Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 15

Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) on Oswald
I suggest a new chapter "Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA)" or integration into the existing article of the following content:

In chemistry, neutron activation analysis (NAA) is a nuclear process used for determining the concentrations of elements in a vast amount of materials. It is currently the most sensitive and reliable method of measuring quantities of elements within compounds. For details, see e.g. Michael D. Glascock, ‘Overview of Neutron Activation Analysis.

Neutron activation analysis has been used to examine two types of physical evidence in the JFK assassination.

Paraffin wax casts were taken of the hands and right cheek of ,Lee Harvey Oswald. The casts were tested by NAA within weeks of the assassination to see whether they contained incriminating quantities of gunpowder residues. Similar tests were done on a controlled sample of casts from marksmen who fired a gun of the same type as that found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

In 1977, two bullet fragments recovered from the assassination and the almost intact bullet, Commission Exhibit 399, nicknamed the magic bullet, were tested by NAA to see: The casts from Lee Harvey Oswald’s paraffin tests were subjected first of all to normal spectrographic analysis. According to an FBI memo, "the results show Punctate traces of nitrate found in the paraffin on the right and left hands consistent with that of a person who handled or fired a firearm. The paraffin of right check [sic] showed no traces of nitrate."
 * how many bullets the fragments had come from;
 * and whether the fragments from Connally’s wrist had come from the magic bullet.

The absence of traces of nitrate on his cheek suggested that he had not fired a rifle that day.

Senior officials at the Atomic Energy Commission got in touch with the FBI, and made several offers to perform NAA tests on the paraffin casts and the bullet fragments. Grudgingly, the FBI agreed, noting that Oswald’s murder had ensured that the tests would never be examined at trial, and that "any such examinations will, of course, be with the strict understanding that the information and dissemination of the results will be under complete FBI control". The tests were performed in December 1963 and January 1964.

The FBI informed the Warren Commission of the tests in March, pointing out only that "as a result of these [neutron activation analysis] examinations, the deposits found on the paraffin casts from the hands and cheek of Oswald could not be specifically associated with the rifle cartridges".

In September 1964 the Warren Commission called its final witness, John F. Gallagher, the FBI laboratory specialist who had overseen the NAA examinations of the paraffin casts and the bullet fragments.

Before the interview, Gallagher and Redlich discussed the areas that would be included, and those that would be ignored. Redlich limited his questioning to Oswald’s paraffin casts, and carefully avoided asking for details and precise measurements. Neither man mentioned the fact that NAA tests had also been applied to the bullet fragments.

Gallagher did point out that the cast of Oswald’s right cheek possessed traces of barium and antimony on the outside as well as on the inside. Evidently the cast had become contaminated. The existence of residues on the outside implied that at least some of the material on the inside was also the result of contamination. No figures were specified, but Gallagher implies that the quantities were so small as to be insignificant.

Neutron activation analysis supported the conclusion of the spectrographic examination: there were no incriminating quantities of gunpowder residues on Lee Harvey Oswald’s right cheek.

Redlich and Gallagher had also neglected to mention that controlled tests had taken place on the paraffin casts. This became public knowledge when the New York Times quoted Dr Vincent P. Guinn at a conference in Glasgow.

Harold Weisberg sued under the Freedom of Information Act for the records of the various neutron activation analyses. The case dragged on for 17 years, with the Department of Justice claiming that public knowledge of the data was not in the interests of ‘national security’. Eventually, nearly twenty years after the assassination, some of the results of the NAA tests were made available to Weisberg. He concluded, "the tests given me show that in seven ‘control’ cases where others had fired a rifle this evidence was left on the cheeks."

The control tests appear to prove that neutron activation analysis can be expected to show substantial quantities of barium and antimony on the cheek of anyone who had fired a rifle of the same type as that found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The absence of such quantities on Oswald’s cheek implies that he almost certainly did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.

The court case is Weisberg v. ERDA and the Department of Justice, Civil Action 75–226.

The documents, which still await expert appraisal, are available in The Harold Weisberg Archive, Hood College, Frederick, Maryland.

External Reference:

How Reliable is the NAA Evidence in the JFK Assassination?

Further Reading:

22 November 1963 - An Introduction to the JFK Assassination

Mary Ferrell Foundation - preserving the legacy

For more about NAA and the JFK assassination, see:

Gerald D. McKnight, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, University Press of Kansas, 2005, pp.198–212.

Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Henry Holt, 1985, pp.78–86.

''References

1: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=138875

2: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62258&relPageId=23

3: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62255&relPageId=140

4: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58211&relPageId=171

5: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=24356

6: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=24362

7: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=24361

8: New York Times, 28 August 1964, page=32

9: Harold Weisberg: Post Mortem: JFK Assassination Cover–Up Smashed, 1975, ISBN 9780911606058, page 437''

Icarus4 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be more appropriate to explore this in the article John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Joegoodfriend: I disagree, because my proposed text does only present results of the neutron activation analysis performed by the Atomic Energy Commission. It does neither mention any conspiracy nor any theory.Icarus4 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mary Ferrell was an enthusiastic assassination buff, not a professional historian. Accordingly, I don't think that her archives are a reliable source for a claim that a negative test of this type rules out to Oswald as the shooter, especially when the preponderance of the evidence implicates Oswald as the shooter. Maybe Oswald put a rag in between his cheek and the rifle, for comfort and stability. Maybe the sample collection or the test procedure was flawed. Who knows?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Cullen328: With respect and no ill will, I assume you might experience cognitive dissonance. The word "buff" is a synonym for an "enthusiast" who by definition has an "intense enjoyment, interest, or approval" of a topic or person. It is also a synonym for a "fan", who by definition is a "aficionado or supporter of something, such as a band, a sports team or entertainer". Nobody is able to assert that Mary Ferrell had an "intense enjoyment or approval" of the assassination of JFK. She also was no "aficionado or supporter" of the assassination of JFK. Also her work is not about "something such as a band, a sports team or entertainer". Mary Ferrell created the biggest collection of documentation on the assassination of JFK and has therefore contributed more value to historic research than many academic researchers. I have seen the usage of the word "buff" respectively the phrase "assassination buff" also on many other occasions used to describe other persons doing similar work as Mary Ferrell did. That specific usage of "buff" / "assassination buff" is used as a tool to diminish the enormous historic value of their work and thus denouncing those people. It is a political combat term attempting to make the public ignore the documentation of the assassination and here specifically to ignore Mary Ferrell's importance in "preserving the legacy", meaning preserving the documents of the assassination - as the title of her website states. Please respect WP:WORDS, WP:NPOV. I suggest you describe Mary Ferrell correctly: as an expert on the assassination of JFK. By logic follows that if you do not think that her archive is a reliable source then you must also reject anything that is written in any government document, (e.g. the Warren Report including its appendices, FBI, police documents), anything that is ruled by a court which uses official documents, expert witness or eyewitness as basis for the ruling, and last but most important anything that is being said by politicians, television and press. The "preponderance of the evidence implicating Oswald as the shooter" as you described it is based on a certain selection of the documents in Mary Ferrell's archive in combination with the opinion of the members of the Warren Commission. Therefore the difference between my proposed text and the "preponderance of the evidence implicating Oswald as the shooter" consists of two items: First, the fact that Mary Ferrell's archive contains a larger amount of evidence documents than in the Warren Commission report and Ferrell's archive also contains documents from more different sources. And second, the opinion of the members of the Warren Commission, which is based on only a selection of these documents. Therefore, claiming that Mary Ferrell's archive is not a reliable source is illogical. Occam's razor "is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected." It "states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power". Your claim that Oswald might have put a rag between his cheek and the gun for comfort and stability is based on zero facts and zero indication. No marksman was ever documented to use such a rag. your claim also goes against the principle of Occam's razor. And last, but most importantly: it is impossible, since no such rag was found mounted on the Mannlicher-Carcano or in the TSBD and Oswald had no time to apply such rag onto the rifle. Nobody has ever claimed that the sample collection and test procedure were flawed. I suggest to all scientific experts regarding NAA to validate these NAA tests. The data is available at The Harold Weisberg Archive, Hood College, Frederick, Maryland. Icarus4 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * maryferrell.org has many official files (Warren Commission etc) not easily available elsewhere, and that is what the links above are, as you might know if you'd clicked on them. Icarus: if you're prepared to bang your head against a brick wall, then, er, welcome. Just be aware that only evidence supporting the official 1964 theory is considered "reliable" round here, by the circular reasoning that any sources providing evidence to the contrary must be unreliable, since the theory is clearly true because there is no reliable evidence against it. Podiaebba (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just be aware that only evidence supporting the official 1964 theory is considered "reliable" round here, by the circular reasoning that any sources providing evidence to the contrary must be unreliable, since the theory is clearly true because there is no reliable evidence against it. ???? Since the page a) describes the non-disputed sequence of events, b) describes the conclusions of the official investigations and c) describes the growth of the conspiracy movement, one wonders what you mean here, Podiaebba? Obviously, you've not read the page as the page ALSO describes that one of those investigations concluded there was a conspiracy behind the assassination! Or are you suggesting we simply replace the article with one which describes "the conspiracy"? Well then, which one? Which of the several hundred out there shall we base this page on? Those who desperately want to insert the "truth" here have the basic problem that, amongst those who declare a conspiracy, there is near-violent disagreement over who among literally hundreds of individuals or organizations actually carried it out. One need only look at the conspiracy page to discover that.


