Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

Formatting

I'm seeing some wierd formatting near the picture of the motorcade route. I took a look, but I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe somebody wants to look at that, then delete this? --Barry 12:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It's true. The page looks fine at 1280 screen-width resolution and higher, but anything lower and the formatting suffers. Mr. Brownstone 23:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

top section

I've heard that there was a KGB disinformation plot: to spread the rumor that JFK was assassinated by the CIA, in which they influenced an american author who published an early book on the assassination... Lawsonsj 07:00, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Moved from "Talk:JOHN-F.-Kennedy-assassination":

who shot John F. Kennedy? What was the Warren Commission's conclusion? Explain one conspiracy theory about President Kennedy's assassination.

This is a morass, and probably always will be: all significant witnesses are dead by now. All I've done, for the moment, is clarify that the basic facts in the intro--when Kennedy was shot, who was in the car with him, that Oswald was arrested, denied the killing, and then murdered himself--are not in dispute, but what they imply is. But by the end of the current article, it wanders off the deep end--alien greys? "powerful foreign interests that control" the federal reserve? Vicki Rosenzweig 20:47, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was about to add "LBJ did it"[1] but they're all gone now, for no good reason, really. Even the greys idea is one that's supposed to be popular in Japan, so even though "out there", it's out there. (eg Kennedy evidently issued an ultimatum to MJ-12, and they decided that Kennedy should be subject to an expediency -- killed...September 23, 1989, a two-hour documentary is screened on Japanese television. Viewers are treated to the full spectrum of recent investigations, including underground labs, MJ-12, genetic facilities, the Kennedy murder...[2] Now, that whole file could've been the proposal for X-Files and it'd take forever to separate the fact and the fiction in it -- but that's not the point.) As for the "powerful foreign interests" leave that to the Fed page - which is wrong on that point - and check into [Executive Order 11110] about the backing of the money.

  • I apologize. I was, as it were, 'being bold in my editing'. What I tried to accomplish here is to make this particular article feel less, as user two above pointed out, as it went off the deep end, and make it more readable by separating fact (or at least fact set through the Warren Commission and other investigations) out from pure speculation - which I felt was very badly intermingled in the version of a few days ago. It was not my intent to discount that there's lots of consipiracy theories out there, and in fact they probably definately belong here...but if I might propose it...they probably belong exclusively in the suspicious circumstances section, or perhaps even its own page, with each theory stated in concise terms (given the sheer number of conspiracies that exist). I spent several hours trying to rearrange what was there, to give the article a different setup and tone...but of course, feel free to revert or re-add what you don't like. It's the Wiki and all. :)
not for me, i've quit. (not over this - fluoridation, and having to explain why i mistrust those who flagrantly and repeatedly abuse trust.) -- exKwantus
I actually spent a great deal of time trying to evaluate what I was doing, for what that's worth.
  • The original article just...felt more like it was dealing exclusively with conspiracy, and didn't touch on what was going on that day chronologically, or that, in fact, the president had died and that it had been a national tragedy.
  • Some of the comments here seemed to be somewhat unhappy with the article as it was. Just did my best to see what I could do with it.
  • This article will probably get a lot of read soon, anyway, given the 40th anniversary coming up in less than two months. I suppose I was trying to shoot for something that best respected the magnitude of the tragedy. But I don't mean to say that a section devoted to conspiracy doesn't belong.

Skybunny 22:17, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This page was edited and someone took out almost all the links, the paragraph headings, etc. Was that vandalism? --Raul654 04:59, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it was but I've reverted it. Angela 05:01, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks -- I'm not too keen on reverting other people's edits until someone else agrees that it's vandalism --Raul654 05:03, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just reworded a few paragraphs in trying to keep the assassination description section more close to what's undisputed fact and found that

this is a difficult task, mainly because nearly everything is more or less controversial.

Since most of the factual information seems to be kept secret, it is not easy to find reliable sources or even to find out how reliable a particular source actually is. It is very time consuming to compare statements from different sources and judge their credibility.

In trying to reword the article to what seemed to me more close to the "undisputed facts" i noticed that several statements of the form "<statement>" needed to be reworded to "The Warren Commission believed that <statement>" which led me to think that there was a slight pro Warren Commission report tendency in the article.

I want to emphasize that i'm neither a strict Oswald-did-it-alone nor a strict It-was-a-conspiracy advocate. In fact, i wasn't even very much interested in the topic several weeks ago. During a recent vacation trip i visited Dealey Plaza and the 6th Floor Museum in the former Texas School Book Depository building and became more interested in finding out what actually happened. Meanwhile i've bought two books ("Case Closed" by Gerald Posner for one side, "Say Goodbye to America" by Matthew Smith for the other) but didn't yet read much of them (i have other interests as well). I also watched the JFK movie by Oliver Stone and looked up a few issues in the Warren Commission's report that is available via Internet.

From what i read and saw so far (which is not too much, i have to admit), i believe that the Warren Commission's report is at least as much a "theory" as any other (though not a "conspiracy" theory, of course) because it is to a surprising extent based on dubious "facts", and i don't consider it appropriate to present conclusions of the Warren Commission as undisputed facts, just because the Warren Commission's report was the first official report and there are not many undisputed facts available.

I'm not too happy with the article in its current state. My feeling is that if we want the article to represent what's "currently known" we should move conclusions of the Warren Commission to a separate "JFK assassination theories" article and stick to really undisputed facts in the "JFK assassination" article.

As i'm not very deep into the topic at the moment i don't want to do a major rewrite or restructuring.

Any other opinions on that?

-- Gerd Badur 19:11, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Well, I'm the one who did the rewrite. I had a specific rationale for the rewrite as it was done, and I should probably explain where I'm coming from here. When I came to this article, it was in this state: [3]

The problems I saw were, among other things, a huge inherent mistrust of the Warren Commission, pure speculation interspersed with fact, and a fairly disorganized read. For all intents and purposes, if you say on a scale of 0 to 100 that believing every detail of the Warren Commission is 0 and believing none of it, 100, the article before I touched it was sitting somewhere around 80-90. As it's written, it probably sits more around the 40 mark...lightly biased, but not badly so.

