Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 3

proper place for conspiracies to run free
trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amature over here)--Matt D 00:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The perjury of Captain Fritz that concealed his notes and Oswald's alibi
Sometimes the Warren Commission has had to take the criticism that should be leveled at the FBI, Secret Service, and the Dallas Police.

The perjury by agent Hosty of the FBI who destroyed the letter given to him by Oswald shortly before the President's murder, and now the evidence that Captain Fritz who along with Hosty interviewed Oswald and then concealed his interrogation notes and along with Hosty also perjured himself are clear examples. These criminal activities by the law enforcement officers deserve a clear full presentation --not some sanitized treatment.

The behavior of the law enforcement official is clearly criminal in nature and go to the core of the case against Oswald.

One should noted that it appears the concealment and destruction of the evidence took place right after Oswald was silence by being murdered in police custody.

RPJ 21:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Too much detail - too little overview
One must read almost to the bottom of the article to read how many shots were fired - according to different investigations - yet there is lots of "evidence" supposedly exonerating Oswald. There is extensive criticism of the Warren Commission before the Warren Commission's conclusions are even presented. This article is upside-down--JimWae 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of overview that Oswald was guilty
A careful review of the article does not support Jimwae's comment that there is lots of "evidence" "exonerating Oswald" and "too little overview" that concludes Oswald participated in the assassination. The follwing quotes were excerpted from the article that clearly conclude that Oswald did it alone or with others:
 * 1. An official investigation by the Warren Commission was conducted over a 10-month period, and its report was published in September 1964, concluding that the assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald, an employee of the Texas School Book Depository in Dealey Plaza
 * 2. A later official investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was conducted from 1976 to 1979, and concluded that Oswald probably acted with at least one other person. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested eighty minutes after the assassination for killing Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit.
 * 3. He was charged with murders of Tippit and Kennedy
 * 4. The 486 frames of this film have been used in many studies, but the film has not been able to settle disputes concerning whether or not Oswald was the sole assassin.
 * 5. After arresting Oswald and collecting physical evidence at the crime scenes, the Dallas Police held Oswald at the police headquarters for interrogation


 * 6. On November 24, 1963, just hours after Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered, FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, said that he wanted "something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." [1


 * 7. The FBI report was consistent with the later Warren Commission Report stating that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all three shots.


 * 8. The Commission reported that it could not find any persuasive evidence of a domestic or foreign conspiracy involving any other person(s), group(s), or country(ies), and that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.


 * 9. The commission also concluded that only three shots were fired during the assassination, and that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all three of these shots The commission's finding that Oswald was the lone gunman,
 * 10. 1) most people do not agree with the Warren Commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone,
 * 11. The Committee criticized the performance of both the Warren Commission and the FBI for failing to investigate whether other people conspired with Oswald to article murder President Kennedy whether Oswald acted in concert with or on behalf of unidentified co-conspirators the Commission's performance, in the view of the committee, was in fact flawed.
 * 12. The Committee believed another primary cause of the Warren Commission's failure to adequately probe and analyze whether or not Oswald acted alone
 * 13. it remains unclear why President Johnson and the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, wanted to establish Oswald as the Lone Gunman.
 * 14. The HSCA concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first, second, and fourth bullets and slightly less than half 48% believed gunfire came from the Book Depository (in back of the President), and where Lee Harvey Oswald worked. [22]
 * 15. poll showed that only 32% (plus or minus 3 %) of Americans who expressed a view believe that Oswald acted alone in the Kennedy assassination poll revealed that only 21% believe Oswald acted alone. Discoveries on-line poll gave a figure of 17%. [33].


 * The article overwhelmingly notes that Oswald was involved either alone or with others and gives the authorities for the opinions or actionstaken or evidence of his participation. The matters that were very recently included about the concealment of Oswald's specific alibi, from this veiwpoint must in good conscience be included, and included without a strong spin against it. He denied participating in the murder, clearly indicated he was being framed and gave a very specific alibi for his whereabouts.


 * Whether it was him or Lovelady in the picture is a subjective determination, as was noted in one of the lonegunman sources, but even if it were Lovelady, that doesn't preculude Oswald not being there and the fact that he knew Shellely was there (which has been estblished independently) certainly gives some support to his alibi.


 * Because Fritz concealed his notes the Warren Commission was at a big disadvantage in exploring it in detail and if it wasn't true exploding it. It seems that not too many people will give a specific alibi if it is open to being easily disproved.

In any event, hopefully the search of the article with the extracts, helps address the concerns by contributor Jimwae.

RPJ 00:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One must read almost to the bottom of the article to read how many shots were fired - according to different investigations - yet there is lots of detailed "evidence" supposedly exonerating Oswald - and extensive criticism of the Warren Commission - before the Warren Commission's (or any other investigation's) conclusions are even presented. This article is upside-down --JimWae 00:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimwae must supply details. Its 15 details against him v.0 for him
Jimwae has no details in his complaint. No one can discuss the absence of support.

Jimwae must do his homework the same way as all other contributors.

Jimwae appears to be gettng frustrated but perhaps his position is not well taken.

List all the "exonerating evidence." Please so it can be discussed.

RPJ 01:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your response about what others must do & what they need to do is irritating. It is not up to you to assign tasks to others. It would be a different matter if you phrased it as what needs to be done. I do not take orders from you - nor does anyone at wikipedia. My points above were NOT about whether or not there were details in article about Oswald's guilt. My points were about the amount of detail presented in opposition to the investigations even BEFORE those investigations are presented. The article is upside-down.--JimWae 01:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In order to keep this article on topic, the details about evidence should go in a new article called Evidence for and against the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald or Lee Harvey Oswald - guilty or innocent? or something like that --JimWae 01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Notice please that I said that without attacking anyone nor assigning them "homework" --JimWae 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Such an article would likely also include mention of the handgun Oswald drew (or had) when arrested & whether a ballistics test was ever done. He was charged with 2 murders --JimWae 02:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Clothes both Oswald and Lovelady wore in picture
In the section on Dallas police there is reference to picture of Oswald or Lovelady in doorway. It ends saying:

"Billy Lovelady has testified that those were the clothes he wore that day. Oswald went home and changed his clothes after he left work."

Both statements may be accurate but can't put finger on the reference. Could someone supply it?