 * As for the parafin test, the basic problem here is that the test is useless and was recognized as being useless even back in 1963. Why? Because the test results in both false positives AND false negatives. People who didn't handle a gun can be contaminated by those who have, and can be contaminated by other substances resulting in a false positive AND people who have fired a gun can and have passed the test without detectable residue. Indeed, in the links to the testimony of the WC we read a witness making this precise point! Why was the test even used? Often because of the BELIEF from the accused that the test is accurate and therefore the possibility that they might confess.


 * By logic follows that if you do not think that her archive is a reliable source then you must also reject anything that is written in any government document, (e.g. the Warren Report including its appendices, FBI, police documents), anything that is ruled by a court which uses official documents, expert witness or eyewitness as basis for the ruling, and last but most important anything that is being said by politicians, television and press. Your logic fails you here, Icarus. In terms of a "reliable source," we most often refer to the conclusions of those making a claim. Simply referring to documents in an archive is not good enough - we need to link to someone making the CONCLUSIONS that some evidence means something. This is the common error made by critics of the Warren Commission who promote a viewpoint by noting what a witness says as if this establishes a conspiracy. We need to cite a reliable source who makes that argument based on that evidence, otherwise it is POV. This is a fundamental Wikipedia policy, and one most often misunderstood by editors operating in good faith.


 * Therefore the difference between my proposed text and the "preponderance of the evidence implicating Oswald as the shooter" consists of two items: First, the fact that Mary Ferrell's archive contains a larger amount of evidence documents than in the Warren Commission report and Ferrell's archive also contains documents from more different sources. And second, the opinion of the members of the Warren Commission, which is based on only a selection of these documents. Absolutely irrelevant. If you want to insert something based on her archive you HAVE TO do so via a reliable source who makes the precise argument you are making, based on those documents. Otherwise it is simply YOUR opinion that this establishes Oswald didn't fire a rifle. I can - and would - bring forth reliable sources which point out that the test is unreliable because of both false positives and false negatives.


 * Nobody has ever claimed that the sample collection and test procedure were flawed. I suggest to all scientific experts regarding NAA to validate these NAA tests. This is simply not true! The test itself is not considered a reliable indicator that someone did or didn't fire a rifle which is the fundamental problem. There may be a debate over that, but it is a FACT that many experts dismiss the reliability of the tests and therefore any conclusion based on the tests can't be considered probative. Canada Jack (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Simply referring to documents in an archive is not good enough - we need to link to someone making the CONCLUSIONS that some evidence means something." - yes, and if any person or media source draws any evidence-based conclusions that point to conspiracy (or could even be construed as pointing to conspiracy), then they are dismissed as an ipso facto unreliable "conspiracy theorist". How do we know they're unreliable? Because they're pointing to conspiracy. How do we know there was no conspiracy? Because all reliable sources agree there wasn't one. Thus the circularity. Podiaebba (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How do we know there was no conspiracy? Because all reliable sources agree there wasn't one. Obviously you've not bothered to read the page, Podiaebba. There are numerous references on this page to the House Select Committee investigation which concluded there was a conspiracy behind the assassination. Canada Jack (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

On a more general level, this is an example of why the evidence is only lightly addressed on this page. Many authors have pointed out evidence which runs counter to the conclusions of the Warren Commission. However, those arguments - like this one - have strong counter-arguments. So, very quickly, the page would be waded down by an argument over whether Evidence X does or doesn't indicate Oswald was innocent or there was a conspiracy. Just look at the debate above on the issue of Oswald carrying the rifle into the building. Or the oft-quoted testimony of Vickie Adams who ran down the Depository stairs "immediately" after the shooting and didn't see or hear Oswald. It's rather easy to find a million sources of those who claim this "proves" Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor, but there is a counter-argument which also "proves" she didn't descend the stairs until AFTER Oswald did (see Archives 13). The point is not what the argument is, the point is that in getting into that sort of detail this page becomes an unwieldy mess and a forum for debate. The page, if one reads it without ideological blinkers, simply describes the event, describes the conclusions of several investigations and describes the doubts raised by conspiracy-oriented authors and others. And that's all it really should do. Canada Jack (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On the parafin debate, here is some Warren Commission testimony which underlines my points. My first point was that the parafin test was considered, even in 1963, unreliable.


 * Cortlandt Cunningham (3H487): And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands.


 * On the specific issue of whether a parafin test on the cheeks could tell whether a person had recently fired a rifle, the Warren Commission tested the actual rifle (C2766) and used the same ammunition as was fired that day. (3H494)


 * CUNNINGHAM: We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
 * EISENBERG: So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
 * CUNNINGHAM: That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.


 * His explanation as to how a false negative could occur with this rifle? (3H492):


 * EISENBERG: A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
 * CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
 * EISENBERG: Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
 * CUNNINGHAM: No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.


 * In conclusion, the lack of residue detected in the parafin test is of no probative value, a point not only found within the very documents you cited, Icarus, but by many experts in the field. Or should I cite them as well?


 * And, just for the sake of argument, if this was to appear on this page (it shouldn't) or on the rifle page (you'd have better luck there), the inclusion could be along these lines: "Authors have argued (cite authors, linked to their arguments) that the parafin test, which came back negative, mean Oswald didn't fire the rifle. But the Warren COmmission concluded this test was of no probabtive value as it resulted in false negatives (if they in fact concluded that... add cites)/ But others (cite them and their argument) that the test is useless etc."   Canada Jack (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, one final note (I promise this is it), there is already a section on the Single Bullet Theory page on the NAA analysis of the bullet fragments and the attendant debates on that issue. Canada Jack (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Canada Jack: All but one of your arguments are invalid.


