Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 2

Deletion of Files confession
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)

Didn't Files write a book confessing for this? Or am I mistaken him for someone else? Ramsquire 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If he did, let's cite the book and then the material can be restored to the article. Gamaliel 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * After some cursory research, the confession is part of a documentary called "The Murder of JFK: Confession of an Assassin". Amazon.com has it on VHS, but there is no book.  I figure if we give it the same treatment we gave the ABC documentary on the JFK assassination page, then it can be re-inserted into the article. (Note to other editors-- the best way to get info into the article is to get reliable sources and cite them accurately.  Not to question the motives of other editors or cry foul.  This issue could have been solved two days ago with a little research.) Ramsquire 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well put. All that had to be done to put an end to this matter would be to say "He put out a video" instead of attacking me. Gamaliel 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Try these:,,,. Some are for, against, and neutral. The piece about Files should go back in. --andreasegde 20:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One is a bio of Daankbar and is irrelevant to proper sourcing re: James Files. Two and three probably don't meet the standards of WP:RS, and four is a link to purchase the documentary and shouldn't be used in any Wiki article. Ramsquire 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Daankbar interviewed Files. Since when was Spartacus irrelevant? I have seen it cited lots of times. What about this?  --andreasegde 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please re-read what I wrote, I made no judgments about spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk's bio of Daankbar. However, said bio of Daankbar is not relevant to Files.  Ramsquire 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Daankbar piece mentions Files in the article. --andreasegde 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See below. Ramsquire 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the Files info. JFKmurdersolved.com should be viewed with skepticism since it appears to be a promotional page for Daankbar's investigation, books, and videos. Look for corroboration from other sites if you are using information found here. That comcast.net link is not a reliable source for anything at Wiki. It is a collection of emails between two people. Ramsquire 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting that they should be taken as gospel (the truth) - they were only links. I (personally) don't believe Files, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't go in. The problem is that theories today are more often on the Internet, or DVDs, rather than in books. Sad, but true. --andreasegde 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how you want it taken, you still have to use WP:RS as a guide as to what to put in the article. The policy explicitly states that just because something is on the Internet does not mean it can be used in Wiki articles.  The policy requests that editors do more research to see if it is corroborated by other more reliable sources.  For example, if you found a Guardian or NY Times article summarizing the Files situation, that would be fine.  However, jfkmurdersolved.com is not reliable for the reasons listed above. Also, part of WP:RS says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (or sourcing), not to mention WP:BLP... basically what I'm saying is that you'd really need a top knotch source for said information if there was no VHS tape. Ramsquire 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "a promotional page for Daankbar's investigation, books, and videos." Sorry, but Wikipedia (with in-line references from books, etc.) promotes books, and videos --andreasegde 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes and References section
This article does not comply with the standards required by Wikipedia. --andreasegde 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, they technically do not. And I think I mentioned that when I first got here. Ramsquire 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More Than One Shooter
What is the source for the statement that the ASHTRAY was damaged? This is news to me. The FBI's Robert Frazier examined the entire limo and reported no such damage.Saskcitation 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Here is the section of Frazier's testimony:
 * Mr. Specter: Mr. Frazier, have you now described all of your findings on the windshield of the Presidential limousine?
 * Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; that is concerning the glass itself and not the molding around the windshield.
 * Mr. Specter. Will you then move to the molding around the windshield and state what, if anything, you found there?
 * Mr. Frazier. On the strip of chrome which goes across the top of the windshield and again on the passenger side of the windshield or the inside surface, I found a dent in the chrome which had been caused by some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface. . ..
 * Mr. Specter. Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?
 * Mr. Frazier. No, sir.
 * — Walloon 05:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

James Files
This article has been redirected here after AFD. If anything can be merged from the original article please use it. Yomangani talk 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack M Oliphant Theory
Jack was the CIA operative responsible for Lee Harvey Oswald and possibly Jack Ruby as well. While he was living he told many his story with great details corroborated by surveillance reports with his signature on them in the CIA archives.

Who is Michael O'Dell?
The article cites to Michael O'Dell who has opinions on scientific accoustic matters. Someone put in his opinions to refute scientists who believe that accoustic evidence supports dozens of witness' testimony that there were two shooters.

RPJ 06:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What was the "bogus POV" that was deleted?
Revision as of 23:46, 17 October 2006 (edit)by Ramsquire "took out bogus POV info."


 * Could Ramsquire quote the words that he believes are "bogus POV" that was among the many things he deleted?


 * Could Ramsquire explain what he means by "bogus POV" that gives him the right to delete inofrmation from an article?

RPJ 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure,, but for the record, I did a general cleanup, wikilinked to another article, and took out bogus POV info. I'm sorry I couldn't be more specific but there is limited space in the edit summary.  The bogus POV info was:


 * The American government still refuses to release the medical evidence that would solve many of the questions on whether there was a conspiracy


 * I reverted it because a) it was unsourced (I should have put it on the talk page. I apologize for not doing so) b) it is the editor's opinion (POV) that the government still refuses to release, instead of simply haven't released the info c) since no one knows what these records would say, it is Original research and also POV to say it would solve many of the questions on whether there was a conspiracy.Ramsquire 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Harry Weatherford
The following has been reverted by me:

In 1963, Jim Bowles was a D.P.D. sergeant. He was later promoted to Dallas Sheriff (Chief of Police). He was asked if he knew about Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford waiting on the roof of a building near the assassination site with a rifle. - Bowles replied: “Yes, Harry Weatherford was on the roof with a second deputy, and he had a rifle. They were assigned there for security. My first recollection of the suggestion that Weatherford might have been implicated was from the imagination of Penn Jones who, so far as I know, never worried about the other deputy. It would seem strange that a hit man would be stationed with a living witness. It does not fit reason.” -   - A reporter asked Weatherford shortly after the assassination if he had shot the President. Weatherford replied, "You son of a bitch, I kill lots of people". -   - Harry Weatherford told a different story: " I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office watching the Presidential Motorcade. The President's car had passed my location a couple of minutes when I heard a loud report which I thought was a railroad torpedo, as it sounded as if it came from the railroad yard." -   - "I heard a 2nd report which had more of an echo report and thought to myself, that this was a rifle and I started toward the corner when I heard the 3rd report. By this time I was running towards the railroad yards where the sound seemed to come from. I got with Deputy Allan Sweatt and was searching the tracks and cars, etc, then someone said the shots came from above."

I reverted it firstly because of WP:BLP concerns. I am not sure that all the persons mentioned in this blurb are dead. If they are not, then we would need sources of the highest order to allow this stuff in. Secondly, if they are dead, we would still need sources, especially for the quotes, from a reliable publisher. If both concerns are met, I'll have no problem putting it back into the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A definite improvement!
Last time I checked the articles regarding the assassination of JFK things were leaning a lot towards the official version as given in the statement of the Warren commission. This was also included in the article John F. Kennedy assassination It is no more. And it's good it isn't. There is nothing but theories around Kennedy's assassination. One of them is the conclusion of the Warren commission, others include a second gunman in that park at the other side. I think the solution found here is the very best. Thank you very much! This is IT! ;) --Maxl 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some idea that there's a cabal out there to suppress "truth" or "alternate points of view" on the JFK assassination. Far from it. This wiki was created as a way to satisfy those who want to summarize other ideas than those from the 3 mainstream commissions. So why are editors sticky,in the JFK assassination article itself, about summarizing mainly just the findings from the 3 main government commissions? Or in Lee Harvey Oswald's bio, or in the JFK autopsy? Because these government reports are were massive efforts, covering 50 volumes and at least hundreds of thousands of man-hours, on the basis of massive evidence available first hand to law enforcement and nowhere else. Other theories rely on what somebody's conspiracy book said somebody said, and they don't agree with each other (whereas the government reports basically do, with some mistakes corrected later on). It's just not the same quality in the both types of evidence, so one side needs to be mainly presented. *I* personally don't give a damn if two people shot JFK at the same time. If all three major commissions had concluded THAT, I'd be insisting THAT be the summarized view in the main assassination article.  But that's not how it turned out.  S  B Harris 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the editor's point. I'm glad the article on Earth doesn't even mention the theory that the planet is only 6000 years old, though undoubtedly there are those who believe the idea should get "equal" coverage.
 * On the other hand, I had to snicker at the wording of the justification, "these government reports were massive efforts... at least hundreds of thousands of man-hours, on the basis of massive evidence available first hand to law enforcement and nowhere else."
 * Buddy, you just described exactly the way the Bush administration framed its supposed slam-dunk evidence for WMD. Joegoodfriend 16:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah. They may have tried to frame it that way, but unfortunately they didn't have 50 volumes of sworn tesitmony by real, named persons, along with multiple physical science analyses (financial, handwriting, fingerprinting, balistics matching, neutron analysis, photo analysis, computer trajectory analysis, autospy data) with hard and still-extant physical evidence to back them up, and literally a hundred or so previously-recognized experts in their fields going on-record to stand by these conclusions. Let me know when they do. Colin Powell, who did go on record, doesn't count as an expert on anything regarding WMD. See Iraq disarmament crisis. He's since left. I also see a CIA director fired over using stuff like what he used (there's nobody to fire Bush but the US public-- we failed). To back the Bush claim, I see things like uranium yellowcake allegations based on little more than rumor mills, including stuff in the London Times. I see the biological factory evidence coming from a SINGLE still-unnamed source called Curveball (informant) who even his handlers didn't trust. And let me see--- since the anonymous photo analysts aren't around to defend their (now known to be wrong interpretations of photos), and as against the thousand page indicies of the various JFK commissions, I see ONE real piece of physical evidence in the Iraq argument. An alumimum tube that everybody was told couldn't have been used for rocket research and had only one use: uranium enrichment. Somebody said they thought so. No expert anaysis or testimony to back this up, alas. Had the Bush administration ever shown the dang thing to even ONE guy at Los Alamos who actually knew anything about gas enrichment (as was later done after we were at war with Iraq), they'd have been put straight (yeah, it was a rocket tube). But they didn't bother. Would have taken them HOURS, maybe DAYS to find the government experts on this matter, who were already on the payroll. But no. So there's really no comparison of the levels of evidence here, or the investigation levels of competence, no matter what Bush or his flunkies said. By contrast, the JFK assassination, overall and not withstanding its many initial errors, is the most carefully and authoritatively and thoroughly investigated single-homicide in history. Before 1964 or since. After 4 decades it stands up well. The Bush evidence has already made him a well, target for humor. The magic bullet is no longer humorous as the rocket tubes. That's how you know.  S  B Harris 11:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But you know perfectly well that the WC's conclusions were not based on the witness testimony it heard and the expert analysis it received. It conclusions were in spite of this testimony and analysis. The WC heard from an entire battery of doctors who said the single bullet theory was not possible, but chose to go with it anyway. Ditto the ballistics tests, which produced mashed bullets, not pristine ones like CE399. Numerous witnesses spoke of seeing Oswald on the lower-floors of SBD between 12:00-12:30, they were ignored. Corroborated testimony that Oswald had anti-Castro associates was heard and ignored. Numerous corroborated Oswald imposter sightings were heard and ignored. So were the people who saw Oswald come to work on 11/22 and who said his paper bag was too small to hold the rifle, and he didn't bring it into the SBD anyway. The record clearly demonstrated that the Tippit shooting took place at 1:10 or earlier (thus Oswald couldn’t have made it jogging from his place at 1:04), this was ignored.
 * The WC worked just like the WMD framing: Start with the conclusion and make it stick any way you can. Joegoodfriend 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true. They were prepared to find that two bullets injured Connally and Kennedy, until they discovered the Tague wounding.  So there was some flexibility in the how if not the who.  But yes, they never really considered a conspiracy as seriously as perhaps they should have done.  Once they WC found out about the Tague shooting, they could have more thoroughly investigated the possibility of a second shooter, instead they went to a single bullet theory.  Another issue I have with the WC, if true, is how were they able to make any concrete findings if they never had the photos of the autopsy until after their report was made?Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

New Polling Data
(Will be posted on related articles talk pages as well) I imagine with the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination approaching, there will be some newer scientific polling data available. If anyone comes across said polls, can they update the sections which rely on the 2003 poll? Thanks. I'll have my eyes peeled as well. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cui bono
The point is, who would gain from JFK's death when setting off a smear campaign would be more effective and have less comeback. Jackiespeel 17:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Connally
His wife's - and very definite - statement about her experience has been deleted. This is to be expected, I suppose. --andreasegde 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, now it's in. Joegoodfriend 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Joe. --andreasegde 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced article tag
Anyone have any objections to removing the unsourced article tag from this article? Everything in it is sourced. Joegoodfriend 19:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and remove it. I was wondering why it was there.  The source problem have been handled for a while now. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Any opinion on the NPOV/accuracy dispute tag? Why is it there? Joegoodfriend 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I added that tag when the page didn't have any sources. Since the sources have been added, I like keeping it there as some sort of "Wikipedia disclaimer" letting readers know that these are just hypotheses, and that the factual accuracy of all of these theories are in dispute.  However, if others feel it unnecessary, I have no problem removing it as long as the hypothetical nature of each of these theories is apparant. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

LBJ - Fingerprint
The way it's written in the section about LBJ makes you think that it was LBJs fingerprint, which is absolutely ludacris to any reasonably intelligent person, and if you read the source, you know that the fingerprint is that of Malcolm E. Wallace, who is connected to LBJ through his lawyers if I remember correctly. I'm kind of new to wikipedia, do you think anyone could help me properly phrase this?

Thanks Arthur5005 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted the info because as currently written, it is impossible to tell what it is talking about. Feel free to correct the information and put it back in the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember this one vaguely because I looked up some of the info disputing the fingerprint match. This used to be complete, but I guess it got lost in some edit war.  Doesn't matter much either way because it isn't a particularly popular/important theory, I believe. Gamaliel 22:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If not being very important or not being very popular were criteria for scrubbing bits out of wikipedia, wikipedia would be a very much smaller project (wikipamphlet?). I've put back the LBJ information, in very abridged form, with dangling links for any completist who wants to flesh out biographies and timelines. The LBJ theory, which had been dormant since the early 1960s, has recently taken on surprising new life and seems to be a major development. It would be a dereliction to omit information about it. Garrick92 13:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rifle
I have removed this paragraph:
 * The Rifle: It is impossible for Oswald's rifle, the Mannlicher-Carcano (Hurt), to be fired more than once in less than 2.3 seconds (Thompson). According to the Zapruder film, for the first two shots to be fired by Oswald, they would have to be fired in rapid succession (Thompson). Top rifle experts of the FBI were incapable of making the rifle fire two shots in the 2.3-second timeframe (Hurt).

The second sentence does not specify the length of time between the two shots that hit President Kennedy. By nearly universal agreement, President Kennedy was reacting by Zapruder frame #224 to the first shot that hit him, and the fatal head shot was at frame #313. With a camera that ran at 18.3 frames per second, that is a 4.9 second time period between the two shots that hit the president. Thus, a shooter had to fire two shots within 4.9 seconds, not 2.3 seconds. — Walloon 01:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the originator of that quote meant that if the first shot missed, then the second one was 2.3 seconds later. Those are the two shots.  Of course, if the first one missed (and the likelihood seems to be that it did) how does one know when it was fired with any certainty?  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What the authors are referring to when they say "according to the Zapruder film" is that Governor Connally appears to react to being shot 1.7 seconds after JFK. They are writing, of course, under the belief that the single bullet theory is false. There are certain POV elements in these one shooter and two shooter references. The paragraph might be edited for clarity but is should be restored. Joegoodfriend 17:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess that makes more sense. FTR-- my sentence should have read "less than 2.3 seconds".  But I thought it was referring to a different time frame. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Governor Connally
I have removed this sentence for inaccurate rendition of Governor Connally's testimony:
 * Governor Connally also maintained that he was not hit by the first shot (that hit JFK in the back).

The addition "(that hit JFK in the back)" was not part of John Connally's testimony for the Warren Commission in 1964 or the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. Connally in fact said that after hearing the first shot, he started turning to his right to look at the President, but never caught a glimpse of him before being shot himself. "I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that I was hit with the first bullet. I don't believe that. I heard the first shot. I reacted to the first shot and I was not hit with that bullet. Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet. That might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet . . ." — Walloon 01:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good call. It should be common knowledge by now the first shot missed everyone. - RoyBoy 800 05:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't concede at all that the first shot must have been the one that missed. Nellie Connally was looking directly at the President speaking to him when the shooting started and she always maintained that he was hit by the first shot. This occurred while the car was behind the sign. If she was correct, and the single bullet theory is false, then the missed shot could have occurred at any time after the first shot. Joegoodfriend 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * John Connally's testimony was agnostic on that question. Whether the first shot hit the president and missed Connally, or hit neither of them — both are all viable under his statement. But he does not come down in favor of either of those two scenarios, as the addition "(that hit JFK in the back)" made it seem. That is why I removed it. — Walloon 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, I agree on this point. Joegoodfriend 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not surprising given she was speaking to the President of the United States and was focusing intensely on him, not her surroundings. She simply missed the first shot. Her husband heard the first shot and started to turn, before and behind the sign, then was shot as he turned. The little girl running behind the car hears the first shot, stops and turns to look back at the depository; again before the sign. - RoyBoy 800 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Roy Kellerman testimony
I have removed this misleading phrase from the section on the testimony of Roy Kellerman:
 * and he believed the President was wounded four times and Connally three times.

Kellerman, a Secret Service agent who was in the front seat of the Presidential limousine, actually testified that "from all reports" the President was wounded four times and Connally three times, not that he himself witnessed that many wounds. When pressed about how many shots he himself heard, Kellerman testified twice that he heard only three shots. — Walloon 02:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Arnold
I have removed this part of a sentence in the two-shooters evidence:
 * there were witnesses in Dealey Plaza who did not appear before the Commission but who have stated the belief that one or more shots were fired from the grassy knoll,

for three reasons. (1) The link no longer works. (2) The Spartacus pages are no longer considered authoritative sources for Wikipedia. (3) It has never been established that Gordon Arnold was a witness to the assassination. He did not make his claim until 1978, and he does not appear where he claimed to be standing in any of the photographs taken before, during, or immediately after the assassination. More here:
 * Two eyewitnesses, Abraham Zapruder and his secretary, Marilyn Sitzman, had an elevated view of the area behind the wall where Gordon Arnold claimed to have been, only a few yards away. Prior to the shooting, Zapruder had mounted a four-foot-high pedestal overlooking the knoll area in order to gain a suitable vantage point from which to capture the motorcade with his home movie camera. As he suffered from vertigo, he asked Sitzman to stand behind him on the pedestal and help steady him while he filmed.


 * Neither Zapruder nor Sitzman ever described anyone resembling Arnold in any of their statements, although Sitzman did recall two other people in that area. As she described to investigator Josiah Thompson, “there was a colored couple. I figure they were between 18 and 21, a boy and a girl, sitting on a bench, just almost, oh, parallel with me, on my right side, close to the fence.” The bench was located almost precisely where Arnold would later describe himself as having stood. “And they were eating their lunch, ‘cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking Coke. The main reason I remember ‘em is, after the last shot . . . I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their Coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back.”


 * “Now,” Thompson asked her, “to get to this area between the stockade fence and the cement abutment, or small mall: Did you turn after the shot to look in this general area?” “Yes,” she said. “And did you see anyone in this area?” “No,” she replied, “just the two colored people running back.”

— Walloon 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The editor's reasons for the deletion are not valid. It has never been disproven that Arnold was present, and his story has been considered plausible by any number of serious researchers including Summers, Hurt, Walt Brown and others. Your point of view that Arnold, or any other purported witness, is not telling the truth is not by itself reason enough to delete that witnesses's statement from this article. As for the link and the cite, the link does work, and if you don't like the spartacus site I can cite any number of other sources with the same information.
 * We seem to be very close to an edit war here, so I'm going to leave this alone. Joegoodfriend 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Put the information back into the article, with an appropriate cite, of course. The opposing information can go into the Gordon Arnold article if one exists, or perhaps I can create one. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OTOH, I don't think Tip O'Neil's book is a reliable source for the statement that witnesses were pressured to change their opinion during the WC hearings. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: "Your point of view that Arnold, or any other purported witness, is not telling the truth is not by itself reason enough to delete that witnesses's statement from this article." But the problem is that there is no evidence that Arnold was a witness. It is presumptive to call Arnold a witness when the mass of evidence contradicts his even being there. I could also claim to have been a witness in Dealey Plaza. Should my statements about what I saw be part of the Wikipedia article too? That authors like Summers accepts Arnold's testimony without establishing first that he was even there is a reflection on Summers as a researcher. — Walloon 20:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But in this article, the truth bar (so to speak) is a bit lower. All that is needed is some secondary reliable source stating Gordon's belief he was in Dealey Plaza.  We don't need to find that out factually, here.  Take a look at all of the other theories on this page.  They all can't be right, but on this article, all we need to show is that the theory exist.  That is why Gordon's story is appropriate here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Testimony of David Powers and Kenneth O'Donnell
Presidential aide David Powers testified in 1964 that the shots came from either the direction of the Triple Underpass or the Texas School Book Depository. If he instead believed that two of the shots came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll, as Tip O'Neill later reported in his memoir, it would not change the tabulation given of the earwitnesses, because Powers would still be listed as one of the eight who said the shots came from two directions. The change in presidential aide Kenneth O'Donnell's account would remove him from the TSBD column and add him to the "two directions" column.

However, another issue involved is that O'Neill's account would be legally called "hearsay". Neither Powers nor O'Donnell themselves ever publicly made any such claims about shots from the grassy knoll. — Walloon 08:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And they both vehemently denied O'Neills recollection of the supposed conversation. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think O'Donnell was able to deny it. He died in 1977, ten years before Tip O'Neill's book was published. — Walloon
 * Unclear writing on my part. They bothd denied it, but at different times. O'donnell called the assertion a flat out lie in 1975. Powers at the time the book was written.
 * "The story is an absolute lie...whoever gave that story is lying. It's an absolute, outright lie." - Kenneth O'Donnell, qtd. in Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1975
 * Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

RPJ case and the Spartacus site
Here's an update on the Spartacus situation:

A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Added by Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is "Helms"?
"Helms had reason to be hostile to Kennedy since when first elected Kennedy supported invading Cuba and then only later changed his mind about how to approach the matter. Thus, Helms was immediately put under pressure from President Kennedy and his brother Robert (the attorney general) to increase American efforts to get rid of the Castro regime. Operation Mongoose had nearly 4,000 operators involved in attacks on Cuban economic targets."

But who is Helms?! Pennywisepeter 16:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Richard Helms, CIA Director, 1966-1973. He was director of the CIA's Office of Special Operations at the time of the Kennedy assassination. — Walloon 10:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Postal Service
The way you have the Postal Service song quoted it appears to support the official theory but if you actually look at the song it's about how naive people are. Read the lyrics yourself. The amazon.co.uk review says, " "Sleeping In" is a joyously sunny daydream; a naïve vision of how good the world could be." http://www.lyricsdomain.com/20/the_postal_service/sleeping_in.html

William Greer
The Zapruder film seems to point to Greer, at leat in my opinion. This site http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov shows Greer pointing something at Kennedy. The timing of Greer's head, hand and the slowing of the car 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. Keep close eye on the driver, Greer, at his chest level area.

Rulers of Evil 68.10.101.227 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A look at this chest area shows his right hand on the steering wheel through the glass, and it appears to be replaced by his left hand after the fatal head shot, but it's hard to tell. In any case, although the Connallys might have missed Greer shooting JFK over the top of them, it seems unlikely that agent Kellerman, sitting next to Greer, did so as well. Come on. S  B Harris 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe Kellerman was in the game too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.160.5 (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

One Shooter, Two Shooters: Counterpoints?
The One Shooter and Two Shooters sections of the article have long been for mutually exclusive information. That is, One Shooter is for bullet points that support the idea that Oswald acted alone, while two Shooters supports multiple assassins. Recently, there have been edits which have attempted to balance the points made in Two Shooters with contradictory counterpoints. I have removed a couple of them, but I don’t mean to delete the work of other editors without an attempt to achieve consensus. So what do you all think? The two sections contain a total of 27 bullet points. If each one if followed by a sentence that begins, “However, other witnesses/historians/government officials have said,” then this is going to be one long article. Joegoodfriend 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Corsican Connection
I saw a special on the assassination that implicated Corsican gangsters as the ones hired to do the hit. Surprised to see it missing as it was on a T.V. special that I thought others would have seen. If anybody knows anything about it, it would be a good addition.
 * The Corsican theory was made famous by documentary film maker Nigel Turner, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy. While there is much of interest for conspiracy theorists in the series, much of Turner's work, including his Corsican theory, has been debunked. Even well-known researchers who believe that there was a conspiracy, such as Harold Weisberg, have turned there backs on Turner. Details here: ...Joegoodfriend 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

POV paragraph?
This paragraph: If behind JFK's assasination was not just Oswald but a planned action, then the more of the information smoke-screen there is, the better for those planners. Including CIA into the list of the suspected organizations can be considered as a part of that smoke-screen. Even though this encyclopedia must not be based on opinions, the JFK assasination information should be treated differently, due to the dramatic shortage of hard facts. In this way, anyone who knows America will dismiss the idea that a US Government agency could kill a US President. Killing an enemy President, maybe that was not out of question, but not a US President. This is NOT how the bureaucracy works. American bureaucracy does a lot of bad things, but those people's goals and concern are their personal careers, and the idea of such an assasination would be a pure nonsense, if it was not for what it seems to really be: a useful smoke-screen.

seems pretty badly inappropriate. Anyone else think it should be heavily reworded or removed? In fact, the entire section below the first paragraph on "organised crime" is way out of character for this rest of this article. Famous Mortimer 15:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Who wrote this anyway? A 7th grader? — 67.151.111.54 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

JFK is still alive?
Many conspiracy theories say Oswald was not the perpertrator. However, are there any teories which deny JFK was the victim? I mean it could have been a body double (doppelganger) who was shot. Many politicians, especially dictators use look-alikes to prevent or escape assasinations. Hitler and romanian dictator Ceaucescu had several doubles, for example.

If JFK was not the one who was killed, where did he live ever after? Is he possibly still alive? Did any researcher investigate this venue? 82.131.210.162 08:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably not. His wife identified the body; and no known doubles were used by JFK. - RoyBoy 800 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible mis-write
One part of the page says Connoly reacts 1.7 seconds after Kennedy, but another part says that it was simaltaneous. Which was it? I would change it myself, but I am not sure. — 209.169.119.19 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When Governor Connally begins to react to being shot is a disputed point, open to visual interpretation. Because this article contains both single-shooter and multiple-shooter theories, there are two different claims about when Connally first appears to react to being shot. Most single-shooter advocates believe Connally reacts nearly simultaneously with Kennedy, because both were hit with the same bullet. Most multiple-shooter advocates believe there is a delay between Kennedy's reaction and Connally's reaction, and that this is evidence of two different bullets. — Walloon 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush
Someone attempted to write an entire sections with Bush's connection to the assassination. I deleted it because it violated WP:BLP as many of the assertions were unsourced, simple innuendo, and related to a living person. If anyone is wishing to redo the section, please remember that sources of the highest order is needed for information about a living person. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I sourced it. The documents discussed are fair use and images of them are on the page. There is no need to delete this section now. ChildOfTheMoon83 00:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these are theories, not hard facts. I wouldn't dream of putting this stuff in the George H. W. Bush article.

A search of "george+bush+kennedy+assassination" yields over a million Google hits - this is a widely discussed theory. By contrast, "fidel+castro+kennedy+assassination" yields only about 200,000, and "lyndon+johnson+kennedy+assassination" only gets a half million hits.

Given the data available it seems a lot more likely that Bush was involved than Israelis or Irish assassins. ChildOfTheMoon83 00:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional citations, and keeping a level head about my objections. We do have to be more careful about what we write about living persons as compared to unnamed Israelis and Irish assassins. :).  I do still think there is original research problems, but that doesn't require mass deletion to fix.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The photos trying to associate George H.W. Bush with a man standing outside the Texas School Book Depository minutes after the assassination are rather pointless. Bush's whereabouts at the time of the assassination are a matter of record. Bush was in the middle of a speech at a Kiwanis Club luncheon in Tyler, Texas, when he was informed of the assassination. Kitty Kelly quotes a firsthand account of the luncheon from the club's vice president. Accordingly, I have removed the photos as a matter of common sense. By the way, it's much more likely that the man referenced in the photo was NBC newsman Robert MacNeil, who was at that very location after the assassination. He wrote about it in his book Looking for My Country: Finding Myself in America. — Walloon 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Untimely Death Section
This entire section is unverifiable because who can state that someone's death is untimely or suspicious, and the connections of these people to the assassination is tenuous at best. It needs serious fixing as currently the section violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fiction section
How come there is a Fiction section to this article that does not mention either Don DeLillo's Libra or James Ellroy's American Tabloid? S.Camus 15:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe because none of the contributors here have heard of them. However, you can just add the info if you feel it is relevant. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Earwitness
From Merriam-Webster:

ear·wit·ness Pronunciation:	'ir-'wit-n&s Function:	noun one who overhears something; especially : one who gives a report on what has been heard — Walloon 05:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nixon and the Warren Commission
I have removed what is clearly a bogus interpretation, started by the BBC, about Richard Nixon calling the Warren Commission "the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated." Nowhere in the conversation does Nixon mention the Warren Commission. Read in context, the always partisan Nixon is crediting left-wingers with a successful "hoax" in blaming the right-wing for the Kennedy assassination. — Walloon 00:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Alleged George Bush connections
Someone keeps putting "citation needed" next to sections that are properly cited and changing "many" to "most" as to who thinks the Bush in question was the former president. On that point they provided no citations to show this was the case.

This person has provided no explanation for doing so and continues to change the article. The IP address is 71.164.161.38. I ask that this user please refrain from an edit war, and explain yourself if you feel the article is inaccurate and needs to be changed.