Thanks

RPJ 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal from this article of Concealment of evidence and perjury by Captain Fritz
In 1997, the Assassination Records Review Board ("ARRB") made a stunning discovery: The Captain of the Homicide Department for the Dallas Police Department had concealed his notes taken of his interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald. How did the Board find out? Someone gave the federal board the late Captain's notes.

Did Captain Fritz play an important role in the Kennedy assassination? Yes. As the ARRB points out, these were the interrogation notes of: "'[T]he late Dallas Police Captain who was in charge of questioning the alleged presidential assassin.'" Ibid.

Not only did Captain Fritz conceal his notes made while interrogating Lee Oswald, he lied to the Warren Commission about taking and keeping such notes.

RPJ 21:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 From Captain Fritz' Warren Commission testimony:

"Mr. BALL. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to you?"

"CAPTAIN FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the questions may be in the wrong place."

Then Captain Fritz tries to remember what Oswald told him during the first interrogation session:

"CAPTAIN FRITZ. I first asked him as I do of most people something about where he was from, and where he was raised and his education, and I asked him where he went to school and he told me he went to school in New York for a while, he had gone to school in Fort Worth some, that he didn't finish high school, that he went to the Marines, and the Marines, and finished high school training in the Marines. And I don't remember just what else. "

Now, it might strike the reader as odd that Captain Fritz took no notes, nor made any tape recording or otherwise preserved the statements by the alleged murderer of the President of the United States. But, that's he told the Warren Commission, and its in the transcripts in black and white.

Then, thirty three years later, Congress has passed a law mandating that the assassination records be collected and opened to the public. Over the years its been obvious that a lot of lying to, and concealment from, the Warren Commission took place. For example, the FBI agent who had been in the room with Fritz and Oswald later got caught having destroyed a letter that Oswald had addressed and left for Hosty just two days before Kennedy was murdered. Hosty's boss told Hosty to destroy the letter so Hosty tore it up and flushed it down the toilet. 

In any event, Congress passed the JFK Records Act and started collecting the records that have concealed and held back by the various investigators and up comes the interrogation notes taken by Captain Fritz. Fritz is now dead so he won't go to jail based on the discovery of the evidence that he was guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury. Hosty didn't go to jail either because he was an FBI agent in the old days before a long string of public FBI scandals became public, the following of which are just examples:(FBI agent conspiring to arrange organized crime payoffs) ; (FBI agent committed Wire fraud and espionage) ; (FBI agent indicted for Conspiracy to murder in first degree);(FBI agent indicted for tipping of a suspect of investigation) ;  (Treason spying for Russia) ; ( FBI agent indicted for taking bribes and making false statements) ;  (Another  case of spying for  Russia).

This isn't a perfect world.

FBI Agent and Captain Fritz lied to The Warren Commission about their criminal investigation
In any event, one of the things Dallas Police Captain Fritz concealed, but his notes seem to indicate, is that Oswald gave a very specific alibi: Oswald said he was down in front of the building with Bill Shelly and not on the 6th floor. If this is true Oswald wasn't a shooter; and may not even be guilty of participation. Fritz concealed his notes and said he couldn't remember.

What makes Oswald's alibi so strong is that Bill Shelley was, in fact, down in front of the building when Kennedy drove by just as Oswald told Captain Fritz and FBI agent Hosty. According to Fritz, who thought the case was "cinched" right from the beginning, Oswald should have been on the 6th floor instead of out front where he could see Shelley. How would Oswald know where Shelley was at the time when Kenndy drove by?

Captain Fritz solved this whole alibi problem by concealing his notes and lying about taking any notes. He never told the Warren Commission about Oswald's alibi. Neither did agent Hosty.


 * One or two contributors to Wikipedia have a very strong commitment to upholding Oswald as the murderer. In fact, they have such strong feelings about this, that they don't want the reader to know about Captain Fritz's obstruction of justice and perjury about his notes or about Oswald's long concealed alibi.

These misguided contributors simply revert the information out of the article, when the information gets put in.

The reasons given, over the last two days for hiding the information of Fritz's concealement and perjury from the reader are cryptic:


 * Warren Commission supporter #1 says: "This is not an examination of the Dallas police investigation but an attempt to exonerate Oswald using a conspiracy theory debunked in the 1970s"


 * Warren Commission supporter #2 says: "I removed flagrant POV in this addition yesterday _ I am just reverting it from here on in."

Warren Commission supporter #1 isn't even in touch with what he is reverting out of the article. Oswald's alibi wasn't even discovered until 1997. How could it have been "debunked" in the 1970's? Moreover, this contributor doesn't seem to be aware of the meaning of the words he is using. If, in fact, Oswald had an alibi and really wasn't a shooter from the 6th floor does not mean there was a conspiracy (which means an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime--such as shoot the president) but only would mean that Oswald didn't do it. Whether it was done by one person or more than one person is an independent issue.

Unfortunately, Warren Commission supporter #1 claims to be a Wikipedia system administrator. Information he doesn't agree with is usually deemed "nonsense."

Warren Commission supporter # 2 also seems at a lost to explain his actions. To this person, any information he doesn't agree with is termed a "flagrant PoV." His information he believes is neutral because it is "true." On the other hand, information he disagrees with is deemed an impermissible "Point of View" apparently because he believes it to be "untrue."

So noted. RPJ 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 66.91.203.81 07:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A few readers now simply revert any text they don't personally like
There is a dwindling group of believers that insist Lee Oswald killed Kennedy all by himself. The repected polling institutions on this matter show this shrinking group of has dropped from 32% to 25% and then, in the dicovery channel poll, down to 17% of the population. A very few of these believers have found their way to Wikipedia on an apparent mission to cleanse the pages of Wikipedia of any information contrary to their belief that Lee Oswald Killed Kennedy by himself.

However,the Wikipedia rules require reverts to be accompanied by reasoned discussion. The believers have abandoned discussion and debate. They simply revert; sometimes with a cryptic phrase.

This isn't appropriate. Just now I had to put back in several paragraphs of Abraham Zapruder's testimony where he gives a first hand account of Kennedy being shot right in front of him. This is gripping testimony. Some self proclaimed censor wanted it out. Claims its too gory.

The internet doesn't need an anonymous censor. It is unclear whether this person has ever written anything, but there is second censor and whatever he puts on the talk page seems emotional to the point of being frantic that the testimony is too chilling, or gruesome, too one-sided, or that someone might get the wrong idea that the government made a mistake or did something wrong.

