Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 1

New Conspiracy Theory
There is a theory on the net that should be mentioned here. It is my belief, alogn with the belief of the silent majority, that John F. Kennedy was infact shot by Governor Connaly as he leaned back. The gun Connaly used was thrown retrieved by Jackie Kennedy. That skull she retrieved was not the skull, but infact a .36 Smith & Wessen registered to Governor Connaly. Connaly's wound was infact self inflicted.

Murder Confessions
What is the policy on people who have confessed to the murder? In his (ghost-written) autobiography "Bound by Honor" (1999). A retired Mafia consigliere Bill Bonanno writes that he shared a prison with Johnny Roselli, who confessed to being the real shooter of JFK, and was supposedly positioned in the storm drain on Elm street. Since he is already mentioned in this article I thought it would be interesting to say something outright, since the "Mafia & CIA theory" is one of the more credible ones anyway.

http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm contains references to recently released White House recordings and adds Nixon as a conspirator.

Hingo 17:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this Roselli involvement is corraboated by the James Files testimony (see external links). The Files testimony should be brought out from the Mafia paragraph to military-industrial complex or CIA or other section. Files and Roselli were hired gunman by the mafia, but getaway planes etc. were provided by the government so it can not be under the Mafia heading only. Actually the best approach would be "all of the above conspiracy". The problem with JFK was that everybody wanted him out the military-industrial complex including (CIA, Army, defense industry), the oil industry, the Israelis because of atomic energy control and Palestinian reparations demands, and the Mafia because of lost Cuban revenue, etc..

The presidential limo was immediately cleaned and repaired instead of being secured as ballistic evidence.

OK, I have a question; which is where does this information come from? I remember hearing that this is an Urban Legend. I do recall hearing that the X-100 was flown to Washington in the Air Force C130 cargo plane that had taken the car to Texas the day before. From Andrews Air Force Base, it was driven to the Secret Service garage and covered in plastic until an examination could be conducted. A thorough examination by Secret Service and FBI agents removed every metal and skull fragment, recording their location. The X-100 was totally photographed inside and out.

The windshield - splintered from a non-penetrating fragment strike - and the dented chrome molding are today stored in the National Archives.

An independent task force -- not Lyndon Johnson -- recommended the X-100 be rebuilt. The project, called the "Quick Fix," began after the Warren Commission had released the car. The rear compartment was retrimmed, replacing the spoiled seat and carpets. The windows were replaced by fixed bullet-resistant glass panels. By the time the Secret Service re-created the assassination in Dealey Plaza in May 1964, the X-100 had a permanent transparent top and was undergoing tests at Ford facilities in Dearborn, Michigan, making it unavailable.

I have seen photographs showing the fragments and dents etc., so it lends credence to the above story. Unless, of course, those pictures are fake.

The History Channel... BluesX 20:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"conspiratorial" theories?
I question the use of the adjective "conspiratorial" to refer to theories, because the implication is that the theories themselves are "characteristic of conspirators."

A conspiratorial theory would be a theory that several individual conspirators "conspired" (agreed) to promote.

Here's an analogy to illustrate my point: a theologian who writes about sin is not (at least not necessarily) advancing a "sinful" theory.

The preferred form seems to be "conspiracy theory."

The Oxford English Dictionary offers an addendum:
 * Add   4. Special Combs. conspiracy theory, the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event; so conspiracy theorist.

160.253.0.248 01:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How is it that the CIA is not mentioned here, when most Kennedy assassination researchers believe the CIA was directly involved?

Who REALLY controls "Wikipedia"? How can this article be so factually inaccurate??


 * If you think something is inaccurate or incomplete in this article, please correct it. Gamaliel 01:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Single Bullet Theory Tested
There was a show that aired tonight on the Discover Channel (Oct. 16 at 9 p.m. pacific time) entitled "JFK: Behind the Magic Bullet" which put the Single Bullet Theory to the test; and it was concluded that it is entirely possible for a single bullet to have caused all seven of those wounds. Although the bullet in the end was majorly deformed, moreso than the actual bullet belonging to the assassination of Kennedy, and also did not manage to pierce it's final target (the thigh), the bullet had actually gone through two artificial ribs in the test, causing the bullet to have deformed unintentionally and also slowing it down, so that it was not able to pierce the artificial thigh. Unfortunately, there was not a second test conducted, but the results did show that it was entirely possible for a single bullet to have hit all seven wounds. I just think that the show's findings and their results may add to this article.

Is There any Support for the the Protection of Kennedy being Reduced ?
One of the reasons given for a conspiracy is that the presidential protection on the Dallas trip was reduced:

"The two official government investigations have confirmed that the security around Kennedy's motorcade had been considerably reduced from its customary levels. The lack of security suggests to some that the CIA, Secret Service and/or some other agent, rogue agent(s), or agencies were actively involved in the assassination, rather than simply exhibiting an act of negligence."

Is there any evidence that this is true? The main article states "Dallas police had prepared the most stringent security precautions in the city's history." This reference work should not have two apparently contradictory statements. They could both be correct but it looks bad and they both should be supported by some evidence. RPJ 16:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, whose testimony is (of course) disputed, said that they (the Dallas Police) had received orders that they were there to be "merely observers, and nothing more".

andreasegde 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Julius Caesar paragraph
What's the point of that? What is the conspiricy theory of that particular murder? It doesn't fit in at all with the rest of the article and the "reason" given for the assasination of Caesar is incorrect.

Exit Wound on Kennedy's Head
I deleted the supposed evidence supporting a high-level conspiracy that said the exit wound on Kennedy's head was on the back. That statement is totally preposterous. The Zapruder film very clearly shows the front of Kennedy's head being blown out. The source linked to was just a gif image with absolutely no description whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia, it may be appropriate to have an article on the theories surrounding Kennedy's assasination as a cultural phenomenon, but it is definitely not appropriate to make unfounded factual statements to promote any of the theories. &mdash;Tox 03:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Contributor "Tox" believes the image of Kennedy's head being blown out in the back is "preposterous." But, the image was by Kennedy's treating physician at Parkland hospital.

"Tox" claims to have the real information and according to "Tox" the front of Kennedy's head was "blown out." Here is what purports to be a famous image of Kennedy after being assassinated.  Perhaps "Tox" can now tell us where the bullet went in and where it came out.

Blood spray in the front of kennedy's head would be from the bullet striking it near the front and by striking a closed container (the skull), at very high speed, it caused a back spray from the small bullet hole but then exited from the back of the head leaving a very large hole and taking with it over a third of the president's brain. RPJ 05:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A question: If the bullet came from the back, then why did Jackie reach so far back over the trunk/boot of the car to collect/pick up pieces of Kennedy´s brain/skull? It was at least one and a half metres away.

A bullet from the front would have hit the front of his head and pushed the pieces to the back.

A bullet from the back would have pushed the pieces onto Connally, or the back of Connally´s seat.

What do you think?

Have fun. andreasegde 19:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

De-AFD
That this could even be considered for deletion is absurd. The Cunctator 00:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy de-AFD'd. See Articles for deletion/Kennedy assassination theories. -Ste|vertigo 18:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Format for the revamp of the page
Here is a format that would be helpful for the assassination theories. I realize that those that possess a religous type fervor relating to this case may not like it because because each theory will be discussed briefly with the same elements being addressed for each theory.

Note well: I am not putting in the sources to these fundemantal statements since I just want to see if there is a consensus on this type of approach, and not given to get into a debate over the evidence. Please do not explode with indignation if something appears that doesn't seem "right."

A number of theories exist with regard to the John F. Kennedy assassination.

The person or persons who murdered President Kennedy have never been caught or convicted, with the possible exception of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was arrested and charged with the murder of the President, but forever silenced by being immediately murdered himself while in police custody. Oswald denied murdering the president and claimed he was a "patsy" and claimed the evidence produced by the police of him holding the murder weapon was faked.

This lack of a criminal judgment(or even a civil judgment)leaves the matter of who murdered President Kennedy an issue open to debate. With a trial, the facts are established through a public trial with evidence that has been challenged for authenticity, and other evidentiary value. Opposing evidence can be presented, and arguments for and against guilt can be advocated and the case is conducted by an unbiased court and jury. None of this has occurred.

The major theories on who murdered John F. Kennedy are as follows:

--1 "Official" Theory Number One--

Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the president and committed the murder by himself. The main proponent of this theory is the Warren Commission.

Strong Points:

An eyewitness identified Oswald with a rifle at the scene of the crime. Oswald worked at the building and in the area where the eyewitnessclaimed he spotted him and his fingerprint was on a box nearby.

Weak Points:

The eyewitness was far away, and a positive identification didn't come from Brennan until later. He claimed he didn't tell everything he knew at first because he was afraid of a communist conspiracy.

Other witnesses saw him elswere immediately afterwards, and his finger prints would be expected to be on boxes that he handled at work.

Oswald had no motive.

Even if Oswald was one of the shooters the bullets appeared to come from two different directions, and the most damaging wound blew out the back of the president's head. Oswald was allegedly shooting from behind the President, not from in front of him. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by RPJ (talk • contribs)


 * Watch Who was Lee Harvey Oswald? and tell me if you uncover a motive. His fingerprints were also on the rifle, which he purchased under an alias that he created fake ID for with his photo on it. An earwitness on the fifth floor also heard three loud shots from above. Furthermore I'm not too impressed with your understanding of balistics, and what a rifle bullet can do to a skull (both entering and exiting). If you need a refresher look at this still photo of an apple being shot. Notice the explosive force is not simply in the direction of motion; that the entrance also blows out. - RoyBoy 800 07:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oswald appears to have no motive. Instead of suggesting a motive to murder the president, the suggestion is to watch a tv program. Here is a good test: Is this a motive that someone would be able to convince a judge or jury is true in the glare of a trial?


 * I'm unsure how answering hypothetical questions gets us anywhere. Yes, I believe so, but it rests upon character witnesses; how they would testify and react to that glare, and the glare of Oswald himself is obviously unknown. I've recommended an excellent documentary (not just some random TV program) because I have dealt with people who have firm beliefs before; its been my experience when I tell them things they are largely ignored and my time is wasted. When I point them to the corroborated and well assembled evidence I base my opinions on; their positions soften. Saying Oswald "appears to have no motive" indicates to me you need to do more research on the person who most likely killed the President. To not do that leaves a significant blind spot in your research.

Oswald's fingerprints on "the rifle" do not perclude a second shooter. This should have been an easy case to prove against Oswald, if he did it. May be he did, but the most important question now is whether there was a second shooter and others involved. If so, they are walking free on the murder.


 * If others are involved that is indeed important and the entire point of this article... however there is no need to emphasize the scant and misinterpreted evidence pointing to a second shooter. I will indeed tweak the little girl paragraph to something a little more robust.

It doesn't matter that three loud shots were heard from behind Kennedy. There is a consensus that at least one shot from the back hit Kennedy, so evidence of these shots is expected. It doesn't affect the evidence of shots from the front.


 * Apart from people thinking they heard a shot from the front; and one person, Dr. Donald B. Thomas (no this isn't a battle of the experts), disputing the NAS acoustic analysis of there being no fourth shot... there is no substantial evidence of a shot from the front; if there was a fourth shot it would be confirmed by witnesses, it was not. There was also no need for a fourth shot to kill the President. Shot 1: Missed, little girl turns. Shot 2: Magic bullet passes through Kennedy's throat and the other guy. Shot 3: Head shot kills JFK. No fourth shot needed. I elaborate below.

Oswald's creation of a fake ID with his picture on it doesn't tend to prove there was no second shooter. On the other hand, (if it is true) that J. Edgar Hoover told LBJ that someone appears to have been impersonating Oswald in Mexico shortly before the shooting indicates a possible frame up of Oswald and a possible conspiracy.


 * Oswald (who did go to Mexico City) trying to defect to Cuba, and was being watched by the CIA (as any American visiting the Cuban consulate would be); it has absolutely nothing to do with an assasination. I invite you to watch chapter seven here. Mr. Hoover was mistaken if he believed there was an impersonation; he wasn't there, neither were you and I, but the people who were there saw Oswald... not the guy in the released CIA photo, which was a mistake. Are they hiding something (audio tapes, photos?) – hey they're the CIA – of course they are hiding something! :"D But this doesn't change the fact Oswald went to Mexico.


 * I should clarify that by meaning he wasn't impersonated in person where Oswald didn't going to Mexico. As this demonstrates someone impersonated him on the phone and linked him to a assassin Valery Kostikov. This is what US officials were discussing; not Oswald being framed by a CIA agent walking around pretending he was Oswald. - RoyBoy 800 07:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

These are matters of simple logic where some evidence tends to establish that something happened or didn't happen and then other evidence that doesn't address the issue at all. In court, one makes simple offers of proof: An attorney tells the judge I'm going to offer evidence that Mr. Jones ran the red light. That evidence, if true, might be very relevant in a tort case alleging an auto accident be irrelevant to proving whether Mr. Jones breached a contract to build a house. The judge would certainly ask for a position on relevancy.


 * Are you a lawyer and/or law student? Because I'm wondering about the relevancy of all these court references. An appeal to authority? Stop making them as your evidence (and lack thereof) wouldn't hold in court.

Watching a an apple get blown apart by a gunshot has what relevance? Merely to show that some back spray will develop when a high velocity bullet strikes an object with a high water content? What relevance is this law of physics to the case? Is a bona fida expert going to give the counter intuitive opinion that the five inch diameter hole in the back of Kennedy's head is the result of an entry wound from a bullet? I don't think any such theory has been proposed by anyone.


 * Indeed the apple is only an illustration; but an effective one as the brain also has high water content. As to the "hole" being 5-inches, I invite you to conduct an experiment. Get a round hard (but not thick) ceramic bowl and shoot it with a sniper rifle. Or better yet get an egg and conduct some impact experiments. You will find a small sudden impact can collapse a significant amount of the surrounding structure; making the area effected by the impact large, even though the hole itself is small. The best everyday example I can think of is walking on thin ice, even when on your tip toes you can collapse a significant circle of ice around your foot. So in answer to your question, yes a "bona fida expert" would clarify how such a thing can – by comparing it to other head shot victims – indeed occur.

The Warren Commission posited a theory that Kennedy was facing directly towards the ground and a bullet clipped him in the back base of the skull and took off the back right hand side of his skull.

The Commission even drew a little cartoon diagram on how it could happen that someone could be shot in the head from behind and instead of having a gaping exit wound in the face, has a huge exit wound in the back of the skull.

No evidence supports that this happened in the way the cartoon depicted. It is as simple as that.


 * I haven't mentioned the Warren Commission... so, I agree. It was posited, and I can only assume, is a discarded theory that has little relevance here.

Therefore when going through all the arguments haphazardly thrown together in the article it finally just seemed best to point out that approaching it in an unstructered and unreasoned way just clouds the issues. This was the easieat way to point it out right in the article. Probably nobody reads the discussion pages. Probably no one should read the article in its presnt state.

RPJ 11:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been generally gruff with you as I find your rationale and evidence wanting, but I hope to also make clear that I realize you were trying to fix and question the article so that it could be improved. And that's great! Indeed I see you posted your message on the talk page some time ago and decided to be bold and fix the article yourself when you got no response.


 * I do not want to discourage your input as it certainly will help improve the article (like how you pointed out the girl turning is of little relevance, I inserted that into the article and you are right as to it being silly -- my bad). The thing is the article is live and as bad as it is... it does have some sort of structure, which was put in disarray by your notes. I will certainly refer to them further as the article is improved. I invite further dialogue as we move forward. - RoyBoy 800 17:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also I wanted to specifically praise your edits to the lead, breaking off the CIA stuff into a seperate sub-section was a good move. I eventually got around to redoing your edit; although I did remove some stuff from the CIA sub-section which better fit in the lead... at least until we move the polls to their own section. - RoyBoy 800 06:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The article should start with strongest evidnece first. Second stronest next etc and just see where it takes the reader. This would be better than an over all theory which everyone has. RPJ 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The lead can cite the most referred to reasons to believe there is a conspiracy; but the lead is meant to be an overview for a subject, not a place to rigorously go over the evidence. And the lead should be a brief as possible... which is why I'm going to move my new paragraphs out of it. - RoyBoy 800 01:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also since we have an evidence sub-section; it might be contrary to good style to repeat specific evidence since its already in the appropriate sub-section. - RoyBoy 800 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you can also re-order the evidence sub-section as you think appropriate. I have little feeling for the relative strength of much of the evidence. - RoyBoy 800 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

dispute tag
I've revised the paragraph on the fingerprint theory, and that paragraph alone was so chock full of factual errors, incorrect assertions, and pov claims, that I fear for the rest of the article. We should make a thorough check of the whole article. Gamaliel 07:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC) --
 * I agree, and thank Gamaliel for placing the dispute tag - I would have done it myself if it were not already here. The whole thing is a big mess and desperately needs structure and style revision. I absolutely think the article is necessary, because these conspiracy theories have permeated American culture - just about everyone has an opinion one way or the other, believing either 'conspiracy' or 'Oswald acting alone.' However, the article seems to be a laundry list of every theory ever mentioned anywhere on the web, instead of a thoughtful, structured, referenced overview of the case against the Warren Commission report. ddlamb 05:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This text was added to the Response section by uknown editor. Moved by Mytwocents 04:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC) to talk section.

9. Photo Journalist discovered evidence that Former President John F. Kennedy was still alive after the "so called assassination attempt." In a FBI briefing conducted in 1974 a Federal agent stated that Kennedy was alive and living on an island in an undisclosed location lead many to speculate that the Former President was not dead at all. The photo journalist spent many years scouring the U.S. to help produce new evidence to sustain that the American public was never really told the truth about this matter. Former Naval Intelligence Officers were further interviewed following the investigation throughout the years until the late 1990's. The entire investigation led to several care givers who claimed the former president was in fact alive and living on a U.S. island associated with the U.S. Navy. The last non publishable photo of John F Kennedy was taken by the journalist. The photo contains the aged President proudly posing seated in his wheel chair. The journalist spent an entire three years caring for the former president. Significant evidence was produced, the presidents surgical scar one of his many identifying marks, hair and DNA samples. He was chronically ill suffering from Parkinsons disease inwhich he had succumbed to his death on August 15, 1994 at 10:15am.

British conspiracy
Removed the following from the article:


 * Another theory states that Kennedy was killed by the UK agents in an attempt to incite a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, after which Britain will remain the only dominating world power. To this end, assassination was orchestrated as to cast suspicion on the USSR (see Lee Harvey Oswald biography). The US secret services prevented the war by promptly killing Oswald before he was able to make public confessions.

My apologies RPJ, as far as I could see this indeed is not supported by anything meaningful and your initial deletion was correct. Of course we could both be wrong ;"D... but if anyone would like to back it up with anything verifiable, please do so. - RoyBoy 800 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How could the UK become a dominating world power in 1963? It was still suffering from the after-effects of WWII. Rationing continued into the 50s. Nuclear bombs were also pointed at the UK in Russia. Just one single bomb on London would have wiped it out. The Beatles were the only "weapon" they had, for heck´s sake.

Really; the next theory will be that my mother did it because there were no cornflakes in the supermarket that day...

andreasegde 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

LBJ Led Conspiracy

 * You are putting together a quality section there RPJ, but I don't understand why its placed above the other theories; and why its repeating some points already made in the other LBJ section. You should integrate the best elements of your new section with the existing section, I've moved it here so that you can do it at your leisure. - RoyBoy 800 19:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a good decision on your part. It was hoped that someone would look at it. It does contain redundancies etc, and certainly isn't yet documented though it can be documented very thoroughly. The two assassination theories that seem to fit the pattern of evidence is: 1) There was a very low level conspiracy that the leadership of the nation felt had to be hidden to avoid an escalation of conflicts with communist countries; or 2) There was a high level conspiracy that the leadership needed to keep hidden because some of them were part of it. RPJ 21:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I almost agree, and that is a very good summation of a very complicated subject. But what I cannot avoid, especially with the low-level conspiracy is the third option; 3. no active conspiracy. For example... Oswald could have told Cuban officials in Mexico (after they rejected his requests to enter their country), if I kill the President would you grant me asylum in Cuba? They say, fine... partially because they want Kennedy dead after the Bay of Pigs incident; but mostly because they think this guy wouldn't be able to do it and they just wanted to get rid of him. Everyone, the Cubans, CIA, FBI etc. simply underestimated what Oswald was capable of (this level of incompetance is a decent reason to cover-up failing to stop Oswald).
 * Oswald attempted to kill a General prior to Kennedy; there was no conspiracy involving that attempt; it was Oswald, by himself, engaging in guerrilla tactics. Granted Oswald went to Mexico (Cubans, KGB, CIA implications) and New Orleans (Mafia, LBJ, FBI implications and very little is known about that trip) prior to the assassination. I am not dismissing a conspiracy, but I am keenly aware from Oswald's background that it is not necessary to motivate him to kill a high profile person. As I see it, a conspiracy would provide something Oswald needed, a way to escape, and something to look forward to. But Oswald didn't escape, and as yet there is nothing to indicate he was paid off or promised anything.
 * The evidence is very circumstantial, and the print match on a box of LBJ criminal associate is made by one expert, if true that indeed provides a key with which everything comes together and focuses attention on the person with motive, connections and access necessary to carry forward a cover-up, LBJ. But if that print match is a mistake, and looking that the prints myself; I'm certainly not convinced; then it is simply a red herring. For example all the evidence points to Jack Ruby being in the right place at the right time; and after sending moneygram a few minutes earlier he gets into the police station just as they are transferring Oswald over an hour late. Now either there is a sophisticated plot to get the timing right for Ruby's entrance; or it was one of the largest coincidences of modern times. And yes, I believe in coincidences, the evidence for a conspiracy lies with Ruby and with the mafia who were acting alone or in conjunction with LBJ. But again that involves a lot of people, and its just as plausible Ruby acted alone because of his own motivations.
 * What I personally find most convincing of all against conspiracy theories, is that Oswald (in talking to his personal escort just as they are leaving) did not appear afraid of being silenced/wacked. If Oswald was part of a significant conspiracy, he should have been paranoid about being shot. But from all the footage and eyewitnesses I've seen; he liked talking to reporters and being seen by people. In my opinion, not the actions of a patsy. - RoyBoy 800 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This assassination theory contains a person with the motives, and means to accomplish the murder and cover it up. To accept this theory one would have to believe that Lyndon Johnson was both ruthless, cunning, and very well connected with the levers of power in the federal government and the state of Texas.

The facts appear to be this. At the time of Kennedy's death, Johnson was the subject of four major criminal investigations involving government contract violations, misappropriation of funds, money laundering and bribery. President Kennedy had discussed with his closest aides (including his personal secretary Evelyn Lincoln) that he was considering dropping Johnson as vice president before the 1964 U.S. presidential election. Richard Nixon, was quoted in the November 22, 1963 Dallas newspaper saying he believed Kennedy would drop Johnson from the 1964 Democratic ticket because Johnson was embroiled in several high-profile political scandals (see Bobby Baker and Billie Sol Estes). [12]

Johnson biographers agree that Johnson was politically aggressive and power-hungry. The murder of John Kennedy would not only give the presidency to Lyndon Johnson, but also all four scandals facing him at the time of Kennedy’s death could be made to "disappear" after Kennedy died. And the scandals did disappear as being any threat to Johnson.

Some researchers claim that a formerly unidentified fingerprint found on a cardboard box on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository Building is that of a known associate of President Johnson.and lover of Johnson’s one sister. The associates name was Malcolm 'Mac' Wallace [14], a convicted murderer, whose life term in prison that was arrived at by a Texas jury was overturned by a judge after Johnson’s own attorney sought a reduction. The judge immediately turned “Mac” Wallace loose.

In 1998 fingerprint examiner named A. Nathan Darby signed an affidavit which asserted a 14 point match, though such a match has not been made by FBI fingerprint examiners or other independent examiners. [15]

Johnson certainly was in a pivotal position to orchestrate a cover-up of those who murdered the President, and to convince others to do the same.