  • I never state outright that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy - and for good reason - if you don't believe the Warren Commission, you don't believe that - or at least, you don't believe he acted alone. I was very careful to track his movements and what the Warren Commission believed he fired - but I didn't lay blame. Most conspiracy theories themselves tend not to say Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination - they typically say he didn't act alone.
  • I put theory without evidence into 'conspiracy theories', because that's what they are - and as they were before, they were just strewn all over the place.
  • There are separate pages for Warren Commission and could be one (if someone writes it) for House Select Committee on Assassinations. More in-depth analysis of theories could well go here - not a bad idea.
  • One thing I am doing is weighting actual documented investigations inherently more strongly than conspiracy theories. The only investigation I was able to read in depth (I read about 60 pages and skimmed another 200) was the Warren Commission - see its link for a link to what's available from the National Archives. Its complaints about the Secret Service and huge security holes are generally not disputed - although some theorists use the fact that these holes existed to say why instead of gross negligence, this was instead an opportunity for conspiracy. True, but not proven. (I even said this in the 'conspiracy theory' section).

If more people read actual investigations backed with fact and can narrow down that fact 'A' or point 'B' are in pure conflict in investigations, they might be moved elsewhere than from the opening 'timeline/assassination' section. But I don't think conspiracy theory should be given equal billing here. By definition, they are untested theories. The House Select Committee suspected a conspiracy, but one CAN read why, and prove or disprove their evidence. Anyone can say the CIA did it, and provide a motive - or say that anyone did it, and provide any motive. The lack of facts is a convenient opportunity to do so. One of the links in the 'conspiracy theory' section is a straw man argument; because Posner didn't know every single thing known to man about the rifle Oswald used, or what coupons he clipped, that he lacked credibility to speak about the assassination. As facts are evaluated and put here, they will probably have to be very carefully analyzed.

I said that in the analysis of conspiracy theories as well. Despite a slight leaning toward the Warren Commission, I do hope that this explained:

Disproving (to absolute certainty) any given conspiracy theory about the Kennedy assassination (or, conversely, proving that the Warren Commission's findings were 100% correct) may never be possible. Doing either would require 'evidence' that hasn't emerged in 40 years and is somehow so compelling that all sides can agree to agree upon it. Given the realistic likelihood of this, the real motive behind Kennedy's death (and to a lesser extent, how the murder was accomplished) may never be agreed upon.

That is, I myself am granting the Warren Commission was not perfect - but if we aren't to believe anything, this page will be blank save for 'Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. Heck if we know anything else.'

I don't believe this page needs a major restructuring. It may need one or two details moved into 'suspicious circumstances', but I think the core is there.

(I don't believe Oswald in the Texas Theatre isn't actually really disputed. Several people got photograps of him being apprehended there.) Other than that, your insertion of 'The Warren Commission said...' is pretty well placed.

This may be one of the most difficult Wikipedia articles there is to write, even moreso than controversial topics like war or abortion. Many facts are in dispute, but there are just enough to try to reconstruct things and get 80% there to certainty. The other 20% will, in my opinion, never be known with certainty. Honestly, even if the Warren Commission today released every document it had, secret or otherwise, conspiracy theorists would still use this as reason to discredit it: 'Why did it take so long to release them?' 'They're not genuine anyway.' 'It doesn't even consider a conspiracy, so it's invalid.'

'

Phew. Well, I tried. I just hope we don't end up with a page with two sentences of fact, and the rest rubbish. Kennedy was killed this day. The nation was absolutely floored by it. It changed American history. Who killed him, in the end, is honestly kinda secondary to the effects.

My $.02, with interest...

Skybunny 22:36, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've read the article revision that was the
base for your rewrite. (I should add: At the time i did some rewording
and asked for comments i wasn't aware you did a major rewrite before. I
just noticed that some statements - not necessarily your's - just too
plainly expressed controversial issues as pure fact, which i felt was
inappropriate. My request for comments therefore wasn't indended to be
criticism of your rewrite in general.)
I have to admit that prior to your rewrite there was a lot of
speculation in the article, and i support separating fact from
speculation. However, from all information i've collected so far, it
appears to me that the Warren Report is also a lot of speculation, and i
consider it somewhat "unfair" to move the conspiracy theories into a
"conspiracy theories" article while keeping Warren Report conclusions in
the main assassination article, just as if the Warren Report wasn't also
a theory. (It is one of the issues that annoy me: What has to do with
conspiracy always is a "theory" while non-conspiracy report
"conclusions" appear to be fact although - according to what information
is publicly available - they aren't. They are simply conclusions.)
I don't have too much interest in describing each and every conspiracy
theory in detail. I'm more interested in finding out how credible the
evidence actually is that led the Warren Commission to conclude that
Oswald was the sole assassin. That's my personal hobby, of course, but
when i find statements like "Oswald shot officer Tippit" within
Wikipedia i'm tempted to adjust them to "what's actually and
undisputedly known".
As long as i haven't collected more information (i consider credible) i
won't attempt a major restructuring. However, i'm curious about what
others think of the idea to write an article about "assassination
theories" to which also the "Warren Report Theory" belongs, rather than
a sole "Conspiracy Theories" article.
-- Gerd Badur 20:12, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
One closing thing here...again, please bear in mind that I'm actually not
making my prime concern 'who shot JFK', but 'what happened', and that isn't
necessarily the same thing. I believe the former would require indepth
description of each, any, and all theories about the assasination.
The latter really only requires the common ground...and the Warren Commission
had a lot of what happened that was never in dispute, even if its
conclusion (that Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone) is. That's why
I tried to make that distinguishment between 'investigation' and 'theory'.
Several eyewitnesses, after Oswald's death (and even while he was alive and
put into a police lineup) identified Oswald as Tippett's killer. While that's
not a legal conviction, we can never do better, since he isn't alive to
have a court case brought against him.
Skybunny 21:42, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


What about, under Consipracy theories:

the book "Appointments in Dallas" + (J. Edgar Hoover being a racist + having heavy survelience on the white house and internal operations + kennedy's effective policies on integration) + steel corporations (kennedy sicing the FBI on the steel corporations for damaging the economy)

It's all viable and the pieces fit. The motive, the means, the connections, and the money. There is no premeditated assasination without a fall guy. It's the first rule of assasination. -Kevin Baas

I know WP's not into sorting out the theories, but there's on about the Castro theory that needs noting. I think this came from the ABC 40th-anniversay WC whitewash, but: An HSCA delegation asked Castro whether he ordered up the assassination. Naturally, he said no, but elaborated that the US gov't was itching for an excuse to invade Cuba - cf Operation Northwoods - and to hand them a gold-plated copper-bottomed iron-clad excuse would be the mother of all insanity.