70.162.5.92 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole section on George H.W. Bush never seems to get to the point of any connection between him and the assassination of JFK. Instead, it dwells on possible early connections between Bush and the CIA, and Bush and the Bay of Pigs operation. Assume, for the sake of argument, that both are true — how does that connect him with the assassination? — Walloon 08:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the first line of the section - "Bush is sometimes mentioned in one or more of the above theories". Some of the theories mentioned above the Bush section involve the CIA and anti-Castro exiles - the section on Bush simply connects him to these very same people accused of killing Kennedy. That's why I called it "George Bush connections" and not simply "George Bush" - he's not accused of pulling the trigger or anything.

Seems pretty obvious to me, and it's properly cited. The point is that Bush knew a lot of these accused people mentioned in the article, made a phone call to the FBI shortly after the assassination and was probably CIA back in the day - nothing more.

70.162.5.92

Oh, and Bush has demonstrated he's willing to lie about his connections, too. I guess that's another point of the article.

70.162.5.92

Bullet fragments
However, the weight of the bullet fragments taken from Connally and those remaining in his body weighed more than that of a bullet found on Connally's stretcher, known as the "pristine bullet". Not true. The weight of the whole bullet prior to firing was approximately 160-161 grains and that of the recovered bullet was 158.6 grains. An X-ray of the Governor's wrist showed very minute metallic fragments, and two or three of these fragments were removed from his wrist. All these fragments were sufficiently small and light so that the nearly whole bullet found on the stretcher could have deposited those pieces of metal as it tumbled through his wrist. Josiah Thompson, author of the pro-conspiracy book Six Seconds in Dallas, wrote, "Of the two fragments recovered from the Governor's wrist, the larger was found to weigh 0.5 grain (5H72). The smaller one plus the flakes of metal remaining in his wrist might account for a like weight. This gives us a total of about one grain for the wrist. What about the chest and thigh fragments? Dr. Shires, who noticed the chest fragment on X-ray, never estimated its weight, but he spoke of it as being the same general size as the fragment embedded in the femur. The weight of this fragment was estimated as 'a fraction of a grain, maybe, a tenth of a grain' (6H106, 111). If we add to these two fragments the flake observed just under the skin in the thigh wound, we have a total weight of perhaps 0.5 grain in the thigh and chest. Adding this to the wrist fragments yields a total weight for all observed fragments of 1.5 grains. Clearly then, Dr. Shaw was mistaken when he testified that 'there seems to be more than three grains of metal missing...in the wrist' (4H113). The upshot of all this medical testimony with respect to weight loss is inconclusive. About 1.5 grains of metal were found in Governor Connally's wounds." — Walloon 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tague injury
I have removed this parenthetical claim from the first paragraph of the multiple-shooter section: "(a passersby received a facial scratch from this bullet)", referring to the bullet that missed the limousine. The Warren Commission stated that it was unable to determine whether James Tague was wounded by the bullet that missed the limousine or by a fragment of the bullet that shattered in President Kennedy's head. Likewise, Tague himself was unaware of his slight injury until after the shootings, when someone else pointed out the wound to him; and thus Tague was unable to say which shot injured him, either. — Walloon 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy's spine
I have removed this statement from the first paragraph of the multiple-shooter section: "the trajectory of the bullet, which hit Kennedy in the spine and passed through his neck (according to the autopsy)". The autopsy says no such thing. To the contrary, the relevant section of the autopsy says: "The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." (Emphasis added.) — Walloon 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, this was indeed the conclusion of the autopsists. However, reanalysis of autopsy data later by the HCSA concluded that the spine had been (minimally) damaged by the bullet, on the basis of a right tranverse process fracture at spinal C-6, in the bullet path, and in association with some tiny metal fragments along the bullet track through the lower neck. All visible on autopsy X-rays and noted by expert radiologists in 1977; just not noticed by the initial autopsy doctors in 1963. S  B Harris 03:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shortening Alleged connections of George H. W. Bush
This section has ballooned to more than 2,000 words, most of which seem to have nothing to do with theories on the assassination of President Kennedy. How do other editors feel about seriously cutting down the length of this section? Joegoodfriend 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Most of this section has left me scratching my head and asking, "What does this have to do with the Kennedy assassination?" Even if Bush had been involved with anti-Castro Cuban exiles, that doesn't make Bush or the Cuban exiles responsible for Kennedy's assassination. There's a big leap of logic there. As for shortening the article, I would recommend taking out the whole de Morenschildt section, beginning "Further connections are made between George de Mohrenschildt" and ending six paragraphs later with Bush's letter to de Mohrenschildt. Unless one is asserting that de Mohrenschildt conspired in Kennedy's assassination, which this section fails to assert, then the section becomes one more dead end. Jackie Kennedy's family also knew de Mohrenschildt — conspiracy? Likewise the four paragraphs on opposition to Bush's appointment as CIA director come to no point in regard to the Kennedy assassination. — Walloon 01:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, of course. And I'm going to remove the same crap from de Mohrenschildt's bio. So what if he knew George Bush? They were both in the Texas oil business, and de Mohrenschildt also knew one of Bush's former roomates. This guy was gregarious and knew everybody. It's somebody claiming that Bush murdered JFK? Even if Bush lost a fortune in the Castro revolution (which I see no reason to believe), so what? That's better evidence that Bush might have tried to assassinate Castro, not JFK!  S  B Harris 06:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's an outline of how I propose to tighten this thing up. Somebody went to a lot of trouble to write this, so I want to give them adequate chance to defend it before I start hacking at it. Paragraphs 1-2: tying Bush, Zapata, and the Bay of Pigs, just tighten this up a bit. Paragraghs 3-4: details on the Bay of Pigs, eliminate these paragraghs. Paragraph 5: the FBI memo, cut this down to about one sentence. Paragraph 6: Bush and the phone call, tighten this up a lot. Paragraphs 7-8: The ARRB, cut this down to about one sentence. Paragraph 9: Immaculate Deception, one sentence ought to do it. Paragraph 10: History of Zapata, eliminate this. Paragraph 11: DeMohrenschildt, 2 sentences ought to do it. Paragraph 12: Ford eulogy, one short sentence. Joegoodfriend 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, do it! — Walloon 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and cut the section from 2000+ words to 500. Honestly, I still think there's barely enough of interest here to warrant inclusion in the article at all. Joegoodfriend 03:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a growing consensus that this section does not belong in the article. Besides the WP:BLP concerns, it is vaguely connected to the topic, and a simple connection of factoids.  I too support the deletion of this section.  We've given it time to develop into something encyclopedic, and it simply hasnt. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bush v. Martin
Re the reproduction of the front page of a civil suit between George H.W. Bush and others against Governor John Connally and others, several things need to be said. First, it was not filed "two weeks before the Kennedy assassination". It was filed on April 23, 1963, tried in September, and a panel of three federal judges had already reached a verdict and published their opinion on October 19, 1963, more than a month before the assassination. Second, the district court's decision was for Bush and the other plaintiffs, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court (by a 7-2 vote, with Chief Justice Earl Warren in the majority) on March 2, 1964. Third, the suit was not against Connally personally. The plaintiffs were suing upon the constitutionality of Texas statutes apportioning congressional districts among the counties and citizens of the State. Anyone with the power to enforce that statute, from the governor on down, was named as a defendant. As the district court decision said, "The Defendants comprise three major categories. The first, and principal, group are high executive officers of the State, the Secretary of State, the Governor, and the Attorney General. The second group comprises the duly elected qualified and acting Chairman of the Executive Committees of the Democratic and Republican Parties, respectively. The third group is made up of the County Judge and the County Clerk of Harris County (comprising Congressional Districts 8 and 22), each of whom is sued individually and, it is claimed, as a representative of all other County Judges and County Clerks in the State of Texas similarly situated under F.R.Civ.P. [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 23."

The three-judge federal district court found that the population disparity among Texas Congressional Districts — ranging from 216,371 to 951,527 — was "indeed spectacular" and noted that marked under-representation was "not surprisingly" found in metropolitan districts.

Given that the caption to the illustration mistates when it was filed (and thereby implies causation to the assassination), misstates the subject of the suit, and omits that it had already been decided for the plaintiffs in October, I suggest the illustration be removed for something between dishonesty and irrelevancy. — Walloon 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Being impatient, I have done a major revision and correction to the of that illustration. The still can be read in the History portion of that web page. (The lawsuit referred to the political "machines" at the state and county levels, not literal voting machines, as the former caption misstated.) — Walloon 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a Bush section here?
It's a hodgpodge of allegations, mostly tied to various books authors have written and none of it actually ties to JFK's assasination. Besides the wikipedia policies on information about living people. 148.78.243.122 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fringe Theories
I must remind editors here that although this article delves into the many theories surrounding Kennedy's assassination it is still an encyclopedia article and must comply with the relevant guidelines, especially the one above. Right now there may be several sections of this article that should be deleted because they violate this content guideline. Off the top of the head, I think the "More than one JFK", the "Bush section" and the "Federal Reserve" section should be deleted until more sourcing is provided to bring it into compliance. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Federal Reserve theory qualifies as a "fringe theory." I may have added it today, but it is very common. Just search the Internet, or visit libertarian or paleoconservative Web sites. People always discuss it at places like Free Market News, where I often go for news and stock quotes.


 * I did provide a link to a critic of the theory, who has a published book on the Federal Reserve. So it is a valid, sourced theory.


 * UPDATE: Just added additional sources, including print source, relating to this theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBlade7 (talk • contribs)


 * I think you are missing the point. The title of the Wikipedia guideline that deals with non-mainstream theories is called "Wikipedia:Fringe Theories".  I am not calling any particular theory a fringe theory, just saying that the sections that I mention do not comply with the guideline.  More sources are needed for the sections mentioned, otherwise they should be deleted.  Please note, when I call the Federal Reserve theory non-mainstream, I am comparing it to other theories like the CIA/Cuban link, which has been the subject of books, movies, and government investigations.  I am not questioning the validity of any particular theory.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fiction on JFK
I noticed Ramsquire removed a whole paragraph I had contributed to the article "Kennedy assassination theories" (6. Fiction section.) This whole Fiction section, by the way, was later on removed in whole, and part of its contents relocated to article "John F. Kennedy assassination in popular culture". What I'd like to know is on what grounds Ramsquire claims "rv French film as it is not directly related to Kennedy Assassination". "Not directly linked??" you got to be kidding; no other movie is devoted in such a way, and so directly, to JFK's assassination. If you don't believe me, please do watch the movie; check this IMDB link http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0079322/usercomments. I wanted to share that knowledge with Wiki readers interested in JFK, most of them would really enjoy the movie; it saddens me that my contribution was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calastheon (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note, I am moving this to the talk page of the article. The French film is set in a fictionalized universe.  It does not reference JFK, Oswald Ruby, or any of the actual alleged conspirators.  The other links all contain a direct link to actual persons connected to the assassination.  Further the entire section is trivia, and IMO, should be deleted as it cannot be merged into any section of the article.  I stand by my reversion. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming the article "JFK assassination in popular culture" is kept, I think the reference to Verneuil's film fits perfectly there: 1. the film is indeed "culture" 2. it is based largely on the assassination & aftermath 3. true the names Kennedy, etc. aren't mentioned, but a "JFK assassination in popular culture" article cannot be confined to precise and actual references to real names (mind you, not characters, since the fictional JFK in Red Dwarf, for instance, IS NOT REAL!), on the contrary it should contain any "cultural work" inspired by it; even more so if it actually suggests a possible thread of events which could have led to alternate outcomes. By the way, are you the sole decider or super-editor on what goes in and what goes out? Unlike you, I'm no expert, but I thought Wikipedia policy didn't particularly encourage reverting or deleting others' contributions except under very precise circumstances (absent here.) Calastheon 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Comment on content not the contributor. This is a wiki, so although anyone can edit, anyone can also revert.  The fact that there was no clamor to re-insert the popular culture section or your particular edit is implied evidence of consensus that this information is not needed in this article.


 * 2. If the popular culture article is kept, then you can add your film there.  Please see WP:TRIV, which discourages popular culture sections as they are not encyclopedic.  Finally, although I support the deletion of all the references including the Red Dwarf one, the difference with that one is that although the theory is far fetched, and impossible it still references the real JFK, even though it is in an alternate universe.


 * Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Files confession
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)

Didn't Files write a book confessing for this? Or am I mistaken him for someone else? Ramsquire 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If he did, let's cite the book and then the material can be restored to the article. Gamaliel 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * After some cursory research, the confession is part of a documentary called "The Murder of JFK: Confession of an Assassin". Amazon.com has it on VHS, but there is no book.  I figure if we give it the same treatment we gave the ABC documentary on the JFK assassination page, then it can be re-inserted into the article. (Note to other editors-- the best way to get info into the article is to get reliable sources and cite them accurately.  Not to question the motives of other editors or cry foul.  This issue could have been solved two days ago with a little research.) Ramsquire 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well put. All that had to be done to put an end to this matter would be to say "He put out a video" instead of attacking me. Gamaliel 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Try these:,,,. Some are for, against, and neutral. The piece about Files should go back in. --andreasegde 20:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One is a bio of Daankbar and is irrelevant to proper sourcing re: James Files. Two and three probably don't meet the standards of WP:RS, and four is a link to purchase the documentary and shouldn't be used in any Wiki article. Ramsquire 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Daankbar interviewed Files. Since when was Spartacus irrelevant? I have seen it cited lots of times. What about this?  --andreasegde 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please re-read what I wrote, I made no judgments about spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk's bio of Daankbar. However, said bio of Daankbar is not relevant to Files.  Ramsquire 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Daankbar piece mentions Files in the article. --andreasegde 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See below. Ramsquire 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the Files info. JFKmurdersolved.com should be viewed with skepticism since it appears to be a promotional page for Daankbar's investigation, books, and videos. Look for corroboration from other sites if you are using information found here. That comcast.net link is not a reliable source for anything at Wiki. It is a collection of emails between two people. Ramsquire 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting that they should be taken as gospel (the truth) - they were only links. I (personally) don't believe Files, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't go in. The problem is that theories today are more often on the Internet, or DVDs, rather than in books. Sad, but true. --andreasegde 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how you want it taken, you still have to use WP:RS as a guide as to what to put in the article. The policy explicitly states that just because something is on the Internet does not mean it can be used in Wiki articles.  The policy requests that editors do more research to see if it is corroborated by other more reliable sources.  For example, if you found a Guardian or NY Times article summarizing the Files situation, that would be fine.  However, jfkmurdersolved.com is not reliable for the reasons listed above. Also, part of WP:RS says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (or sourcing), not to mention WP:BLP... basically what I'm saying is that you'd really need a top knotch source for said information if there was no VHS tape. Ramsquire 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "a promotional page for Daankbar's investigation, books, and videos." Sorry, but Wikipedia (with in-line references from books, etc.) promotes books, and videos --andreasegde 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes and References section
This article does not comply with the standards required by Wikipedia. --andreasegde 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, they technically do not. And I think I mentioned that when I first got here. Ramsquire 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More Than One Shooter
What is the source for the statement that the ASHTRAY was damaged? This is news to me. The FBI's Robert Frazier examined the entire limo and reported no such damage.Saskcitation 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Here is the section of Frazier's testimony:
 * Mr. Specter: Mr. Frazier, have you now described all of your findings on the windshield of the Presidential limousine?
 * Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; that is concerning the glass itself and not the molding around the windshield.
 * Mr. Specter. Will you then move to the molding around the windshield and state what, if anything, you found there?
 * Mr. Frazier. On the strip of chrome which goes across the top of the windshield and again on the passenger side of the windshield or the inside surface, I found a dent in the chrome which had been caused by some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface. . ..
 * Mr. Specter. Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?
 * Mr. Frazier. No, sir.
 * — Walloon 05:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

James Files
This article has been redirected here after AFD. If anything can be merged from the original article please use it. Yomangani talk 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack M Oliphant Theory
Jack was the CIA operative responsible for Lee Harvey Oswald and possibly Jack Ruby as well. While he was living he told many his story with great details corroborated by surveillance reports with his signature on them in the CIA archives.

Who is Michael O'Dell?
The article cites to Michael O'Dell who has opinions on scientific accoustic matters. Someone put in his opinions to refute scientists who believe that accoustic evidence supports dozens of witness' testimony that there were two shooters.

RPJ 06:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What was the "bogus POV" that was deleted?
Revision as of 23:46, 17 October 2006 (edit)by Ramsquire "took out bogus POV info."


 * Could Ramsquire quote the words that he believes are "bogus POV" that was among the many things he deleted?


 * Could Ramsquire explain what he means by "bogus POV" that gives him the right to delete inofrmation from an article?

RPJ 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure,, but for the record, I did a general cleanup, wikilinked to another article, and took out bogus POV info. I'm sorry I couldn't be more specific but there is limited space in the edit summary.  The bogus POV info was:


 * The American government still refuses to release the medical evidence that would solve many of the questions on whether there was a conspiracy


 * I reverted it because a) it was unsourced (I should have put it on the talk page. I apologize for not doing so) b) it is the editor's opinion (POV) that the government still refuses to release, instead of simply haven't released the info c) since no one knows what these records would say, it is Original research and also POV to say it would solve many of the questions on whether there was a conspiracy.Ramsquire 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Harry Weatherford
The following has been reverted by me:

In 1963, Jim Bowles was a D.P.D. sergeant. He was later promoted to Dallas Sheriff (Chief of Police). He was asked if he knew about Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford waiting on the roof of a building near the assassination site with a rifle. - Bowles replied: “Yes, Harry Weatherford was on the roof with a second deputy, and he had a rifle. They were assigned there for security. My first recollection of the suggestion that Weatherford might have been implicated was from the imagination of Penn Jones who, so far as I know, never worried about the other deputy. It would seem strange that a hit man would be stationed with a living witness. It does not fit reason.” -   - A reporter asked Weatherford shortly after the assassination if he had shot the President. Weatherford replied, "You son of a bitch, I kill lots of people". -   - Harry Weatherford told a different story: " I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office watching the Presidential Motorcade. The President's car had passed my location a couple of minutes when I heard a loud report which I thought was a railroad torpedo, as it sounded as if it came from the railroad yard." -   - "I heard a 2nd report which had more of an echo report and thought to myself, that this was a rifle and I started toward the corner when I heard the 3rd report. By this time I was running towards the railroad yards where the sound seemed to come from. I got with Deputy Allan Sweatt and was searching the tracks and cars, etc, then someone said the shots came from above."

I reverted it firstly because of WP:BLP concerns. I am not sure that all the persons mentioned in this blurb are dead. If they are not, then we would need sources of the highest order to allow this stuff in. Secondly, if they are dead, we would still need sources, especially for the quotes, from a reliable publisher. If both concerns are met, I'll have no problem putting it back into the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A definite improvement!
Last time I checked the articles regarding the assassination of JFK things were leaning a lot towards the official version as given in the statement of the Warren commission. This was also included in the article John F. Kennedy assassination It is no more. And it's good it isn't. There is nothing but theories around Kennedy's assassination. One of them is the conclusion of the Warren commission, others include a second gunman in that park at the other side. I think the solution found here is the very best. Thank you very much! This is IT! ;) --Maxl 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some idea that there's a cabal out there to suppress "truth" or "alternate points of view" on the JFK assassination. Far from it. This wiki was created as a way to satisfy those who want to summarize other ideas than those from the 3 mainstream commissions. So why are editors sticky,in the JFK assassination article itself, about summarizing mainly just the findings from the 3 main government commissions? Or in Lee Harvey Oswald's bio, or in the JFK autopsy? Because these government reports are were massive efforts, covering 50 volumes and at least hundreds of thousands of man-hours, on the basis of massive evidence available first hand to law enforcement and nowhere else. Other theories rely on what somebody's conspiracy book said somebody said, and they don't agree with each other (whereas the government reports basically do, with some mistakes corrected later on). It's just not the same quality in the both types of evidence, so one side needs to be mainly presented. *I* personally don't give a damn if two people shot JFK at the same time. If all three major commissions had concluded THAT, I'd be insisting THAT be the summarized view in the main assassination article.  But that's not how it turned out.  S  B Harris 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the editor's point. I'm glad the article on Earth doesn't even mention the theory that the planet is only 6000 years old, though undoubtedly there are those who believe the idea should get "equal" coverage.
 * On the other hand, I had to snicker at the wording of the justification, "these government reports were massive efforts... at least hundreds of thousands of man-hours, on the basis of massive evidence available first hand to law enforcement and nowhere else."
 * Buddy, you just described exactly the way the Bush administration framed its supposed slam-dunk evidence for WMD. Joegoodfriend 16:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah. They may have tried to frame it that way, but unfortunately they didn't have 50 volumes of sworn tesitmony by real, named persons, along with multiple physical science analyses (financial, handwriting, fingerprinting, balistics matching, neutron analysis, photo analysis, computer trajectory analysis, autospy data) with hard and still-extant physical evidence to back them up, and literally a hundred or so previously-recognized experts in their fields going on-record to stand by these conclusions. Let me know when they do. Colin Powell, who did go on record, doesn't count as an expert on anything regarding WMD. See Iraq disarmament crisis. He's since left. I also see a CIA director fired over using stuff like what he used (there's nobody to fire Bush but the US public-- we failed). To back the Bush claim, I see things like uranium yellowcake allegations based on little more than rumor mills, including stuff in the London Times. I see the biological factory evidence coming from a SINGLE still-unnamed source called Curveball (informant) who even his handlers didn't trust. And let me see--- since the anonymous photo analysts aren't around to defend their (now known to be wrong interpretations of photos), and as against the thousand page indicies of the various JFK commissions, I see ONE real piece of physical evidence in the Iraq argument. An alumimum tube that everybody was told couldn't have been used for rocket research and had only one use: uranium enrichment. Somebody said they thought so. No expert anaysis or testimony to back this up, alas. Had the Bush administration ever shown the dang thing to even ONE guy at Los Alamos who actually knew anything about gas enrichment (as was later done after we were at war with Iraq), they'd have been put straight (yeah, it was a rocket tube). But they didn't bother. Would have taken them HOURS, maybe DAYS to find the government experts on this matter, who were already on the payroll. But no. So there's really no comparison of the levels of evidence here, or the investigation levels of competence, no matter what Bush or his flunkies said. By contrast, the JFK assassination, overall and not withstanding its many initial errors, is the most carefully and authoritatively and thoroughly investigated single-homicide in history. Before 1964 or since. After 4 decades it stands up well. The Bush evidence has already made him a well, target for humor. The magic bullet is no longer humorous as the rocket tubes. That's how you know.  S  B Harris 11:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But you know perfectly well that the WC's conclusions were not based on the witness testimony it heard and the expert analysis it received. It conclusions were in spite of this testimony and analysis. The WC heard from an entire battery of doctors who said the single bullet theory was not possible, but chose to go with it anyway. Ditto the ballistics tests, which produced mashed bullets, not pristine ones like CE399. Numerous witnesses spoke of seeing Oswald on the lower-floors of SBD between 12:00-12:30, they were ignored. Corroborated testimony that Oswald had anti-Castro associates was heard and ignored. Numerous corroborated Oswald imposter sightings were heard and ignored. So were the people who saw Oswald come to work on 11/22 and who said his paper bag was too small to hold the rifle, and he didn't bring it into the SBD anyway. The record clearly demonstrated that the Tippit shooting took place at 1:10 or earlier (thus Oswald couldn’t have made it jogging from his place at 1:04), this was ignored.
 * The WC worked just like the WMD framing: Start with the conclusion and make it stick any way you can. Joegoodfriend 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true. They were prepared to find that two bullets injured Connally and Kennedy, until they discovered the Tague wounding.  So there was some flexibility in the how if not the who.  But yes, they never really considered a conspiracy as seriously as perhaps they should have done.  Once they WC found out about the Tague shooting, they could have more thoroughly investigated the possibility of a second shooter, instead they went to a single bullet theory.  Another issue I have with the WC, if true, is how were they able to make any concrete findings if they never had the photos of the autopsy until after their report was made?Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

New Polling Data
(Will be posted on related articles talk pages as well) I imagine with the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination approaching, there will be some newer scientific polling data available. If anyone comes across said polls, can they update the sections which rely on the 2003 poll? Thanks. I'll have my eyes peeled as well. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cui bono
The point is, who would gain from JFK's death when setting off a smear campaign would be more effective and have less comeback. Jackiespeel 17:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Connally
His wife's - and very definite - statement about her experience has been deleted. This is to be expected, I suppose. --andreasegde 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, now it's in. Joegoodfriend 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Joe. --andreasegde 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced article tag
Anyone have any objections to removing the unsourced article tag from this article? Everything in it is sourced. Joegoodfriend 19:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and remove it. I was wondering why it was there.  The source problem have been handled for a while now. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Any opinion on the NPOV/accuracy dispute tag? Why is it there? Joegoodfriend 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I added that tag when the page didn't have any sources. Since the sources have been added, I like keeping it there as some sort of "Wikipedia disclaimer" letting readers know that these are just hypotheses, and that the factual accuracy of all of these theories are in dispute.  However, if others feel it unnecessary, I have no problem removing it as long as the hypothetical nature of each of these theories is apparant. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

LBJ - Fingerprint
The way it's written in the section about LBJ makes you think that it was LBJs fingerprint, which is absolutely ludacris to any reasonably intelligent person, and if you read the source, you know that the fingerprint is that of Malcolm E. Wallace, who is connected to LBJ through his lawyers if I remember correctly. I'm kind of new to wikipedia, do you think anyone could help me properly phrase this?

Thanks Arthur5005 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted the info because as currently written, it is impossible to tell what it is talking about. Feel free to correct the information and put it back in the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember this one vaguely because I looked up some of the info disputing the fingerprint match. This used to be complete, but I guess it got lost in some edit war.  Doesn't matter much either way because it isn't a particularly popular/important theory, I believe. Gamaliel 22:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If not being very important or not being very popular were criteria for scrubbing bits out of wikipedia, wikipedia would be a very much smaller project (wikipamphlet?). I've put back the LBJ information, in very abridged form, with dangling links for any completist who wants to flesh out biographies and timelines. The LBJ theory, which had been dormant since the early 1960s, has recently taken on surprising new life and seems to be a major development. It would be a dereliction to omit information about it. Garrick92 13:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rifle
I have removed this paragraph:
 * The Rifle: It is impossible for Oswald's rifle, the Mannlicher-Carcano (Hurt), to be fired more than once in less than 2.3 seconds (Thompson). According to the Zapruder film, for the first two shots to be fired by Oswald, they would have to be fired in rapid succession (Thompson). Top rifle experts of the FBI were incapable of making the rifle fire two shots in the 2.3-second timeframe (Hurt).

The second sentence does not specify the length of time between the two shots that hit President Kennedy. By nearly universal agreement, President Kennedy was reacting by Zapruder frame #224 to the first shot that hit him, and the fatal head shot was at frame #313. With a camera that ran at 18.3 frames per second, that is a 4.9 second time period between the two shots that hit the president. Thus, a shooter had to fire two shots within 4.9 seconds, not 2.3 seconds. — Walloon 01:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the originator of that quote meant that if the first shot missed, then the second one was 2.3 seconds later. Those are the two shots.  Of course, if the first one missed (and the likelihood seems to be that it did) how does one know when it was fired with any certainty?  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What the authors are referring to when they say "according to the Zapruder film" is that Governor Connally appears to react to being shot 1.7 seconds after JFK. They are writing, of course, under the belief that the single bullet theory is false. There are certain POV elements in these one shooter and two shooter references. The paragraph might be edited for clarity but is should be restored. Joegoodfriend 17:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess that makes more sense. FTR-- my sentence should have read "less than 2.3 seconds".  But I thought it was referring to a different time frame. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Governor Connally
I have removed this sentence for inaccurate rendition of Governor Connally's testimony:
 * Governor Connally also maintained that he was not hit by the first shot (that hit JFK in the back).

The addition "(that hit JFK in the back)" was not part of John Connally's testimony for the Warren Commission in 1964 or the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. Connally in fact said that after hearing the first shot, he started turning to his right to look at the President, but never caught a glimpse of him before being shot himself. "I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that I was hit with the first bullet. I don't believe that. I heard the first shot. I reacted to the first shot and I was not hit with that bullet. Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet. That might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet . . ." — Walloon 01:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good call. It should be common knowledge by now the first shot missed everyone. - RoyBoy 800 05:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't concede at all that the first shot must have been the one that missed. Nellie Connally was looking directly at the President speaking to him when the shooting started and she always maintained that he was hit by the first shot. This occurred while the car was behind the sign. If she was correct, and the single bullet theory is false, then the missed shot could have occurred at any time after the first shot. Joegoodfriend 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * John Connally's testimony was agnostic on that question. Whether the first shot hit the president and missed Connally, or hit neither of them — both are all viable under his statement. But he does not come down in favor of either of those two scenarios, as the addition "(that hit JFK in the back)" made it seem. That is why I removed it. — Walloon 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, I agree on this point. Joegoodfriend 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not surprising given she was speaking to the President of the United States and was focusing intensely on him, not her surroundings. She simply missed the first shot. Her husband heard the first shot and started to turn, before and behind the sign, then was shot as he turned. The little girl running behind the car hears the first shot, stops and turns to look back at the depository; again before the sign. - RoyBoy 800 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Roy Kellerman testimony
I have removed this misleading phrase from the section on the testimony of Roy Kellerman:
 * and he believed the President was wounded four times and Connally three times.

Kellerman, a Secret Service agent who was in the front seat of the Presidential limousine, actually testified that "from all reports" the President was wounded four times and Connally three times, not that he himself witnessed that many wounds. When pressed about how many shots he himself heard, Kellerman testified twice that he heard only three shots. — Walloon 02:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Arnold
I have removed this part of a sentence in the two-shooters evidence:
 * there were witnesses in Dealey Plaza who did not appear before the Commission but who have stated the belief that one or more shots were fired from the grassy knoll,

for three reasons. (1) The link no longer works. (2) The Spartacus pages are no longer considered authoritative sources for Wikipedia. (3) It has never been established that Gordon Arnold was a witness to the assassination. He did not make his claim until 1978, and he does not appear where he claimed to be standing in any of the photographs taken before, during, or immediately after the assassination. More here:
 * Two eyewitnesses, Abraham Zapruder and his secretary, Marilyn Sitzman, had an elevated view of the area behind the wall where Gordon Arnold claimed to have been, only a few yards away. Prior to the shooting, Zapruder had mounted a four-foot-high pedestal overlooking the knoll area in order to gain a suitable vantage point from which to capture the motorcade with his home movie camera. As he suffered from vertigo, he asked Sitzman to stand behind him on the pedestal and help steady him while he filmed.