So one or two people want to just censor things based on their own whim. The goal of the censors is apparently to satisfy some long fixed belief system, and is accomplished by eliminating any facts or evidence that they perceive their beliefs.

I'm sure we all encourage them not to do that; but, instead adopt the reasoned discussion approach.

RPJ 02:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Explain your proposed changes on talk page with reasons
The very powerful witness testimony ("primary source" evidence) is reverted back into the artcle. This consists of the testimony by Zapruder who was standing about 15 feet away when Kennedy was murdered right in front of him. His testimony is historic. Likewise the testimony of Clint Hill (the first lady's body guard) is truely gripping as Clint Hill himself told it.

One reader who has become a self appointed censor wants the testimony of these two eye witnesses reverted out because it is "too gory." But, the internet doesn't need a censor, much less an annonymous censor. All contributors need to explain their changes and be preprared to defend them. On controversial issues, the rule is one can't sneak in and revert out text, and slip out again without a full explaination. It is simple as that. It applies to everyone.

Oswald's guilt is clear claims one contributor--most people agree with that
Most American's believe Oswald participated in the murder of the President; and most Americans also  believe that Oswald did not do it alone. Instead, most people think there was a second shooter as part of a conspiracy.

On the other hand, only a dwindling number of Americans still believe Oswald killed the president all by himself. The following comment by one contributor seems to misunderstand this fundamental fact. While most people believe Oswald did it, most people also believe he did it with the help of a second shooter.

RPJ 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply because most people believe something does not make it true, or more likely. I only care about where the evidence leads, and the evidence leads to Oswald.  Now it is likely that Oswald had help, but there is no solid evidence (physical proof, eye witness descriptions, leads, etc.) of there being someone else involved.


 * If you are not the user who was trying to insert "evidence" exonerating Oswald, I apologize. I assumed it was you.Ramsquire 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding the argumentum ad populum fallacy used by RPJ, there is compelling evidence that the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald. He ordered it from Klein's Sporting Goods under an alias, he had his wife photograph him with it (it is identifiable by the same markings that allow it to be identified in the newsreel footage of Tom Alyea), his fingerprints and no one else's were found on it.  In addition, physical evidence links this rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles, to a bullet recovered from the motorcade. One eyewitness, Howard Leslie Brennan, positively identified Oswald as the man in the "sniper's nest" window he saw fire at the President.


 * I think any jury presented with that kind of evidence would be justified in assuming Oswald was in fact guilty.


 * Now I suppose this was some big frame-up, but in the four decades after the assassination there has been no one able to bring up any incontrovertable evidence as proof of Oswald's innocence, who was attempting to frame him, and why.


 * That being said, RPJ is correct that if you want to make changes to the article please explain your changes on the talk page, unless your changes are minor grammatical ones.Ramsquire 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What evidence should be put in the article and what left out?
Important evidence should not be excluded because it doesn't support the guilt of the accused. Therefore, whether evidence "exonerates" the accused is not the proper criteria for excluding evidence. Yet, the chief interrogator and the FBI agent at the Oswald interrogation concealed from the Warren Commission that Oswald gave them an alibi for when the President was shot.

Oswald also gave a confirming fact that in itself helped verify the alibi. Yet this alibi was hidden.

Yes, this alibi might exonerate Lee Oswald of murder. But, if the alibi should hold up, shouldn't he be exonerated if he didn't do it. That seems how the process should work. But, some think not.

Some contributors seem to have the process backwards. They form a belief and if evidence does not conform to that belief it is deemed "nonsense" and reverted out of the article.

Every bit of evidence can't be submitted at trial. And certainly every bit of evidence can't be included in an article about a murder-- even the murder of an important person.

How to choose what evidence to leave out? That's easy: The minor surrounding evidence can be left out even if it may be slightly relevant, it's dispensable. RPJ 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * THIS article is NOT the place to present all the evidence for the guilt or innocence of anyone. As I pointed out before, a separate article should be started for that --JimWae 03:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of the article? To convince the reader that only one person was involved by referring to authoritative pronouncements by "government" agencies? Or, in contrast, to show that more than one person was involved in shooting? To show that Oswald was framed? To show that he wasn't framed? re any of these reasons important? RPJ 05:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither - encyclopedias are not places to make arguments - only to present existing arguments NoR. This article is to present the basic facts of the assassination - such as the number of bullets much earlier. Make a subarticle to present reams of testimony, etc. --JimWae 07:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with JimWae. That being said however, I don't think evidence exonerating Oswald is per se inappropriate.  However, it must be presented in context.  The problem is the physical evidence that hasn't been controverted, by other evidence, incriminates Oswald.  So any mention of possible Oswald alibi's or things pointing to his innocence, has to consider the things pointing to his guilt.  For example, RPJ claims that there Oswald gave testimony that supports his alibi.  If you place it in the article you then have to state why his fingerprints were found on a weapon that is linked to the examination, if in fact he is innocent.  Otherwise the evidence of his innocence is POV, not to mention that your explanation is likely speculation and original research-- both inappropriate for Wiki.  The other problem is cosmetic, in that it creates an unnecessarily long article (such as this one) which Wiki discourages.  FTR-- I haven't made any changes to the text of the article in about a week because I just think it is a disjointed mess, and I wouldn't know where to begin. Also, without some agreement on how to incorporate all the information out there, any edit would be a waste of time.Ramsquire 18:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The rules on the content of an encyclopedia

 * Two rules regarding the content are:

1)The encyclopedia presents the existing basic facts as known and published by others; as opposed to original research by the encyclopedia that uncovers and presents new facts.

2) The encyclopedia presents arguments made by others about what the known facts mean; as opposed to the encyclopedia providing its own opinion on what the known facts mean.

These seem to be the Wikipedia Rules.

RPJ 23:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? If you are, you have also not focussed on the points made - extensive arguments are not appropriate for a basic article --JimWae 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A vandal is silently taking out evidence with which he doesn't agree
One of the interesting aspects of working on Wikipedia articles is confronting the occasional "true believer." This Kennedy page is a magnet for at least one or two of them.

The "true believer" starts with a fixed, "revealed truth" approach to a subject (such as the Kennedy assassination) and attempts to conform the article to that belief by deleting evidence he or she doesn't agree with.