Oh; besides, before he died Kennedy was making normalise-Cuban-relations noises. For Castro to kill him then would make no more sense than, say, al Qaeda bombing London during the antiShrub protests. The only question is whether Castro knew of Kennedy's change.

I know WP's not into sorting out the theories...

I think that's the watchword here. As the article says, There are as many conspiracy theories about how and why Kennedy was killed as there are groups or individuals with the motive to do so,...and there were a lot of them. We could make a list of a million of these conspiracy theories...really. It's probably best to keep this to a few of the most plausible or most recognized, and leave it at that. There are already a dozen in the article, after all. Skybunny 03:58, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) --- The how about at least, at the botton, a list of books on the topic of conspiracy theories, as well as, perhaps the warren report. -Kevin Baas

I removed the mention of the book Case Closed, as it is only one book out of hundreds, each with its own theory. Now the "Investigations" section only mentions the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations. If a new section of "Other theories on the assassination" is created, that would be the place for Case Closed.

I reworded a little more carefully the statements that lax security or a deficiency in planning was responsible for the ease of the assassination. The notes about the Space Shuttle were especially incongruous.

I also removed the addition about the "BBC Correspondent" programme that was aired yesterday. It, too, is one opinion of hundreds, and is not especially more authoritative than any of the other sources over the last 40 years. The animator who did the job does not have any particular expertise or source of information that sets him apart, and the recent airing of the show doesn't justify its inclusion. I'll paste it below. Tempshill 00:25, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

==BBC 'Correspondent' programme in 2003==
A BBC Correspondent programme, broadcast on 23 November 2003, using exact computer generated images based on the Zapruder film, and using exact placings of Kennedy and Connally in the car at the moment when both were hit, suggested that the wound suffered by Connally matched exactly the entry point that would have occurred had a bullet passed through Kennedy, exited the President's neck and hit Connally. The trajectory led directly to the location from which it was claimed Oswald had fired. Based on the exact line shown, the speed of the bullet fired by Oswald's gun, the movements of both men when hit, the timescale within which they reacted (and movements on Connally's jacket immediately prior to Connally's reaction, which indicate something had hit him a fraction of a second earlier) the programme concluded that it was 100% certain that the gunman was located where Oswald had been, that the magic bullet could only have been fired from there and that both men had with absolute certainty been hit by the same bullet. In addition it was physically impossible for Connally to have have been shot at that spot in his body except through the President.
In addition on the programme, the computer animator, Dale Myers, using all known film of the assassination, demonstated that the "open microphone" which supposedly recorded four shots, could not have been at the location it had to be to have recorded an accurate reflection of the number of shots, free from distortion. The motorcycle cop who supposedly recorded the shots on an accidentially open microphone was in fact 170 yards from the only location where an accurate recording of the number of shots could have been made at the moment when the shooting took place. The programme concluded that "there is no doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy. There is every doubt that he had accomplices."

The obsession with "BBC's correspondent programme" makes me laugh. BBC DID NOT DO THE RESEARCH, DALE MYERS DID. Myers is a professional modeler who has researched the JFK assassination for decades and his work was shown on ABC as well as BBC. Another professional modeler came up independently with the same results as Myers and his work was aired on Court TV. Their evidence is relatively new but persuasive and strong and should dispel most doubts about the single bullet theory after the conspiracy theorists have some time to consider it. However, even acceptance of the single bullet theory does not rule out a conspiracy and many will still believe that the shot that hit Kennedy in the head came from the grassy knoll or somewhere other than the TX SBD. B 09:20, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Autopsy picture of Kennedy

I think that this picture

Image:JFKAUTOSPY.jpg
A front view of the slain President's body.

is simply too graphic for use in this article. Many people will come to this page who remember the assassination, and I think it could be extremely shocking for them to stumble across an image of the slain President with a gaping would in his neck. BCorr¤Брайен 23:49, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Simple solution - link to it without displaying it, and disclaim it by saying it's graphic. Only people who want to see it (implicitely indicated by clicking on the link) will see it. →Raul654 00:00, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
I 'emphatically' agree. This is just too much. Jdavidb 18:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I disagree. It should have been kept on the site.

Wording

Is it really necessary to say "every nation on earth"? First of all, Earth should be capitalized. Second of all, it's not like there's non-Earth nations that would send representatives to JFK's assassination. Also, "Communist China" should be capitalized, instead of "communist China", right? ugen64 20:37, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Inappropriate content

Hi there,

Does anyone else agree that the wording "The President's head...exploded" is a very strange way of saying "the President's head was struck by a bullet"? This wording appears ten times in the article, all of which were added AFTER March 14 by anonymous IPs (see this version).

Would anyone else agree that this does not belong in an encyclopaedia? It's strangely reminiscent of the Simpson's episode quote, "Hi, I'm Troy McClure, star of such films as P is for Psycho and The President's Neck is Missing", which, while potentially funny, does not belong in Wikipedia.