 * Neither Zapruder nor Sitzman ever described anyone resembling Arnold in any of their statements, although Sitzman did recall two other people in that area. As she described to investigator Josiah Thompson, “there was a colored couple. I figure they were between 18 and 21, a boy and a girl, sitting on a bench, just almost, oh, parallel with me, on my right side, close to the fence.” The bench was located almost precisely where Arnold would later describe himself as having stood. “And they were eating their lunch, ‘cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking Coke. The main reason I remember ‘em is, after the last shot . . . I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their Coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back.”


 * “Now,” Thompson asked her, “to get to this area between the stockade fence and the cement abutment, or small mall: Did you turn after the shot to look in this general area?” “Yes,” she said. “And did you see anyone in this area?” “No,” she replied, “just the two colored people running back.”

— Walloon 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The editor's reasons for the deletion are not valid. It has never been disproven that Arnold was present, and his story has been considered plausible by any number of serious researchers including Summers, Hurt, Walt Brown and others. Your point of view that Arnold, or any other purported witness, is not telling the truth is not by itself reason enough to delete that witnesses's statement from this article. As for the link and the cite, the link does work, and if you don't like the spartacus site I can cite any number of other sources with the same information.
 * We seem to be very close to an edit war here, so I'm going to leave this alone. Joegoodfriend 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Put the information back into the article, with an appropriate cite, of course. The opposing information can go into the Gordon Arnold article if one exists, or perhaps I can create one. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OTOH, I don't think Tip O'Neil's book is a reliable source for the statement that witnesses were pressured to change their opinion during the WC hearings. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: "Your point of view that Arnold, or any other purported witness, is not telling the truth is not by itself reason enough to delete that witnesses's statement from this article." But the problem is that there is no evidence that Arnold was a witness. It is presumptive to call Arnold a witness when the mass of evidence contradicts his even being there. I could also claim to have been a witness in Dealey Plaza. Should my statements about what I saw be part of the Wikipedia article too? That authors like Summers accepts Arnold's testimony without establishing first that he was even there is a reflection on Summers as a researcher. — Walloon 20:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But in this article, the truth bar (so to speak) is a bit lower. All that is needed is some secondary reliable source stating Gordon's belief he was in Dealey Plaza.  We don't need to find that out factually, here.  Take a look at all of the other theories on this page.  They all can't be right, but on this article, all we need to show is that the theory exist.  That is why Gordon's story is appropriate here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Testimony of David Powers and Kenneth O'Donnell
Presidential aide David Powers testified in 1964 that the shots came from either the direction of the Triple Underpass or the Texas School Book Depository. If he instead believed that two of the shots came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll, as Tip O'Neill later reported in his memoir, it would not change the tabulation given of the earwitnesses, because Powers would still be listed as one of the eight who said the shots came from two directions. The change in presidential aide Kenneth O'Donnell's account would remove him from the TSBD column and add him to the "two directions" column.

However, another issue involved is that O'Neill's account would be legally called "hearsay". Neither Powers nor O'Donnell themselves ever publicly made any such claims about shots from the grassy knoll. — Walloon 08:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And they both vehemently denied O'Neills recollection of the supposed conversation. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think O'Donnell was able to deny it. He died in 1977, ten years before Tip O'Neill's book was published. — Walloon
 * Unclear writing on my part. They bothd denied it, but at different times. O'donnell called the assertion a flat out lie in 1975. Powers at the time the book was written.
 * "The story is an absolute lie...whoever gave that story is lying. It's an absolute, outright lie." - Kenneth O'Donnell, qtd. in Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1975
 * Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

RPJ case and the Spartacus site
Here's an update on the Spartacus situation:

A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Added by Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is "Helms"?
"Helms had reason to be hostile to Kennedy since when first elected Kennedy supported invading Cuba and then only later changed his mind about how to approach the matter. Thus, Helms was immediately put under pressure from President Kennedy and his brother Robert (the attorney general) to increase American efforts to get rid of the Castro regime. Operation Mongoose had nearly 4,000 operators involved in attacks on Cuban economic targets."

But who is Helms?! Pennywisepeter 16:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Richard Helms, CIA Director, 1966-1973. He was director of the CIA's Office of Special Operations at the time of the Kennedy assassination. — Walloon 10:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Postal Service
The way you have the Postal Service song quoted it appears to support the official theory but if you actually look at the song it's about how naive people are. Read the lyrics yourself. The amazon.co.uk review says, " "Sleeping In" is a joyously sunny daydream; a naïve vision of how good the world could be." http://www.lyricsdomain.com/20/the_postal_service/sleeping_in.html

William Greer
The Zapruder film seems to point to Greer, at leat in my opinion. This site http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov shows Greer pointing something at Kennedy. The timing of Greer's head, hand and the slowing of the car 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. Keep close eye on the driver, Greer, at his chest level area.

Rulers of Evil 68.10.101.227 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A look at this chest area shows his right hand on the steering wheel through the glass, and it appears to be replaced by his left hand after the fatal head shot, but it's hard to tell. In any case, although the Connallys might have missed Greer shooting JFK over the top of them, it seems unlikely that agent Kellerman, sitting next to Greer, did so as well. Come on. S  B Harris 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe Kellerman was in the game too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.160.5 (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

One Shooter, Two Shooters: Counterpoints?
The One Shooter and Two Shooters sections of the article have long been for mutually exclusive information. That is, One Shooter is for bullet points that support the idea that Oswald acted alone, while two Shooters supports multiple assassins. Recently, there have been edits which have attempted to balance the points made in Two Shooters with contradictory counterpoints. I have removed a couple of them, but I don’t mean to delete the work of other editors without an attempt to achieve consensus. So what do you all think? The two sections contain a total of 27 bullet points. If each one if followed by a sentence that begins, “However, other witnesses/historians/government officials have said,” then this is going to be one long article. Joegoodfriend 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Corsican Connection
I saw a special on the assassination that implicated Corsican gangsters as the ones hired to do the hit. Surprised to see it missing as it was on a T.V. special that I thought others would have seen. If anybody knows anything about it, it would be a good addition.
 * The Corsican theory was made famous by documentary film maker Nigel Turner, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy. While there is much of interest for conspiracy theorists in the series, much of Turner's work, including his Corsican theory, has been debunked. Even well-known researchers who believe that there was a conspiracy, such as Harold Weisberg, have turned there backs on Turner. Details here: ...Joegoodfriend 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

POV paragraph?
This paragraph: If behind JFK's assasination was not just Oswald but a planned action, then the more of the information smoke-screen there is, the better for those planners. Including CIA into the list of the suspected organizations can be considered as a part of that smoke-screen. Even though this encyclopedia must not be based on opinions, the JFK assasination information should be treated differently, due to the dramatic shortage of hard facts. In this way, anyone who knows America will dismiss the idea that a US Government agency could kill a US President. Killing an enemy President, maybe that was not out of question, but not a US President. This is NOT how the bureaucracy works. American bureaucracy does a lot of bad things, but those people's goals and concern are their personal careers, and the idea of such an assasination would be a pure nonsense, if it was not for what it seems to really be: a useful smoke-screen.

seems pretty badly inappropriate. Anyone else think it should be heavily reworded or removed? In fact, the entire section below the first paragraph on "organised crime" is way out of character for this rest of this article. Famous Mortimer 15:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Who wrote this anyway? A 7th grader? — 67.151.111.54 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

JFK is still alive?
Many conspiracy theories say Oswald was not the perpertrator. However, are there any teories which deny JFK was the victim? I mean it could have been a body double (doppelganger) who was shot. Many politicians, especially dictators use look-alikes to prevent or escape assasinations. Hitler and romanian dictator Ceaucescu had several doubles, for example.

If JFK was not the one who was killed, where did he live ever after? Is he possibly still alive? Did any researcher investigate this venue? 82.131.210.162 08:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably not. His wife identified the body; and no known doubles were used by JFK. - RoyBoy 800 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible mis-write
One part of the page says Connoly reacts 1.7 seconds after Kennedy, but another part says that it was simaltaneous. Which was it? I would change it myself, but I am not sure. — 209.169.119.19 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When Governor Connally begins to react to being shot is a disputed point, open to visual interpretation. Because this article contains both single-shooter and multiple-shooter theories, there are two different claims about when Connally first appears to react to being shot. Most single-shooter advocates believe Connally reacts nearly simultaneously with Kennedy, because both were hit with the same bullet. Most multiple-shooter advocates believe there is a delay between Kennedy's reaction and Connally's reaction, and that this is evidence of two different bullets. — Walloon 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush
Someone attempted to write an entire sections with Bush's connection to the assassination. I deleted it because it violated WP:BLP as many of the assertions were unsourced, simple innuendo, and related to a living person. If anyone is wishing to redo the section, please remember that sources of the highest order is needed for information about a living person. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I sourced it. The documents discussed are fair use and images of them are on the page. There is no need to delete this section now. ChildOfTheMoon83 00:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these are theories, not hard facts. I wouldn't dream of putting this stuff in the George H. W. Bush article.

A search of "george+bush+kennedy+assassination" yields over a million Google hits - this is a widely discussed theory. By contrast, "fidel+castro+kennedy+assassination" yields only about 200,000, and "lyndon+johnson+kennedy+assassination" only gets a half million hits.

Given the data available it seems a lot more likely that Bush was involved than Israelis or Irish assassins. ChildOfTheMoon83 00:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional citations, and keeping a level head about my objections. We do have to be more careful about what we write about living persons as compared to unnamed Israelis and Irish assassins. :).  I do still think there is original research problems, but that doesn't require mass deletion to fix.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The photos trying to associate George H.W. Bush with a man standing outside the Texas School Book Depository minutes after the assassination are rather pointless. Bush's whereabouts at the time of the assassination are a matter of record. Bush was in the middle of a speech at a Kiwanis Club luncheon in Tyler, Texas, when he was informed of the assassination. Kitty Kelly quotes a firsthand account of the luncheon from the club's vice president. Accordingly, I have removed the photos as a matter of common sense. By the way, it's much more likely that the man referenced in the photo was NBC newsman Robert MacNeil, who was at that very location after the assassination. He wrote about it in his book Looking for My Country: Finding Myself in America. — Walloon 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Untimely Death Section
This entire section is unverifiable because who can state that someone's death is untimely or suspicious, and the connections of these people to the assassination is tenuous at best. It needs serious fixing as currently the section violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fiction section
How come there is a Fiction section to this article that does not mention either Don DeLillo's Libra or James Ellroy's American Tabloid? S.Camus 15:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe because none of the contributors here have heard of them. However, you can just add the info if you feel it is relevant. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Earwitness
From Merriam-Webster:

ear·wit·ness Pronunciation:	'ir-'wit-n&s Function:	noun one who overhears something; especially : one who gives a report on what has been heard — Walloon 05:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nixon and the Warren Commission
I have removed what is clearly a bogus interpretation, started by the BBC, about Richard Nixon calling the Warren Commission "the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated." Nowhere in the conversation does Nixon mention the Warren Commission. Read in context, the always partisan Nixon is crediting left-wingers with a successful "hoax" in blaming the right-wing for the Kennedy assassination. — Walloon 00:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Alleged George Bush connections
Someone keeps putting "citation needed" next to sections that are properly cited and changing "many" to "most" as to who thinks the Bush in question was the former president. On that point they provided no citations to show this was the case.

This person has provided no explanation for doing so and continues to change the article. The IP address is 71.164.161.38. I ask that this user please refrain from an edit war, and explain yourself if you feel the article is inaccurate and needs to be changed.

70.162.5.92 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole section on George H.W. Bush never seems to get to the point of any connection between him and the assassination of JFK. Instead, it dwells on possible early connections between Bush and the CIA, and Bush and the Bay of Pigs operation. Assume, for the sake of argument, that both are true — how does that connect him with the assassination? — Walloon 08:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the first line of the section - "Bush is sometimes mentioned in one or more of the above theories". Some of the theories mentioned above the Bush section involve the CIA and anti-Castro exiles - the section on Bush simply connects him to these very same people accused of killing Kennedy. That's why I called it "George Bush connections" and not simply "George Bush" - he's not accused of pulling the trigger or anything.

Seems pretty obvious to me, and it's properly cited. The point is that Bush knew a lot of these accused people mentioned in the article, made a phone call to the FBI shortly after the assassination and was probably CIA back in the day - nothing more.

70.162.5.92

Oh, and Bush has demonstrated he's willing to lie about his connections, too. I guess that's another point of the article.

70.162.5.92

Bullet fragments
However, the weight of the bullet fragments taken from Connally and those remaining in his body weighed more than that of a bullet found on Connally's stretcher, known as the "pristine bullet". Not true. The weight of the whole bullet prior to firing was approximately 160-161 grains and that of the recovered bullet was 158.6 grains. An X-ray of the Governor's wrist showed very minute metallic fragments, and two or three of these fragments were removed from his wrist. All these fragments were sufficiently small and light so that the nearly whole bullet found on the stretcher could have deposited those pieces of metal as it tumbled through his wrist. Josiah Thompson, author of the pro-conspiracy book Six Seconds in Dallas, wrote, "Of the two fragments recovered from the Governor's wrist, the larger was found to weigh 0.5 grain (5H72). The smaller one plus the flakes of metal remaining in his wrist might account for a like weight. This gives us a total of about one grain for the wrist. What about the chest and thigh fragments? Dr. Shires, who noticed the chest fragment on X-ray, never estimated its weight, but he spoke of it as being the same general size as the fragment embedded in the femur. The weight of this fragment was estimated as 'a fraction of a grain, maybe, a tenth of a grain' (6H106, 111). If we add to these two fragments the flake observed just under the skin in the thigh wound, we have a total weight of perhaps 0.5 grain in the thigh and chest. Adding this to the wrist fragments yields a total weight for all observed fragments of 1.5 grains. Clearly then, Dr. Shaw was mistaken when he testified that 'there seems to be more than three grains of metal missing...in the wrist' (4H113). The upshot of all this medical testimony with respect to weight loss is inconclusive. About 1.5 grains of metal were found in Governor Connally's wounds." — Walloon 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tague injury
I have removed this parenthetical claim from the first paragraph of the multiple-shooter section: "(a passersby received a facial scratch from this bullet)", referring to the bullet that missed the limousine. The Warren Commission stated that it was unable to determine whether James Tague was wounded by the bullet that missed the limousine or by a fragment of the bullet that shattered in President Kennedy's head. Likewise, Tague himself was unaware of his slight injury until after the shootings, when someone else pointed out the wound to him; and thus Tague was unable to say which shot injured him, either. — Walloon 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy's spine
I have removed this statement from the first paragraph of the multiple-shooter section: "the trajectory of the bullet, which hit Kennedy in the spine and passed through his neck (according to the autopsy)". The autopsy says no such thing. To the contrary, the relevant section of the autopsy says: "The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." (Emphasis added.) — Walloon 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, this was indeed the conclusion of the autopsists. However, reanalysis of autopsy data later by the HCSA concluded that the spine had been (minimally) damaged by the bullet, on the basis of a right tranverse process fracture at spinal C-6, in the bullet path, and in association with some tiny metal fragments along the bullet track through the lower neck. All visible on autopsy X-rays and noted by expert radiologists in 1977; just not noticed by the initial autopsy doctors in 1963. S  B Harris 03:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shortening Alleged connections of George H. W. Bush
This section has ballooned to more than 2,000 words, most of which seem to have nothing to do with theories on the assassination of President Kennedy. How do other editors feel about seriously cutting down the length of this section? Joegoodfriend 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Most of this section has left me scratching my head and asking, "What does this have to do with the Kennedy assassination?" Even if Bush had been involved with anti-Castro Cuban exiles, that doesn't make Bush or the Cuban exiles responsible for Kennedy's assassination. There's a big leap of logic there. As for shortening the article, I would recommend taking out the whole de Morenschildt section, beginning "Further connections are made between George de Mohrenschildt" and ending six paragraphs later with Bush's letter to de Mohrenschildt. Unless one is asserting that de Mohrenschildt conspired in Kennedy's assassination, which this section fails to assert, then the section becomes one more dead end. Jackie Kennedy's family also knew de Mohrenschildt — conspiracy? Likewise the four paragraphs on opposition to Bush's appointment as CIA director come to no point in regard to the Kennedy assassination. — Walloon 01:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, of course. And I'm going to remove the same crap from de Mohrenschildt's bio. So what if he knew George Bush? They were both in the Texas oil business, and de Mohrenschildt also knew one of Bush's former roomates. This guy was gregarious and knew everybody. It's somebody claiming that Bush murdered JFK? Even if Bush lost a fortune in the Castro revolution (which I see no reason to believe), so what? That's better evidence that Bush might have tried to assassinate Castro, not JFK!  S  B Harris 06:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's an outline of how I propose to tighten this thing up. Somebody went to a lot of trouble to write this, so I want to give them adequate chance to defend it before I start hacking at it. Paragraphs 1-2: tying Bush, Zapata, and the Bay of Pigs, just tighten this up a bit. Paragraghs 3-4: details on the Bay of Pigs, eliminate these paragraghs. Paragraph 5: the FBI memo, cut this down to about one sentence. Paragraph 6: Bush and the phone call, tighten this up a lot. Paragraphs 7-8: The ARRB, cut this down to about one sentence. Paragraph 9: Immaculate Deception, one sentence ought to do it. Paragraph 10: History of Zapata, eliminate this. Paragraph 11: DeMohrenschildt, 2 sentences ought to do it. Paragraph 12: Ford eulogy, one short sentence. Joegoodfriend 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, do it! — Walloon 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and cut the section from 2000+ words to 500. Honestly, I still think there's barely enough of interest here to warrant inclusion in the article at all. Joegoodfriend 03:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a growing consensus that this section does not belong in the article. Besides the WP:BLP concerns, it is vaguely connected to the topic, and a simple connection of factoids.  I too support the deletion of this section.  We've given it time to develop into something encyclopedic, and it simply hasnt. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bush v. Martin
Re the reproduction of the front page of a civil suit between George H.W. Bush and others against Governor John Connally and others, several things need to be said. First, it was not filed "two weeks before the Kennedy assassination". It was filed on April 23, 1963, tried in September, and a panel of three federal judges had already reached a verdict and published their opinion on October 19, 1963, more than a month before the assassination. Second, the district court's decision was for Bush and the other plaintiffs, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court (by a 7-2 vote, with Chief Justice Earl Warren in the majority) on March 2, 1964. Third, the suit was not against Connally personally. The plaintiffs were suing upon the constitutionality of Texas statutes apportioning congressional districts among the counties and citizens of the State. Anyone with the power to enforce that statute, from the governor on down, was named as a defendant. As the district court decision said, "The Defendants comprise three major categories. The first, and principal, group are high executive officers of the State, the Secretary of State, the Governor, and the Attorney General. The second group comprises the duly elected qualified and acting Chairman of the Executive Committees of the Democratic and Republican Parties, respectively. The third group is made up of the County Judge and the County Clerk of Harris County (comprising Congressional Districts 8 and 22), each of whom is sued individually and, it is claimed, as a representative of all other County Judges and County Clerks in the State of Texas similarly situated under F.R.Civ.P. [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 23."

The three-judge federal district court found that the population disparity among Texas Congressional Districts — ranging from 216,371 to 951,527 — was "indeed spectacular" and noted that marked under-representation was "not surprisingly" found in metropolitan districts.

Given that the caption to the illustration mistates when it was filed (and thereby implies causation to the assassination), misstates the subject of the suit, and omits that it had already been decided for the plaintiffs in October, I suggest the illustration be removed for something between dishonesty and irrelevancy. — Walloon 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Being impatient, I have done a major revision and correction to the of that illustration. The still can be read in the History portion of that web page. (The lawsuit referred to the political "machines" at the state and county levels, not literal voting machines, as the former caption misstated.) — Walloon 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a Bush section here?
It's a hodgpodge of allegations, mostly tied to various books authors have written and none of it actually ties to JFK's assasination. Besides the wikipedia policies on information about living people. 148.78.243.122 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fringe Theories
I must remind editors here that although this article delves into the many theories surrounding Kennedy's assassination it is still an encyclopedia article and must comply with the relevant guidelines, especially the one above. Right now there may be several sections of this article that should be deleted because they violate this content guideline. Off the top of the head, I think the "More than one JFK", the "Bush section" and the "Federal Reserve" section should be deleted until more sourcing is provided to bring it into compliance. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Federal Reserve theory qualifies as a "fringe theory." I may have added it today, but it is very common. Just search the Internet, or visit libertarian or paleoconservative Web sites. People always discuss it at places like Free Market News, where I often go for news and stock quotes.


 * I did provide a link to a critic of the theory, who has a published book on the Federal Reserve. So it is a valid, sourced theory.


 * UPDATE: Just added additional sources, including print source, relating to this theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBlade7 (talk • contribs)


 * I think you are missing the point. The title of the Wikipedia guideline that deals with non-mainstream theories is called "Wikipedia:Fringe Theories".  I am not calling any particular theory a fringe theory, just saying that the sections that I mention do not comply with the guideline.  More sources are needed for the sections mentioned, otherwise they should be deleted.  Please note, when I call the Federal Reserve theory non-mainstream, I am comparing it to other theories like the CIA/Cuban link, which has been the subject of books, movies, and government investigations.  I am not questioning the validity of any particular theory.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fiction on JFK
I noticed Ramsquire removed a whole paragraph I had contributed to the article "Kennedy assassination theories" (6. Fiction section.) This whole Fiction section, by the way, was later on removed in whole, and part of its contents relocated to article "John F. Kennedy assassination in popular culture". What I'd like to know is on what grounds Ramsquire claims "rv French film as it is not directly related to Kennedy Assassination". "Not directly linked??" you got to be kidding; no other movie is devoted in such a way, and so directly, to JFK's assassination. If you don't believe me, please do watch the movie; check this IMDB link http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0079322/usercomments. I wanted to share that knowledge with Wiki readers interested in JFK, most of them would really enjoy the movie; it saddens me that my contribution was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calastheon (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note, I am moving this to the talk page of the article. The French film is set in a fictionalized universe.  It does not reference JFK, Oswald Ruby, or any of the actual alleged conspirators.  The other links all contain a direct link to actual persons connected to the assassination.  Further the entire section is trivia, and IMO, should be deleted as it cannot be merged into any section of the article.  I stand by my reversion. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming the article "JFK assassination in popular culture" is kept, I think the reference to Verneuil's film fits perfectly there: 1. the film is indeed "culture" 2. it is based largely on the assassination & aftermath 3. true the names Kennedy, etc. aren't mentioned, but a "JFK assassination in popular culture" article cannot be confined to precise and actual references to real names (mind you, not characters, since the fictional JFK in Red Dwarf, for instance, IS NOT REAL!), on the contrary it should contain any "cultural work" inspired by it; even more so if it actually suggests a possible thread of events which could have led to alternate outcomes. By the way, are you the sole decider or super-editor on what goes in and what goes out? Unlike you, I'm no expert, but I thought Wikipedia policy didn't particularly encourage reverting or deleting others' contributions except under very precise circumstances (absent here.) Calastheon 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Comment on content not the contributor. This is a wiki, so although anyone can edit, anyone can also revert.  The fact that there was no clamor to re-insert the popular culture section or your particular edit is implied evidence of consensus that this information is not needed in this article.


 * 2. If the popular culture article is kept, then you can add your film there.  Please see WP:TRIV, which discourages popular culture sections as they are not encyclopedic.  Finally, although I support the deletion of all the references including the Red Dwarf one, the difference with that one is that although the theory is far fetched, and impossible it still references the real JFK, even though it is in an alternate universe.


 * Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Saul
Please provide citations and sources for the above referenced section of the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Saul
I've added several references for "Saul". One of the main sources that I researched for this section was the book "Encyclopedia Of The JFK Assassination". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ub3rst4r (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Saul
I've added several references for "Saul". One of the main sources that I researched for this section was the book "Encyclopedia Of The JFK Assassination". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ub3rst4r (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This article was ruined in 2007, let's fix it in 2008
It is not surprising that, given the subject matter of this article, it contains a lot of ideas that aren't well-supported by proper citation. However, in the last year it has been rewritten to include a great deal long-winded, badly-written nonsense that is not in the least germane to the article. And a lot of good material has disappeared as well.

Have a look at a copy of this article from about a year ago:, and I think you'll see that that it wasn't in nearly such bad shape as it is now.

Here in no particular order are some of the article's problems and ways in which its quality has declined in recent months.

1. The editors put a great deal of work last year into the “Theories in Books” section. I thought it very concisely summarized a great many of the published conspiracy theories. This whole section disappeared without a trace, and it should be restored.

2. For a long time the article had two sections called “One Shooter” and “More than One Shooter” that did a pretty good job of citing facts regarding the opposing viewpoints. Now that's gone too. Instead, we have the following: A badly-written “More than one gunman” section that includes a lot of unsupported ideas and some facts that don't even support “more than one gunman.” We also have a very long “analysis” section that is simply the Warren Report in abbreviated form, with no mention of any of the ways in which the Report has been challenged by fact or theory. There's plenty of room for this material in the JFK assassination article, not to mention Warren Report and single-bullet theory articles. And some of this section is just plain wrong.

3. Several topics that could be made clear in a few sentences have grown completely out of control. Among these: The Three Tramps, LBJ, Roscoe White, and Saul.

4. No one has ever added to the article the evidence contradicting Warren's conclusions on Oswald's movements immediately before and after the assassination, nor about the many witnesses identifying person or persons other than Oswald on the sixth floor, nor the small army of persons who saw the back of the President's head missing, or saw smoke from the grassy knoll, nor anything about the fact that all of Kennedy's and Connally's doctors who testified before Warren opposed the single-bullet theory, nor a lot of other evidence germane to conspiracy theories in the killing of the President.

I look forward to fixing many of these problems in the next year, and I especially look forward to having my erudite friends on this page making sure I don't step out of line on the facts. Thank you for reading and I welcome your comments. Happy holidays, Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, first fix along these lines. I have restored 'Theories in Books' as 'Other Published Theories.' I have also eliminated the 'Saul' section but folded some of the info into the bullet point for Appointment in Dallas. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Next fix, total re-write of The Three Tramps. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced theory
Further to this discussion in the talk page of the main assassination page, Lytle1 added a section in this article. I made it clear to that person that his theory was unsourced, and as far as I know, original research, thus could not be published on WP. Denying it was original research and at the same time recognizing it ("claiming its original research is wrong when, in fact, it is a theory"), maybe he thought this article was for new theories.

As Joegoodfriend says above, this article seems to have gone into the garbage can of John F. Kennedy assassination. Nevertheless, I reverted the addition of Lytle1, who reverted me (twice as of now) as an IP and required to talk first (while the discussion was in Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination).

Anyway, I will repeat what the issues are with this addition: Bradipus (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to give the current status of the existing research, not to do research or expose new theories who come out of thin air. If you can provide a source of a known researcher who has based some research on these two photographs, you are welcome to do so.
 * As far as the photographs are concerned, you publish them as your own work, while in fact, they are derived from material the licence of which is not clear. If one or the two photographs you used are not under a free licence, your work would be an infringement of copyright (as you cannot transform a non free content into free content by creating a derived work). So the second issue is that you should demonstrate the photos you have been working on are free.