 * Are you suggesting we simply replace the article with one which describes "the conspiracy"? Well then, which one? I suggest improving the article with facts to counter the vast amount of nonsense which is contained in the official reports.
 * As for the parafin test, the basic problem here is that the test is useless and was recognized as being useless even back in 1963. First, you have not even read the heading of my proposed text, where it reads, "Neutron Activation analysis". Second, there is no such thing as a "parafin test". Paraffin casts were made on Oswald to collect all forensically relevant particles for later tests to determine whether he fired a gun or a rifle. One of the tests performed by the FBI was the spectrographic test, which was positive on Oswald's fingertips' inner side and negative on the back of his hands as well as on his right cheek. Cunningham testified on this type of test. The result indicated he had not fired a revolver, but only touched a material that left traces of barium and antimon on his fingertips. This material was part of his job: working in a book store, since books have these elements on their surface. Therefore finding barium and antimon on Oswald's inner fingertips is not even a "false positive". "False positives" and "false negatives" were known in 1963 and therefore the Atomic Energy Commission offered to perform the NAA on Oswald's paraffin casts to definitively determine whether he fired which type of weapon. This test was performed at the Oak Ridge Laboratories and proved Oswald did not fire a rifle, since his cheek cast tested negative on all forensically relevant isotopes but the whole series of control tests using the same weapon and ammunition all tested positive. This also proves that Cunningham's claims that "the chamber of the rifle is so tight that no gas can be blown back towards the shooter's face" is false.
 * Simply referring to documents in an archive is not good enough - we need to link to someone making the CONCLUSIONS that some evidence means something. I acknowledge this problem and the requirement for secondary sources for reason of them performing reliability checks on primary sources and being peer reviewed by other secondary sources. I will provide a rewritten version of my proposed text with the inclusion of independent, reliable, third party sources.
 * [Mary Ferrell's archive contains a larger amount of evidence] Absolutely irrelevant. No, I gave this this argument to show that the article is incomplete because many parts of the evidence were ignored in the official reports (or their respective coverage in the article).
 * The test itself is not considered a reliable indicator. See above: You did not even read the heading of my proposed text.
 * The House Select Committee investigation which concluded there was a conspiracy behind the assassination. The HSCA was a narcotic pill against the public outrage following Robert Groden's revelation of the government's lies. No investigation was desired by the House.
 * arguments - like this one - have strong counter-arguments. So, very quickly, the page would be waded down by an argument over whether Evidence X does or doesn't indicate Oswald was innocent or there was a conspiracy. As shown above, my argument has not even been addressed by anyone yet. Fact is, there is no evidence supporting the claim that Oswald fired a rife. I could also show, that there is no evidence that he fired any weapon that day. But that's for a different chapter. Icarus4 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Me: Are you suggesting we simply replace the article with one which describes "the conspiracy"? Well then, which one? Icarus: I suggest improving the article with facts to counter the vast amount of nonsense which is contained in the official reports. ??? Have you read the article? What "vast amount of nonsense" are you talking about? That the Warren Commission concluded Oswald shot the president? What, they didn't conclude that? Or that conspiracy theories include the claim that the CIA and/or the Mafia were behind it? This material is simply "nonsense"? Be specific.


 * Me: As for the parafin test, the basic problem here is that the test is useless and was recognized as being useless even back in 1963. Icarus: First, you have not even read the heading of my proposed text, where it reads, "Neutron Activation analysis"  You utterly miss the point. The test is considered useless. Even well before 1963. You seem to think that a NAA test is irrefutable - yet how do you come to this conclusion? You cite the test results - yet leave out ANY indication that this is some sort of irrefutable test. Your "proof" is only relevant if it can be firmly established that the NAA test is irrefutable. That has not been established. All you have here is test samples came in one way, Oswald's another way. It may seem signficant to you, but you've failed to establish the veracity of the test method in the first place.


 * But, more to the point, you have failed to address the most basic question - why does this need to be on the page in the first place? Why not, say, a discussion on the Single Bullet Theory? Why create an entire section on what amounts to a side issue, which would also have a counter argument included? You seem to think that the fact the issue isn't here means it needs to be here - you in fact have to make the case for inclusion, not simply state the argument. I fail to see how this particular issue rises to the level of being included when virtually none of the evidence is discussed in depth here.


 * Me: [Mary Ferrell's archive contains a larger amount of evidence] Absolutely irrelevant. Icarus: No, I gave this this argument to show that the article is incomplete because many parts of the evidence were ignored in the official reports (or their respective coverage in the article). You miss the point again. There are reams and reams of evidence out there, much which supports the Warren Commission conclusions, much which suggests otherwise. Why is some evidence rejected? Because OTHER evidence suggests otherwise. SO the WC "ignored" evidence that some gave which suggested a gaping rear head wound because the autopsy surgeons said there was no such wound. And, again, it is not the existence of counter-evidence (much of which is found in the WC volumes anyway), it is the counter ARGUMENTS which would appear here. Except, as I have pointed out repeatedly: Which counter argument? There are literally HUNDREDS of different scenarios, based on the same evidence - it's a matter of which evidence is accepted, which is rejected - which would take this article into the stratosphere in terms of length to address even a few of them.


 * Me: The House Select Committee investigation which concluded there was a conspiracy behind the assassination. Icarus: The HSCA was a narcotic pill against the public outrage following Robert Groden's revelation of the government's lies. No investigation was desired by the House. Wow. So the finding of "conspiracy" was part of the conspiracy, was it? This is why most in the "establishment" press find the conspiracy crowd so silly. The argument seems to be "yeah, they concluded "conspiracy" but they didn't want to and that was the throw everyone off the scent" It may make sense to you, Icarus, but not to many other sentient beings!


 * As shown above, my argument has not even been addressed by anyone yet. Fact is, there is no evidence supporting the claim that Oswald fired a rife. ???? Icarus, there were witnesses who saw a man fire a rifle, one of whom identified Oswald as being that man. You may not accept that evidence, but to say there is "no" evidence that Oswald fired a rifle is a complete lie. Canada Jack (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As a final note, as I said earlier, this might more properly be placed on the page dedicated to the rifle. Canada Jack (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And... as a further note, if this was to appear on the rifle page, there are some significant changes to the text as suggested by Icarus. For one, the issues as laid out are done very confusingly. And many of the reasons for the actions, such of the FBI, are laid out in a manner which suggest a cover-up, which is POV. ("Grudgingly, the FBI agreed..." "Redlich limited his questioning to Oswald’s paraffin casts, and carefully avoided asking for details and precise measurements" - there is nothing in the cite there that suggests an "avoidance" of any subject matter, it is the OPINION of some that certain questions were avoided rather than, say, not seen as of particular relevance.) The text instead should read something like


 * The Dallas police did a paraffin test on Oswald shortly after his arrest to determine if he had recently used a firearm. Parrafin - a wax-like substance - is placed over an individual's hand or face and a mold is made. The test is designed to capture nitrates and other compounds which are expelled after a firearm is used and to detect these compounds via a chemical analysis. The results came up positive for nitrates on Oswald's hands, but negative on his cheeks, suggesting he had used a handgun, but not a rifle recently. During Warren Commission testimony, xxx said that the test is not a reliable one as it produces both false positives and false negatives : people who hadn't used a firearm were found with the nitrates [and/or whatever] on their body, others who had used a firearm had no detectable nitrates. xxx (Cunnginham, or whomever) further said that he wouldn't expect gases expelled from a rifle nozzle to end up on the shooter's cheek, and said that paraffin tests were done of men test-firing the same rifle which turned up negative.


 * However, documents released years later showed that a more sophisticated NAA test done in 1964 for the FBI in fact detected residue on the control rifle samples, but not on the sample taken from Oswald's cheek. Some claim [add cites] that this test proves Oswald did not fire the rifle. Others say that whether Oswald could have fired the rifle and had no residue detected by this method is uncertain owing to the nature of the conditions at the time he presumably would have fired (the rifle nozzle sticking out over a ledge into billowing wind, Oswald largely shielded from anything expelled from the nozzle) or tested (the cheek paraffin sample had contaminants and had been washed) is open to debate [add cites]. Canada Jack (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * you have failed to address the most basic question - why does this need to be on the page in the first place? This may be the most basic question to you, but that is only your opinion. For all other people the most basic question is "Who killed JFK?" The NAA results of Oswald's paraffin cheek cast disproves all government reports in this question and exonerate Oswald.