Acegikmo1 21:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • There are several prominent theories and documented evidence (and previously documented evidence that we still have copies of for which the original has gone missing) supporting that President Kennedy's head was struck nearly simultaneously with 2 shots. *That* is why it is important to make the distinction for when the president was *first* struck in the head. JFKtruth 16:21, 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
What JFKtruth is advocating violates NPOV policy. It doesn't matter whether "There are several prominent theories and documented evidence" supporting this or that POV. Using a descriptive adverbs and adjectives (like "exploding") as a fact (i.e. without attribution) adopts a POV that runs afoul of the NPOV as is the case here. What is exploding from one POV, is not exploding from another POV. —B|Talk 20:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just reading through this again and the repeated use of "exploded" jumped out at me as well. I agree that the term is unnecessairly lurid and non NPOV. Moreover, whether one believes that there was one bullet or two simultaneous bullets, "exploded" is a poor and inaccurate choice of words -- unless your personal conspiracy is that JFK had explosives implanted inside his brain. I recommend "exploded" be replaced with "was struck" or even "was violently struck" except in the witness quotation. Unless someone objects here or does it before me I will make this change myself in a day or two. Jgm 15:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--

If you look at the Zapruder film, there is an obvious forward and upward spray of brain & skull & blood into the air. An explosion is a sudden outward movement in many directions from a source. It is not inaccurate to say that is what happened, though it is alarming. To leave out ALL mention of this explosive spray, and to leave it as "struck" is misleading. JFK was almost certainly dead right then. Perhaps another word can be found. --JimWae 08:36, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
I agree JimWae, the horror of what is documented and displayed in the films (especially the Zapruder film) is what occurred, and should not be revised for the sake of some political correctness. Here is the article's current description of when the President was struck in his head, "When Kennedy was struck in his head, it moved slightly forward 1 to 2 inches (25 to 50 mm), then, after a 0.11 second pause, Kennedy's head, upper torso, and right arm all violently snapped simultaneously upwards, then, backwards (towards the depository) and leftwards (away from the grassy knoll)." That specific description is one of the best, most accurate descriptions of that horrible micro-second I have ever read anywhere concerning President Kennedy's head and upper body motions. Even though that description needs to have added to it the fact that his head exploded-erupted-burst open in a spray of blood, brain, and skull matter between Z-312 and Z-313, that is, in fact, exactly what is seen, and can be measured, in the Zapruder film, in the Muchmore film, and in the Nix film. After Z-313 there WAS, then, a measurable, slight time pause, THEN, starting at Z-315 his head and upper body (we cannot see his lower body) all violently starts to move quickly rearward, leftward and bounces off of the seat cushion. MRbud 11:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Now that you bring it up, I think the word "violently" is too strong for "the back & to the left" movement. It is sudden & swift, yes. Have you noticed that the camera was panning to the right a bit at the same time? The seat-back actually appears to moves backward too. Also, It looks like Jackie is pulling JFK's torso a bit. I think "violently" is too biased towards a view that another shot (without any spray at all?) has hit JFK, when there are at least 3 other explanations. Perhaps the way to handle this with NPOV is to state something like "The cause of what happens next is an issue that has kept the assassination investigation so much alive for so many people". Additionally, any upward movement is quite slight & mostly of the right shoulder & upper arm - accentuated by camera moving downward. Left shoulder is steadily sinking --JimWae 17:45, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

My disputes

The recent presence of User:JFKtruth on this article has been very detrimental, in my opinion. This article no longer carefully and neutrally discusses a controversial historical event, but is acting as one of the thousands of pages on the Internet advocating conspiracy theories and casting aspersion on "official" accounts of events. The ridicule of the Warren Commission, etc., is unencyclopedic and frankly embarrassing to me -- if someone saw this article, I believe they would have the right to doubt our ability to serve as a neutrally informative encyclopedia. I would revert the changes, but it's a massive job, and JFKtruth seems to be bulling along with so many dozens of edits that I worry I would end up in an edit war that would get us banned. Are there others committed to sorting through this and restoring a good version of this article? Jwrosenzweig 20:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I just came across the article for the first time, and must agree wholeheartedly. The whole 'pedia can fairly be judged by the quality of the hot-button articles and this article as it currently stands damages the credibility of everything else. I don't have the knowledge or time to plunge into this particular abyss, but if I were King of the Wiki I think I'd revert the whole thing to the pre-JFKtruth status, lock it up, and try to negotiate some specific changes with him/her in a sandbox version. Jgm 19:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I haven't gone through User:JFKtruth's edits one-by-one, but they seem to be well documented and inoffensive for the most part. The only change that raises questions in my mind is the removal of two paragraphs about the nation's reaction, specificlly the music played on the radio and Walter Cronkite's 72 hours on the air.
Acegikmo1 03:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tricky Dick is linked via several paths of varying directness - the Texans, the mob, and the Bay of Pigs[4]

29+ Years Experience Investigating & Researching This Case

Anyone who would, entirely for free, and objectively like to have supplied for themself ANY specific reference you need for any detail, or, anyone who has never read the entire reports, never read the followup evidentiary and testimonies volumes, or never read for yourself the back round investigative files and individual documents performed by the following partial list of investigative agencies/departments/bodies, please, feel free, to contact me privately, anytime, with your specific reference request or constructive, detailed, referenced comments:

Parkland Hospital Doctors Reports, U.S. Navy Bethesda Hospital Autopsists Reports, Dallas Police Department Reports, Dallas County Surveyors Report, U.S. Defense Investigative Service Reports, U.S. Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Reports, U.S. Navy Investigative Service Reports, U.S. Marine Corps Investigative Reports, U.S. State Department Reports, U.S. F.B.I. Report, U.S. Secret Service Report, U.S. National Security Agency Report, Texas Attorney General Report, Texas Rangers Investigative Reports, U.S. Warren Commission Report, U.S. Warren Commission Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Ramsey Panel Report, U.S. Ramsey Panel Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Hart-Schweiker Intelligence Activities Committee Report, U.S. Hart-Schweiker Intelligence Activities Committee Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Church Committee on U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Assassinations Report U.S. Church Committee on U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Assassinations Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Report, U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Committee on Ballistic Acoustics Report, U.S. Assassination Records and Review Board Report, U.S. Assassination Records and Review Board Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies.

