Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →

Contents

Protected

Page is now protected due to edit wars. Please work it out using dispute resolution. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A Couple of Suggestions When the Page Is Unprotected.

1. Remove the verbatim quotes throughout the article. I suggest summarizing them and providing a link to the source.

2. Show deference to the Warren Commission and the HSCA, as the "official" investigations into the assassination of JFK, when setting a framework for the assassination. Feel free however, to add verified information where the Warren Commission clearly got it wrong. I understand this is going to be controversial, and I know that many disagree with the conclusions of the Warren Report. The best way to handle that is a step by step approach where we list the Warren Commission's findings and then show how that finding has been controverted by later research. The current article has so many researchers and theories in it that the the fact of two "official" investigations and their importance is sort of lost.

3. Take out the reference to John Birch Society reference in the background to Texas trip section, or better yet simply state that Dallas was hostile political territory for JFK, and state why. Since JBS has no known connection to the assassination, and there were many political enemies of JFK in Dallas at that time, it'll probably be best not to highlight one to the exclusion of others.

4. Removing the list of person's present at the autopsy from the main article, and creating either a disambiguation page to these persons or another page called "List of Persons At JFK Autopsy".

5. To be NPOV, if the article is going to mention Hosty's destruction of Oswald's note, Hosty's explanation of his actions in his book, "Assignment:Oswald" should also be referenced.

6. Public response to the Warren Commission probably should be in the article on the Warren Commission with only a link to it here.

7. (On a side note, "what modern guns emit smoke?") At the end of the HSCA section there is mention of some witnesses seeing gunpowder smoke from the knoll, but no source for that bit of information or what witnesses. Should probably verify who saw the smoke.

8. List of people present in the Presidential Motorcade, should recieve the same treatment as the persons present at the autopsy. Disambiguation page or new page listing them, with a link to that page on this site.

9. Delete Assassination Theories as the title and the body are discussing different issues and we can just do an internal link to the site discussing Kennedy Assassination theories.

10. Delete similarities section and just place a link to the article on Tecumseh's curse.

Ramsquire 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Ramsquire on the 10 points he has raised. I think these changes would make for a better article. His suggestions are in line with what I was trying to do with the 00:40, February 12, 2006 [1] version. I will raise the issue of the use of the Kennedy autopsy photos seperately. Mytwocents 01:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I also concur. There should also be a section on the Rifle that OSwald used to kill Kennedy. It ties him to the Depostory building and the murder. It is overwhelming evidence that is glaringly missing. --Tbeatty 03:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There used to be a section, based on the rifle article we have, but it was the subject of a fierce edit war with RPJ, who thinks The Conspiracy switched a Mauser with the Carcano. Apparently the section ended up getting deleted altogether in the fray. If you're up for it, add it back. Gamaliel 03:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Added sentences on the rifle with source. --Tbeatty 05:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The 10 points

Reply to the ten points:

1--The verbatim quotes from the witnesses stay in. Nothing brings a subject alive better. Even good writers can rarely improve good testimony.

Also:

The reason Congress passed the 1992 JFK law was to open up the secret transcripts and unseal the secret documents in order to show what really happened.
What are we going to do, vote on what happened? And, if so, do the PR flacks from the agencies and other interested parties that cover the websites (especially the popular ones such as this) get to vote on how to mangle the first-hand evidence with summaries?
On the other hand, anybody who thinks he or she can write, and thinks he or she has something important to add: Then, and only then, should the person put a draft of the language on this discussion page in a final draft form. It can be discussed.
Obviously, we don't need "idea" people.
Those, who, because of your work, or, out of conviction, focus on a one-issue agenda (for, or against "you know what") try staying out of the process. The article is starting to look interesting, if not captivating.
I see your point. Maybe we can look at the quotes on a "quote by quote basis." The problem is the longer the quote, the more chance that the point of the quote is lost. Ramsquire 17:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. RPJ 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

2--The focus of this article is about the assassination of the President the U.S. The focus of this page is not about a government panel that investigated it and has been heavily criticized and joked about ever since.

Those who want to show deference to the "commission" can do so. Just not in this article. The Warren Commission has its own article--likewise with the HSCA.
Fair enough. Ramsquire 17:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

3--This article is about murder and therefore about "mortal" enemies--not simply a "political" enemy. "A mortal enemy is an enemy who wants to kill you'. [2]

Those who were simply "political enemies" are not in this article. They are written up in the article on the Kennedy presidency where Kennedy's political career and his political enemies are discussed.
Therefore, anyone who wants to identify a "mortal enemy" of John F. Kennedy in Dallas is free to do so. That doesn’t mean it goes in, but put it on this discussion page. You should be specific and have some strong evidence that those identified had the strong present desire to murder the President.
The point on the John Birch Society may be well taken. One supposes because it was named (presumably for good reasons) and it is named in the locked article, that it might be better to argue them out.
I don't understand the distinction between mortal enemies and political enemies. The two are not exclusive to each other. One can be both. JFK was killed most likely because he was a political figure, and not due to some personal dispute. Therefore as it was a political murder, political enemies could be put in (if it is relevant) and they have a verifiable connection to the assassination. Ramsquire 18:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't know that. Oswald may have, in his deranged state of mind, considered the president a mortal enemy and killed the president because a government FBI agent was pestering his wife. The point being made is that one doesn't list all the president's thousands of political enemies, but only those political or other enemies that have evidenced their hatred to the point of being a "mortal enemy."RPJ 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, RPJ, I think I wrote JFK was killed most likely because he was a political figure, and not due to some personal disputewhich I think leaves open other possibilities. Ramsquire 21:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

4--Agreed. Its a good research tool, but not interesting for most readers. Maybe put both lists (people at the autopsy and people in the motorcade)at the bottom of the page. Linked cites to the people would be great also, though quite a bit of work.


5--Should the article put in Hosty's lengthy plea that he tore up and flushed Oswald's letter down the toilet because he was following orders? Perhaps if it is short enough. Maybe it will explain why Hosty wasn't thrown in jail for destroying evidence relating to the murder of the president?

Yes, if you are going to mention Hosty, I think we have to mention his story, so we're not being one-sided. Also, I guess we would have to mention that according to Hosty, the note only told him to stay away from his wife.
I agree it should be looked into. If the letter only stated what Hosty now says, then, does it make sense that 1---after the Kennedy murder, and 2---after Oswald was arrested, and 3---after Hosty interrogated him at the police station, Hosty would then destroy the letter then, commit perjury to conceal his destruction of evidence?
RPJ 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Hosty's account he was under orders from his superiors. They wished to cover up the FBI's minor contact with LHO for fear of being accused of not doing anything to prevent the assassination and to attempt to avoid Hoover's wrath. Appalling and inappropriate conduct, to be sure, but it makes perfect sense. Gamaliel 20:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

6--The "public response" shows that the Warren Report hasn't passed the test of time. The American public rejects the Warren Commission Report and have had forty one years to think about it. Why hide it?

Those who want to answer the above question by stating that they are wiser and/or more knowledgeable about the secret virtues of the Warren Report than the "public" should be prepared with some highly persuasive credentials and source material.


7--Skip the mini-tech disputes for the time being, or the article will never get unlocked.


8--Agreed


9--That might work. but the article has a number of mechanical problems right now that need to be fixed such as colons with no text after them, dangling parenthesis and so forth. And, lets face it, slashing out parts is probably what caused the lock-down.


10--Agreed


All the readers should thank Ramsquire for his helpful list.

66.91.203.81 09:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

1--The verbatim quotes from the witnesses stay in. Nothing brings a subject alive better. Even good writers can rarely improve good testimony.
Summarizing quotes isn't meant to "improve" good testimony or water down the what was said, it's at the heart of writing a good encylopedia article. Any quote can be used out of context to advance an agenda. Chastizing other editors and rv'ng their work for doing just that; editing, strikes at the heart of what we do here. A Wikipedia article is first and foremost a NPOV summary of the facts. What we need to do is to work section by section to make the information concise, accurate and NPOV.
1. Remove the verbatim quotes throughout the article. I suggest summarizing them and providing a link to the source.
I think Ramsquire's Point #1 needs to be implemented.Mytwocents 18:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The 10 points: Some Progress Made

It appears that items Number 4, 8 and 10 (on "the list of 10") seem to represent a positive change in the article. Also, it seems undeniable the article needs an edit for stray typos and gramatical errors arising after all of the rapid fire changes before the lock-down.

We should consider the above as "possible", or "tentative" changes for right now, and circle back to them later to see if anyone else has any other input on them.

In the meantime, perhaps we could now look at something a little bit more controversial. I would suggest three items:

1--Manicuring some of the quotes;
2--Addressing the issue of the pictures; and
3--The destruction of Oswald's letter written to FBI agent Hosty two days before the murder.

We could approach these three, one at a time; and to keep some forward motion going perhaps we should tackle the easiest: Whether to spend the space to put in Hosty's defense for destroying significant evidence regarding Oswald's motive. Does anyone want to deprive Hosty of a defense? If not, then, and importantly, does anyone want to try to summarize Hosty's defense? Or does he give a good short quote on why he did such a thing? RPJ 07:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We can do the quotes and pictures on a case by case basis. As for Oswald's letter to Hosty, all we can do is add a sentence similar to this: "In his book, Hosty claims that Oswald's letter to him was nothing more than a warning from Oswald that the FBI, and Agent Hosty, should stay away from Oswald's wife. He further claims that he destroyed the letter on orders from superiors at the FBI who did not want any links the FBI had to Oswald to become public after the assassination."
Ramsquire 18:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is a supplimented version ot the new language on Hosty.

"In his book, Hosty claims that Oswald's letter to him was nothing more than a warning from Oswald that the FBI, and Agent Hosty, should stay away from Oswald's wife. Whether or not this letter reflected that Oswald was enraged to the point that he expressed the intent to murder the President is unknown. Hosty further claims that he destroyed the letter on orders from superiors at the FBI who, after the assassination, did not want any links between the FBI and Oswald to become public. It's unkown why FBI agent Hosty and his superiors who ordered the letter destroyed were not prosecuted for obstruction of justice and perjury in connection with their destruction of the evidence and false testimony to the Warren Commission."

RPJ 05:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is no letter, isn't this whole Hosty thing little more than a anecdote. The proof of the notes existence is gone. Do we have more than Hosty's word that it even existed. If we had the note in our hands, it would just suggest a bizarre, twisted "motive" to kill the president. As it is it's just conjecture. Maybe it could go on the Kennedy assassination theories page? Mytwocents 05:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


The above reader needs to catch up with the rest of the readers on recent history. In 1975, a good citizen tipped off the public, that the FBI had been covering up the destruction of Oswald's last known written statement that was given to the FBI only two days before Kennedy was murdered. [3] An investigation followed, and Congress was able to establish how this stunning conduct came about. Once this evidence leaked out, Hosty finally admitted to Congress under oath that he destroyed the letter. And it was discovered the FBI fabricated an address book of Oswald leaving out Hosty's name that appeared in Oswald's real address book.[[4]]

RPJ 07:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Did FBI miss chance to Prevent Kennedy Assassination?

Lee Oswald wrote a letter to FBI agent Hosty and gave it to his office two days before Kennedy was murdered. Right after the assassination, the FBI ordered Hosty to destroy the letter from the accused murderer.[5] Hosty and his FBI superiors should, of course, have been prosecuted for destruction of evidence and then perjury before the Warren Commission for this destruction of the letter and putting in false evidence of Oswald's telephone notebook with Hosty's name deleted from it.[6]

The FBI's failure to follow up on Oswald's letter and its criminal destruction of the evidence to cover this up must be put in the article. This is especially true since the president was murdered.

This failure by the FBI ranks right up with Secret Service agent Lawson demanding that the Dallas Police pull off its heavily armed homicide squad that was supposed to follow behind the president as it usually did with visiting presidents to ward off assassination attempts.

Its true the PR department of the FBI doesn't like people knowing about this, but lets face it, this country is America--not China. We don't have to please the bureaucrats. RPJ 19:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You can get off your soapbox, nobody is going to edit this article according to the dictates of "the PR department of the FBI". The FBI's poor conduct should be noted, but we shouldn't make more of it than is actually there. The destruction of evidence is appalling, but it's quite a leap from that to the absurd claim that they "missed" a chance to prevent the assassination. To expect the FBI to leap into action to prevent a presidential assassination after one agent gets an unsigned note reading "Stop harassing my wife!" is to attribute to them abilities of divination that no one would even ascribe to Nostradamus. Fear of exactly these sorts of ridiculous expectations is what motivated them to destroy the note in the first place. Gamaliel 19:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Agent Hosty gave false testimony under oath about the murder. His agency even went further and fabricated a fake address book that was kept by Oswald in order to conceal the real one that had Hosty's name in it. [7]
Yet, the reader above willingly accepts, as true, Hosty's new statement, about what the letter said. However, the legal presumption would be to disbelieve Hosty's new story about Oswald's letter to Hosty, given just two days before Kennedy was murdered.
It should be presumed the letter said something such as: "You harassed my wife for the last time and I'm going to blow someone's head off."
Why should we presume that? We should presume that everyone is innocent until there is more to prove him guilty. Yes, Hosty committed perjury, but to presume the letter was a warning about the assassination is pure speculation. Just about anything could have been in the letter. It could have been a cooking recipe for all we know (Hosty and Oswald could have been drinking buddies, and this would have embarrassed the FBI, so they concocted the "stop harassing my wife" note). Unfortunately, because of Hosty's unethical behavior, we only have his word on the contents of the letter.Ramsquire 17:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason to presume a threat to engage in violent action was made is because Hosty destroyed the letter. That is a crime, and one would presume you don't destroy evidence unless it will be very harmful. In this case, it would make Hosty and the FBI look like the most incompetent agency in the U.S. The accused threatened violence against the government and Hosty and the FBI did nothing about the threat until after the president was murdered, and the letter was given two days before hand.

