Talk:Kennedy assassination theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 16, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

---

Contents 1 References 2 Deletion of Files confession 3 Notes and References section 4 James Files 5 Who is Michael O'Dell? 6 What was the "bogus POV" that was deleted? 7 Harry Weatherford 8 A definite improvement! 9 New Polling Data 10 Cui bono 11 Connally 12 Unsourced article tag 13 LBJ - Fingerprint 14 Citations 15 Rifle 16 Governor Connally 17 Roy Kellerman testimony 18 Citations

[edit] References

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

I removed the original research tag. I think we should keep the factual dispute tag. Since it is a conspiracy section, and it serves as a disclaimer that Wiki isn't endorsing any of the theories listed. Ramsquire 17:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:[1],[2],[3],[4]. 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 [5] irrelevant? I have seen it cited lots of times. What about this? [6] --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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] James Files

This article has been redirected here after AFD. If anything can be merged from the original article [7] please use it. Yomangani^talk 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Who is Michael O'Dell and why should he be cited for such opinions?

RPJ 06:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.” [8] - - 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." [9]

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)

[edit] 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. SBHarris 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. SBHarris 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Citations

The biggest complaint of many editors, and admins - when grading an article - is that there are not enough in-line citations in articles. Also (when books are cited) they must cite the exact page numbers for a reference. This article needs more. --andreasegde 00:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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). ^{[citation needed]}

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)

[edit] 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).^[1]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Citations

This page badly needs more references/notes. Everything that does not have a reference/note (and book notes must have page numbers included) should be deleted. This is the new Wikipedia standard for FA articles. No more POV... --andreasegde 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. All information in the article is cited to a source. The only POV in the article is the various theories presented in the article, and each is presented in a neutral way as required by WP:NPOV. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "Many doubts still remain in the minds of the public regarding the official government conclusions" needs a reference? That's common knowledge. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)