Johnson, who, during his tenure as US Senate Majority Leader in the 1950s had been nicknamed "The Senator From The Pentagon" because of his close links to the defense and aerospace industry, was believed to have said to members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly before Kennedy's death, "Once I get the presidency I'll get you the war you want." This quick and radical change in US policy is a key issue that confirms for many Johnson's key role in Kennedy's death

Kennedy had started to recall U.S. military advisers, reversing his stand on a plan which he had previously supported. However, Johnson, unlike Kennedy, would assiduously pursue the Indochina proxy war strategy, immediately resending recalled troops back to Vietnam, and continuing in the policy of escalation. Four days after Kennedy's assassination, Johnson increased US advisory involvement in Vietnam, and less then a year later, in August 1964 secretly ordered the fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a way to publicize the war to Americans as an aggression by the North. In September 1964, Johnson’s especially appointed Commission concluded that a Communist killed President Kennedy.

Johnson also elicited the aid of his long time friend and neighbor, J, Edgar Hoover who he put in charge of the investigation even though Texas had jurisdiction over the murder and any co-conspirators. Hoover immediately decided that Oswald was the assassin and murdered the president by himself. The later House Select Commission on Assassinations later criticized both the FBI and the Warren Commission for never really investigating other who may have participated in the murder. Instead Johnson gave a special presidential order that all assassination materials would be sealed until 2029 which would effectively prevent other criminal investigations be pursued.

Shortly before he testified before the Warren Commission, Johnson arranged for his friend Hoover to receive a lifetime appointment as Director of the FBI. Later the FBI was criticized for destroying evidence relating to the assassination, and not disclosing to the nation that someone had been impersonating Oswald in Mexico shortly before Kennedy was assassinated.

The CIA was also motivated to either assist or cover up for the participants in the Kennedy assassination since Kennedy was disenchanted with the agency and its perceived failures. Yet, Johnson appointed Allen Dulles to the seven man Commission appointed by Johnson to investigated who killed Kennedy. Dulles had recently just been fired by Kennedy as the head of the CIA, along with other top CIA officials, for the agency's failures in Cuba and elsewhere.

Johnson also used the potential threat of at least 40 million people being killed in a global thermonuclear war when he persuaded Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren to head the Warren Commission. And that it was necessary that people believe Oswald not only killed the president but did it alone. Author Peter Dale Scott has theorized (with a great deal of supporting documentation) that the patently absurd nuclear war fear was planted by the CIA as bait to force Johnson and the Warren Commission into accepting the less controversial but, in Scott's view, the equally absurd conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in shooting Kennedy.

New investigation of the murder
Simplification of the case is necessary. Focus is necessary: Did one person or did more than one person blow the President's brains out. Who are the killers and who helped them.

Here is one method of going through all the new evidence and finding out who committed the murder:

First, solving the Kennedy murder case requires the investigator to establish whether there were two shooters or just the one shooter (Lee Oswald) as the Warren Report contended, and which some people still believe. If it was just one person shooting it probably was Oswald.

Second, if it is established there was a second shooter, the investigator must identity the shooters and and those that helped the killers both before and after they murdered Kennedy.

Third, this identification process could be started by looking over the list of suspects cleared by the HSCA, by reviewing each suspect in light of the  new evidence that was turned up by the  Assassaination Records Review Board. If Oswald was connected with any of the suspects then it is likely the suspect might have conspired with Oswald, or at least used its knowledge of Oswald, to set him up as as a patsy as Oswald claimed.

If others are involved, there is no statute of limitations on murder. At that point of the investigation, the goal is to find the identity of the murderers.


 * I've removed this section as I don't know what investigation this is referring to. I simply do not see the need to spell out for people what needs to be done to establish a conspiracy; and the methods used to do so. This isn't an article about how to conduct an investigation; it is about conspiracy theories on Kennedy. If you want to know how they are constructed/investigated, readers should be directed to articles on investigation and conspiracy theories. - RoyBoy 800 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Headers
I changed the main header to Evidence of a conspiracy because that encompasses all the evidence under it, including the shooters discussion and other stuff. (to elevated the shooter header to the main heading, I think, overemphasizes it) Generally we try to avoid long headers in Wikipedia as its unnecessary and usually unhelpful. For example, you added One in Front and One in Back... in front and back of what? You would have to add even more to that heading for it to be complete. Simple and to the point for headers, and for articles for that matter. - RoyBoy 800 07:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions by WC isn't testimony or evidence
This is an explanation of the editing to the person who calls himself Mytwocents.

In that section of the article that discusses the evidence supporting one shooter or two shooters, trying to murder the president, we are not attempting to identify who the shooters were, but only whether there was one shooter or two shooters.

Mytwocents makes the section confusing by trying to mix in evidence of whether Lee Oswald was one of the shooters. Mytwocents also wants to mix in evidence of whether or not Oswald shot someone else that day besides the president.

Apparently Mytwocents doesn't understand what it means to isolate one issue and focus only on the evidence relating to that issue, and then go on to another issue.

But, now Mytwocents knows.

Also, "evidence" is used as the subject of the sub article because it encompasses both testimony and documentary evidence.

Finally, the Warren Report's conclusions are not evidence of what happened but rather what the Commission decided happened. The two concepts should not get mixed up.

Edits were made to correct this and the other material that Mytwocents wants to supply can be put elsewhere on the page. Remeber the Warren Report has its very own page. It needn't dominate every paragraph of every discussion, as if it were a bible, or some other type of religious text.

RPJ 05:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents is being "bad" again
"Mytwocents" how many times do you have to be told you cannot simply go through articles and randomly chop out large pieces of information.

That is prohibited by website rules.

RPJ

Mytwocents is puzzled about what HSCA means
"Mytwocents." Are you the one that asks for the verification of the citations to the HSCA?

"HSCA" means House Select Commimttee on Assassinations. That is a committee of the House of Representatives. This committee was formed to investigate the series of assassinations that swept the United States during the 1960's. The assassinations were, in part, racially motivated. Dr. King was one of the victims. So was John Kennedy.

A small number of people were intolerant of other viewpoints so they assassinated people they didn't like.

Are you concerned about the sources for the information? Look at those little footnotes you see.

I know they don't look like words but if you click them, words appear. To follow a footnote, "Mytwocents" should put his cursor on the footnote and click.

"Mytwocents" will then arrive at an imaged pages of the HSCA Report (see above for explanation "HSCA").

Please read the report before you attempt any editing because many of your questions might be answered. Then--and before making any changes to the article--"Mytwocents" should read the web site rules for changes. You can't just take out information and viewpoints with which you don't agree. Its against the rules.

All significant viewpoints are to be included and the reader then decides for him or her self what to agree with. That is the rule.

Remember now, "Mytwocents", simply because you don't agree with other viewpoints doesn't mean you can cut out viewpoints. RPJ 04:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let other impartial editors decide if if the citations support the statements. Mytwocents 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * RPJ, please stop reverting this page and removing the templates. Let other editors have a chance to review the disputed sections. Mytwocents 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Website rules for dispute resolution
Mytwocents wants to resolve a dispute over the information that he wants to delete.

Good. On this web site, we have proper steps for dispute resolution.

The first step in the website rules for resolving disputes is for the parties to negotiate to find a solution. See, here are the website steps below:

Dispute resolution processes 1--Negotiation: Current surveys 2--Requests for comment | Third opinion 3--Proposed RFC enforcement 4--Mediation: Mediation Committee 5--Requests for mediation 5--Arbitration: Arbitration Committee 6--Requests for arbitration 7--Mentorship and Probation 8--Mentorship Committee

We are only at stage one: Negotiations.

Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 38

Remember, at this website, all significant points of view must be included in articles.

RPJ 18:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Bold text

Earl Warren's theory
What about Warren's theory that it was a self-inflicted gunshot wound?--67.118.134.176 03:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is your reference? Why are you not logged in?

Do you seriously believe that Kennedy killed himself? Have you seen the Zapruder film? Do you think that Kennedy would decide to kill himself? (He had an enormous ego, after all...) Why did Jackie not see a gun?

Really - this is too silly...

andreasegde 23:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

RPJ against Mytwocents
RPJ is right about the points he is trying to make, but.... he said, "The assassinations were, in part, racially motivated. Dr. King was one of the victims, and so was John Kennedy." This sounds very opinionated and not verifiable by facts, because nobody really knows the facts. Guys, guys, guys... Let´s stick to what can be proven. "Tell it like it is", as the famous song goes. Do you BOTH think that you have the answer?

andreasegde 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

William Greer, assassin?
I haven't seen anything on the possibility that William Greer, the driver of the limo, was the one who gave the fatal shot to President Kennedy. Possible add to the page?

Rulers of Evil 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Another silly theory, which is easily disproven by looking at the Zapruder film. Why didn´t Connally see a gun, or his wife? Greer had his hands on the wheel, did he not? Is this theory another "Black Op"?

andreasegde 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...it was exactly the Zapruder film that seems to point to Greer, at leat in my opinion. This site http://www.ctwilcox.com, under "doc flick", showed Greer pointing something at Kennedy. The timing of Greer's head, hand and the slowing of the car seems to indicate he did the fatal head shot. There was much discussion about why Greer slowed (film showed the car didn't stop) but it would make sense that Greer was concentrating on the shot and not concentrating on driving. It appears that Greer was a backup assassin in case the first shot from elsewhere didn't do the job. Connally and his wife were too distracted from the first shot to notice Greer as the Zap film show.

Here is a clearer film: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov Keep close eye on the driver, Greer, at his chest level area.

Rulers of Evil 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like his hand in the sunlight on the steering wheel to me. His hand is pointing in the direction of Connally, who was looking forwards and would have seen it from the corner of his eye. Plus; his shoulder looks to be in the way. He had to turn his left shoulder (with arm and hand attached) to get a better view. Try this at home, folks. Wouldn´t Connally have heard a gun go off right next to him? They´re very loud you know :) Wouldn´t Jackie or his wife have heard? "Distracted" is stretching it a bit.

Just after the head shot Greer turns back to the front and ducks (instinctively?) down. Why did he do that? He was surely afraid that he would get hit.

The head shot was on the right side of Kennedy´s head, which rules Greer out. It would have been extremely difficult to shoot Kennedy in the head. A shot at his chest/heart area would have been easier.

Also, as he was Kennedy´s driver, he had lots of chances to kill him, and not to do it with great difficulty and in full view of witnesses on the street.

No witnesses heard a shot from the car, even though lots heard them from the depository and the grassy mound.

If you´re going to kill the President, you wouldn´t ´trust to luck´ and a driver to fire a lucky shot at a target behind him; you would make sure that it would definitely succeed, which it sadly did, of course.

Thanks for the link though, and you do have an intriguing theory.

andreasegde 17:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Andreasegde, you sound distressed that you saw in the film what you think you saw. You throw up many doubts that can be erased by an honest look at the film. Why do you doubt yourself when confronted by the strong possibility that a government agent charged with protecting the President would take the President's life? Could it be that Greer (and everyone covering up for him) felt that Kennedy was threatening something else that he was charged with protecting? Like the currency system? Kennedy was going to eliminate the Federal Reserve System so that brought conflict within the Secret Service. You know which side they took. Jesus said, "The root of all evil is the love of money." Many agents of government have backgrounds in military and would do anything to preserve the democracy they believe is right. They jesuitically believe the "end justifies the means".

Rulers of Evil 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ROE, but I was not "distressed"; I believe the taking of a life is sad thing, that´s all.

I wasn´t "throwing up doubts", but merely stating the facts as we know them. You don´t "erase" facts, you disprove them.

How can one look at facts, "honestly"? Is there a dishonest way of looking at facts? I don´t like the inference that I am not being truthful and I am doubting myself :)

"strong possibility" is a POV. It´s a bit like "almost perfect". It is, or it isn´t.

"would do anything to preserve the democracy they believe is right." Sounds like it should be the system - which they control - and not a democracy.

"They jesuitically believe", Whoah! Stop right there... What do you believe in? DON´T answer that, please...

Last Point, because these things can go on for ages, and I have a life to lead:

Greer was only a DRIVER, for heck´s sake. I notice you didn´t disagree with my previous points, though, or disprove them.

Have fun.

andreasegde 14:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I started to list your points and rebut them but then I realize it can go on and on and on just like you said that these things can go on for ages. It is my personal opinion that this goes on and on because people just don't want to accept what they see what Greer is (was?) doing in the film right before Kennedy was shot. Ok, point by point......

"it looks like his hand in the sunlight on the steering wheel to me."  I'm assuming you mean his right hand. Yes, his right hand is on the steering wheel in the 1 to 2 o'clock position where he moved to like you would if you where going to do something with your left hand. He moved it after the first shots were fired.

'''“His hand is pointing in the direction of Connally, who was looking forwards and would have seen it from the corner of his eye. Plus; his shoulder looks to be in the way. He had to turn his left shoulder (with arm and hand attached) to get a better view.”''' I'm assuming you mean Greer's left hand. Connally was leaning back into his wife after being hit by the first shots. In this position, Connally was behind Greer right at the moment that Kennedy was shot. At the moment that Greer was pointing the gun, Connally was facing almost skyward and toward the right side of the car. It looks to me that he was too far behind Greer to see the gun.

'''“Wouldn´t Connally have heard a gun go off right next to him? They´re very loud you know :) Wouldn´t Jackie or his wife have heard? "Distracted" is stretching it a bit.”''' I'm sure they all heard but just didn't know where it came from.  But Jackie tried to get out of the car so she probably suspected it came from within the car.  But with Secret Service all around her then and for the rest of her life, she just couldn't say anything for fear of her life.

By “distracted”, I was referring to the first shots, not the final blast. Of course, the final shot terrified them.

'''“Just after the head shot Greer turns back to the front and ducks (instinctively?) down. Why did he do that? He was surely afraid that he would get hit.”''' He would duck because he is playing the “it wasn't me” game. He would act like an innocent person to cover himself or deflect suspicion away from himself.

“The head shot was on the right side of Kennedy´s head, which rules Greer out.” I have no idea how a right-side shot rules out Greer having shot Kennedy. From Greer's viewpoint, it would be easier to hit Kennedy's right side than his left side because Greer would have to turn even more to deliberately hit the left side of Kennedy.

'''“It would have been extremely difficult to shoot Kennedy in the head. A shot at his chest/heart area would have been easier.”''' A head at point-blank range is a big target and easy enough for a professional shooter. There used to be old West shows where shooters would shoot holes in coins tossed up in the air. Anyway, an operation like this would definitely be rehearsed many times.

“Also, as he was Kennedy´s driver, he had lots of chances to kill him, and not to do it with great difficulty and in full view of witnesses on the street.” Dealey Plaza was the area where they chose to conduct the assassination, with convenient places to shoot and get away. Oswald, the fall guy, was set up near there too. Greer wasn't the lone assassin in all of this. I'm sure that the issue of witnesses was considered and part of why Dealey Plaza was chosen. The film shows that there weren't many witnesses around at the exact spot where Kennedy was fatally shot. Residual witnesses can always be bought off or “taken care of” one way or another.

“No witnesses heard a shot from the car, even though lots heard them from the depository and the grassy mound.” Well, don't have anything on this. All I can say is Jackie tried to get out of the car for some reason.

“If you´re going to kill the President, you wouldn´t ´trust to luck´ and a driver to fire a lucky shot at a target behind him; you would make sure that it would definitely succeed, which it sadly did, of course” I already mentioned about rehearsals. Greer was a professional Secret Service agent (some said a covert CIA agent too) so he don't believe in lucky shots either. A sad time indeed that started a turbulent Sixties.

“Thanks for the link though, and you do have an intriguing theory.” Thanks for the thanks. Sorry if I offended you. ROE

Rulers of Evil 17:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying thanks, ROE. Good grief, people can be nice to each other on a discussion page! What a wonderful thing. Let´s have more of it, you people out there...

OK, ROE, I´ll try and quickly go through it (but I´m not pretending to be an expert, as none of us are...)

It looks like his left hand in the sunlight, but I´ll look again. This actually helps your theory, y´know! He had to bring his left arm/hand over so he could turn to see Kennedy.

Who was the other agent next to Greer? Did he see/hear any shot? I suppose you will say that he was ´in on the plot´, which I can accept, but why didn´t he shoot Kennedy? He wasn´t driving, after all... What was his name?

Connally and his wife were in the back compartment of the car on small ´extra´ seats in front of Jackie and Kennedy. Connally was behind Greer, so he would have seen the gun, or the flash of the gun.

Jackie climbed almost out of the car because she was retrieving the bits of skull and brain tissue from Kennedy that was on the trunk/boot of the car. The policeman/rider behind the car on the left/back was splattered with blood. She still had some skull pieces in her hand at the hospital. This is fact, because that is what she said. (Maybe was coerced into saying that? Hmmm...)

They didn´t know where the shot came from? Well it wasn´t Jackie. Connally´s wife was directly in front of Jackie. Connally was in front of Kennedy. Kennedy did not shoot himself, for heck´s sake... Connally was facing the front and would have had to shoot over his shoulder. So it must have been....

Shooting holes in coins? This is a hollywood lie, because a Colt 45 could barely hit a barn door. (Fact) The barrels were smooth on the inside. Two guys on a high street at noon standing 5 metres away from each other would be lucky to get a good shot. Cowboys didn´t ride into town playing guitar and yodelling, either. (Please smile...) Greer, of course, would have had the latest gun available. (More ammo for you!)

I can see what you´re getting at, but look at the film and see where Connally was. I agree it does look fishy, but if you can see Greer´s hand in the sunlight, wouldn´t you also see the barrel/body of the gun? Metal reflects light better than skin. If Greer had his hand on a gun, the back of his hand would be turned to the left and his fingers would have gripped the gun, meaning the gun would have been seen more than his hand. (PLUS: Was greer left-handed or right-handed? Hmmm... we have to think about that one...)

As far as I know, the witnesses at the scene were not "taken care of", but one or two WERE subjected to interrogation and ´convinced´ that there were only three shots. That´s suspect.

Anyway; I have looked at the Zapruder film a lot. The link you gave is the best page for it; thanks again.) It´s a good theory, but my instinct (POV again...ouch!) tells me it could have been done in a much easier way than you describe.

Last Point: Sit in a car without a roof at 10/20/30 miles per hour and shout "BANG!" as loud as you can whilst clapping your hands together. Everybody will know where the noise came from, but Connally (and don´t forget his wife) and Jackie never said that.

Have fun.

andreasegde 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Two Agents in the Car
Bill Greer was driving, and Roy Kellerman was sat next to him. If they were agents supposedly protecting Kennedy, they were two of the worst I have ever seen. (Unless they were ´in on it´ of course, but I don´t want to go there...)

They both look around after the first shot, Greer slows slightly (as reported) then looks around again and sees the head shot. kellerman (after the first look) looks straight ahead and does nothing at all. They both "duck down", shortly after the head shot. What brave and loyal defenders of the President they were.

Although in Kellerman´s defence he said at the Warren Comission inquiry that there had to be more than 3 shots, as the bullets were ´flying everywhere´. He also later said (before he died) that he was sure of a conspiracy.

Greer was profusely apologetic right after the shooting, but his son said later that he was ambivalent about Kennedy. "My dad said that he was a Methodist and Kennedy was a Catholic, after all..."

Do y´all think this should go in?

--andreasegde 11:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The rifle
Question: Why did Oswald (supposedly) buy such an old WWII bolt-action rifle? Why not buy an American model that he had used in the army, and was used to? The Mannlicher-carcano´s sights were not even set up properly; (Warren Comission). He also (supposedly) bought it by mail-order, when he could have walked into any gun shop and bought a better rifle with the fake I.D. that he had on him, at the time of his arrest. He could have bought an automatic Mauser (as was supposedly - disputedly - found.)

He also didn´t shoot Kennedy as he was coming towards him, but as he was moving away. He left the rifle behind (which was easily found) and went to the canteen to buy a coke.

He then left the depository (was he due to finish work at that time?) and went home.

If Oswald did shoot Kennedy, then he was very stupid, but extremely ´effin lucky.andreasegde 10:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sbharris, but could you put your answers after the original comment, please? It is difficult to answer, as it is hard to understand who wrote what. I have moved your answers down below.

andreasegde 00:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Answer: He didn't buy a Mercedes to escape Dallas with, either. For the same reason Oswald didn't buy anything else nice. He was POOR. The mail order rifle cost him $12. Those spending millions and millions to set him up as a patsy would certainly have provided a better one, don't you think?


 * He had less time, and and the front was a worse shot (though maybe two other people).


 * Well, what did you expect him to do with the rifle? Flush it down a toilet? He barely made it out of the building carrying nothing, before it was sealed.


 * He was not due to finish work. He skipped off the job, the ONLY employee that day to do so. Everybody else was there and accounted for, but him.


 * He was lucky and bold and of course nuts. As for stupid, that depends. But for Tippit, he might have made it to a bus out of Dallas. It's conceivable he might have made it to Cuba. Had he done so, Castro might even have hidden him. It's also possible Oswald wanted to leave his mark on history more than he wanted to continue the life he'd been living. If so he wouldn't be the first.Sbharris 17:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I want to make it clear that I have a totally neutral position about Oswald, and am not trying to push forward a POV. They´re just questions, and that is absolutely all. I find them intriguing.

Anyway;

I accept that he was poor, but why not buy a cheap, "ex-army" American rifle from a shop? A mail-order purchase leaves a trail of evidence.

Everybody accepts that the front was an easier shot. Look it up, or ask a hunter. (He was on the sixth floor, and looking down at Kennedy.)

Why not hide the gun somewhere it wouldn´t be found? He worked there, after all, so he had the time, and he could have easily organised a place where he could hide it.

He bought a coke before he left the building. He didn´t try to escape from Dallas, but went to see a movie.

Have fun.

andreasegde 01:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As for trail of evidence, it's quite possible, I think likely, that when Oswald bought the rifle, he wasn't planning on using it to assassinate anybody. But once you have the tool, the job may look better. Oswald with Walker obviously wasn't planning to leave the rifle behind for tracing. And when JFK came up, there wasn't time enough to buy another rifle. If you buy a rifle in a store, you risk being identified. Evidence either way. In Oswald's time you could buy a rifle through the mail to a PO box, and this was a far better price than he'd have gotten at any retail store. All the laws were changed later to make this impossible, of course--- mostly due to Oswald.
 * The front was an easier shot? But not out in the open where everybody and their dog can see you. Oswald had a nice secluded sniper's nest where he worked, benchrest and all. Why move down the street 2 blocks to an infinitely more difficult to set-up spot? (Yes, the cops had swept the trainyard and whole area that day).
 * Why hide the gun somewhere it couldn't be found? The man had about 15 seconds. Where do you suggest? He could have pre"organized" a gateway into the 5th dimension, maybe?
 * He bought a coke before he left the building? Better than that: he bought a coke like 90 seconds after the president passed by and got his head blown off. The whole plaza, including everybody in his office, is downstairs to get a look at JFK and the motorcade,, which they'd known for hours was coming, and the intensely political Oswald is upstairs getting a Coke?? Coke, It's the Real Thing(TM)! This must've been ONE thirsty dude. Or somebody trying very hard to look like he's doing something normal when everybody else for blocks is doing something they didn't ordinary do. Which, in retrospect, looks VERY suspicious.
 * He didn't try to escape from Dallas? No, not after he found that everybody was looking for a man with his description, for the shooting of both JFK and a cop. Went to see a movie? LOL. Actually went shopping/loitering in a shoe store. This must've been a man with a real pressing need for new footwear! On par with that thirst for COKE. Until somebody recognized him. Following which, he slipped into a matinee of War is Hell with Van Heflin, without paying, and had the guy who recognized him in the shop bring it to the attention of the ticket-taker. Yes, I can just see Oswald: "Ah, the president has been assassinated outside the building where I work. No reason not to spend a relaxing afternoon getting a new pair of loafers.... Maybe take in an old war movie in the middle of the day... Vicarious violence sometimes being a stress reliever, when you have small problems from your workplace on your mind." S  B Harris 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I´m not even going to start replying to this at length, because it has very few paragraphs (which make me think I´m going blind) and it is full of POV theories. I find, "Where do you suggest? He could have pre-organized a gateway into the 5th dimension, maybe?" to be extremely sarcastic and insulting. I despair... andreasegde 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

New Conspiracy Theory
There is a theory on the net that should be mentioned here. It is my belief, alogn with the belief of the silent majority, that John F. Kennedy was infact shot by Governor Connaly as he leaned back. The gun Connaly used was thrown retrieved by Jackie Kennedy. That skull she retrieved was not the skull, but infact a .36 Smith & Wessen registered to Governor Connaly. Connaly's wound was infact self inflicted.