 * [Neutron activation analysis] You utterly miss the point. The test is considered useless. This is untrue. See below.
 * Even well before 1963. This is untrue. See below.
 * You seem to think that a NAA test is irrefutable - yet how do you come to this conclusion? Here I first deliver an independent third party source, for my previous and current statements: The chapter "The Paraffin Tests" which elaborates on the spectrographic and NAA evidence, its acquisition and handling, written by a security specialist and former police officer with a degree in criminal justice, which includes "criminology, sociology, and psychology, among others, [...] statistics, methods of research, criminal justice, policing, U.S court systems, criminal courts, [...], criminal procedure, criminal law, victimology [...]." My proposed text contains in its introduction, "Neutron activation analysis (NAA) [...] is currently the most sensitive and reliable method of measuring quantities of elements within compounds. For details, see e.g. Michael D. Glascock, ‘Overview of Neutron Activation Analysis". There you find, "The advantages of NAA over other analytical techniques were quickly recognized, including: (1) ease of sample preparation; (2) high precision; (3) simultaneous measurement of multiple elements; (4) outstanding replicability; and (5) excellent inter-laboratory comparability. [...] For many elements and applications, NAA offers sensitivities that are superior to those attainable by other methods. [...] because of its accuracy and reliability, NAA is generally recognized as the "referee method" of choice." On Missouri University Research Reactor you find, "Our goal is to give you the most accurate results. [...] We have a state-of-the-art ICP-MS lab and a gold-standard Neutron Activation Analysis lab. We can recommend the best technique(s) for your needs. [...] For many elements NAA offers sensitivities that are superior to those possible by any other technique." See also The NMI3 Information Portal, Neutron Activation Analysis in Scientific Crime Investigation, IAEA - Use of research reactors for neutron activation analysis, Forensic Science: Fundamentals and Investigations 2012 Update, Instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) and forensic applications. The paramount importance of the results of the NAA on Oswald's paraffin casts can also be understood if one looks at circumstantial facts. Now I introduce more independent third party sources: The Warren Commission report did not mention six important facts: First, NAA had been performed by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) the on gunpowder residues of discharged firearms for the past few years. Second, the results of NAA on Oswalds paraffin casts. Third, the NAA results of the bullet fragments and the Magic Bullet. Fourth, NAA results of a series of control tests using the same weapon and ammunition type as the alleged JFK murder weapon. Fifth, this control series left unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts. Sixth, the AEC's conclusions about this rifle were consistent with everything the FBI knew about the alleged murder weapon. (Gerald D. McKnight, 'Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation And Why', ISBN 0700613900, pp 210-211). Seventh, the data was originally sealed, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the AEC refused delivery of the NAA results to the public until 1981 (also by an inappropriate delay of response to court orders). 1981 the AEC handed the data over to Harold Weisberg according to an FOIA request. (McKnight, p 424, ; lawsuit 'Weisberg vs. ERDA and the Justice Department', Civil Action 75–226, Weisberg Archive, Weisberg vs General Services Administration, | Report of the Select Committee on Congressional Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, pursuant to House Resolution 420 Ninety-Fifth Congress identifying court proceedings and actions of vital interest to the Congress pp 276-277)
 * Why is some evidence rejected? Because OTHER evidence suggests otherwise. This is wrong in the JFK case. All evidence for Oswald's innocence was ignored because Oswald's guilt was predetermined. 151 minutes after the assassination FBI chief Hoover tells attorney general Robert F. Kennedy on the phone that "the assassin was in custody" (McKnight, p 10). On the evening of the assassination Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade tells the press, "We just have to prove that he did it, which I think we have". 2 days after the assassination Hoover tells White House aide Walter Jenkins on the phone, "The thing I am concerned about, and so is Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin". 3 days after the assassination Deputy attorney general Katzenbach's memo to presidential assistant Bill Moyers is reaffirming and expanding Hoover's statement above, "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted in trial. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a conspiracy. [...] Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat. [...] The Dallas police [...] were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced." The threats of the FBI against witnesses which made statements contradictory to the "lone nut theory". See also Howard Roffman, 'Presumed Guilty', ISBN 0498019330. Et al.
 * So the finding of "conspiracy" was part of the conspiracy? Correct. As I said before, the HSCA was set up to silence the public outrage and to quell the American people's demand for finding the truth. The HSCA's job was to reiterate the "lone nut" theory a.k.a. the Big Lie. See the review of 'The Last Investigation: What Insiders Know about the Assassination of JFK' by Gaeton Fonzi ISBN 1626360782, The Probe Interview with Robert K. Tanenbaum author of 'Badge of the Assassin' ISBN 1451607466, the review of 'Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government's Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK' by Douglas P. Horne ISBN 0984314431, and the book 'Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK' by Mark Lane (Author), Robert K. Tanenbaum (Introduction), Oliver Stone (Contributor) ISBN 1620870703. And many other books.
 * there were witnesses who saw a man fire a rifle, one of whom identified Oswald as being that man. This is wrong. Nobody identified Oswald as the JFK assassin. Howard Leslie Brennan swore he saw "a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, and would weight about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definitively not a suit." The Commission had no witness seeing Oswald with a rifle in the TSDB. If any rifle was fired as Brennan testified, the bullets would have had to penetrate two panes of glass, neither of which had a bullet hole. FBI chief Hoover confirmed to Warren Commission general counsel Lee Rankin that the Dallas police received the description of the assassin from an "unidentified citizen". The Warren report could not establish Brennan's credibility as a witness. The Warren Report asserted that Brennan viewed Oswald in a police lineup on the the night of the assassination and identified him as the same man he had seen in the window of the 6th floor of TSBD. But fact was, that Brennan did not identify Oswald. Brennan also told the FBI that he could not identify Oswald as the shooter from the TSBD even after he had seen Oswald's picture on television. (McKnight, pp 108-110) We see now, that the Warren Commission report committed a Big Lie when it claimed that there was an eyewitness identifying Oswald as the assassin. And there are many more lies of that league.
 * to say there is "no" evidence that Oswald fired a rifle is a complete lie. I proved that there is no evidence but you denounce my statement as a lie. By logic follows that you use another personal attack against me in violation of WP:NPA.
 * What "vast amount of nonsense" are you talking about? That the Warren Commission concluded Oswald shot the president? Yes, but that's only one of many parts of the nonsense which is repeated in all official reports. The government commits a Big Lie by declaring and maintaining that the homicide victim Oswald were a double murderer. I will not discuss the other parts of the government nonsense in this chapter for aiming to be concise.
 * What, they didn't conclude that? I never wrote that. I demand that you do not use imputations against me and refer you to WP:NPA.
 * Or that conspiracy theories include the claim that the CIA and/or the Mafia were behind it? This material is simply "nonsense"? I never wrote that either. I wrote, "I suggest improving the article with facts to counter the vast amount of nonsense which is contained in the official reports". I demand that you do not use imputations against me and refer you to WP:NPA.
 * many of the reasons for the actions, such of the FBI, are laid out in a manner which suggest a cover-up, which is POV. ("Grudgingly, the FBI agreed..." "Redlich limited his questioning to Oswald’s paraffin casts, and carefully avoided asking for details and precise measurements" - there is nothing in the cite there that suggests an "avoidance" of any subject matter, it is the OPINION of some that certain questions were avoided rather than, say, not seen as of particular relevance.) The cover-up is well documented and elaborated on in many dozens, if not hundreds of books. Here you have independent third party sources: McKnight, pp 202-212; The Paraffin Tests and for the full chronology of the document creation and exchange related to Oswald's paraffin casts and subsequent tests I refer you to Chapter 4d: Casts of Contention, which is the work of presenting all documents in the Harold Weisberg Archive in an easily understandable way.
 * So far I have shown that all your previous attempts to challenge my statements were based on zero facts, zero indications, erroneous logic, personal assumptions, personal attacks (see also chapter "Buff") and untrue statements. I suggest you refrain from any further comments on Wikipedia. Icarus4 (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of zero facts, the whole discussion above is about nothing at all. There are no facts, just an attempt to muddy the waters, to imply something without saying it. We can't dump a barrel of this stuff into the article and suggest that the reader connect the dots, when we don't have any reliable source willing to do that. --Pete (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Pete, you wrote, "There are no facts". Please elaborate. You also wrote, "just an attempt to muddy the waters". I don't understand what is "the water" and what is the "mud". Please elaborate. I disagree with your claim that I would "imply something without saying it". I clearly stated several times that there is no evidence incriminating Oswald and also elaborated several times on what exonerates Oswald. Of course there is more that exonerates Oswald, but that's not fitting into a chapter called "NAA". Please elaborate. You wrote, "We can't [...] suggest that the reader connect the dots, when we don't have any reliable source willing to do that." Why not? Btw, there are sources for that also, but that would not fit into this chapter "NAA", I assume. The NAA results created by the AEC investigation are missing from the current list of investigations. They were secret until 1981. It also needs to be considered that keeping statements proven to be untrue in the article is badly damaging its quality. Icarus4 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of the talk page
With now two discussions closed on this talk page, let's review the function of this page. I am guilty (as always) of contributing to discussions which are falling off the purpose of the page here - to improve the article.