This started slowly but now is picking up speed. For example, the person took out the sworn testimony by an eyewitness (secret service agent Clint Hill) who saw first hand the large gaping hole in the back right hand side of President's head. The true believer doesn’t agree with the location of the wound and so he deleted it.

Now he is just slashing out big parts of evidence out that he doesn't agree with. Why? Because he "believes" in the Warren Report and that is enough for him.

Several months ago another "true believer" invented a bogus reference to experiments of a famous scientist and placed that in the scientist's biography and then referenced the biography in this article to support the Warren Commission. The person or persons who engage in such conduct are worse than the typical vandals that mark up the pages from time to time. Why, because it is harder to catch and more difficult to correct.

One method used by the "True believer" is to wait until some minor vandalism occurs, and revert and mention that vandalism has been removed--but at the same time, takes out text that the "true believer" doesn't like and then says nothing about it to alert anyone.

It may be just high school kids with a "hacker" mentality. Just stay alert or the Wikipedia will become nesting area for cults.

RPJ 22:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as far as being a vandal is concerned, I make all my edits under my screen name. Anyone who wants to see excactly what changes I have made can compare my edit to the previous one on the | history page. As for the HSCA picture I added this morning.... I believe a picture speaks a thousand words. It was made for the committee using the best forensic evidence available. I believe it is accurate, corresponds to what we see in the Zapruder Film and also, the graphic pictures that are linked to in this section. I'll stack it's pedigree next to any other depiction of President Kennedy's headwound. Mytwocents 05:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1-When one clicks the "history" link "Mytwocents" just cited its empty. That speaks volumes.


 * 2-Statements by "Mytwocents" to suppot his deletions that start off "I believe it is accurate . . . isn't a good enough standard for a reference work.


 * 3-How does the drawing by a non-witness that "Mytwocents" inserted (while he took out eyewitness testimony) stack up next to the evidence from eyewitnesses? (see below)


 * 4-The real eyewitnesses describes the wound in the head in this way:

There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."
 * "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. "


 * Roy Kellerman, a Secret Service Agent, who was in the car with the president, later testified a gunshot removed a section of the president's skull in the back right-hand side of the head measuring about five inches in diameter.


 * Two FBI agents (O’Neill and Silbert) present at the autopsy have since revealed that Kennedy had a large wound on the back, right-hand side, of his head.


 * The President's treating physician made this drawing of the President's head wound. Click on that and compare it to the drawing below that "Mytwocents" put into the article."

My "Twocents" wants all this evidence out since it contradicts the belief of "Mytwocents" in the Warren Report. "Mytwocents" wants to put in this drawing in order to have an argument the killing shot came from behind. "Mytwocents" believes in his. One should note that there is no name associated with the drawing. That speaks volumes."Mytwocents" needs to realize his unwavering belief in the Warren Commission report shouldn't be used to engage in destructive work in this reference material.

RPJ 06:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

- Here is a quote from the same link used in the newly renamed section The autopsy of the President and the heavy criticism it has received


 * Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges, and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of events. Psychologists and scholars have long-since demonstrated the serious unreliability of peoples' recollections of what they hear and see. One illustration of this was an interview statement made by one of the treating physicians at Parkland. He explained that he was in Trauma Room Number 1 with the President. He recounted how he observed the First Lady wearing a white dress. Of course, she was wearing a pink suit, a fact known to most Americans. The inaccuracy of his recollection probably says little about the quality of the doctor's memory, but it is revealing of how the memory works and how cautious one must be when attempting to evaluate eyewitness testimony.

As for the "unknown" artist here is description from the wiki-image page,


 * http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dox2big.jpg http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm "House Select Committee Medical illustrator Ida Dox, working for the House Select Committee's Forensic Pathology Panel in the late 1970s, produced the drawing at right. It faithfully reflects what the autopsy photos and x-rays show, although it is simplified a bit and the fragments aren't drawn to scale."

The testimony by Ms. Dox before the HSCA can be read here:


 * Here is a pertinant quote:


 * Mr. PURDY. How did you determine what to illustrate for the select committee?
 * Ms. DOX. This was done by consultation, the staff of the committee, the medical panel, and myself, and it was decided that the photographs taken at autopsy should be copied to illustrate the position of the wounds. The photographs that were selected were the ones that best showed the injuries. Also, a series of illustrations was needed that would illustrate the findings of the medical panel.

The HSCA drawing by Ida Dox conforms with what you can see on the Zapruder Film, and the autopsy pictures and x-rays.

I believe the 00:07, February 6, 2006 Mytwocents [] is closer to the truth and conforms to NPOV Mytwocents 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Finally --the evidence to compare:One Shooter or Two Shooters
Those who believe in the Warren Commission Report's One Shooter scenario have their chance to support their position that only One Shooter was involved and shot the president in the head from behind. The Warren Commission believers can place their evidence side by side with the evidence that has been gathered by those who believe there were Two Shooters.

We don't need an exhaustive list of evidence from both sides just some of the strong evidence.

Two Shooter Evidence
Contention: One Shooter in front by the grassy knoll and triple underpass; and a second shooter in the Texas Book Depository.

Evidence for the Two Shooter position:

1—	Over 40 witnesses who were present at the shooting perceived shots were fired from in front of the President from the area of the grassy knoll and triple underpass; and approximately the same number of witnesses perceived shots were fired from behind the president  (from the book depository), and a small number of witnesses perceived shots from both the front and the back of the president.

2—	Several eyewitnesses who were very close to the president and had a good view, saw the back of the president’s head blasted out that is consistent with being shot from the front. These include:


 * a.	 Clint Hill the secret service agent who was sheltering the President with his body on the way to the hospital and described the "President's head on the right rear side was missing" and "leaving  one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head";
 * b.	Roy Kellerman, the President’s bodyguard who saw a 5 inch diameter hole in the back right hand side of the president’s head.
 * c.	Dr. McClelland, a treating physician in the emergency room who looked right at the head wound. 	Dr. McClelland said:

 "You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out."
 * The part of the brain called the cerebellum is at the very bottom of the skull as the link to a medical model of the brain shows. The doctor who was treating President Kennedy made this drawing of how the back of president's head in the emergency room.


 * d.     Dr. Kemp, Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery, who was also in the emergency room treating Kennedy also described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (Warren Commission --CE#392)

The occipital lobe of the brain is just above the cerebellum part of the brain.