Hey, I would like to meet this "silent majority". Mr. Richard Nixon used to talk about them a lot; it seemed that they were, like, really cool friends of his, man... Seems like they know exactly what´s going down, dude, if you get my drift... mumble, mumble.... Oh, yeah, I forgot, you didn´t, like, sign in, man.... Have, like, a nice day, y´know...

andreasegde 09:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Murder confessions
What is the policy on people who have confessed to the murder? In his (ghost-written) autobiography "Bound by Honor" (1999). A retired Mafia consigliere Bill Bonanno writes that he shared a prison with Johnny Roselli, who confessed to being the real shooter of JFK, and was supposedly positioned in the storm drain on Elm street. Since he is already mentioned in this article I thought it would be interesting to say something outright, since the "Mafia & CIA theory" is one of the more credible ones anyway.

http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm contains references to recently released White House recordings and adds Nixon as a conspirator.

Hingo 17:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this Roselli involvement is corraboated by the James Files testimony (see external links). The Files testimony should be brought out from the Mafia paragraph to military-industrial complex or CIA or other section. Files and Roselli were hired gunman by the mafia, but getaway planes etc. were provided by the government so it can not be under the Mafia heading only. Actually the best approach would be "all of the above conspiracy". The problem with JFK was that everybody wanted him out the military-industrial complex including (CIA, Army, defense industry), the oil industry, the Israelis because of atomic energy control and Palestinian reparations demands, and the Mafia because of lost Cuban revenue, etc..

The limousine
The presidential limo was immediately cleaned and repaired instead of being secured as ballistic evidence.

OK, I have a question; which is where does this information come from? I remember hearing that this is an Urban Legend. I do recall hearing that the X-100 was flown to Washington in the Air Force C130 cargo plane that had taken the car to Texas the day before. From Andrews Air Force Base, it was driven to the Secret Service garage and covered in plastic until an examination could be conducted. A thorough examination by Secret Service and FBI agents removed every metal and skull fragment, recording their location. The X-100 was totally photographed inside and out.

The windshield - splintered from a non-penetrating fragment strike - and the dented chrome molding are today stored in the National Archives.

An independent task force -- not Lyndon Johnson -- recommended the X-100 be rebuilt. The project, called the "Quick Fix," began after the Warren Commission had released the car. The rear compartment was retrimmed, replacing the spoiled seat and carpets. The windows were replaced by fixed bullet-resistant glass panels. By the time the Secret Service re-created the assassination in Dealey Plaza in May 1964, the X-100 had a permanent transparent top and was undergoing tests at Ford facilities in Dearborn, Michigan, making it unavailable.

I have seen photographs showing the fragments and dents etc., so it lends credence to the above story. Unless, of course, those pictures are fake.

The History Channel... BluesX 20:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The authorities keeps everything that is of any importance; even the remains of the burned-out capsule of Apollo 1.

The limo was the one in which a United States President was murdered, and a Governor of an American state was almost fatally injured. And all they have left is the windshield and a piece of dented chrome? Doh... That´s like landing on the moon, taking no photographs, and coming back with a pocketful of moon dust and one rock.

Would you save the evidence? Would you have it refurbished? Or would you save it for posterity? They kept Kennedy´s rocking chair, after all...

andreasegde 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You did it again, Sbharris. I have moved your answers below. Please spare a thought for the chronically confused... (laugh)


 * I don't notice they kept the hole in the Pentagon. They allowed Ford's theater to fall apart and be used for something else before bothering to restore it. The Shuttles and the Apollo 1 couldn't be re-used after damage, but a limo can be. You want them to preserve the Washington Sixth Street Station where Garfield was shot? Sorry, it's gone. History is fickle, and it's less and less thifty the farther back you go. We have the overcoat Lincoln wore the day he was shot, but the clothes he was wearing were not preserved, and do not survive, and so on. Sbharris 19:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they didn´t keep the hole in the Pentagon, (but I still laughed at your joke....)

My point is the same as before. Would you have kept it for posterity?

andreasegde 02:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiratorial" theories?
I question the use of the adjective "conspiratorial" to refer to theories, because the implication is that the theories themselves are "characteristic of conspirators."

A conspiratorial theory would be a theory that several individual conspirators "conspired" (agreed) to promote.

Here's an analogy to illustrate my point: a theologian who writes about sin is not (at least not necessarily) advancing a "sinful" theory.

The preferred form seems to be "conspiracy theory."

The Oxford English Dictionary offers an addendum:
 * Add   4. Special Combs. conspiracy theory, the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event; so conspiracy theorist.

160.253.0.248 01:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How is it that the CIA is not mentioned here, when most Kennedy assassination researchers believe the CIA was directly involved?

Who REALLY controls "Wikipedia"? How can this article be so factually inaccurate??


 * If you think something is inaccurate or incomplete in this article, please correct it. Gamaliel 01:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Gamaliel. If the CIA is not mentioned, then maybe you could do it. Why not?

As for you asking, "Who REALLY controls "Wikipedia"? I have to demur. I thought we all controlled it, by stating the facts, and quoting from reliable sources. Isn´t that so? Do you think it should be controlled? I hope not.

Have fun.

andreasegde 16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Single bullet theory tested
There was a show that aired tonight on the Discover Channel (Oct. 16 at 9 p.m. pacific time) entitled "JFK: Behind the Magic Bullet" which put the Single Bullet Theory to the test; and it was concluded that it is entirely possible for a single bullet to have caused all seven of those wounds. Although the bullet in the end was majorly deformed, moreso than the actual bullet belonging to the assassination of Kennedy, and also did not manage to pierce it's final target (the thigh), the bullet had actually gone through two artificial ribs in the test, causing the bullet to have deformed unintentionally and also slowing it down, so that it was not able to pierce the artificial thigh. Unfortunately, there was not a second test conducted, but the results did show that it was entirely possible for a single bullet to have hit all seven wounds. I just think that the show's findings and their results may add to this article.

Is there any support for the the protection of Kennedy being reduced ?
One of the reasons given for a conspiracy is that the presidential protection on the Dallas trip was reduced:

"The two official government investigations have confirmed that the security around Kennedy's motorcade had been considerably reduced from its customary levels. The lack of security suggests to some that the CIA, Secret Service and/or some other agent, rogue agent(s), or agencies were actively involved in the assassination, rather than simply exhibiting an act of negligence."

Is there any evidence that this is true? The main article states "Dallas police had prepared the most stringent security precautions in the city's history." This reference work should not have two apparently contradictory statements. They could both be correct but it looks bad and they both should be supported by some evidence. RPJ 16:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, whose testimony is (of course) disputed, said that they (the Dallas Police) had received orders that they were there to be "merely observers, and nothing more".

andreasegde 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Julius Caesar paragraph
What's the point of that? What is the conspiricy theory of that particular murder? It doesn't fit in at all with the rest of the article and the "reason" given for the assasination of Caesar is incorrect.

Exit wound on Kennedy's head
I deleted the supposed evidence supporting a high-level conspiracy that said the exit wound on Kennedy's head was on the back. That statement is totally preposterous. The Zapruder film very clearly shows the front of Kennedy's head being blown out. The source linked to was just a gif image with absolutely no description whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia, it may be appropriate to have an article on the theories surrounding Kennedy's assasination as a cultural phenomenon, but it is definitely not appropriate to make unfounded factual statements to promote any of the theories. &mdash;Tox 03:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The Zapruder film shows the right side of JFK's head blown out, and that's what Zapruder saw at the time, also. And what the X-rays show, and what the Bethesda autospy found. As for the Parkland doctors, they didn't examine the inside of the head wound. Put the scalp side-flap you see in the Z film back up in place, and it may have left only some residual hole in very rear of much larger skull blow-out. Sbharris 18:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Contributor "Tox" believes the image of Kennedy's head being blown out in the back is "preposterous." But, the image was by Kennedy's treating physician at Parkland hospital.

"Tox" claims to have the real information and according to "Tox" the front of Kennedy's head was "blown out." Here is what purports to be a famous image of Kennedy after being assassinated.  Perhaps "Tox" can now tell us where the bullet went in and where it came out.

Blood spray in the front of kennedy's head would be from the bullet striking it near the front and by striking a closed container (the skull), at very high speed, it caused a back spray from the small bullet hole but then exited from the back of the head leaving a very large hole and taking with it over a third of the president's brain. RPJ 05:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A question: If the bullet came from the back, then why did Jackie reach so far back over the trunk/boot of the car to collect/pick up pieces of Kennedy´s brain/skull? They were at least one and a half metres behind Kennedy.

A bullet from the front would have hit the front of his head and pushed the pieces to the back.

A bullet from the back would have pushed the pieces onto Connally, or the back of Connally´s seat.

What do you think?

Have fun. andreasegde 19:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

De-AFD
That this could even be considered for deletion is absurd. The Cunctator 00:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy de-AFD'd. See Articles for deletion/Kennedy assassination theories. -Ste|vertigo 18:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Format for the revamp of the page
Here is a format that would be helpful for the assassination theories. I realize that those that possess a religous type fervor relating to this case may not like it because because each theory will be discussed briefly with the same elements being addressed for each theory.

Note well: I am not putting in the sources to these fundamental statements since I just want to see if there is a consensus on this type of approach, and not given to get into a debate over the evidence. Please do not explode with indignation if something appears that doesn't seem "right."

A number of theories exist with regard to the John F. Kennedy assassination.

The person or persons who murdered President Kennedy have never been caught or convicted, with the possible exception of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was arrested and charged with the murder of the President, but forever silenced by being immediately murdered himself while in police custody. Oswald denied murdering the president and claimed he was a "patsy" and claimed the evidence produced by the police of him holding the murder weapon was faked.

This lack of a criminal judgment(or even a civil judgment)leaves the matter of who murdered President Kennedy an issue open to debate. With a trial, the facts are established through a public trial with evidence that has been challenged for authenticity, and other evidentiary value. Opposing evidence can be presented, and arguments for and against guilt can be advocated and the case is conducted by an unbiased court and jury. None of this has occurred.

The major theories on who murdered John F. Kennedy are as follows:

--1 "Official" theory number one--

Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the president and committed the murder by himself. The main proponent of this theory is the Warren Commission.

Strong Points:

An eyewitness identified Oswald with a rifle at the scene of the crime. Oswald worked at the building and in the area where the eyewitnessclaimed he spotted him and his fingerprint was on a box nearby.

1. Oswald was not seen with a rifle, but with a bag of "curtain rods" (as he said.)

2. He worked there, so his fingerprints would be everywhere.

andreasegde 19:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak Points:

The eyewitness was far away, and a positive identification didn't come from Brennan until later. He claimed he didn't tell everything he knew at first because he was afraid of a communist conspiracy.

A police officer saw him in the canteen on the first floor 90 seconds affter the shooting.

Oswald had no motive.

Even if Oswald was one of the shooters the bullets appeared to come from two different directions, and the most damaging wound blew out the back of the president's head. Oswald was allegedly shooting from behind the President, not from in front of him. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by RPJ (talk • contribs)


 * Watch Who was Lee Harvey Oswald? and tell me if you uncover a motive. His fingerprints were also on the rifle, which he purchased under an alias that he created fake ID for with his photo on it. An ear-witness on the fifth floor also heard three loud shots from above. Furthermore I'm not too impressed with your understanding of balistics, and what a rifle bullet can do to a skull (both entering and exiting). If you need a refresher look at this still photo of an apple being shot. Notice the explosive force is not simply in the direction of motion; that the entrance also blows out. - RoyBoy 800 07:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oswald appears to have had no motive. Instead of suggesting a motive to murder the president, the suggestion is to watch a TV program. Here is a good test: Is this a motive that someone would be able to convince a judge or jury is true in the glare of a trial?


 * I'm unsure how answering hypothetical questions gets us anywhere. Yes, I believe so, but it rests upon character witnesses; how they would testify and react to that glare, and the glare of Oswald himself is obviously unknown. I've recommended an excellent documentary (not just some random TV program) because I have dealt with people who have firm beliefs before; its been my experience when I tell them things they are largely ignored and my time is wasted. When I point them to the corroborated and well assembled evidence I base my opinions on; their positions soften. Saying Oswald "appears to have no motive" indicates to me you need to do more research on the person who most likely killed the President. To not do that leaves a significant blind spot in your research.

Oswald's fingerprints on "the rifle" do not preclude a second shooter. This should have been an easy case to prove against Oswald, if he did it. May be he did, but the most important question now is whether there was a second shooter and others involved. If so, they are walking free.


 * If others are involved that is indeed important and the entire point of this article... however there is no need to emphasize the scant and misinterpreted evidence pointing to a second shooter. I will indeed tweak the little girl paragraph to something a little more robust.

It doesn't matter that three loud shots were heard from behind Kennedy. There is a consensus that at least one shot from the back hit Kennedy, so evidence of these shots is expected. It doesn't affect the evidence of shots from the front.


 * Apart from people thinking they heard a shot from the front; and one person, Dr. Donald B. Thomas (no this isn't a battle of the experts), disputing the NAS acoustic analysis of there being no fourth shot... there is no substantial evidence of a shot from the front; if there was a fourth shot it would be confirmed by witnesses, it was not. There was also no need for a fourth shot to kill the President. Shot 1: Missed, little girl turns. Shot 2: Magic bullet passes through Kennedy's throat and Connally. Shot 3: Head shot kills JFK. No fourth shot needed. I elaborate below.

Oswald's creation of a fake ID with his picture on it doesn't tend to prove there was no second shooter. On the other hand, (if it is true) that J. Edgar Hoover told LBJ that someone appears to have been impersonating Oswald in Mexico shortly before the shooting indicates a possible frame-up of Oswald and a possible conspiracy.


 * Oswald (who did go to Mexico City) trying to travel to Cuba, and was being watched by the CIA (as any American visiting the Cuban consulate would be); it has absolutely nothing to do with an assasination. I invite you to watch chapter seven here. Mr. Hoover was mistaken if he believed there was an impersonation; he wasn't there, neither were you and I, but the people who were there saw Oswald... not the guy in the released CIA photo, which was a mistake. Are they hiding something (audio tapes, photos?) – hey they're the CIA – of course they are hiding something! :"D But this doesn't change the fact Oswald went to Mexico.


 * I should clarify that by meaning he wasn't impersonated in person where Oswald didn't going to Mexico. As this demonstrates someone impersonated him on the phone and linked him to a assassin Valery Kostikov. This is what US officials were discussing; not Oswald being framed by a CIA agent walking around pretending he was Oswald. - RoyBoy 800 07:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

These are matters of simple logic where some evidence tends to establish that something happened or didn't happen and then other evidence that doesn't address the issue at all. In court, one makes simple offers of proof: An attorney tells the judge I'm going to offer evidence that Mr. Jones ran the red light. That evidence, if true, might be very relevant in a tort case alleging an auto accident be irrelevant to proving whether Mr. Jones breached a contract to build a house. The judge would certainly ask for a position on relevancy.


 * Are you a lawyer and/or law student? Because I'm wondering about the relevancy of all these court references. An appeal to authority? Stop making them as your evidence (and lack thereof) wouldn't hold in court.

Watching a an apple get blown apart by a gunshot has what relevance? Merely to show that some back spray will develop when a high velocity bullet strikes an object with a high water content? What relevance is this law of physics to the case? Is a bona fida expert going to give the counter intuitive opinion that the five inch diameter hole in the back of Kennedy's head is the result of an entry wound from a bullet? I don't think any such theory has been proposed by anyone.


 * Indeed the apple is only an illustration; but an effective one as the brain also has high water content. As to the "hole" being 5-inches, I invite you to conduct an experiment. Get a round hard (but not thick) ceramic bowl and shoot it with a sniper rifle. Or better yet get an egg and conduct some impact experiments. You will find a small sudden impact can collapse a significant amount of the surrounding structure; making the area effected by the impact large, even though the hole itself is small. The best everyday example I can think of is walking on thin ice, even when on your tip toes you can collapse a significant circle of ice around your foot. So in answer to your question, yes a "bona fida expert" would clarify how such a thing can – by comparing it to other head shot victims – indeed occur.

The Warren Commission posited a theory that Kennedy was facing directly towards the ground and a bullet clipped him in the back base of his skull and took off the back right hand side of his skull.

The Commission even drew a little cartoon diagram on how it could happen that someone could be shot in the head from behind and instead of having a gaping exit wound in the face, has a huge exit wound in the back of the skull.

No evidence supports that this happened in the way the cartoon depicted. It is as simple as that.


 * I haven't mentioned the Warren Commission... so, I agree. It was posited, and I can only assume, is a discarded theory that has little relevance here.

Therefore when going through all the arguments haphazardly thrown together in the article it finally just seemed best to point out that approaching it in an unstructered and unreasoned way just clouds the issues. This was the easieat way to point it out right in the article. Probably nobody reads the discussion pages. Probably no one should read the article in its presnt state.

RPJ 11:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been generally gruff with you as I find your rationale and evidence wanting, but I hope to also make clear that I realize you were trying to fix and question the article so that it could be improved. And that's great! Indeed I see you posted your message on the talk page some time ago and decided to be bold and fix the article yourself when you got no response.


 * I do not want to discourage your input as it certainly will help improve the article (like how you pointed out the girl turning is of little relevance, I inserted that into the article and you are right as to it being silly -- my bad). The thing is the article is live and as bad as it is... it does have some sort of structure, which was put in disarray by your notes. I will certainly refer to them further as the article is improved. I invite further dialogue as we move forward. - RoyBoy 800 17:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also I wanted to specifically praise your edits to the lead, breaking off the CIA stuff into a seperate sub-section was a good move. I eventually got around to redoing your edit; although I did remove some stuff from the CIA sub-section which better fit in the lead... at least until we move the polls to their own section. - RoyBoy 800 06:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The article should start with strongest evidnece first. Second stronest next etc and just see where it takes the reader. This would be better than an over all theory which everyone has. RPJ 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The lead can cite the most referred to reasons to believe there is a conspiracy; but the lead is meant to be an overview for a subject, not a place to rigorously go over the evidence. And the lead should be a brief as possible... which is why I'm going to move my new paragraphs out of it. - RoyBoy 800 01:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also since we have an evidence sub-section; it might be contrary to good style to repeat specific evidence since its already in the appropriate sub-section. - RoyBoy 800 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you can also re-order the evidence sub-section as you think appropriate. I have little feeling for the relative strength of much of the evidence. - RoyBoy 800 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tag
I've revised the paragraph on the fingerprint theory, and that paragraph alone was so chock full of factual errors, incorrect assertions, and pov claims, that I fear for the rest of the article. We should make a thorough check of the whole article. Gamaliel 07:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC) --
 * I agree, and thank Gamaliel for placing the dispute tag - I would have done it myself if it were not already here. The whole thing is a big mess and desperately needs structure and style revision. I absolutely think the article is necessary, because these conspiracy theories have permeated American culture - just about everyone has an opinion one way or the other, believing either 'conspiracy' or 'Oswald acting alone.' However, the article seems to be a laundry list of every theory ever mentioned anywhere on the web, instead of a thoughtful, structured, referenced overview of the case against the Warren Commission report. ddlamb 05:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This text was added to the Response section by uknown editor. Moved by Mytwocents 04:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC) to talk section.

9. Photo Journalist discovered evidence that Former President John F. Kennedy was still alive after the "so called assassination attempt." In a FBI briefing conducted in 1974 a Federal agent stated that Kennedy was alive and living on an island in an undisclosed location lead many to speculate that the Former President was not dead at all. The photo journalist spent many years scouring the U.S. to help produce new evidence to sustain that the American public was never really told the truth about this matter. Former Naval Intelligence Officers were further interviewed following the investigation throughout the years until the late 1990's. The entire investigation led to several care givers who claimed the former president was in fact alive and living on a U.S. island associated with the U.S. Navy. The last non publishable photo of John F Kennedy was taken by the journalist. The photo contains the aged President proudly posing seated in his wheel chair. The journalist spent an entire three years caring for the former president. Significant evidence was produced, the presidents surgical scar one of his many identifying marks, hair and DNA samples. He was chronically ill suffering from Parkinsons disease inwhich he had succumbed to his death on August 15, 1994 at 10:15am.

British conspiracy
Removed the following from the article:


 * Another theory states that Kennedy was killed by the UK agents in an attempt to incite a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, after which Britain will remain the only dominating world power. To this end, assassination was orchestrated as to cast suspicion on the USSR (see Lee Harvey Oswald biography). The US secret services prevented the war by promptly killing Oswald before he was able to make public confessions.

My apologies RPJ, as far as I could see this indeed is not supported by anything meaningful and your initial deletion was correct. Of course we could both be wrong ;"D... but if anyone would like to back it up with anything verifiable, please do so. - RoyBoy 800 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How could the UK become a dominating world power in 1963? It was still suffering from the after-effects of WWII. Rationing continued into the 50s. Nuclear bombs were also pointed at the UK in Russia. Just one single bomb on London would have wiped it out. The Beatles were the only "weapon" they had, for heck´s sake.

Really; the next theory will be that my mother did it because there were no cornflakes in the supermarket that day...

andreasegde 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

LBJ-led conspiracy

 * You are putting together a quality section there RPJ, but I don't understand why its placed above the other theories; and why its repeating some points already made in the other LBJ section. You should integrate the best elements of your new section with the existing section, I've moved it here so that you can do it at your leisure. - RoyBoy 800 19:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a good decision on your part. It was hoped that someone would look at it. It does contain redundancies etc, and certainly isn't yet documented though it can be documented very thoroughly. The two assassination theories that seem to fit the pattern of evidence is: 1) There was a very low level conspiracy that the leadership of the nation felt had to be hidden to avoid an escalation of conflicts with communist countries; or 2) There was a high level conspiracy that the leadership needed to keep hidden because some of them were part of it. RPJ 21:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I almost agree, and that is a very good summation of a very complicated subject. But what I cannot avoid, especially with the low-level conspiracy is the third option; 3. no active conspiracy. For example... Oswald could have told Cuban officials in Mexico (after they rejected his requests to enter their country), if I kill the President would you grant me asylum in Cuba? They say, fine... partially because they want Kennedy dead after the Bay of Pigs incident; but mostly because they think this guy wouldn't be able to do it and they just wanted to get rid of him. Everyone, the Cubans, CIA, FBI etc. simply underestimated what Oswald was capable of (this level of incompetance is a decent reason to cover-up failing to stop Oswald).
 * Oswald attempted to kill a General prior to Kennedy; there was no conspiracy involving that attempt; it was Oswald, by himself, engaging in guerrilla tactics. Granted Oswald went to Mexico (Cubans, KGB, CIA implications) and New Orleans (Mafia, LBJ, FBI implications and very little is known about that trip) prior to the assassination. I am not dismissing a conspiracy, but I am keenly aware from Oswald's background that it is not necessary to motivate him to kill a high profile person. As I see it, a conspiracy would provide something Oswald needed, a way to escape, and something to look forward to. But Oswald didn't escape, and as yet there is nothing to indicate he was paid off or promised anything.
 * The evidence is very circumstantial, and the print match on a box of LBJ criminal associate is made by one expert, if true that indeed provides a key with which everything comes together and focuses attention on the person with motive, connections and access necessary to carry forward a cover-up, LBJ. But if that print match is a mistake, and looking that the prints myself; I'm certainly not convinced; then it is simply a red herring. For example all the evidence points to Jack Ruby being in the right place at the right time; and after sending moneygram a few minutes earlier he gets into the police station just as they are transferring Oswald over an hour late. Now either there is a sophisticated plot to get the timing right for Ruby's entrance; or it was one of the largest coincidences of modern times. And yes, I believe in coincidences, the evidence for a conspiracy lies with Ruby and with the mafia who were acting alone or in conjunction with LBJ. But again that involves a lot of people, and its just as plausible Ruby acted alone because of his own motivations.
 * What I personally find most convincing of all against conspiracy theories, is that Oswald (in talking to his personal escort just as they are leaving) did not appear afraid of being silenced/wacked. If Oswald was part of a significant conspiracy, he should have been paranoid about being shot. But from all the footage and eyewitnesses I've seen; he liked talking to reporters and being seen by people. In my opinion, not the actions of a patsy. - RoyBoy 800 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This assassination theory contains a person with the motives, and means to accomplish the murder and cover it up. To accept this theory one would have to believe that Lyndon Johnson was both ruthless, cunning, and very well connected with the levers of power in the federal government and the state of Texas.