While the "buff" discussion may have been of some academic interest, since that word is not on the page, nor was there any serious proposal to include it, it clearly was out of bounds. If this was a page on the etymology and usage of the word "buff," maybe.

The NAA discussion was possibly more relevant, but Icarus seems more bent on promoting the issue than addressing the fundamental point - is this section worthy of inclusion on this page? I'd say clearly not, notwithstanding his contention that the issue "proves" Oswald's innocence. He says it's only my o"opinion" that the section is not suitable here: Yet he fails to make any argument for its conclusion other than the bland statement that people want to know who actually killed Kennedy (even though his proposal says nothing about that). For a page which takes a broad approach in describing the event and the conclusions of the official investigations and conspiracy theories, it's hard to justify a long-winded discussion of a rather arcane corner of the assassination. As I repeatedly said, the issue more properly would reside on the rifle page.

And, let's recall, opinion is not fact. While Icarus may, as an example, assert that his evidence "proves" Oswald did not fire the rifle, that assertion is an opinion and not a fact, however well-cited and well-documented that opinion may be. The "facts" on this page concentrate on the agreed-upon events of the assassination, and where there is disagreement, for example, a note that the "Warren Commission" concluded such and such. The FACT is that the WC concluded something; what they concluded is not treated as a "fact." A distinction seemingly over the heads of some who demand the "lies" on this page be corrected. I challenge anyone to find a "lie" or an opinion masquerading as a "fact" on the assassination page.

In conclusion, to suggest inclusion to this page, the first discussion is why said proposed inclusion enhances the page. If there is consensus on that issue, then the next discussion is on what the actual text should be. While I did attempt to steer Icarus towards those lines of discussion - I even had some proposed text - I was also guilty of extending the debate on the arcane details of the evidence. Sorry. Canada Jack (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I've been concerned about the tendency on this page for editors to wander into speculative discussion: it's a strong temptation, and it's a fascinating subject, so I don't blame anyone for doing so, but we do need to exercise some restraint and keep our primary focus on improving the article rather than having an interesting discussion that from time to time touches on the article. We also need to conclude discussions that haven't gained any consensus for change. Since I've not been involved in the content of the article, apart from obvious vandalism reverts, I've tried to find a balance between closing discussions and allowing free exchanges of ideas before closing. This is a subject where all sorts of ideas have been advanced, but it's not Wikipedia's role to draw conclusions: we leave that to a preponderance of mainstream published sources, so in the end, however fascinating alternative discussions may be, we must circle back to the central historical narrative found in acknowledged mainstream scholarship and investigation, in accordance with long-established Wikipedia policy.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I, too, apologize for straying from discussion focused on improving the article. I started the "buff" section to keep that side issue separate from the other matter, and now recognize that I should have simply ignored the criticism I was subjected to. Let's move forward.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  22:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Category suggestion
Along with Richard III and the Princes in the Tower and various other such 'category of talk pages that tend to wander into Original Research, partisanship and otherwise go off-WP-message areas and would do so even if a self-contained wiki was set up (including the contributions of the Silence (Doctor Who), lizards, the Large Hadron Collider attempting to prevent its creation 'and any other plot devices people can think of').

The penalty for 'shooting a President who is not an obvious threat to society in general/the international world order' - likely to be 'prompt and nasty'; the penalty for blackmail (you do as we say or your private life appears in the news) discovered is likely to be much less.

There are, in fact, two separate questions:


 * Why would "rational actors" wish to kill JFK in particular and at that specific point in time and locality (with Archduke Franz Ferdinand the date and location of the event were signficant).


 * Was LHO acting on "propaganda of the deed" in which JFK's assssination was one possibility - if it had not come off he would have tried someone or something else.

The evidence points towards the second rather than the first option. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * While motive of course is of interest, it's not important in terms of whether Oswald killed Kennedy, if the evidence points to him as the killer. One of the long-time fallacies of the conspiracy crowd is they START with a motive and generally avoid talking about the actual evidence, as if it is sufficient to identify players with the most compelling reasons to want to kill Kennedy. It's an ass-backwards approach that usually fails to address the evidence.


 * For the purposes of this page, which doesn't discuss motives as the accused never admitted to the act and no one else has stepped forward to admit responsibility, it is sufficient to describe the day's events and the conclusions from the major investigations that Oswald did it. There are many credible theories as to why he'd do it, but we'll never know unless a confession note miraculously appears. Canada Jack (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack has it exactly backwards. What we in the "crowd" do is observe that the evidence likely precludes the possibility that Oswald acted alone, then consider who (unlike Oswald) had means, motive and opportunity to kill the President. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt Oswald killed Kennedy. Of course, very few in the conspiracy crowd are reasonable, and they twist themselves into contortions to try to explain away the some 50+ separate pieces of evidence linking him to the crime in a manner which would make Rube Goldberg blush. And, no evidence "precludes" the possibility that Oswald acted alone. But, there you go again, Joe. "...then consider who (unlike Oswald) had means, motive and opportunity to kill the President." "Motive" is IRRELEVANT if one has evidence linking someone to the murder. A rather basic premise which many in your crowd seem utterly incapable of comprehending. Which is why we have a laundry list of who "really" was behind the killing, based on what the crowd believes who had most to gain. Which is a basic fallacy. Canada Jack (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:CIV and WP:EQ. Especially important when discussing controversial topics. But saying that, Wikipedia is not the place to promote, investigate or propose theories of any kind; we simply include the notable ones. And we can also discuss it without resorting to name-calling et al.--Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's my prediction. Long after we are all gone, say 100, 200 years from now, they will exhume Kennedy from his crypt and discover... the head wound exactly as what the autopsy surgeons and photos described (okay, the entry wound higher than what the surgeons described). And the general consensus will be Oswald did it and did it alone. But there WILL be one avenue where we will know more, though it won't point to conspiracy. And that will be in regards to Oswald's Cuban contacts in Mexico. None of this profoundly silly "imposter" crap, but far greater suggestions that the Cubans and Oswald were in contact - and the very real possibility that Oswald might have made his case for defection better - might have been told this - if he did something high-profile. I would guess that those Cubans were stunned to see what he ended up doing and quickly made sure everyone was silent, and Johnson we know did not want to go to war against the Cubans or the Soviets.


 * My bone to pick with the conspiracy crowd is they don't realistically assess what these groups would or could do. For example, why would the FBI want to have Kennedy killed, when Hoover - who ran circles around Kennedy's Ivy-league boys - would have a ruthless equal in the form of Johnson as president? Hoover was in an almost apoplectic panic after the assassination, fearing Johnson would shut down or diminish the FBI, and end up blaming them for the assassination. The creation of the Warren Commission certainly fed these fears. For almost all of these other groups - the CIA, the mafia, the KGB, the Boy Scouts of America - it really made little institutional sense to actually remove Kennedy to further their interests, or to resort to the form of the assassination as it was carried out. Indeed, the way it happened - in full view of several hundred people with several dozen photographers recording the event - basically precludes a conspiracy as none of these groups would be so stupid as to carry out an assassination in such a public manner.


 * Cuba, however, is something different. Gus Russo and Stephen Molton built on research by Wilfried Huismann to spell out the antipathy between the Castro and Kennedy brothers, AND the lurid back and forth spying and intrigue, a 1962 thwarted terror attack, a key double-agent who likely told Fidel of the plans to assassinate him, the role of another double-agent, Fernando Gutiérrez Barrios in investigating and silencing key Cuban/Mexican witnesses. In short, while the Cubans may have not actually engineered the assassination, they likely encouraged Oswald, if not to kill Kennedy, to do something spectacular. And my belief is that over the course of years, this will be the "truth" we know: Oswald, a loner seeking glory and acknowledgement, felt he could gain both the respect of his Cuban friends and become a hero of the revolution by killing Kennedy, an act probably suggested to him by some in Mexico City. He, however, conceived and carried out the assassination. Canada Jack (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

See: WP:FORUM, WP:FORUM and WP:FORUM--Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Motive" is IRRELEVANT if one has evidence linking someone to the murder." Too bad you weren't Oswald's prosecutor. I'd love to hear you say that to a jury. From wikipedia, "In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.
 * I notice that all these conversations are repeating themselves. You make an unfair, insulting generalization about those who disagree with you, I call you out on it, then rather than explain yourself, you just move on to a new insult and remind us again that your interpretation of the evidence is right and others are wrong, full stop. You say, "One of the long-time fallacies of the conspiracy crowd is they START with a motive and generally avoid talking about the actual evidence," This simply isn't true. Who are you talking about? Who, exactly, has noted that Oswald had no motive but refused to discuss the evidence? Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Perhaps you should re-read that, Joe. The key phrase is a popular cultural summation of the aspects. Ask any prosecutor, and he`ll tell you that while it`s satisfying to know why someone did something, it is not needed to get a conviction if the evidence is there pointing to guilt.