Therefore, as soon as Oswald is murdered, the threat letter from Oswald was destroyed.

Hosty then claims the letter didn't threaten violence. But, is FBI Agent Hosty lying again? Here is what one FBI secretary who saw the letter had to say about it:

A receptionist working at the Dallas office claimed it included a threat to "blow up the FBI and the Dallas Police Department if you don't stop bothering my wife."

[8]

RPJ 01:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hosty destroyed the note on order from his superiors. At least sixteen agents saw the note; none reports it saying what the receptionist says it did. According to Hosty, the receptionist could not even have accidentally read the note the way she testified she had. Even if Hosty and all the other agents are lying to cover their collective asses, which is I suppose plausible, the worst they can be accused of is not responding to the written equivalent of a crank call. This is all pretty irrelevant. Gamaliel 02:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Gamaliel is starting to melt down. On one hand he pretends to fervently believe that Oswald murdered the president and a Dallas Police officer, and on the other hand pretends to fervently believe Oswald was just a "crank" handing out "crank" threats. You made a mistake here. The "crank" callers that don't follow through and murder a president. The "crank" are the harmless eccentrics.

RPJ 05:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet, the reader above (who calls himself "Gamaliel") believes in Hosty, and believes that Oswald merely wrote "Stop harassing my wife."
We must take off the rose colored glasses. Hosty is a criminal, a perjurer. He should be in federal prison for criminal concealment and obstruction of justice. See Federal Criminal jury instruction 76 (Concealing a material fact from a federal agency). [9] Why believe his new story where he piously admits that there was a letter to him and indeed he acted wrongfully for destroying it, but that Oswald's last written statement didn't threaten any violence?
The question would be whether the letter was material, and without the actual letter, reasonable people can differ as to its importance. Ramsquire 17:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't try to censor the evidence. The readers can make up their own minds. Otherwise, the editing standard will dip to the point of pleasing the most gullible reader rather than the average reader.

RPJ 07:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's quite obnoxious when you address people like "the reader who calls himself "Gamaliel"". Please stop.

You may disbelieve Hosty's account if you wish. It's one thing to disbelieve Hosty, it's quite another to presume the letter said what you imagine it said, and there is no evidence for your presumption beyond your imagination. Gamaliel 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Suggestion #2.

I think there may be some confusion as to what I meant by deference to the WC and HSCA. I am not suggesting that in the case of a tie we list the WC/HSCA conclusion to the exclusion of other evidence. What I am suggesting is that in terms of laying out the narrative of the assassination, we use those findings as the starting point and then point out where later research found is contrary to those investigation.

For example the format could be something like: "According to the WC/HSCA, [A] happened. However later research by [blank] has shown the in fact [B] happened because ...."


It's just a thought to make the article a bit more cohesive. Ramsquire 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This may be the trickiest point to handle of all. That is my only thought right now.

RPJ 07:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We had something like Ramsquire's suggestion in earlier edits:
10.1 Dallas Police
10.2 FBI investigation
10.2.1 The destruction of evidence
10.3 The Warren Commission
10.3.1 Public response to the Warren Report
10.4 The House Select Committee on Assassinations
10.4.1 Criticisms and further research
This format was lost somehow. I think Ramsquire's Suggestion #2. is a great idea. Mytwocents 07:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to info on the 1968 Ramsey Clark review of the photographs and X-Ray of Pres. Kennedy. Maybe we can use this to contrast the WC and HSCA findings as well:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt
1968 Panel Review of Photographs, X-Ray Films, Documents and Other Evidence Pertaining to the :Fatal Wounding of President John E Kennedy on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas
At the request of The Honorable Ramsay Clark, Attorney General of the United States, four physicians met in Washington, DC ........
SUMMARY
Examination of the clothing and of the photographs and X-rays taken at autopsy reveal that President Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him, one of which traversed the base of the neck on the right side without striking bone and the other of which entered the skull from behind and exploded its right side. The photographs and X-rays discussed herein support the above-quoted portions of the original Autopsy Report and the above-quoted medical concludions of the Warren Commission Report. Mytwocents 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Here are two templates I think we should use after the page is unlocked. I think they reflect what we will be trying to accomplish in the near future.

Image:Clock-green.png This article or section is currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping.
However, you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in a while please remove this template. If this article is divided into multiple sections, please try to edit one section at a time to reduce the likelihood of edit conflicts.

Category:Articles actively undergoing construction

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup.
See rationale on the talk page, or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.
This article has been tagged since February 2006.

Category:Cleanup from February 2006

Mytwocents 06:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Don't you understnd, that is what is being done now. Why spend time trying to make the article better now so that when it is unlocked some person like yourself can just go in and cut out everything with which he doesn't agree.

It is time that "Mytwocents" move on to a different project unless this is his job to sit on this article and protect the reputation of a couple of government agencies.

RPJ 02:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please cease addressing other editors in such a manner. See Wikipedia:Civility. Gamaliel 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


To which rule does the complaining reader refer?
And, as result of which particular statement, does the reader now find himself distressed?

Because this is an article about a murder case; criminal conduct should be at the forefront

It looks like the lock-down of the article came about because of a fundamental disagreement over the basic nature of the article:

1--The article devotes itself exclusively to the murder of John Kennedy: The "Crime of the Century." The secret evidence of the crime has, in part, has been opened for public viewing: The secret testimony; the secret documents; the secret photographs; and the amazing behind-the-scenes revelations are now being made public by an act of Congress passed in 1992. Most of the readers want to look at the evidence, read the evidence and find out what really happened.
2—On the other hand,
Some readers claim the testimony of the eyewitnesses is "too gory."
Some claim the pictures are too disturbing.
Some are worried that one or two federal agencies might look bad if the truth comes out.
A few others find comfort believing in the faded assurances given 42 years ago, that the government has told the public the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the murder.


These people can believe what they want, but the other readers don't need some anonymous reader, using made up internet name, attempting to censor the evidence for him or her.

Until this controversy gets resolved, it is hard to see how the article can be unlocked. Tomorrow, some of evidence that has been censored out of the article will be posted to show how serious the censorship problem has become. Remember now, this isn’t China.

66.91.203.81 06:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think that this version[10] of the page would provide a good starting point. It has few block quotes, strives for [NPOV] and avoids the use of the graphic autopsy photos, which have no copyright info and are candidates for speedy delete (there are weblinks to the photos though). Mytwocents 08:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Problem on this Page is NOT Mytwocents...

it's RPJ.

Because RPJ believes that there was a conspiracy, and at least two shooters, there must have been two shooters. He has yet to provide any credible evidence of this, but rather continues to attack and be uncivil to other users who don't see things his way.

As I see it, all Mytwocents wants is a fair, NPOV article that points out that yes the Warren Commission made mistakes, but here and now, some four decades after the assassination, and countless later investigations, its findings still hold up. And those findings are only made stronger as the evidence of conspiracy gets smaller and smaller.

Finally, as someone who deals with evidence and presumptions everydays of his life, I think I should inform RPJ about a few things. Those 40 witnesses who heard shots from the Grassy Knoll are good but until you can come up with one of them who is credible, and saw someone shooting at the President from there, as Brennan did with Oswald, you are going to lose your argument with me. I would need a description of this shooter, when the shots were fired and where did this shooter go after the shooting. The available forensic evidence, implicates Oswald alone. There are eyewitnesses who saw Oswald doing the shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD but no one could see a shooter from across the street. It defies logic!

All these parlor games about Hosty's letter, the autopsy notes, Beverly Oliver, the dictabelt are fun and make for a good speculation, but they prove nothing.

If you can come up with one bit of forensic evidence or a description of this second shooter that shows the existence of an actual shooter, I will apologize for this rant. But until then, leave Mytwocents alone, have some humility regarding your theories with the understanding that you DON'T know everything, and be civil to other users who disagree with you. Ramsquire 18:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire makes a fundamental point; there is a burden of proof that must be met to include subjects in the main page. It is far easier to meet this burden of proof and verifiability, when one is relying on forensic evidence, ballistics, and crime scene evidence. When you get into eyewitness testimony and speculation, it can be a sticky wicket.
Here is a quote I've used before from the ARRB[11], report which states my point; so at the risk at being redundant....
Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges, and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of events. Psychologists and scholars have long-since demonstrated the serious unreliability of peoples' recollections of what they hear and see. One illustration of this was an interview statement made by one of the treating physicians at Parkland. He explained that he was in Trauma Room Number 1 with the President. He recounted how he observed the First Lady wearing a white dress. Of course, she was wearing a pink suit, a fact known to most Americans. The inaccuracy of his recollection probably says little about the quality of the doctor's memory, but it is revealing of how the memory works and how cautious one must be when attempting to evaluate eyewitness testimony.
The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as "proof" for one theory or another.
Mytwocents 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Chronology on Oswald imposter is this?

October 1, 1963 The person calling himself Lee Oswald goes to the Russian Embassy in Mexico. The CIA routinely keeps the Russian Embassy under constant surveillance noting the people going there.

October 9, 1963 CIA headquarters gets the surveillance data of the person calling himself Oswald and sends it to FBI in Dallas. The Dallas office analyzes the tape recording and photograph.

November 22, 1963 The President is murdered in Dallas

November 22, 1963 Oswald says "I'm just a patsy.”--spoken at a press conference at Dallas Police headquarters the night of his arrest

November 23, 1963 An FBI memorandum sent to the Secret Service about the Oswald imposter being at the Soviet Embassy says:

“Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Tex., have observed photographs of the individual referred to above [at the Russian Embassy calling himself Oswald] and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald.”


November 23, 1963 The Dallas FBI office changes its mind and then claims that, in fact; it did not receive the photograph and tape recordings of the person claiming to be Oswald at the Russian Embassy; and in fact, claims no agents looked at the photograph and listened to the tape recording of the person claiming to be Oswald at the Russian Embassy (since the office didn’t receive them); and claims the agents who had spoken to Oswald did not come to the opinion that the man at the Russian Embassy that said he was Oswald was, in fact, not Lee Harvey Oswald.

The new FBI story doen't sound very convincing. Does it? 66.91.203.81



Over 40 witnesses is not a "single statement" and they were all given when the information was fresh in their minds. Next point you wish to make?


Regarding the cartoon type drawing from the Warren Commission of the head wound as contrasted to the cartoon type drawing from the HSCA placing the mortal head wound in a different place from the Warren Commission's cartoon of the wound, should convince all that no qualified doctor or other person with first hand knowledge of the wound has authenticated either drawing as being correct.
The reader named Ramsquire has now announced that he has special legal skills that help him sift through the evidence better than the rest of the readers. Good. That may be helpful to everyone. Perhaps he can tell us which is the more reliable evidence:

1) Doctor McClelland's drawing of the head wound; [12]

2) The Warren Commission's drawing of the head wound; or

3) The HSCA's drawing of the head wound?

Ramsquire should select the drawing that he thinks is more reliable evidence and inform us why.

RPJ 01:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

1) Since I get paid to sift through evidence and present it to lay people, yes I do have a special expertise as to what makes certain evidence more credible than others.
2) I already explained what depiction I find the most reliable and why. But I'll explain it one more time. Any depiction that has the back of the President's head intact is more reliable, to me, since it corroborates the images in the Zapruder film. Where the back of Kennedy's head is clearly intact after the assassination.
3) I don't accuse the 40 witnesses of being liars or con artists. I am just saying that they are not as reliable as other witness for one reason: they provide no descriptions of a shooter. Pretend you're a detective for a minute, and you stumble on the scene of a crime. One witness gives you a description of the assailant, and plots out his whereabouts, and there is forensic evidence corrabating this one witness account. On the other hand there are ten other witness who claim they also saw something else fishy going on down the block, but they have no descriptions or accounts that are useful. All they can tell you is that something weird happened down the block. When you investigate, there is nothing there that seems to attach to the crime. What do you do? Do you continue to look at the vague accounts that seem to go nowhere, or do you follow up the lead that gets you to somebody who is verifiably connected to the crime, and hope that that person gets you to any others who were involved with the crime? Ramsquire 18:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Testimony of Ida Dox, Professional Medical Illustrator before the HSCA[13].
Mr. PURDY. How did you determine what to illustrate for the select committee?
Ms. DOX. This was done by consultation, the staff of the committee, the medical panel, and myself, and it was decided that the photographs taken at autopsy should be copied to illustrate the position of the wounds. The photographs that were selected were the ones that best showed the injuries. Also, a series of illustrations was needed that would illustrate the findings of the medical panel.............
Mytwocents 07:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop the Presses!