The facts appear to be this. At the time of Kennedy's death, Johnson was the subject of four major criminal investigations involving government contract violations, misappropriation of funds, money laundering and bribery. President Kennedy had discussed with his closest aides (including his personal secretary Evelyn Lincoln) that he was considering dropping Johnson as vice president before the 1964 U.S. presidential election. Richard Nixon, was quoted in the November 22, 1963 Dallas newspaper saying he believed Kennedy would drop Johnson from the 1964 Democratic ticket because Johnson was embroiled in several high-profile political scandals (see Bobby Baker and Billie Sol Estes). [12]

Johnson biographers agree that Johnson was politically aggressive and power-hungry. The murder of John Kennedy would not only give the presidency to Lyndon Johnson, but also all four scandals facing him at the time of Kennedy’s death could be made to "disappear" after Kennedy died. And the scandals did disappear as being any threat to Johnson.

Some researchers claim that a formerly unidentified fingerprint found on a cardboard box on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository Building is that of a known associate of President Johnson.and lover of Johnson’s one sister. The associates name was Malcolm 'Mac' Wallace [14], a convicted murderer, whose life term in prison that was arrived at by a Texas jury was overturned by a judge after Johnson’s own attorney sought a reduction. The judge immediately turned “Mac” Wallace loose.

In 1998 fingerprint examiner named A. Nathan Darby signed an affidavit which asserted a 14 point match, though such a match has not been made by FBI fingerprint examiners or other independent examiners. [15]

Johnson certainly was in a pivotal position to orchestrate a cover-up of those who murdered the President, and to convince others to do the same.

Johnson, who, during his tenure as US Senate Majority Leader in the 1950s had been nicknamed "The Senator From The Pentagon" because of his close links to the defense and aerospace industry, was believed to have said to members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly before Kennedy's death, "Once I get the presidency I'll get you the war you want." This quick and radical change in US policy is a key issue that confirms for many Johnson's key role in Kennedy's death

Kennedy had started to recall U.S. military advisers, reversing his stand on a plan which he had previously supported. However, Johnson, unlike Kennedy, would assiduously pursue the Indochina proxy war strategy, immediately resending recalled troops back to Vietnam, and continuing in the policy of escalation. Four days after Kennedy's assassination, Johnson increased US advisory involvement in Vietnam, and less then a year later, in August 1964 secretly ordered the fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a way to publicize the war to Americans as an aggression by the North. In September 1964, Johnson’s especially appointed Commission concluded that a Communist killed President Kennedy.

Johnson also elicited the aid of his long time friend and neighbor, J, Edgar Hoover who he put in charge of the investigation even though Texas had jurisdiction over the murder and any co-conspirators. Hoover immediately decided that Oswald was the assassin and murdered the president by himself. The later House Select Commission on Assassinations later criticized both the FBI and the Warren Commission for never really investigating other who may have participated in the murder. Instead Johnson gave a special presidential order that all assassination materials would be sealed until 2029 which would effectively prevent other criminal investigations be pursued.

Shortly before he testified before the Warren Commission, Johnson arranged for his friend Hoover to receive a lifetime appointment as Director of the FBI. Later the FBI was criticized for destroying evidence relating to the assassination, and not disclosing to the nation that someone had been impersonating Oswald in Mexico shortly before Kennedy was assassinated.

The CIA was also motivated to either assist or cover up for the participants in the Kennedy assassination since Kennedy was disenchanted with the agency and its perceived failures. Yet, Johnson appointed Allen Dulles to the seven man Commission appointed by Johnson to investigated who killed Kennedy. Dulles had recently just been fired by Kennedy as the head of the CIA, along with other top CIA officials, for the agency's failures in Cuba and elsewhere.

Johnson also used the potential threat of at least 40 million people being killed in a global thermonuclear war when he persuaded Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren to head the Warren Commission. And that it was necessary that people believe Oswald not only killed the president but did it alone. Author Peter Dale Scott has theorized (with a great deal of supporting documentation) that the patently absurd nuclear war fear was planted by the CIA as bait to force Johnson and the Warren Commission into accepting the less controversial but, in Scott's view, the equally absurd conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in shooting Kennedy.


 * Yesterday, I added notes to this section observing the following, all of which were referenced and sourced:


 * 1) Malcolm Wallace's conviction was for murdering the boyfriend of LBJ's sister, John Kinser, for which Wallace got five years suspended ...


 * 2) That Wallace has been identified as the murderer in the supposed suicide of Henry Marshall (found to be murder when the case was reopened)


 * 3) That Wallace had been identified as JFK's assassin in two separate confession (Factor and Estes), each predating the 1998 fingerprint ID


 * 4) That the famous 'wink' photo from LBJ's swearing-in frequently aroused suspicion among LBJ-theorists


 * It would be nice if someone (preferably the person who deleted it) could explain here why this information was deleted, because as far as I can see it's totally relevant and authentic. Not only that, but I will be putting it back unless someone comes up with a good argument against me doing so. --Garrick92 15:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

New investigation of the murder
Simplification of the case is necessary. Focus is necessary: Did one person or did more than one person blow the President's brains out. Who are the killers and who helped them.

Here is one method of going through all the new evidence and finding out who committed the murder:

First, solving the Kennedy murder case requires the investigator to establish whether there were two shooters or just the one shooter (Lee Oswald) as the Warren Report contended, and which some people still believe. If it was just one person shooting it probably was Oswald.

Second, if it is established there was a second shooter, the investigator must identity the shooters and and those that helped the killers both before and after they murdered Kennedy.

Third, this identification process could be started by looking over the list of suspects cleared by the HSCA, by reviewing each suspect in light of the  new evidence that was turned up by the  Assassaination Records Review Board. If Oswald was connected with any of the suspects then it is likely the suspect might have conspired with Oswald, or at least used its knowledge of Oswald, to set him up as as a patsy as Oswald claimed.

If others are involved, there is no statute of limitations on murder. At that point of the investigation, the goal is to find the identity of the murderers.


 * I've removed this section as I don't know what investigation this is referring to. I simply do not see the need to spell out for people what needs to be done to establish a conspiracy; and the methods used to do so. This isn't an article about how to conduct an investigation; it is about conspiracy theories on Kennedy. If you want to know how they are constructed/investigated, readers should be directed to articles on investigation and conspiracy theories. - RoyBoy 800 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Headers
I changed the main header to Evidence of a conspiracy because that encompasses all the evidence under it, including the shooters discussion and other stuff. (to elevated the shooter header to the main heading, I think, overemphasizes it) Generally we try to avoid long headers in Wikipedia as its unnecessary and usually unhelpful. For example, you added One in Front and One in Back... in front and back of what? You would have to add even more to that heading for it to be complete. Simple and to the point for headers, and for articles for that matter. - RoyBoy 800 07:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions by WC isn't testimony or evidence
This is an explanation of the editing to the person who calls himself Mytwocents.

In that section of the article that discusses the evidence supporting one shooter or two shooters, trying to murder the president, we are not attempting to identify who the shooters were, but only whether there was one shooter or two shooters.

Mytwocents makes the section confusing by trying to mix in evidence of whether Lee Oswald was one of the shooters. Mytwocents also wants to mix in evidence of whether or not Oswald shot someone else that day besides the president.

Apparently Mytwocents doesn't understand what it means to isolate one issue and focus only on the evidence relating to that issue, and then go on to another issue.

But, now Mytwocents knows.

Also, "evidence" is used as the subject of the sub article because it encompasses both testimony and documentary evidence.

Finally, the Warren Report's conclusions are not evidence of what happened but rather what the Commission decided happened. The two concepts should not get mixed up.

Edits were made to correct this and the other material that Mytwocents wants to supply can be put elsewhere on the page. Remeber the Warren Report has its very own page. It needn't dominate every paragraph of every discussion, as if it were a bible, or some other type of religious text.

RPJ 05:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents is being "bad" again
"Mytwocents" how many times do you have to be told you cannot simply go through articles and randomly chop out large pieces of information.

That is prohibited by website rules.

RPJ

Mytwocents is puzzled about what HSCA means
"Mytwocents." Are you the one that asks for the verification of the citations to the HSCA?

"HSCA" means House Select Commimttee on Assassinations. That is a committee of the House of Representatives. This committee was formed to investigate the series of assassinations that swept the United States during the 1960's. The assassinations were, in part, racially motivated. Dr. King was one of the victims. So was John Kennedy.

A small number of people were intolerant of other viewpoints so they assassinated people they didn't like.

Are you concerned about the sources for the information? Look at those little footnotes you see.

I know they don't look like words but if you click them, words appear. To follow a footnote, "Mytwocents" should put his cursor on the footnote and click.

"Mytwocents" will then arrive at an imaged pages of the HSCA Report (see above for explanation "HSCA").

Please read the report before you attempt any editing because many of your questions might be answered. Then--and before making any changes to the article--"Mytwocents" should read the web site rules for changes. You can't just take out information and viewpoints with which you don't agree. Its against the rules.

All significant viewpoints are to be included and the reader then decides for him or her self what to agree with. That is the rule.

Remember now, "Mytwocents", simply because you don't agree with other viewpoints doesn't mean you can cut out viewpoints. RPJ 04:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let other impartial editors decide if if the citations support the statements. Mytwocents 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * RPJ, please stop reverting this page and removing the templates. Let other editors have a chance to review the disputed sections. Mytwocents 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Website rules for dispute resolution
Mytwocents wants to resolve a dispute over the information that he wants to delete.

Good. On this web site, we have proper steps for dispute resolution.

The first step in the website rules for resolving disputes is for the parties to negotiate to find a solution. See, here are the website steps below:

Dispute resolution processes 1--Negotiation: Current surveys 2--Requests for comment | Third opinion 3--Proposed RFC enforcement 4--Mediation: Mediation Committee 5--Requests for mediation 5--Arbitration: Arbitration Committee 6--Requests for arbitration 7--Mentorship and Probation 8--Mentorship Committee

We are only at stage one: Negotiations.

Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 38

Remember, at this website, all significant points of view must be included in articles.

RPJ 18:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Bold text

Earl Warren's theory
What about Warren's theory that it was a self-inflicted gunshot wound?--67.118.134.176 03:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is your reference? Why are you not logged in?

Do you seriously believe that Kennedy killed himself? Have you seen the Zapruder film? Do you think that Kennedy would decide to kill himself? (He had an enormous ego, after all...) Why did Jackie not see a gun?

Really - this is too silly...

andreasegde 23:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

RPJ against Mytwocents
RPJ is right about the points he is trying to make, but.... he said, "The assassinations were, in part, racially motivated. Dr. King was one of the victims, and so was John Kennedy." This sounds very opinionated and not verifiable by facts, because nobody really knows the facts. Guys, guys, guys... Let´s stick to what can be proven. "Tell it like it is", as the famous song goes. Do you BOTH think that you have the answer?

andreasegde 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

William Greer, assassin?
I haven't seen anything on the possibility that William Greer, the driver of the limo, was the one who gave the fatal shot to President Kennedy. Possible add to the page?

Rulers of Evil 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Another silly theory, which is easily disproven by looking at the Zapruder film. Why didn´t Connally see a gun, or his wife? Greer had his hands on the wheel, did he not? Is this theory another "Black Op"?

andreasegde 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...it was exactly the Zapruder film that seems to point to Greer, at leat in my opinion. This site http://www.ctwilcox.com, under "doc flick", showed Greer pointing something at Kennedy. The timing of Greer's head, hand and the slowing of the car seems to indicate he did the fatal head shot. There was much discussion about why Greer slowed (film showed the car didn't stop) but it would make sense that Greer was concentrating on the shot and not concentrating on driving. It appears that Greer was a backup assassin in case the first shot from elsewhere didn't do the job. Connally and his wife were too distracted from the first shot to notice Greer as the Zap film show.

Here is a clearer film: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov Keep close eye on the driver, Greer, at his chest level area.

Rulers of Evil 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like his hand in the sunlight on the steering wheel to me. His hand is pointing in the direction of Connally, who was looking forwards and would have seen it from the corner of his eye. Plus; his shoulder looks to be in the way. He had to turn his left shoulder (with arm and hand attached) to get a better view. Try this at home, folks. Wouldn´t Connally have heard a gun go off right next to him? They´re very loud you know :) Wouldn´t Jackie or his wife have heard? "Distracted" is stretching it a bit.

Just after the head shot Greer turns back to the front and ducks (instinctively?) down. Why did he do that? He was surely afraid that he would get hit.

The head shot was on the right side of Kennedy´s head, which rules Greer out. It would have been extremely difficult to shoot Kennedy in the head. A shot at his chest/heart area would have been easier.

Also, as he was Kennedy´s driver, he had lots of chances to kill him, and not to do it with great difficulty and in full view of witnesses on the street.

No witnesses heard a shot from the car, even though lots heard them from the depository and the grassy mound.

If you´re going to kill the President, you wouldn´t ´trust to luck´ and a driver to fire a lucky shot at a target behind him; you would make sure that it would definitely succeed, which it sadly did, of course.

Thanks for the link though, and you do have an intriguing theory.

andreasegde 17:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Andreasegde, you sound distressed that you saw in the film what you think you saw. You throw up many doubts that can be erased by an honest look at the film. Why do you doubt yourself when confronted by the strong possibility that a government agent charged with protecting the President would take the President's life? Could it be that Greer (and everyone covering up for him) felt that Kennedy was threatening something else that he was charged with protecting? Like the currency system? Kennedy was going to eliminate the Federal Reserve System so that brought conflict within the Secret Service. You know which side they took. Jesus said, "The root of all evil is the love of money." Many agents of government have backgrounds in military and would do anything to preserve the democracy they believe is right. They jesuitically believe the "end justifies the means".

Rulers of Evil 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ROE, but I was not "distressed"; I believe the taking of a life is sad thing, that´s all.

I wasn´t "throwing up doubts", but merely stating the facts as we know them. You don´t "erase" facts, you disprove them.

How can one look at facts, "honestly"? Is there a dishonest way of looking at facts? I don´t like the inference that I am not being truthful and I am doubting myself :)

"strong possibility" is a POV. It´s a bit like "almost perfect". It is, or it isn´t.

"would do anything to preserve the democracy they believe is right." Sounds like it should be the system - which they control - and not a democracy.

"They jesuitically believe", Whoah! Stop right there... What do you believe in? DON´T answer that, please...

Last Point, because these things can go on for ages, and I have a life to lead:

Greer was only a DRIVER, for heck´s sake. I notice you didn´t disagree with my previous points, though, or disprove them.

Have fun.

andreasegde 14:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I started to list your points and rebut them but then I realize it can go on and on and on just like you said that these things can go on for ages. It is my personal opinion that this goes on and on because people just don't want to accept what they see what Greer is (was?) doing in the film right before Kennedy was shot. Ok, point by point......

"it looks like his hand in the sunlight on the steering wheel to me."  I'm assuming you mean his right hand. Yes, his right hand is on the steering wheel in the 1 to 2 o'clock position where he moved to like you would if you where going to do something with your left hand. He moved it after the first shots were fired.

'''“His hand is pointing in the direction of Connally, who was looking forwards and would have seen it from the corner of his eye. Plus; his shoulder looks to be in the way. He had to turn his left shoulder (with arm and hand attached) to get a better view.”''' I'm assuming you mean Greer's left hand. Connally was leaning back into his wife after being hit by the first shots. In this position, Connally was behind Greer right at the moment that Kennedy was shot. At the moment that Greer was pointing the gun, Connally was facing almost skyward and toward the right side of the car. It looks to me that he was too far behind Greer to see the gun.

'''“Wouldn´t Connally have heard a gun go off right next to him? They´re very loud you know :) Wouldn´t Jackie or his wife have heard? "Distracted" is stretching it a bit.”''' I'm sure they all heard but just didn't know where it came from.  But Jackie tried to get out of the car so she probably suspected it came from within the car.  But with Secret Service all around her then and for the rest of her life, she just couldn't say anything for fear of her life.

By “distracted”, I was referring to the first shots, not the final blast. Of course, the final shot terrified them.

'''“Just after the head shot Greer turns back to the front and ducks (instinctively?) down. Why did he do that? He was surely afraid that he would get hit.”''' He would duck because he is playing the “it wasn't me” game. He would act like an innocent person to cover himself or deflect suspicion away from himself.

“The head shot was on the right side of Kennedy´s head, which rules Greer out.” I have no idea how a right-side shot rules out Greer having shot Kennedy. From Greer's viewpoint, it would be easier to hit Kennedy's right side than his left side because Greer would have to turn even more to deliberately hit the left side of Kennedy.

'''“It would have been extremely difficult to shoot Kennedy in the head. A shot at his chest/heart area would have been easier.”''' A head at point-blank range is a big target and easy enough for a professional shooter. There used to be old West shows where shooters would shoot holes in coins tossed up in the air. Anyway, an operation like this would definitely be rehearsed many times.

“Also, as he was Kennedy´s driver, he had lots of chances to kill him, and not to do it with great difficulty and in full view of witnesses on the street.” Dealey Plaza was the area where they chose to conduct the assassination, with convenient places to shoot and get away. Oswald, the fall guy, was set up near there too. Greer wasn't the lone assassin in all of this. I'm sure that the issue of witnesses was considered and part of why Dealey Plaza was chosen. The film shows that there weren't many witnesses around at the exact spot where Kennedy was fatally shot. Residual witnesses can always be bought off or “taken care of” one way or another.

“No witnesses heard a shot from the car, even though lots heard them from the depository and the grassy mound.” Well, don't have anything on this. All I can say is Jackie tried to get out of the car for some reason.

“If you´re going to kill the President, you wouldn´t ´trust to luck´ and a driver to fire a lucky shot at a target behind him; you would make sure that it would definitely succeed, which it sadly did, of course” I already mentioned about rehearsals. Greer was a professional Secret Service agent (some said a covert CIA agent too) so he don't believe in lucky shots either. A sad time indeed that started a turbulent Sixties.

“Thanks for the link though, and you do have an intriguing theory.” Thanks for the thanks. Sorry if I offended you. ROE

Rulers of Evil 17:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying thanks, ROE. Good grief, people can be nice to each other on a discussion page! What a wonderful thing. Let´s have more of it, you people out there...

OK, ROE, I´ll try and quickly go through it (but I´m not pretending to be an expert, as none of us are...)

It looks like his left hand in the sunlight, but I´ll look again. This actually helps your theory, y´know! He had to bring his left arm/hand over so he could turn to see Kennedy.

Who was the other agent next to Greer? Did he see/hear any shot? I suppose you will say that he was ´in on the plot´, which I can accept, but why didn´t he shoot Kennedy? He wasn´t driving, after all... What was his name?

Connally and his wife were in the back compartment of the car on small ´extra´ seats in front of Jackie and Kennedy. Connally was behind Greer, so he would have seen the gun, or the flash of the gun.

Jackie climbed almost out of the car because she was retrieving the bits of skull and brain tissue from Kennedy that was on the trunk/boot of the car. The policeman/rider behind the car on the left/back was splattered with blood. She still had some skull pieces in her hand at the hospital. This is fact, because that is what she said. (Maybe was coerced into saying that? Hmmm...)

They didn´t know where the shot came from? Well it wasn´t Jackie. Connally´s wife was directly in front of Jackie. Connally was in front of Kennedy. Kennedy did not shoot himself, for heck´s sake... Connally was facing the front and would have had to shoot over his shoulder. So it must have been....

Shooting holes in coins? This is a hollywood lie, because a Colt 45 could barely hit a barn door. (Fact) The barrels were smooth on the inside. Two guys on a high street at noon standing 5 metres away from each other would be lucky to get a good shot. Cowboys didn´t ride into town playing guitar and yodelling, either. (Please smile...) Greer, of course, would have had the latest gun available. (More ammo for you!)

I can see what you´re getting at, but look at the film and see where Connally was. I agree it does look fishy, but if you can see Greer´s hand in the sunlight, wouldn´t you also see the barrel/body of the gun? Metal reflects light better than skin. If Greer had his hand on a gun, the back of his hand would be turned to the left and his fingers would have gripped the gun, meaning the gun would have been seen more than his hand. (PLUS: Was greer left-handed or right-handed? Hmmm... we have to think about that one...)

As far as I know, the witnesses at the scene were not "taken care of", but one or two WERE subjected to interrogation and ´convinced´ that there were only three shots. That´s suspect.

Anyway; I have looked at the Zapruder film a lot. The link you gave is the best page for it; thanks again.) It´s a good theory, but my instinct (POV again...ouch!) tells me it could have been done in a much easier way than you describe.

Last Point: Sit in a car without a roof at 10/20/30 miles per hour and shout "BANG!" as loud as you can whilst clapping your hands together. Everybody will know where the noise came from, but Connally (and don´t forget his wife) and Jackie never said that.

Have fun.

andreasegde 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides, what about the hundreds of eyes who were watching the car? Everyone was looking at the car!!! Imagine it being performed in a theater: hundreds of people looking at the stage where you have kennedy's car... "Rulers of Evil" is saying that the driver killed Kennedy and no-one saw it? Never mind Jackie and the passengers...Cgonzalezdelhoyo 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed your comment just a little bit, Cgonzalezdelhoyo, to make it clearer. I hope you don´t mind. andreasegde 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Zapruder film show only 11 people of the other side of the street after the fatal shot was fired. I don't know how many were on the "grassy knoll" right at the location where Greer shot Kennedy. I'm sure some people saw it but for reasons (like death threats) decided not to say anything. It happens. Nevertheless, let your own eyes tell you what happened. Keep your eyes on Greer's hands...the timing of the head turn, slowing of the car, and the shot is impeccable. Throughout the whole Kennedy aftermath, including the investigation, wholly assumes Greer's (and other SS people) innocence since he is afterall SS. Greer was never questioned as a suspect during the Warren Commission's investigation....fingers point to everywhere and everyone else.

The implications that Greer fired the fatal shot is too incomprehensible for many people to make sense of. Our own government? If Greer did it, then others higher up in government also had to be in on it. Of course, the bigger question is who ordered it and why? But those who ordered it have vested interest in keeping the focus elsewhere hence the massive Kennedy assassination industry covering everything but Greer. Rulers of Evil 20:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say this, ROV, but your ideas/theories confuse me. Take a deep breath...

You have a theory that you really want to be the truth. I can understand this, because it´s normal human behaviour. We all have our opinions (POVs) don´t we?

You should look at the film again and see if you can spot the barrel/metal surface of a gun in Greer´s hand. Read my comments (above) again and answer them. I would like your response.

To have a theory does not mean it is the truth, however much you want it to be...

Have fun,

andreasegde 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want this to be the truth anymore than you do but it looks like that in the film. I had two relatives in the Secret Service, working around the Presidents. So I have a bit of vested interest that Greer didn't do what I think he had done. I've seen the film many times, andreasedge, and I see a gun in Greer's hand. His overall actions confirms this to me. You can call it a theory because that is what this Wikipedia page is all about, but for me I call it a fact. We can agree to disagree. Rulers of Evil 02:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, ROV. Can I give an answer to your comments?....