I call you out on it, then rather than explain yourself, you just move on to a new insult I`ve repeatedly made the same point about motive and you repeatedly say the same fallacy about motive. Not sure what you don`t get here, Joe. And you`ve repeated it yet again.

they START with a motive and generally avoid talking about the actual evidence Joe, when it comes to the Kennedy assassination, we must first look at the evidence of what happened in Dealy plaza and what that tells us. What many authors do is ignore the evidence tying Oswald to the crime, and come up instead with scenarios as to why, say, the mafia had an ax to grind, or how the CIA feared being cut off, or the anti-Castros were angry about the Bay of Pigs, WITHOUT LINKING IT TO THE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE. That`s the fundamental fallacy when I refer to motive.

Who, exactly, has noted that Oswald had no motive but refused to discuss the evidence? Oswald`s motive is irrelevant in terms of the crime because the evidence points to him and therefore we know he did it. WHY he did it is of course an interesting question, but we don`t need to know it to assign guilt to him. That`s one of the fundamental points here. So your question betrays a misunderstanding of what I am saying. And that is whatever motive Oswald had is not crucial in assigning his guilt as we have all the evidence pointing to his guilt. AND identifying people WITH motive is only relevant if we can link said evidence to those people or organizations. The evidence, IOW, comes first, motive is secondary in terms of determining guilt. Canada Jack
 * "One of the long-time fallacies of the conspiracy crowd is they START with a motive and generally avoid talking about the actual evidence," Do I get an explanation of who you're talking about, or not? If you're going to insult those who've reached different conclusions than you as stupid/dishonest/crazy every time you post, you should have some examples. Otherwise, excuse me, you're bullsh*t. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The best example off the top of my head is the most-influential source for most average people of conspiracies surround this case: Oliver Stone's film "JFK." How does that movie start? With a speech from Eisenhower, talking of the "military industrial complex," suggesting to us we have to keep a close eye on these people. How does this relate to the events of Deally Plaza? None is stated, other than the supposed fact that these guys had vested interests which were being thwarted, later, by Kennedy. Then, later, with ZERO connection made to the events of Deally Plaza, we see a "re-creation" of a bunch of military types saying that Kennedy has to go. I say "re-creation" as this supposed meeting never took place. It was Stone's imagining of what such a meeting would have been like.


 * But the quintessential moment where motive overrides evidence comes where "Mr X" (played by Donald Sutherland) starts to talk to Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner). First, the idea that "evidence" is pretty worthless, a rather amazing declaration but a common refrain in conspiracy circles: "That's the real question, isn't it -- "Why?" -- the "how" is just "scenery" for the suckers . . . Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, Mafia, it keeps people guessing like a parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question -- Why? Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up?" It's important to note that in the film, the reams of evidence which point to Oswald... are almost completely ignored. Of course, evidence is just "scenery" for "suckers."


 * And, how about one of the stars of the conspiracy crowd, Jim Marrs? His higky influenctial book "Crossfire" spends a lot of time implicating just about every orgazination around, as they had "motive," while completley leaving unaddressed as how any of these groups are in any way linked to the evidence found within Deally Plaza. Oh yeah. "Evidence" is for "suckers."


 * Here are some quotes from "Crossfire": [JFK] set out to shake up the status quo of Big Banking, Big Oil, Big Military-Industrial Complex with its powerful Intelligence Community, and Big Organized Crime, which had gained deep inroads into American life since Prohibition. There were -- and most certainly remain -- numerous ties among all of these powerful factions. It is now well documented that the mob and the CIA worked hand in glove on many types of operations, including assassination. The various US Military intelligence services are closely interwoven, and in some cases, such as the National Security Agency (NSA) are superior to the FBI and CIA. Therefore, when Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, began to wage war on organized crime, it quickly became a matter of self-defense to the mob and the banks and industries it controlled. Officials of the FBI and CIA, likewise, were fearful of the Kennedys, who had come to realize how dangerously out of control these agencies had become. The anti-Castro Cubans felt betrayed by Kennedy because of his last-minute orders halting US military assistance to the Bay of Pigs invaders and were quite willing to support and assassination. However, no matter how violent these crime-intelligence-industrial cliques might be, they never would have moved against this nation's chief executive without the approval of -- or at the very least the neutralization of -- the US military. Already angered by Kennedy's liberal domestic politics, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and his signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union, top military brass undoubtedly were incensed in late 1963 when Kennedy let it be known that he planned to withdraw all US military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1965. With that decision, the military turned against him and, even if they wouldn't openly plot against him, the military leadership would not be sorry if something were to happen to Kennedy.


 * You can search in vain, but there is no evidence - none - proffered linking any of these groups to the actual evidence surrounding the assassination. And Stone, Marrs are in no way alone in talking "motive" while leaving unaddressed the evidence linking Oswald to the crime. Which is why it is very hard to take most of these people seriously. Canada Jack (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, I should give credit where credit is due, at least in terms of where I got the above quotes. David Reitzes wrote on the same subject I did - how "motive" trumps "evidence" for many in the conspiracy crowd - and the above comes from a page of his. Took me about 10 seconds to find a good example. If pressed, I'm sure I could come up with 100 examples of this from the conspiracy crowd - I read it from them all the time.


 * Last word here to Mr Reitzes who sums it up well: Crimes are solved through an investigation of the evidence... In the case of the JFK assassination, for example, one of the bullets that struck John F. Kennedy has been conclusively linked to a single rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles. That rifle has been conclusively linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, to the exclusion of all other individuals. Either this evidence is authentic, or else some or all of it has been forged and/or planted; there is no other alternative. If evidence is inauthentic, one must determine its provenance through its documentary trail and interviews with each of those individuals known to have handled it. Once it is determined who planted the evidence, it can then be determined upon whose initiative such individuals were acting. Curiously, this seems to be just about the only avenue of inquiry the JFK research community has not pursued over the past four decades. Canada Jack (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh now I get it. Jack, I declare you the winner on this one. The point as summarized in your analysis of JFK the film is valid. I had the same reaction reading G. Robert Blakey's "The Plot to Kill the President." The book doesn't provide any real link between the evidence in the assassination and the Mafia. Instead it's, the HSCA found a conspiracy, Carlos Marcello repeatedly verbally threatened the Kennedy brothers, so there you go.
 * Now when I read that the conspiracy crowd, "generally avoid talking about the actual evidence," my reaction was, that's silly, I have every major conspiracy book and they all talk about the evidence, dissecting it in loving detail for things that suggest Oswald did not commit the crime or did not act alone. It turns out you meant "they generally do not connect the persons or groups they accuse of involvement with any of the evidence or witness statements to be found in Dealey Plaza or directly involving Oswald or his activities." And that's true. Even those few researchers who name another assassin (Lucien Sarti or Mac Wallace as the accused for example) haven't provided any hard evidence. I like Eugene Hale Brading as a person possibly involved, and he was arrested in Dealey Plaza, but of course he's not connected to any of the evidence. I don't agree with everything you've said above, but again, the argument is yours. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Joe, that's what I am saying. And it's not a trivial point I am making. If these authors limit themselves to a discussion of the actual evidence (and a good many do just that), then that is fine. I will certainly quibble with those who focus on the one witness who says "A" while 20 others say "B" and the need to somehow account for counter-evidence. (On the other side, I have to explain why "all" the Parkland staff saw a rear head exit wound while I cite other evidence which says there was no such wound, as an example.) What many authors, however, do NOT do is account for the evidence we have and how it connects to the people they identify as being behind the assassination. For too many of them, the "evidence" they supply is that of "motive," and why Suspect A would want Kennedy eliminated.