3--  These descriptions of the head wound in the back of the skull are all consistent with the the kill shot to the head coming from the front, blasting out the back of the president's head and knocking him violently backwards in his seat as shown in the Zapruder film.

The Warren Commission's evidence that there was only one shooter consists of the following:

Please put in your best three types of evidence.

RPJ 03:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's almost impossible to prove a negative, but here's three pieces of evidence that contradicts your evidence of a second grassy knoll shooter.


 * One--Lee Bowers, with an eagle eye view of the grassy knoll, the Schoolbook Depository and triple underpass did not see anything on the knoll at the time of the assassination. In addition he thought he heard three shots coming from the depository.


 * Two-- a grassy knoll shooter, or even a triple underpass shooter, would have had to have been a policeman or an undercover office of some kind. Visitors to Dealey Plaza or better yet the Hilton in Downtown Dallas will quickly realize that there is no escape from the grassy knoll, unless you head down the Knoll back into Dealey Plaza, or worse yet, onto the freeway presumably alongside Kennedy's motorcade.  Anyone attempting escape would have been easily noticeable to Bowers, or any of the witnesses on the Triple Underpass.


 * Three-- watching the Zapruder film, there is a violent explosion to right side of Kennedy's head. (I believe the explosion is to the right front area, but whatever, reasonable people can disagree to the exact area the explosion takes place). A grassy knoll shooter could not have caused that damage.  At the point in the Zapruder film where Kennedy head explodes, he is a 90 degree angle to the grassy knoll.  Therefore, the exit wound should be on the left side of his head, if it was inflicted from the knoll.  Presumably a shooter from the underpass could have inflicted a wound on the right side, but then it would be towards the back.  As I stated before, from my view of Zapruder, the wound is in the front.  The jeking of Kennedy's body is irrelevant as it could have been caused Ms. Kennedy recoiling from the President's head.

(UTC)
 * Ramsquire 00:26, 8 February 2006

Reply to the One-Shooter Evidence
The Warren Report believers supplied the testimony of Lee Bowers to help prove that all the 40 plus witnesses that heard the second shooter must have been wrong. The Warren Report believer argues that Lee Bowers had an "eagle eye view" of the area and allegedly "he thought he heard three shots coming from the depository."

But, that is not the testimony of Lee Bowers. Instead, he testified: "Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots."

"Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?" "Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass." "Mr. BALL - Were you able to tell which?" "Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not."

The Warren Report believer also argues that Mr. Bowers with his "eagle eye view" didn't see anything on the grassy knoll at the time.

This isn't correct. The grassy knoll leads right to the mouth of the triple underpass and Bowers did see people there:

"Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?" "Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket." "Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?" "Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew." "Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?" "Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the [President's]caravan as it came down."

RPJ 02:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if we should be doing this on the article talk page or in our User:talk pages. I have no problem debating it here, but other users may object.  If they do, I have no problem doing this in our talk pages.


 * OK RPJ. Notice I used your name, it is a sign that I respect you and your opinion.  I'm Ramsquire! Not "Warren Report believer".  I'm always open to debate, as long as it is respectful.  As hard as it is for some people here to understand, I haven't formed a hard opinion on anything relating to the assassination of JFK.  I am not a "Warren Report Believer".  I am fully open to the fact that Oswald may have had help OR was somehow framed.  However, to this date, I have not seen any credible evidence of an Oswald helper or an attempt to frame Oswald, IMO.  My absence of belief in a conspiracy does not mean I support the one shooter theory, it just means I haven't made up my mind yet.  I wonder if you have already made up your mind and refuse to consider any evidence that contradict your preconceived notions?


 * Now let's go through it. First Bower's testimony.  The mouth of the triple underpass is not near the grassy knoll.  They connect, but anyone standing at that connection would have no cover and should have been easily seen.  Could there have been a shooter at the underpass? Yes! I conceded that in my post, but with the caveat that such a shooter has a difficult escape. Secondly, when I said "anything", I meant any shooting or untoward behavior.  He testifies that there were police officers there and afterward there was some commotion and people milling around.  But he didn't testify to seeing any one shooting.


 * Second, you asked for three pieces of evidence. And whether you agree with it or not, a witness testimony under oath is evidence. And it is just as reliable as the 40 witnesses you claim on your side.  Cumulation of evidence is never probative of any point.


 * Ramsquire 18:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Ramsquire's participation. Very few contributors like the give and take of the discussion pages. One valuable benefit offered by Wikipedia is an area to discuss issues where there are several opinions,and be able to do so within the bounds of rational debate.


 * It is not a matter of either believing over 40 other witnesses that heard shots from in front of Kennedy or believing Lee Bowers that he heard shots behind Kennedy. He said he heard shots from either in front  or from the back of Kennedy.


 * One other important point needs to be made: When, one witness perceives shots coming from the front and another perceives shots coming from the rear, the assumption would be that both are correct and there are two shooters. Therefore, assume Mr. Bowers had testified that he had heard the shots and the shots came from the book depository, that would merely help establish that besides the shooter from the front that the 40 witnesses heard, there would be Mr. Bowers confirming there was a second shooter in the back of Kennedy.


 * As it is, there is a 50% chance that he heard the shot from the front where he saw two men in some sort of unusual activity after the shooting, and 50% chance  he heard the shots from the back. One solution would be that Mr. Bowers heard some shots from the front and some from the back.

RPJ 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FTR-- there is a huge problem with Bowers testimony, by itself, concerning the source of the sounds of the shots. The areas he gives are so far apart that you can place a shooter anywhere in Dealey Plaza and have him corroborate it.  So I look at it this way:  The only report I remember hearing about someone shooting from the direct front of JFK, was in the now discredited, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" where they placed a shooter in the sewer.  Since that is an impossible shot, and I have not heard anyone testify to seeing someone shooting from the underpass and we know no one was shooting from the lawn, or the front of the picket fence, or across the street at the actual Plaza, or anywhere else in the Plaza, that leaves us with TSBD.  Well he have other physical evidence of a shooter there as well as witness testimony.  So I conclude the shots came from TSBD as we can prove that.  All the other stuff is speculation unless we get witnesses who claim to have seen the other shooter and could give a description.Ramsquire 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary
In summary, the evidence submitted against the one shooter position and for the two shooter position is:
 * 1--Over 40 witnesses heard shots coming from the front; and a similar size group of witnesses heard shots from the back. Pretty strong evidence of two shooters.
 * 2--The eyewitnesses clearly observed the back of Kennedy's head blasted out leaving a 5 inch diameter hole. The treating physicians mention the "gaping hole was so big and so low that the cerebellum was blasted out as well as the occipital lobe. Look at the medical models that are linked. That shows a shot from the front. Oswald didn't do that from the back.
 * 3--The Zapruder film clearly shows Kennedy being violently thrust backwards when the back of his head was blown out.


