Talk:Kennedy assassination theories/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 The rifle 2 New Conspiracy Theory 3 Murder confessions 4 The limousine 5 "Conspiratorial" theories? 6 Single bullet theory tested 7 Is there any support for the the protection of Kennedy being reduced ? 8 Julius Caesar paragraph 9 Exit wound on Kennedy's head 10 De-AFD 11 Format for the revamp of the page 12 Dispute tag 13 British conspiracy 14 LBJ-led conspiracy 15 New investigation of the murder 16 Headers 17 Conclusions by WC isn't testimony or evidence 18 Mytwocents is being "bad" again 19 Mytwocents is puzzled about what HSCA means 20 Website rules for dispute resolution 21 Earl Warren's theory 22 RPJ against Mytwocents 23 William Greer, assassin? 24 The Two Agents in the Car 25 Storm drain 26 Curtain rods 27 Two Oswald wallets 28 The President's Death Certificate 29 The back wound & Gerald Ford 30 Warren Caster & a Mauser 31 Greer and the slowing down/stopping of the car 32 Oswald - poor shot?

The rifle

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

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

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

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

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

andreasegde 00:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway;

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

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

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

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

Have fun.

andreasegde 01:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As for trail of evidence, it's quite possible, I think likely, that when Oswald bought the rifle, he wasn't planning on using it to assassinate anybody. But once you have the tool, the job may look better. Oswald with Walker obviously wasn't planning to leave the rifle behind for tracing. And when JFK came up, there wasn't time enough to buy another rifle. If you buy a rifle in a store, you risk being identified. Evidence either way. In Oswald's time you could buy a rifle through the mail to a PO box, and this was a far better price than he'd have gotten at any retail store. All the laws were changed later to make this impossible, of course--- mostly due to Oswald.

The front was an easier shot? But not out in the open where everybody and their dog can see you. Oswald had a nice secluded sniper's nest where he worked, benchrest and all. Why move down the street 2 blocks to an infinitely more difficult to set-up spot? (Yes, the cops had swept the trainyard and whole area that day).

Why hide the gun somewhere it couldn't be found? The man had about 15 seconds. Where do you suggest? He could have pre"organized" a gateway into the 5th dimension, maybe?

He bought a coke before he left the building? Better than that: he bought a coke like 90 seconds after the president passed by and got his head blown off. The whole plaza, including everybody in his office, is downstairs to get a look at JFK and the motorcade,, which they'd known for hours was coming, and the intensely political Oswald is upstairs getting a Coke?? Coke, It's the Real Thing(TM)! This must've been ONE thirsty dude. Or somebody trying very hard to look like he's doing something normal when everybody else for blocks is doing something they didn't ordinary do. Which, in retrospect, looks VERY suspicious.

He didn't try to escape from Dallas? No, not after he found that everybody was looking for a man with his description, for the shooting of both JFK and a cop. Went to see a movie? LOL. Actually went shopping/loitering in a shoe store. This must've been a man with a real pressing need for new footwear! On par with that thirst for COKE. Until somebody recognized him. Following which, he slipped into a matinee of War is Hell with Van Heflin, without paying, and had the guy who recognized him in the shop bring it to the attention of the ticket-taker. Yes, I can just see Oswald: "Ah, the president has been assassinated outside the building where I work. No reason not to spend a relaxing afternoon getting a new pair of loafers.... Maybe take in an old war movie in the middle of the day... Vicarious violence sometimes being a stress reliever, when you have small problems from your workplace on your mind."SBHarris 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

New Conspiracy Theory

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

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

andreasegde 09:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Murder confessions

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

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

Hingo 17:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

The limousine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

andreasegde 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

andreasegde 02:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiratorial" theories?

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

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

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

The preferred form seems to be "conspiracy theory."

The Oxford English Dictionary offers an addendum:

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

160.253.0.248 01:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun.

andreasegde 16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Single bullet theory tested

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

Is there any support for the the protection of Kennedy being reduced ?

One of the reasons given for a conspiracy is that the presidential protection on the Dallas trip was reduced:

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

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

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

andreasegde 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Julius Caesar paragraph

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

Exit wound on Kennedy's head

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

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

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

"Tox" claims to have the real information and according to "Tox" the front of Kennedy's head was "blown out." Here is what purports to be a famous image of Kennedy after being assassinated. [1] Perhaps "Tox" can now tell us where the bullet went in and where it came out.

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

De-AFD

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

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

Format for the revamp of the page

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

--1 "Official" theory number one--

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

Strong Points:

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

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

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

andreasegde 19:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak Points:

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

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

Oswald had no motive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RPJ 11:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute tag

I've revised the paragraph on the fingerprint theory, and that paragraph alone was so chock full of factual errors, incorrect assertions, and pov claims, that I fear for the rest of the article. We should make a thorough check of the whole article. Gamaliel 07:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, and thank Gamaliel for placing the dispute tag - I would have done it myself if it were not already here. The whole thing is a big mess and desperately needs structure and style revision. I absolutely think the article is necessary, because these conspiracy theories have permeated American culture - just about everyone has an opinion one way or the other, believing either 'conspiracy' or 'Oswald acting alone.' However, the article seems to be a laundry list of every theory ever mentioned anywhere on the web, instead of a thoughtful, structured, referenced overview of the case against the Warren Commission report. ddlamb 05:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

{{NPOV}}

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

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

British conspiracy

Removed the following from the article:

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

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

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

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

andreasegde 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

LBJ-led conspiracy

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

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

I almost agree, and that is a very good summation of a very complicated subject. But what I cannot avoid, especially with the low-level conspiracy is the third option; 3. no active conspiracy. For example... Oswald could have told Cuban officials in Mexico (after they rejected his requests to enter their country), if I kill the President would you grant me asylum in Cuba? They say, fine... partially because they want Kennedy dead after the Bay of Pigs incident; but mostly because they think this guy wouldn't be able to do it and they just wanted to get rid of him. Everyone, the Cubans, CIA, FBI etc. simply underestimated what Oswald was capable of (this level of incompetance is a decent reason to cover-up failing to stop Oswald).