"It looks like that", is true (and I agree with you) but it only looks like that. I look like Tom Hanks (as some people have laughingly told me) but I am not him.

I believe that you can see a gun in his hand, but let´s ALL look at it, and the ´concensus´ will decide. You can´t do it by yourself, y´know. The majority rules; as in a court case with a jury. (They´re not always right, though!)

You can only call it a fact when it has been verified by at least three independent witnesses. This a jounalistic rule. It´s painstaking, and boring, but factual.

Kellerman - who was sat next to Greer - Connally and his wife, Jackie, and the by-standers didn´t see a gun, or hear a loud BANG in the car. That says something, doesn´t it?

Believe me; I would LOVE to be certain that Greer did it, because it would clear up this whole mess of theories, but I can´t agree with you. Sorry. Wait and see what other people think about it. More than 50% means you´re right! Democracy is a wonderful thing... when it works...

Have fun,

andreasegde 17:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The "concensus" may or may not agree with the statement that Greer shot Kennedy after looking at the film. It is my PERSONAL OPINION that he did so and I tell people that. But I'm not asking for a Warren Commission II investigation or anything. I'm only asking fot the consideration of the Wikipedia editors about the POSSIBILITY that Greer was the fatal assassin. This is in actuality a "theory" and the main article is about Kennedy assassination theories. I repeat, to ME, it is a "fact" because what I see in the film is strong enough for ME. Of course, that is not strong enough evidence FOR COURT. I know that.

This "theory" is not original with me. I was shown where in the film to watch and it was remarkable to me that Greer's action was "conveniently" overlooked by the Warren Commission. Perhaps this was the reason the Zapruder film was not publicly released until many years later because the public would have been more aware of a coverup. But that is only MY OPINION. I have done a search on William Greer and indeed he has been discussed before in various websites and discussion lists as a possible suspect. But I didn't see his name listed here on this Kennedy assassination theories page soooooo...here we are.Rulers of Evil 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ROV - please - give yourself a break...

Personal opinions are not accepted (by the "Rulers of Wiki"... laugh)

A "possibility" is not a fact. (Don´t get angry...)

I accept that it is a fact for you. You have the right to say that, and I respect your rights. Your opinion has the same worth as anybody else´s - good or bad - but you can not believe that your theory is right without proof. (Jackie, Connally + wife, & Kellerman´s statements, etc...)

I know it´s horrible that we will never know what really happened, but it´s something we have to put up with. We can only look at the basic facts and then logically conclude what we think happened. Do you really think that you can convince people that Greer did it? Why are you trying?

Respect, and have fun,

P.S. What do you think about the "Curtain rods" section, and the two wallets?

andreasegde 10:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say. Take care. Rulers of Evil 14:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Two Agents in the Car
Bill Greer was driving, and Roy Kellerman was sat next to him. If they were agents supposedly protecting Kennedy, they were two of the worst I have ever seen. (Unless they were ´in on it´ of course, but I don´t want to go there...)

They both look around after the first shot, Greer slows slightly (as reported) then looks around again and sees the head shot. Kellerman (after the first look) looks straight ahead and does nothing at all. They both "duck down", shortly after the head shot. What brave and loyal defenders of the President they were.

Although in Kellerman´s defence he said at the Warren Comission inquiry that there had to be more than 3 shots, as the bullets were ´flying everywhere´. He also later said (before he died) that he was sure of a conspiracy.

Greer was profusely apologetic right after the shooting, but his son said later that he was ambivalent about Kennedy. "My dad said that he was a Methodist and Kennedy was a Catholic, after all..."

Do y´all think this should go in?

--andreasegde 11:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Storm drain
I found this: []. My POV is that it seems very silly.

How did anybody get into the drain? They had to lift a very heavy metal cover, and nobody saw them doing it.

They would have had 2, or 3 seconds, to aim and fire.

Was there enough room to hold a rifle, without the barrel being seen poking out of the entrance?

How did they get out again? Same thing. Plus, they would have had to wait until dark.

What if it had rained that day? It was a storm drain, after all...

andreasegde 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't those that propose the theory simply state that they walked into the drain from where it empties, and then walk back out? I don't know. I'm just asking.

RPJ 09:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a picture of a large grate/flap that is behind the picket fence and a man (in a suit, strangely enough) was climbing into it. There is a connection to the drain on Elm, but...the drain on the street has a large metal/concrete cover and has 10", 13" and 16" "feeder" pipes that vent into it/out of it. No other way in or out except via the cover.

Someone would have to be very thin to get in through the pipes, (Doh) or would have had to lift the cover on the street.

andreasegde 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Curtain rods
I know this will sound silly, but little things like curtain rods & a bag/package seem to mean a lot...

He took "curtain rods" to work in a brown paper bag/paper package that were intended for his rooming house. That´s what he said. Start from there.

Could the gun be dismantled to fit in a paper bag about his arm´s length? He carried/held the bag from his hand to his armpit. (Strange way to hold it.) Don´t know. If not, he didn´t do it. If so, it´s possible...

Was the rifle merely found, or found in a "brown paper bag/package"?

Were the curtain rods later found in the depository? Did anyone look for them? Were they not in his locker in the locker room? Don´t know. If they were found, he didn´t do it. If not, it´s possible...

Was he seen carrying the curtain rods on the bus, or in the taxi on his way back to his rooming house? Nobody mentioned them; don´t know. If he was seen with them, he didn´t do it. Were the rods found at the rooming house? Don´t know.

Could we look for any evidence to answer these questions? Maybe it would stop me babbling about it to my friends, who are beginning to give me strange looks (laugh...)

andreasegde 13:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here we go...

The curtain rods were found, and one fingerprint was found on them (but definitely NOT Oswald´s) and the officer in question said, "I can´t remember where we found them"... (Doh!) Ruth Paine´s garage? In the Depository? Good grief, wonders will never cease. andreasegde 14:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Two Oswald wallets
One wallet was found at Tippet´s murder scene.

Another wallet was found on Oswald at the Theatre.

Hmmm... What´s all that about? Oswald carried two wallets around with him?

andreasegde 11:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The President's Death Certificate
Most people who discuss President Kennedy's death have never read the President's Death Certificate. Why? Because for many years it wasn't available to the public. It contained information that that didn't conform to the Warren Commission conclusions.

A person, who identifies himself as Gamaliel, now wants to delete references to the Death Certificate so that he can continue pushing his own belief that the Warren Report is correct.

Here is what he has deleted from the article, without comment.

"Another problem with the Warren Commission's single bullet theory is that the bullet struck Kennedy too low in the back to exit the front of Kennedy's throat even if the bullet was not shot at a downward angle. The President's Death Certificate locates the bullet wound in the President's back at the third thoracic vertebra in the vertebral column."

RPJ 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I myself once objected to the death certificate, because I hadn't see the second page. These things never have a second page because they don't need one. Here is a standard 1-page form, which has an addendum typed second page--- which is wierd. The purpose of a death certificate is to register the death with the state, and give a general medical cause (ie., heart disease, emphysema, gunshot wound) for the purposes of generating cause of death stats for statisticians. Stuff like "3rd thoracic vertebra" is inappropriate for a death certificate and reflects a lack of understanding of what the document is for (that's for the coroner or medical examiner to report). The County Recorder's Office or Office of Vital Statistics or whatever your state has tht collects death certificates, doesn't give a damn whether a wound is at the 3rd thoraic or the 5th cervical. It doesn't help them. It's not what they do. The whole second page there is like attaching a page to your state marriage certificate application about the size of the bride's dress, or your DMV application about why you really, really want to drive, and how big the engine of your car is. It bespeaks a man wanting to get his two cents into history, but failing to say how he knows what he knows. Did he get out ruler and mark the landmarks? Did he discuss the wound with Humes and his colleages? He never says. In his 10 page letter to the commission he's given a chance to defend his T3 location assertion (which contradicts both the photos and the Bethesda findings), and yet he never does.


 * What to do with this? I say stick it in, but record it as a secondary source from somebody who really doesn't say how he obtained it, and why it contradicts the findings of other men whose job it was to determine it.Sbharris 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The back wound & Gerald Ford
Gerald Ford (later President Ford) publicly, and freely, admitted that he moved the entrance wound on Kennedy´s back to a higher position on the Comission´s drawing. Nobody asked why he did it, but he did. This is a fact.

What do we think about this?

andreasegde 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a citation to that fact? I read that several times in what appeared to be reliable sources but haven't seen it recently.

RPJ 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

These are just a few that have been documented. They quote official/reliable sources.

"The papers showing Ford's editing were made public Wednesday by the Assassination Records Review Board, an agency set up by Congress to compile all available evidence in the Nov. 22, 1963, murder. The documents are part of the personal files of the late J. Lee Rankin, the Warren Commission's general counsel."

Check these out...

http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:txYK9MaGkOIJ:www.jfklancer.com/pdf/fiction.pdf+ford+%2B+wound+%2B+warren&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/ford.html

This was tampering with evidence, which is a crime.

andreasegde 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the helpful citations. I put them in the single bullet theory article among other places. The interesting problem with the Kennedy assassination and its investigation is that there are still powerful government agencies that are embarrassed about the truth of what happened and have created a fiction that they still support. It is easier than simply telling the truth (whatever the full story may be).


 * Also, because there is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder, those who may have participated and are still alive constantly must keep up the fiction that only one person was involved in the president's death.

RPJ

Too right... I sometimes think it´s like holding back an avalanche with your index finger. They can only be silenced by the truth (not much chance of that) facts (that are changed to suit) or logic (which they ignore). Oh well... andreasegde 08:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Warren Caster & a Mauser
I have found some very interesting articles about Warren Caster (who worked at the depository) who bought a Mauser for himself and a .22 rifle for his son. He showed them to Mr Truly on the 21st outside Truly´s office. Oswald and others were present. Oswald mentioned this in his last interviews.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

Caster had both rifles at his home on the 22nd. Not connected with the 22nd, but possibly heard by Fritz and remembered? Hmmm...

andreasegde 21:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Greer and the slowing down/stopping of the car
If you look at this: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov, you will see that the car directly behind Kennedy was very close indeed. Maybe one metre - one and half metres?...

The two police riders at the back-left of Kennedy are driving at the same speed; keeping in line with the following car. They were all travelling at a fairly low speed because of the turn.

After the head shot, one rider speeds up (??) or Greer slows down slightly (??) and an agent jumps on the back of Kennedy´s car. The other rider (far-left) stays in line with the second car.

Greer could not have suddenly stopped. The car behind would have hit him. The car behind stays at the same distance from Kennedy, which means the driver of the car behind reacted very quickly, or Greer hardly slowed down at all.

After the head shot, Greer speeds away from the car behind.

What do we think about this? andreasegde 17:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oswald - poor shot?
These pages inlcude testimony from the Warren Commission, as well as other sources.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Oswald_poor_shot.html

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/delgado.htm

Before the Warren Commission:

Q. Did you fire with Oswald? DELGADO. "Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position, but at the same time, and I remember seeing his [shooting]. It was a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of "Maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses, but he didn't give a darn".

andreasegde 17:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The missing bullet
If the bullet that went through Kennedy´s back and throat went into Connally, then where is the bullet/fragments that went through his head?

Probably another, "We didn´t look for it, sir... we didn´t think it was needed..." andreasegde 07:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because you personally haven't read about it, doesn't mean the whole world is so stupid as not to have noticed it or looked for it. In fact, both the nose section and tail section of the head-shot bullet were found in front seats of JFK's car. It fragmented, obviously, either during or after passage through his head. The middle section is broken up and scattered in many places, including some in the interior of the head, where fragments can be seen on X-ray.Steve 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then, if I may ask, why didn´t the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally break up? It was shot from the same gun at the same time. It went through two people, and through two chests, one leg, and one wrist, that contained bone. It ended up (almost intact) on a stretcher. This is puzzling, is it not?


 * Plus; if I haven´t read about it, it´s because nobody left a citation about it. I would really like one. Can you provide one? I would be grateful. It seems that "the whole world" knows about it, but I don´t. andreasegde 12:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion page and article are starting to shape up
This article is starting to become a good product. Here are a few things to keep in mind:


 * All significant viewpoints need to be included.


 * Each view point should have a citation to a reliable secondary source or primary evidence.


 * If the viewpoint does have a proper citation it can be edited but not deleted except in extraordinary situations.


 * This is the hardest rule for a few people to understand--no censorship is allowed.
 * If the rule were otherwise, each controversial article would be filled with blank pages.


 * In these Kennedy assassination articles don't lose perspective.  Unless you do public relations work for someone who is affected by public criticism of the Warren Report (say Arlen Specter, or Gerald Ford) or some agency (say CIA or FBI), don't get upset over the new evidence that is becoming declassified under federal law. The assassination happened over 40 years.


 * In any event, keeping the information out of Wikipedia isn't going to keep it quiet in any event. It will just make this resource seem dated and unreliable.

RPJ 07:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

RPJ, I have to say this: If you read through the article, there are so many "off the wall" comments that have no citations at all. "Many people have said" - "It is argued that", etc... The Frank Sinatra conspiracy comes to mind...

Should we not all go through it with "a fine tooth-comb" and clean it up a bit? My mother killed "Jack", after all.... (laugh...) andreasegde 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article should be cleaned up. I'll help work on it.

RPJ 10:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through it and have cleaned up some silly things, like biased comments with no citations. "Russian hard-liners killed Kennedy", for example, when KGB reports state that they thought LBJ ordered it. We need more stuff from both sides, though. andreasegde 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed
I have put a lot of on the page, because there are too many unsupported claims. andreasegde 15:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is quite a bit of uncited material. As I understand the web site rules, when the subject matter is controversial, the editors should make sure that the viewpoints expressed are cited since it is the sources being cited that back up the viewpoints being presnted, not the opinion of the editors. That is a basic rule of the web site.

Thank you for your efforts.

RPJ 06:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following from Response:


 * It has been contested that if the recording was one minute after the assassination, then who fired the later shots?

Who is contesting this, moreover it has not been established these were actual shots being heard. - RoyBoy 800 01:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Posner for one, (who is defintely for Oswald as the lone nut) who says that "the shots on tape were after the President had been shot". My point was that if he accepted that there were recorded "shots", then where did they come from? He said, it not me.... andreasegde 13:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

HSCA and New Orleans
Almost all of the HSCA section discusses Oswald in New Orleans and almost all of that discussion is about the supposed Oswald-Ferrie links mostly based on two witnesses, drunken criminal Jack Martin and crazy ranting secretary Delphine Roberts. But the HSCA didn't even believe these two! On Martin: "credence should not be placed in Martin's statements to the committee". And on Roberts: "the reliability of her statements could not be determined". Also note the lack of mention of six other Banister associates who testified that they never saw Oswald. If you want to start a section called "Garrison" or "New Orleans" and discuss these two, fine, but it is fundamentally dishonest to claim that two witnesses discredited by the HSCA make up a central part of the HSCA's case for conspiracy. I've removed this material to the talk page. Gamaliel 13:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Gamaliel, but I think that saying, "drunken criminal Jack Martin and crazy ranting secretary Delphine Roberts", is going a bit "over the top". If you can find a citation to that effect, I will believe it.


 * Maybe they were not credible witnesses, but that is no reason to use the words you wrote. It´s a personal attack (and I don´t know if they are both still alive, and I´m not conversant with the Law) but the word Libel comes to mind. D´you know what I mean? andreasegde 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The necessary citations are in the article. Jack Martin died in the 1960s. He had an arrest record that stretched over decades, impersonated doctors and FBI agents, and was institutionalized. Roberts was still alive as of a decade ago, as Posner interviewed her for his book. If she wants to sue me, she is welcome to, but if you want to rant about blacks using racial slurs and claim you are the last person alive to have seen the sacred scrolls in the Ark of the Covenant, then being called nuts comes with that territory. These people are fucking crazy and I don't see any reason not to call them such. Gamaliel 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Warner Brothers´ "Looney Tunes" has a lot to answer for.... Now; what about some claims like Daffy Duck did it (joke) or others, that have NO citations at all? Snippy, snip snip?... andreasegde 16:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Martin/Roberts material
Within days after Kennedy´s murder, Jack Martin, a former private investigator who sometimes worked with Guy Bannister informed the FBI and the CIA were about Ferrie's alleged links to Oswald, but they ignored it. Martin had a criminal record stretching over several decades and had been institutionalized in a psychiatric hospital. The FBI concluded Martin was mentally ill. 

Martin later told the House Select Committee on Assassinations he saw Oswald at 544 Camp Street with Banister.  Bannister, along with Dave Ferrie, worked in connection with New Orleans underworld figures and anti-Castro groups. Bannister frequented the restaurant downstairs from his office; eyewitnesses spotted him there several times with Ferrie. Oswald worked nearby and stamped the address of same building as Bannister's office on his Fair Play for Cuba Committee pamphlets, though Bannister's office had a different street address than the one Oswald used. There is no credible evidence Oswald had an office in the building or had even been inside.

The HSCA also noted that on several occasions, secretary Delphine Roberts claimed she saw and spoke to Oswald in the office of Guy Bannister. The credibility of the secretary has been called into question as her claims have changed significantly over the years and because of her penchant for racist and conspiratorial outbursts and outlandish claims such as her assertion that she was the last person to see the "sacred scrolls" in The Ark of the Covenant. 

Onassis has gone
I took it out because it was one line and had no citation at all. It was a POV. andreasegde 16:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Freemasons have gone
Also taken out because the citation led to a page of imaginary ramblings, and had to be read to be (not) believed. andreasegde 08:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Jimmy Hoffa and Frank Sinatra conspiracy" looks very shaky and is not cited. andreasegde 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oswald-Ferrie link
The validity of Martin's disclosure linking Oswald to Ferrie doesn't rest on his word, but on the fact that the House Select Committee on Assassinations has publicly reported the direct link between Oswald and Ferrie.

The Committee also found, at the time of the Kennedy assassination, Ferrie worked for a New Orleans organized crime leader who was fighting deportation to Guatamala. Ferrie also worked with Guy Bannister who was a right wing fanatic both politically and racially and with the most violent anti-Castro Cuban exiles.

So why bother with the overkill on Martin and others. Martin's tip was right about Oswald and Ferrie.

RPJ 23:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Martin made up the imaginary Oswald-Ferrie connection, and that weblink you provided does not provide any "direct link" between the two. Gamaliel 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That isn't possible that Martin could have imagined the Oswald-Ferry link. Martin wouldn't have known that Ferrie and Oswald both belonged to the the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol eight years earlier unless Ferrie told him. It is as simple as that.


 * The report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' citation does provide the direct Oswald-Ferrie link corroborating Martin's information that Ferrie told him about knowing Oswald. I went ahead and cited the exact page. RPJ 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Martin told the FBI that he made up the story after hearing a radio report about Oswald being in the CAP and already knew that Ferrie had been in the CAP. Gamaliel 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

More on Ferrie-Oswald link
A witness remembers Oswald and Ferry together in CAP and supplies a photograph.  RPJ 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "But when FRONTLINE showed [Ferrie's close friend Layton] Martens the photograph, he identified Ferrie. "It does indicate the possibity of an associaton," said Martens, "but if and to what extent is another question. Of course we've all been photographed with people, and we could be presented with photographs later and asked, 'Well, do you know this person? Obviously, you must because you've been photographed with them.' Well no, it's just a photograph, and I don't know that person. It's just someone who happened to be in the picture."" Gamaliel 05:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends on the picture, and when it was taken, does it not? A private party/meeting is different to a photo in a shopping mall. andreasegde 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The evidence establishing a Ferrie-Oswald link is very strong

 * John B. Ciravolo, Jr., of New Orleans supplied the photograph of Oswald and Ferrie together at a Civil Air Patrol and was also a C.A.P. member in 1955, and says he was in the same unit with Oswald and was standing right in front of him in the photo. Ciravolo also identified David Ferrie.


 * Tony Atzenhoffer, a former C.A.P. cadet, also of New Orleans, identified Oswald and Ferrie in the photograph.


 * Colin Hammer, who says he served with both men in the C.A.P., also identified both in the photograph.


 * Chuck Frances, says he took the picture for the C.A.P and that Oswald and Ferrie knew each other.


 * Reeves Morgan, a member of the Louisiana State Legislature, and five other people including a deputy sheriff and a registrar of voters, who saw Oswald in Clinton La. three months before the assassination sometimes in the company of Ferrie.


 * HSCA believed the witnesses and said this was substantial and "credible evidence" of Ferrie and Oswald being linked together.


 * The pamphlets handed out by Oswald had the address on it as the same small building where Ferrie and Bannister worked.


 * Delphnie Roberts testified she saw Oswald in Bannister's office several times.

RPJ 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Adrian Alba saw Oswald frequently in the same restaurant in the building that was listed on the pamhlets handed out by Oswald and where Ferrie and Bannister ate since they worked in the same building.

You are mixing different things together:


 * The Civil Air Patrol: Oswald and Ferrie may have been acquainted in the CAP when Oswald was a teen, but the stories conflict regarding how well or if at all. And this certainly isn't "evidence" they knew each other years later when Oswald was an adult.


 * Delphine Roberts was a crazy woman who thinks she's seen the "sacred scrolls" in the Ark of the Covenant and rants about the UN and blacks.


 * The Clinton witneses were coached and pressured by Garrison.


 * The address Oswald used was not the same as Bannister, but an address around the corner. Yes, they were in the same physical shell, but not connected internally.  It appeared on some but not all of the pamphlets. The use of this address is easily explained by its proximity to Oswald's job or by the fact that the building used to contain an office of an anti-Castro group Oswald clumsily tried to infiltrate.

This is a flimsy house of cards. Gamaliel 14:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don´t think it is "flimsy" at all. What RPJ has found out sounds pretty strong to me. He has also included lots of citations, which, I´m sorry to say, you (Gamaliel) did not.


 * Why is there an attitude of "Yes it is - No it´s not", in the air? Can we not put both pieces of information in? Being blinkered (on any side) is not healthy. None of us know the real truth - so why not present both sides of the coin? andreasegde 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a typical conspiracy tactic - to cloud the issue up with irrelevant and misleading "evidence" and then just say "let's present both sides and let people decide". The evidence is quite clear and the Oswald-Ferrie "connection", which was imagined up by a drunk with a grudge against Ferrie and spun into mythology by the conspiracy press, is nonesistent.  I don't see anything remotely "strong" about this "evidence".  And no, I did not include citations because we're just discussing on the talk page, though I can provide citations for whatever you'd like.  Gamaliel 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel is merely arguing the evidence. He presents evidence that he claims goes to the bias, prejudice and/or competency of the witnesses. He also argues the relevancy of documentary evidence. He then goes on to argue that his evidence and arguments require the exclusion from the article of the evidence with which he disagrees. But, Gamaliel's approach is flatly against the web site rule:"Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as 'the truth' or 'the best view'. See Neutral point of view NPOV which is a basic rule of this web site."


 * Gamaliel needs to read and understand this rule before he does any more editing of the JFK related articles. Gamaliel's attitude is that his viewpoint of what has taken place relating to the Kennedy assassination is correct, and therefore any viewpoints by actual witnesses or opinions from reliable sources are "wrong" and therefore don't represent a neutral point of view.


 * How Gamaliel can remain oblivious to what a "neutral point of view" means for such a long period of time is unclear. While it is a basic rule of the website that all significant viewpoints be included Gamaliel substitutes his rule that Gamaliel decides what is true and what is "nonsense" which is his favorite pejorative.


 * Wikipedia rejects Gamaliel's rule (that he decides for the reader) and instead adopts the bluntly stated rationale "Why should the readers and editors believe Gamaliel or trust his judgment, knowledge and experience?"  RPJ 20:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to see that once again you've taken a simple talk page discussion about facts and turned it into a lenthy denunciation of me personally. Can't you just stick to the facts without losing your cool?  I'm going to go back to ignoring you unless you are willing to act with civility and discuss things rationally. Gamaliel 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your presumption that I am a typical conspiracy theorist, Gamaliel. That hurts, especially as I have often written that I am not on any side. I do not want to "cloud the issue", or give "misleading information" either. If you have the all the facts, then you are a crowd of one who knows more than anybody. I salute you.