As of 2004, I have also spoken directly with Dealey Plaza witnesses and before-and-after assassination-related-events witnesses, still living or now dead, detailed in a personal database of over 4200+ persons.

The vast majority of persons (including historians, and, supposed, historians) who make too-broad, too-generalized comments may not have actually read these entire complete reports, nor actually read the entire supporting volumes, nor actually read publicly available investigative backround files and individual documents (1000's of pages of which are still classified against public availability), nor actually have spoken directly with assassination witnesses nor events observed witnesses. I have 29+ years experience of direct involvement as an investigator for, and research into, the micro-details of the assassination of President Kennedy for anyone who wants to, objectively, understand, and decide for him or herself the details, and truth, of what transpired on November 22, 1963.

When my free time allows, I will be updating with specific primary references of important, often overlooked details, from my 29+ year database.

JFKtruth 16:16, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Excellent. Please tell us a little about yourself on your user page. Are you in Dallas? Regardless of your personal POV on this matter (objectivity is a myth), so long as you follow wikipedia's NPOV policy, your contributions will be appreciated. B 16:12, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Specific Issues

I'm still having issues with this article. I know JFKtruth has some defenders, and he's right that this article needs to cover the theories in addition to the "single gunman theory", but honestly JFK's username, use of italics and bold, phrasing, and selective inclusion of information have skewed this article to become very POV. Here's one section as an example.

The rifle was stored by Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of family friends, the Paines, cousins of John Forbes Kerry, at whose home Maria Oswald was living at the time. Michael R. Paine was the son of Ruth Forbes Paine, who remarried Arthur Young, the inventor of the Bell helicopter used in Korea and Vietnam. Michael R. Paine and Ruth Forbes Paine Young were Forbes family Link titleheirs and as is Sen. Kerry, a coincidence since both he and the assassinated President bear the initials JFK. See Warren Commission report describing testimony of Michael R. Paine and his wife, Ruth Paine. 1 Because of her son's involvement in the assasination, her Forbes family's involvement with drug dealing in China during the Opium War, and her husband's involvement with the military and defense industry, Mrs. Ruth Forbes Paine Young started the International Peace Academy, which have fed rumors about her family's politics.

Why is this section necessary? Doesn't it simply use innuendo to attempt to besmirch the character of a few politically active Americans who happen to have known Oswald? Can we substantiate that Oswald "stored" his gun there? Why did he do so? Do we suspect these people of involvement? This sort of thing really flies in the face of NPOV. JFKtruth, can I ask if you are committed to the principles of Wikipedia:NPOV? You need to be -- I have no problems with explaining the issues surrounding the assassination that many find troubling, but we have to approach this from a neutral perspective, and sections like the one above look more like a witchhunt for someone to latch a conspiracy theory onto. Maybe that's not what you intend to do, though -- I hope not! So how can we work together to balance this article? Jwrosenzweig 23:35, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

JFKtruth did not add (nor edit) the section regarding the rifle-in-evidence, the Paine's, and the Paine's familial/business/C.I.A./"Bell Helicopter" relationships to the Forbe's. JFKtruth 23:48, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, my mistake. Well, I'm going to cut it, then. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:54, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No worries. Please, provide some of your more specific examples that you think are of investigated information that is, in your words, "selective inclusion," and I will be happy to address them. JFKtruth 24:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you look at the article as it was before you started editing it, and as it is now, a few things should be evident. What we had was as clear an account as possible of what is known, and what the theories are. It did need some expansion, I admit. But you have added every single witness account you can find describing "agents", gunmen, falsified records, etc. None of it adds up to a coherent alternative to the single gunman theory -- it just generally fills the article to massive size (the article is now twice as large as we generally want articles to be) with a lot of shadowy figures who are presented as being as factual as the bullet that hit Kennedy. The ridicule of the "magic bullet" is raised again and again -- the article reads more like an essay designed to bash the Warren Commission than an account of the assassination. We do need to note the major details that cause people to doubt the official position on the events of 11/22/63. But we shouldn't belabor them in an attempt to convince others that the Oswald account is wrong. We need to present what is known about that day first (that is, what we all agree to -- where the motorcade drove, who was in the car, who was hit and when, where the President was taken, etc.), then the major conjectures (and the rationales for and against them), and then link to a few important sites. We need to do this without bolding and italicizing passage after passage in an attempt to highlight what some of us feel are particularly questionable pieces of information, or facts that indicate the possibility of a conspiracy. We just need to present the facts, and I feel as though you are trying to present only facts that attack the official account and promote a general sense of conspiracy, without offering any criticisms of those facts (you never seem to doubt the witness's assertions). That's my concern. Jwrosenzweig 00:14, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think Jason has hit the nail on the head. JFKtruth - I have basically two concerns about the article, as it now exists.
  1. Coherence - right now, the article is pretty badly organized. Too much stuff is thrown in there without any overall sense of organization.
  2. Neutral tone and point of view- When you write an article for wikipedia (or any encyclopedia, for that matter) - the reader shouldn't be able to tell what your opinion of the topic is. In this case, it's fairly obvious what your opinion is. This is not a good thing, and it's the primary cause of the angst other editors are feeling.
In short, your contributions are appreciated, but they need to be organized better with more emphasis on neutrality of tone. →Raul654 00:31, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

This article has changed greatly since I last looked at it. The first task at hand I did was to move a lot of information about the 'Magic bullet' and 'Zapruder film' to the 'talk' pages of the respective articles. Much of the information in both are repeated there anyway, and an editorial pass on both articles for NPOV and general content is likely warranted.Skybunny 03:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question on singular timeline

When I last edited this article significantly, I was trying to build on a general idea with the 'timeline' section...a skim through now reveals that there are about three distinct but unconnected sections in this article with timelines.

Originally, I was trying to build one single 'timeline', that started at Love Field and ended at Air Force One, though easily could have gone through Kennedy's burial at Arlington Cemetary. Is it not prudent to have one single timeline of undisputed or largely undisputed facts that a casual reader of this article can browse and parse without being overwhelmed with details?