It looks like we have "You Know Who" to blame for this whole Hosty controversy. It was none other than "The Man" himself! The late J. Edgar Hoover! Thanks to the Mcadams Website for this info.
[14]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm
[15]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context3.htm

Clueless J. Edgar Hoover?

Imposter At Soviet Embassy in Mexico City?

Conspiracists have long believed that someone impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald at the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City in late September, 1963. One piece of "evidence" they use is a memorandum written by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. The following is from the Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
The question of an Oswald imposter was also raised in an FBI letterhead memorandum to the Secret Service dated November 23, 1963. It was based in part upon information received by CIA headquarters on October 9, 1963, that on October 1, 1963, Oswald had contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.
The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Tex., have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald.
In response to a committee inquiry, the FBI reported that no tape recording of Oswald's voice was in fact ever received. The Bureau explained that its Dallas office only received the report of a conversation to which Oswald had been a party. This explanation was independently confirmed by the committee. A review of relevant FBI cable traffic established that at 7:23 p.m. (CST) on November 23, 1963, Dallas Special Agent-in-Charge Shanklin advised Director Hoover that only a report of this conversation was available, not an actual tape recording. On November 25, the Dallas office again apprised the Director that "[t]here appears to be some confusion in that no tapes were taken to Dallas * * * [O]nly typewritten [reports were] supplied * * *."
Shanklin stated in a committee interview that no recording was ever received by FBI officials in Dallas. Moreover, former FBI Special Agents James Hosty, John W. Fain, Burnett Tom Carter, and Arnold J. Brown, each of whom had conversed with Oswald at one time, informed the committee they had never listened to a recording of Oswald's voice.
Finally, on the basis of an extensive file review and detailed testimony by present and former CIA officials and employees, the committee determined that CIA headquarters never received a recording of Oswald's voice. The committee concluded, therefore, that the information in the November 23, 1963, letterhead memorandum was mistaken and did not provide a basis for concluding that there had been an Oswald imposter.
House Select Committee on Assassinations, Report, pp. 249-250.
Mytwocents 05:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Liar Shanklin again; same old lies; same old gullibility by Warren Report believers

The Warren Report believers are a small but fervent group. And, very gullible. With almost religous awe one of the believers, (who identifies himself and his opinions in monetary terms "Mytwocents")states that everyone is mistaken. Here is what FBI agent Shanklin told someone about the Oswald imposter [its all a big mistake blah, blah, blah].

Excuse me. Isn't FBI agent Shanklin the same person who told Hosty to destroy the letter Oswald gave to him two days before Kennedy was murdered? It is the same person? Yes.

Now we are supposed to believe some other lie agent Shanklin is going to tell about Oswald? Just how gullible does one have to become to be accepted into the small group of Warren Report believers? 1) Real Gullible, 2) Very Gullible, or 3) Hopelessly gullible.

66.91.203.81 08:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the JFK Assassination web page that discusses the "two Oswalds" theory.www.jfkassassination.net I particularly like the conclusion;
So is there nothing at all to the "two Oswalds" theories? No, nothing at all. The whole rickety structure is built on unreliable witness testimony, carefully selected and inaccurate documents, and a mountain of implausible supposition. Which makes it a fitting metaphor for JFK assassination conspiracy theories generally.
Mytwocents 19:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a genuine question. I always wondered what the significance of the two Oswalds? How does the impersonator fit into a JFK conspiracy? Ramsquire 21:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


The Oswald impersonator is not a prima facie evidence of a conspiracy , but rather prima facie evidence in Oswald's defense that someone framed him

The evidence of some one impersonating an accused murderer and doing any suspicious activity let alone, impersonating, Oswald contacting a known "Hit man" would be a powerful defense for Oswald.

This is why PBS's Frontline" said that the long concealed documents had 'electrified" the top government officials that wanted to convince the public that Lee Oswald, a communist, shot the president and did so all by himself.

It takes only one person to frame someone else. This doesn't mean that there wasn't more than one person involved, but it does mean there is powerful evidentiary support for Oswald's defense that he is being made a "patsy", or in other terms being "set-up" or "framed" for the murder of the president.

How rare is it for someone to impersonate someone else in connection with a murder?

RPJ 02:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for being dense or gullible here, but are you claiming that this 2nd Oswald, was sent to these embassy's as part of a cover story to bolster Oswald's pedigree as a Communist to be used after the assassination?
If one were going to frame a person for murder, it would help to impersonate the "patsy" and while impersonating him try to hire a "hit man."

RPJ 19:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Has this 2nd Oswald ever been positively identified? The reason I ask is that is it possible that in fact the guy's name was Lee Harvey Oswald, or some combination of those names and it's just a weird coincidence? Ramsquire 19:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Since the CIA has now been caught concealing the information of the impersonator for 40 years[16] it is doubtful that the Oswald impersonator will be caught and questioned. It is quite sad that the government agencies have been so worried about protecting their reputations, that they stopped the investigation dead in its tracks in 1963 merely to conceal information that will embarass them.
This quote from Counsel Blakey of the HSCA that investigated the assassination of Kennedy that pretty well sums up his conclusion of the CIA's lack of truthfulness:

. "I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.

I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.I am now in that camp."

[17] RPJ 19:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Any Consensus Yet?

I think it may be time to unlock the article. I believe there seems to be a consensus to:

1. Review quotes and photos on a case by case basis, by placing the intended addition in the talk page first, and then letting the readers decide on its appropriateness.

What is the requirment of appropiateness? Wikipedia policy or the policy of Ramsquire.

RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Can the reader who goes by the letters RPJ just stop for a minute? Where have I ever let my personal opinions cause me to edit the article in a non NPOV way. It's this kind of snide attitude that causes revert wars and gets the article locked. I may say things on the talk page that is for one position and against the other, but that is why there is a talk page. I wouldn't put it into the article. Here's the deal, I gave you an opportunity to convince me, you haven't, so move on. Let's get the article unlocked. Ramsquire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


2. adopt the format suggested by Mytwocents. When there is contrary information, I suggest what we could do is summarize it here, but point out that more information is located in the JFK assassination conspiracy article. We could also do a jump cite to that article of the more graphic photos, and any photos that contradict the "official" version.

This against Wikipedia policy.
Which Wiki Policy? How does the below format violate any policy?
10.1 Dallas Police
10.2 FBI investigation
10.2.1 The destruction of evidence
10.3 The Warren Commission
10.3.1 Public response to the Warren Report
10.4 The House Select Committee on Assassinations
10.4.1 Criticisms and further research

Ramsquire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC) RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Just state that Dallas was politically hostile territory at the time and not point to any specific group since there is no verifiable evidence linking any group to the assassination.

Its not appropiate to prejudge the non-existence of evidence. Example: The earth is flat therefore evidence that it is round doesnt exist therefore Christopher Columbus didn't exist. That type of logic was suspect at the time of Copernicus. Just because it may be your job to keep the article in the 1964 era doesn't mean we should make this reference work look foolish.RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If you have the link, provide it. But a wiki article is not a place to put out a theory or speculation without anything to back it up. If this were an article on the shape of the Earth and it was before the time where science proved the Earth was a spheroid, and someone was guessing or merely theorizing about the shape of the Earth, it wouldn't belong in Wiki either. Only verifiable information is allowed here, so if you have verifiable information of some group that was tied to the assassination, by all means you should add it. Ramsquire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The John Birch Society may well have been the common link between a group of right wing conspirators. This needs to be looked at very carefully. They were very powerful at one time and Nixon believed the "Birchers" had been identified by the media as behind the Kennedy assassination. Jack Ruby also seemed quite scared of them when he talked to Earl Warren according to the transcripts.
That infamous and mentally unbalanced General Walker, from Texas was an arch segregationist, and, apparently, highly promiscuous with men, an anti-communist, and a member of the John Birch Society. [18] That was also the same set of problems that faced David Ferrie who may have been a "Bircher." This highly promiscuous pedophile befriended Oswald when Oswald was a teenager and seemed to carry on an adult friendship with Oswald according to the HSCA.

RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you just seriously wrote down one of Garrison's theories. OMG!!! Anyway that sort of information should be in the Conspiracy theory article. Ramsquire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no article called the "Conspiracy Theory." There is an article about the assassination called "assassination theories." It starts with the Warren Report theory, then addresses the HSCA theory and so on. Some theories involve more than one person some do not.
One popular myth is that, if Oswald was framed it must have been a conspiracy (meaning two people involved. That isn't necessarily so. Except for editors that are professional advocates (PR flacks) whose job it is to convince people of one particlar outcome no matter what the evidence, just sit back and think about the case for a while.

4. Removing the list of person's present at the autopsy from the main article, and creating either a disambiguation page to these persons or another page called "List of Persons At JFK Autopsy".

No put them at the bottom of the page. Unless you don't want people to look at them.
If people are interested in who was there, they can click the link, but whatever.Ramsquire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Mention Hosty's destruction of Oswald's note, Hosty's explanation of his actions in his book, "Assignment:Oswald" should also be referenced.

Lets see how it looks. Specific language before opening the page.

RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

6. Keep the public response to the Warren Commission section but to fine tune it for grammar problems. Maybe we can add a jump cite to the conspiracy theory article here.

There is no "conspiracy theory" article.

RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then what is this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_assassination_theories

I assume you'll then retract your objection. Ramsquire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Stop and read for a minute. You are confusing basic terms and basic concepts. An assassination theory is a theory about how the President was assassinated. It covers theories involving a single person or two or more people committing the crime.
A theory that two or more people agree to commit the crime is a conspiracy theory. For example, the Warren Commission has adopted an assassination theory that one person did it, and that person was named Oswald. The HSCA has adopted an assassination theory that two or more people agreed to assassinate the president and one of them is Oswald. That is an assassination theory that posits a conspiracy involving Oswald and someone else.
Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA have assassination theories.

66.135.233.230 18:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

7. Remove the List of people present in the Presidential Motorcade and create a disambiguation page.

What is it and why do it. Put it at bottom of page.
Disambiguation pages are lists that allow readers to go to the specific topic and or person they are interested in. My guess is wiki frowns upon long lists in the body of articles and prefer the use of jump cites, or that users place lists in separate articles. Ramsquire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

9. Delete Assassination Theories and

Then we need to toss out the Warren Commission theory becaus it is by far the least popular theory, as compared to the conspiracy theory that Ramsquire is concerned about.

RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I screwed up, I mixed up sections. My suggestion for this article was to clean up the polling data. One, "ABC-TV news" is not a polling organization. It's an ABCNews Poll. Second, Discovery Channel is an arm of ABC, so it could be the same poll cited twice. Third, I fear that the Discovey Channel and History Channel polls that are cited are not scientific polls, and maybe online polls, and that distinction should be cited. Ramsquire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


10. delete the "similarities section" and just place a link to the article on Tecumseh's curse.

Yes

RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


I think we should keep in mind that every piece of information need not be in this article since there are other articles discussing the topic where it would be more appropriate. I think since this article is the JFK assassination, it should contain emphasis on the "official" investigations findings, and a summary of contrary information linked to the Conspiracy article, where the reader can get a more in depth review of any such information.


:"The generally accepted policy [of Wikipedia] is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article."

66.135.233.230 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed before. You have not responded only repeated your arguments that don't appear pursuasive.

RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph is my OPINION, not a suggestion. No one here had made any other attempts to discuss the approach of the article. It's easy to criticize and find fault but it's hard to attempt to come with a solution. The page is locked and unless you want to go to dispute resolution, which could keep the page locked for additional weeks, I suggest you soften your stand and take some humble pie. Ramsquire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


The suggestion appears to be against Wikipedia policy of breaking up an article on an artificial basis for some editors to move else where to emphasize arguments they want to emphasize.

RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How would it be an artificial break? It's linking to other articles that currently exists and the topic is related. Ramsquire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire 22:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Did Ramsquire read the objection to this below. this makes an outdated article, in fact freezes the facts to 1964 when the Warren Commission said there was no conspiracy? This Lone gunman theory has be outdsated since the late 1970's.

RPJ 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

UM, does RPJ even know how to read. Go back to "Suggestion #2." And if reading comprehension is too difficult for you let me reiterate my suggestion:
I think there may be some confusion as to what I meant by deference to the WC and HSCA. I am not suggesting that in the case of a tie we list the WC/HSCA conclusion to the exclusion of other evidence. What I am suggesting is that in terms of laying out the narrative of the assassination, we use those [the WC/HSCA] findings as the starting point and then point out where later research found [evidence that] is contrary to those investigations.
For example the format could be something like: "According to the WC/HSCA, [A] happened. However later research by [blank] has shown that in fact [B] happened because ...."
Nothing is frozen. We can put in all later investigations in that template, even the one done by ABC news (but I have a feeling you don't or won't want that one included either).Ramsquire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I just put in a request to unprotect the page; Requests for page protection John F. Kennedy assassination
Mytwocents 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We are making progress

We are making progress but must resolve a significant difference of opinion on the over all approach to the article.