Oswald attempted to kill a General prior to Kennedy; there was no conspiracy involving that attempt; it was Oswald, by himself, engaging in guerrilla tactics. Granted Oswald went to Mexico (Cubans, KGB, CIA implications) and New Orleans (Mafia, LBJ, FBI implications and very little is known about that trip) prior to the assassination. I am not dismissing a conspiracy, but I am keenly aware from Oswald's background that it is not necessary to motivate him to kill a high profile person. As I see it, a conspiracy would provide something Oswald needed, a way to escape, and something to look forward to. But Oswald didn't escape, and as yet there is nothing to indicate he was paid off or promised anything.

The evidence is very circumstantial, and the print match on a box of LBJ criminal associate is made by one expert, if true that indeed provides a key with which everything comes together and focuses attention on the person with motive, connections and access necessary to carry forward a cover-up, LBJ. But if that print match is a mistake, and looking that the prints myself; [2] I'm certainly not convinced; then it is simply a red herring. For example all the evidence points to Jack Ruby being in the right place at the right time; and after sending moneygram a few minutes earlier he gets into the police station just as they are transferring Oswald over an hour late. Now either there is a sophisticated plot to get the timing right for Ruby's entrance; or it was one of the largest coincidences of modern times. And yes, I believe in coincidences, the evidence for a conspiracy lies with Ruby and with the mafia who were acting alone or in conjunction with LBJ. But again that involves a lot of people, and its just as plausible Ruby acted alone because of his own motivations. [3]

What I personally find most convincing of all against conspiracy theories, is that Oswald (in talking to his personal escort just as they are leaving) did not appear afraid of being silenced/wacked. If Oswald was part of a significant conspiracy, he should have been paranoid about being shot. But from all the footage and eyewitnesses I've seen; he liked talking to reporters and being seen by people. In my opinion, not the actions of a patsy. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New investigation of the murder

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Headers

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

Conclusions by WC isn't testimony or evidence

This is an explanation of the editing to the person who calls himself Mytwocents.

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

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

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

But, now Mytwocents knows.

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

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

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

RPJ 05:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents is being "bad" again

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

That is prohibited by website rules.

RPJ

Mytwocents is puzzled about what HSCA means

"Mytwocents." Are you the one that asks for the verification of the citations to the HSCA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let other impartial editors decide if if the citations support the statements. Mytwocents 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RPJ, please stop reverting this page and removing the templates. Let other editors have a chance to review the disputed sections. Mytwocents 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Website rules for dispute resolution

Mytwocents wants to resolve a dispute over the information that he wants to delete.

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

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

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

We are only at stage one: Negotiations.

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

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

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

Earl Warren's theory

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

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

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

Really - this is too silly...

andreasegde 23:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

RPJ against Mytwocents

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

andreasegde 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

William Greer, assassin?

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

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

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

andreasegde 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

It looks like his hand in the sunlight on the steering wheel to me. His hand is pointing in the direction of Connally, who was looking forwards and would have seen it from the corner of his eye. Plus; his shoulder looks to be in the way. He had to turn his left shoulder (with arm and hand attached) to get a better view. Try this at home, folks.

Wouldn´t Connally have heard a gun go off right next to him? They´re very loud you know :) Wouldn´t Jackie or his wife have heard? "Distracted" is stretching it a bit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

andreasegde 17:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun.

andreasegde 14:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun.

andreasegde 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun,

andreasegde 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun,

andreasegde 17:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

ROV - please - give yourself a break...

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

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

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

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

Respect, and have fun,

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

andreasegde 10:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The Two Agents in the Car

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

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

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

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

Do y´all think this should go in?

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

Storm drain

I found this: [[4]]. My POV is that it seems very silly.

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

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

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

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

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

andreasegde 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

RPJ 09:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

andreasegde 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Curtain rods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

andreasegde 13:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here we go...

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

Two Oswald wallets

One wallet was found at Tippet´s murder scene.

Another wallet was found on Oswald at the Theatre.

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

andreasegde 11:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The President's Death Certificate

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

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

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

Another problem with the Warren Commission's single bullet theory is that the bullet struck Kennedy too low in the back to exit the front of Kennedy's throat even if the bullet was not shot at a downward angle. The President's Death Certificate locates the bullet wound in the President's back at the third thoracic vertebra in the vertebral column. [5]

RPJ 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The back wound & Gerald Ford

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

What do we think about this?

andreasegde 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

RPJ 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Check these out...

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

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

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

This was tampering with evidence, which is a crime.

andreasegde 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

RPJ

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

Warren Caster & a Mauser

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

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

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

andreasegde 21:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Greer and the slowing down/stopping of the car

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oswald - poor shot?

These pages inlcude testimony from the Warren Commission, as well as other sources.

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

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

Before the Warren Commission:

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

andreasegde 17:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)