 * Anyway; I think you have denounced "me personally", as you say that RPJ has done to you, and it would be nice of you to apologise, if you should wish to. andreasegde 05:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the second time that you've mistaken my discussion of the general characteristics of the conspiracy press as referring to you personally. Most likely, poor writing on my part is to blame.  I apologize for being unclear and in the future I will try to avoid such mistaken attributions. Gamaliel 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, and I thank you very much, sir. A very nice gesture. andreasegde 16:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

George de Mohrenschildt
I put in two new parts. one is on De Morhenschildt, who supplied the crucial photograph and tesimony on Oswald's motive. This is a key witness for the Warren Commission.


 * Wrong. You missed the link, since the man's last name was George de Mohrenschildt with small de. Also, he had packed up this photo in unopened mail for a move in May, 1963 and didn't even know he had a copy when testifying for the Warren Commission in 1964. He didn't discover his own copy till 1967, and supplied no photographs to anybody (his widow gave his copy of CE-133A to the HSCA in 1977). You should actually read the HSCA photo analysis. It's very detailed and has a lot of history which you're getting wrong. S B Harris 00:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Then put in is the evidence that links Ferrie to Oswald. I forgot to sign in. RPJ 23:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The George de Mohrenschildt bit should only be a line and a link to the WC, in the One-shooter section. If it stays in, then we have to put ALL the WC stuff in (could anyone conceive that? I hope not.) At the moment it looks like a very large POV/vandalism. C´mon guys, let´s be reasonable here... andreasegde 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, RPJ only stuck it all in because he thought maybe George de M provided the fake backyard photo to the Warren Commission, then suicided/was killed to prevent him talking to the HSCA people. The real truth is so much less interesting (those photos were all over the place), and they all (including the Walker house photos with Oswald's camera) and isotope ratios from lead in Walker's window matching Book Depository ammo, implicate Oswald badly. Wups. Backfired, RPJ. Feel free to do what you like with it, or put some of it in the Oswald bio, which is really where it belongs (there's already a section there on de Mohrenschildt). S B Harris 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thinks that George "suicided" himself is kinda new to me. How´do ya do that? andreasegde 00:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Important viewpoints for inclusion into the article

 * Does anyone reject the link between de Mohrenschildt and Oswald?


 * Does anyone believe that de Morenschildt was not an important witness for the Warren Commission?


 * Does anyone reject the link between de Morehnschildt and Clint Murchenson?

"'After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again - that's no threat - that's a promise'?"
 * Does anyone reject putting in the article the information that Lyndon Johnson met with Clint Murchison the day before Kennedy was assassinated and told Madeleine Brown afterwards that:


 * Shouldn't the article have a specific section devoted to the proposition that Kennedy was assassinated by a right-wing plot of which Oswald was part?

RPJ 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "that's a promise". Yes, put it in.


 * "Kennedy was assassinated by a right-wing plot" No, because it´s a "proposition", and it´s not specific enough yet. andreasegde 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What Neutral Point of View means
A neutral point of view is called "NPOV." Some editors are still confused over what Wikipedia means that an article must provide a neutral point of view. This policy means that when there is a controversy relating to different viewpoints over what is correct information to put in an article abiut what occurred in the past, or what is the best medicine for a desease, etc, Wikipedia does not decide which of the viewpoints is correct. Instead Wikipedia provides all significant viewpoints and allows the reader to decide. It is that simple.

Here is the policy verbatim: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view [NPOV], which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as 'the truth' or 'the best view'."

The above rule of a neutral point of view by presenting all significant viewpoints has come up again. This time regating to information being deleted from the article about the relationship between Oswald and David Ferrie. Ferrie was a bizarre right-wing fanatic who worked for an organized crime leader at the time of Kennedy's assassination. Immediately after the assassination, an informant both identified David Ferrie as possibly being involved some how in the assassination and of knowing the accused murderer, Lee Harvey Oswald.


 * Er, what informant was that?? Here's a pretty good article about who Jack Martin was. From a pretty bad website, but ignore that: it's just where I happened to find it first . Here's another article you badly need to read: My favorite part is where Russo can't remember anything about anybody until they drug him with truth serum and hypnotize him, following which he comes up with names like "Clay Bertrand" which hadn't even been invented yet, at the time he claimed to see Shaw using it. LOL. S B Harris 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue in dispute is how well Oswald knew Ferrie (or whether Oswald knew Ferrie at all).
 * The Warren Commission view is that Oswald did not know Ferrie.
 * The House Select Committee on Assassinations view is that Oswald did know Ferrie.
 * No, that misrepresents their view. Try again. S B Harris 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Under the policy of a neutral point of view, Wikipedia needs to provide the opinions of both the Commission and then the HSCA.

The policy of a neutral point of view also applies to the even handed presentation of the underlying information that supports one or the other of the two viewpoints. The information in question is evidenced by eyewitnesses and documentary evidence (photographs etc).

A common mistake by some editors about applying the neutral point of view policy will be discussed below.

RPJ 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I finds it weird that a picture a´ Oswald and that Ferrie guy mekkin´ breakfast, (or sump-in´) with a whole bunch a guys to be mighty intrestin´. You saying that Oswald did not know the name a´one a´his commanding bosses? Sure strange to me... andreasegde 00:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A common mistake which leads to wrongful deletions
Now this is important: Evidence can't be deleted simply because it supports one view point or another view. Supporting a relevant viewpoint is the reason the evidence is put in an article--and certainly it is not a reason to delete information out out of an article. The policy is all significant viewpoints are included --The policy is not that significant viewpoints are excluded.

Nevertheless, an editor now wants to take out of the evidence establishing that Oswald did know David Ferrie and supports the HSCA viewpoint. This can't be done under the policy.

The evidence of "known access" of Oswald to Ferrie prior to Kennedy's murder comes from a number of sources:


 * Oswald worked within blocks of where Ferry would at times work and both were known to go to the same restaurant downstairs from where Ferrie would work. When they were younger both belonged to the Civil Air Patrol in New Orleans, and a number of cadets knew both of them.


 * In addition, one witness remembers that Oswald and Ferrie knew one another, and another had a picture of Ferry, an instructor, with Oswald and a small group of other instructors and cadets.


 * Three months before the assassination eyewitnesses place Ferrie and Oswald together in Clinton, Mississippi and other eyewitnesses place Oswald up in the office where Ferrie worked with Guy Bannister, a notorious right-wing fanatic.


 * Finally, a substantial number of posters Oswald printed up said that Oswald's headquarters were in the same small building where Ferrie and Bannister worked.

The evidence establishing that Oswald did not know Ferrie consists of:


 * David Ferrie's denial that he and Oswald knew one another.


 * A friends' recollection that prior to Kennedy's death Ferrie never mentioned that he knew Oswald, and said in his opinion that Ferrie would not be involved in a plot to murder Kennedy.

It is the policy of Wikipedia that evidence supporting both viewpoints should be represented.

RPJ 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Inserting a long list of bullet points representing only one POV is not appropriate. It does not represent "both viewpoints", is not NPOV, and is against the policy of this website.  Gamaliel 03:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm down and have a cup of tea
I have no idea why RPJ is being attacked so much. He seems to be an intelligent and concerned editor that is not given to swearing and attacking people (until that can be proven, and not just POVed). His "attacks" seem to be misconstrued. I have read through his well-written comments (NO, I am not a conspiracy theorist) and I see no problem. He only wants to present both sides, and he is constantly thwarted. I see no reason for this, and it reads like a lot of POVs. C´mon guys, let´s be nice. andreasegde 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He insults every other editor (except you, but just wait), does not engage in substantive discussion but denounces other editors in long talk page harangues, accuses people of being employed by a federal agency to plant disinformation or having some psychological weakness preventing them from realizing the "truth" of the assassination, inserts pet conspiracy theories into articles as facts, inserts long rants into articles attacking sources and even editors, and vandalizes user and talk pages. Shall I go on? Gamaliel 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"He insults every other editor (except you, but just wait). I will, but he hasn´t yet. andreasegde 17:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to work with one of the editors on the web site rules
One of the editors to this page does not understand that the policy of this web site is that:
 * All significant view points be represented, and
 * There are no personal opinions by editors allowed.

This is becoming a problem. For whatever reason, this one editor holds the belief that David Ferrie and Oswald did not know one another, and disbelieves all the cumulative evidence from a number of sources to the contrary. That is ok, he is entitled to make up his own mind.

But he wants to go further. Based on his own personal belief on this issue, this editor wants to take out of the article the evidence the Congressional Committee cites for believing there is a link between Oswald and Ferrie. He then wants to substitute in place of the evidence, the editor's own personal opinion that none of the evidence is credible.

This particular editor has been told over and over again that he is not allowed to delete material that he doesn't personally approve and he has also been told time and again, that his personal view points cannot be included in the articles. He ignores these rules. At his point --he won't even say why he defies the policy of the web site. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to communicate with this misguided editor.RPJ 00:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is how the problem editor has responded
The particular problem editor discussed above has responded by, again, deleting all the evidence that the House Select Committee on Assassinations collected establishing the link between Oswald and Ferrie. In his comment on doing so he says:

"'03:53, 21 July 2006 Gamaliel (No matter how many long rants you post denouncing me on the talk page your pro conspiracy POV bullet points aren't going in the article.)'"

The editor that calls himself Gamaliel should take a little vacation from the Kennedy pages. He is losing sight of the purpose of this web page which is to provide information to the reader, not hide information. RPJ 07:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you need to take a little vacation from attacking me. Find a new hobby.  Gamaliel 13:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here we go... RPJ is not attacking you personally, Gamaliel, because we have very little (if any) personal information about other editors. He is criticising the things you DO on this page. If you want to disgree with HSCA, then I suggest you send an e-mail to the members who presided. RPJ is only reporting their viewpoints, and not his own.

Constantly saying that RPJ is attacking you is beginning to sound like "The boy who cried ´Wolf´". I think of the question, "You don´t like me, do you?" which puts the accused on the defensive, as he/she then has to explain why they do like you (if they do at all.) Good trick, though. Let´s stop playing courtroom tactics and start being reasonable. It´s only a web page, after all (or is it a crusade? Hmmm...)

P.S. An editor (no names, no pack drill) put forward the idea that RPJ was my "hero". That is the most stupid thing I have ever read, and the editor in question should wash his/her mouth out with soap. andreasegde 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh please. He has attacked me plenty of times and is attacking me now.  Familiarize yourself with the talk page archives and you will find plenty of instances where he's alleged I have some sort of psychological maladay and accused me of being a government plant. Gamaliel 16:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The JFK assassination theories article needs to be expanded in terms of main articles
There are so many theories here that many of them need their own subarticles, and one of these (JFK killed by anti-cuban militants) could get you space where you could list bullet points in favor of Ferrie being involved. So why not create a main:topic article on the idea? Then you can go wild, so long as you give the opposite side some space for rebuttal. The big problem here, as I see it, is not the data, but the space it takes up, even in this fairly generous venue.

I myself think the HSCA's reasons for thinking there might be link between Oswald and Ferrie make for great entertainment. Yeah, Oswald the young hetersexual socialist/commie atheist who has a bad case of Castro hero worship and keeps getting into fights with anti-Castro Cubans. David Ferrie, the anticommunist Bay of Pigs helper who is gay and Catholic. Natural allies, if ever there were any. I'm sure they just had to meet in Banister's offices all the time, since Banister, as a Commie-bashing friend of Ferrie's, should have loved young Oswald like a son, yessireebob.

So create the page and spin it out. S B Harris 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A point of view fork is "highly undesireable"
The basic policy of Wikipedia is to include all significant viewpoints on an issue. The web page prohibits splitting one issue into two articles in order to present one point of view on the issue in one article and a different point of view in another article. By splitting up the opposing viewpoints into two articles the reference work makes it more difficult for the reader to obtain all significant viewpoints on an issue and is regarded as "highly undesirable." Splitting the opposing points of view into two articles is called a "point of view fork".

Please note: It doesn't matter why an editor wants a point of view fork, because it is the result that is "highly undesirable" and it is the result that is prohibited.

The test for a point of view fork is simple to apply. Is there a significant view point on an issue that is put in an seperate article? If so, the readers will have to go to two separate articles, to read all the viewpoints and they shouldn't have to do so. A good reference work has all significant viewpoints grouped together for the reader. A reference work is designed to help the reader and not to please the editors.

Therefore, suggesting that an editor can start his or her own article where the editor "can go wild" isn't remotely within the policy of this web site. Instead, an editor should simply provide the information and not give his or her personal opinion about the information. These are basic editing priniples. If you can't follow these rules--don't edit. RPJ 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. I meant go wild on LENGTH. You're still going to have to spend approximately equal time for each point of view. Right now, you'll notice that the JKF assassination page is very conspiracy-heavy, and the part defending the conventional view of Oswald-the-lone-gunman, which really is the most common opinion of serious historians of this issue, gets short-shrift. That's not a balanced presentation of the best historical evidence. The ONLY time (1 in 4) a major invesigative body has departed from Oswald-lone-gunman (OLG) is when the HSCA was totally misled by the dictabelt stuff, and had to start looking at something to bolster the conspiracy that they now had discovered (2-shooters, even if one misses, requires a conspiracy) and that they now felt they had to explain, or at least make some headway on. But (rats!) the dictabelt proved a COMPLETE mistake and blind alley. Turned out there wasn't ANYTHING to explain. So all the work the HSCA did to try to flesh out old conspiracy theories was in service of evidence that was bad to begin with, kind of like Bush and Iraq's WMD. Unfortunately, when the 4-shot evidence was later found to be crap, that didn't cause the HSCA to do what it SHOULD honestly have done, which is to say: "Oh. Well, if there were only 3 shots, then NEVERMIND all that other stuff we hypothesized. We were wrong." (For that matter, it didn't cause Bush to do anything like that, either).


 * The HSCA committee did NOT come to a formal conclusion on a relationship between Oswald and Ferrie-- you're wrong about that (feel free to quote me something different). They didn't even conclude the two had a relationship where one wore leather and the other a French maid's costume, as I presume as the sort of relationship Ferrie might have had with Shaw if he'd had one. Let alone one in which the killing of JFK was the central topic. What the HCSA *said* was that some kind of Ferrie/Oswald relationship or set of contacts, was plausable and couldn't be ruled out. Well, if so, so what? This kind of thing (particularly with no great evidence that Ferrie wanted JFK dead either) is not worth taking up large sections of an article on something as historically important as the JFK assassination. Jack Martin recanted, Perry Russo turned out to be a recovered-memory creation, the Garrison witnesses turned out to be coerced or flat-out crazy people (as was Garrison), and there's just no case here (as the jury found). To find a government body like the HSCA completely spinning stuff up out of this, is very sad. You can sort of understand why they tried to do it it when they thought they HAD solid conspiracy evidence (acoustics); but take the accustics away, and the whole thing is a tree that DIDN'T fall in the forest, because there wasn't any noise to hear.


 * Yes, Oswald got under the skin of Anti-Casto people in the Big Easy. He had fights with them, he had radio debates with them, he was generally as irritating as he could be, being Oswald, and being in need of attention, as Oswald-the-fatherless-boy always was. And we find he spent some time physically near their offices-- golly, surprise. Where else would you expect Oswald to go, if he was trying to be politically irritating to the anti-Castro Right--- the bayou? But to say (as the HSCA essentially did) that while (yes, indeed) Oswald and Ferrie were completely different sorts of people, with completely different political goals, THAT YET this doesn't necessarily mean they weren't conspirators--- bosom buddies in the sort of plot you ONLY want to make with somebody you trust your life to---is NUTS. Of course it argues (at least) heavily in the other direction! And in the absense of really good evidence otherwise (which we have not got) a reasonable person would say the whole idea was not worth spending any time on. But give Oliver Stone one stupid movie with Kevin Costner, and here we all are, going over it on Wikipedia 15 years later---such is the power of the silver screen. Sheesh. S B Harris 21:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, Sbharris, don´t say "stupid movie". It´s pure POV. I don´t think it was a very accurate either (so I half-agree with you) but someone will defintely reply to your comment in the positive. This could go on, and on. Do we want that? andreasegde 16:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk pages do not have to maintain NPOV. And some things in life ARE stupid. And in any case, to maintain that no work of art is stupid or silly, and thus cannot be correctly labeled as such, is a POV. S B Harris 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Editor Sbharris--please focus
Sbharris needs to read this. He suggested two days ago breaking the article in two by putting some viewpoints on the issue of existence of a conspiracy on the main page and have a second page devoted to other view points on the existence of a conspiracy. The web page policy considers breaking a page in two in that way is  "highly undesirable." Breaking it up such as that is called a point of view "fork" and is a clear sign of a amateur editing in a reference work.

I don't think Sbharris understood because he responded by saying that those presenting the other view points on a second main page could go on at length.

Therefore, I know he is missing the point which is all view points go on the main page, and then any elaborations on them can be on another page which is ok. This a very important distinction and if you don't understand it please let me know.RPJ 02:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * POVs which are minority may not be worthy of mention at all. That is why many JFK theories (ie.e., the limo driver did it with his pocket pistol) have been relegated to another crank page, devoted to JFK assassion theories (including crazy ones). What is it about this process you don't understand? Not all points of view are equal. WP never pretended they were. I'm not going to discuss this further with you. S  B Harris 06:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you still don't understand
You suggested a second article be started that provides  the viewpoint reported by the House Select Committee on Assassinations on  the possible conspiratorial relationship between accused Presidential murderer Lee Oswald and the violent right-wing fanatic, David Ferrie. However, under web site policy a second main article on a conspiracy between Oswald and Ferrie is "highly undesirable." The reader must be able to go to one main article for the conspiracy theories. Other articles may elaborate on the theories presented in the main article, but not be a substitute for placement of the theory in the main article. Don’t chop up the alternative viewpoints: Doing so makes it more difficult for the reader to assimilate.

The reason this issue has come up again is that one editor insists on deleting evidence cited by the Congressional Committee in 1979 about the Oswald-Ferrie link and instead substituting the editor's personal opinion that there is no credible evidence of a significant relationship between accused Presidential murderer Lee Oswald and David Ferrie.

I will say this as diplomatically as possible: The web site requires all significant viewpoints on an issue be presented in one article, and therefore, the deletion was wrong. Moreover, the editor's personal opinion that none of the Congressional Committee's evidence is either credible or significant is clearly an improper addition to the article. Opinions by the editors are not allowed since the web site assumes that the readers and other editors either don't care, don't believe, or don't want to read what some anonymous editor personally believes about this issue or any other issue. RPJ 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll say this as diplomatically as possible. The HSCA's conclusions say nothing about David Ferrie. If we stick to just the conclusions, then we shouldn't, either. If we want to expand to the entire thinking of commissions, then we have 26 volumes of Warren Commission and 500+ pages of HSCA report, and all that doesn't belong here. S  B Harris 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please focus and understand that point view forks are a sign of amateur editing. Responding by talking about something else simply confuses the other readers. If you don't understand--simply say so. RPJ 02:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We already have what you call a "POV fork": It created Kennedy assassination theories so we wouldn't have to deal with this mess in JFK assassination. But it wasn't actually a POV fork so much as creation of a separate subarticle or main article, to deal with a subtopic. The same may well have to be done with the various JFK assassination theories, since there simply is too much material. But that's fine. It's how Wikipedia grows. We now have not only a full article on every Apollo flight, but a full and complete subarticle on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. Which is referenced with sub-hoax articles, and referenced in the Apollo 11 article as a "folklore" heading, which is just where it should go. Right along with the idea that David Ferrie was preparing to fly Oswald out of Dallas, and Jack Ruby was sent by the mob to take Oswald out. S B Harris 03:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget, Steve, you're arguing with a person who feels that this article needs a list of bullet points with the names of people who have identified Ferrie and Oswald in the 1955 photo. Does this mean I should edit the Ronald Reagan page with a list of people who can identify Ron and Nancy in the photo of the 1981 inauguration? Here's an idea for a POV fork: now that so many people, including you and me, have received an entire subsection of talk from RPJ attacking us personally, maybe we should put them all in one article for improved clarity. Joegoodfriend 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should create a userbox for all the people who have been the subject of a personalized RPJ rant. Gamaliel 22:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it. But seriously, what are we going to do about the issue of selectivity? For example, RPJ has a fit when Agent Kellerman's description of JFK's head isn't included as an eyewitness account, but you won't see him him fighting to keep in the bit where Kellerman and Finck are probing JFK's shoulder wound at the autopsy, and Finck is telling Kellerman "there's no route through this man's shoulder." Yeah, SHOULDER, not back. We can't have accounts from every single person who saw JFK's body-- there are probably 50 of them. And Dr. Burkley! What do we do with this rear admiral who was also a horse's rear end? This is the guy who didn't even know JFK HAD a throat wound, and who spent the autopsy yelling at the staff from the gallery (literally) about the family's wishes, so they screwed up the autopsy in just the ways that the HSCA noted (and which, by the way, I would include). He ranked everybody but wasn't in the chain of command; however nobody was sure of that. So his impact on history and truth was entirely negative. About the nicest thing anybody has to say about the man was that he drank too much. But, yet, according to RPJ I'm supposed to accept his death certificate description as somehow "authoritative." LOL. Sorry, that's asking too much. S  B Harris 23:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

An ambiguous/contradictory phrase
In the "Response" section, at the end of the first paragraph, there is a sentence that says "Later tests allegedly showed them to be genuine, and fake". This phrase seems self-contradictory to me, but I don't know enough about the subject to know whether it should say genuine or fake. If I missed something, and the sentence actually makes sense in the context of the text, it would be nice to have it clarified. The text was added by User:Andreasegde in this edit, and it seems to me that "and fake" should be removed, though I'd rather someone who knows about the subject corrects it. --Aramգուտանգ 07:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... You got me thinking there! What should actually be in is this: "Oswald said - in police custody - that they were fakes, and that he could prove it. Later tests allegedly showed them to be genuine."

I have just looked at the page again, and I have no idea why I wrote "genuine, and fake." This is very disturbing, because I wouldn´t have done that, but I must have.... Hmmm... (BTW, I have just taken the "fake" out.)

My abject apologies and heartfelt thanks go to Aramgutang for spotting it. I will now get the hair shirt out of the closet and force myself to wear it for a week... (laugh...)

andreasegde 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Autopsy
I have taken a whole load of stuff out of "Response" and have created an "Autopsy" section. I´m surprised it wasn´t done before... andreasegde 04:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I now think (after creating the Autopsy section) that it should not be there at all, as it is well covered in other pages. There is even a Kennedy autopsy page. If no-one disagrees, I´m going to chop it out. This page should only be about theories. Hit me where it hurts if I´m wrong... andreasegde 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are going to do that then take out all the Warren Commission discussion since it now dominating the page.

RPJ 23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning and merging
Yes, there is an extensive Warren commision page with links to the full report. This is doubling-up of information. As I said above, my POV is that this page should only contain theories that are not reported anywhere else (be they true or not....)

The response section should cleaned and merged with "One shooter". It looks like a messy debate at the moment. Lots of stuff in it is available on the Oswald pages.