One opinion is to let the compelling and tightly edited facts, describe the assassination of the president. Other articles talk about Kennedy the man, his politics and so and a bunch of theories. This article talks about Kennedy's assassination. It’s the murder case of the century.

The readers are entitled to the primary source information which, everything else being equal, is often the best. The article does not need some literary talent try to describe what the witness' said. Let the people who were there tell what happened.


Another opinion is to craft an article around the opinions of "official" commissions. However, the "official" Commissions are all over 25 years out of date. They were conducted in secret. Neither are particularly well thought of.

Since the the "Seventies", the motion picture "JFK" was filmed and helped create the public pressure that resulted in the JFK Records Act of 1992 which, through the end of the 1990's, gathered the secret documents and transcripts. Some have already been released.

These new documents must be included or it makes the article far below acceptable level. People expect their encyclopedia to be up to date.

RPJ 01:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Guys But....

There is another issue with the article's use of the ABCNEWS poll, there are things in the poll that it is not mentioned in the article and maybe should be added. One, the poll was done in conjunction with "an investigation that confirms Oswald acted alone" [direct quote from the poll, not my opinion]. Two, it also finds that many pollees base their conclusions on a hunch and not on any evidence. Of the 68 percent who believe there was a broader plot, only 4 in 10 are "pretty sure" and 3 in 10 state it is just a guess. This is from the findings of the poll. I think this addition is vital to place the poll in context. Any suggestions on how to accurately portray the poll. Ramsquire 20:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could rewrite the poll paragraph along the same lines as you just wrote here. It illuminates the background of the raw numbers we've been using. Mytwocents 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should remove it altogether. Of course, public opinion about these events should be discussed to some degree, but I wonder if it is not sufficient to simply say "Some polls show public opinion is such and such". There is nothing special or notable about this particular poll, it's just a factoid some conspiracy theorist stuck in a bunch of articles a couple years back. Gamaliel 20:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the article should include: ABC said that: "Seven in 10 Americans think the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the result of a plot, not the act of a lone killer." “[S]uch suspicions are well-documented.”

66.135.233.230 21:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Gamaliel is already falling back on the old jargon of calling items he doesn't like "factoids" and referring to "conspiracy theorists" in a "bunch of articles" a "couple of years ago." You must come to grips with the concept of knowing your sources and referencing your sources. You are not sitting around the fraternity house in some type of late night bull session. People all around the world are going to read this. Use professional language and professional methods at arriving at what you want to do.
Start with giving citations to sources unless it is clear the reader should know what you are talking about. And stop the smart alex jargon by trying emulate some of the web cites that address this subject.

66.135.233.230 21:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


You should spend less time attacking me and more time addressing the matter under discussion. The former only wastes everyone's time. Gamaliel 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I too wonder about its utility, but it is arguably relevent to the public reaction to the Warren Commision section. Before changing the text, I think I might want to hear from the conspiracists so that my changes do not devolve into a revert war. That being said, I propose to change:

Investigations, scientific testing, and re-creations of the circumstances of Kennedy's death have not, in the American public's view, settled the question of who plotted to kill him. A 2003 ABC TV News poll showed that only 32% (plus or minus 3%) of Americans who expressed a view believe that Oswald acted alone in the Kennedy assassination [25]; a Discovery Channel poll revealed that only 21% believe Oswald acted alone. [26]; a History Channel on-line poll gave a figure of 17%. [27]. These same polls also show that there is no agreement on who else may have been involved.

to

A 2003 ABCNEWS poll, done in conjunction with an investigation that "confirmed" Oswald acted alone in assassinating, found that just 32% accept the Warren Commission's 1964 finding that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot President Kennedy as his motorcade passed through downtown Dallas on November 23, 1963. Fifty-one percent believe there was a second gunmen, and 7% do not believe Oswald was involved at all. The poll further finds that many of those who do not accept the Warren Commission's finding base their conclusions on guesses and not on strong convictions. The poll found that 4 in 10 are pretty sure that there was some sort of conspiracy, another 3 in 10 says it is just a hunch. Similarly, half of those who suspect a second shooter state that this too, is just a hunch. external link here.

I left out the Discovery and History Channel polls because these seem to be online polls. Ramsquire 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire. You have a false link up above "supporting" all your talking.
Ramsquire--Please read the rules on someone such as yourself deciding what should be put in and what left out. Some anonymous person such as yourself doesn't have that authority. You must learn that and accept that or don't particpate if you refuse to follow the rules.

RPJ 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Now that the page is unlocked...

Now that the page is unlocked, I hope everyone will start with good faith and edit the page for NPOV..... Mytwocents 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)



November 23, 1963 An FBI memorandum sent to the Secret Service about the Oswald imposter being at the Soviet Embassy says:

“Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Tex., have observed photographs of the individual referred to above [at the Russian Embassy calling himself Oswald] and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald.”

This quote must be put in to have an NPOV.

66.135.233.230 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some Wikipedia rules

As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating

Losing sight of the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy. The ideal is to make articles acceptable to everyone. Every revert (rather than change) of a biased edit is a NPOV defeat, no matter how outrageous the edit was. Consider figuring out why the other person felt the article was biased. Then, if possible, try to integrate their point, but in terms you consider neutral. If each side practices this they will eventually meet at NPOV — or a rough semblance of it.

Quotations


In most cases, quotations that span multiple paragraphs should be block-quoted, and thus do not require quotation marks. Quotation marks are used for multiple-paragraph quotations in some cases, especially in narratives. The convention in English is to give the first and each subsequent paragraph opening quotes, using closing quotes only for the final paragraph of the quotation. The Spanish convention, though similar, uses closing quotes at the beginning of all subsequent paragraphs beyond the first.

NPOV A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics.

Therefore, saying: don't include something because it is "conspiracy nonsense" or vaguely saying somebody has "debunked" something is clearly out of line with Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia does not allow Point Of View forks

A point of view fork is putting facts or ideas you don't agree with somewhere else in the Wikipdeia hoping people won't take the effort to see them. Advocates for their causes often resort to this tactic. Its improper under the rules.

Main article: Content forking.

"A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article."

Please, every reader follow the policies.

RPJ 21:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The assassination redux

Here is my edit for the "The assassination" section for every ones consideration. It's considerably shorter. I got rid of the block quotes. The citation links have the whole quotes there. I also reworded the text to get rid of the KEH(Kennedy Exploding Head). Some editors can't seem to write a sentence in this article w/o slipping in a graphic description or quote about the effect of a high powered bullet on the presidents skull. This edit describes the incident accurately, with citations and maintains NPOV. Mytwocents 06:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You say:"I got rid of block quotes." That is not a reason to take something out. Try to explain how your editing results in a neutral point of view?
Where is the KEH language to which you refer?
If you can't explain it don't do it.

66.91.203.81 07:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Something one might hear in a bar after midnight

"Some editors can't seem to write a sentence in this article w/o slipping in a graphic description or quote about the effect of a high powered bullet on the presidents skull."

This is "Mytwocents" blowing hot air again.

Does "Mytwocents" ever give any examples for what he says? Is he some kid who wants to irritate older people? Is he a PR flack for one of the government agencies? Probably. But who knows for sure. He is anonymous, follows no rules or procedures and believes he and two other people run the article because they seem to work on it all the time. Almost as if it were a job.
They even write in a similar fashion as the Mcadams person who is a full time CIA mouth piece on the web.

66.91.203.81 08:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Last Suggestion... #11

Since many users feel that my suggestion to link this article to other articles that already exists in Wiki that discuss the assassination is an attempt to artificially fork the article, I have another suggesstion. This view that my earlier suggestion is a violation of Wiki is summed up by the user who posted this:

"The generally accepted policy [of Wikipedia] is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article."

66.135.233.230 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It was not my intent to shuttle users to some other article. I was just stating that since those articles exists, the information should go in there, with a quick summary of it here. However, I see the fear of these users and I think I may have a solution, if everyone wants to hear it. I am suggesting that we a) delete the other page Kennedy Assasination Theories, and/or b) change the format of this article to merge it with that article under a new Assassination Theories section. This section will have sub-headings to the Warren Commission, House Select Committee investigation, and the investigations of Mark Lane, Gerald Posner, Jim Garrison, and any other major investigative research that has been done, such as CBSNews, ABCNews and PBS. I know defining major will cause some debate, but I think we can all agree that the above list all comprise major investigative attempts, and is a good starting point.

I'll be gone for a while so good luck and good night.

Ramsquire 23:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View is being violated in the Assassination sub-part

The policy of this website is that a Neutral Point of View must be followed. This rule prohibits censorship. The rule requires all significant view points must be included and let the readers make up their own mind

A couple of readers do not like this policy and believe they can violate it by removing information that they disagree with.

In the sub-part on the assassination itself, a couple of readers have a fixed view of the assassination and do not want the eyewitness testimony quoted because it contradicts what they want the other readers to believe. Therefore, they simply go through the article and censor out any information they find offensive to their theory.

This goes directly against website rules of including all significant theories and evidence. This rule is very basic to the Wikipedia website.

No one or two readers "own" the page, and no one or two readers can censor out items they don't like. It is simple as that.

These readers do not care what the rules are. Their overall plan appears to be to leave out any evidence that questions the Warren Report, which is probably the most widely criticized Commission in U.S. history.

Since these peple are anonymous their motivation is unknown and really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that they follow the website rules.

Since they censor and revert information day and night on this site they believe they can violate the rules with impunity.

RPJ 23:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What "readers"?, What does "readers" mean? What censorship? How is NPOV being violated by condensing block quotes to a descriptive phrase or editing out POV conspiracy statements, unsupported by evidence or verifiable sources? What overall plan? How does a request to "please verify the credibility of this source" violate Wikipolicy? Why was it removed? Maybe you could decribe what changes you want to make on the talk page, and give other editors a chance to weigh in on them, before you edit the main page? Mytwocents 02:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


The history of changes indicates user "Mytwocents" has simply gone through the article and removed parts of the article that he disagreed with. "editing out a "conspiracy statement" is not allowed merely because "mytwocents" doesn't agree with said statements and it appears what was taken out by "Mytwocents" was verified and had been in the article.

The person who is "Mytwocents" needs to review the webpage rules which require all points of views presented not just the views which he agrees. 67.52.74.194 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of former Attorney General's first name

I changed Ramsay Clark to Ramsey to reflect his biography at this official government site: http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/ls/agbiographies.htm#clark2 skywriter 07:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read the website rules

A reader by the name of mytwocents still doesn't undertstand the basic rule of the website: The website contains all points of view, not just points of view that the reader is in agreement.

For example, Mytwocents violating the website rule by deleting the following which he believes shows the assassination didn't happen as Mytwocents would like us to believe:


Mr. Zapruder: I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).

Examiner: Grab himself on the front of his chest?

Mr. Zapruder: Right something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.

Examiner: He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?

Mr. Zapruder: Leaning, leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot you've heard these expressions and then I saw I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started I can hardly talk about it [the witness crying].

Mr. Zapruder: Then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him."

[19]

Governor Connally was also seriously wounded by a bullet and screamed, "No, no, no. They are going to kill us all!"

At the end of the shooting, the president's body bounced off the back of the rear seat and slumped lifelessly leftward towards his wife. Mrs. Kennedy cried out to her bodyguard, Clint Hill, "My God, they have shot his head off."[20]

As the car moved at high speed to the hospital, Hill maintained his position shielding the couple with his body, and was looking down at the mortally wounded President. Agent Hill later testified:

The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car.

Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

[21]


Mytwocents also cut out all of this information that he doesn't like:

Then, the Washington Post, in an article by George Lardner Jr. published on November 10, 1998 compared the autopsy report to what the treating doctors saw and said:

The doctors at Parkland [Hospital where Kennedy was first taken] told reporters then that they thought Kennedy was shot from the front and not from behind as the Warren Commission later concluded.

Michael T. Griffth, who has written widely on this subject and whose research has been selected by Britannica.com as "one of the best on the Internet when reviewed for quality, accuracy of content, presentation and usability" points out other witnesses indicate the autopsy report is a fabrication:

The autopsy finding conflicts with many eyewitness reports that there was a wound to the right temple and the back of the president's head was blown out. Tom Robinson, the mortician who reassembled Kennedy's skull after the autopsy, said he saw a small hole in one of the temples, and that he believed it was in the right temple. He said he filled the hole with wax. White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff said in a televised press conference that a bullet had struck Kennedy in the right temple and had gone through his head adding that he'd been told this by the president's personal physician, Dr. George Burkley. Journalist Seth Kantor was present at that news conference. He recorded in his notes that Kilduff said the bullet "entered right temple."