The Three Tramps (old discussion)
Whoever previously "edited" the "The Three Tramps" article, please try to be mindful of the facts in the future. You erased much of the sourced material that refutes the conspiracy theories, openly distorted the facts (ranging from minor quibbles such as saying that they stayed in Houston, when they actually stayed in Dallas), and organized the article in a confusing way (why should we wait until the end to actually discuss the facts of the matter? We know the records were released - we shouldn't cloud the historical data with empty speculation for two pages beforehand). I was disappointed and confused to see that, just after this issue had been resolved on this site, someone came along and seemed to actively try to re-obfuscate the issue. Jlray (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)jlray
 * I have a lot of issues with the above comments.
 * 1. I've "distorted" the facts? How?
 * 2. What I presented was in roughly chronological order. The tramps were arrested then released, then speculation began, then their arrest records were released, then their identities confirmed. What's wrong with that?
 * 3. You eliminated two of the three reason explaining why there has been so much speculation regarding the tramps, the fact that they were quickly released but no records were released, and the clean appearances. You have added a completely redundant statement regarding the identifications of Sturgis and Hunt.
 * 4. I don't object to the Gibson material, but is this much needed?
 * 5. They are not "supposed" indentifications, they are identifications, even if they are commonly believed to be incorrect identifications.
 * 6. You deleted my souce for "reports state that there were unidentified men in the area claiming to be Secret Service agents." Why?
 * 7. Gedney said that they "had gotten cleaned up in a homeless shelter in Houston." Don't lecture me on the facts if you're not going to do your research. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's review. A newbie editor joins wikipedia one month ago, edits this page on that one day, then disappears. He then reappears, cuts up my edits, accuses me of trying to confuse the issues, and claims that I am wrong on the facts then if is in fact he that is wrong.
 * Challenged to answer these issues, he refuses to respond. I had figured that this would be resolved with some sort of compromise, but under the circumstances, I think I'll just restore the text, thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The current presentation of the Three Tramps is terrible. You don't put all the speculation and falsehoods first then move on to the facts at the end. Wikipedia is supposed to be a documentary record of history and the history shows that conspiracy theorists have known about the real records for almost 20 years and have done nothing to address them - i remember earlier this part of the page used to rely on a website from a woman who claims she identified them all as Sturgis and Holdt despite the fact that if she actually had an ounce of intellectual curiosity she would've known that the real records were already publicly available. You're just trying to drag the truth of the matter under the conspiracy carpet. Facts first, conspiracy theory trash later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F41rg4m3r (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting absurd. Joegoodfriend, is there some way we can reach a compromise on the Tramps thing? I feel like the conspiracy theorists are getting all the say and the facts are getting squelched. I don't even see why we include a seemingly arbitrary collection of some of the people cited as the Three Tramps, for a couple reasons:

-These all started to be theorized long after the fact and have no bearing to the reality of who they were. -There are dozens of proposed people and this list is arbitrary. I feel like this section can be a lot shorter, offer a blanket explanation of what happened and who they were, and move on. Jlray (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Jlray
 * Oh, also, i already described the ways in which your version of the edits left out a lot of key info. I didn't feel the need to be redundant. Jlray (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Jlray
 * I'm not sure we're anywhere near a compromise. Let's review your points.
 * One. "These all started to be theorized long after the fact." On the contrary, most of the identifications listed predate the release of the names of the three. Once again you lecture me on the facts when you clearly aren't doing your research.
 * Two. "This list is arbitrary." It is? Name for me some other identifications of the tramps as well know as these.
 * Three. "i already described the ways in which your version of the edits left out a lot of key info." No you didn't. What key info did I leave out? You are the one who is clipping key information. You've eliminated all the reasons why researchers and historians were so interested in them in the first place: the fact that, unlike so many other people detained or interviewed after the assassination, the names of the three were not released, and that they didn't look at all like hobos.
 * Four. "Offer a blanket explanation of what happened and who they were, and move on." Why? This page is called Kennedy Assassination Theories. Perhaps it should include well-known theories on the assassination of President Kennedy? The tramps have been a significant part of the theories for four decades. They were a key part of Jim Garrison's case against Clay Shaw, the speculations of Fletcher Prouty (which were worked into the film JFK), and a key part of Hunt's unsuccessful attempt to sue a publisher who suggested that he had been in Dallas that day.
 * Five. "the facts are getting squelched." It is your version that is not factually accurate. Again, you make it look like the identifications were made principally after the release of the names. They weren't. You seem to think there's something wrong with describing the major events in the story of the tramps in chronological order, but you don't say why. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You got the location of the tramps' shelter wrong, you made up a 'death-bed confession' (the guy lived four years after that) and made up its contents (he never implicated a single person and didn't provide a single piece of evidence of any kind), and in general your version of history here is completely misleading. The records were always available, just no one evidently thought to dig them out. This is not a big issue that you're making sound really "suspicious" and "anomalous" when the only suspicious thing about it is how conspiracy theorists have so adeptly ignored the facts of the matter entirely. Jlray (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
 * Oh, also, don't accuse someone of "not doing the research" when you erase all of his research and replace it with things that aren't true, as you did. Thanks! Jlray (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
 * I asked you to address five different points of the accusations you make, and your response is to change the subject. Now my edit is misleading because the records had always been available? The records weren't available until the police released them. And are you or are you not going to tell me what "research" or "key info" I erased/left out? Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what's so confusing about this. Here is what you got wrong and left out. Again.


 * "You got the location of the tramps' shelter wrong, you made up a 'death-bed confession' (the guy lived four years after that) and made up its contents (he never implicated a single person and didn't provide a single piece of evidence of any kind), and in general your version of history here is completely misleading."


 * Once more.


 * "You got the location of the tramps' shelter wrong, you made up a 'death-bed confession' (the guy lived four years after that) and made up its contents (he never implicated a single person and didn't provide a single piece of evidence of any kind), and in general your version of history here is completely misleading."


 * Did you catch it that time? Here you go again.


 * You got the location of the tramps' shelter wrong, you made up a 'death-bed confession' (the guy lived four years after that) and made up its contents (he never implicated a single person and didn't provide a single piece of evidence of any kind), and in general your version of history here is completely misleading.


 * I'm going to edit this article now. Oh, by the way, you got the location of the tramps' shelter wrong, you made up a 'death-bed confession' (the guy lived four years after that) and made up its contents (he never implicated a single person and didn't provide a single piece of evidence of any kind), and in general your version of history here is completely misleading. Jlray (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray


 * I can't tell whether you are trying to be antagonistic for fun or whether you just aren't doing any research. Did you read the reference on the shelter? According to Gedney, "He and the two drifters had gotten cleaned up at a homeless shelter in Houston." As for Hunt, I take it that your concern is that according to Hunt's son, a very ill E. Howard Hunt began revealing secrets to him in 2003, but did not actually die until early 2007, after which Hunt's son went public with his father's stories. So your problem with the "facts" appears to be the subjective use of the word "deathbed." You also claim that I am wrong because Hunt didn't implicate anyone. If you'd bother to read the Rolling Stone article where the information first went public, you would have found out that Hunt said in describing the plot, "Then Veciana meets w/ Frank Sturgis in Miami and enlists David Morales in anticipation of killing JFK there... E. Howard asks Sturgis what he's talking about. Sturgis says, "Killing JFK.""
 * Ok, deathbed comes out. Otherwise the edit goes back. You have failed to back up any of your claims that what I have written is inaccurate or misleading. Whereas you, on the other hand, can't seem to get the facts straight, and what you have written omits the reasons why researchers were interested in the three in the first place. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a "subjective" use of the phrase "deathbed" - it's the "wrong" use of the word deathbed. You're also misquoting the Rolling Stone article, which I cited when I edited the "deathbed confession" section that you also evidently felt should be changed to include fewer facts. Perhaps you'll note that I cite sources that are not junky conspiracy sites as your version does. I also did, clearly, explain why conspiracy theorists were interested in the first place, just in a less misleading fashion than yours. Out with the garbage, back in with the facts. Jlray (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
 * Oh, also, another good example of why your version of history is misleading. Your quote: "given the fact that police did not reveal their names to the public even though they were potential witnesses if not directly involved in the crime" is misleading for many obvious reasons - police do not have to and usually do not reveal the names of criminal witnesses; the police did in fact take and make records of the three that were simply buried in the bureaucracy; no leading conspiracy theorist to my knowledge ever initiated an FOIA suit to actually go after those records, etc. etc. This is just one example among many of why you're trying to fill this article with loaded language that is going to confuse and mislead the reader. Here, I've reached a compromise. The history is in, but so is some of your ahistorical speculation. Both the conspiracy theorists and the people actually interested in the facts win. You're welcome. Jlray (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
 * Everything about your interpretation of the records shows ignorance of the facts as well about basic points of law. They were not detained as witnesses, they were arrested. Arrest records are available to the public. When researchers inquired about the records, they were told that the records were "lost." Obviously, this would fuel accusations of conspiracy. The arrest records were buried with a lot of other material held by the city of Dallas that was not available to the public until 1989-92. If the records had been subject to the Freedom of Information Act, researchers would have acquired them years if not decades earlier. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're only proving my point by continuing to change your argument. You yourself misleadingly wrote that it was suspicious that "given the fact that police did not reveal their names to the public even though they were potential witnesses if not directly involved in the crime," and then deny that they would even have been "detained as witnesses," without even acknowledging the impossibility of that as they were arrested in a location that would have prohibited them from witnessing the assassination - a train just pulling into town. You're just looking for reasons to argue against the historical record, and then completely losing your coherence once the facts catch up to you. You also continuously assert that I'm "not doing the research" despite the fact that my knowledge of these events is demonstrably impeccably better than yours. You have made it abundantly clear that the facts are not relevant to this article, and for that reason you should ask yourself whether you're actually interested in a fact-based history, or just the promotion of your own pet conspiracy theories. I don't think you're qualified to continue to edit this article and ask that for the sake of the facts that you stop trying to hide and bury the facts. Perhaps you could come back when you've figured out pretty much anything about the last thirty-five years of history, or at least know what a "death bed" is. Thanks. Jlray (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
 * You have been demonstrably wrong on the facts half a dozen times in this argument, because you clearly aren't bothering to read the references cited in the article. When this is pointed out to you, you simply change the argument. You don't seem to have any concept of what information is legally available to the public in a police investigation, and your statement above show that you have no understanding of the difference between a "witness," someone able to give material evidence, and an "eyewitness," someone who sees a crime occur. I know that you and your "brother" enjoying editing wikipedia on the family computer when you're "home from school," but how old are you anyway? "demonstrably impeccably?" Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Small changes made to your last edit. Possibly we are close to compromise. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you're trying to be funny by suddenly trying to act like I'm the one here who has gotten pretty much everything wrong, especially on things that you yourself started mistaking in the first place (this "witness" vs. "eyewitness" thing, which is not technically speaking correct) but in the mean time, no, I think the record here speaks for itself. You have yet to respond to the numerous things I have proved you wrong on and, worse, you continue to assert that errors are okay so long as you're the one making them. Anyone and everyone who actually cares about the quality of this article can check the history for themselves and see what exactly a perverted idea of "history" this kid here seems to have. Now, some of us have work to do that doesn't involve making things up on the spot. Your position, sir, is on it's deathbed. Let me know if you need help figuring out what that means. Jlray (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
 * Oh, also, it's difficult to reconcile this error you wrote: "Dallas police claimed to have lost the records of their arrests" with the fact that the Dallas police did in fact make, save, and release to the public the record of their arrests. Let me know how many more times I have to copy and paste that "error" (by now it seems difficult to believe you could be so badly muddying the historical record out of pure incompetence) for you before you realize that it is not correct. Thanks. Jlray (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
 * I will endeavor to find references for the text that you have recently marked as needing valid cites to back it up. Otherwise, I presume this edit war is over. I suppose that somewhere Gus Abrams is laughing at us while he takes another slug of 3 Angels vodka from his heavenly boxcar. Good day. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At the risk of getting this started again, the note you offered for the "alarm" bit:
 * "Author Henry Hurt notes, "They had been in a potentially good location to see activities that could have helped in an investigation.""
 * Is technically not true, because they were arrested... inside a boxcar. I motion for removal. Jlray (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
 * The point is valid. Text altered. Here's the point I'm trying to make. The FBI and Dallas police were very diligent in running down and documenting every lead regarding witnesses. They were trying to build a case, and they wanted to caution, shall we say, those who started telling wild stories to the press. But in the case of the tramps, they apparently couldn’t care less what they might have seen.
 * I hope to avoid Tramp War II. I’ve run out of good insults. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Three Tramps (new discussion)
A picture is worth 1000 words. I have some pics comparing Hunt, Sturgis, Holt & Harrelson to the Three Tramps as well as my conclusion and info that two of the Tramps were indeed Hunt & Sturgis, HERE. The Rockefeller Commission never published any pics of Hunt, Sturgis & the Tramps. The HSCA Commission used lousy pics of Hunt & Sturgis to compare to the Tramps. Show the pics, let ppl judge for themselves. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. According to the arrest report the tramps were: Harold Doyle, John F. Gedney, and Gus W. Abrams.
 * 2. Doyle and Gedney were interviewed extensively in the early 1990's, as was Abrams' sister.
 * The evidence is irrefutable. Have you actually read the article and looked at the supporting evidence? Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I have read the article and looked at the supporting evidence, check out my webpage link, above (scroll down the the FBI interviews and the part about the LaFontains's book). The FBI interviews of Doyle, Gedney & Abrams as well as the police interviews of the Three Tramps (where they were about to give parafin tests) as well as the reaction of the Tramps when they were arrested (one of the officers said they were cursing so "I jacked a shell into my shotgun" . . .) and the timing and place (flatcar vs gondola) of all the arrests shows that Gedney, Abrams and Doyle were not the ones seen crossing Dealy plaza. Plus, I saw a pic of DOYLE (revised name, was "Gedney?") who does not look like one of the Tramps. Do U think the FBI is sooo stupid to give parafin tests to three obvious tramps (Gedney, Abrams & Doyle)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raquel Baranow (talk • contribs) 10:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From your web page: Critics say the "Tramps" have been identified as DOYLE, ABRAMS and GEDNEY but provide no pictures.
 * From your comment above: I saw a pic of Gedney? who does not look like one of the Tramps.
 * Can you explain this incongruity please? Pictures of Doyle and Abrams are also widely available. Again, explain please?


 * So if I understand your conclusions correctly:
 * The "tramps" in the infamous photos really are Hunt, Sturgis and Harrelson, who were picked up by police in Dealey Plaza.
 * Separately, Doyle, Gedney and Abrams, three actual tramps who look a lot like Hunt, Sturgis and Harrelson were also picked up.
 * The two arrests are therefore AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE?! If I've misunderstood, please explain. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only does the Tramp photo not look like DOYLE to me, when the LaFontains showed the pic of the Dealy Plaza Tramp to DOYLE's relatives & friends, they said it was not DOYLE. If pics of all SIX Tramps are available they should all be shown and compared here! (I'm not sure if it was DOYLE . . . I'd hafta get LaFontain's book again to see 4 sure but a pic in "Coup d'Etat in America," which I have on my bookshelf makes me think it's DOYLE.)
 * What's so "amazing" about Tramps being in a railroad yard near the Mission, have U ever hopped a frieght? (I have, MANY times.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What is so tired and pathetic about these people not accepting that the three tramps were in fact simply that - three tramps - is what they are asking us to accept here. Namely that the "old" tramp, is in fact Hunt who, in 1963, would have been YOUNGER (born 1918) than the man he supposedly conspired to kill (Kennedy was born 1917). One look at that photo would tell any reasonable person that these are different people. Of course, we aren't dealing with reasonable people here... Canada Jack (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Dr. Snow at the HSCA, "earlier pics of Hunt indicate that he had plastic surgery to bring his ears back closer together" (paraphrased?). Again, lets show the ALL the pics, let us decide (we're not blind) or do we hafta take Dr. Snow's and the HSCA's words for it as if governments -- especially U$A, don't lie, commit coup d'etats, force confessions or cover up and crucify truth? Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, how do you expect us to believe that that old tramp who looks like he was old enough to be Kennedy's father, was in fact Mr. Hunt who was younger than Kennedy? We don't have to take anyone's "word" for it - the answer is rather obvious, Raquel: The man was not Hunt.Canada Jack (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's Ur opinion or POV that the "old tramp looks like he was old enough to be Kennedy's father." Hunt was an admitted master of disguise. (Citation needed but I could find it if U don't believe me.) Again: Show the pics so we can see 4 ourselves! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raquel Baranow (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You claim that that photo is of Mr. Hunt. I say that Hunt was younger than Kennedy, yet the man you claim to be him appears to be old enough to be his father. So you call that "POV" and say Hunt was "an admitted master of disguise." Well, if that is so, then how can one possibly hope to identify such a "master of disguise"??? Seems to be quite the fall-back. I suppose if he looked like Michael Jordan and was 6 foot 10, then you'd say that "master of disguise" was at it again! The conspiracy theorists might be taken a bit more seriously if they weren't so silly. But that's my POV. Canada Jack (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hunt is listed on his resume as being 5'8". A photo-analysis in the book "Coup d'Etat in America" shows this to be true. A similar comparison of the Sturgis Tramp confirms the two heights (ibid.) . . . there's also TWO independent forensic scientists who identify the third Tramp as being "Dan Carswell" (ibid.). Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Raquel, this is unfair. Either you are posting here because you are serious about improving this article on wikipedia, or you are not serious, and have some other motive (like you enjoying toying with people while you plug your web site). If you are serious, then you have a responsibility to answer other peoples' questions about your claims.
 * Again, are you or are you not suggesting that two different groups of similar-looking men, the first being Doyle, Abrams and Gedney, and the second being Hunt, Sturgis and Harrelson were both arrested on the day in question? I don't see how else you can reach the conclusions you have reached. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, six ppl (actually more) were arrested that day taking for granted Gedney, Doyle & Abrams were NOT contrived by the CIA to explain who the Tramps were. I'm serious: CIA killed JFK! I'm an expert on this . . . been arrested and interrogated by the Secret Service under very strange circumstances . . . asked all kinds of weird questions in jail . . . offered drugs by said Secret Service agents in jail, etc. I'm NOT making this up and I'm NOT mentally ill, lol! I'm a very smart/wise person! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you certainly seem sincere, I'll give you that. I'm afraid I'm out of my depth here. You were offered drugs by the Secret Service? Um, wow, thanks for sharing. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Name Change
I disagree with the name change of the article as it is not solely related to conspiracy theories. The first section clearly presents the "non-conspiracy" theory of the Warren Commission. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the many problems with this article introduced in the last year is the lengthy "Findings and Analysis" section under the Lone Gunman section. What used to be a tight, bullet-point summary of evidence in favor of the WC to give the article context has been replaced with a nearly 1400 word rehash of Warren's conclusions that really has nothing to do with Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.
 * I propose that whole thing be replaced with a short summary and Further information links to the articles: JFK assassination, Warren commission, Oswald's rifle, and single-bullet theory. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with both your analysis and your proposal. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's what I did. I expanded 'Background' to talk about more than just the WC. I updated 'Further information' for other articles related to the evidence. I moved some of the lone gunman/witness stuff to background, and eliminated the rest as not germane to this article. I moved a couple of subject headings so that they make more sense.Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mac Wallace: Delete
Propose that this whole section be deleted and replaced with a reference to the McClellan book in 'Other Published Theories.' Half of the section is irrelevant to the article, the other half is full of innacuracies and uncited claims that various things are 'disputed.' Whoever wrote this isn't even aware of the distinction between the supposed Wallace fingerprint found in the sniper's nest and the print found on Oswald's rifle. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * once again, I support your proposal. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

LBJ Conspiracy and J.Edgar Hoover conspiracy: Delete
LBJ section: Nearly 500 words, yet this details no conspiracy at all! Besides a lot of meaningless trivia, all we have is a single cryptic remark supposedly made to Madeleine Brown, and a throw-away insinuation from Jack Ruby. Propose this section also be deleted and replaced with a reference to Madeleine Brown's book in Other Published Theories. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoover section: Fails to even suggest, much less document, complicity in a conspiracy by Hoover. Propose this whole section go, to again be replaced by a reference in Other Published Theories, suggested is Mark North's Act of Treason which suggests that Hoover actively sought to keep the crime unsolved. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ramsquire. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the LBJ and Mac Wallace sections with a new Lyndon Johnson section limited strictly to conspiracy theories. The controversy generated by McClellan's book after it became part of Turner's documentary series acutally got a lot of media play a few years ago. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the recent addition regarding the Hunt allegations and the 2007 Rolling Stone article. First of all, the paragraph was totally inaccurate as to what the article claimed. Second, Hunt's never actually offered any kind of coherent accusation regarding Johnson. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Archives?
There are no archived talk pages for this article. Anyone know where they went? Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There were here (18:00, January 12, 2008 Joegoodfriend (Talk | contribs)
 * Dissappeared here # # 14:57, January 17, 2008 MrKIA11 (Talk | contribs)
 * MrKIA11 perhaps accidentally deleted, so someone should figure out how to put back or cut and paste them back. Carol Moore 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * I've restored the archives to the best of my ability. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

May 16 Wash Post article on questions on bullets and shooters
I don't know much about this aspect, didn't see ref in article. In case people missed it:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html Scientists Cast Doubt on Kennedy Bullet Analysis Multiple Shooters Possible, Study Says]

In a collision of 21st-century science and decades-old conspiracy theories, a research team that includes a former top FBI scientist is challenging the bullet analysis used by the government to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot the two bullets that struck and killed President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Carol Moore 15:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * The official investigations of the assassination have contended that an analysis of all recovered bullet fragments demonstrates that they all came from the same "batch" of bullets. This contention has long been controversial. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Rational Skepticism wiki
How is it consistent with rational skepticism to privilege the "mainstream" narrative of the Kennedy Assassination over alternative theories? Why is the Warren Report to be believed in such a knee-jerk fashion as many "skeptics" do? Why the unthinking label of "pseudo-history" in the wiki box? Why is the New York Times version of history that which the oh-so-sober skeptics agree on, automatically, as Holy Writ? Is the government lone-nut theory vetted at all, or do you just put on your skeptic hat the moment someone disagrees with the clean, comforting version of events you already heard in the news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.107.132 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary: it's more scientific to be skeptical of crackpot theories that have no basis in reality or proof. Saying it's a conspiracy to believe the simplest and most-proven idea simply because there are other, unproven ideas is a logical fallacy. People who believe in the Loch Ness monster or homeopathy in the face of having absolutely no evidence to support their claims aren't skeptical. In fact they're the opposite.

Anyway, I think conspiracy theories are an insult to the memory of the people who died, whether it's JFK or 9/11 and I would take pity on the people who perpetuate the myths if they weren't so ridiculous and sick.--71.33.238.177 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your name-calling and straw man arguments are tiresome. It's not "scientific" to label something a "crackpot theory" simply because you didn't read it in the New York Times. To assert as you do that the CIA theory of the Kennedy assassination has "no basis in reality or proof" is a childish, dogmatic and ignorant position, no matter your pretense to sober rationality: the overwhelming preponderance of evidence in the case points to a wider conspiracy. So, to clarify: disbelief in the government-dictated, journalist-transcribed myth of the JFK assassination is the essence of skepticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.186.245 (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What is more rational? Gun shots were fired at the President by two people who were demonstrably poor marksman for vague political reasons. One of the persons who shot at the President was himself later shot by a man who seemed possessed by a 'Walter Mitty' personality disorder, who had ample opportunity to kill his victim in the proceeding days, but chose the moment he was on National Live T.V. to do so? Or do we believe sinister forces hired 3rd rate snipers, and a Buffoon like character to kill one of their 'Hitsquad' on National T.V. If you believe the latter, then start looking at the events in Dallas as you would a Keystone Cops, or Charlie Chaplin Movie.Johnwrd (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was Jack Ruby whose action on live TV made the world shout "Conspiracy". I think we can safely exclude him as being a conspirator. Oswald was another story. From the moment he joined the Marines, he started to keep company with shadows.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Mitrokhin Archive
I'm surprised that there wasn't any mention of the Mitrokhin Archive. Documentary evidence showed that the KGB actively promoted and even started conspiracy theories, including about the JFK assassination, as part of a well organised disinformation campaign to undermine public trust in the US government. This is how a lot of the conspiracy theories in this article were started. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speculation that the KGB promoted CIA crimes and conspiracies doesn't mean that they didn't happen. Under your reasoning, one should dismiss any KGB crime that was similarly promoted by the CIA, unless we are to believe in a cartoon world where the KGB was evil and lying while the CIA was true and pure in their respective propaganda campaigns. More likely, both the U.S. and Soviet establishments had skeletons in their closets -- black ops, criminal conspiracies, etc. -- and each enemy naturally sought to promote the crimes and injustices of the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.210.102 (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Mitrokhin was a defector with scores to settle, and eager to please his new masters. His memoirs were written with and popularized by Christopher Andrew, the favorite historian of the British intelligence establishment. In essence, then, we have MI6 telling us that the KGB made up lies about the CIA. Mitrokhin's is a narrative tainted by his deep involvement in anti-Soviet propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.210.102 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't speculation. Mitrokhin brought trunks of documentary evidence from the KGB archives that it actively invented conspiracy theories to undermine trust in Western governments. The story that HIV was invented by the US military was previously reported by US media as fact, but this was retracted when actual documentary evidence from the KGB archives proved the KGB invented the story. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert McClelland, a physician in the emergency room who observed the head wound, testified that the back right part of the head was blown out with posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue was missing. The size of the back head wound, according to his description, indicated it was an exit wound, and that a second shooter from the front delivered the fatal head shot.[11]

CIA-splintering, or shredding?
The CIA assasinations are says "JFK wanted to (splinter, shred) the CIA and spread them to the four winds." Not an exact quote, but you get the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.25.226 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

American public surveyed?
I remember reading somewhere a formal survey was done of the American public and quite a large figure don't believe Oswald was a lone gunman. Anybody know of any surveys that have been done on the topic? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Public opinion polls have always and consistently been lopsided in favor of a government conspiracy. The only people who really believe Oswald acted alone are a few hundred journalists.

Roscoe White
This completely unsubstantiated theory does not need three paragraphs in the article. Suggest this be cut down to a couple of sentences in 'Others Published Theories,' with a reference to Matthew Smith's JFK: The Second Plot, which explores the White business in detail. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Without objection, I have made this change. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cuban Conspiracy
This section is more than 700 words long, yet it does not reference a single legitimate source on a Cuban conspiracy to kill JFK.

The only documented "Cuban conspiracy" I can find is the confirmation by Claire Luce (wife of the publisher of Time and Life and an anti-Castro activist) that she was contacted by anti-Castro Cubans saying that they had information that Oswald was part of a Cuban (pro-Castro) assassination team. The HSCA tried to investigate the incident but came up empty. I suggest that this material be added to the article and the undocumented stuff currently in this section be stricken entirely. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Without objection, I have rewritten this section of the article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

McAdams as a source here
Is anyone else here opposed to Mcadams as a source here? Why is my website were I argue with him not better? Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this website you've listed here seems very reliable. It appears to be a slapdash of many different conspiracy theories thrown together alongside Jim Garrison's case, which I think can be reliably said to fail to make its case...at all. But lets talk. What about this source is unsatisfactory? Why, besides the fact that it is your work, do you think should it be referenced? TheMcAdams site seems fine to me, but then again I chose it, so...--Jlray (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's article on verifiability states that, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, etc., are largely not acceptable."
 * On the surface, that might seem to disqualify McAdams. However, McAdams tends to be used as a source where he is quoting recognized, published sources on his web site, not where he is making original claims, conducting original research or stating his own subjective conclusions. I hope this is helpful. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hunt never testified before the Warren Commission, it was the United States President's Commission on CIA activities within the United States ("Rockefeller Report") where he testified. Link to the Rockefeller Report. Hunt was also a focus of the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations. Something needs to be done with that addition/reference . . . I'd like to expand on the Hunt section but have lotsa other stuff to do (plus plan a vacation in a week). Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to be snide. Not my fault somebody else put up an inappropriate citation.--Jlray (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Officer J. D. Tippit

 * Nobody has ever speculated as to the role Officer Tippit played in the JFK assassination; namely who tipped him off as to Oswald's identity (the description of a slender, white man in his twenties does not provide the average cop with much to go on I'm afraid); why Oswald had to pump four bullets into him instead of playing it cool as he did when Officer Baker questioned him less than an hour previously (!) at the TSBD? Remember Oswald had his fake ID on him, he could have shown him that if questioned as to his identity, and then proceeded to where h was going, which begs yet another question. Does anyone have any evidence that could point to Tippit having been present at Dealey Plaza at 12.30 P.M? If Oswald could be in Oak Cliff 45 minutes later, despite not having a car, then Tippit, who had his own vehicle, could certainly have made it there by 1.10!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. There has plenty of speculation regarding the possible prior acquaintance of Tippit and Oswald or Tippit and Ruby. Yes, an evaluation of these accusations is germane to this article.
 * 2. No one knows the exactly how the famous description of the suspect got on the air. The Warren Commission chose to presume that a police officer must have relayed in the description after getting it from Howard Brennan. Read the evidence, draw your own conclusions.
 * 3. Tippit's movements before the assassination are known. They are also somewhat mysterious. Speculation has suggested that his decidedly odd behavior points to everything from involvement in the assassination, to involvment in Ruby's alleged plan to kill Oswald, to Tippit trying to cover up an extra-marital affair. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the entire episode points to Oswald's guilt. While many can (and have) come up with exceedingly unlikely and silly scenarios, the simple truth, in all likelihood, is Tippit saw a man acting suspiciously - probably walking very quickly, perhaps trying to avoid Tippit's car - after hearing a general description over the radio, and decided to question the man. Oswald probably stupidly thought he could escape if he got rid of the cop. What is clear from how his arrest went, he wasn't thinking clearly - he would have shot and killed another cop if not restrained.

As for Baker, perhaps you aren't thinking this through, Jeanne. #1 - Oswald wasn't armed. He therefore couldn't very well pump four bullets into Baker. #2 - after initially being challenged, he was identified and Baker ran off. In contrast to Tippet who, it would seem, was treating Oswald with far more suspicion. A level, calm person who had nothing to do with JFK's assassination would have, presumably, properly identified himself, would not have changed his clothes in the middle of the day, would not have also picked up a gun after the assassination, would not have fled the TSBD, alone of all the employees there, and, if he had nothing to do with the assassination, would have stayed at the scene to be with other employees who could readily identify him and say they watched the motorcade. Alas, Oswald wasn't innocent now, was he? Canada Jack (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, I don't think we're communicating well with one another here. Call it Communication Breakdown. I have never said that Oswald was innocent of complicity in the JFK assassination; on the contrary, I think he was deeply involved, hence the need for Ruby to rub him out. Baker came on the scene exactly 90 seconds following Oswald's alleged act of murdering the most powerful man on the planet which took about 8 seconds; however, when the cop encountered him his demeanor was so cool and unruffled that Baker let him go. Now, if someone is going to be acting strange and suspicious it would be immediately after the crime when he hasn't got off the hook yet. By the time he was in Oak Cliff, 45 minutes had already passed, Oswald wouldn't have known about Brennan's vague description being transmitted to all the cops via radio in the Dallas area. Oswald was walking very fast, so what?! How many people walk fast when they are late for work, an appointment, have a bus to catch, etc. Oak Cliff is quite a bit away from Dealey Plaza and only 45 minutes had passed. It's highly unlikely that Tppit, out of the blue just happened to link a man walking fast to the Kennedy assassination 45 minutes previously, in another section of town. Another thing, why wasn't Oswald's rooming house being staked out, or did the polce know he wouldn't be returning? It was obvious that Oswald was meetig somene inside the theatre. Normally places such as cinemas (theatres)and churches are used as points of contact. I would say, with all due respect to his family, that Tippit wasn't quite the innocent man the WC has made him out to be--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Migod, Jeanne. Not really sure what is so bizarre here in terms of Oswald's actions. They are completely consistent with someone who had just carried out a big crime, acted "cool" about it, then tried to flee. In fact, just about everything he did and every way he acted indicates he shot the president and was fleeing, and, further, that he had no accomplices. Clearly, you want to read everything backwards, that's your prerogative.