The timeline section doesn't have to be a place, for example, where Oswald's innocence or guilt, or a proof of why he couldn't have acted alone exists..does it? He left the Depository a few minutes after 12:30, for example, and that fact isn't really disputed, whether or not his guilt or innocence is. Skybunny 03:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A timeline sounds like a good organizational idea to me, and I generally like your approach! :-) Do you think you can put together a timeline like the one you envision from at least part of JFKtruth's material (the "agents", etc.)? In addition to other info you may have, of course. Jwrosenzweig 15:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: Recent edit comment by JFKTruth

In the interest of not starting an edit war, I would like to defend my cutting out a substantial discussion of the 'magic bullet theory' in this article by responding to JFKTruth's edit comment of that piece here. I'll then discuss some of my general rationale while writing this article in the hope that its intent is well received.

The, supposed, "magic bullet theory" is the basis for the entire Warren Commission report and, therefore, far to important to The Truth to be pushed to merely a secondary, linked page

The, supposed, "magic bullet theory"...

The 'Magic bullet theory' is not a supposed theory. It is a theory, and, in fact, one that can be researched. IMHO, the word 'supposed' is grossly overused in this article to imply that a fact is disputed. 'This fact is disputed' is a neutral statement, particularly when accompanied by both interpretations of the facts. 'Supposed' is an implication that the single referred to idea is wrong, which I do not believe really follows the idea of NPOV writing Wikipedia encourages. I would particularly refer to NPOV: Fairness and sympathetic tone.

...is the basis for the entire Warren Commission report

No, it isn't. The Warren Commission report talks about a lot more than simply who shot President John F. Kennedy, including but not limited to what made it easy to kill him, and what improvements could be made to prevent it in the future. Neither of those parts are particularly concerned with who killed him, but why it was possible to kill him. The Warren Commission provides one valid interpretation of the facts, just as other intepretations are valid when the basic facts are in dispute. This article's purpose does not have to be (and should not be, in my opinion), to determine who killed John F. Kennedy. I believe that if any one person had that answer, I would not be writing this comment. In any event, gross details about the Warren Commission report, I believe, belong in the Warren Commission report article. Continuing...

...and, therefore, far to important to The Truth to be pushed to merely a secondary, linked page

I do not believe this article's point should be to determine 'The truth' (which I presume, again, to mean, 'Who shot J.F.K.?'), because there have been hundreds of books written to try to do that, and as we all know, noone has come up with the single right answer. Attempting to do so is only going to start a massive edit war over who is right. All I believe that library of writing has established is that we do not know with 100% certainty who shot him.

Noone can authoritatively answer that question, and I believe that saying 'This theory is disputed. See its companion page for details' is sufficient. Drowning a casual reader in evidence or opinion will not assist them in drawing their own conclusions, or even, honestly, forming a basic idea of what the assasination was about. Most modern encyclopedias cross reference, and I do not understand why it is not acceptable to do so here.

Whatever a reader's opinion of the Warren Commission (to give only one example of the numerous major pieces in this article), it was the first official report printed about the assasination. Whether or not it is correct is not relevant to the fact that it was written, and the Warren Commission is a point of fact in the sense that it was written, can be referred to, and large parts of it are a matter of public record. The same can be said of the House Select Committee of Assassinations, which came to the opposite conclusion, to give two examples.

I do not believe that this article needs to convince a reader one way or the other whether Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy, nor should it. I do believe that a well written version of it will make the ambiguity of this issue self evident, and does not have to do so under a deluge of conflicting testimony, motives, and theories that will only confuse a reader as the article is organized.

I agree. All the article needs to do is present the documented conclusions as they were written (iow, without any POV "spin") and let the reader decide for him and herself. :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently my rationale for cutting a significant volume of text, making a reference to it, and moving it to a companion page was not reasonable, and in the interest of not starting an editing war, I will not do so again. But I would ask, then, how the general complaint that this article is far too long to be encyclopediac will be answered.

I am also, honestly, a bit wary at this point of making other significant edits that will draw this article to the general idea that noone knows for certain who killed J.F.K., even though Lee Harvey Oswald will go down as the primary suspect. (This is a fact. I know of noone who has produced another single person(s) who overshadows Oswald as the single most compelling assassin or assasins of Kennedy, that has been accepted on a societal level. No Wikipedia article will change this.)

I don't believe it's Wikipedia's place to take it upon itself to discredit or affirm Oswald's guilt or innocence, but to report on what the understood, brief, relevant facts are. The re-inclusion of huge block of text (particularly, the lenthy block examining the magic bullet's trail dupliated in Magic bullet theory) I believe does not follow the NPOV: Fairness and sympathetic tone idea. I believe this generally unsympathetic attitude permeates throughout this article. If I cannot make changes to these blocks of text without incurring an edit war pushing things back the other way, I'm basically left with nowhere to go. Skybunny 06:22, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Skybunny, I agree with you completely, and I think this is worth doing. I've reverted back to your version. We have to do a good job on this article, I think, and allowing JFKtruth to add grammatical and spelling errors, confusing details without context, rumors and speculations, and the massive duplicated content from magic bullet theory would be the wrong thing to do. Thanks for your comments: I hope you'll help me stay the course with this article -- I think additions are welcome, but they have to fit NPOV goals and leave the article in readable shape. Jwrosenzweig 16:58, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Seconded or thirded. For NPOV reasons, the Magic bullet theory ought also to be redirected to the single bullet theory as well, not vice versa as it is now. B 17:29, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
Okay...I spent about two hours working on the 'timeline' section, and an anonymous contributor reverted almost every change I made back to that of a few days ago with no discussion about why, and no answer to the points I made above, in this section. (Anyone not in general agreement with my points above never answered them here in the month since they were made, either.) Particularly, the Warren Commission is still being inserted in many places in apparent attempt to discredit the entire report; even the implication that Oswald committed a crime is being removed or ambiguated, and whoever is doing these reversions seems to have an end goal of convincing the reader why a conspiracy must have occurred, or at the very least, of Oswald's de facto innocence. I'm not interested in getting involved in an edit war. I'm particularly frustrated with the revert done in the opening paragraphs (beginning 'Analysis of the facts...' about the status of Lee Harvey Oswald, as whatever his place in history, he sure seems to be talked about a lot for not having been a prime suspect, the Warren Commission's findings in particular notwithstanding. Another example: how does how many bulletproof cars J. Edgar Hoover has have anything to do with how many the president has? Unless there is a causative, provable conspiracy in history (and I see no agreement), it is an irrelevant relationship that only bloats the article. I need help on the main page, please, or I can't justify spending the time on this article just to see it reverted in bulk.Skybunny 13:43, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I want to thank Skybunny and others for recent good work here. That said, the paragraph about "rock and roll drummer" is repeated and makes no sense either time. I can't tell if it's a facetious comment or based in fact (in which case it needs to be further explained). Jgm 21:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • The rock and roll drummer mentioned previously with regard to the Dallas police radio tapes was Steve Barber. Steve's discovery was first written about in a July, 1979 magazine. Barber is still alive, and the story about his discovery is widely known by official investigators and researchers familiar with the case facts. His discovery has been written about extensively, and Barber will still openly and freely discuss his discovery with anyone. JFKtruth 16:21, 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Believe the following picture is poor (reasonable to remove?)