RPJ 00:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as quotes go, this one describes what I see on the Zapruder film.
DR. McCLELLAND: -- bone back, I imagine, where the suture is. So if he agrees that it goes back that far posterior, the loss of bone that would be consistent with what I saw. And as I recall from having seen on a number of occasions, this approved film, it's clear when the bullet strikes the President's head that there is a bright flash as a flap of [s]kin is blown down kind of over the right ear.[22]
This quote is taken for a deposition made 28 years after the fact, with pictures to prompt peoples memories. This quote to me clearly describes the exit wound of the bullet. But I would not insert it in the article, to make my point. A wikiarticle is not a compilation of quotes. It's a decriptive article, written by editors.
The questions are, why do assume bad-faith in my edits?; and why do you refer to other editors as "readers"? Mytwocents 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Violations of website rules

There are three basic viewpoints on the murder of John Kennedy:

  • 1---The most widely accepted view point is that the president was murdered by two or more persons.
  • 2—A second viewpoint accepted by a small minority of the American public is that Lee Oswald killed the president all by himself; and
  • 3—And a third viewpoint, held by less than 10% of the American public, is that Oswald was just a “patsy.”

Under Wikipedia rules, all three viewpoints should be provided in the article so that the reader can decide themselves what to believe:

All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

[23]


The person who calls himself “Mytwocents” continues to violate the basic rule of this website, requiring all significant viewpoints be provided the reader. It certainly sounds like a fair rule; and, in any event, it is the rule of this website.

Nevertheless, Mytwocents refuses to abide by this rule. He believes in the Warren Report viewpoint that only one person was involved in the murder of the president, and wants to suppress the viewpoint that the Warren Report is clearly wrong. But, the rule requires all significant viewpoints must be included. The vast majority of Americans believe the Warren Report is clearly wrong because several people, in fact, did conspire to murder the president.

It is clear violation of the rules of this website for any editor to suppress the viewpoint that Kennedy was murdered as a result of a conspiracy, because all significant viewpoints are to be included.

Likewise, it is a clear violation of the rule so this website for any editor to suppress the viewpoint that Oswald was, in fact, not involved and was, in fact, a “patsy” as he claimed.


The person who calls himself Mytwocents still acts befuddled by the rule. Its difficult to believe his act anymore. The rule is simple: don’t cut out other viewpoints. The Warren Report can be in the article but so can the other viewpoints be in the article even if the other viewpoints believe the Warren Report is wrong.

Now, since the rule is clear, if Mytwocents cuts out other viewpoints the reader can presume bad faith.

RPJ 04:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please deal with other contributions in a polite and constructive manner. Rude behavior is discouraged by Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. Gamaliel 04:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Gamaliel 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this some watered down criticism by Gamaliel of someone's behaviour? If so, Gamaliel should identify to whom he addressing his hand wringing and give examples of what he considers the offending behavior; otherwise it appears to be a waste of time.


Examples of Gamaliel's mis-behavior just recently and just in the Kennedy article :


2-26-2006 Gamaliel said an editor was "pushing disproved chin nonsense AGAIN"

2-24-2006 Gamaliel said "oh lord not the mauser and the big chin nonsense again"

2-17-2006 Gamaliel said another editor was being "quite obnoxious."

2-16-2006 Gamaliel said an editor was making "an absurd claim."

1-30-2006 Gamaliel said an editor wanted "to insert conspiracy nonsense into the article."

1-24-2006 Gamaliel called an editor's information "rambling, barely coherent rants."

1-19-2006 Gamaliel refered to an editor's position as "your ridiculous objections."

1-12-2006 Gamaliel said he was going to remove "this Mauser nonsense."

1-2-2006 Gamaliel said that a contribution "is nuts."

12-31-2006 Gamaliel decided someone's edits "were a mess."

9-21-2006 Gamaliel accused an editor of "offensive amateur analysis."

RPJ 09:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


So because I referred to some conspiracy theory as "nonsense" a couple times, that gives you license to attack every other person who is editing the JFK articles? Your inability to discuss your edits without making personal attacks is quite tiresome. Gamaliel 10:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


I simply replaced blockquotes with synopsis and a weblink, per Ramsquires #1 suggestion. This makes the section more readable, and it keeps the same POV. Really RPJ, you need to assume good faith on my part. Your personal attacks are really quite tiresome.
The shooting took place in front of Abraham Zapruder .....his secret testimony..... can be read in full. [24] (anybody can go to this weblink for full transcript) At one point he testifies to the shock, disbelief and, then, horror of seeing the President murdered right in front of where he was standing. Governor Connally was also seriously wounded by a bullet. [25] (anybody can go to this weblink for full transcript)
Clint Hill was riding in the car that was immediately behind the presidential limousine. ...........and placed his body above the President and Mrs.Kennedy. ( anybody can go to this weblink for a full transcript) As the car moved at high speed to the hospital, Hill maintained his position shielding the couple with his body, and was looking down at the mortally wounded President. [26] (anybody can go to this weblink for a full transcript)

Mytwocents 17:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Anyone can be an editor-but some should decline

"Mytwocents" knocked out very dramatic and unique testimony of a president being murdered. Not only any witness's testimony, but, instead, Abraham Zapruder, a witness that made one of the most astounding home movies ever taken. The reason for removing it? The testimony doesn't fit into "Mytwocent's" theory on how the president was killed.

Thanks, "Mytwocents."

Who is "Mytwocent?" He contributed to one other article on religion and now is in a big fight over that article.

He adores the editor who calls himself "Gamaliel" who has a nasty pen and flip attitude of a spoiled high school student. For example, Mytwocents writes of his hero:

I hearby (sic) award Gamaliel this Editor's Barnstar for tireless editing and rv'ing, in the ongoing NPOV saga called the John F. Kennedy assassination article! Mytwocents 17 February 2006

Isn't that sweet?

"Gamaliel" roams around this website deleting any information he doesn't like. Usually, simply calling what he chops out "nonsense."

He is such a wise person and a "tireless" worker.

These two have, as a team, chopped out a great deal of information from the article since 1) anyone can be an editor, and 2) it is far easier to censor information by deleting it then to write anything.

"Gamaliel" did, for a while, profess to be a linguist, citing his fluency in "Pig Latin" on his "User Page." He has recently taken that off his page, after someone brought it to his attention that it is not a recognized language.

RPJ 23:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Another sarcastic, sardonic, untruthful, attempt at character assassination by RPJ! How long is this going to be permitted to go on? Mytwocents 04:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Please point to any specific language you believe is untruthful, sarcastic, and/or comprises chraracter assassination. Please be very specific.

RPJ 00:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The ARRB

This is the only mention of the ARRB in the article. I think we should place this text after the HSCA sub-section and add more info on the ARRB.

The Assassination Records Review Board looked over the autopsy records and took testimony of the participants and determined that the autopsy of the murdered president was handled in such an unprofessional manner that it termed it a "tragedy." [27]

The autopsy photographs of the President’s brain are apparently missing; in 1998, what appear to be photographs of another person's brain were given to the ARRB. [28] This panel was created under federal law to gather and preserve the documents relating to the assassination. [29] Mytwocents 06:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunt v The Spotlight

This was added by anon 83.181.65.253. Moved to talk page. Maybe it can go on the conspiracy theories page?

One of the major theories alleges CIA involvement, especially since the infamous defamation lawsuit of Howard E. Hunt against The Spotlight, which the court ruled in Spotlights favor, effectively declaring Spotlights story true.

Mytwocents 21:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


Jury verdict for Conspiracy

The Hunt case should go with HSCA part of this article:

Former CIA agent E. Howard Hunt brought a defamation lawsuit against Liberty Lobby for this article that implicated Hunt as being involved in the assassination of JFK. Mark Lane defended Liberty Lobby in the case and won a landmark victory for those who support the conclusion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations that the Kennedy murder was the "result of a conspiracy."

RPJ 17:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"[Jury Foreperson] Armstrong apparently did say that [there was a conspiracy], and doubtless believed it. But there were five other jurors. Two of them told the Miami Herald that they most certainly did not believe that Lane had proven that Hunt was a conspirator. Suzanne Reach said that “We were very disgusted and felt it was trash..The paper published material that was sloppy – but it wasn’t malicious.” Reach added that “We were worried that our verdict might give the wrong impression to the public” and added that Lane’s conspiracy theories were “absolutely not” the reason for the verdict." [30] Gamaliel 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


That's no reason for excluding it

The Assassination Records Review Board pointed out that four out of the seven Warren Commission members became skeptical of the Warren Commission's conclusions that Oswald did it alone. [31]

Does that mean we remove any mention of the Warren Report?

It should go back in unless a very good argument can be made.

RPJ 03:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes Made

Whew, I go away for a week and come back to this? When I left the article needed some minor tweaking, now it's just a mess. It probably should be locked. Well, I broke my own rule and decided to make edits.

Anyway I made the following changes that I think just needed to be made. Outside of some grammatical errors, and minor aesthetic changes, I deleted the Carcano rifle section as it appeared to be vandalized. The section I deleted read: "A 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle with a six-round magazine serial number C2766 was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Sheriff Weitzman and Officer Boone, soon after the assassination of president Kennedy. but every one and they mama know what he did thats probally why they shot him. or it could have been a conspiricy by the damn government." I guess I could have just deleted the last section, but why put a band aid on a gunshot wound.

In addition, I took out the requests for verifications and the disputed information blocks from the article. That's something to be done on the talk page, and not in the article.

Finally I removed the list of person at the autopsy and the President's motorcade because a) it is totally irrelevant and b) I created pages for them and provided internal links in the article.

Ramsquire 18:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dictabelt subsection

The dicta belt sect was completely unreference and has been for a long time. if it can't be referenced it has to go. That is a basic website rule.

RPJ 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be ample references in the main article. If there is any specific piece of information you feel needs a reference, add {{fact}} after it, which will add the notation "citation needed". Gamaliel 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
There were no references. Find the references and then put it in.

RPJ 00:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A Couple New Problems...

1. It may be time to archive this talk page as it is getting a bit long.

2. In addition to substantive debates about what to put into the article it now seems that we have to deal with vandals, inserting nonsense throughout the article.

3. I suggest protecting the page so that any changes to the article must be put on the talk page first.

Ramsquire 00:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In case any didn't notice the start of the article says The assassination of Elvis Presley someone should fix that.

Benjida 23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that?

Ramsquire was so overwrought last week he left with a dramatic Edward R Murrow sign off. Now, he is back already asking the page be protected again. What is this going to be: A flurry of changes by Ramsquire and then freeze the page. Another flurry by Ransquire then freeze the page?

Ramsquire according to previous posts is an attorney. Is this the procedural game theory that paid advocates and paid PR personnel do for a living?

The web site has a few basic rules. Every significant viewpoint be represented. The assertions in the article be supported by references.

I have seen one approach where grafitti is put in an article and when the true believers in the Warren Report revert, it is with a notation of "vandalism" and a number of wrongful deletions are also made. Is this going to happen again?

RPJ 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Making progress in making all viewpoints included

Slowly the quality of the article is being built up by including all significant viewpoints. That is the basic rule of the website. It presents all significant viewpoints on a subject. The most significant viewpoint about the Kennedy assassination is that Presidfent Kennedy was a probably assassinated as result of a conspiracy.

A Congessional Committee investigated far longer than any previous investigation and in 1979 also concluded that Kennedy was probably murdered as a result of a conspiracy.

A small but still signicant number of people in the United States still believe in the Warren Report that only Oswald was involved in the murder.

All the viewpoints will be put in in the article and the reader will make up his or her own mind.

That is the basic web site rule.

RPJ 08:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RPJ is posting opinions and blockquotes as facts to refute and slander NPOV sections. Slander is not NPOV. This page is not an extension of JFK conspiracy sites. The HSCA found all the pictures and X-Rays to be genuine. To say or imply anything else(in anyones voice) is POV on it's face. Conspiracy speculation does not deserve commment on every section of this article.
Mytwocents 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Mytwocents" needs to read the web rules

"Mytwocents" you must understand this is America. People can hold viewpoints that are different from the HSCA. In fact, people do hold viewpoints different from the HSCA relating to the pictures and X-rays. That is why the information from the treating doctors and the bodyguards are put in the Clark Panel section. They show the viewpoint expressed by the overwhelming official eyewitness evidence which refutes the Panel's conclusion.

Part of the problem with the Clark Panel are the pictures and X-rays they looked at. Since the Clark Panel was disbanded, it has been discovered, by the Assassiantion Records Review Board, that the autopsy records upon which the Clark Panel relied, appear to have been mishandled, lost, and susceptable to tampering because of the lack of proper handling in the chain of custody.