Now, if someone is going to be acting strange and suspicious it would be immediately after the crime when he hasn't got off the hook yet. You are kidding, aren't you? If I were the person who just shot the president, I would be doing everything to pretend nothing had happened. Which is precisely how Oswald acted. So, what does Oswald do, immediately after one of the most shocking events to have happen in our lifetimes he does what? He gets a Coke! Indeed, he acts like nothing at all has happened when Baker confronts him! IOW, he was acting very much like someone who was going out of his way to be cool and relaxed, mere seconds after one of the most shocking events in history happened mere steps away! He wasn't shocked? He wasn't upset? He wasn't saying "Migod! You think something happened here? Someone fired shots from here? I was upstairs earlier! Let me show you around!" No, Jeanne, Oswald's actions when he saw Baker are precisely those of someone trying desperately to play cool and calm, at the exact time where we'd except everyone to be shocked, full of adrenaline and, at the very least, wanting to desperately know what just happened.

''By the time he was in Oak Park, 45 minutes had already passed, Oswald wouldn't have known about Brennan's vague description being transmitted to all the cops via radio in the Dallas area. Oswald was walking very fast, so what?!''

Well, if he had zero to do with the murder, then he'd have no reason to believe police were looking for someone who fit his general description, would he? Yet, he was acting suspicious enough, apparently, for a cop to take notice. Perhaps it was walking fast, perhaps he did a u-turn when he saw Tippit's car and this tipped off Tippit. We don't know as both were dead soon afterwards. On a normal day, someone walking fast, or just looking like they were fleeing, probably would not warrant a second glance from a cop. But this was no normal day. In fact, it was one of the most shocking days in American history, and every cop in the city was no doubt rushed with adrenaline and on their highest alert. Tippit may have thought "hmmmm.... this guy's in a hurry. Better have a chat, see what's up." That may have been all it was. It seems clear from the description of how Tippit left his car that he didn't consider the man much of a threat. If he did think this was the guy who shot Kennedy, he'd more likely have called in reinforcements, or surely would have set up a defensive posture. And you don't think that what seemed to have been a more or less routine set of questions and Oswald's reaction is not indication of guilt? That he was not trying to flee? That he, quite simply, panicked?

It's highly unlikely that Tppit, out of the blue just happened to link a man walking fast to the Kennedy assassination 45 minutes previously, in another section of town. He was assigned to the area, he saw someone suspicious, and he probably thought it wasn't likely he had anything to do with the killing. Which is probably why he was incautious when he stepped from the car. Not sure what the mystery for you here is, Jeanne.

Another thing, why wasn't Oswald's rooming house being staked out, or did the polce know he wouldn't be returning? Now you are getting silly, Jeanne. By the time Oswald and Tippit met, there was only a vague description of a suspect. If this was a case of pre-ordaining a suspect, Oswald, then we would have expected a stake-out. But by then, it was only becoming clear that Oswald was the only employee missing.

It was obvious that Oswald was meetig somene inside the theatre. Where do you get this stuff, Jeanne? We have a witness who saw Oswald cowering in a shop window as cop cars whizzed around, then saw Oswald sneak into a theatre, without paying. His actions, in other words, were of a person fleeing. Why did he go into a theatre? Hmmmm. If I was trying to flee, and I was on a main street, where would I go? A gas station? What, lock myself in the can? Hide in a dumpster? Or, go into a shoe shop? Hide behind a display? Or... in a crowded, darkened theatre, where I might not be seen or where I might blend into a crowd. And where I could pretend that I had been for the previous hour, or whatever.

Further, why, if he was meeting someone there was he going away from the theatre when he shot Tippit? Why avoid paying if you were innocent and risk causing a scene (if simply meeting someone)? You'd make that relatively minor risk if you were fleeing from a much more major event. Especially if you wanted to make it seem you couldn't have shot anyone minutes earlier if you were watching a film at the time! Indeed, he was seen not because anyone was looking for that exact, precise guy, but because his suspicious actions drew attention to him. And still further, I am aware of no evidence, no witness testimony, which says that Oswald was seeking out anyone in the theatre, or otherwise engaged with someone there, which makes your idea a simple flight of fancy. It's fine to have an idea, Jeanne, you need some concrete evidence for it.

I would say, with all due respect to his family, that Tippit wasn't quite the innocent man the WC has made him out to be. Except you've brought forward precisely zero evidence for this assertion other than your assumptions which, when examined closely, fail to support your premise. It seems to me you want to believe that, if not innocent, Oswald was set up, and you want to believe that Tippit was somehow involved. Most telling to me is, if Tippit was somehow involved, why would he a) in public stop an accomplice, and b) if he knew this man was a cold-blooded murderer, why would he so casually and recklessly confront the man? Canada Jack (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your addition of Oswald smoothly fitting the purchase of a coke from a machine into the 90 second time frame does not further your case for him having been the lone assassin; besides four floors is not a few steps away, it is four floors above, by which he had to descend, undetetected, down a staircase. That, cannot be accomplished in the blinking of an eye unless you are Elizabeth Montgomery. Also, there are reports that Tippit went to the Dodds House Restaurant every morning; it was located on North Beckley. There are also witnesses who saw Carl Mather's car near the scene of the Tippit shooting.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But we know someone fired from the sixth floor, Jeanne. Why? There are multiple witness accounts of a) actually seeing a person or rifle firing and b) earwitness accounts saying the TSBD was the source of gunshots, let alone tons of physical evidence (like a rifle, spent shells, a sniper's nest) and the wounds suffered are consistent with shots fired from the window in question. The only question then is: What happened to the gunman (whoever it was) who, clearly, fled the scene? Sure, no one saw Oswald race down the stairs, but whoever fired the shots had to have escaped. And on one else was seen fleeing. Your shaky premise seems to be, if it wasn't witnessed, it didn't happen. But someone fled the scene! Someone raced down the steps! And since Earl Warren himself easily managed to descend the steps in the time required, there is no mystery, except the mystery as to why anyone sees this easily accomplished feat as something magical or of Olympic-calibre.


 * And, I am sorry, but under the circumstances, Mr Oswald was I would say bizarrely at ease just moments after the president himself had been shot and killed mere steps away. If you think that is "normal" behaviour, I don't know what to say. Because you have to take the premise that someone who was one of the most politically involved and aware people known by any of his acquaintances would be completely indifferent to a) the passing-by of the president of the United States and b) completely indifferent to the huge commotion - and he surely would have heard gunshots - going on outside. Right.


 * As for increasingly desperate attempts to link Tippit to anything sinister, I see you have completely avoiding my points addressing why Tippit's murder did nothing else but confirm Oswald's attempt to flee justice. Again, it's not enough to imagine connections and scenarios, you must supply evidence of these scenarios. When evidence is lacking, then we ask what is the most reasonable explanation. Like Tippit having breakfast on Beckley. So what? People do things that, from the outside, are not always easily explained. Perhaps he liked a waitress there. Yet these things are usually not anything sinister. You've so far supplied a lot of unreasonable explanations to things which are completely consistent with what we'd expect if a) Oswald indeed was the assassin and was trying to flee and b) if Tippit had seen someone suspicious the day the president was shot, but didn't expect anything but a routine check. Canada Jack (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also evidence that the fatal shot did not come from the Sixth Floor; besides, as I keep repeating, it is not possible to accomplish so much in such a brief time span. And, how could nobody have seen Oswald run down the stairs-the stairwell was open?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, perhaps you are in a wheelchair, Jeanne. Oswald wasn't. Getting down those stairs is more than possible. Even Earl Warren managed this "impossible" feat. You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. Which too many here seem not to get. As for the fatal shot, we have the Zapruder film, we have the body. We have an entrance wound to the real and we have UNANIMOUS opinions from pathologists (not simply observations from one or two doctors who were trying to save the president, not investigate his wounds), including from Wecht, who believes in a conspiracy, that the fatal shot to the head came from the rear. The "evidence" you speak of is not supported by the physical evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Oswald's escape route has been reproduced multiple times, and it is a snap to recreate Oswald's movements in the times he apparently took. Canada Jack is correct. Furthermore, Jeanne boleyn, if you would read the article you are currently discussing you would know that there were multiple witnesses to Oswald, from people who saw the barrel of his gun in the window to people on the fifth floor who had plaster bits fall on them when the bullets were fired. --Jlray (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks guys, now I see I've been misguided in my beliefs all of these years. Yes, you are both 100% correct. Oswald acted alone, there was no conspiracy, Oswald was some lunatic who happened to eliminate the man who stood in the way of many ambitions, thus obviating the need for a conspiracy; there was no frontal head shot; Connolly was hit by the same bullet as Kennedy that did not stop in mid-air before doing a wild dance inside his body; Tippit was the prototype for Lt. Colombo; Ruby, as I can see now was merely an over-zealous patriot who unfortunately acted as a pimp on the side. Yes, Jack and Jlray, with your powers of rhetoric you have managed to rid me of my fantasies (which unfortunately are shared by most Europeans-I'lll see what I can do about convincing them to change their minds). Oswald acted alone, there was nobody else involved, thus this article is pointless. I appreciate being enlightened after 45 years! Whew.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is in answer to Canada Jack's rather thoughtless wheelchair comment. No, I'm not in a wheelchair, but there may be others reading this who are. I'm sure that they would most likely find your remark to be in very bad taste as I do myself. You should strive to be more tactful in the future before haphazardly tossing out insensitive remarks which are just going to cause offense.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne - from your comments, it is clear you are not used to having to critically assess your positions. And it is clear that you are wedded to the idea of "conspiracy," the veritable mountain of evidence - and it is a mountain - pointing directly at Oswald and Oswald alone notwithstanding. I was like you - from 1972 until about 1998, I was certain that there had to be a conspiracy. That was until the high-resolution versions of the Zapruder film were available, and before three-dimensional reconstructions of JFK and Connally made clear what the WC and HSCA both concluded - JFK and Connally were hit by the same bullet. Indeed, if one closely examines the evidence, one realizes that Conally HAD to be hit from a bullet coursing through JFK - there was no where else for the bullet to go. And this is corroborated by the nature of his wounds, indicating a tumbling bullet which, by definition, meant the bullet which hit Connally hit something before. That "something" could have only been JFK.

Once I realized that Oswald could have killed Kennedy alone, then all the other pieces fell into place. Have you actually read the Warren Commission report, Jeanne? Their case is very, very strong. And its conclusions hold true today. True, they didn't investigate all the conspiracy leads they could have, and the examination of the autopsy findings which would have made many matters beyond doubt, was lacking. But those deficiencies have been addressed by subsequent investigations. Even the HSCA, which said "conspiracy!" also concluded Oswald was responsible for all the wounds suffered by JFK and Connally.

Your complete and utter unwillingness to critically address evidence which may counter your long-held beliefs is on display when it comes to the question of how long it would have taken Oswald to descend the stairs to be there to be seen by Baker. Clearly, you've not read any of the reconstructions of this, because if you had, you'd not make such definitive statements such as four floors is not a few steps away'', it is four floors above, by which he had to descend, undetetected, down a staircase. That, cannot be accomplished in the blinking of an eye unless you are Elizabeth Montgomery'' nor would you evade the question by my suggestion that one would have to be disabled to not be able to match the feat into some grand "insult" to disabled people. Well, Jeanne, I'm sorry if I suggested that someone in a wheelchair couldn't get down four flights of stairs within 90 seconds as opposed to someone who was able-bodied. But it is time to answer questions instead of evading them and changing the subject.

As to the facts, which you seem to want to avoid, here are some of them: When the WC timed Truly and Baker in 1964, the times the got in two tests were 90 seconds and 75 seconds. On the same day, an agent, one John Howlett, retraced Oswald's presumed route, from the window, placinf the rifle, then descending the steps. The first test at "normal walking speed," was 78 seconds. The second test, a "fast-walk" test, took 74 seconds. The HSCA also tested Oswald's presumed route, running, and came up with 46 seconds. So, at Oswald's slowest and Baker's fastest, Baker would have beaten Oswald to the room by only three seconds. But it is doubtful a) that Baker was there that quickly (90 seconds seems more likely) and that Oswald took his time to get to the second floor. Even if Oswald did walk at a normal walking pace, he would have been in the lunchroom a full 12 seconds before Baker arrived at the time you said Baker arrived.

Here's another one for you, Jeanne, something you should ponder. How much would a body weighing 180 pounds move if hit by a 160 gram bullet travelling at 2000 feet a second? If you know the answer to that, then you know why JFK's movements after the fatal gun shot could not have been the result of a shot from the grassy knoll. But, given your responses so far, no doubt you will ignore something which may challenge your cherished beliefs. Hey, I was the same as you, I held onto those beliefs for a quarter-century. But once I was able to actually critically evaluate the evidence and the arguments, I came to the conclusion that Oswald and Oswald alone was behind the killing. Any final doubts I harboured were quashed once I read - cover to cover - Bugliosi. I recommend you read it, Jeanne. As I said above, you are entitled to your own opinion on the matter, free to conclude a conspiracy was afoot. That's fine. But you are not free to distort and misrepresent evidence which is indisputably there. IOW, you are not entitled to your own facts. Canada Jack (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK if you say so, it must be true. Who am I to challenge an expert?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the dash to the lunchroom, I disagree with Jack on this one for this reason: all of the recreations left out a bunch of stuff that Oswald did.

From p. 152 of the Warren Report: “Two recreations were done for Oswald's time to the second floor. One was 74 seconds, the other 78. Two were also done for Baker. One was 75 seconds, the other 90. From the WC: The minimum time required by Baker to park his motorcycle and reach the second-floor lunchroom was within 3 seconds of the time needed to walk from the southeast corner of the sixth floor down the stairway to the lunchroom.

So the WC makes this work, as long as the everyone forgets about the stuff they knew about but skipped: Looking out the window for several seconds after the shooting, escaping from the closed sniper's nest (which was somehow done either without pushing the 50 lb. boxes out of the way, or by pushing them back into place after exiting the nest), hiding the rifle between stacks of boxes, pushing another full box over the two stacks with the rifle in between, descending the stairs while somehow completely avoiding Victoria Adams (who was on the staircase at that time), and (possibly) buying a Coke. All without breaking a sweat.

What about the Coke bottle? In Baker's WC testimony, he stated that Oswald had nothing in his hands when he encountered him in the lunchroom. However, Baker subsequently submitted a handwritten statement, in which he wrote of Oswald, "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom, drinking a Coke." The words "drinking a Coke" were subsequently scratched out and initialed by the officer. Very confusing. If Oswald did already have a Coke in the lunchroom, the WC version falls apart. What we do know is, Oswald's next move was not to leave the building, but to casually stroll past the desk of SBD employee Mrs. R. Reid, while drinking a Coke from the lunchroom.

Additionally, my take on the medical evidence is very different from Jack's. For example, let's look at what the five doctors who testified to the WC actually said, and what the Conallys said.

Doctors Humes, Boswell and Finck were the USN doctors who worked on JFK, Dr. Shaw was Connally’s Dallas surgeon. Dr. Olivier was in charge of the test bullet fired through a cadaver. CE 399, (the single bullet) weighed 2.4 grains less than the heaviest known unused bullet of that kind. Asked if the bullet could have inflicted Connally’s wrist wounds, Humes: “I think that it is most unlikely. Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels thoughout the wound. (The bullet was) basically intact, and I do understand how it could possibly have left fragments.” Could it have caused the thigh wound? “I think that extremely unlikely. (The x-rays showed) metal fragments in the bone.” Boswell agreed that Humes' words were the “culmination of our examination.” Asked if the bullet could have caused Conally's wrist wounds, Finck said, “No. For the reason that there are too many fragments. Asked if the bullet caused Connally’s chest and wrist wounds, Shaw said, “fragments of metal make it difficult to believe…there seems to be more than three grains of metal missing…in the wrist." Dr. Olivier on the test bullet: “The nose of the bullet is quite flattened. It is not like (CE 399) at all. This one is severely flattened on the end.” Mrs. Connally’s testimony: “I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck…and he just sort of slumped down. Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John.” The Gov. himself on the first bullet that hit JFK: “It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet.” Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK if you say so, it must be true. Who am I to challenge an expert?


 * Gee, I'd call that changing the subject. Are you completely incapable of answering a direct question on an issue at question? Why don't you do us all a favour and descend from your Tower of Received Wisdom, cease hurling insults and answer the questions posed? What, you don't need to? You are right, end of story? Others say you are not to be taken seriously. I can see why. Canada Jack (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And you are to be taken seriously, especially after Joe has effectively demolished all of your so-called facts. Canada Jack, I would advise you to descend from your Tower of Brainwashed by the Warren Report Fabrications and take your overt misogyny elsewhere. You are obviously not used to having women challenge your opinions which you laughably call facts. YOU DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS, and nobody would take you seriously here in Europe, where people are not so gullible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've countered his points, said why they don't apply. And I've done the same with your points, saying why they don't support your thesis. For example, why it is more reasonable to suppose Oswald was trying to escape capture when he went to the theatre rather than "meet someone," a statement which is not a "fact" but an unsupported "opinion," unless you have other information. Further, I have pointed out evidence which detracts from your thesis and supports what the WC asserts. Your response? Change the subject, ignore my points, engage in insults (now I am a "misogynist" (!?!)), flatly saying I do not have all the facts while not addressing the issues I have raised (such as with the Baker time sequence)... If you show some inclination here of actually engaging in a discussion, I am willing to do so, but it's time to get off your high horse and actually discuss some of the issues raised. Canada Jack (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe: I am not sure that this is in fact true - I am not sure the the WC omitted the various obstacles here, they did I know include his planting of the rifle. And, of course, there are many estimates which say that the 90 seconds Baker took was in fact longer, as Baker himself said that he surveryed the scene for a few seconds, then had to wind his way through the employees at the door, neither of which were part of the WC recreation either.

But this talk misses a salient point - if we accept the premise that someone fired shots from that window, and unless I understand otherwise, you agree that shots were fired from there - then we have to ask, what happened to that person? All other TSBD employees were accounted for, save Oswald, no strangers were seen in the building, and who ever it was likely took those same steps and had to make his escape. If not Oswald, then who? And,as Jeanne say, no one witnesses the descent, missing the obvious point that most people were watching the motorcade, well, no one saw the non-Oswald shooter escape either!

AS for Connally's wounds, the physical evidence of his wounds indicate he was hit by a tumbling bullet, and physical evidence outweighs witness testimony, if there is a conflict. The only way for the bullet to be tumbling as it was was for it to have hit an intervening object. And as mulitple recreations have shown, a bullet passing through JFK had to hit Connally. If not, what did the bullet hit before it struck Connally? This is incontrovertible. As for the doctor's opinions, they are just that - opinions. There are others who differ on this and agree that 399 could quite easily have caused all those wounds and the fragments left in Connally could all have been from the bullet in question. So you are left with choosing opinions over physical evidence. Besides, the Connallys themselves disagreed on the sequence of events. And though Connally was sure he was hit with the second bullet, the first one hitting JFK, he never saw JFK until after the bullet struck himself, and his actions described are consistent with a presumed missed shot circa frame Z160. Canada Jack (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple more points, Joe: "50 pound boxes." The heaviest boxes were 50 pounds, some were as light as 8 pounds. But the point is someone fired shots from the window and therefore escaped. And, interestingly, there is photographic evidence to corroborate this. Photos which showed the suspect window of the TSBD taken by Tom Dillard and James Powell "a few seconds" and "about 30 seconds" respectively after the shooting show that the boxes visible in the window were moved between the time those two photos were taken, a conclusion reached by the HSCA photographic panel.


 * As for Victoria Adams, there is abundant evidence that she descended the stairs after Truly and Baker ascended the same stairs. She reported seeing two employees immediately upon descending the stairs, both of whom testified they first ran into the railway yards before entering the building (and one testified, the day of, of attending to a weeping girl) thus suggesting she descended later than she thought; Adams reported immediately leaving the building, going around the corner and hearing a police radio report on the source of the gunfire, which was broadcast 9-10 minutes after the shooting; Another employee, Eddie Piper, saw Truly and Baker call the elevator then run up the stairs, but didn't see Adams come down before, which he would have if she had. Canada Jack (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, at the moment I'm very worried about the earthquake which has hit Italy this morning, however I will calmly state that the 90 second time sequence is an impossibility when you take into account the fact that immediately after the fatal head shot, Oswald glanced out of the window, wiped down the gun, either vaulted over or moved aside the stacks of boxes surrounding the sniper's nest; sprinted diagonally across the room, carefully placed the rifle behind some boxes near the stairs, then proceeded down the said stairs to the second floor, unseen and as you said then purchased a coke-at this point I have to wonder whether or not he had the change in his hand, otherwise we have to add the time it would likely take for him to procure from his wallet the necessary money which he then put into the machine, waited for the bottle to fall, opened it, and proceeded to sip the coke just as Baker came storming in. Ninety seconds for all of those things to happen? One minute and a half? No way, Jose. This is not arrogance on my part, Jack just honest incredulity. I will not buy the WC version of events on 22 Novembr 1963. Sorry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

''Looking out the window for several seconds after the shooting, escaping from the closed sniper's nest (which was somehow done either without pushing the 50 lb. boxes out of the way, or by pushing them back into place after exiting the nest), hiding the rifle between stacks of boxes, pushing another full box over the two stacks with the rifle in between, descending the stairs while somehow completely avoiding Victoria Adams (who was on the staircase at that time), and (possibly) buying a Coke. All without breaking a sweat.''

The "looking out the window" comes from a single witness which, at most, adds three seconds to the sequence. Oswald was also thin enough to squeeze between the stacks of boxes by the window: he didn't need to reposition the boxes, they needed only to move slightly (as photographic evidence suggests in fact happened.) As for placing the rifle, other reenactments show that Oswald didn't need to move anything - he only needed to lean over one stack of boxes and push the rifle in place. This could have been achieved in five seconds. So, the Oswald presumed time sequence has been reproduced and is reasonable. As for Baker, when he was timed at 90 seconds, he presumed he got to the front entrance at 15 seconds from the last shot. However, there is actual footage of Baker, having dismounted his motorcycle, in the process of rushing to the door. The end of the sequence - when he was still about 60 feet from the entrance - has been calibrated to 18 seconds after the final shot. It would have taken about a dozen seconds for Baker to get to the entrance, through the crowd, and into the building. So, we are talking a probable more likely time of 100+ seconds for Baker.

And, again, I reemphasize the point I made earlier. ''Someone fired shots from the window. And someone had to have escaped.'' If no one saw Oswald descend the steps, that also means that no one saw the "actual" assassin descend the steps either. But someone had to have escaped. So, to say no one saw Oswald descend, or that Oswald didn't have enough time to descend, is a moot point as no one saw anyone descend the steps, but we know someone had to descend the steps to escape. All the other employees were accounted for, all had alibis. And no reports have emerged of strangers in the building from employees of the TSBD who would know who belonged there and who didn't. And, recall, the rear entrance was watched by witnesses, as was the front, so any strangers would have been seen leaving before the building was sealed off. IOW, everyone is accounted for, everyone has an alibi, save for Lee Harvey Oswald.

As for the Coke issue, both Truly and Baker said that Oswald was going away from them, they said nothing about him having a Coke in his hand until Baker made that statement later in 1964, after he had likely heard Oswald claim he had the Coke in his hand. Since Baker crossed out the line about the Coke, he may have realized his memory of that was actually a recollection of what Oswald claimed, not what he saw. And there was no reason for Baker to omit that detail earlier if he wanted to implicate Oswald, since he described Oswald as being "calm." A description, incidentally, almost every witness to Oswald's actions throughout the day (save for his arrest) affixed to a description of his actions. So Oswald's "calm" is not an indication of anything. As a brief aside, if no one saw Oswald descend the stairs, and this is a "big" issue, then why no similar quarrel with lack of witnesses who saw him go UP the stairs?

Further, as I have also pointed out, it seems a little bit more than odd and inconsistent for Oswald, after one of the most heinous acts in American history just occurred steps away, doesn't go out of the building to see the aftermath, doesn't help the police find an accomplice, or assist, doesn't say anything, indeed acts as if nothing at all had just happened. It sounds more like he was trying to pretend he was acting routinely to disguise the fact he had just dashed down a flight of stairs. And what better "alibi" then to pretend that he was journeying to get a drink from the lower lunch room, even though no one emerged to claim they actually saw him earlier in the lunch room (until, despite other witness testimony to the contrary, someone emerged 15 years later to say as much). It fits in quite nicely if he was in fact descending from the top floor, unseen, and pretend to engage in something "routine" but adjacent to an obvious escape route. Canada Jack (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Ruby who forever silenced the secrets and true facts in his mind, Lee Harvey Oswald is fated to remain one of history's most enigmatic personages.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Very true - if Oswald had gone to trial, I am certain that a lot of this speculation would have been moot. Oswald would have had to account for the evidence which linked him to the assassination and his evasiveness during questioning after his arrest would not have passed muster during trial. 159.33.10.92 (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One other way to look at the issue of Oswald being the one who fired shots from the TSBD is to look at the issue from reverse. Forget Oswald for the moment and consider first whether there was an assassin from that window. I think that is fairly easy to establish. Next, was the rifle found the same one which fired the bullets recovered? Whatever you believe about 399, the fragments from the head shot have been ballistically matched to that particular rifle, so the rifle was placed after the assassination, not planted before. Next, we have to ask who are the available candidates to have been the triggerman? While some ambiguous testimony exists suggesting other people in those windows, all from people who were not employees of the TSBD, we know no one who was not an employee exited the TSBD immediately after the assassination who could have descended from the sixth floor, either from the front or the rear entrances. We know this because numerous witnesses watched the exits and no unknown person was seen to leave. Once the building was sealed and searched, the possibility that someone hid inside the building can be eliminated. So, we have to ask: Who then could have been the assassin? Since we know all the employees of the building, and we can account for all of them - save one - we must conclude that that assassin had to be Lee Harvey Oswald, the sole person whose movements can't be accounted for at the crucial moment. If the "Coke" encounter had happened during the assassination, that would be another matter. But it wasn't - it was after, and we can't be certain, given the variables, exactly how long it took Baker to get to the vestibule to see Oswald and, for the same reason, can't be certain how long it took Oswald to get there if that is in fact what he did. The same works for Adams. There is ample evidence to suggest she would have followed Baker and Truly in terms of when she used the stairs. All of this builds a very strong circumstantial case that Oswald was the assassin, though it doesn't conclusively suggest he was. But if he was innocent, the question of who in fact was the triggerman becomes a very big question, as it is hard to see who else it could have been. Of course, there is much additional evidence to suggest Oswald was the man. But the sequence of events with the stairs, the sealing of the building, and the people known to be in it, tends to corroborate the conclusion that Oswald was guilty. 159.33.10.92 (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to address some of the points made by Jack and the recent anonymous post.

On the reenactment of Oswald's movements, no, I don't think that the WC covered the things I suggested they did not cover. From p.152 of the WR: "Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the east aisle to the northeast corner. He placed the rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald's rifle was actually found after the shooting." Also, there was at least one box pushed over the rifle: Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone on the discovery: "As I got to the west wall, there were a row of windows there, and a slight space between some boxes and the wall. I squeezed through them. . . . I caught a glimpse of the rifle, stuffed down between two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it." (3H293) You also mention Oswald squeezing between the boxes, but this is moot if the photos show that the boxes were move after the shooting.

Victoria's Adams testimony was completely consistent with the affidavits and FBI statements of Lovelady and Shelley from the day of the assassination: "we went back into the building and...took some police officers up to search the building." It wasn't until five months later that they claimed to have gone to the rail yard right after the shooting. It was they who were inconsistent, not her. If she was on the stairs alone 30 seconds after the shooting, the WC's story falls apart.

The anonymous comment claims that the bullet fragments from the head shot have been matched exclusively to Oswald's rifle. This makes no sense to me. They're just small fragments of lead.

Two things on the Connallys. 1."the Connallys themselves disagreed on the sequence of events." Ok, I'll bite. What are you talking about? 2. Connally, "never saw JFK until after the bullet struck himself." I disagree. Connally stated to the New York Times, "We heard a shot. I turned to my left. I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left in the back seat. The President had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit."

Finally, Jack does not mention which modern reenactment(s) of the shooting he finds most compelling, so I can't comment on that. However, I will say that I can't understand why people find these reenactments more compelling than the evidence given by the man who was shot, the woman sitting next to him, the doctors who actually examined the victims, and the experts who actually tested Oswald's rifle and ammunition. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Joe - I was the anonymous poster, in Avid training most of the day, I wrote some of the above during breaks and forgot to log back in...


 * First, as a general comment, let's remember what "evidence" is the most reliable, the least open to doubt and which establishes facts. That evidence is physical evidence, of the bullets, the rifle, the wounds to the president and the governor. Next comes the photographic evidence which, while establishing many facts, nevertheless is open to interpretation owing to its 2-d representation of our 4-d world. Finally, we have eyewitness evidence which, while important, is most open to error, confusion, and simple false statements. But one thing has to be underlined, when physical evidence and eyewitness evidence are in conflict - such as with what the Connallys said - the physical evidence must take precedence. You pulled this quote from Connally: "We heard a shot. I turned to my left. I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left in the back seat. The President had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit." The problem here is that the Zapruder film firmly establishes that Connally was hit before he glimpsed JFK, though he may have not been aware of it, even though the statement implies he looked at JFK before he was hit.


 * So, what physical evidence is there to deal with, first in terms of the assassin in the TSBD? WE have the evidence of the rifle, which has been matched to the bullet fragments to the head. And, again, I am making the case that there was, indeed, an assassin shooting from the sixth floor of the TSBD. Ignoring the 399 bullet, CE 567, a bullet fragment found on the driver's seat, was found to have sufficient distinctive barrel markings to make a comparison with test bullets fired from the same rifle found on the sixth floor. The Warren Commission and the HSCA both concluded that that bullet fragment was fired by that particular rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons (3 H 432-5; 3 H 496-8; 7 HSCA 369). In a similar fashion, CE 569, though heavily mutilated, had enough intact surface area to make the same determination (3 H 435-6; 3 H 496-8; 7 HSCA 369). So the fragments of the bullet which most likely shattered JFK's skull were proven to have been fired by the particular rifle found on the sixth floor, to the exclusion of every other weapon. So, what does this mean? It means someone shot the president from the sixth floor of the TSBD, and most probably that same someone stuffed the rifle where it was found. In other words the rifle from which bullets fired and struck JFK was placed where it was found after the fatal bullet was fired and before the rifle was discovered behind the boxes. And that means whoever that person was had to have escaped as there was no person present on the floor in question when Baker and Truly got there.