 * In response, Ramsquire now argues that on the TV show "The Men who Killed Kennedy" something on there was disproven by someone, that means the contention of one shooter is actually correct, and "We all know"  something else and finally that some one saw a shooter  in the building behind the President and therefore "All the other stuff is speculation..."

RPJ 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ramsuire speaks only for himself and how he views the assassination and analyzed the evidence to come to the conclusion that Oswald did it (I never conclude he did it alone. I think I explained it earlier. I just haven't seen credible evidence of someone helping him or framing him. Put another way, if one postulates there was a conspiracy, the next question is "who?". I have not seen evidence of this who.  No descriptions, no names, no relation to Oswald, no proof of this person being in the Plaza, etc.)  Note the phrase, "here's how I see it".  And we do all know there was no shooter in any of those places because if there were shooters across the street, on the lawn with Jeanne Hill, at the front of the picket fence, or in the actual Dealey Plaza across the street, or in the pergola, they would be seen in the videos and photographs of the assassination.  The second shooter would either have to be "badgeman" OR someone positioned out of view of the photographers.


 * As for the medical evidence. I have seen those photos as well as other photos showing the right frontal lobe being blown out (consistent with a shot from the rear). And from my viewing of Zapruder...well, here's a link from an actual Warren Report Believer |1.  You can disregard the text and focus only on the photos because it shows the Zapruder film, where the lower back portion of the President's head is intact, and it seems that the explosion is occurring to the front of the head.  I disregarded both medical opinions, went to the actual film, and made my decision based on what my eyes are seeing.  From my view, the medical reports that has the wound to the right front are consistent with the Zapruder film and are thus more credible.  Of course, this does not mean one person was shooting at the President.  To me it means the person who killed him was shooting from behind.


 * Oh and one thing I actually went into the sewer (you have to do it at night and avoid the homeless folk milling around, but you can do it. The manhole cover was not secured for some reason) and the only thing you can see is car tires going by.  So the sewer shot is impossible.

Ramsquire 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Ramsquire. I rv the section to my earlier version. Read it carefully. It notes the name of the forensic artist who made the drawing for the often quoted HSCA. It preserves NPOV by giving both side of the debate on the testimony of eye-witnesses. And it relies on the WCR and HSCA to do so. BTW, the HSCA debunked every conspiracy theory that came before it.


 * Key Concept: Beveling. When a bullet penetrates the skull bone, it will leave a small hole on the side from which it enters, and a larger dished-out crater on the side that it exits. The existence of beveling of the bone of Kennedy’s skull allowed the autopsists — and later panels of forensic pathologists — to establish that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head entered from behind, with at least one large fragment exiting toward the front. See JFK Exhibit F-61, from the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Mytwocents

Two shooters has become generally accepted by the public
The investigative congressional committee concluded almost thirty years ago there were two shooters that attacked President Kennedy. The public concluded long ago there were two shooters. The evidence establishes two shooters. Over forty witnesses testified to hearing shots coming from in front of the President, where the second shooter would be located. The back of the president's head is blasted out.

Most people accept the fact that President Kennedy was ambushed by more than one person. And, that means accepting that one or more persons have gotten away with murder. The only question now is who did it? With all the new documents found by the Assassination Records Review Board now being studied and other being unsealed, the answers will probably come out. Certainly the list of suspects reviewed in the past by the HSCA will have to be taken out and given a fresh look in light of new evidence.

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

RPJ 07:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been enough reading of references
Some sources being refered to by editors don't support what the editor claims they will support. This is embarrassing for the reference work when readers check out the references. Today an annonynmous contributor on the discussion page made this statement: "[T]he HSCA debunked every conspiracy theory that came before it." In fact, when the cite provided is checked, it discloses just the opposite: "'The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy'" "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved." "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved"  More care needs to be put into cite checking.

RPJ 07:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact the HSCA debunked many popular conspiracy theories and some new ones brought to them. They had prepared to conclude that LHO acted alone until the dictabelt evidence appeared, and even then qualified their conclusion with the word "probably" and did not name any co-conspirators. Gamaliel 08:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The HSCA concluded the recording originated from the motorcycle of H.B. McLain, who testified before the committee that his microphone was often stuck in the open position. However, McLain did not hear the actual recording until after his testimony, and upon hearing it he adamantly denied the recording originated from his motorcycle. He said that the other sounds on the tape do not match his movements. Sirens are not heard on the tape until over two minutes after the shooting; however, McLain accompanied the motorcade to Parkland Hospital immediately after JFK was shot, with sirens blaring the entire time.


 * Other audio discrepancies also exist. Crowd noise is not heard on the dictabelt recording, despite the sounds generated from the many onlookers in Dealey Plaza. The toll of a bell is heard on the recording, leading some to suggest that it is the replica of Liberty Bell at the Trade Mart (JFK's intended destination) and that the recording is from a motorcycle at that location and not Dealey Plaza.Dictabelt evidence relating to the assassination of John F. Kennedy

Mytwocents 20:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sloppiness such as the cite showing directly opposite what it was cited for is not excusable by stating that the text could have been written in such a way as to conform to the citation. Obviously that could be done, and should have been done in the first place. Hopefully, none of us are here to sell some "junk" pet theory by making claims based on citations that do not support but,instead, refute what is said in the article.  Some people check. Why put out misinformation and lose the trust of the reader?

RPJ 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

3d model study that "proves" oswald was killer?
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm

seen no mention of this in the article or discussion archive, tho i was lame and only searched the text for "model".

i have on vhs a copy of the bbc documentary from a couple of years back that explores this and oswald's background (the latter is very skewed towards "oswald was a commie", however, not particularly nuetral) but one thing that is interesting is that a fairly old guy cocks and clicks a similar rifle in less than the time needed by the "lone gunman" theory and this is seen as "proof" that oswald, being an "expert marksman" could "easily" have delivered all the shots.

note my judicous use of quotes

cycloid 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

More argumentative reversions by a Warren Believer
A Warren Report believer is now concerned that readers might find out the much criticized autopsy of the president was compromised far worse than originally thought by the Congressional investigators who looked into the Kennedy autopsy a number of years ago and were shocked. The Assassination Records Review Board calls the autopsy a "tragedy."