This is what the ARRB said this about the autopsy records:

There have been serious and legitimate reasons for questioning not only the completeness of the autopsy records of President Kennedy, but the lack of a prompt and complete analysis of the records by the Warren Commission.
Among the several shortcomings regarding the disposition of the autopsy records, the following points illustrate the problem. First, there has been confusion and uncertainty as to whether the principal autopsy prosector, Dr. James J. Humes, destroyed the original draft of the autopsy report, or if he destroyed notes taken at the time of the autopsy. Second, the autopsy measurements were frequently imprecise and sometimes inexplicably absent. Third, the prosectors were not shown the original autopsy photographs by the Warren Commission, nor were they asked enough detailed questions about the autopsy or the photographs. Fourth, the persons handling the autopsy records did not create a complete and contemporaneous accounting of the number of photographs nor was a proper chain of custody established for all of the autopsy materials. Fifth, when Dr. Humes was shown some copies of autopsy photographs during his testimony before the HSCA, he made statements that were interpreted as suggesting that he had revised his original opinion significantly on the location of the entrance wound.[32]

"Mytwocents must learn is that the website rule is every significant viewpoint be included. By doing so the article is made better. That is the web site's basic policy. The web site is neutral by presently all significant viewpoints --not just the government's viewpoint, not just the viewpoint of "mytwocents" but all significant viewpoint.

Mytwocents" the public opinion polls show you are in the small minority of people who still cling to the Warren Report. In fact, the modern day government viewpoint is tha there was a conspiracy that killed the President.

Your out of date viewpoint, that has few believers, can still be put on the page. But expect it to be refuted by other viewpoints. At the bottom of this page it says:

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly . . . do not submit it."

RPJ 19:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And the same goes for you,RPJ, and any other editor. That's why we try to reach consensus. Hearsay and speculation do not belong in a wikipedia article. That, almost without exception, describes the content you have added since you began last year, around November or so.
"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly . . . do not submit it." I agree. Mytwocents 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV cleanup

I submitted my edit tonight. I still have a few minor changes to make, but this version should serve as a good springboard to reaching a consensus on what this article should be. It includes the Carcano Rifle section and mention of agent Hosty's destruction of evidence. Mytwocents 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Making recommendation for protection

I'll be checking this article periodically to make sure that unnecessary edits are not made. I hope that the users do NOT make unnecessary edits, so that I can make recommendations as to whether the article should be protected or not. -- SNIyer12, 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Gamaliel" is now deleting items from "Talk" page

Strictly contrary to this website's dedication to freedom of speech, the editor named "Gamaliel" has started deleting information put on the "talk" pages. His last deletion job was with the notation "m" meaning a minor change. As background, "Gamaliel" believes in the Warren Report's conclusions relating to President Kennedy's death, and believes in the Warren Report with the same commitment the rest of us reserve for our beliefs in religous writings.

But, unlike most of us who believe in free speech, and wouldn't think about deleting information on other religous beliefs, "Gamaliel" continually deletes viewpoints that disagree with the conclusions of the Warren Report.

Lately "MYtwocent" who helps Gamaliel with his continual deletions of other significant viewpoints started deleting information claiming it is "hearsay" which means, of course, that the writer who puts the information in the article references a recognized source for the information which is the entire concept of an "encylopedia."

The other item "Gamaliel" deleted involves someone calling himself "SNyer12." "SNyer12" appears to be another "believer" in the Warren Report."

Gamaliel deleted my comments about MYtwocents again. Gamaliel, you have to understand that informing someone how an encyclopedia is constructed and that citing outside sources what is suppossed to be done is not a "personal attack." Likewise, your deletion of another editor's comments on "SNyer12" persistent deltions of a clean up task force is not a personal attack on SNyer but an attempt to familiarize him with the rules.

Mytwocents did not delete those rants, I did. This website is not dedicated to "freedom of speech", it is not a forum where you get to post whatever you feel like regardless of others. It is dedicated to building an encyclopedia, and to that end personal attacks are not tolerated because they inhibit the collaboration necessary to building that encyclopedia. Your conduct has been tolerated for far too long and I will continue to delete any of your comments which consist of long diatribes attacking other users for imagined crimes. Please limit your future comments to discussions of what belongs in the article, not how you feel about other editors or what you imagine regarding the motives, feelings, or mental states of other editors. Gamaliel 22:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel your conduct speakes for itself:

Examples of Gamaliel's mis-behavior just recently and just in the Kennedy article :

[deleted long list of edit summaries previously posted multiple times by RPJ - G]

"Gamaliel" you are simply digging and deeper and deeper hole for yourself with your conduct. You, and "MYtwocents," "Jimwae", and "Ramsquire" need to stop and reform your conduct. This website is dedicated to freedom of speech. All significant viewpoints may be expressed--not just yours.

RPJ 02:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that the initial comments in this section, as well as the section header, were directed at Mytwocents until RPJ retroactively edited them to replace his username with mine.
RPJ, if you have a complaint about my conduct, please direct it to the proper forum. You have been repeatedly informed about how to do this. I'm sure all of us would appreciate it if you stop posting long diatribes here and file your complaints in the proper manner. This talk page is for discussing the article, not for complaining about other editors. Gamaliel 03:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is deletions for impermissible reasons

No. The article is losing invaluable information because you delete viewpoints with which you don't agree. You stay her and defend your deletion policies in front of the readers.

One of Gamaliel's reasons often given for deleting is his opinion that something is "nonsense." That is improper. The rule of the web site is to put in all significant viewpoints and let the reader pick. The rule is not to put in only those viewpoints that "Gamaliel", whom ever he may be, believes to be correct. You don't have the credentials Gamaliel and even if you did, the web site rule is that all significant viewpoints be presented.

Why in the world would a reader want to accept the judgment of some stranger that goes by the alias "Gamaliel" regarding what evidence to believe and what to disbelieve. Does Gamaliel think he is any better qualified than other readers to decide which doctors and which witnesses to events surrounding the assassination to believe?

Here is a fact situation: There is very important information relating to President Kennedy's assassination. This article is devoted specifically to the assassination. One of the most hotly debated topics relating to the assassination is whether there were two shooters or one shooter. Important to this determination of the number of shooters is the nature of the wound to Kennedy's head.
If the back of Kennedy's head is blasted out, that is a good indication he was shot from the front. If his face was blown out (such as depicted happening to one of the bandits at the beginning of "A History of Violence") the result looks horrible. However, Kennedy's face looked untouched in death.

Instead, the back of Kennedy’s head was blown out. A treating doctor looked at the wound in the back of the head and drew a picture. Look at it. [33] The doctor gave a statement about the wound. Here is what happened:

In the emergency room, the President had been placed on his back. His face was not damaged, but some brain tissue was present near the head indicating brain damage. When the doctors arrived they quickly cut into the president's throat and inserted a small tube for breathing (a tracheotomy). But then, Dr. Jenkins, one of the five treating doctors in the emergency room, lifted Kennedy's upper half of the body, looked at the back of Kennedy's head and announced:

"Boys you better come up here and take a look at this brain before you do anything as heroic as opening the chest and massaging the heart directly."

Dr. Peters did look and observed:

"There was obviously quite a bit of brain missing."

Dr. McClellend provided this description:

"You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out."

"We never had any hope of saving his life", one doctor said.

Roy Kellerman, a Secret Service Agent, who was in the car with the president, later testified a gunshot removed a section of the president's skull in the back right-hand side of the head measuring about five inches in diameter. [34] See drawing by Dr. McClellend [35]

Now, this is deleted. Is it deleted because any of this is untrue? No. Does some one want any more sources given than what had been collected to and linked to this information in the emergency room section of the article? No. It was deleted for no real reason --except somebody doesn't like it.
The policy of this web page is that all significant viewpoints be presented. There is no reason to put in the much criticized autopsy discussion and not put in the treating doctor's views of the wound. As we know the eyewitness accounts of the treating doctors and the eyewitness accounts of the personal bodyguards for Mr. and Mrs Kennedy (that had a real good look at the wound) all saw a big gaping hole in the back of the head. The testimony of the bodyguards was also deleted from the article. Why?
several editors still believe that Kennedy was shot in the head from the back and they don't want any evidence in the article showing Kennedy was shot from the front.
Therefore, they chop out the viewpoints of the eyewitnesses because what they saw doesn't agree with what several editors believe happened.
The policy of this web page is all significant viewpoints be included in the article. It is a basic rule.

RPJ 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou RPJ, youv'e been gone a couple of days, but you have come back with a vengance. Youv'e brought back the KEH (Kennedy Exploding Head), in all it's gory glory! I think you just go in a gigantic circle, from the 'shadow jawline', to the 'Mauser' rifle, to the KEH, to the 'Two Oswalds', to the ....... I don't know what?

Did the WC, Clarke Panel, HSCA, or ARRB ever determine anything else other than the fatal head shot came from the Texas SBD? The wikistandard is NPOV, statements must be backed up by credible sources. This does not include conspiracy authors, who feed their families by writing brutal, shocking exposés about 'you know what', at the expense of the truth. Physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony. That means the weight given in this article to testimony that contradicts physical evidence has to be measured carefully. That has been done by consensus, for several months now.

Mytwocents 05:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Credible sources

1--Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. Credible Source: House Select Committee on Assassinations

2--Back of Kennedy's head blasted open. Credible source a) President Kennedy's bodyguard, Roy Kellerman[36] b) Mrs. Kennedy's bodyguard, Clint Hill[37], treating physician Dr. Mclelland [38][[39]] mortician who fixed up the head.

3--"Mytwocents" claims "physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony." Really. Well then, "MYtwocents, what physical evidence is referenced in the article?

Educate us, "MYtwocents," and point out the physical evidence in the article that proves your case that Kennedy had a huge gaping hole in his face by a shot from above and behind.

Please, don't go off an another tangent. Respond to the point.

RPJ 21:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a section from the Warren Commision report about the fatal shot that gives detail about beveling and the origin direction of the shot. http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#head

The President's Head Wounds
The detailed autopsy of President Kennedy performed on the night of November 22 at the Bethesda Naval Hospital led the three examining pathologists to conclude that the smaller hole in the rear of the President's skull was the point of entry and that the large opening on the right side of his head was the wound of exit. The smaller hole on the back of the President's head measured one-fourth of an inch by five-eighths of an inch (6 by 15 millimeters). The dimensions of that wound were consistent with having been caused by a 6.5-millimeter bullet fired from behind and above which struck at a tangent or an angle causing a 15-millimeter cut. The cut reflected a larger dimension of entry than the bullet's diameter of 6.5 millimeters, since the missile, in effect, sliced along the skull for a fractional distance until it entered.150 The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it.
Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who has had extensive experience with bullet wounds, illustrated the characteristics which led to his conclusions about the head wound by a chart prepared by him. This chart, based on Colonel Finck's studies of more than 400 cases, depicted the effect of a perforating missile wound on the human skull. When a bullet enters the skull (cranial vault) at one point and exits at another, it causes a beveling or cratering effect where the diameter of the hole is smaller on the impact side than on the exit side. Based on his observations of that beveling effect on the President's skull, Colonel Finck testified: "President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the rear. The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out on the right side of his skull ... he was shot from above and behind."
This shows the Warren Report used physical evidence to reach a conclusion.
Mytwocents 21:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a 5 inch diameter hole blasted in the back of the head "physical evidence?"

"MYtwocents" deletes viewpoints with which he doesn't agree. On this discussion page, he claims he does so because the sources supporting the nature of Kennedy's head wound aren't "credible." Thus, the description of the wound by the treating doctors in the emergency need to be deleted because, according to "MYtwocents", the doctors aren't "credible" sources of information. Based on "MYtwocent's" bewildering decision, both the doctor's statements and doctor's drawing of the head wound are deleted from the article.

"MYtwocents" also deletes from the article the description of the president's head wound by the bodyguards for Mr. And Mrs. Kennedy. Not credible sources, according to "MYtwocents." But, then the opinions of the military doctors at the much critisized autopsy of the president, are touted by "MYtwocents" as very credible. According to "MYtwocents" the "opinions" are "physical evidence."

Thanks for clearing that up for us "MYtwocents."

"MYtwocents" just doesn't understand that when there is a controversy, that it is the policy of this web site that all significant viewpoints be put in the article. "Mytwocents" refuses to accept that basic rule and believes he should have the right to delete any information that is contrary to his favorite viewpoint. He thinks that if he doesn't like the viewpoint it can't be credible and therefore he can delete it.

That is not the rule. At this web site all significant viewpoints are to be included and the reader is allowed to make up his or her own mind on the matter.

[personal attacks removed]

RPJ 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Testimony used in article

This is the testimony from the Warren Commission proceedings that was used as source of information in the article.

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

RPJ 05:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The latest addition to the article provides a good contrast between evidence and recollection. The autopsy by three physicians, determined that the bullet entered the skull from behind and exited the upper right frontal part of the head. The testimony from Dr. McClelland, comes three decades after the fact, and it doesn't jibe with the autopsy. That means Dr. McClelland's statement can't be verified, which makes it very unlikely it's going to stay in the article.
Mytwocents 06:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Testimony by Dr. McCelland given under oath March 21, 1964

In the post immediately above this, "MYtwocents", suggests the testimony of Dr. McClelland "comes decades after the fact."