 * So, simply put, how could this assassin - who many people actually saw shooting at the motorcade - escape and elude the notice of the very same people who you claim had to have seen an escaping Oswald? How do we know he escaped? Because each and every person in the building was known and accounted for, save for one, no unknown and unaccounted for person was seen leaving the building at the front or rear, and the building was thoroughly searched.


 * As for the Adams statement, you are forgetting it conflicts with several other statements. True, Shelley and Lovelady both did not mention going to the railway yard first in their initial statements, though those statements were a mere paragraph long and lacked most of the detail found in their later statements. So to suggest they were "inconsistent" is highly misleading, they simply made incomplete and short initial statements. And, besides, this ignores that Shelley did describe running across the street to the corner of the park, encountering a crying girl who said the president had been shot, all before going around to the rear of the TSBD where he and Lovelady encountered Adams (CE 2003; 24 H 214, 226). That would suggest a time frame of about two minutes before Adams got down those stairs, more than enough time for Oswald to get down. And, further, as I mentioned above, she immediately went out to the front and heard a police radio report which was known to have been broadcast 9-10 minutes after the assassination. In other words, Adams' testimony shows clear signs of a common psychological event - time compression. And, finally, as I also above mentioned, the testimony of Eddie Piper, who was standing near the elevators as Truly and Baker unsuccessfully called for them, stated unequivocally that no one came down the stairs before they went up. Since Adams didn't see Truly and Baker go up, and Piper didn't see Adams come down before they went up, she had to have come down after Baker and Truly ascended.


 * While I have seen some reconstructions of the time it took Baker to confront Oswald as short as 70 seconds, this is largely based on some of the confusion due to the questioning of where the timing starts - from the first shot (for Baker) or the last shot (for the assassin). However, as I mentioned, television cameraman Malcolm Couch shoot footage which shows Baker's motorcycle and Baker himself running towards the entrance. We know when, to within a second, of when this footage shows Baker, as it calibrates with the footage Dave Weigman who caught the presidential limousine before it reached the underpass. Far from the "15 seconds" Baker estimated it took to get in the front door and the "by 10 seconds" estimated by some conspiracy theorists, Baker is last seen in the Couch footage 18 seconds after the third shot, and it would have taken him a further 13 seconds to get to the front door at the same pace, let alone get in the door (Bugliosi, endnotes, p. 471). This adds much more time than most have supposed before Baker encountered Oswald.


 * As for Oswald, the "wait" in the window would have been seconds. While some testimony seems to indicate the nest was blocked off, one photograph clearly shows a sufficient gap of about 1 foot which would been enough for Oswald to squeeze through (CE 513; 17 H 224). Critics like Howard Roffman have suggested that, because of descriptions like the one you have from Boone, that Oswald would have needed 15-20 seconds just to hide the rifle, and move boxes to hide it. But when Boone and Weitzman testified for the WC, neither of them said they needed to move any boxes to see the rifle. Indeed, they immediately formed a cordon to ensure none of the boxes were touched before photographers and forensics arrived. So, the misleading impression that the rifle was placed and Oswald shoved some boxes to hide it is belied by the fact that the two investigators discovered the rifle without moving any boxes. Indeed, Lieutenant Day said this about the recovery of the rifle: "It came out without moving any boxes. It wasn't wedged in." (4 H 262) The reconstruction I referred to was by Todd Vaughan and Dale Myers who in 1998 made an accurate reconstruction of the scene, down to the make of rifle. They reported that concealing the rifle was a simple matter of leaning over a row of boxes closest to the stairs, sliding it barrel-first into a crevice between boxes and then beginning the descent. Hiding the rifle took all of 5 seconds. And, remember that though critics say the clock started on Baker with shot one, and Oswald on shot three, we have shown that in fact Baker took at least 30 seconds just to get to the front door as can be fairly firmly established by photographic evidence, and Oswald would not have needed nearly as much time as some suppose to escape the nest, stash the rifle amd descend the floor.


 * Besides, as I have repeatedly stated, someone shot from there, subsequently stashed the rifle and took off. If it was not Oswald, who then could it possibly have been?


 * Connally - They argued after seeing the Zapruder film over whether JOhn fell into Nellie's arms or was pulled into her. More importantly, Nellie had oft testified that the first shot hit JFK, she saw his reaction, then the second shot hit her husband. But she also said that her husband exclaimed "oh, no, no no," after the first shot, while he said "When I was hit is when I said 'Oh, no, no, no." Connally, of course, said that shot was the second shot. Indeed, he testified that his mind was certain that he and JFK, though both struck by bullets fired by Oswald, were nevertheless struck by separate bullets. The problem is, he always described immediately turning to his right after hearing the first shot and, before completing the turn, getting shot. SO, how could he know he and JFK were hit by separate bullets? The answer is he couldn't by his own eyes, he had to rely on Nellie's testimony. But the Zapruder film quite clearly shows that the turning reaction he described was the one that started circa Z160 where many suppose a shot was fired and missed. JFK, of course, doesn't show any reaction until around Z220, so Nellie and Joh are in conflict here as he clearly reacts to a first shot far earlier than what Nellie describes as the first shot.


 * As for the bullet fragment evidence, in relation to CE 399, that will have to follow... But suffice to say, there is ample evidence to show that the remaining fragments in Connaly's body, the several recovered fragments from his wrist (or other body parts) and the bullet itself all add up to a single bullet, not more than one bullet. I;ll post that later.


 * I will say that I can't understand why people find these reenactments more compelling than the evidence given by the man who was shot, the woman sitting next to him, the doctors who actually examined the victims, and the experts who actually tested Oswald's rifle and ammunition.


 * That's rather simple, as I said above - physical evidence trumps witness evidence. The Connallys were both convinced he was struck by a separate bullet. But the shape of his back wound indicated a tumbling bullet, which is undeniable physical witness of a bullet which had hit an intervening object. Further, the nature of his wounds were characteristic of a bullet which was significantly slowed by the time it struck him, again strong evidence of having hit an object before. As for the experts who tested the rifle, since Oswald's feats were easily replicated (one bullseye out of three, remember), and since the marksmen who recreated the event testified that any bullet which passed through Kennedy had to have hit Connally, the single-bullet theory is in fact not only supported by these people, it is verified. Robert Frazier, the firearms expert who testified for the WC and took part in the reenactment in 1964, stated that Connally was aligned with the bullet trajectory from Zapruder frames 207 through 225. And, further, whether a bullet could have caused all the damage and look relatively "pristine," though it was actually flattened, has also been confirmed by numerous experts. Canada Jack (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who hired Oswald then? And who hired Ruby to eliminate Oswald? Those are the big questions; whether he was the lone shooter is really of secondary importance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily follow that if Oswald was the lone gunman, he was hired to carry out the act. For one, it is quite clear he got no money as the WC was able to account for virtually every dollar he had earned and spent over the previous several years and there is no sign that Oswald had any cash from an unknown source. Further, there is no evidence he was in league with others, as he was described by all who knew him as a "loner." He, for example, lived in a rooming house. There is no evidence that any unknown persons visited him, or tried to contact him. And, even if put aside the complete lack of evidence for the sorts of associations one would expect to conclude a conspiracy was afoot, once you delve into the character of the man, one wonders who would ever want to recruit such a morose, anti-social jerk to carry out such a high-risk operation?

As for Ruby, he was practically a poster-child for the mentally ill. When some say that he was a hit-man for the mafia or whomever, as the murder of Oswald had all the hallmarks of a mob hit, one wonders if these people have thought this through? Mob hits are typically done by gunman with one major feature: The gunmen always escape arrest. Indeed, the gunmen are typically unknown, the cases unsolved. Ruby? Millions saw the murder live on television, and he had zero chance of escape. Secondly, another "hallmark" of a mob hit is the gunmen make every effort to ensure a fatality. What did Ruby do? He shot Oswald in the gut, not in the head. The doctors said that Oswald almost survived. Finally, again, as with Oswald, Ruby was one of the last people you'd think of, if you were calling on someone to carry out a job, to do so, as he was, in a word, mentally ill. But when he spoke of the notion of "conspiracy," Ruby always said that there was no one who put him up to the task, and his actions traced over the previous few days support this assertion. He was talking to or in contact with no one who could reasonably be seen to want to see Oswald silenced.

In the end, there is no evidence for conspiracy which withstands scrutiny, either in the death of Kennedy, or in the death of Oswald. Canada Jack (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody said the mob were necessarily behind the assassination, in fact, I would reject the notion out of hand. The Italian mob just did not possess enough power nor did they have the sort of executive authority to suborn the WC. I have lived in Texas, the good old boys in Dallas would hardly take orders from a gang of foreigners. I think we can safely exclude the Mob. I also think we can exclude the Cubans and Russians for the same reasons I havegiven for the Mob. But there were others who did benefit from the death of Kennedy. Oswald was not your ordinary weirdo. How many ex-Marines defected to the USSR back in those days? Then there was the business of him being given the sensitive job of radar operator at the age of 19! He does not sound like a jerk to me, he sounds like someone I wish I had been old enough to have met and talked to. What a fascinating, multi-faceted character. I do think he had a hand in the JFK assassination but he was just a cog in a very large, silent and deadly wheel which moved slowly but inexorably toward Elm Street on 22 November 1963. The fact that we are here, 45 years later, two strangers on opposite sides of the Atlantic debating this is proof of the thoroughness of their mission.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

True, whatever the truth here, what happened back in 1963 still resonates. AS for the mob, true, you made no mention of them as a likely instigator here. Though for Ruby at least, the connection seems more plausible. Beyond your objections is also the reality that the mob simply didn't carry out assassinations of public officials - in the U.S., at least. (A different story in Italy... I've been to places like Messina, Catania, indeed when I was in Sicily, the mob killed the prosecutor in Palermo by blowing up his car on the highway, but I digress...)

As for who would benefit from the death of Kennedy, that is the sort of question one first asks when it is not yet clear from the evidence who was behind a murder. But here, it became clear within hours that the killer was Oswald, and subsequent investigations of Oswald's background made it clear that he had no associations which would point to a conspiracy. Oswald was an oddball. This is clear. How many ex-Marines defected to the USSR? One. Oswald. But how many Marines back then were openly Marxists? How many, during the height of the Cold War, praised the enemy and the enemy's system? Yet, the record shows, he was quickly disillusioned with the Soviet Union, and increasingly saw Fidel's Cuba as the place of "true" Socialism. It can only have been a devastating blow for him to have his efforts to travel there rejected by both the Soviets and the Cubans in Mexico. It is not hard to see how his narcissistic personality descended into violence and frustration as he was, seemingly, set on the road to mediocrity filling book orders in a warehouse when he had aspirations to be "prime minister" (sic) of the United States. Canada Jack (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are referring to the murder of Giovanni Falcone. I remember when that happened. I was living with my mother in Texas at the time. On an unrelated note my maternal grandmother is buried in the same cemetary as Oswald, in fact my mother lived on Commerce Street as a child and in Oak Cliff as a teenager. I saw Oswald being shot dead by Ruby on live television.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was Falcone. I think I was in Syracusa when that happened, by the time we got to Tropea, it was all anyone was talking about. Canada Jack (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * His death was a turning point in Sicilian history. I live in the foothills of Mount Etna.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I knew that that assassination (which we CAN agree was a conspiracy) was a turning point. Cool - I've been to Taromina and Naxos... Etna was gurgling at the time... Canada Jack (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Jack recently followed up a post of mine with a thoughtful, detailed post that I believe ran to over 11,000 characters. Not to mention more posts since then. This much work deserves an answer, but right now I really need a break. But I'll give you a preview of what my eventual response will look like:
 * Jack says, "How many ex-Marines defected to the USSR? One."
 * Don't know where you heard that one. In reality (cribing from Anthony Summers), "between 1945 and 1959, only two American enlisted men defected to the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe. In the eighteen months up to 1960, a good number of the known defectors either went over direct from the military or had sensitive backgrounds. In a sudden rash of turncoats, no less than five were Army men stationed in West Germany, and two were former naval men and employees of the NSA. Of the civilians...one was a former official of the OSS, another a former Air Force major, and a third a former Navy enlisted man. Then of course there was Lee Oswald, fresh out of the Marines. (snip) An assessment of the claim that US intelligence was sending out false defectors must take into account the sudden increase in the number of Americans with government of DOD backgrounds who went to Russia just before or after Oswald."
 * I can also name several other reasons why Oswald's defection was very likely a false one. As Number 6 would say, Be seeing you. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, Taormina is beautiful, probably one of the most magnificent spots in Sicily, it also has, as you obviously know, an ancient history. I spend my summers at Giardini Naxos. Italy is famous for its myriad assassinations resulting from conspiracies; they are older than the foundation stones of its churches, amphitheatres and castles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe - I didn't mean to be literal there, I was talking loosely when talking about Oswald in Moscow. I know there were other defections, but the numbers were quite small around 1960. It was unusual enough to make the press, however. Canada Jack (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I misconstrued one of Jack's comments, I try not to do that. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CE 399
Joe quoted Drs. Hume, Boswell, Finck, Shaw and Olivier, JFK autopsy doctors, COnnally's doctor and a doctor involved with testing bullets on a cadaver in realtion to CE 399, the so-called "magic" bullet which the WC and the HSCA say caused the non-fatal wounds to JFK and Connally's wounds. His quotes expressed doubts that given the fragments left in Connally's wrist and thigh, it was "extremely unlikely" (Humes representative words) that that bullet could have caused the wounds the WC and HSCA said it did.

But, as I briefly alluded to above, these were opinions based on several presumptions, most obviously that the cumulative weight of the fragments would exceed the apparent mass loss suffered by the bullet in question, some 2.4 grains or so of the 160 grain weight estimated for the bullet when intact.(I said 160 "grams" above... d'oh!) These doctors, qualified as they may have been, did not actually weight the fragments in question, so were making educated guesses as to what the total weight of the several recovered fragments from Connally, and the fragments which remained in his body.

CE 842 is a photograph showing four fragments removed from Connally's body. Dr. Charles Gregory, who operated on C's wrist, testified they were "lead-coloured, silvery...I did not recall them as being brass or copper" (4 H 122). The only part of CE 399 missing were parts of its lead centre, which was partly protruding. This means the bullet struck the wrist backwards, entirely consistent with the back wound which indicated a tumbling bullet which had struck an intervening object (i.e., JFK). But, of greater pertinence was how much the bullet fragments weighed. Of the four, only the largest was given a weight by the HSCA. "The largest fragment weighed 0.3 grain. The other [three] fragments were too small to weigh." (7 HSCA 367) So, the total weight of the recovered fragments? Likely less than 1.0 grain. And in case anyone says we can't trust the word of the HSCA, recall that that was the investigation which concluded, based on acoustic evidence, that there was a conspiracy. Dr. Quinn, who performed the MAA tests which compared the antimony levels of various bullet fragments to conclude only two bullets were likely recovered from the Limo and its occupants, testified in the mock Oswald trial in 1986 that three of the four fragments which he tested (the fourth particle, was "very small," and was lost over the years, said Guinn) "weighed .5 grain, half a grain." The best the conspiracy people can come up with is the statements from a nurse, Audrey Bell, who handled the fragments and placed them in an envelope. She claims the fragments were "matchead" sized. But the WC and HSCA both concluded that the fragments were the same fragments called CE 842 and which Guinn examined. And which, incidentally, were consistent with the metal levels found in CE 399.

So, we have .5 grain out of the 2.4 grain missing from CE 399. What of the seven or eight fragments which remained in Connally? Dr Gregory, again, said that the fragments seen in x-rays of the wrist would have been flakes, and he told the WC that their weight, in his estimation would be in micrograms, "less than a postage stamp" weight, weights in the range of .1 grain. Dr. Tom Shires describe a thigh flake of that weight. (4 H 120-125) When you add it all up, you might get to about half of the amount needed for the 2.4 grains missing. But just. So, notwithstanding the opinions of the doctors, when one actualy looks at what we know the fragments weighed, and the estimated weight of the remaining fragments (as opposed to ball-park figures given by your doctors, Joe), we eaily come to a combined weight well below the 2.4 grain amount so frequently quoted. Canada Jack (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess I don't get a break after all. Sigh. Well, I guess that's what I get for grabbing a tiger by the tail.
 * OK, Here's what Shaw said, "But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more than three grains of metal missing as far as the I mean in the wrist." Yep, there's some difference of opinion between Gregory and Shaw. I fail to see what's so compelling about Gregory's guess as to the weight from the x-rays. In any case, I wasn't trying to involve myself in a hyper-technical study of fragment weights. I was just trying to make a point regarding the way the Warren Commission worked. Specifically, they came up with a theory (the single bullet) and then when their experts suggested their theory was wrong, they went with it any way because they'd already made up their minds. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe, the problem with your characterization of this as a "hyper-technical study of fragment weights" is that if, indeed, the fragments were more than, say, 3 grains, then that would suggest another bullet and the single bullet theory would collapse. So, while "hyper-technical," it is definitely pertinent. What I did was simply point out that there was indeed expert opinion - including from several of those who actually operated on Connally - that the remaining fragments were mere flakes constituting maybe .1 grain each. Now, if this was the only issue the Warren Commission looked at to conclude anyting about the SBT, then you may have a point they "already made up their minds," but the problem with that premise is that the WC started with an enormous amount of evidence from the start that Oswald had carried out the murder and had done so alone. That's what a lot of conspiracy theorists tend to forget. Within 24 hours or so, it was pretty firmly established that Oswald a) owned the rifle found in the TSBD, b) was seen firing shots at the president, c) had his fingerprints all over the crime scene, d) had murdered a cop who stopped him, e) had to,d numerous provable lies while being interrogated. At the same time, NO evidence emerged of ANY other gunman in Dealy Plaza. Not a single person was seen behind the fence on Grassy Knoll where some thought the shots came from, no cartridges or firearms were seen or found. In short, no evidence emerged that anyone else was behind the actual murder. The main question was: did Oswald have any accomplices who put him up to the crime? THAT was not immediately obvious.

When it comes to the issue of the SBT, we have to remember that this didn't come about simply because of an examination of the Zapruder film. It emerged out after the FBI published their preliminary report on Dec 9 1963 which concluded that three bullets found their mark - ie JFK and Connally were struck by separate bullets - and after the coroner's report was received by the WC (Dec 23 1963). Because the FBI largely based their conclusions on very preliminary comments from autopsy surgeons that no exit wound for JFK's back wound could be found, they quickly deduced that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. But when the autopsy report indicated that, indeed, the exit wound was through JFK's throat the fact that only one bullet was recovered (besides the fragments thought to have struck JFK's head) eventually led to an inescapable conclusion - that both men were struck by the same bullet. Why conclude that? Because there was no evidence that the WC was aware of pointing to a second gunman and only three bullet casings were found, only three shots were fired, according to what was understood to be true at that time. So, while it seemed reasonable to conclude as the FBI did that all 3 bullets found their mark, the fact that a third bullet wasn't recovered meant a problem.

It was only in April 1964 that the SBT emerged, as the Commission struggled to reconcile the testimony of the doctors, the Connallys, and the evidence of the Zapruder film. On April 22, a memorandum written by Melvin Eisenberg reveals the conclusion that JFK was struck by frame 224, and "if Governor Connally was in the line of fire, it [the bullet] would have struck him." It was noted a) that the bullet which passed through JFK should have "ripped up the car" if it did not strike Connally, but also states that the pristine nature of the bullet seemed to preclude that that bullet indeed did the damage to Connally. Indeed, Drs Light and Dolce are recorded as making the same objections. This was before tests doe at Edgewood Arsenal proved that, indeed, such a bullet could do such damage. By April 27, the single-bullet theory had emerged, and it was realized a reenactment was required to verify if it was true. The reenactment confirmed that, indeed, Connally was in direct line of fire to be struck by the bullet which passed through JFK.

While you may object that the WC "ignored" expert opinion to the contrary, this opinion was largely based on the non-empirical belief that a bullet could cause such damage without itself being damaged (it was shown it indeed could) and ignores the fact that Connally would have had to have been hit by the bullet which struck JFK due to their alignment. So while there was indeed expert opinion that this bullet couldn't do the damage, nor could account for the fragments in Connally, there was also expert opinion for the opposite conclusion, and there was ample evidence elsewhere to suggest a single bullet. This evidence includes: a) the nature of Connally's back wounds (ovoid wound indicating bullet had struck something before); b) fragments removed from Connally were matched to the single bullet via NAA tests (they did not match the other bullet fragments found elsewhere in the limo); c) no other bullet was observed to have "ripped up the car" after passing through JFK almost unscathed and; d) enhanced copies of the Zapruder film show that, indeed, JFK and Connally reacted nearly simultaneously to being hit by a bullet, at the precise time they were aligned in a trajectory to the TSBD. Alone, each piece of evidence is not definitive. But together, the conclusion is almost iron-clad. Which is the problem with a lot of the conspiracy theories out there - they cherry-pick an opinion here, a possible discrepancy there, But that doesn't make all this evidence disappear, and this evidence is hard to explain otherwise. One part, maybe two. But not all of it. Canada Jack (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe more than one fingerprint was found on the rifle, and that was on the inside; a few were found on the boxes (as would be expected seeing as he worked at the TSBD), but NOT on the window frame and sill ( remember my earlier question:Who opened the window?); the witnesses who claimed to have seen Oswald fire at the motorcade were not very accurate in their descriptions of Oswald; a last question, who took charge of the Lincoln immediately after the assassination?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like I've have two options. Either spend hours a day answering these arguments or let them go unchallenged as if they are the unvarnished truth. Well, you've almost beaten me, but not quite yet.
 * You don't need to keep lecturing me with these laundry lists of off-topic bullet points of subjective conclusions why the Warren Commission was right about everything. As I'm sure you've guessed, I'm already aware of those opinions. You make light of the fact that I mention that the WC went with a conclusion at odds with the expert opinion/witness testimony it heard, but I could mentions dozens of times where it did this (the Fraziers, Helen Markham, Victoria Adams, etc.) thus my feeling that the WC reached conclusions based on preconceived notions.
 * On every point you mention, there are legitimate counter-interpretations of the evidence. Iron-clad? Hardly. This Shaw versus Gregory business is an example: two experts said two different things. There's no reason to conclude Gregory was correct and Shaw incorrect unless you've already made up your mind about Oswald as the lone assassin. My point is, Jeanne keeps raising questions about the assassination, and you keeping shooting her down (bad choice of words?) by citing opinion that supports the Warren Report, but at the same time failing to mention that there are different interpretations of the same evidence which suggest that the Warren Report might be wrong, which means that Jeanne's skepticism is also legitimate.
 * For example, you mention bullet fragment tests. I've read expert analysis showing that the analysis saying that all the fragments came from the same batch of bullets is bunk. And when I view the enhanced copies of the Zapruder film, I see that when the car emerges from behind the highway sign, JFK has clearly been shot. Connally meanwhile, is sitting upright with a smile on his face, hat in hand, wrist visibly undamaged.
 * One more thing, and then I really have to quit, but I owe you this one. You recently rewrote some of the first part of this article. You did a really good job. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fingerprints - On the rifle, a palm print was recovered from the "underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip" which matched Oswald's right palm. Other fingerprints were seen on the rifle but were fragmentary and insufficient to make a positive match. But Oswald unquestionably not only purchased the rifle, he handled it. And the fact that it was partially on the inside means that Oswald had personally assembled the rifle. In 1993, Vincent Scalice, who had earlier during the HSCA hearings agreed with the FBI and Warren Commission's conclusion that other latent prints were insufficient and too fragmentary to make any conclusion, concluded, after seeing all five first-generation photographs of the area of the rifle in question for the first time, that "These are definitely the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald..." These fingerprints were within an inch of the rifle's trigger.

In the sniper's nest. WHile it is not shocking Oswald's print were found on the boxes as he was an employee, no Depository employee left identifiable fingerprints on the boxes there other than Oswald. Further, Roy Truly and William Shelley noted that the two "Rolling Readers" boxes found there were normally "40 feet away or so." These two boxes formed the gun rest, and one would have had to be pretty familiar with these perfect-sized boxes to locate them and put them there. Oswald was one who could have been that person. His handmade paper bag was found in the corner of the nest, his prints were found on the bag, and Oswald was seen carrying the same bag into work that day by Wesley Frazier. And his clipboard was found on the sixth floor. In any case, all this evidence of Oswald's presence in the place at question would be damning. But to focus on the window sill, Jeanne, seems to be a bit odd. First, and most basically, did anyone dust the window sill for prints? Second, even if they did, are you aware that perhaps only 30 per cent of fingerprints are usable for ID purposes owing to the surface they are left on, smudges, etc? Thirdly, we don't know if Oswald needed to open those windows - they may have been open in the first place. Fourthly, if the window is like most windows I am familiar with, I don't see how a fingerprint would be readable anyway. And, finally, absence of evidence here does not negate the positive evidence elsewhere. One could say the same about the complete lack of physical evidence that anyone fired a shot from the grassy knoll - no one was seen, no spent shells, no bullet not associated with Oswald's rifle, etc. - surely, by your rationale, that would by necessity eliminate from serious consideration any thought of a gunman there, would it not? The same cannot be said for the sniper's nest. Canada Jack (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the photos taken of the TSBD prior to the shooting as the motorcade was approaching Elm Street, all the windows were closed bar the fatal corner window.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how your windowsill argument negates all the other evidence. Besides, if he opened the window with the base of his palm pushing up, there very likely would be no usable fingerprints. This is an issue that goes nowhere, Jeanne, because there is no expectation that we would have to find fingerprints at that location as there are numerous perfectly normal reasons for there to be no recoverable fingerprints on the window frame. Canada Jack (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Joe - the reason I listed those other pieces of evidence was not to snow you under with stuff to say "oh yeah? refute this!" but to point out that the Warren Commission was not operating in a vacuum and had a lot of very good reasons to believe that a single bullet caused the damage they said it did. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that they accepted what the doctors said and concluded that another bullet caused Connally's wounds, separate from JFK. What you don't seem to appreciate is this causes a lot of problems in terms of what the other evidence suggests. The most basic one being: what happened to the bullet which struck JFK? Even if it was not found, there would be clear damage to the interior of the limousine, yet there was none. And the nature of Connaly's back wound is very hard to explain as it indicates a tumbling bullet.


 * Further, while I will agree with you to the extent that when the reenactment was done, the purpose was to confirm the SBT and not to, for example, explore what the evidence suggests and look for possible trajectories, and see where they lined up - ie., whether there were other sources for the bullets (the HSCA did this), I don't agree that there was any shoe-horning of evidence to come up with a favoured theory. It is clear from the sequence of events that, given the available evidence, the Warren Commission could only explain what happened if there was a single bullet involved. In assuming a second bullet, problems emerge as the physical evidence they had would not match what was expected with a separate bullet.


 * The reason that the Warren Commission tested the trajectories was to answer the question "could a single bullet account for the injuries?" and they realized it could, most specifically because a bullet emerging from Kennedy would have to hit Connally. The next question to answer was "could a bullet cause all those wounds and be in the relatively pristine shape it was found in?" So there were tests done on cadavers which answered that question in the affirmative. Not every expert agreed, but the fact that there was dissension suggest that there was no "favoured" theory here. Indeed, the final report opened the possibility to conspiracy as it did not rule it out. But though at times counter-intuitive, the sbt has stood the test of time because it accounts for the physical evidence encountered. Two bullets do not, it's as simple as that.


 * To the extent that the Warren Commission simply went out to confirm a theory, rather than leaving the door open to other possible theories and therefore make tests which might have many outcomes instead of seeing if the "right" outcome was possible, I agree there is a valid criticism. Which is why the HSCA undertook more elaborate tests to discover trajectories etc from the evidence gathered. And, importantly, while stating there was likely a conspiracy, it nevertheless agreed with the fundamental conclusion that all the recovered bullets came from Oswald's rifle, those two bullets caused all the damage, and the single bullet theory was correct.


 * AS for the reaction time, the lapel flip at 224 means JFK's reaction as he emerged was possible if hit by the same bullet. But, again, if you want to argue a second bullet did that, then you have a host of problems to account for like a) what happened to the bullet which passed through JFK, b) how could a bullet hit Connally and miss JFK because of the alignment, c) how could that bullet have been tumbling if it hit nothing in between the muzzle and Connally's back etc... As for the NAA controversy, it really boils down to whether fragments from two bullets can be distinguished via their antimony concentrations. Currently the argument is "no," as the nature of bullet manufacturing today means you can't make that determination. But, you could with bullets manufactured in the early 1960s. What the conspiracy people always fail to note that the various fragments, while forming two distinct groups suggest two bullets, doesn't automatically eliminate the possibility that another bullet had the same qualities. It's just rather unlikely another bullet would. If there were three or more bullets represented by the fragments, it'd be far more likely you'd seen three groupings, not two. IOW, the data is what you'd expect if there was only two bullets, not what you'd expect with three. It doesn't prove there were only two bullets. But the authors never said it does.


 * As for the fix of the intro, I don't think I did that. I did fix the intro on the assassination page, for example rewriting it so that it was clear the general public started to seriously doubt the WC report starting in 1966 according to polls and that is true today. But thanks for the compliment anyway...