Now, as I sit here waiting for the faeces to hit the fan, does anybody think the WC stuff should be in, or put as a link in "See also", on its real, and very informative, page? (Sound of fingers tapping on desk... :) andreasegde 12:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, the autopsy section has gone to here: John F. Kennedy autopsy andreasegde 15:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No changed conspiracy route
“It made it clear that you have to turn on Houston and then Elm to get from Dallas' Main Street to the Stemmons Freeway. If you try driving down Main, you can get to the Stemmons only by driving over a concrete divider strip. That would be illegal, absurdly undignified for the presidential limo, and impossible for the press busses that were a part of the motorcade.” and this:

Look at a map after the railway bridge. It wasn´t a conspiracy to change the route. But by not changing the route, it points the finger at Oswald, as well as any other shooters, because they would have known which way Kennedy would come. Back to the beginning again... andreasegde 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Except there's just no way to put Oswald in place before the exact route has been chosen. And the final choice of route to put JFK under Oswald, has plenty of reason to defend it (although it could have been done differently-- it also has reasonable reasons for it). So in my mind, none of this works either way. It's neutral. Garrison sees a conspiracy in it. But Garrison was nuts, so what do you expect? S B Harris 06:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it´s neutral; it just cuts out another theory that has been around for ages, thank goodness. Your "But Garrison was nuts", was not neutral - and I´m sure you know it´s a POV. It´s not worthy of a good editor. The man is dead, after all. andreasegde 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But he's still nuts. Gamaliel 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting phenomenon: A man can still be "nuts", when he is dead and buried. Mocking the dead is abhorrent, and puerile. Good editors refrain from using such vilifications, do they not? andreasegde 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In the article, certainly. In real life, why? Do you think there should be some correlation between editorial skill and sainthood? I don't see any reason not to call them like I see them, and I think the reluctance of people in general to accurately label certain theories and people who advocate those theories as "insane" has assisted in the widespread propagation of those nutty theories. Garrison (and now I'm being as nice as I can be) was most likely mentally ill and his megalomania and his persecution complex pushed him to ruin the lives and hasten the deaths of a number of people. What noble cause is served by not vilifying this man? And where is the reluctance in the conspiracy press to refrain from vilifying the memories of, say, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie? Gamaliel 22:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * “the widespread propagation of those nutty theories.”


 * “Garrison - - was most likely mentally ill and his megalomania and his persecution complex pushed him to ruin the lives and hasten the deaths of a number of people.”


 * “What noble cause is served by not vilifying this man?”


 * I am sorry that I can not answer these comments. They make me feel ill. andreasegde 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Crazy
andreasegde, if you are going to read this page, you are going to have to get used to hearing everyone even tangentially involved with the JFK assassination called crazy.

If you mention the Garrison case in any context, it will be pointed out that to you that Garrison, all the witnesses, everyone remotely associated with Guy Banister, etc., were all loony, delusional, or at least had a hard time telling the truth. And there’s nothing wrong with that, because it’s true. These were people who made a living by obscuring the truth.

Conversely, when I point out that ALL the medical professionals involved with the autopsies who testified before the WC stated that the single bullet theory, in light of the medical evidence, was impossible, I’m told that they were all incompetent, thus the WC’s conclusions were perfectly reasonable. When I point out that Oswald’s carpool buddies both testified in EXACTING detail that the package Oswald carried to work wasn’t long enough to hold the rifle, I’m told that they were delusional as well.
 * Is there anyone we can all agree was not crazy, had an accurate memory, and told the truth? Jackie Kennedy, maybe. Joegoodfriend 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Whenever I carpool with someone to work, I always bring a tape measure so I can accurately record the size of any packages they may have with them. ;) Gamaliel 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A classic case of one-up-manship, Gamaliel. It´s very good. andreasegde 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No neutrality?
Of course there is no real neutrality here on WP. If there was perfect neutrality and not judgement, you couldn't tell vandalism from good editing, or from ran*^%$#dom typing. As to matters of fact, Jimbo has decreed that WP should be rather like the world free of objective reality, the one in which Bertrand Russell remarked that the only thing you could say about a lunatic who believed he was a poached egg, was that he didn't hold the majority opinion. Or (since we can't assume democracy), that he didn't agree with the government. Which in WP's case would be the collection of administrators and Jimbo. Joegoodfriend 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Good sense versus evidence
Leaving all that aside, all that's more theory which is honored more with lipservice than actually in the breach. Nothing really gets done in these articles without application of good sense.

Arguing about whether or not Oswald's package was really 2 feet or 3 feet long is losing perspective when the real question is why is the man bringing this odd long package to work on Friday, Assassination Day, in the first place? He didn't leave the building with it. He left with a coke (great prop, there, Lee--- the shear chutzpah of this man reaches across history).

Oswald, we know from Frazier, just had to go home to Marina and the children in Irving on Thursday Nov 21, a day earlier than the weekend-- the only time he'd done that in 5 weeks that he's worked at the Depository, to get "curtain rods" for his boarding room in Dallas. So no weekend at home with the family in Irving for this man--- now he's stuck in Dallas for a 3 day weekend with nothing but... curtain rods. Gunna have a window treatment paaaahrty, yeah!

He not only got the "curtain rods" for his boarding room from the Paine's house, but he took them straight to work, of course, the next morning, as he was riding with Frazier. Had no choice, but to baby the curtain rods at work, before he can get them back to his room and do all the things he always want to do, to them. And the curtain rod sack is found in the sniper's nest, but strangely, no curtain rods. Now where did those curtain rods go? Oswald's room turns out to have both curtains and curtain rods, and is not lacking for either. There are spare curtain rods at the Paines, but they remain at the Paines (Ruth Paine gives some of hers to the Warren Commission, which puzzles over them).

When the police ask Oswald about curtain rods, he says "What curtain rods? That was my lunch." A really LOOONG hoagy. Though Frazier says Oswald told him he was going to buy lunch that day, which puzzled Frazier because Oswald always took his lunch when he drove with Frazier. But Oswald has his story, and he's not about to tell Frazier that he's going to eat the curtain rods. There's a sort of low comedy here. Come on, Andreas, you're missing it. And you're the one who said you knew I wanted to smile. Well, here we are. :)))) S  B Harris 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I´m not missing anything, dear sir. If you look at the archives you will see that I brought the subject up. Being neutral means looking at little points like rods, and having two explanations. If the curtain rods had been found at the TSBD, Oswald would have been innocent. The fact that they were found, but the police can´t remember where, says something else. Police incompetence, perhaps? andreasegde 10:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So now we’re going to have an argument on the minutiae of the curtain rods. Fine.
 * 1. The story that Oswald’s room already had curtain rods is propagated by McAdams, Posner, and other WC defenders. Here’s another:
 * “On Saturday morning, November 23, professional photographer Gene Daniels who was following events went to Oswald's rooming house. Daniels: “I went to the rooming house the following morning and requested permission to make the photograph from the landlady. We went into the room and she told me she preferred not to have me take any pictures until she put "the curtains back up." I agreed and stood in the room as she and her husband stood on the bed and hammered the curtain rods back into position. While she did this, I photographed them or possibly just her I forget right now, up on the bed with the curtain rods”. I’ve seen Daniels’ photos but I can’t find them online.
 * 2. Curtains rods were found in Paine’s garage, and Mrs. Paine stated that she couldn’t remember how many there had been. So we’ve established that Oswald may have needed curtain rods to keep out the hot Texas sun, and a supply was available to him.
 * 3. You left out some stuff damning against Oswald. That last night, he left his wedding ring and all his money in the house for Marina to find. Clearly, he knew something was going down. After the assassination, he clearly knew he was in trouble. This establishes his culpability at some level, but not that he shot anyone. Oswald reflexively lied about everything during his interrogation, rods included. And if they really were curtain rods, where did they go? I don’t know, you got me on that one. ;) Joegoodfriend 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer
ANSWER:The McAdams site has a link to the Daniels photo. You left out a line in your quote: ''I went to the rooming house the following morning and requested permission to make the photograph from the landlady. I'm not sure of her name but I don't think she was the owner.

We went into the room and she told me she preferred not to have me take any pictures until she put "the curtains back up." She said that newsmen the evening before had disturbed the room and she didn't want anyone to see it messed up. I agreed and stood in the room as she and her husband stood on the bed and hammered the curtain rods back into position. While she did this, I photographed them or possibly just her I forget right now, up on the bed with the curtain rods etc.''

That hardly sounds like the curtains and rods hadn't been there the day before. It sounds like newsmen (or cops who had also searched the room) knocked them down. Which is my own experience with curtain rods-- when they fall down they don't go into a 5th dimension (sic) as Oswald's packaged rods seem to have: you generally find them where they fell :). And indeed the landlady testified to the Warren Commission that Oswald's room had curtains and rods. Why would she lie?

As to the "hot Texas sun" here again this is why Texas juries are made of humans with local experience, not robots or Martians or even Europeans. I've lived in Texas and there is no "hot Texas sun" in November. Though in Dallas you may have rain or humidity, as a matter of fact, on Nov. 21-22, 1963 the weather in Dallas was as close to being perfect as the weather there ever gets. So don't be spinning any stories about how Oswald just had to go home a day early, couldn't take one more day in his room in that horrible heat (70 F. at noon) and ravening sun, and just had to have those curtain rods, or die. Cause it's just not plausable. Sorry.

And of course I know about the ring and so on. Oswald loved drama. He did a similar thing when he went to shoot Walker, leaving Marina a dramatic note ("sell my clothes, keep my personal effects, here are directions to the Dallas jail....").

Oswald was a champion knob-twister because he needed attention. He was a Communist in the McCarthy era, reading Russian magazines in front of coworkers, defecting to the USSR and re-defecting, handing out pro-Castro pamphlet in New Orleans practically in front of former Cuban exile org (and using their previous address, LOL), and so on. "Police brutality! I just tried to shoot a cop with my pistol and he hit me with his fist! No FAIR!" That little smile you see on Oswald for the two days he was in custody after the JFK murder, and which people wanted to sock him for, is the secret smile of the chronically underappreciated chain-jerker who's now the center of attention, having just pulled the greatest knob-twister/performance-art piece of the century. One worth dying for. But again, you need some life experience to read between the lines, here. A robot, or Martian, will never get it. S B Harris 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You’re right. I should have said the COLD Texas sun, which I experienced while my parents were living in south suburban Dallas. So Oswald's landlady is believable, but the people who saw him with the bag are not? No fair. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m busy trying to stuff a 35 inch rifle into a 20 inch bag. Joegoodfriend 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it was a 38 inch bag found in sniper's nest. So the rifle would have fit in that. And that bag even Frazier said looked like THE bag (and admitted he never really paid much attention to the thing), but too long. So yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that the witnesses made a mistake in size. Otherwise, how are you going to explain this? The 38 inch bag had fibers in it linked to Oswald. Oswald's Carcano rifle was found, and it fit in the bag. Are we going to believe that Oswald made a special trip home to carry disappearing curtain rods he didn't need, to Dallas in a bag on the day of the assassination, while somebody ELSE at the SAME TIME managed to smuggle Oswald's rifle in a BIGGER but similar bag, up to the 6th floor? :))). Oswald must've been the unluckiest person on Earth to have decided he just HAD to have those curtains THAT day. And what a lucky break for the nefarious sorts trying to get Oswald's rifle to the Depository, too. Golly. 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very odd that Oswald decided to bring curtain rods that day. And where did the rods go?  Even if The Conspiracy disposed of them, how did they know he would bring them?  If The Conspiracy didn't know about the curtain rods ahead of time, how did they dispose of them after the assassination undetected, with dozens of cops and reporters poking around and filming?  Gamaliel 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Try disassembling it, like they teach Marines to do. ;) Gamaliel 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 35" is disassembled. Not much you can do with the length of the single stockpiece. S B Harris 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are really far off on the facts, and you are dismissing eyewitnesses testimony without reason.
 * 1. “Frazier said (it) looked like THE bag.” Frazier was shown the bag on 11/22. From the FBI memo: "Lt Day recalls that on evening of 11/22/63, about 11.30p.m. one of Captain FRITZ' officers requested that he show this thick brown sack to a man named FRAZIER. Lt. DAY said that FRAZIER was unable to identify this sack and told him that a sack he observed in the possession of OSWALD early that morning was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like one purchased in a dime store."
 * 2. “it was a 38 inch bag found in sniper's nest.” You’re thinking of the REPLICA bag made by the FBI and shown to witnesses exclusively at the WC hearing. Yeah, the rifle fit in that all right. Funny they didn’t do that demo with the real bag.
 * 3. “fibers in it linked to Oswald.” I can’t find any evidence of this. What is your cite? Are you thinking of the fibers on the rifle that linked it to Oswald?
 * 4. The bag found in the SBD was taped up with “wet” tape, which the WC noted was just like the tape available in the SBD. Except the WC didn’t bother to explain how Oswald could have taped up the rifle in the bag given that the tape would have been useless if he took it home. Further, although the rifle was “well-oiled” there was no oil on the bag. Also, "The inside surface of specimen Q10 (the bag) did not disclose markings identifiable with the rifle, K1." Also, Jack Dougherty testified that Oswald wasn’t carrying any bag when he came to work.
 * 5. Frazier said Oswald carried the bag under his arm with one end in his hand and the other in his armpit. His sister said that when he held the end of the bag in his hand with his arm at his side, the bag did not touch the ground. 20 inches is being generous. You have no reason to dismiss these statements.
 * 6. I don’t know if the bag had curtain rods in it, but I do know that a supply was available to him right next to his stuff in the garage. Maybe he like the color better than the ones in his room. Maybe he thought he could use ‘em to poke General Walker’s eyes out. I’m going to stab my own brain with a curtain rod if I think about this much longer. Joegoodfriend 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Frazier's estimation of the bag as about two feet long (not 20 inches) is continually treated as some sort of scientific constant when Frazier himself says it was only a guess: "Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm."
 * When you oil a gun, you don't dip it in crisco and coat the outside. In fact, the document that conspiracy theorists point to to say the gun was "well-oiled" only refers to internal parts:  "the firing pin and spring of this weapon are well oiled".
 * If the bag contained curtain rods, where did the curtain rods go? Gamaliel 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at my piece in the archive. They found them, but couldn´t remember if it was at the Paine´s home, or the TSBD. andreasegde 10:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I think you misunderstand. Curtains rods were found in the Paine's garage, and they couldn't remember how many there had been. It is theoretically possible that Oswald could have taken some of them. What we are discussing is, if Oswald's bag was not the same bag found in the SBD, where did it go? I wish I knew. In ref. to the other comments above, (1) obviously the oily "internal parts" of the rifle would have been exposed when it was disassembled. (2) WC defenders like to pretend that there was something ambiguous or contradictory regarding what Frazier and his sister said that they saw, but there wasn't. Your only choice is to believe that either the bag they saw did not contain the rifle, or that Frazier and his sister were both delusional. Joegoodfriend 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a false choice. You don't have to be "delusional" to make a simple mistake in estimating the exact length of a package you only glanced at. Gamaliel 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree completely. Again. Frazier said Oswald carried the bag under his arm with one end in his hand and the other in his armpit. His sister said that when he held the end of the bag in his hand with his arm at his side, the bag did not touch the ground. That has nothing whatsoever to do with estimating the length of a package. This argument is redundant, can we agree to disagree? Speaking of estimates, it looks like I don't know how to calculate UTC time correctly. Joegoodfriend 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but she did say "it almost touched the ground" and intially estimated its length to be over three feet long .  If you don't want to discuss this any longer, fine, but I'm afraid there isn't any room for honest disagreement on this issue.  It either contained curtain rods which Oswald didn't need and promptly vanished off the face of the earth, or it contained a rifle that was in the Paines' garage and was found in the TSBD.  A discrepancy of six inches in the statements of witnesses who only glanced at a package is not enough to overcome the impossibility the curtain rod theory. Gamaliel 20:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, if you sign with four tildes (~) it automatically adds your name and the date and time, so you shouldn't have to do any calculations. You can change the time zone under "my preferences". Gamaliel 20:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Did I miss something, or did you just call me dishonest? Joegoodfriend 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Honest disagreement" is just a phrase, the equivalent of "agree to disagree". I wasn't using it to imply that you were dishonest.  I'd just say "I think you're being dishonest here" if I was. Gamaliel 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The dead
We are not mocking the dead. There is nothing more relevant to this discussion than the fact that many people involved in the investigations may have lied pathologically or were delusional, thus their testimony is highly questionable. Garrison’s whole case was originally predicated on the testimony of Dean Andrews, who told lies like other people breathe. Conversely, the WC’s star witness, Howard Brennan, who supposedly identified Oswald, admittedly lied and changed his story repeatedly. (Also, in my opinion, he couldn’t possibly have seen what he claimed to have seen.) Joegoodfriend 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good grief, I had no idea that "curtain rods" could create so many replies. As I brought up the subject of curtain rods I think I should say something (Ouch!). I have tried to read through all of the replies (paragraphs would make it a lot easier) and I will reply later. I have noticed quite a few POVs and some sarcasm in there, which will make it difficult to reply. I don´t like writing long answers, because it hurts my eyes, and it gets too complicated. Simplicity, and brevity, is the key. Let´s work together. andreasegde 19:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have edited some comments (paragraphs) so as to make them easier to read.


 * We should concentrate on the facts as we know them, report them in a clear way, and be concise. This is not a forum; it is an encyclopedia. It can be boring, but that is what it is. andreasegde 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
Can we be neutral? Can we say that we do not know? Why not? Certain things can be proven (like the change of route - see above) but to be on one side or the other is (sorry) one-sided. Let´s look at the evidence, and be neutral. It´s a dirty job, etc..... andreasegde 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We can put in what primary source information, and we can put in secondary source material. Both have to be "verifiable"  preferably on internet.  Readers can click on "verifiable" below for more information on that subject. If no one knows then I suppose that that can be said and when a source is known or becomes available it can be added. RPJ 03:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Zapruder
Abraham Zapruder has gone because it was a copy of his own page, complete with photo... andreasegde 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I'm the one who PUT that photo of Zapruder showing JFK's wound in both pages (Zapruder and JFK assassination) because I think it naturally belongs in both places, I'm not very pleased. Do you have some idea that no material can be duplicated in Wikipedia? You're going to be a busy boy then indeed, but can't you start someplace else? S  B Harris 23:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly how you feel, because I did it once and an avalanche of editors wasted no time at all in kicking my posterior all over the yard (for want of a better phrase) for doing it. If I hadn´t spotted it, somebody else would have, in time.

I took it out because of the above, but also because Zapruder had nothing to do with any conspiracy. Think about this, though: If there was a conspiracy, then why was Zapruder allowed to film the scene, and then be allowed to keep the film and sell it? That´s an interesting one... andreasegde 05:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that the JFK assassination theories page is devoted to conspiracy. It also does (and should) cover the most common and accepted theory, which is the Oswald is the lone gunman. Zapruder and his film and his testimony are essential to establishing the location of JFK's headwound at the instant it happened. Z was in the best position of any person to see it and film it as it happened. Why do you think this is not relevant, except to his bio page?? S B Harris 23:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the bulk of this page, you can see that it deals with assassination theories: believable, interesting, not believable, and off-the-wall. Putting in “Z” - as he hereafter should forever be known – is misleading because he was not involved in any theory (or conspiracy) at all. His evidence was a film:  An Abraham Zapruder link is all that is needed.


 * "the most common and accepted theory, which is that Oswald was the lone gunman", is an oxymoron. A theory is not a fact. BTW, 70% of Americans do not agree with you. This page is not an island unto itself; it is merely a part of the whole category about President Kennedy.


 * The main purpose of Wikipedia (as I have been often told) is to be concise, ; meaning to present subjects as clearly as is possible. If you want to put Z into other pages (apart from his own) then look at this: Category:John F. Kennedy assassination. andreasegde 11:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oswald in New Orleans
This is very odd. Why is it here? It should be on the Oswald page, and the Oswald/Ferrie link should be on the Ferrie page, with a link to Oswald (or the other way round...) andreasegde 18:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oswald´s article and Ferrie´s both mention the air patrol, and Oswald´s has a link to the "photograph" of them in the same group. (This is NOT a POV saying they knew each other...) Therefore, "Oswald in New Orleans" has no reason to be in the article. It makes no mention of a conspiracy, and can be found elsewhere. andreasegde 11:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oswald in New Orleans has gone. It was not a theory, and it is available elsewhere. andreasegde 13:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

One shooter/two shooters
I think that this should have a page of its own. It could be merged into lots of other articles, but it is an interesting piece, and deserves something better. andreasegde 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot something. Here it is: andreasegde 10:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Response" section should be merged into "One shooter". If nobody fundamentally objects, it will be done. andreasegde 12:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have waited for two days, and so I have merged it. The bullet-point list under two shooters also looks clumsy, and has no definte relation to a conspiracy; just single statements with no cohesion. It is all probably available elsewhere. I will check... andreasegde 14:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll
70 percent of American adults believe that the assassination was part of a larger plot, according to an ABC News poll conducted in November 2003 (Penny Cockerell, "JFK Conspiracy Theories Abound 40 Years after Assassination," Associated Press, November 22, 2003). In 2002 it was 80 percent.

According to a Fox News poll conducted in October 2003, 66 percent of the public think the assassination was part of a larger conspiracy (Dana Blanton, "Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts," Fox News, November 21, 2003). andreasegde 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this article necessary?
It seems to me to be a repository of unfounded speculation and original research. Very few of the claims in the article is cited, and thus violates WP:Verify. It appears that this article was born as a result of a fork from the original JFK assassination article. If citations cannot be found for the assertions in this article that need them, I suggest deleting the information or perhaps the article. Ramsquire 19:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can´t believe that you wrote that, Ramsquire. I´m shocked. If it had been some casual passer-by, I would have understood. The whole reason this article was created was to keep theories off the Kennedy page (ask Gamaliel, he knows.) You have contributed heavily (sorry I was wrong, but see below...) to the talk page, which makes me confused. Why the sudden change of mind? Yours, sincerely, andreasegde 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be shocked, it just my thoughts on the matter. Yesterday was the first time I've checked this page.  I've never been on this talk page.  You can read through my contributions to see that.  I was around when there was a discussion about creating this page but was told that it was content forking, which is not allowed.  Now I see that a lot of the information here is unverified, as well as some really innaccurate information, and wonder if this page is necessary-- meaning, can this page ever be wikified. Ramsquire 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Yesterday was the first time I've checked this page." Interesting.