This is incorrect. Dr. McClelland gave his testimony on March 21, 1964. Dr. McClelland, who was one of Kennedy's treating physician at his death, and describes the massive wound in the back right hand side of his skull. See above (Talk page March 23, 2006)

Arlen Specter, the present U.S. Senator from Pa., questioned Dr. McClelland under oath and elicited this testimony that described President Kennedy's head wound.


    • "I could very closely examine the head wound"
    • "I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted"
    • "probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out."


  • Here is a link to the drawing of Dr. McClelland of the wound he testified to under oath. The article now gives a link directly to the drawing by McClelland [40]


  • Also, included is a link to a Wikipedia image of the brain showing the location of the cerebellum and other brain parts. This allows the reader, for the first time to read this once secret medical testimony given on March 21, 1964 and review the image of the brain parts being described while reviewing the drawing by Dr. McClelland done in 1994. This was done by the doctor in connection with testimony he gave to the Congressionally created Assassination Records Review Board that collected testimony and other evidence of the Kennedy murder.

The viewpoint and sworn testimony by Dr. McClelland was not shared by the military doctors. Their drawing was different and difficult to figure out. [41] Their autopsy was accepted by the Warren Commission but criticized by both the House Select Committee on Assassinations and The Assassination Records Review Board which said:

One of the many tragedies related to the assassination of President Kennedy has been the incompleteness of the autopsy record and the suspicion caused by the shroud of secrecy that has surrounded the records that do exist.

Chapter 6. Part II Final Report ARRB [42]

Therefore there are two different viewpoints on the head wound:

On one hand there were the bodyguards and doctors who saw the President's head wound immediately after Kennedy was shot. On the other, were those who saw it later at the controversial autopsy held in the military hospital. Then, there was the mortician who worked on the head wound afterwards whose description is the same as Dr. McClelland's and also suppressed for a long period. The emergency room doctors, the bodyguards, and the mortician all disagree with the autopsy doctors.

Therefore, both viewpoints of the wound must be presented since all significant viewpoints need to be presented in an article. This website does not allow significant viewpoints to be excluded simply because some editor disagrees with a viewpoint. The mortician who prepared the body for the funeral worked on the body for along time.

Tom Robinson was the mortician who prepared John Kennedy's remains for burial. Robinson prepared for an open casket funeral, so the preparation of the skull was especially meticulous. Robertson described the skull wound in a suppressed 1/12/77 HSCA interview with Andy Purdy and Jim Conzelman: Purdy asked Robinson: "Approximately where was (the skull) wound located?" Robinson: "Directly behind the back of his head." Purdy: "Approximately between the ears or higher up?" Robinson, "No, I would say pretty much between them.

It is not for an editor to weigh the evidence and decide one viewpoint is better than another significant viewpoint. Both must be presented. The editors are not judges or jurors of what viewpoint is correct or incorrect.


On another note, "Mytwocents" needs to refer to some resource on evidence. To "verify" a statement means to make the statement under oath. Dr. McClelland testified at length under oath and his full testimony was unfortunately kept secret for many years. The McClelland testimony that worries "MYtwocents" now presents a link to the doctor's 1964 testimony.

RPJ 06:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And your source describes the discrepancy as such:

:"The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as "proof" for one theory or another."

I think it's important to note that the "Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board" was to create transparency in government and preserve the assassination records in order to reduce the conspiracy theories especially after the JFK film by Stone. They did not conclude anything differnt than the official version but they did authenticate and preserve numerous pieces of evidence. It does them a grave disservice to perpetuate a conspiracy or "alternate theories" using their report. While there certainly may be discrepancies, they are small and don't generally rise to the level of notability.--Tbeatty 07:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, Tbeatty I would encourage you to add this viewpoint that they reached the same conclusion as the WC to the ARRB section. I just got through watching Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy DVD ( bought on Amazon). This program came out in 2003. It uses a computer simulation throughout, that shows how the fatal shot could only have come from the Texas SBD. It also debunks the acoustic evidence used by the HSCA in the their 11th hour flip towards a conspiracy theory. I would recommend to anyone to watch it.
Mytwocents 07:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The last "official" government theory is a conspiracy killed Kennedy

In 1979, Congress concluded that Kennedy died as a result of a conspiracy. It would be a mistake for people to push the long outdated theory adopted by the Warren Commission of 1964, that a lone gun man single handedly decided to and did kill the president. The modern view is that Kennedy died as a result of a conspiracy. The hysteria of the time that if the public knows there was a conspiracy that it will cause a civil war in America between right-wing zealots and the rest of the country if it was a right wing plot by segregationists or, on the other hand, cause "World War III" if it was a left wing plot, is no longer a concern.

There is a need to bring the information into the 21st Century and not cling to the Warren Report as if it were a religous text. RPJ 21:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please verify this information.

Someone added this info to the article under an anonymous IP:

The bullet entered Kennedy's back traveling at 1700-1800 feet per second. After grazing the tip of a vertebra in the neck and slightly splintering the bone the bullet exited through his lower throat tumbling end over end. The entry wound in Gov. Connally's right shoulder was 1 ¼ inches long—the exact length of the bullet found on that stretcher. The speed was now down to between 1500 and 1600 feet per second when it made its way through Connally's chest, shattering his fifth rib. It was only at this point that the bullet's trajectory was significantly altered, deflecting to the right. Connally's exit wound was nearly two inches in diameter, proof that the bullet was still tumbling wildly. As it exited Connally's chest it had slowed down to just 900 feet per second and the entry wound in his right wrist was ragged and irregular because the bullet was traveling backward as it came out of his wrist before barely entering his thigh. If, as all the conspiracy sketches have it, Connally and Kennedy had been in the same exact position—back flat and head to the front—and at the same height, yes, this would be the work of a magic bullet. But Connally was positioned lower than Kennedy and was turned to the right and leaning slightly forward.

However, from reading the article it is not clear whether this was a finding of the HSCA, Warren Commission, some other investigation or Original research. As the information relating to the speed of the bullet, and the internal damage it inflicted is not readily verifiable, I took it out. Feel free to put it back in, once it is cited to a reliable source.

For complete disclosure I also tweaked some other language in the Warren Commission section to make it more neutral, such as removing the italics from like, and changing the language stating "rather than accept..." to "the Commission found".

Ramsquire 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Searching a snippet of text on Google turned this up this page; http://www.associatedcontent.com/content.cfm?content_type=article&content_type_id=4462&page=5
It seems to be lifted from a online self publishing site. It was written by someone named Timothy Sexton. He cites these resources;
I think the primary source for this section is the Warren Report, but I'll have to check. There is already a description similar to this one on the JFK-A Timeline page.
Mytwocents 05:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If it comes from a credible source put it in--but cite the source

Does it purport to be a quote from the source or is Ramsquire quoting the Kennedy article?

Who states this? "If, as all the conspiracy sketches have it, Connally and Kennedy had been in the same exact position—back flat and head to the front—and at the same height, yes, this would be the work of a magic bullet. But Connally was positioned lower than Kennedy and was turned to the right and leaning slightly forward."

Is someone attempting to state that there is only one position the two men could have been sitting where the bullet would have to been "magic" to inflict the pattern of wounds? Or is whoever wrote it trying to state that the bullet didn't have to be magic if the bodies were placed in one certain way? The author does not appear to be a professional writer but if he or she represents a significant viewpoint then it should go in the article and be open to rebuttal in the article because there appear to be different viewpoints on the magic bullet.

RPJ 06:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle Not found

I did a computer search of the citations given for the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at the sources cited in the article but so far have come up dry. I ran a a few different versions of the name in case the article is misspelling it or the source is misspelling it. But, I still come up dry.

I asked for the information to be cut and pasted on this talk page. The editor did reword the article but the essential problem remains that the article states that Boone and Weitzman found a rifle on the sixth floor of the TBD building and it is a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle which has been connected to Oswald.

A citation is needed for this information so when a reader goes to the citation it supports what is stated in the article. The credibility of an article plummets when the citations don't match what is stated in the article.

RPJ 00:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy declared dead

I rearranged the info in this section so that it flows better for the readers. Dr. McClelland testimony was moved to the autopsy subheading, while the first paragraph deals with the timeline of the President's death and the succession of LBJ.

Also, we need a first name for Dr. Mclelland, and possibly a link to any article that may exist on him.

Ramsquire 22:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert McClelland. Gamaliel 07:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to flow better since the observations are taken out of chronological order. Also, it doesn't even alert the reader to the basic conflict between how the autopsy describes the wound and how it was described by others who observed the wound first hand.

RPJ 22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


I reverted. Please put Dr. McClelland's first name in the opening paragraph with an internal link to any possible articles in Wiki on him.

Ramsquire 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed the 'Dr. McClelland' statement and put it at the end of the section for weight. The Zapruder film, autopsy, RC panel, and HSCA findings prove his story false. All the forensic evidence proves rear entry and frontal exit, end of story.
Mytwocents 02:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

All editors of this JFK article should read this

We need to use honesty and common sense on this article.

Dr. McClelland's testified as an eyewitness who had a very good view of the President's head wound. In a court of law Dr. McClelland's testimony would be admissible to establish the description of the head wound. See, Federal Rule of Evidence 602 on laying a foundation of "personal knowledge" as a precondition to testimony.[43] Dr. McClelland was a treating doctor in the emergency room immediately after the president was shot. Dr. McClelland had a very good, close up view of the wound over an extended period of time. His description of what he saw was clear. The back of the president's head was blasted out. This is Dr. McCelleland's drawing of what he saw. [44]

Dr. McClelland testified that probably "a third or so, of the posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." The cerebellum is at the bottom back of the brain.

An editor recently deleted the above testimony and link to the Wikipedia article on the cerebellum. This clearly demonstrates what Dr. McClelland saw. The cerebellum is very low in in the back of the brain and even having it exposed by the large hole in the back of the head demonstrates how low the wound was. The editor who deleted this description thinks the doctor gave false testimony. Therefore he deletes the description and the link. This isn't the right thing to do.

Look at what other eyewitnesses in the emergency room also say that corroborate what Dr. McCelland described.

Mr. SPECTER Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?
Dr. CARRICO. The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura. (6 H 5-6)

The occipital area of the head is that protuberance at the back of the head. Look at the picture of the brain and see what the treating doctors are talking about. [45] This is the Wikipedia image on the human brain. This is what the two physicians are testifying about.

Many others testified about the same wound. Yet some of the editors repeatedly go through and take such testimony out.

Roy Kellerman, the president's personal bodyguard saw very closely a five inch diameter wound in the back right hand side of the president's head. Clint Hill, the first lady's bodyguard shielded the president’s body in the back seat of the car all the way to the hospital and had a close up view of the wound. He saw a gaping wound in the back of the President's head.

An editor that believes in the Warren Report removed the bodyguards’ story. The same editor now argues that everyone disagrees with Dr. McClelland. Why is this editor doing this? Does the editor want people to believe the long ago "official" conclusion that the President died from a shot from the back?

No one wants to keep out the "official" government story of many years ago that the president was shot from the back with the bullet striking the back left hand side of the skull and coming out the right front side as the Warren Report claims. No one wanted "World War III" back then which some officials claimed might happen if the American public believed a second assassin was involved who shot the president from the front.

Nor does anyone want one wants to keep out the second "official" version that while the shot came from the back it took off the top of the president's skull by a glancing blow, as the HSCA claims.

What ever one’s motivation is for editing the article, it needs to be done carefully and with the utmost honesty. Why do it any other way?

RPJ

If this goes in the article, then you should also put in the conflicting testimony from other doctors and their criticism of McClelland's account. Gamaliel 08:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Gamaliel, that is fine with me. Why don’t you approach all these matters in the same way. In the Oswald article, you jealously guard the language in the article to the effect there is "no credible evidence" that Oswald knew David Ferrie after the two were in the Civil Air Patrol together. But, when I put in the information that the HSCA had witnesses that saw them together shortly before the Kennedy assassination you deleted the information and the citation to the Congressional Report without any comment. If you participate in this web page because you are a scholar or simply interested in this historical event, don't be afraid of evidence, just because it contradicts some preconceived belief.
RPJ 01:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The Clinton witnesses are not credible. The objections to the material you insert usually stems from your presentation of disputed material as indisputable fact. If the material you inserted was balanced, you would find fewer objections to your edits. Gamaliel 01:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) The Clinton witnesses are not credible. Taken completely out of context, I love that quote :). --Tbeatty 04:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Gamaliel, your explanation is not sufficient. It is not for you to determine whether the Congressional Committeee is correct in finding the witnesses credible. The rules of this web site do not allow the editors to judge whether the witnesses that were believed by the Congressional Committee were credible or not credible and then based on your own subjective decision delete the information. How long is it going to take before you learn that basic fact about this web site? To make it worse you never even gave a reason for deleting it. You must follow the rules, just like everyone else.
Tell all the readers here why you don't want this information in the Oswald article:
In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations published a report that it tracked down witnesses that placed Ferrie and Oswald together just months before Kennedy was assassinated. [46] RPJ 03:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You provide no context for this information nor any indication that these witnesses are disputed. Gamaliel 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the current version is a fair representation of Dr. McClelland's testimony. It states he testified to a wound to the back of the Presidents head, and that he approves the version of damages shown in the sketch. It also states that his testimony contradicts the autopsy findings. What else do we need to put in?


