aware that the fence at the site now is a replica which may or may not be very similar to the original. Also, there are two sewer theories. One involves the curbside drain near the grassy knoll, the other involves the (now gone) sewer holes that were on the triple underpass. H.E. Livingstone (High Treason) has his assassin(s) popping up from the later. Joegoodfriend 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The fence was not blocking the shot, the wall just to the right of Zapruder (or I guess south in this rendering) blocks your shot (or more accurately, the shot of an average person). I never heard of Livingstone's theory, it's interesting. One note though, I guessed you meant under the underpass, because there couldn't be sewers on it. Ramsquire 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Harry Weatherford

Can someone explain how this story relates to conspiracy? Ramsquire 23:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Because, if he really was on the roof, (with a rifle for security) he could have been the second shooter. I put the piece in to show that even though a Dallas police chief believes he was there, his own testimony says otherwise. It´s the kind of thing that theories are made of, even though it´s not true. I didn´t put in that a reporter asked him at the time if he had shot the President, to which he replied, "You son of a bitch, I kill lots of people...". That´s petrol on the fire.

It doesn´t have to be a theory, but rather the debunking of one.andreasegde 10:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

References in Fiction

Is there a reason why the comment made in the movie "Zoolander" isn't mentioned in "References in Fiction"? I wasn't sure if it was because it was too minor a comment in the film, or what, so I didnt' bother editing it to add. Moterola 10:13 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold. Fix it, if you want to. --andreasegde 17:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

References

I see no reason why the "disputed", or "not referenced" tags should be there. The page has been cleaned. Maybe there should be a tag saying "Please do not add any comments without proper references". That would discourage any random theories. Any comments? --andreasegde 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Files statement

The statement by alleged assassin Files was deleted with a comment "unreliable sources about a living person."

Could the person that deleted the statement identify the "living person" the particular offending statement and the "unreliable sources?"

RPJ 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Files made the comments himself, and on film, so how can it be unreliable? It's amazing that when Oswald said that he was a "patsy", it was considered unreliable (and he was lying) but when Files admitted that he was there, it is also considered unreliable. Wonders will never cease....--andreasegde 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My statement was regarding the source of the information. It is the webpage which I consider unreliable for a report of this magnitude regarding a living person, as per the rules at WP:BLP. Gamaliel 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is the living person to which you refer? RPJ 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the James Files article, James Files is still alive. Gamaliel 20:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But, James Files is the one making the statements to the researcher about the dead Mafia figures. If the Mafia figures were still alive then you possibly might have something to consider.

Please revert your deletion.

Thank you

RPJ 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)