 * Article contributions: 21:42, 17 August 2006 Ramsquire (Talk | contribs) m (→Two shooters) Six times on the August 17, in all
 * 20:42, 10 July 2006 Ramsquire (Talk | contribs) (→The House Select Committee on Assassinations - accurate description of the HSCA findings) The first time? andreasegde 20:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Was August 17, 2006 not yesterday? Um, instead of insinuating I am a liar, why don't you read what I wrote? I said that yesterday was the first time I checked this page, meaning read through the whole article. It was. The HSCA fix was something I did when I noticed that someone kept misrepresenting the findings throughout Wiki. So I went to all possible pages where HSCA was listed and fixed it. Forgive me for not remembering that I did a spot check here two months ago. And your statement was that I contributed heavily, which you now admit was wrong. Also, I've been here for two years, and have edits from yesterday and a minor edit two months ago. Doesn't that say something. Ramsquire 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 10 July 2006. That wasn´t yesterday. You contributed. I will (of course, Ramsquire) accept what you say. My only thoughts are these: Why are you so angry? You´re a good editor, and we have worked together. I don´t understand. andreasegde 21:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not angry. I'm really not. I'm just explaining that I am a "casual passerby" to this page (and I was not impressed the first time I checked it out-- no reflection on you btw, don't take offense).  If you call the one sentence change I did in July contributing, then yes I contributed.  But honestly, I don't even remember it.  I meant seriously reading the article and trying to improve it when I said checked in. I should have been more clear. Ramsquire 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okey-dokey - no problem, Ramsquire :) Anyway; I also believe that some of the theories are too "left-field" (and I cut out one or two out because of their absurdity) but if we delete the whole page then someone is bound to come along in the future and want to create a new one. If 70% of Americans think there was a conspiracy, then there should be somewhere for them to express that, don´t you think? andreasegde 13:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It´s a forking problem
BTW-- How did this page survive the content forking prohibition? Ramsquire 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure what content forking prohibition you're talking about. One of the primary ways Wikipedia grows naturally, is by splitting out sub articles as "main articles" whenever primary articles get too large, like hydrogen economy in hydrogen and magnesium in biology in magnesium. To argue that this shouldn't happen is to suggest that there's some other way to write a giant encylopedia, but I submit that the only other way to do it would be to start with an outline of all human knowledge and the title of every single wiki, put them all out there as stubs, and start on every topic, general to specific, at the same time. Maybe that's how they write the Britannica, but the mind boggles at having to do it with a work that has 1.4 million English entries. In any case, that's now how it was done, and that's now how it's ever going to BE done, for Wikipedia. S  B Harris 22:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well maybe "prohibition" is a bit strong but the policy discouraging forks is WP:POVFORK. I just find it interesting this article even exists because when I once suggested either creating it or placing some info in an article like this, it was opposed by the more conspiracy oriented editors as a content fork (and attempting to delete significant viewpoints). Ramsquire 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was an RPJ rant. But criticism articles really are required sometimes (here's a great example) and often they create clutter if all the separate objections to an idea are left in place. The general rule is that the minority views can be collected as a subarticle, so long as care is taken to treat them as a subarticle by somehow summarizing them in the main article (this does not have to be exhaustive), and vice versa, which probably we should be careful to do in the main JFK assassination article. And so long as rebuttal on both sides is a part of both articles, which I hope we've accomplished here by having a good section on the one-shooter WC view in the JFK assassination theories article, and mentioning that other views than the WC's exist, in the main article. In line with Wikipedia's semi-policy of assuming good faith, the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available. And the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article. I know I'm going to get flack for pushing so heavily for the WC view even in light of the fact that supposedly it's not the most popular view among the general public. Unfortunately, the general public's view is not informed, and is warped by the slick Oliver Stone JFK, which no movie producer is going to spend as much money to rebutt with a movie which is true to facts as we know them; plus the HSCA shocker with the dictabelt, which got way more airtime than ITS rebuttal, later. All of this being symptomatic of one of the problems which drives WP:V toward untruthfullness, which is that TRUTH is quite often dull and not very entertaining, and sometimes it's hard to find spokespeople for it. Jimbo Wales thinks that if something is true it should have plenty of citable supporters, but sometimes that's just not the case. If Posner's book had been called LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID IT, which was a fairer title, it wouldn't have sold. S  B Harris 00:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that´s a very catchy title. I wonder what they did with the bath tub? "FOR SALE - one slightly used (but clean) bath tub, as used by Mr. O.H.Lee". andreasegde 13:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Books Section
Please add the ISBN numbers for said books. They can be found on Amazon.com. Ramsquire 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was secretly hoping that someone else would do that... :) andreasegde 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * lolRamsquire 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bugger (laughter) you got me there... :) Anybody else out there willing to sacrifice a bit of time? andreasegde 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Many conclude - believe - have said
"(→Background - oh please - you don't need to cite the obvious)" - Gamaliel.

"The accuracy of the dictabelt analysis (and thus the HSCA's conclusions) have been called into question and many conclude that the recording is not actually of the assassination. ". ("Citation needed" was deleted.)

I see nothing wrong with asking for a citation. Phrases like "many conclude/believe/think", and "it has been said/reported" are definitely in need of a citation. Any comments? andreasegde 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is one of those "general knowledge" debates. Under that policy, a citation is not needed, however, a better objection is that it violates the guidelines of trying not to use weasel words or phrases. Ramsquire 16:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly right, Sir Ramsquire.


 * I put a few "citations needed" on other sentences, and have not seen any being put in - and we have waited for a quite a while... I think the sentences that have not been cited should be deleted, which I will now do. (Ouch!) andreasegde 17:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No citations
I have cut out a lot of comments that needed citations. It is not enough to put "was reported" with no citation. We are here to report verifiable sources, and not to put forward our POVs. I know it´s boring to copy citations in, but it is the rule. Sorry to anyone that disagrees, but your edits would still be there if you had put a citation in. andreasegde 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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

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


 * There aren't any photos from Dallas of sufficient quality to show anything like absense of such a wound (a triangular scalp flap which barely extends past the hairline over the eye, and might be the forward-most extent of the very large scalp flap wound seen in the Z. film). As for a casket switch on a 1.5 hour flight, while Jackie Kennedy is sitting there watching you in the back of the airplane in the president's section, that's a neat trick. Maybe a quick swicheroo when she had to go the little girl's room? But what would the point be? Oh, I know. You're up to your wrists in gore, getting bullets out of the president's head. Hoping Jackie powders her nose long enough. Since otherwise it's hard to explain what you're doing. "Ah, hi, Ms. Kennedy. Just tidying up, here..." But why change caskets while you're up to this? Don't you have enough problems?  S  B Harris 01:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. O´Connor would not agree with you - no Sir-ee-bob.

andreasegde 14:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * Yes. Generally duplication theories are a sign of paranoid thinking. Hence two Oswalds, two rifles, two caskets, two shooters, 2 sets of different wounds in Dallas and Bethesda, a second bullet trailing lead after the magic one, etc, etc. Two JFK brains. One of Garrison's top witnesses  was a guy named Speisel who thought people were trying to control his thoughts, and who required fingerprinting of his daughter everytime she came back from college, in case she'd been replaced by a double. Riiight. We have two sets of curtain rods. Two rifle bags for Oswald-- a short one he carried, and a longer one they found in the depository. For a paranoid person there is no such thing as human error. If two witnesses do not agree, it is because somebody possessed of incredible skill and evil intent, actually set things up with a second sham. The problem, unfortunately, being that this is generally not the way the universe works. Laboratory tests of witness testimony of set-up events under totally controlled circumstances shows that it is NORMAL for witnesses of the same event to disagree as to what they have seen. But if somebody posits duplication conspiracies for every time we get conflicting testimonies, we'd have duplication conspiracies for every single major crime. Which, by the way, we do. Since there are always a significant number of totally paranoid people. Did you know the World Trade Centers weren't just knocked down by jets? No, it took a second set of previously planted duplicate explosives, fired off with split second timing, to do the job.  S  B Harris 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Look again: three colors. S  B Harris 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


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


 * No. And 7-color rainbows is too many. And do turn off the Edgar Guest cant; it's getting really old. Gayly Yrs, S B H a r  r  i  s   S  B  H  a  r  r i s

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


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


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


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

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

Two shooters removal
Removed the following from Two shooters:


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


 * Several of the Bethesda autopsy photos are now missing.

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


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


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


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

Removed the following:


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

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


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


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


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

Rifle discussion

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


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


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


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


 * Hmmm... I have been reliably informed (as we always are in these cases) that the first shot is always the best. If he only had a few seconds (with an old rifle sighted for a left-handed person) his first shot would always be better. This is one of the strangest things about the whole scenario. Maybe he struck lucky, as they say... andreasegde 23:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Both the Gov. and his wife were adamant that JFK was struck by the first shot, and the Gov. by the second. And since the rifle's scope wasn't properly sighted, those would be some lucky shots indeed.
 * As for waiting for a good target opportunity, why would Oswald not shoot when the car was on Houston, with the target growing larger in his sight, moving in a straight line, on a flat plane, with speed decreasing to make the turn? Instead he chose to shoot while the car was on Elm, where had would have to wait for it to emerge from the tree blockage, and where it would then be getting smaller in his sight, increasing speed, and moving on a curve and on a downward plane. Makes no sense in a one-shooter scenario. Joegoodfriend 19:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, since we're speculating here, the Houston shot may be more difficult because the angle of the shot is decreasing as Kennedy approaches the TSBD.  Leading to more downward shot and at some point Kennedy disappearing entirely.  Also, he would have had all the secret service men in the motorcade looking directly at him on Houston.  It could have spooked him on trying the shots in that scenario. Ramsquire
 * Also allowing the target (and Secret Service) to see you setup your shot isn't a good sniping tactic. As to the rifle not being properly sighted; I cannot understand that point. In who's opinion? As far as I'm concerned it's been rigorously established Oswald got some time prior to the assassination. Do you think he just looked at it and decided not to sight it? It simply doesn't make sense to assert this despite the FBI testing; it does not establish Oswalds familiarity with the weapon. - RoyBoy 800 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The rifle needed metal shims placed under the telescopic sight before the Army testing laboratory could determine the weapon's accuracy. The metal shims had to be used because the telescopic sight was so unrelated to the rifle's line of fire, and so inexpertly attached, that it could not even be adjusted. Also, there is no record of Oswald having practiced with the rifle. Furthermore, the evidence before the Warren Commission precludes, in many opinions, the possibility that Oswald had enough time to assemble the rifle and the 24 fifty-pound boxes that composed the sniper's nest. Joegoodfriend 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Oswald an Army testing laboratory? No, and the condition they received it in isn't necessarily the condition Oswald used it under. Why the hell would there be a record of Oswald practicing with it? (which there is, kind of, consult Frontline's: Who is Lee Harvey Oswald?) If Oswald knew about the President's visit I imagine he could have assembled the nest ahead of time; and/or some/many of the boxes where in or close to the proper position. To sum up and repeat, none of this establishes Oswald's familiarity with the weapon; practice makes perfect... even with poorly assembled rifles. - RoyBoy 800 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The rifle was found carefully slipped between two tall stacks of boxes. There is no reason to believe that the scope could have gone from 'sighted' to 'not capable of being sighted' between the shooting and the tests due to mishandling, and again, in any case, the rifle could not be sighted without the shims. Also, considering that Oswald is supposed to have assembled the rifle moments before the shooting, he would have had no opportunity to sight it anyway. As for your question of there being a record of Oswald's having practiced with the rifle, the FBI spent hundreds (thousands?) of man hours documenting Oswald's every movement and contact between his return to the US and the shooting, looking for any scrap that would help convict him in the eyes of the public. How could Oswald be a crack shot with a poor weapon with which he did not practice?
 * Regarding Oswald's ability to assemble the sniper's nest ahead of time: The 6th floor was under constant use and construction during the days before the shooting. Not even the Warren Commission had the audacity to suggest that Oswald had assembled a nest of 2 dozen fifty-pound boxes days ahead of time without anyone noticing. Joegoodfriend 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there was little traffic on the 6th floor. Due to the books people on the sixth floor could not see the rest of it (although Charles Givens did see Oswald there 35 minutes before the assassination, acting "suspiciously." Oswald had every reason to be on that floor. A few feet from the rifle in the northwest corner, Oswald's clipboard was found, with book orders for Nov.22. For books on the 6th floor. Which were never filled. So if Oswald was supposed to be on the 6th floor filling orders for books there, and spent several hours NOT doing that on the AM of Nov.22, just what WAS he doing up there? Hmmm?  S  B Harris 07:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would it have to be "days ahead of time" and why does it matter if someone saw/noticed the boxes were stacked weird? Perhaps someone did notice, but didn't care; I certainly wouldn't care. And there are several blatant contradictions (depending on which conspiracy you feel is most likely) with the FBI surveillance factoid; which even if entirely true does not mean he was under consistent surveillance during the crucial time period(s) of his purchase of the weapon, his trips to Mexico (where he was watched) and New Orleans (where he wasn't, officially at least) and his setup for the assassination of (arguably) the most powerful man in the world. Oh yeah, and don't forget his failed assassination attempt on an anti-communist General, the FBI didn't catch that one too. LOL... that indicates to me he could get some private practice in; moreover a miss would provide obvious impetus for practice. Watch the documentary if you haven't already, its a good one. As to the shims, keep in mind when you get lemons, the driven person turns it into lemonade. Meaning, there could be a way to hold the rifle which makes it adequately sighted; the laboratory doing it the "right way" by no means makes it the only way. - RoyBoy 800 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "there could be a way to hold the rifle which makes it adequately sighted" Um, how would Oswald have known this magic way to hold the rifle considering that he has just assembled it on the spot, and thus would have no idea how far off the sight would be? Point two, you guys are staking out some interesting new territory as historians. According to the Warren Report, and even to the partron saint of Warren believers, Gerald Posner, Oswald DID assemble the sniper's nest and the rifle in the few minutes before the shooting. Of course Warren chose to ignore its own testimony that numerous people saw Oswald as late as 12:20 on the lower floors (5 minutes before the scheduled motorcade) and one person was on the 6th floor between noon and 12:20 and did not see Oswald. Joegoodfriend 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, by practicing the optimum assembly and position beforehand. I don't think it too much to think a trained sniper know his rifle before using it. I have no idea what you are getting at with 12:20 testimony, so he waited until the time was right and/or that last person went to lunch, at... wait for it, 12:20. If I were a sniper, I'd select a floor that should be vacated at the appropriate time and try and ensure the floor is empty before I did my snipin. Let me clarify something for ya, there is absolutely nothing to indicate it was difficult for one person to assemble (and perhaps hide a rifle) and then finish a nest in time. Oswald worked there, he was comfortable lifting boxes. In my younger (smaller) years I helped with library book sales, its not particularly hard... going up and down stairs; now that sucks. - RoyBoy 800 20:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Warren Hearings, B.R. Williams was alone, eating his lunch on the 6th fl. and left at 12:20pm (3H 173). The remains of his lunch were found, and were initially believed to have belonged to Oswald. So now you have Oswald trying desperately to assemble everything in the last seconds before the motorcade arrived. Are you not aware of the testimony of multiple persons outside the building who saw a man with a rifle waiting coolly several minutes before the motorcade arrived?
 * If you would describe Oswald as a trained sniper who practiced with the Cacarno, you must know something about the facts I don't. Regarding the inaccurate rifle, the position of Warren believers is something which I just cannot understand. The scope was inaccurate. The degree of inaccuracy would vary somewhat every time the rifle was disassembled and reassembled. The suggestion is that Oswald was able to guess the degree of inaccuracy, point the rifle at somewhere other than his target, and somehow pull off two accurate shots in three tries in a few seconds, with a poor weapon at a target that was getting smaller in his sight, as well as changing its speed, direction and angle of descent. This is a miracle that makes the parting of the Red Sea look mundane. You're prepared to question Warren's interpretation of the evidence, but never its conclusions. That also makes no sense to me. Joegoodfriend 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't a problem really, the WC found the rifle to be accurate. Actually one of the tester's described it as "quite accurate".  Therefore, a Warren believer would not believe the scope was innaccurate, as you do. They'd believe the scope aided in the overall accuracy of the weapon as the WC states.  Here's something else about the Warren report-- according to it, Oswald was sighted on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the assassination by Charles Givins. This testimony is weird when one considers B.Williams testimony of eating lunch until 12:20 and not seeing anyone.  Maybe Oswald was in the sniper's nest all that time waiting for Williams to leave, or planned to shoot Williams on his escape.  Who knows? Ramsquire 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Williams didn't see Givens either. That was the nature of the place. I would presume that all these people arguing about the 6th Floor, have been there, as I have? The 6th Floor Museum exists today, and it's clear the 6th floor is a broad flat musty place, and would not have been well-lit except for windows along one side, full of close supporting pillars, and when filled with stacks of cardboard boxes, it would have been a large maze. Big enough for several people to hang out there, and not see each other. Oswald's little corner of it, far away from everything else, and which which BTW still exists in pristine condition, original boxes and all (now all behind plexiglass, of course) consists of a few boxes to support the rifle, but mainly of stacks of boxes to hide Oswald's corner from view of other parts of the floor (not that other parts of the floor didn't have many stacks of boxes and pillar to hide it from view of many other parts). I cannot over-emphasize how much of a warehouse maze this place must have been. Oswald could have assembled his rifle there and left it here assembled in the corner at any time that morning. And he could have moved the boxes that made up the snipers nest at leasure, since moving those precise boxes is what his work order said he was supposed to be doing (apparently he lifted the clipboard from somebody else who was supposed to be moving those texts that morning). In any case, the boxes were being moved, but significantly, they were weren't going downstairs as the work order said they should have been. And as noted, the rifle could have been put together and put on the floor under the paper making up the bag, anytime. No reason for Oswald to do a scramble for ANY of this in the last few minutes. Oswald had nothing to do the last 10 minutes but get to his corner, pick up his rifle off the floor, and wait. Basically, so far as I can see, Oswald did nothing at all that morning but avoid other employees (mostly), assemble the 6th floor corner stacks of boxes, and put the rifle together, all probably in spurts of work which looked just like his normal work (except of course for the rifle, but that work would have been left until the boxes in the corner got high enough that Oswald could sit in the corner behind them, and do work while not being seen). S  B Harris 17:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been there, done that. And it is as you have described it.  This is totally, off topic, but did you ever try to imitate the shot of badgeman from behind the picket fence?  When I tried it, I made a very interesting discovery. Ramsquire 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, what'd you find? I've stood out on Zapruder's pergola pedestal, of course, but the fence as you know has no gate or hole in it, so it looked to me as though you really had to go around it somehow to get in back, or maybe start out in the TBDB parking lot, so it never occured to me to try it. I did go over and look over it, into the TBDB parking lot (trainyard in those days).  S  B Harris 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. The WC believed the rifle to be accurate WHEN SIGHTED. According to the FBI, the rifle was unable to be "sighted-in", using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing.
 * 2. "a Warren believer would not believe the scope was innaccurate" Untrue. The editor clearly believes that Oswald could have simply conpensated for the innaccurate scope by firing off target. Furthermore, some have gone so far to say that the inaccurate scope may have actually made it easier for Oswald. Haven't you read McAdams' stuff?: "if it had been misaligned before the assassination, (it) may have aided Oswald in hitting JFK".
 * I'm playing devil's advocate here. You said "the position of Warren believers is something which [you] just cannot understand."   Well, the WC found the weapon accurate.  Therefore a WC believer, as you termed it, would also believe the weapon accurate when Oswald was assassinating Kennedy.  I'm not arguing the facts of the case. Ramsquire 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. Of course Oswald was seen 35 minutes before the shooting on the 6th floor, that would be at 11:55, just before they knocked off for lunch. Williams left at noon, came right back and saw no one there. As for Oswald being there the whole time, that contradicts the people who sighted Oswald on the lower floors between noon and 12:20, and suggets that Oswald could assemble the rifle in the sniper's nest without being heard, which I seriously doubt. Joegoodfriend 00:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As quiet as the sixth floor seemed; I simply can't agree with that and find such a notion based on an offhand observation of a particular instant (being very quiet) unconvincing. Plaster falling on your head from the 3 shots you do hear from above is convincing. As to the timeline, that is intriguing; but my understanding is the timing cannot be exact nor synchronized with a degree of certainty of Oswald's and the motorcades movements, AND the quietness observation. Meaning there is a gray area of 5 minutes or more, that is more than enough time to assemble the nest and lay in wait; assuming it needed significant assembly (Oswald may have started it before noon, then finished it after 12:20? Did the lunch guy make note of the nest or not?). Given Oswald understands the acoustics of the building, he would intuitively understand how much noise he could make without arousing suspicion... further I doubt everyone was on the fifth floor just waiting around; I imagine they were walking and talking and making noise of their own. Besides, snipers tend to do their jobs quietly. - RoyBoy 800 01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, and thanks for a good debate. Now for a really interesting argument, sometime we'll have to do Oswald's movements right after the shooting. Joegoodfriend 13:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe, indeed. - RoyBoy 800 20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

Which section?

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


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

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


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


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

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


 * ''====Military-Industrial Complex conspiracy====


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/300806jfk.htm

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Explanation
Here is Wiki's policy on primary sources:


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramsquire 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly right. Three or four can be verified (without a doubt) but Ramsquire is totally correct to delete them as no citations were forthcoming. Well done.To any editors that disagree: Cite the references and then they will be most welcome. (I have also been guilty at times of being lazy and not putting citations/references in, so you are not alone...) andreasegde 18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To the Judith Campbell Exner edit, I added a verification tag because we need to be sure it was a BBC documentary and not simply the BBC replaying someone else's documentary and we also need a 3rd party source that Exner was in fact a Kennedy mistress. We can also fix that problem by saying that Exner claims she was a Kennedy mistress with a cite to her claim.Ramsquire 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have it on video (four 40 min. episodes). I have sent an e-mail to the BBC asking for more information. andreasegde 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have put the relevant links in. --andreasegde 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also deleted
Also deleted, for the same reason above:

Ramsquire 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kennedy was thought to have been killed so to preserve the status-quo of the ongoing Cold War (i.e. instead of a "hot war", WWIII &mdash;direct nuclear war with the Soviets).
 * Kennedy's inexperience, and hesitance, was believed by some to be the cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
 * Jack Ruby had grown up working for Mafia leader Al Capone in Chicago.   Ramsquire 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Dealey Plaza
''I've been there, done that. And it is as you have described it. This is totally, off topic, but did you ever try to imitate the shot of badgeman from behind the picket fence? When I tried it, I made a very interesting discovery. Ramsquire 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, what'd you find? I've stood out on Zapruder's pergola pedestal, of course, but the fence as you know has no gate or hole in it, so it looked to me as though you really had to go around it somehow to get in back, or maybe start out in the TBDB parking lot, so it never occured to me to try it. I did go over and look over it, into the TBDB parking lot (trainyard in those days).  S  B Harris 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)''

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


 * Interesting. I've seen an analysis of how big badgeman had to be in the Moorman photo, and his torso size gives him a height of about 4 feet. A midget. So it would have had to be a pretty big milk crate, with Mini Me on top. Yes the sewer is right out. Not only cramped, but no shot through the side of the car (or the windscreen if taken way before that). And there are not connections down there a man could get through. You can get into the curb sewer drain on Elm and hide, but you have to get out the same place you got in. I think somebody would notice, unless you were prepared to stay down there all day with a black cloth over you and your fingers crossed. I guess if somebody stole the Stemons sign that night, sometime could have gotten out of the sewer. Had there been a shot there. S  B Harris 07:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No criticism here, just a couple of FYI's. Before drawing any conclusions where the fence in involved, be aware that the fence at the site now is a replica which may or may not be very similar to the original. Also, there are two sewer theories. One involves the curbside drain near the grassy knoll, the other involves the (now gone) sewer holes that were on the triple underpass. H.E. Livingstone (High Treason) has his assassin(s) popping up from the later. Joegoodfriend 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The fence was not blocking the shot, the wall just to the right of Zapruder (or I guess south in this rendering) blocks your shot (or more accurately, the shot of an average person). I never heard of Livingstone's theory, it's interesting.  One note though, I guessed you meant under the underpass, because there couldn't be sewers on it. Ramsquire 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Because, if he really was on the roof, (with a rifle for security) he could have been the second shooter. I put the piece in to show that even though a Dallas police chief believes he was there, his own testimony says otherwise. It´s the kind of thing that theories are made of, even though it´s not true. I didn´t put in that a reporter asked him at the time if he had shot the President, to which he replied, "You son of a bitch, I kill lots of people...". That´s petrol on the fire.
 * It doesn´t have to be a theory, but rather the debunking of one.andreasegde 10:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

References in Fiction
Is there a reason why the comment made in the movie "Zoolander" isn't mentioned in "References in Fiction"? I wasn't sure if it was because it was too minor a comment in the film, or what, so I didnt' bother editing it to add. Moterola 10:13 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Be Bold. Fix it, if you want to. --andreasegde 17:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

RPJ 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Files made the comments himself, and on film, so how can it be unreliable? It's amazing that when Oswald said that he was a "patsy", it was considered unreliable (and he was lying) but when Files admitted that he was there, it is also considered unreliable. Wonders will never cease....--andreasegde 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My statement was regarding the source of the information. It is the webpage which I consider unreliable for a report of this magnitude regarding a living person, as per the rules at WP:BLP. Gamaliel 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is the living person to which you refer? RPJ 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the James Files article, James Files is still alive. Gamaliel 20:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But, James Files is the one making the statements to the researcher about the dead Mafia figures. If the Mafia figures were still alive then you possibly might have something to consider.Please revert your deletion.Thank you RPJ 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the dead Mafia dons. I'm talking about Files' supposed confession.  For us to say that this man confessed to killing JFK requires a better source for his confession than some Belgian conspiracy website. Gamaliel 21:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you say "supposed" confession? This means that it is open to debate, or doubt, but that is defintely not the case. I think you mean that he "supposedly" killed Kennedy. Check your syntax.

Check these sites, instead of some "Belgian" sites (a bit of racism there, from you, I think): ,, , , ,. --andreasegde 22:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)