 * In sum, my general argument is while you may pull out quotes which suggests a piece of evidence is being misinterpreted or someone says X could not have happened the way it was supposed, in all cases you have mentioned other experts disagree. And, further and more to the point, it is not enough to point out a doctor who said X (unless there is no one else who can make a counter-argument), you have to account for the evidence which does not fit the scenario if X is not true. So, there are perfectly valid reasons why some testimony has been rejected, it's because it does not fit the rest of the evidence. Most conspiracy theorists won't even bother to address this fundamental problem when they suggest a second bullet. The other evidence doesn't vanish, It still has to be accounted for! Canada Jack (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada Jack (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Open window

 * Jack, I don't mean to be fixated on the open window, but do you not deem it odd that the Secret Service failed to notice the single open window in the TSBD as the motorcade appproached the building while proceeding along Houston St.? What do you think, Joe?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly. I mean, there probably several hundred open windows along the motorcade route. But what security standards we have today are far more stringent to what existed back then. Canada Jack (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, everyone is wise after the fact. It is curious that Oswald/X the assassin didn't open the other windows, as one single open window could have attracted the attention of the Secret Service.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think photos after the assassination show that there were pockets of open and closed windows throughout the building because there were people on the first few floors to watch the motorcade.--Jlray (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Lone gunman

 * Even if experts somehow manage to establish, with 100& certainty, that Oswald was the lone gunman, how does it prove that he was not part of a larger conspiracy which involved patsies like Oswald and Ruby all operating on a need to know basis?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been established with 100% certainty that Oswald was the lone gunman.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/13/jfk-forensics-tech.html

How does it prove that he was not part of a larger conspiracy? While first of all he was a committed communist, making an association with "business tycoons" or the CIA or any other such body unlikely. He had attempted to assassinate right wing General Edwin Walker, whom he considered a "fascist" and the leader of a fascist organization. Similarly he had no connections to Cuba and the Soviet Union would never have done it. They would never take such risks. If it was the MAFIA or a similar group, who cares? The MAFIA has killed lots of people its of no concern that one of them happened to be JFK.

p.s. He was not going to order a withdrawal(without victory) from Vietnam, or dismantle the CIA, Military-Industrial Complex and the Federal Reserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Establishing that Oswald was the lone gunman does not eliminate from the realm of possibility that a conspiracy was afoot. But it's a matter of proving a negative. Lack of evidence doesn't prove there was no conspiracy, as the possibility exists that some evidence linking Oswald to others may emerge. But no evidence has emerged that Oswald had any colleagues who in any way assisted him in the murder of the president. AS for "patsies," recall that Oswald used that term - but to suggest the Dallas police were setting him as he was a communist sympathizer, not that he was a fall-guy for a bunch of conspirators. Canada Jack (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The shooting of Oswald by Ruby (which I personally witnessed live on tv as a small child) has been one of the strongest pieces of evidence used by pro-conspiracy supporters against the verdict of the WC that Oswald acted alone. It is also paradoxically pointed out by the supporters of the Oswald lone gunman theory that conspirators with so much at stake, could never have ever trusted someone as unreliable and mentally unstable as Jack Ruby, who was known to have had a "big mouth". Yet, where does he fit in? Are we to believe that a character like Ruby was stricken by patriotic fervour, or was he hired on a need to know basis, same as Oswald may have been? Ruby has been largely overlooked by authors, and journalists alike; however he is probably as important a key to unlocking the mystery as Oswald himself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure. The immediate reaction to everyone, from Jackie to the average person, was that right-wing fanatics were behind the assassination, and the first reaction, upon Oswald's murder, was that he was killed to shut him up. But Ruby's life and his character have been exhaustively investigated, and though he had some peripheral connections to mobsters (more the Chicago mob than the Dallas mob, if memory serves), there was no evidence of any serious connections Ruby had in this regard. Nor any indication that, for example, he was in serious debt and had to repay that debt, nor in any other sort of personal or financial trouble which could be used to entice him to settle that debt with a contract murder. Further, if one looks at this rationally, if we were to suppose that the mob (or any other possible conspirators - his mob connections are the ones most often mentioned) wanted to shut Oswald up, one wonders what possible credentials Ruby would have for the job. There is no evidence he was ever a "hit-man", and the manner in which he shot Oswald makes it obvious he was no hit-man - Oswald very nearly survived. So, if there was a "need" to shut Oswald up, because the risk he'd talk was too great, why entrust the job to someone who a) we couldn't be sure would be able to carry out the job and b) had a reputation from everyone who knew him that he was a blabber-mouth and couldn't keep a secret?

And, most pertinently, when one looks at what Ruby was doing immediately before the murder, the strong impression is that it was a spur-of-the-moment action. Evidence was gathered that Ruby was unusually affected by the murder of JFK, he wept openly and talked about the poor kids Caroline and John now without a father. He was purchasing a money order a few minutes before, and as has been often pointed out, if Oswald did not insist on changing his sweater, Ruby would not have made it to the transfer point in time to shoot Oswald. While not definitive, one wonders if Ruby was hired to do a hit what he was doing taking his dog to the vet and getting a money order when he should have been getting ready and positioning himself to kill Oswald. Finally, from Ruby himself - he repeatedly said that he had no accomplices, that he did this out of anger for what Oswald did. Canada Jack (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, I think I'm inclined to agree with your reasoning about Ruby. One has to remember that the last thing a conspiracy would do is hire someone with a big mouth; what's more, it was Ruby's action that immediately made people shout Conspiracy to the high heavens. It was not in the conspirators' interests to have Ruby kill Oswald, thus drawing people to the logical conclusion that he acted to shut Oswald up. Another thing one must consider: as Jim Leavelle escorted Oswald that fateful morning prior to the latter's murder, he had joked with Oswald saying that if someone took a shot at him, "he had better be as good a shot as you (Oswald)", and Oswald had replied "Nobody is going to shoot me". Obviously, Oswald felt completely safe in police hands, knowing that suspicions would be raised if something happened to him whilst in police custody. I therefore believe that Ruby upset the apple cart by gunning him down before live television cameras for millions of people to witness, myself included.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all true. Additionally, if Ruby had been put up to it by conspirators, then what about Ruby himself? If Oswald needed to be silenced, why did this not apply to Ruby? Further, the time to have killed Oswald was shortly after the assassination, before his capture. He was subjected to 12 hours or so of interrogation, the "conspirators" surely wanted to avoid him being questioned. They would have either facilitated his escape or, more likely, killed him. And finally, Ruby was known to have been in close proximity to Oswald in the police station earlier. And he testified (originally) that he had a gun. Surely, if was put up to it by conspirators to kill Oswald, he would have done it then before Oswald had more of a chance to talk, and because Ruby couldn't know if there'd be another opportunity. So, not killing Oswald earlier when he had a chance is evidence that it was a spur-of-the-moment decision to kill him later. Canada Jack (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All true, including Ruby's incredible coincidence at being able to make the assassination schedule, only because Oswald wanted to change clothes and came out late. Otherwise, Oswald would have been transferred on time (the planned and announced time) while Ruby was down the street with his pet dog, wiring money to a stripper. Duh. No way could Ruby have known of the delay because it was last minute, and even the cops didn't know it. The other thing to remember is Ruby was a hair-trigger guy, a club-bouncer kind of guy who was likely to slug you in the stomach if he didn't like the look on your face. He didn't like the look on Oswald's face, which looked like a smug smile to him, and he couldn't quite get there to slug him in the stomach. So, he pulled the weapon he always carried and used one shot from a pistol as a proxy for a stomch jab, to hurt the guy a lot. Look at his left hand as he fires-- it's balled in a fist and he has a perfect boxer's position. That's not an assassin: a decent assassin would have been in a two-handed grip, double-tapping Oswald through the chest, and trying next for the head. No reason to shoot him the stomach ONCE, when the heart is right above it. No bullet proof vest, here. This was going for the hurt, not the kill, by a guy who was temporarily insane. Probably a competent defense could even have got him off on that basis. Unfortunately, he had a famous lawyer, not a good lawyer, and managed to get convicted of pre-meditated homicide initially. Which it clearly (at least to me) was not. S  B Harris 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also had Ruby been part of a conspiracy why did he remain forever silent? He had nothing to lose by spilling the beans on the whole operation. Had someone ordered him to shoot Oswald, surely he would have spoken of it before he died. Ruby's killing of Oswald was really what drew the public's attention to the possibility of a conspiracy, so I think we can dismiss him from being part of any plot.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Theories differ
OK. In regards to the theories on Soviet involvement, should we point out that some argue that Kruschev ordered JFK killed, and others argue it was a different group inside the KGB or GRU? Orville Eastland (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

New Statement on Involvement with JFK Assassination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F7pqn9hMWQ&feature=channel_page

Released just a few days ago

this is not theory, it is actual involvement

James Leon Ward was in with Costello and was hired to drive the two shooters (Herbie Echo and John Argo) from the hit, and to kill and bury them. He implicates LBJ staff (W. Tom Johnson/CNN and Bill Moyers/PBS) as planning the assassination with Costello’s men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.130.186 (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Then that makes some 200 shooters who claim or who others claim were in Dealy Plaza. One wonders how anyone walked out of there alive... Canada Jack (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, have you heard the one about Elvis having been there?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Elvis Costello? Canada Jack (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ward and Costello make it 216 different individuals who it is claimed were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Echo and Argo make it 84 different individuals who it has been claimed were actual assassins that day. (Bugliosi, pp. 1491-1499) As Bugliosi wryly noted, with all those assassins firing away that day, "it's remarkable that Kennedy's body was sufficiently intact to make it to the autopsy table." Canada Jack (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the King of Rock and Roll: Elvis The Pelvis.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, no conspiracy can afford to involve over 200 people; at the most there would be only 4 individuals fully cognizant of the details, with helpers- such as Oswald for instance, working on a need to know basis. 200 people could not be trusted to keep their mouths shut, nor could they be controlled, before and after the operation. As Sir Amyas Paulet said in 1586, "why involve two people in a plot when just one will suffice".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

More than 200 named individuals have been identified as being involved in a conspiracy over the years. The point is not how could so many people keep quiet, the point is that it is far to easy to point a finger when most people don't demand a shred of evidence for allegations. Canada Jack (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With the passing of time, whatever evidence existed has long since gone; as are the people who could have been involved. You believe that Oswald acted alone, I don't; however, it's unlikely we'll ever really know the truth of that fateful day in Dallas. Once our generation dies, subsequent generations likely won't care to investigate the crime further. We'll have to come up with rock-hard proof now, not wait for the future generations to do it for us. But where is this proof to be found.......?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that as more and more people take a dispassionate look at the events in question, they will conclude that, indeed Oswald did it and wonder why for so long people ignored the veritable mountain of evidence pointing to his guilt while embracing the complete lack of evidence for a conspiracy. IOW, no additional evidence is required here. The "unknowns" are likely irrelevant. Canada Jack (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea behind The Man who was Thursday seems to apply here.

Given that JFK's private life was probably known to "movers and shakers" and the KGB etc, and the fallout from "applying pressure by threatening to reveal such matters" is considerably less than that for elimination of the President, the former would be more viable than the latter.

The six degrees of separation theory can be used to link the assassination with almost any person or organisation (can someone find a link with Shergar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Related articles for deletion
Please see Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker. Vary Baker claims to have had a relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald, and says both were involved in a plot against Castro that involved cancer research. The debate hinges on whether enough independent, secondary reliable sources exist to show independent notability. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

===You deleted Judyth Baker's biography. Then wrote here that she has no evidence that she knew Oswald. ANNA LEWIS AND OTHER WITNESSES HAVE BEEN TELLING US FOR TEN YEARS THAT BAKER HAD AFFAIR WITH OSWALD. At judythvarybaker.com you can go see Anna Lewis on film saying she and her husband dated with Oswald and Baker.She also has Charles Thomas family, her sister, and more,how many witnesses does she need? But instead you write your libel and slander. It will be remembered against you. truehistory a.m. sverigeTruehistoryjvba (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is notability, not whether her claims had a factual basis. As for evidence, one wonders why, after 45 years, the only piece of physical evidence which places her in the same locale as LHO is a tax form. Where are, for example, any notes from LHO to her? or vice versa? How about phone records? JB claims to have talked with him in Dallas, something which, surely, could be corroborated by phone records. Where are they? Why did NONE of these witnesses mentioned above say anything to the Warren Commission or the other investigations which followed that they encountered LHO and mentioned in whose company he was seen? Surely, the memory being so fresh, at least ONE person would have come forward and mentioned something to the investigators - or someone would have said, at Wm. B Reilly and Co that they noticed LHO talking a lot or leaving or whatever with JB?


 * But, in the end, whether LHO and JB were carrying on a torrid affair for years is neither here nor there if independent, reliable secondary sources are not reporting on it nor considering it of any great importance. Canada Jack (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another related article on Jim Braden and the Dal-Tex building has been tagged for deletion. The basis for the deletion appears unfounded as the article lists references.Aliveatoms (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Libel and slander? Didn't you see Spider Man?
 * Peter Parker: Spider-Man wasn't trying to attack the city, he was trying to save it. That's slander.
 * J. Jonah Jameson: It is not. I resent that. Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete "CIA and anti-Castro Cuban exile conspiracy" and "CIA assassinations" sections
Neither of these sections of the article detail a JFK assassination conspiracy theory involving the CIA. I suggest that they be deleted entirely, with the exception of the text detailing the lack of adequate Secret Service protection. Conspiracy theories involving the CIA do exist (for example, Oswald's alleged association with David Atlee Phillips), and the article could be improved with the addition of this information. However, the current text discussing antagonism between JFK, the CIA and Cuban counter-revolutionaries is not germane to the article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have deleted both of these sections as described above, with the exception of the information about the Secret Service detail, which I have moved into a separate section. I have replaced the deleted sections with information about David Phillips that is very close to the text already in his wikipedia article, and with the research and beliefs of John Newman. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fork article w/ CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory
The idea has been introduced (without any discussion here) of moving several sections of this article into a separate article: CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. For the record I am AGAINST this change. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I put it in CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. If you don't like this entry, perhaps you should think about merging it. Anyways, the reason I had been considering a fork was because I thought the original Kennedy conspiracy article talked too much about the CIA instead of other competing theories. I am personally a fan of the LBJ-Masonic theory, which is barely mentioned in the original article. ADM (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above, I am all for a re-write on the CIA-related stuff. That doesn't explain why (1.) you deleted whole sections of the article not on this specific topic and (2.) why you made major revisions to an article on controversial stuff without discussing it first on talk. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I added parts about Cuba to the split because they also talk about the CIA. It's possible that the entry was busy and I thought that it was free, without people coming back to check their work. I didn't get the impression that it was under discussion. ADM (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't quite get it. You chopped out a lot of "the Three Tramps" even though the text had only the most tenuous connection to the CIA. In any case please DO edit the CIA assassination stuff in this article; what's here is not good. I think your new article may get nominated for deletion pretty quick, but I've wrong before. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Groden Quote
I've taken the following out:

When interviewed in 1979 he maintained the bullet wound was a point of entry. Owing to fears for his safety, he refused to go on record with the information.

We only have Groden's word on that, and it contradicts what he told the Warren Commission, and (for example) Eddie Barker of KRLD. There is no doubt his initial impression was that it was an entrance wound, but he backed off that, and it's just vastly unlikely he told Groden that -- especially the part about "personal safety." (John McAdams) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Suicide possible
It is said JFK had bone marrow cancer with mere months to live and he organized his own suicide-by-proxy to protect his family's name from the sex scandals Edgar Hoover was about to explode in the press. 87.97.101.6 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the first I've heard that he had cancer (I had previously heard that he had Addison's disease, though). If he really did arrange it himself, it doesn't really make sense that Hoover's FBI (who did all the investigating) would have fudged the evidence to implicate someone else. Hoover hated Kennedy. Why allow him to be made into a martyr if he could just reveal that Kennedy did it to himself? -Craverguy (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

He didn't have bone marrow cancer. At this point does it even matter what is said? There is irrefutable evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter and there is also irrefutable evidence that he was a communist and also had no connections to Cuba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Occam's Razor eliminates the suicide by proxy theory. Kennedy had the sense to know the damage an assassination would do. Kennedy engaged in boating and shooting sports; it would have been easier to arrange a low profile accident, which would have been less traumatic to the world than an elaborate assassination plot. Naaman Brown (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Secret Service Abandonment
At least seemingly authenic videos available on Youtube ([1], [2]) indicate that Secret Service forces on the motorcade were reduced at the last minute. I'd apperciate it if someone more knowledgable than I looked into this, finding the source of the videos and determining if they are indeed authenitc. If they are indeed authenic and show what they seem to, this is a MAJOR peice of evidence.75.171.254.174 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help! What is the method to detirmine that archival footage is "authentic"? Looks real to me and, if you watch Kellerman and Greer in the Zapruder film, which the US Government accepted as authentic, you can clearly see both of these individuals abandoning JFK. Kellerman was specifically assigned as his body guard and was required to shield JFK with his body. Johnson's SS agend did when the shooting started. Instead, Kellerman saw JFK was hit and then simply turned back around and sat there. Greer turned back TWICE as everyone in the limo was visibly in distress. His second turn sure looks unusual for someone who is trained to keep both hands on the wheel! To me it looks like the Adams / Newcomb / Cooper / Robertson observations are correct and the stabilized Zapruder showing Greer turning back to fire a pistol (low near his lap and NOT near Kellerman's forehead) is the evidence hiding in plain sight. Could the shooters have been blowing it and was Greer forced to finish the job?
 * Please keep this an original research-free zone. Wikipedia is not interested in new theories or speculation - please discuss only what is reported in reliable sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The secret service plainly failed in their duty that day. Why were there no secret service men on the running board of JFK's limo protecting his back? They weren't aware of anything being amiss until Clint Hill saw Jackie climbing onto the back of the car!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * JFK disliked the SS agents hanging on to the back of the limo during motorcades. THAT was the reason the agents remained on the the follow-up car. Dukeford (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether JFK "disliked" their presence or not shouldn't have caused the Secret Service to adandon their prime duty which was to protect the US president and his family. The agents were obliged to have been on the back of the limo that day covering Kennedy's back.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agents routinely were in a follow-up car when JFK - and previous presidents - traveled in open limousines. There was nothing odd or suspicious here. JFK wasn't "abandoned." However, obviously, security protocols have changed, in large part due to the assassination. Canada Jack (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is so, why does the agent in the film seem to be arguing about it with the other agents? If this was standard operating procedure, wouldn't the agent know that and just follow orders? And also, why were the agents in their proper position at first if "agents routinely were in a follow-up car"? Were these two guys new on the job? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about here, Ghost. What "argument" are you referring to? As to the agents being in the proper position, that is all covered in the Warren Commission Report. You don't have to accept their conclusions, but most of this stuff is covered there. Canada Jack (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Had the motorcade taken place in a city such as Chicago or Boston, there would not have been the need for such stringent Secret Service protection yet, Dallas was known to have been hostile to Kennedy; in fact Nellie Connally's last words to JFK were "You can't say Dallas doesn't love you today, Mr President", which is a further indication of his previous unpopularity in that entire region. In addition, there were those Wanted For Treason posters put up that morning. The agents should have been surrounding his car from the moment he stepped into it at Love Field.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The inadequacy of the protection was well-documented which is why one of the major recommendations of the WC was to substantially improve protection and intra-agency cooperation. However, there was no evidence that on that day, the Secret Service and others left their posts or did not follow standard procedure in protecting the president. Clearly, "standard procedure" was inadequate, and that had to be addressed. Canada Jack (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think for a minute there was anything sinister in the failure of the Secret Service tp adequately protect the President. They just made a fatal mistake that day.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Law of physics" and Grassy Knoll
I removed some text which says, with no attribution, that JFK's snap to the left indicates a shot from the Grassy Knoll as that is what the Law of Physics dictates, or what have you. Unfortunately, the "law of physics" in this case would not account for JFK's head movement. Firing a 200 gram bullet from about 50 yards with a muzzle speed of 2,000 feet a second hitting a fixed 15-pound object (i.e., JFK's head) would account for about TWO INCHES of movement in the direction of the bullet's movement. But his head moved far more than that. Which is why the WC and HSCA concluded that his head movement was the result of a neuro-muscular reaction to the destruction of JFK's brain by a bullet.

So, if one is to insert the bullshit that the "law of physics" explains JFK's head movement, it must be clear that IN THE OPINION of some, JFK's head movement indicates a shot from the knoll and that IN THE OPINION of some, the law of physics dictates this movement. Canada Jack (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

New section on "Possible evidence of a cover-up"
In the interest of acting in good faith, as this section was added in good faith, I've refrained from doing more than excising or altering obvious POV text. (Like "the suspiciously large number of deaths" - others don't see these numbers of deaths as being suspiciously large at all.) But while this section has good material, it needs to be presented better - indeed, this page could use a major cleanup - and since one editor here is intent on adding more material, why not take the opportunity to mold this page into something more coherent?

I suggested elsewhere that there should be a clear split in the article, between the various theories on WHO was behind a conspiracy and WHAT evidence suggests "conspiracy" even if the possible perpetrators are not identified.

As for this section, there is a basic problem and that is "cover-up" isn't the subject of the article, "conspiracy" is. Further, a "cover-up" is often nothing to do with a conspiracy. For example, the CIA covered up Oswald's threat against Hosty. But they likely did that to avoid criticism that they couldn't be bothered to keep closer tabs on someone who threatened government agents mere days before the president's arrival, that they were asleep at the wheel. So, to suggest "cover-up" one needs to be careful to not imply that that has anything to do with a conspiracy unless authors explicitly state that a cover-up of a conspiracy is what happened.

The Mauser information is also not connected to anything. The section cites evidence that some said they found that make of rifle, not the Carcano. Fine. But how is this evidence of a conspiracy? It's not stated. Just because the Warren Commission dismissed the evidence doesn't mean it didn't assess it or chose evidence which they felt was more compelling. Is someone saying the WC deliberately suppressed evidence of a Mauser? Or that the Dallas police switched the rifle? Or that, if so, how is this evidence of conspiracy? Evidence of tampering isn't per se evidence of conspiracy. I'm not suggesting authors have no argument for why this is evidence of a conspiracy, I'm merely pointing out that it's not obvious in the section why this suggests conspiracy the way it is written. That needs to be fixed, even if it is "Author x says reports of a Mauser are evidence of conspiracy," or even better, "Author x says reports of a Mauser being found suggest a conspiracy as he contends it was the actual murder weapon, replaced with a rifle traceable to Oswald, who they wanted to frame" or what have you, depending on what the claim here is. Canada Jack (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, there should not even be two articles ("JFK assassination" and "JFK assassination conspiracy theories"). There should just be one article. I have opened a discussion on the neutrality of the "JFK assassination" article at the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#John_F._Kennedy_assassination_-_title_of_article_misleading If it is not possible to have one article, the articles must be clearly titled to reflect their content. I suggest we change the title of this article to "JFK assassination cover-up and conspiracy theories". Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To address your distinction between a "cover-up" and a "conspiracy", the first means an attempt to hide the facts, the second can mean either group activity to hide the facts or group activity to carry out some act. In the context of the JFK assassination, there could have been a conspiracy to cover up the details of the assassination, but no conspiracy to murder the president, but more likely, if there was a conspiracy to cover up the the details of the assassination, it would imply that one likely reason could be that there was a conspiracy to kill the president that had to be covered up for some reason.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Mauser information illustrates the types of unexpected, even bizarre, discoveries that have been made by researchers who have taken a close look at the Warren Commission's investigation. The researchers cited were not out to prove who killed Kennedy. Their purpose was to point out anomalies like this which call into question the Warren Commission's findings.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This Mauser thing has always baffled me. How does it call into question anything?  A couple of beat cops briefly glanced at a weapon very similar to and plagiarized from a Mauser and mistakenly thought it was a Mauser. This is evidence of what exactly? Gamaliel (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Police departments are usually rather careful about collecting evidence at murder scenes, and, one would think, especially so when the victim is a president. Affidavits are not signed casually, and information about evidence is usually verified before releasing it to the press. That's why this is so strange. It was not Uncle Bob looking at some gadget he had never seen before and making a wild guess.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No one was collecting evidence. The beat cops wrote down their observations later, but it's not their job to do forensics and make identifications. The experts came later and made a definitive conclusion. What's strange to me is the idea that people find this strange or unusual. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh please! A rifle found in the DSBT wasn't evidence! Why have the cop sign an affidavit describing what he found if he is just a gopher? Have you ever owned a firearm? Identifying one is not rocket science - it is usually clearly stamped or engraved on the barrel, along with the caliber and type of cartridge, so you don't use the wrong ammunition.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have an affidavit to support your position; we have the photos of the rifle in situ and a film of its recovery. How or why it was misidentifed may be fascinating for some to speculate on, but we have proof it was a Carcano. Someone's personal belief that they were "right" can't trump the photographic evidence, Ghost. It's as simple as that. The evidence is irrefutable. If they signed an affadavit claiming they saw a giraffe there it doesn't make it so, as we have the filmed evidence.


 * But back to my point about it being on the page - you have yet to (unless I am missing something) explain how the "Mauser" indentification indicates cover up or conspiracy. All we have are links to several places indicating, yes, they claimed "Mauser" with NOTHING indicating the signifigance of that finding. Further, since a) there are affidavits etc which stated "Mauser"; b) there are affidavits and evidence which stated "Carcano," c) all of this is part of the public record and therefore is not being "covered up" or "hidden," it all comes down to the WC choosing some evidence over other, which they had to do many times as much evidence was contradictory.


 * But you go further suggesting that, somehow, the mere existence of contradictory evidence somehow indicates "cover up" or "conspiracy." You have to do more than that, spelling out who claims it indicates "conspiracy" etc and WHY it does so. And, no, it does not suffice to mention a bunch of authors at the top as each specific claim should be linked to the source. On the assassination page, you will note, despite virtually all of the claims there coming from the WC and HSCA, each claim is linked to the particular source in the WC text, or what have you. Canada Jack (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing "strange" at all, Ghost. You cite "normal" practice for police? Is it "normal" to have hundreds of media squeezed into a police station shouting for any scrap of information? It's largely BECAUSE of all the horseshit which followed in this case that police forces in general are now more circumspect. I mean, innocent errors of identification, initial speculations are being repeated a half-century later as if they were the unimpeachable truth, as if there was some sinister cover-up. What I wonder is why focus on a Mauser? There were three or four makes of rifle which it was said to be according to original reports. Was there therefore an army up there shooting at the president? Canada Jack (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

''Actually, there should not even be two articles ("JFK assassination" and "JFK assassination conspiracy theories"). There should just be one article.'' You've lost that argument, Ghost, which is why I am taking this opportunity to make some positive use of your contributions. Your attempts to seek redress on yet another page will be seen for what it is - forum shopping.

In the context of the JFK assassination, there could have been a conspiracy to cover up the details of the assassination, but no conspiracy to murder the president, but more likely, if there was a conspiracy to cover up the the details of the assassination, it would imply that one likely reason could be that there was a conspiracy to kill the president that had to be covered up for some reason.

Well, this is why we have to make this clear now. The page is about conspiracies to murder the president, NOT conspiracies to suppress evidence not necessarily linked to a conspiracy. So, if we are to mention efforts to suppress information, this should be in connection with suppressing information which might have suggested conspiracy. This is more properly a "cover-up," not a "conspiracy" in the common understanding of the phrase. And, again, using an example not on the page, noting the FBI covered-up the threat of Oswald toward the FBI (I misspoke before saying "CIA"), that is a "cover-up" beyond the scope of the page.

And, further, it is not enough to simply insert anomalous evidence. You MUST link it to the people making the argument that this suggests a conspiracy. And it would be better if you can also identify why a particular piece of evidence suggests a "conspiracy" to those authors. This is the problem with the Mauser evidence. It is not enough to "imply" there was something amiss, we must spell out why this poses a problem for the lone gunman conclusion of the Warren Commission.

Their purpose was to point out anomalies like this which call into question the Warren Commission's findings. But why does this evidence call into question the WC's findings? That must be spelled out. Canada Jack (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's why I proposed renaming this article to "JFK assassination cover-up and conspiracy theories". Or you could have an entirely separate article for cover-up allegations, but they seem closely connected to, if not identical, to conspiracy theories. Or, what makes the most sense to me, you could have all of this in one article, and have a really well balanced article that accurately reflects current thought on the subject.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning calling into question the WC findings, it's an example of an evidence anomaly in the evidence presented in the report. I could give more, if you like.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to tie each anomaly to a certain conspiracy theory. A pattern of anomalies points to a cover-up, but not to any particular conspiracy theory.Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To address your concerns, I've retitled the page.Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also expanded the "cover-up" section. Perhaps the additional examples will help you understand what I am trying to convey.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A pattern of anomalies points to a cover-up, but not to any particular conspiracy theory.

Uh, no it doesn't, Ghost. That's merely your opinion. Which is why any "pattern of anomolies" must be connected to those authors who claim it points to a cover-up. Canada Jack (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And, since you've gone to the length of adding "cover-up" to title of this page, you might address the concerns above already expressed. As I earlier stated, there's no explanation as to why or how the "Mauser" information indicates "cover-up," and the same goes for the "suspicious deaths." That has to be there. Canada Jack (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

...and, since you say this as a reason to change the name of the article: [Researchers] also have pointed out instances of witness testimony being changed and evidence being tampered w[ith], you might expand on that and describe specific incidents of witness testimony being changed and evidence being tampered with as this certainly would add to a "cover-up" section. Canada Jack (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do that. There are plenty. Many witnesses were told not to repeat their stories by investigators and were not called as witnesses. By an amazing coincidence, many of them saw things that diverged from the official version of events. It's on my "to do" list.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Already pointed out Ford's tampering with bullet wound description.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't "tampering," as I stated before, this is what Dr Hume had in fact said, and what the diagram he created indicated. Ford's change matched the evidence as presented. Trouble was, it didn't match the autopsy report (which didn't use the terms "neck" or "back") and it wasn't readily apparent there was an error until the autopsy photos were later examined. But it was Hume's error, not Ford's. So, when you include Ford's change, remember that it is an opinion of some that he changed the wording to mislead or cover up.