Image:180cropJFKsmilingJPG.jpg
President Kennedy waving & smiling to persons on his right less than 3 seconds before he was first shot

Is this picture a little too blurry to really be illustrative in the context of this article? I've removed it for now, as it is so large and clearly not cropped, but I do wonder if there might not be a better close up photograph of the President on Elm Street, even if in black and white. I'm definately open to re-including this if it seems a reasonable image.(?) Skybunny 00:12, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think leaving it out is wise -- the fact that it was (supposedly - I have no way of knowing) taken right before his death does not adequately make up for the fact that it is almost impossible to distinguish what you're looking at. Fundamentally, it doesn't illustrate anything the article doesn't make plan, or add to a reader's understanding, which I think are the best criteria for deciding "should this picture stay?" Jwrosenzweig 22:23, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think a Zapruder frame is appropriate, placed next to the Abraham Zapruder bullet point in "List of Witnesses". It's the most important piece of documentary evidence and it's valuable to see its character. The frame also belongs on the Abraham Zapruder article, of course. Tempshill 20:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article keeps falling back into conspiracy

I'm getting pretty hopeless about this article ever being featured quality. Every two weeks or so, it seems someone shows up desperate to prove Oswald didn't do it. I'll fiddle with the article again sometime this week to get the unsubstantiated stuff out again, but this is getting old. How can we avoid this constant maintenance of this page? I don't know enough about the assassination or have enough passion about it to be one of two or three people who do this, but I certainly don't want the article falling apart. Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 19:36, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed completely. As I've said previously, the entire Wikipedia can fairly be judged on our efforts at topics like this, and on this particular front we are failing miserably. The second paragraph of this article -- a mess of non-sequitirs and plain bad writing -- is a case in point. Among many other problems, we haven't even explained who Lee Harvey Oswald is and we're already discussing what "three recent 2003 polls" think about him. The "controversial" and "disputed" boilerplates don't really do the trick here, either (not that they are ever anything but an admission of failure) -- we almost need a statement to the effect that "Wikipedia articles on controversial topics are not advised for use in academic research, resolution of disputes, or any other purpose". Jgm 15:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh yes, agreed completely. Since the mainstream idea is that there are no conspiracies and anyone supporting the notion that there are must be in error, wikipedia, being the sum of collective effort, must therefore reflect this notion, whatever its truth or falsity may be. As far as conspiracy theories are concerned, there is no neutral point of view - they're widely ridiculed, therefore they must be baseless and don't belong in wikipedia. Ah, smell the neutrality.

Epiphany and lack of knowledge

If I may gently remind you, good reader, please, read above and you will see that there are several public admissions made by several persons that he/she does not know enough of the, literally, tens of 1000's of important facts of this case.

If I may simply suggest: the "hopeless" feeling that several persons have tried to express may simply be his/her unconscious thoughts (most hopefully leading to a higher consciousness and realization, either way), and possible imminent on-coming epiphany decision that as he/she positively learns more and more about the actual facts in this case, him/her is feeling his/her position shifting.

That epiphany or approaching epiphany truly IS an uncomfortable feeling (but, only at first) possibly from a multitude of programmed-since-childhood taught beliefs about the assassination.

If I may respectfully suggest, what some persons have tried to express as "failing miserably," may actually be accorded to the reality of Warren Commission apologists failing miserably, more and more, as the years advance and more and more facts come forth making it actually transparent that the Warren Commission also failed us all, miserably.

At a bare minimum, the Warren Commission failed miserably (and other agencies failed the Warren Commission miserably --albeit deliberate, or not) to investigate ALL of the facts. As is now documented, the Warren Commission also utterly failed to publicize --again, albeit deliberate, or not-- all of the facts that it did learn, yet, were soon sealed away from the public by Lyndon Johnson right before the 1964 presidential election.

Another prime example is the above "Talk" comments with respect to Zapruder frame 180. Anyone who has really studied the Zapruder film in depth --and with an open mind-- already knows that the entire film is somewhat grainy, and, of course, Zapruder himself jerked his camera --with some of the films jerk-caused blurring resulting directly from startled inadvertent hand reflexes to hearing multiple 130 decibel, jet-engine-equivalent loudness, gun shots. The above-pictured Zapruder frame 180 JFK close-up crop is actually decent in the many pieces of important information that frame reveals to us. Anyone who really knows the detailed facts of the case knows precisely the vital importance of the confluence of the many interrelated facts and reasons for why that Z-180 frame (and follow-up interrelated frames) showing our president mere seconds before the Warren Commission's, supposed, "single bullet theory" occurs, is important to the case. Here is just one simple observation you can make yourself: the average adult head is about 6" wide. The wound on President Kennedy's back was nearly 6" below the highest part of his suit coat rear collar. Now look at the above Z-180 photo, specifically at his easily seen horizontal shoulder line. Imagine the collar being slightly higher than his shoulder line (photo-apparent-wise the rear collar high point would appear to be about level with the shoulder line because Zapruder's perspective at Z-180 was slightly down at JFK) Using a 6" width of President Kennedy's head as a gage, place the Warren Commission back wound almost 6" below that rear top collar point. Now visualize connecting that Warren Commission back wound to the point on his front neck just below his "Adam's apple." Compare that Warren Commission theorized back-to-front trajectory to the street-parallel line edge of the limousine clearly seen in that Z-180 frame that President Kennedy is next to. Does that Warren Commission theorized back-to-front trajectory seem to you to be upward, downward, or nearly level? (The president can be seen at Z-180, Z-205, and Z-225 still 'sitting upright', with his back center pressed against the seat backrest). 