When I first saw "JFK" back in 1991, I was pretty impressed, I thought it made a pretty good case for assassination. I can now look at it with a critical eye and much of it is truly laughable. You aren't here defending that film, Joe, so this is no dig at you, but wouldn't it help the credibility of the claims to explain how Oswald, Clay Shaw and the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually worked together to carry out the assassination? I mean, I see all these scenes with generals etc., then I see Joe Pesci foaming at the mouth as David Ferrie and I ask "What, pray tell, is the connection here? Did the Joint Chiefs of Staff hire a bunch of New Orleans-based homosexuals to kill the president?" Canada Jack (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The key point is 'what motives' are there for shooting JFK in preference to some other means of action (especially given that LBJ/assorted talking heads/assorted other interested parties etc would probably get #very, very nasty# towards anyone who supported the assassination attempt (even if a motive had been provided). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is that motive doesn't trump actual evidence. If the evidence points to a particular person, "motive" is irrelevant. We don't ever have to know why Oswald did it if the evidence points to him. Period. If there is no evidence linking someone to a crime, then we start looking at who would want person X dead, THAT'S when motive becomes relevant, though evidence actually linking that person to the crime would be demanded. But that's not what we have in this case. Canada Jack (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Julia Ann Mercer
Currently there is an orphan article for this person. Anyone has an objection to merging its content with this article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Belongs in JFK assassination conspiracy theories not here. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

New chapter "Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)"
Mad Hieronimo, you gave the edit summary WP:NEGOTIATION. Let's discuss what changes you propose to the content I provided so that the AEC investigation can be integrated into chapter "Official investigations" to improve the article.Icarus4 (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose inclusion of this material. It was discussed at length last month and there was no consensus in favor of including it. Experts agree that this test is prone to false positives and false negatives. Adding this material would give undue weight to test results that are inconclusive given the inherent shortcomings of the testing procedure.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  16:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cullen328, you are repeating all the same arguments that I have already proven to be wrong. See chapter NAA on Oswald.Icarus4 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Icarus, nothing has changed since the last time. You have failed a) to make the case for inclusion on this page. Why does this relatively arcane issue warrant inclusion on this page, which broadly discusses the assassination and briefly recounts the conclusions of the investigations, and not, say, the rifle page where it may have more relevance? And b) the text as written is so laughably POV that I don't know where to start. Howlers such as "The FBI and the Warren Commission conspired to suppress the NAA test results, which do not appear in the report or its appendices." Your credibility would be increased, Icarus, if you managed to distinguish between "opinion," which that quote is, and "fact," which the line as written appears to be. And, here's another: "The only tenable conclusion that could be drawn from the NAA tests was that Oswald had not fired a rifle on the day of the assassination." Really? Says who? Are you actually claiming there is no - not a single - other interpretation? That is what we call up here in Canada, where we seem to be a bit more frank about this stuff than many others, a load of bullshit. If, for example, this test was so sensitive, then why didn't it pick any residue from the many rifles Oswald was known to have fired over the years? Because the residue had worn off or washed off in the intervening time? Oh, so it isn't THAT sensitive, eh? So, how do we know that didn't happen on Nov 22? The control tests were done immediately after the test firing. Oswald's test was done at about 8 pm - at least 6 hours after the assassination. Gee, maybe he washed his face? Or maybe, simply, there was no residue blow-back as the nozzle of the rifle was sticking outside the window and the wind blew it away?

Here is how this text could appear - on the rifle page. "The NAA did tests on the paraffin samples which found no evidence of rifle residue from Oswald's, but did find evidence of residue in control samples. Some have interpreted this to mean that Oswald could not have fired a rifle that day." That's all that is needed here, given the NAA tests on the bullets is extensively covered on the SBT page. The stuff about the years it took to get the NAA data on the rifle is not particularly relevant - we are talking about evidence, after all, not the disposition of evidence - though claims this was part of a cover-up might garner a mention on the conspiracy page, with reference to those who claim this is evidence of such. Canada Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, Icarus, the mere fact you claim to have "proved" a point, tells me that your credibility on these matters is not as great as it should be. Perhaps you should get that old Merriam Webster dictionary out and look up what that word means. Nothing you have argued before "proves" you are right. And the problem here is your seeming inability to see the provisional nature of your argument. This is a common trait in the conspiracy theorist crowd, I have noticed, where the word "proof" is bandied about by people who have failed to supply anything remotely close to that. Canada Jack (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Canada Jack, you wrote, "Icarus, nothing has changed since the last time." As I announced (4th paragraph) to do, I provided content to the article which was never before published on Wikipedia, contains only quotes respectively summaries of quotes from independent third-party sources, and is completely rewritten relative to my original content proposal to be more suitable for the article.
 * You wrote, "this page broadly discusses the assassination and briefly recounts the conclusions of the investigations." Yes, and after having considered Cullen's argument about undue weight, I will provide (and currently work on) an improved version of the content.
 * You wrote, "You have failed to make the case for inclusion on this page". The case for inclusion is self-evident: This article broadly discusses the assassination and briefly recounts the conclusions of the investigations, and the investigation of the Atomic Energy Commission was one of these. Remark: This AEC investigation appears arcane because there has been a conspiracy to suppress its results, first by only the government (1963-1981), afterwards including the media and the scientific community which both failed to publish about it (with the exceptions I provide as sources).
 * You wrote, "Why [...] not, say, [include it in] the rifle page where it may have more relevance". Because the chapter on the AEC investigation is about the investigation, not about the rifle.
 * You wrote, "the text as written is so laughably POV". The content I provided only consists of quotes or summaries of quotes from expert scientific independent third-party sources in history respectively NAA (I previously gave also the original sources). "The FBI and the Warren Commission conspired to suppress the NAA test results, which do not appear in the report or its appendices" is from Gerald D. McKnight, Breach of Trust - How the Warren Commission failed the nation and why, 2005, p 209.
 * You wrote, "if you managed to distinguish between "opinion," which that quote is, and "fact"". I have no problem with that distinction. Read the Warren Commission report and its appendices, and see that the NAA test results are not included - neither those of Oswald's paraffin casts nor those of the bullet fragments. Also read the relating FBI, DPD, AEC and Warren Commission Executive documents (all of which also are not included in the Warren Report) and note that FBI agents Frazier (McKnight 2005, p 202) and Gallagher (McKnight 2005, p 210) and the Warren Commission (McKnight 2005, p 211) knew about the NAA test results and their meaning at the time when these FBI agents testified. Warren Commissioner and CIA chief Allan Dulles also knew it months before the report was printed (McKnight 2005, p 207). FBI chief Hoover also knew it and mislead the Commission (McKnight 2005, p 208, 423). The FBI agents negotiated with the Warren Commission on what questions would be asked and what topics must not be addressed in testimony (McKnight 2005, p 211, 204, see also p 205). "The only tenable conclusion that could be drawn from the NAA tests was that Oswald had not fired a rifle on the day of the assassination" is from McKnight 2005, p 208. This sentence has the same meaning as the memo from Warren Commission's (general counsel J. Lee Rankin's) special assistant Norman Redlich to CIA director Allen Welsh Dulles, "There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle".
 * You wrote, "That is what we call [...] a load of bullshit". You denounce my content using the profanity bullshit. This behaviour is diametral to the civil conversation style Wikipedia wants its editors to adhere to and it only reduces the chances of improving articles because it incites quarrels.
 * You wrote, "Are you actually claiming there is no - not a single - other interpretation". I do not claim that, but McKnight 2005, p 208, "Lacking any other plausible explanation." Also Norman Redlich claims it in his memo to Allen Dulles, "There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle."
 * You wrote, "why didn't [the test] pick any residue from the many rifles Oswald was known to have fired over the years?" Because AEC's NAA expert Vincent Guinn has only shown that NAA allows conclusive gunpowder residue detection if the paraffin casts were taken up to 24 hours after the shooting (without attempts of washing the residues off). In forensics the problem is that with each hour that passed since the shooting, the probability increases that the shooter had washed off the residues.
 * You wrote, "Oh, so it isn't THAT sensitive, eh? [...] maybe he washed his face?" It is so sensitive, that an attempt to get rid of the residues is extraordinarily difficult, because the residues are stored in the pores of the skin and are to be gotten out of there by hot paraffin or prolonged sweating: "Even if Oswald had scrubbed his skin, the scientific certainty is that there would still remain enough residues to be detectable. Short of spending an afternoon in a Russian steam bath sweating out is pores, the negative results of the paraffin cast of his right cheek argue strongly for his exculpation." (McKnight 2005, p 212, 424). Oswald had 3 to 4 minutes time for entering and leaving his room, putting on a jacket and equipping himself with his revolver. This leaves very little if any time for washing his face and hands. Also, the fact that residues were found on his hands strongly indicates that Oswald did not wash himself.
 * You wrote, "maybe, simply, there was no residue blow-back as the nozzle of the rifle was sticking outside the window and the wind blew it away?" Eyewitnesses saw that only few inches of the rifle were visible which means that the shooter did not put his head and the trigger outside the window. There is no wind inside a room. The rifle had a strong blow-back. There is no indication that hypothetical wind at the trigger could prevent the deposit of gunpowder residues on the shooter's cheek. You are again recklessly speculating without any indication supporting you.
 * You wrote, "The stuff about the years it took to get the NAA data on the rifle is not particularly relevant - we are talking about evidence, after all." The suppression of evidence and knowing misrepresentation by the FBI is obstruction of justice (with a maximum penalty of 20 years prison) in a trial. The fact that several government entities (AEC, FBI, Warren Commission, DoJustice) worked together to suppress that evidence from 1963 to 1981 is in itself a conspiracy. The suppression of evidence can influence the conclusions of investigations and therefore this is relevant to the reliability of all government controlled investigations. Therefore its also relevant to the article's depiction of contemporary history. See also WP:BIASED and conflict of interest. Regarding the media blackout after the revelation, see Freedom of the press, and some presidential speeches on how to handle so called "conspiracy theories": CIA director and President Bush Sr.'s speech on Warren Commissioner and President Ford (who arbitrarily changed the localization of JFK's back wound in the WC report), also in closer detail. Relating to a more recent event: President Obama and President Bush Jr., see also that, President Clinton about this. The media follows the presidents' order to not debate and slanders the people which request a media debate. In response, the people protest the media blackout during live event. The people have an urge to overcome the media blackout. Some claim that the US has no free press because of strong concentration of media ownership in the hands of super rich persons. "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them." - after George Santayana.
 * You wrote, "the text as written is so laughably [...] Your credibility would be increased, Icarus, if you managed to [...]. Your credibility on these matters is not as great as it should be. [...] your seeming inability to see [...]" You suggest to the readers that I lack credibility. And by saying, "This is a common trait in the conspiracy theorist crowd" you go on by generalizing your imputation onto approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of the US population. Again, this goes against the established conversation style of Wikipedia and only incites quarrels.
 * Last, but not least: Mad Hieronimo, you wanted to negotiate. My invitation to discuss with you remains. Icarus4 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Migod, Icarus. I'll make it plain and simple for you.