As for the witnesses being silenced, those are claims made, they aren't "facts." There have been a great many claims made which have been proven to be bogus. Again, it is important, for the puroves of NPOV, to always frame statements as being opinions or claims of specified people. So, you can't say "10 people were told not to repat their stories," it's "10 people made claims that investigators told them..." etc with attendant citations. Canada Jack (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada Jack (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you follow the link to the Wikipedia "Cover-up" article, you'll find a pretty good definition of "cover-up". Or you can use your dictionary. You can suspect there was a cover-up, or you can prove there was a cover-up. There isn't enough evidence to prove conclusively that there was a cover-up concerning the JFK assassination, but there is enough evidence for some researchers and historians to suspect there was one. I gave a list of some of these folks at the top of the "cover-up" section, and references to their published research.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghost, with respect, you are missing a fundamental point here - we are NOT trying to determine "truth," we ARE trying to ensure "verifiabity." I have NO problem with Ford's change being on the page, as that is an oft-claimed example of a cover-up. My personal opinion on whether the claim is true or not is IRRELEVANT, though you seem to think otherwise. I DO have a problem with it being there and having it being described as "tampering" or what have you without a) text indicating it is someone's view this is "tampering," with a link to those who claim it is "tampering" and b) an explanation as to why this is "tampering" as opposed to, say, copy-editing, again linked either to those making that assertion or an explanation with a link. This is basic wikipedia stuff. Canada Jack (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. I hope there are enough "allegedly" and "some sources claim" in this section to ease your concerns on this point.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Migod, Ghost. I'll put it this way - about 2/3 of what is there needs to be fixed up. If it isn't, it will be removed. Canada Jack (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you be just a little more specific, and give some reasons for removal, perhaps even backed by references to point out why the material is falsely or inaccurately based on, or quoted from, the sources referenced?Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want, I could list the various things which need to be fixed. But I've already identified several problems above. BTW, this is not a question of me wanting to excise material because it questions the WC, it's because you've failed to frame the issues properly. All of the issues you've so far inserted are issues I have no doubt belong on the page. So, you want a list? Canada Jack (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'll assume you'll want a list. Here we go.

1. Some researchers, such as Mark Lane, Henry Hurt, Michael L. Kurtz and Gerald D. McKnight... You have references to various books, but it would be better to attach links to the authors (not at the end of the sentence) and also cite pages where the authors actually state their belief in a cover-up.

2. The Mauser stuff: Several problems here, some major, some minor. Minor: Boone and Weitzman lack given names, they should be supplied. Major: The sentence before the Mauser stuff mentions "...inconsistencies, oversights, exclusions of evidence, errors, or changes made to witness testimony...", then says "For example..." and leads into the Mauser info. But there is NO indication at all what the Mauser information is an example of. All of that? Some? One thing? It can't be a change to the witness testimony as the Mauser information is part of the WC's evidentiary record. It MUST be stated WHAT rejecting the Mauser evidence is an example of; WHO specifically claims as much; WHY this is therefore a "cover-up." This material will be removed otherwise. And this has been flagged numerous times. I know this is easily done, so I am at a loss as to why you have not done this.

Also, some of your sources say nothing in terms of "cover-up," or what have you. The "Wowzer! A Mauser?" says NOTHING in terms of implicating the WC. A Youtube link shows news footage saying "Mauser." Not of particular relevance, though it doesn't rise to be removed.

The most egregious link is the last one (The Gun That Didn't Smoke) which actually long-windedly argues that the "Mauser" identification was deliberate ploy to mislead people: Alyea's film... confirms the fact that no Mauser was found -- only a Mannlicher-Carcano with no clip, meaning that Craig was lying about the Mauser... Perhaps you've not read the article - it in fact makes a case about a Carcano CLIP (or initial lack there-of) being the key to the "conspiracy." It actually quite specifically claims there WAS NO MAUSER FOUND (though they do suggest some sort of cover-up/conspiracy).

3. Some witnesses to the assassination, or to events connected to the assassination, were allegedly intimidated or threatened. The particular witnesses, individually, should be linked to sources where they claim to have been intimidated, even if a single source gets multiple links.

4. "suspiciously large number of deaths" - This should spell out what their conclusion is on these deaths. Noting simply that they point to a large number of deaths without noting how that is significant, doesn't give us an idea of what they think is going on. Even if they point no fingers, THAT should be stated. So... "Without identifying possible culprits..." or what have you.

5. "The existence of large numbers of secret documents related to the assassination, and the long period of secrecy, could suggest the possibility of a cover-up." Should say "Some say..." Some of the language here is POV. "Tax return information, which would identify employers and sources of income, has still not been released..." should omit "still" as this is POV (as some argue it is appropriate not to release private tax information). As is "the existence of large numbers..." Other sources say virtually all documents have been or will soon be released. So the characterization of this as "large numbers" is POV. But these are all easy fixes.

6. "There is conflicting testimony... autopsy..." Should more clearly state that some see this conflicting testimony as a signal of conspiracy. Others see the "conflict" as people recalling things differently, or of witnesses trying to make a buck. And, the line about the importance of the direction of the shot should come AFTER Horne's claim, IMHO.

7. James Fetzer. Remember, this section is "cover-up." So the Fetzer part should be rephrased to make it consistent with the section. It should state something like, based on the release of records by the ARRB in 1994 (or whenever it was), he identified 16 "smoking guns" which he feels indicate a conspiracy and cover-up. Further, I think it is a waste to actually list ALL 16 of the problems. A shorter list should suffice. The link, recall, is there so interested people can peruse the 16 "smoking guns" if they so choose. Canada Jack (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll see what I can do. The point of the article about the Carcano found with the clip attached suggests it WAS a Mauser, which COULD be found with the clip in it after the last round was chambered, and NOT a Carcano, which drops the clip when the last round is chambered.01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofnemo (talk • contribs)

Uh, no, Ghost. The article suggests that the identification as a Mauser was a misdirection ploy for a planted Carcano - they messed up with this business of an attached/not attached clip. There never was a Mauser, according to them. Go to the second page. Canada Jack (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, my mistake, it's the M1 Garand that drops the clip after the last shot is fired. The reason I quoted this source is that it documents the identification of the rifle as a Mauser. But the main point of the article is that the rifle was photographed with a clip in it but was also said to have been found with one round in the chamber. The author is pointing out that this is problem, because the Carcano drops the clip when the last round is chambered, so why was the rifle photographed with a clip protruding from the bottom? WC said the clip was bent so it hung up. Article says this is unlikely, because rifle would not function properly. But this reference is just to document that the weapon was identified as a Mauser. The rest is extraneous material.Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the other Mauser references document the initial identification of the weapon as a Mauser. The change is suspicious for reasons I've given above (cops rarely misidentify murder weapons, the victim was the President, an affidavit was signed, the information was given to the press). This casts doubt on the WC finding that the murder weapon was a Carcano, and raises the possibility of two rifles and two shooters in the DSBT. There may be a photo of a Carcano, but that doesn't mean it is a photo of the same rifle that Boone and Weitzman identified as a Mauser.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, think I got 1 - 5 on your list, except linking exact pages in references to each assertion.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember the basic premise here, Ghost. I don't dispute these various points as being arguments for a conspiracy. What I AM arguing is that we ALWAYS have to be careful to frame these arguments as emanating from the various authors who claim this is evidence of a conspiracy. Otherwise, it looks like the personal argument of the editor inserting the text. Further, for example, one cannot simply pluck WC documents which might suggest a scenario without those precise documents and the precise argument linked to a published author who is making that assertion. Otherwise, it it POV and/or OR.

As it relates to the Mauser rifle, that particular link I cited should be removed as they aren't arguing what the section argues - that in fact the rifle was a Mauser, not a Carcano. But I know others are making that argument, so I left it for you to fix. As long as the argument on THIS page reflects the argument being made in the linked documents, it is fine.

''The change is suspicious for reasons I've given above (cops rarely misidentify murder weapons, the victim was the President, an affidavit was signed, the information was given to the press). This casts doubt on the WC finding that the murder weapon was a Carcano, and raises the possibility of two rifles and two shooters in the DSBT. There may be a photo of a Carcano, but that doesn't mean it is a photo of the same rifle that Boone and Weitzman identified as a Mauser.''

I am aware of the argument, my point is the above argument has to be seen as coming from the source, not cobbled together by you. Canada Jack (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed item 6 on your list, but I didn't move Horne's quote, because you said I need to reference my statement, and I did it with Horne's quote. If I move my statement to the end, it looks unsupported again.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a reference to explicitly support a "two guns in the DSBT" theory, but I do have references that one gun that was found was identified as a Mauser. The reference you want me to remove has details about the incident that the other references don't include.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Horne's quote is fine, it's the line about why the evidence is important that would be better after the quote - or, even better, you might take it out as Horne basically explains the importance (though you might add "A shot from from the front would suggest a grassn knoll assassin and hence a conspiracy.")

As for the reference about the Mauser, since the linked article quite explicitly argues that the identification of a Mauser was a concocted story and that the Carcano was a plant, I find it hard to justify using it as a source when you are trying to establish a Mauser or two guns were indeed found and the WC was somehow suppressing this information. IOW, you are making a very different argument here than the linked article is, and since any argument we present is supposed to come from a source, the linked article should be removed. And I don't suggest adding their theory either as that is a minority view, IMHO. The linked article has copious footnotes, so you should be able to find your needed citations. But the basic premise of the argument has to be made by some published source, not you. Canada Jack (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, if I move my line about why the evidence is important to after the quote, it will appear to be unsupported again, since that line is not referenced. Horne's quote supports it. Regarding the Mauser reference, the point I wanted to make was that the rifle was identified as a Mauser. The reference supports this and relates the story. It then goes off on another tangent. If I can find another reference that tells the story more completely and concisely, I will swap the references. I don't think I have to prove what exactly happened with the rifles - I'm only pointing out that it is suspicious that the murder weapon changed from a Mauser to a Carcano. How or why it happened we have no idea, but we do know it happened and it's suspicious.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Took a whack at the Fetzer paragraph. Tried to tighten it up a little.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

''There is conflicting testimony about the autopsy performed on President Kennedy's body, particularly as to when the examination of the president's brain took place, who was present, and whether or not the photos submitted as evidence are the same as those taken during the examination.[21] This is important because damage to the president's brain could help determine the direction from which the bullet entered his skull. If the bullet entered from any direction but from above and behind, it would mean that Oswald did not fire the fatal shot, and could suggest a cover-up. Douglas Horne, the Assassination Record Review Board's chief analyst for military records, said he was "90 to 95% certain" that the photographs in the National Archives are not of President Kennedy's brain. "According to Horne’s findings, the second brain -- which showed an exit wound in the front -- allegedly replaced Kennedy's real brain -- which revealed much greater damage to the rear, consistent with an exit wound and thus evidence of a shot from the front."[22]''

The original text above. Take out: ''This is important because damage to the president's brain could help determine the direction from which the bullet entered his skull. If the bullet entered from any direction but from above and behind, it would mean that Oswald did not fire the fatal shot, and could suggest a cover-up.'' The quote describing Horne's findings which follows basically says the same thing, and it is stronger as it is a direct quote.

Then, simply insert at the end, Horne saying this suggests a cover-up of the medical evidence (he is quoted as saying that in the sources) as this suggests a second gunman. Canada Jack (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ghost - the Mauser stuff, as written, still does not match what the sources say. SO far you've added several links which indeed establish that the two men initially identified the rifle as a Mauser. Fine. Everyone knows this. But none of the sources say what the page here says - that this is an example of a "chsnging story." THAT has to be sourced. Indeed, the way it is written, it implies that one of the previously named authors claims that. Canada Jack (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Name Change
I've noticed that the title of this article was changed, but I can't find any discussion of when this was done and the reasons behind the name change. From reading the article and this talk page it appears there is some desire to add information regarding a possible government cover-up, which is fine, but the new title reads as though there was definitely a cover-up (not just allegations and suspicions). Also, I don't think the name change was necessary just to simply add the one section. If this was discussed previously, and the consensus was to change the name of the article, I apologize for possibly beating a dead horse. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There wasn't a discussion. Ghost added a section on "cover-ups" and I pointed out that the page was on conspiracies and that "cover-ups" aren't necessarily related to plots to murder JFK - like with the FBI's destruction of Oswald's note, so they should be specified. Ghost turned around and renamed the page.


 * Should we discuss the wisdom of this move now? Canada Jack (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess my confusion is that in reading the new section, it doesn't really add anything new that would justify the name change. It's basically reading as a checklist of the problems the pro-conspiracy set has with the Warren Commission-- inconsistencies- check; conflicting eyewitness accounts- check; "secret" records- check; autopsy - check.  But in terms of who did the covering up? Why and/or How?- There's nothing there!  But if this is a just a process where that info will be added over time, then I'll wait and see what the final version will look like. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think once Ghost cleans up the section, we can address all that, and perhaps restructure the article into something a bit more cohesive. Like clearly marked sections along the lines of: evidence which undercuts the lone gunman conclusion and suggest conspiracy; claims of specific people/groups behind an alleged conspiracy; and, if appropriate, claims of deliberate suppression of evidence by the various agencies (outside of the already described conspiracy) etc which spells cover-up. Canada Jack (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument was that cover-up material should not be in this article, since it is only about conspiracies. The cover-up material had been purged from the "JFK assassination article". I thought the distinction between allegations of a cover-up and conspiracy theories was a rather artificial one, most people think of the two as being connected, although they are not identical, so I changed the title. This is discussed in the preceding section of the talk page and on the "JFK assassination" article talk page as well. The alternative was to have an entirely separate article on cover-up allegations, but since cover-ups and conspiracies are closely related, it makes more sense to have them in the same article. A cover-up means hiding the facts. A conspiracy is group action to do something covertly. That something may be hiding the facts. But the conspiracy to kill the President could have been done by one group (let's just say the Mafia, for example) and it was covered up by the government. Or the cover-up and the conspiracy could have both been the work of government agencies. The point of the cover-up section is that some researchers point out possible evidence of a cover-up without claiming to have proof of a particular conspiracy (i.e. who actually did the deed). They argue that the government covered-up what happened, so we have no idea what really happened.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't see the necessity for the article name change, yet. After all, any cover-up would require a conspiracy (even if the conspirators in the coverup are different from the perpetrators of the crime). But as I've said before, since you guys are in the middle of a process, I will withdraw and withhold my objection until the clean up is finished. ETA- can we please drop the "information being purged" stuff.  You know that isn't true.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, well actually, it is true. It was removed. It was purged. It was cut. It was deleted. Anyway, before I added the cover-up section, this article had different theories about who killed the President. By adding "cover-up" to the article title, and the "cover-up" section, we can now address allegations that the government tried to hide what actually happened from the public. A cover-up is a conspiracy to conceal what happened, but not a conspiracy to kill the President. There was no place for cover-up allegations before, since they were considered inadmissible in the other article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The main page has multiple references to conspiracy contentions. Nothing was "purged" - you attempted to fundamentally change an article which was the result of a near-decade of work and you failed to gain the required consensus to do so. This has been explained to you by something like 20 editors, ALL of whom agreed you failed to state a viable case to do what you wanted. The fact that you are still repeating arguments which have been judged to be without merit says a lot about your character, nothing good. Canada Jack (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To Ghostofnemo--what Canada Jack said. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't purged, why isn't it still in the "JFK assassination" article? It's gone - it was removed. Go look.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Because you needed consensus to add it there in the first place. The page is pretty well exactly as it was before you came on the scene. Therefore there was no "purge." Time to grow up, Ghost. Canada Jack (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I endorse Canada Jack's last two statements.--Adam in MO Talk 05:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The material was removed. In your own words: "The page is pretty well exactly as it was before you came on the scene." Therefore, the material was purged from the article. That is the definition of removing something. It is no longer there.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If this petty squabbling about the word purged is indicative of the state of argument regarding changes to the article, I think we're out of the woods. Thank you, Ghostofnemo, for helping us determine the high level of consensus for no name change. I will request of an admin that the article be moved back. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, the move back did not require an administrator. Article name restored. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And what was the actual REASON for changing the name of the article? Would you care to share that with us? Do you understand the word "consensus"? I am opposed to changing the name of the article, therefore there is no consensus. Are you proposing a separate article for cover-up allegations? Are you saying a cover-up and a conspiracy to kill the President are the same thing? Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason? The word conspiracy ably covers the concept of "cover-up" following an assassination. When people conspire to commit a crime, they typically include plans to hide it from the authorities.
 * Your understanding of the word consensus appears to confuse it with unanimity. Full agreement by all participants is not a requirement of consensus. Consensus is reached when resolution is apparent among most members of a group, as it is here with all but yourself viewing your unilateral undiscussed article name change on February 26 with dismay and bafflement. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try this on for size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus No one should be steamrollered.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are some dictionary definitions of "cover-up" and "conspiracy". Please note they are different. Cover-up - (noun) any action, stratagem, or other means of concealing or preventing investigation or exposure. Conspiracy - (noun) a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So write your own article called John F. Kennedy assassination government cover-up theories. Have at it. By the way, your opinion was taken into consideration to achieve consensus about this article name—you were not steamrollered, you were accounted for, acknowledged and your opinion weighed. Others far outweighed you, and the resulting consensus went against you. Again, consensus ≠ unanimity. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, actually we're still discussing the matter. I think it's a bit too soon to say a consensus has been reached. You unilaterally reverted my change without even discussing it with me. I changed the title in an attempt to resolve Canada's objection.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You changed the name without even bothering to attempt to gain consensus to do so, Ghost. Changing an article name is a major change. What do you not comprehend here? Canada Jack (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghost, I agree with Canada Jack. You cannot change an article without first obtaining consensus. And this has nothing to do with whether we support the lone-assassin verdict or not. All of us have our own personal opinions on the matter, but we cannot impose them here without good, solid references and a consensus. I think the article's name is fine as it is, so why make it more cumbersome?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The name change was the result of Canada Jack arguing that this article is subtly limited in scope: "The page is about conspiracies to murder the president, NOT conspiracies to suppress evidence not necessarily linked to a conspiracy. So, if we are to mention efforts to suppress information, this should be in connection with suppressing information which might have suggested conspiracy." I think this is an entirely artificial limit, which Canada seems to be claiming is imposed by the title. My common sense solution, instead of a convoluted restriction which few readers or editors would be aware of, was to simply change to the title to cover any kind of cover-up. Many researchers do not go so far as to say they can link any particular group to the murder. But they do say there is evidence of a government cover-up. So, do we purge these writers and their findings (the whole "Possible evidence of a cover-up" section) from the article?Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the purged material can become a new article, with the title "John F. Kennedy conspiracies to suppress evidence not necessarily linked to a conspiracy to kill the president"? Yes, I'm joking. But hey, this is Wikipedia. If enough self-appointed experts support it aggressively enough, it could actually become the consensus, despite its obvious absurdity.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested that if we are to discuss "cover-up," it should be in relation to a cover-up of a conspiracy to kill the president, not simply a cover-up, such as of the destruction of the threatening letter from Oswald to the FBI, which was done to hide their incompetence. Unless, of course, someone is somehow arguing this is evidence of a cover-up of a conspiracy to kill the president. How in God's name this is an "entirely artificial limit," how this is any way impedes the inclusion of anything relevant to a conspiracy to kill the president, is known to Ghost and to no one else.

His solution? Without discussion, simply rename the article, thus allowing a copious amount of "cover-up" stuff even though that was entirely beside the point.(!) But, if the past few weeks is any indication, we aren't going to get anything coherent from Ghost. Despite multiple attempts to guide him on how to do this, he has YET to properly cite the Mauser information as the links do not say what the text in the article says, i.e., that it is an example of a "changing story." WHo is saying that, Ghost? No one in the links I can see. And, more to the point, if it is an example of a "changing story" WHY is this of any importance, and WHO is saying that!?! Indeed, one of the links, I patiently explained, argues something completely different, that the Mauser ID was a deliberate lie to mislead others, so the link should be removed. My ultimate point, thus far falling on deaf ears, is that any argument that appears here as to conspiracy/cover-up, what have you, has to be a representative view of what published authors are in fact arguing, not the personal view of an editor.

This is a complete waste of time. Fuck it. Canada Jack (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly follow your response about the article name change, about the cover-up material being "beside the point". Does that mean you feel cover-up allegations are unimportant and don't belong in the article for that reason? I disagree, because many researchers say it is important. I've named them and supplied references. About the Mauser, I have supplied references supporting the allegation that the weapon was first identified as a Mauser, and that later it became a Carcano. I equally patiently explained that the reference you want removed contains information supporting the allegation that the weapon found in the DSBT was a Mauser. I do not include the author's conclusions in the article. I am only referencing the story about the identification of the weapon as a Mauser. Ideally, I would be able to find a source that relates this story AND which spells out to the reader explicitly "please note that the weapon has changed from a Mauser to a Carcano, which could possibly be evidence of a cover-up because it was a Mauser and then the story changed and it then became a Carcano" (presumably assuming the reader is too dim to draw this conclusion) AND which does not go on to make any other conclusions. I haven't been able to do all that with one on-line source. But I have been able to reference that the weapon was initially identified as a Mauser, a sworn affidavit was made that it was a Mauser, the DA told the press it was a Mauser, and the news media reported it was a Mauser. Let's talk about the name of the article and whether or not we can include cover-up allegations or not. The Mauser thing is a separate issue that keeps suddenly reappearing after it appears to have been resolved. I'm not saying it is resolved, we can keep looking for better references, but the name of the article seems to be a much more important issue, because you seem to be arguing the cover-up material doesn't belong here.Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the reference you objected to (The Gun that Didn't Smoke). I've also added a reference, a video of Mark Lane interviewing Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig about the discovery of the rifle. Check it out sometime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, I would be able to find a source that relates this story AND which spells out to the reader explicitly "please note that the weapon has changed from a Mauser to a Carcano, which could possibly be evidence of a cover-up because it was a Mauser and then the story changed and it then became a Carcano" (presumably assuming the reader is too dim to draw this conclusion) AND which does not go on to make any other conclusions.

Ghost. Sit down. Take a deep breath. Concentrate. Wikipedia REQUIRES you to do PRECISELY what you say above. Otherwise, you are engaging in Original Research, or inserting a POV. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. And, to underline another point, it's not about a reader being "dim," there is nothing to indicate to the casual reader why if it WAS a Mauser, WHY this is important.(!) It WOULD be "self-evident" if the gun was found on the grassy knoll, but EVEN THERE, we'd still need to say something like "author x says this provides substantial evidence of a second gunman and, since the WC was aware of this evidence, author x says this provides additional evidence that the WC was engaging in a cover-up to hide proof of a conspiracy."

As for Mark Lane, if he says a) the discovery of a Mauser is evidence of a coverup of a conspiracy, as the other gun was the real rifle... blah blah blah, then THAT IS WHAT WE NEED. It is NOT enough to simply note evidence that someone ID'd a Mauser, we HAVE to have some source saying that that is significant for whatever reason, and that "whatever reason" is what we state here in the article. How many times does this have to be explained to you? Canada Jack (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I get the sense that you are trying to prove some case, to establish that, indeed, there was evidence of a Mauser. But anyone well-versed on the assassination is already well aware of this. And I get the strong impression that you feel all is needed here is to link the text here to sites which mention those affidavits, etc.


 * But that is NOT what we need here. Why? Because there are TONS of conflicting pieces of evidence, we could literally fill 10 pages of this size listing all the contradictory evidence in this case. What we DO need is some author arguing that a particular piece of evidence indicates a conspiracy! And, even better, we need an indication as to WHY a particular piece of evidence indicates a conspiracy. Unfortunately, the reality in terms of the JFK assassination is that for many "researchers," it suffices for them to point out anomalies, say "conspiracy," then leave it at that, not explaining how or why that conclusion is warranted. But we at least need the claim.


 * With the Mark Lane video, we have more of the same. An interview with a guy saying it was a Mauser. Then, Mark Lane showing us affidavits saying the rifle was a Mauser. And recently released documents (when the video was made, probably circa 1976) also suggesting the rifle was a Mauser. But NOTHING about what Mark Lane CONCLUDES about this, and nothing to match what we have in the text of the article. I am at a loss as to what more I can say about this, Ghost. AGAIN, find someone who STATES that the Mauser info is indication of a cover-up of a conspiracy, or whatever, and whatever that "whatever" is, insert THAT claim, mentioning who is making the claim, into the body of the text. Otherwise, it will be removed. Canada Jack (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ghost, Ghost, Ghost... come back to us. Not only has your section not been purged here, it is simply a regurgitation of information that is already in several articles in this wiki (see Lee Harvey Oswald, John F. Kennedy assassination rifle, and John F. Kennedy autopsy).  Even though the section adds nothing new, no one is deleting or advocating the deletion of your additions.  Canada Jack is only asking that you follow policy by not conducting original research.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Jack is saying. It's like when I wrote (most of) the text in this article on "the three tramps." One of the things I wrote was, "Some researchers also thought it suspicious that the Dallas police had quickly released the tramps from custody apparently without investigating whether they might have witnessed anything significant related to the assassination." I included a reference where the researcher had said specifically, "This was suspicious."
 * I would like to thank ghost for all the work he's done. It's been years since anyone tried to make a really big new contribution to this article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point I'm trying to make is that you don't have to spell out an explicit, full-blown conspiracy theory to point out evidence of a cover-up. The "guy" in the video is one of the officers present when the gun was found. He is an eyewitness. He is one of the men who was actually there when the gun was found. He says it was a Mauser. And Weitzman signed an affidavit that it was a Mauser. And the DA told the press it was a Mauser. It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to see that this is a major problem, because the WC said the murder weapon was a Carcano. I don't have to prove that the Queen of England killed JFK. I don't have to prove Jack Ruby and Oswald were working with the Mafia. I just have to prove that the men who found the rifle said it was a Mauser. That, in itself, is possible evidence of a cover-up. It just is. If I have a reference that says, "Some people have suggested that Hello Kitty murdered JFK.(reference) But Hello Kitty is a fictional character."(reference) I don't need a source that says, "Hello Kitty could not have possibly murdered JFK, because Hello Kitty is a fictional character." Few writers will bother to spell out the obvious. So what you want is a reference that states, "Since the police officers say they found a Mauser in the DSBT, therefore the Carcano could not have been the murder weapon."? They can't say that though. All they can say is that the police found a Mauser. We KNOW that. Anything else is conjecture. But that fact that they found a Mauser throws the WC version of events into doubt.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I found it and added it to the end of the Mauser paragraph: According to Mark Lane, "The strongest element in the case against Lee Harvey Oswald was the Warren Commission's conclusion that his rifle had been found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository building. Yet Oswald never owned a 7.65 Mauser. When the FBI later reported that Oswald had purchased only a 6.5 Italian Manlicher-Carcano, the weapon at police headquarters in Dallas miraculously changed its (caliber), its make and its nationality. The Warren Commission concluded that a 6.5 Manlicher-Carcano, not a 7.65 German Mauser, had been discovered by the Dallas deputies."Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

''The point I'm trying to make is that you don't have to spell out an explicit, full-blown conspiracy theory to point out evidence of a cover-up. The "guy" in the video is one of the officers present when the gun was found. He is an eyewitness. He is one of the men who was actually there when the gun was found. He says it was a Mauser.''

It's not particularly relevant for the purposes of the page, Ghost. This you don't seem to get. The important thing is NOT to establish that, indeed, there is credible evidence of a Mauser; the important thing is what someone says this Mauser means in terms of a conspiracy.

''I just have to prove that the men who found the rifle said it was a Mauser. That, in itself, is possible evidence of a cover-up.''

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. How many times do we have to underline this point? You have it ass-backwards. You HAVE to have an AUTHOR stating that this Mauser evidence is evidence of a conspiracy. Just establishing that someone says "Mauser" is not enough if there is no AUTHOR stating its significance. You seem stuck in this tape loop where you think YOU have to "prove" conspiracy. Nonsense. ALL WE NEED IS A PUBLISHED CLAIM THIS INDICATES CONSPIRACY. That's it! Otherwise, this is POV (YOUR opinion that this indicates "conspiracy") and OR (here are bits of evidence which draw the conclusion of "conspiracy" not linked to someone making that precise argument using that precise evidence).

It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to see that this is a major problem, because the WC said the murder weapon was a Carcano. And...? That's what you have to spell out! The casual reader would ask "What's the big deal if the Warren Commission got mixed up about the make of the gun?" It's not self-evident why this is a crucial point. Even with the brain issue, you have to make clear why a shot from the front indicates, to some, a conspiracy. Because "a front shot would indicate an additional gunman, and therefore a conspiracy, argues author x."

As for Lane's stuff at the end, now that you have now framed the section in relaying what Mark Lane claims, it looks to me like the section is fine. You might shorten it to "some initial reports identified the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser, this was later changed to..." We need not, for the purposes of the article, include in the text all this evidence, footnotes would suffice. IOW, we don't need the court case, we need the argument. Canada Jack (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ghost, sorry to be on your ass about all this. But wikipedia is a community, a community of editors who have many differing opinions. But underneath all that, we RESPECT that others are operating in good faith, and when we disagree strongly, there is a dispute resolution and that's the end of it. I've been on the wrong side of many arguments, and I don't belabour a point which has been already decided.


 * I and others have felt this page needs some work, but you have to go with the way wikipedia does this. I'm not sure you quite "get" it yet, it seems you feel as a pro-conspiracy editor, you are being tripped up with a lot of arbitrary rules designed to omit the strongest arguments you have for conspiracy. I and others certainly have our own opinions, but it is insulting to put it mildly to suggest that we are out to "get" you. If this was not so, I and others would have removed all your material - and we had strong cause to do so. Instead, realizing your sincerity in expressing your views, but your inexperience in doing it here, I and others have chose to guide you, let you make the rookie mistakes, learn from them, and, hopefully, get some better articles in the end.


 * There are others here who share your views, and as a part of the community, you should work with them as I and others have worked with you. But you MUST do so in the forms that wikipedia have established. When you "get" this, you no doubt will look back and say "oh, yeah, I see what they were saying... oops." Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stick a fork in it, people, this topic is dead. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you even read my last post? Mark Lane spells it out for you! That's a referenced source pointing out why the Mauser points to a cover-up (aka a conspiracy to cover-up the truth about the assassination). That's exactly what you asked for. No matter how many hoops I jump through, just to included relevant, referenced material in the article, there are endless new requirements. Have all the contributions to this article had to go through this extensive vetting process? Is this normal Wikipedia procedure? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No one deleted your explanation. It's still in the article. Canada Jack is just making a style suggestion.  It happens all the time. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)