On another note, should we reconcile this testimony with the images on the Zapruder film? If so, how? The Zapruder film shows the lower back of the President's head intact after the assassination. Should it be mentioned in this section of the article?
Ramsquire 17:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


My position is to just put in what was taken out. There was no reason to take it out. It contains the link to the brain in Wikipedia and his description in medical terms. The head wound is at the heart of one of the major conflicting view points in the Kennedy assassination. We should make it clear to the reader exactly what are the conflicting viewpoints.

RPJ

I think we should put in all the evidence that relates to the issue of the head wound and do so in an orderly, logical and clear way. Let the reader reconcile the different viewpoints. That is the policy of this web site. The editors are to provide a clear presentation of the different viewpoints. Not pick which one is "right."
Unfortunately some editors don’t seem to understand that they don’t get to decide which viewpoint is right and then delete information on other viewpoints or make the viewpoint unclear or move it to the bottom or another page and so forth. Find whatever version of the Zapruder film you think is accurate, authenticate it the best you can and present it. Perhaps once we start doing that we can present an interesting and informative article.

RPJ 01:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We determine what goes into an article by consensus. The recent change to the 'Kennedy Declared Dead' section just adds 'blockquotes' and changes the placement of the statements to give more weight to the 'front entrance, back exit' testimony. There is one big problem with including any testimony that says the back of Kennedy's head was blasted out in a wikiarticle; It's not true.
The forensic x-rays, pictures, autopsy, and Zapruder Film footage (the infamous, and graphic, frame 313) prove the 'rear exit wound' thesis to be a lie. All panels and committees found the exit wound to be in the right, top, frontal area of the head. Any inclusion of testimony that is demonstrably false will be in constant peril of being deleted from this article.
Mytwocents 04:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The above statement is completely inaccurate

MYtwocents had better read the rules before he does anymore editing. His statement above is completely inaccurate.

Here is the basic Web site rule:

All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions[47]

This web site elaborates on this rule:

Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing[48]

Any editor that does not want to follow the rules should stop trying to edit.

RPJ 05:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you stop quoting rules and start addressing the points other editors bring up? The obligation to present significant points of view does not obligate us to present information that is factually untrue. Gamaliel 05:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
We should bear in mind that the 'Dr. McClelland' statement has been in this article for some time. I think we could do without it, but I used it in my cleanup, but reduced the emphasis, and removed the blockquotes.
Regarding blockquotes, I think we could do without any in this article. They are a lazy way to add a info, and are inherently POV
Mytwocents 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe the policy/guideline also mentions the relative size of the theories should reflect their acceptance or truth. For example, the "flat-earth theory" doesn't get as much airtime as "the round earth theory" no matter how much the "flat earth" editor wants to add. --Tbeatty 06:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hill and Kellerman testimony

I deleted these paragraphs from the article. I think we could tack-on a mention to the statement about what the Dallas ER doctors saw (a exit wound to the back of the head). This would point out that what the doctors and SS agents observed contradict the official autopsy at Bethesda.

Agent Hill later testified under oath and described the President's fatal wound:

The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed.[49]

Roy Kellerman, the president's personal bodyguard who was also in the car with the president, later testified the shot removed a section of the president's skull in the back right-hand side measuring about five inches in diameter. [50]
Mytwocents 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Source with lots of pictures, testimony and diagrams

I don't have time to go through this but this site http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html has good diagrams and pictures. I don't know about taking any conclusions but the pics look interesting. --Tbeatty 01:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop the Presses...

I can't believe what I am about to type, but ... wait for it... RPJ has a point. The test for including information in Wiki doesn't seem to be based on its truthfulness or accuracy but on the information's verifiability. So in this case, even though Dr. McClelland statement is contradicted by three panels, autopsy photos, and the Zapruder film, it technically gets in as it can be verified.

It's a very fine distinction. RPJ you are allowed to repeat or summarize what Dr. McClelland said, but you can't present his statement as fact, because the truthfulness of the doctors statement is unverifiable. To put it another way, as long as the testimony faithfully reflects what Dr. McClelland actually said and is not presented in a way that endorses the truthfulness of the statement then it is fine.

However, I think WP:FAITH is supposed to stop an editor from repeatedly re-inserting information that is shown to be false.

I think I just saw a pig fly by my window. :0!

Of course there is the issue of relevance to this article, or whether the Doctor should have his own article, but I don't want to be accused of forking the article again.

Ramsquire 00:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem including McClelland provided 1) that it is made clear that he is contradicted by nearly everyone and all the evidence and 2) it isn't presented in a manner that overwhelems the other evidence - large blockquotes, etc. - which would serve to emphasize it. Gamaliel 01:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I played 'devils advocate' and included reference to McClelland and the other doctor in my cleanup. I don't like the testimony of these doctors because it goes against facts in evidence. I think they were sincere in their recollections, but sincerly wrong. but in the interest of NPOV....you know the rest.
Mytwocents 05:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


How to present the viewpoints that conflict

Most, of the editors acknowledge that when two viewpoints on a subject conflict, the web site rules require both viewpoints be presented and the reader is allowed to form his or her own opinion on which to believe.

Now we are presented with a major conflict in viewpoints over the location of the head wound that killed President Kennedy:

  1. One viewpoint locates a large wound at the back of the president’s head; and
  2. A second viewpoint claims the back of the president’s head was actually intact and the top (or side of the head) was blown out.

The presentation of this conflict to the readers is quite easy to do. The viewpoints are simply stated with the evidence supporting each viewpoint. Then, each reader decides for him or herself.

The alternative presentation previously done in the article on the location of the wound was done in chronological order (Bodyguard evidence first, emergency room doctors second, autopsy third etc). But, doing it by simply stating the two viewpoints and listing the support for each viewpoint provides an adequate and clear presentation.

I suggest that those editors that expressed the support for the second viewpoint get their inofrmation together for presentation into the article.

RPJ 20:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Both sides are already covered, the primary view is rear entry, frontal exit. That's what all of the panels concluded, it's what all the evidence supports. The testimony of the ER doctors and the agents is anecdotal. There is no proof to back up their statements, so they get scant mention(at best), at the end of the section. Anyone that wants more information can go to an external weblink to read about it.
Mytwocents 21:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Don't be afraid to present your evidence

I don't see your evidence. You have mentioned the "panels" several times. Lets get to the evidence.

Don't tell me all the tough talk by some of the editors, such as "mytwocents" isn't going to be backed up by all the evidence that is supposed to exist?

RPJ 22:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Rifle...

There is no "confusion theory". Weitzmann after glimpsing the weapon identified it as a Mauser. After the officials did their investigation, they correctly labeled it a Mannlicher. Both descriptions of the weapon became public which led to the confusion over what the weapon actually was. The paragraph as it is currently constructed explains it precisely, and is cited to the findings of the Warren Commission and newsreels photographs by Tom Alyea.

Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers, such as the Warren Report, whether or not we agree with the finding, are usually regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.

Ramsquire 21:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


So many generic witnesses-but no eyewitnesses

"Publications with teams of facts checkers." Reporters." "Editors." "Lawyers." "Managers." "the Warren Report."

None of these generic "witnesses" help you.

Don't you you find it odd that the rifle that shot the president of the United States doesn't have numerous eyewitnesses to testify about finding it and identifying it as a Carcano?

No. Ramsquire 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you find it odd that on the other hand there are eyewitnesses that identified it as a Mauser?

So far only one, and he admits he just glimpsed and never handled it. Ramsquire 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No. You are incorrect. Besides Deputy Weitzman who saw what he believed to be a Mauser, were the other police that saw what they thought was a Mauser. And remember, they were looking at the rifle they thought had shot the president.

Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day? Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser.Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?

Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.[51]
Roger Graig "refused to change his mind about finding a Mauser rather than a Mannlicher-Carcano in the Texas Book Depository." [52]


Some editors desperately want evidence establishing the rifle to be a Carcano. But they have no evidence.

Just as with the evidence of back of the President's head being blasted out, some editors hate it delete it, hide it, but these editors have to face the evidence. RPJ 01:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

See, I'm being narrowminded here. I'm only thinking about the article this talk page is connected to, not all of the evidence and testimony of the JFK assassination. So in the article there is one person who identified it as a Mauser. Remember WP:FAITH. Ramsquire 16:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you find it odd that there is no chain of custody on the rifle that shot the president of the United States?

Yes there is. Ramsquire 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Where is the documentation showing the chain of custody? That should be easy to do since you say there was one.

RPJ 22:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not in the article, so I don't have to provide it. I am no longer going to get into a general argument about the evidence and testimony concerning the assassination. If someone were to assert that in the article, you can take up with them. But I am not going to do research for you. Ramsquire 16:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
To respond to you concerns more fully: Stick to the point. I'm quoting Wiki's policy on reliable sources WP:RS. If you're concerned about all these questions, put it on your blog, but please stop taking verifiable information from reputable sources out of the article.
Whatever happened to put all the viewpoints in and let the reader's decide? If you have some verifiable information from a reputable source that contradicts the points in the section, by all means put it in.
Ramsquire 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Everytime I put in properly referenced material, some one takes it out because the person doesn't like the point of view.

RPJ 01:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL!? So if some one else was jumping off a bridge, would you follow? Since when do two wrongs make a right? I could go on and on. Needless to say, as you have said repeatedly, put all significant viewpoints in and let the readers decide. The test is verifiability.

Ramsquire 16:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So many generic witnesses-but no eyewitnesses

"Publications with teams of facts checkers." Reporters." "Editors." "Lawyers." "Managers."

None of these generic "witnesses" help you.

The photographs are put in with a claim it is a Carcano. Who states that those photographs show a Carcano?

RPJ 00:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How rumours get started

Here is how rumours get started.

Ramsquire is caught again starting a rumour.

  • RPJ: There is no chain of custody on the rifle.
  • Ramsquire: "Yes there is."
  • RPJ: Where?
  • Ramsquire: "Its not in the article." and "I'm not going to do any research for you."
  • RPJ: Ramsquire, please, just admit you made the whole story up about a there being "chain of custody" on the rifle.

RPJ 04:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine you win RPJ, I'll show you the chain of evidence. Now this is based on interviews on the particular people involved that was memorialized in a book about the forensics of the case. It isn't in the Warren Commission and I think the HSCA made the right assumption that questions about the chain of evidence were not credible, so they never dealt with the issue. I realize that a) you won't believe me, b) you won't believe the account and c) you'll say that the source is unreliable for whatever reason you can come up with. Just keep in mind, that unless you have something showing that the book is lies, you're just being contrarian and annoying.
The chain of custody goes like this in reverse order: FBI, Dallas PD, FBI, Dallas PD, Oswald. After Oswald left the gun in the TSBD, the Dallas PD found it and begin doing tests on the rifle. The FBI took the rifle from the DPD but left the print evidence in Dallas (Lieutenant Day had already lifted prints from the barrel and was testing it for identification when the rifle was taken), the FBI did its own tests and then returned the rifle to Dallas where it sat in an evidence room, until the FBI requested it. The FBI then received the rifle along with the print evidence matching Oswald. The FBI later verified the results of the Dallas PD. It's in a book by Gary Savage, called JFK: First Day Evidence (ISBN: 0963811657).
As for your sandbox comment. Whatever! All I hear from you is squawking about this being unsourced, crying about people taking out your non-credible info to protect a cover up, and snide comments about editors. What I don't hear from you is answers to these questions: Who was the second shooter? Where was he located? What was his physical descriptions? What was his relationship to Oswald? What evidence supports this shooter being part of the assassination? So maybe you should go to the sandbox and try to find that information, because maybe then more people will take you seriously.
Ramsquire 16:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"JFK:First Day Evidence"

I looked for information on a book called "First Day Evidence" written by Gary Savage. Several book reviews noted the following

Mr. Savage is the nephew of a retired member of Dallas police crime lab who processed much of the evidence gathered the day of the JFK assassination, Nov. 22, 1963. Savage located a number of documents and photographs, previously not published that were in official Dallas police files or the personal files of retired police officers. "JFK:First Day Evidence" consists of those documents and photographs with commentary on the investigative activities of the Dallas police on the day of and shortly after the assassination.

This book appears to contain good evidence during the critical period.

I am looking forward to reading it.

RPJ 05:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Please. Reading the book will take time away from your trolling activities at Wiki.
2. Is the above paragraph supposed to be some sort of apology for the personal attacks and false accusations you've directed at me?
Ramsquire 17:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Citation Needed

The article states "The danger from a concealed sniper on the Dallas trip was also of concern. President Kennedy himself had mentioned it the morning he was assassinated, as had the Secret Service agents when they were fixing the motorcade route."

Does anyone have a citation for that statement? I've never heard that before and I'd like to learn more.

Sgtraiderred 20:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Chapter 8 footnote 168 and 168 WCR

RPJ 11:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_F._Kennedy_assassination_Archive_4_73f3.html"