Whatever the military, CIA, and FBI were hiding from the Warren Commission and general public must have been explosive (like some of their people being involved in the Kennedy murder) in order to get these military doctors to obstruct justice with perjured testimony in order to convince the nation that only one person (Oswald)was involved in the murder.

On August 2, 1998, the Associated Press reported an important new ARRB finding that raises questions about the entire truthfulness of original autopsy record:

"“Under oath [before the Assassination Records Review Board], Dr. Humes, finally acknowledged under persistent questioning – in testimony that differs from what he told the Warren Commission – that he had destroyed both his notes taken at the autopsy and the first draft of the autopsy report.”"

The Review Board had extracted Humes’ sworn admission that he had burned both a preliminary draft of the autopsy report, which he had told the Warren Commission about, but, in addition, he had also destroyed original autopsy notes taken on the night of the autopsy, something Humes had concealed from the Warren Commission.

This information about the perjured testimony and destroyed autopsy notes was placed in the article But, a staunch Warren Report believer quickly reverted this out of the article.

"But, why? Well, the Warren Report believer says: 'innuendo - there's nothing sinister here [perjury, obstruction of justice, lack of professional ethics] if you look at why he did it, and if he was trying to conceal something, why take notes about it at all?'"


 * Why take notes? The military doctor probably took notes because that was the professional thing to do at an autopsy; and he probably wasn't told until later that night what facts he had to lie about. Does someone have another theory on why he would commit perjury, and conceal evidence?

RPJ 05:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC) --

Major NPOV edit
I have just trimmed a large portion of block quotes form the current version and tried to get the page back on track regarding NPOV. I have tried to cover the conspiracy theory delema with a one or two line referance to such controversies in each section. I hope that with a complete read of the page, everyone can see I have made a diligent effort for NPOV and have erred on the side of brevity (just the facts) when covering the topics. At the very least, this version can serve as a baseline for future edits, without all of the block quotes and citations to one sided web pages. Mytwocents 06:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't you just delete information that went against your personal belief system.? And what is the "one-sided web page" to which you refer? Or is that a big secret?

RPJ 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoever you are who uses the name "Mytwocents" please learn how to spell; then learn how to write a clear logical sentence; and then try writing something useful.


 * Only after you have mastered those fundamentals should you venture into the arena of being an "editor."


 * You are always so fearful of discussing any issue. Are you sure you enjoy this?

RPJ 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would hope that all editors could follow the Writers' rules of engagement:
 * 1) [[Image:OrangeColumn.jpg|35px|left]] Wikipedia follows the writers' rules of engagement: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; avoid lame edit wars by following the three-revert rule; remember that there are  articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith by never disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume the same of others in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Don't use sockpuppets to do wrong or circumvent policy. Be open, welcoming, and inclusive.

As for the edit I made that you just reverted out, I would ask any other editor to compare the Major NPOV version and RPJ's version and decide which one is better. And which one should remain.Mytwocents 08:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The person who calls himself "Mytwocents" hasn't really written anything that can be evaluated.

RPJ 01:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone has been going through vandalizing the article
This vandalism is being done by randomly chopping out whole sections of the article.

At least whoever is doing it is not putting in accompanying "swear" words.

RPJ

Removal of relevant content
Considering that the assassination of President John F .Kennedy is arguably the most significant historical moment of the last half of the twentieth century, naturally the article here on Wikipedia will tend to be very detailed and robust. The NARA has five million records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy, I personally believe the Wikipedia community has done a tremendous job slimming all of those records down to a minute 30 or so pages of relevant content.

The inclusion of photographs, documents or unabridged testimony regardless of how “gross-out” it may seem allows for a more comprehensive and complete view of the circumstances and events surrounding the assassination. To remove any aspect of this article that can be verified to be factual amounts to nothing more than a form of crude censorship.

If you would like to state your two cents the place to do that is here on the discussion page not in the main article. Just because a person strongly disagrees with certain parts of this article should not mean they have the right to butcher the article. It’s sad to see that even 42 years later people are still trying to cover up and manipulate the facts in an attempt to perpetuate the mystery, deceit and ignorance. Let the facts remain and people will come to their own conclusions.

Those are “Mytwocents”

Kingsevil 00:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing content is not butchery, it's editing. We have had weblinks to these pictures in this article for some time now. That is sufficient for any one who wants to see these pictures.  They were not taken to be shown publicly anyway.  They are forensic documents.  Not of some unknown person, but the president of the United States.... decorum is an issue.  I'm not even sure if they are legal public domain. As for mocking my screenname...  I notice you are a "redname". You have no user page or talk page.  Why is that?
 * The crux of the matter is where the entrance wound was, the front or the back. Both the WC and HSCA determined it was from the back. I believe the bullet path and wound is well described in the HSCA "Ida Dox" forensic drawing. Conflicting views regarding what people saw that day needs to be included. I think one paragraph is sufficient.
 * I'm off to watch speed skating, cheers!

Mytwocents 04:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert the page again and I'll be forced to request protection. Nothing in the article even comes close to breaking a single Wikipedia rule.

People who make statements like "decorum is an issue. I'm not even sure if they are legal public domain" are not lawyers and should refrain from making comments of that nature simply because it makes then seem like a fool.

The assassination of President Kennedy was an awful, grizzly, and gruesome event. The autopsy photographs merely express how graphic murder truly is, while also offering research tools to individuals. Yes a cartoon image of the Presidents brains being blown out can be used to illustrate this instead of authentic graphic photographs but when doing this the potency is lost. It’s kind of like me saying “Hey, Mytwocents, you’re a real jerk”! That’s not really effective. A more effective thing to say would be ‘Fuck you, Mytwocents, you Euro fag piece of shit”! See how that gets the point across a little more effectively? I’m just making a point please don’t take to much offense.