1: You have made no credible case for inclusion of this material on this page. The AEC analyses were NOT an "investigation" of the assassination per se, as they were simply very narrow tests on some very specific pieces of evidence, as opposed to the other actual investigations. And, so far, you've convinced no other editor this should be treated otherwise. This belongs on the rifle page. You will not win on this point.

2: All we need - ON THE RIFLE PAGE - is along the lines of what I suggested above: "The NAA did tests on the paraffin samples which found no evidence of rifle residue from Oswald's, but did find evidence of residue in control samples. Some have interpreted this to mean that Oswald could not have fired a rifle that day." And your claims this was "obstruction of justice" etc are more properly to be placed on the conspiracy page where that claim can be expanded.

You suggest to the readers that I lack credibility. That's because you inserted large blocks of text on a page which is flagged as a controversial one, and despite your experience in receiving objections and having the text removed, YOU DID IT AGAIN. Further, your text, as I pointed out, was laughably POV, stating as "fact" mere opinions of the conspiracy crowd. YOU sure think this material is earth=shattering and important, but you've failed to convince anyone else of its import, which is a basic requirement here given the parameters of the page. Canada Jack (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CIV and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND -- Connelly90 11:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Icarus, this is the third time you have attempted to insert this material without gaining any consensus, despite repeated notification that this needs to be achieved. The reasons already have been oft stated. 1) This page broadly covers the assassination of the president, with brief references to the official investigations. This wasn't an official investigation, it an agency limited to testing some evidence for the FBI who were gathering evidence for the Warren Commission. 2) As written, the material treats as fact controversial contentions, such as the claim that the Warren Commission deliberately withheld evidence. Your source for these contentions is an author and it is his opinion that this is fact what happened. Such material MUST make explicit that the claim is the OPINION of the said author, how well-cited his claims may be. 3) As previously noted, the material about the paraffin tests could go on the rifle page, with text along the lines of: "The NAA did tests on the paraffin samples which found no evidence of rifle residue from Oswald's, but did find evidence of residue in control samples. Some have interpreted this to mean that Oswald could not have fired a rifle that day." 4) The claims of a cover-up of this evidence could go on the assassination conspiracy page where such claims can be expanded upon.


 * To insist on inserting this material gives undue weight to the importance of it. As it stands, this extremely narrow examination of paraffin and bullet evidence would have about as much space on this page as the Warren Commission itself. Indeed, there would be more discussion on this relatively arcane issue than on the evidence which the investigations cited to conclude Oswald was the assassin. Canada Jack (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence listed at Redirects for discussion
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) 15:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence for deletion
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 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) 00:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Backward snap indicating a shot from the front
92 has tried to delete the qualifier "to many" from the following text: "Almost immediately, with the film showing a backward snap of President Kennedy’s head, indicating to many a shot from the right front and hence a conspiracy, there were new demands for a re-investigation." The film referred to is the Zapruder film.

It has been reinserted by me, and more recently by another editor. Just to clarify the point, there are many ballistics experts and many who know their physics who see that movement as NOT consistent with a bullet strike, at least, in terms of a transfer of momentum from a presumed bullet striking from the right front to Kennedy's head and body. Why? Because the physics involved with a bullet of about 200 grain bullet traveling at c. 2000 ft/sec striking a man weighing c.180 pounds works out to a body movement of about 1 to 2 inches, not the near-foot we see in the film. In fact, as many have pointed out, we DO see a movement of about that amount when Kennedy is struck initially - and it is towards the front.

This canard - that the head movement "proves" a strike from the right front - ignores basic physics, and ignores evidence found within the same film. If such a movement WAS consistent we'd expect Kennedy, when earlier struck in the back, to be violently thrust forward. Or, if you argue he was struck then in the neck by a shot from the front, as some do, then Connally would have been knocked down by the bullet which struck him. Neither of these movements were witnessed. The consensus from the investigations is that Kennedy's movement is consistent with a neuro-muscular reaction to the near-destruction of the brain stem by a bullet passing through. The head-movement canard is further disproved in the Zapruder film by the violent ejection of brain matter and skull fragments OUT the right front of the skull, and not the opposite side where one would expect if struck by a bullet in the right front of the head.

It is for that reason that the qualifier "to many" was inserted, as those who actually know their ballistics and their physics - and their forensics - know that the head moves means very little. IOW, those who know what they are talking about don't see the head movement as indicating a strike from the right front. Those who don't know what they are talking about, and who say stuff like "every action requires a reaction" obviously failed their high school physics as you'd need something near the size of a baseball to knock a man over like that. Canada Jack (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In fact, as many have pointed out, we DO see a movement of about that amount when Kennedy is struck initially - and it is towards the front. I was referring here, of course, to the 1 or 2-inch movement associated with the transfer of momentum from a bullet of about 200 grains striking from the rear. Canada Jack (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Article and NPOV
Since Robert Rourke has repeatedly tried to insert a POV flag on the page, but has failed to initiate an attendant discussion thread on this subject (the above thread is about the infobox, not the article in general), I, in good faith, have decided to start the discussion.

So, Robert, outside of the infobox, which has already been discussed, please describe the parts of the article which in your view violate wikipedia's neutrality dictates. Canada Jack (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)