Honestly you stunned me with this one. “We have had weblinks to these pictures in this article for some time now. That is sufficient…..”. My god man, did you really think that then type it for others to see? Let me use an analogy like a crutch to help walk you threw why your thinking in regards to this is wrong. A nuke is dropped on London and the New York Times is the first newspaper in the world to print an article with the only known image of the tragedy. In the way your brain thinks, TIME magazine should not print a more detailed and comprehensive article using the same image simply because the image has already been published. Does any of this make since to you? Does it? DOES IT? I hope it does, I’m really starting to loss respect for you dude…

You also make the statement “Removing content is not butchery, it's editing.” You are right; removing content is not ALLWAYS butchery. But removing ALL content and replacing it with nonsensical babble or removing relevant content because you do not personally agree with it is butchery as wells as censorship. The way you censor things I would not be surprised to see that you edit this message.

As far as this comment goes “I notice you are a "redname". You have no user page or talk page. Why is that”? I am touched that you have taken such a personal interest in me. Really, I am flattered, but I don’t have a “Talk Page” because I’m not one to toot my own horn. Besides I have better things to do like oh’ I don’t know add relevant content to article instead of censoring it.

People have been asking you very kindly to please stop destroying their work. Now I am asking you to please stop ruining my work. Nothing I have added to this article in anyway breaks any law or rule. Please stop pushing your personal beliefs on the Wikipedia community

Thank you

Kingsevil 06:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks and profanity aren't going to make a better article. We need to reach a consensus on the content of this article. It seems that the "Ida Dox" drawing is causing a problem. It was drawn using x-rays and photos of the president for the HSCA in 1978. It shows the bullet entering the back of the skull and exiting the front. It concurs with the "beveling" evidence that proves the same. It also is in line with what we see in the Zapruder film. Is there any physical, forensic evidence that shows president Kennedy was hit from the front? Graphic pictures with captions that tell us we are not seeing what we see, don't qualify in my opinion. But links to them have been on the page for anyone who wants to veiw them.
 * The page, with the NPOV edit contains a wealth of contributions. Many pains have neen taken to include mention of discontent with the lone gunman theory of the WC. But both the WC and the HSCA found that the fatal shot came from the TSBD.
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:


 * Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.


 * Wikipedia is not a place for links to or content from a Shock site.
 * A shock site is a website intended to be offensive or shocking to most viewers, usually containing frightening and/or incredibly distasteful and crude content.


 * Mytwocents 07:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again half truths are being told… Let’s expose the entire rule…

"Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are appropriate for children or adhere to specific social or religious norms. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted."

Read this carefully… You seem to be the kind of person who prefers to ignore rules and conjures up false ideas in your own mind about what the rules really say. Clearly it states “While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography)”. Do you not see that? Are you dense? The key word is “USUALLY”. How come you are unable to understand you are the one breaking the rules by being a censor? Let’s take a closer look at the rule “except from an article directly concerning the content”. I know some people are kinda slow, so let’s look at it a few more times. “except from an article directly concerning the content”, “except from an article directly concerning the content”, “except from an article directly concerning the content”, “except from an article directly concerning the content”… Do you get it now?

Kingsevil 10:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My editing is called censoring, I am personaly attacked, cursed, and any fact I raise is simply ignored. I am accused of bad faith. The page as it stands is meant to shock and not to help people think. Shock just shuts people down. You want people to think a conspiracy killed pres. Kennedy. But you have offered no proof that he was killed by no-one other than LHO, from the TSBD.  The proof has been removed or ridiculed. This page has been turned into propaganda.  I have made edits(meaning I have composed text, not just edited out) that have included a consipiracy view, in the interest of NPOV. If this is the way the page should stand, it is little more than curiosity. Wikipedia is not a soapbox
 * Mytwocents 18:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this should be returned to the page, when the lock is removed, it was lost somehow.
 * The HSCA's conspiracy finding unraveled rapidly, however. The sole acoustic evidence relied on by the committee to support its theory of a fourth gunshot (and a gunman on the grassy knoll) in the JFK assassination, was a Dictabelt recording alleged to be from a stuck transmitter on a police motorcycle in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. After the committee finished its work, however, an amateur researcher listened to the recording and discovered faint crosstalk of transmissions from another police radio channel known to have been made a minute after the assassination. Further, the Dallas motorcycle policeman thought to be the source of the sounds followed the motorcade to the hospital at high speed, his siren blaring, immediately after the shots were fired. Yet the recording is of a mostly idling motorcycle, eventually determined to have been at JFK's destination, the Trade Mart, miles from Dealey Plaza.


 * I have questioned before if these autopsy pictures are public domain, it appears they are little more than stolen govt. property. The external weblink that was provided in earlier edits made these images available w/o running into copyright and legal issues.


 * Note: On November 23, 1963, James K. Fox, the Secret Service photographic expert, was given the autopsy film holders by JFK's personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, and told to develop them. At that time he made three sets of black and white autopsy photo prints at the Secret Service lab. On November 27, 1963, additional official copies were made at the Naval Processing Center. Copies of these photos were later given to JFK assassination researcher Mark Crouch who then made them available to JFK researchers. In 1992, the autopsy photos were specifically exempted from the JFK Records Act. ARRB Senior Staffer Doug Horne stated at the JFK Lancer 1998 Conference that these unofficial photos are cropped differently and are not as clear as the originals in the National Archives. Viewing the "Fox Set" is the only way this evidence available to the public.


 * Note: The color photos were obtained by researcher and consultant Robert Groden during the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The X-rays are exhibits from the HSCA hearings and were obtained by JFK Lancer from the National Archives.
 * Copyright 1996. All rights reserved. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service. JFK Lancer is not responsible for the content of any web pages linked from our site. http://www.jfklancer.com/aphotos.html'' Mytwocents 19:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Warren Report believer who calls himself "Mytwocents" is way out of line
He rarely contributes anything and merely deletes information. On the talk page he often starts off sentences This way: "I believe [blah, blah, blah]" and ends stating that evidence that conflicts with his beliefs should be deleted or restricted.

He should look around and realize that no one cares what some annonymous person "believes."

Do some actual work and the rest will look at it.

RPJ 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll post this again for comment.....Here is some more evidence to ponder:
 * Key Concept: Beveling. When a bullet penetrates the skull bone, it will leave a small hole on the side from which it enters, and a larger dished-out crater on the side that it exits. The existence of beveling of the bone of Kennedy’s skull allowed the autopsists — and later panels of forensic pathologists — to establish that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head entered from behind, with at least one large fragment exiting toward the front. See JFK Exhibit F-61, from the House Select Committee on Assassinations.Mytwocents 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)