I'll ask a simple question here: (simple for someone who, honestly knows the details about this documented fact, that is) Can you detail the importance --the absolute vital importance-- of the realistic high-probabilities of, precisely, what the documented, 6.5 millimeter, nearly round, bullet fragment seen (first seen only in 1968, that is) in the president's x-rays on the thin outer table of President Kennedy's skull, 3" above the Warren Commission theorized bullet entry point, at the rear of President Kennedy's head indicates?

If I may also suggest, it is also important to actually take the time for yourself to read President Kennedy's words and beliefs to learn his views given to each of us by President Kennedy in the years --even the decades-- before he was publicly executed in broad daylight, in front of 100's of witnesses. (in reality there are millions of witnesses, thanks to Mr. Zapruder and other Dealey Plaza close witnesses, photographers and movie-makers) President Kennedy's words, beliefs, and views, decisions and actions, and his actions results are all, intricately, related to the assassination --and its motive-- no matter which side of the picket fence you stand upon.

As it stands at this moment, the article does an excellent job of presenting the most vital and critical of the 1000's of important documented, and inter-related facts that have been determined, and, the article also does an outstanding job with newly-released documented information, much of which has only been learned after the previously hidden Warren Commission, HSCA, and other governmental agencies files have been, only recently, released to The People for our research. The reality is that these facts, both old and new (and yet to come), can all be looked up for yourself ---if one is *truly* open-minded enough to look them up for yourself. The logical blending of old-released with new-released information strongly suggesting a conspiracy is just the result of considering all of the currently known facts.

I would simply suggest that any "hopeless" feeling also encompasses the mixture of sensing the oncoming arrival of future feelings-to-come that DO occur after the epiphany of knowledge is embedded.

Please, do not fear the epiphany of knowledge in this still open case. Be brave. Face it, then embrace the epiphany. It will pass through you and you will be fine, and, of course, you will still be here, and, now, you are prepared with the positive knowledge of what is possible.

If instead one makes the personal choice onto the path of denial -if one makes the decision to not face all of the historical facts of this horrid event that, thankfully, 3 and more of every 4 Americans before 1991's movie "JFK" to this moment had already learned/faced the important facts, then embraced, God forbid, and, God help us all, a horrid history may repeat itself.

I simply suggest, good reader, that --to the less-informed-- the very reason that the "article keeps falling back into conspiracy" is because all of the presently-known facts do indicate that there was a conspiracy (whether it involved Oswald, or others, before, during, and after the assassination are entirely separate issues)

In the reality of today's terrorists-oriented world climate, if that horrid history was to be allowed to repeat itself only because of a lack of knowledge through the hopeless, miserable failure of not learning and not knowing because of past history --or not wanting to learn or not wanting to know-- ---and not knowing, or wanting to know about investigatively determined facts that mendaciously go against an investigations own report and then were attempted to be hidden from The People for 75 years--- a similar event could have dire consequences for you, your Loved Ones, and, together, us all. Therein is just one of the many core reasons that all of the facts of this case continue to enlighten our consciousness no matter which side of the smoke-lingering picket fence you stand on, at this moment. 14:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


But the truth doesn't matter, dear writer. Wikipedia, strangely, since founded by an Objectivist, is based around a communist model of information processing rather strikingly similar to the undertakings Winston Smith performed for his Ministry. If more people believe one thing than the minority, that's what will be reflected in the wikipedia article, factuality notwithstanding. This is easily observed in any article whose topic is remotely controversial. Take religion - the articles on Islam, the historiocity of Jesus, Scientology, etc., are all an information battleground where truth must necessarily be muted in order to achieve Political Correctness, i.e. NPOV, regardless of what the actual facts of the matter are. As the official JFK assassination mythology has become something of a national religion in America, it's really unsurprising that there would be so much resistance to any and all "conspiracy theories," a post-JFK buzzword which, in Newspeak fashion, carries such a negative psychological connotation to the point where the phrase means little more than "fantasy," despite the extensive documented evidence of multiple actual conspiracies throughout history. Oddly, when the government itself floats conspiracy theories, they are accepted without debate. (I don't see the words "conspiracy theory" anywhere in the set of Usama bin Laden articles, despite the total lack of presented evidence)

A Logical Proposal For Freedom of Thought

After several emails from single assassin theorists and conspiracy theorists bringing the article back to my attention I can say that the article is very accurate as of 6-18-04 documenting known and previously un-released investigated facts with regards to the case. Congradulations and kudos to contributors the most recent 2+ months. Emotionalism and a lack of knowledge (and of course deliberate disinfo and deception) in this case are negative towards anyone understanding the case. (as in Life, imho)

I have a logical suggestion. The main "John F. Kennedy assassination" article could at some point within the main article be linked to 2 separate sub-articles; one sub-article with an overview of the conspiracy oriented facts and theories, and one sub-article discussing the single assassin oriented facts and theories. It looks to me that the logical place to present these 2 sub-article links could be after the "A Nation Mourns" section. Almost all the information after the "A Nation Mourns" discussion can be easily removed from the main article and placed in either the conspiratorial sub-article or in the single assassin sub-article. (some of the info can be placed in each sub-article)

By dividing the case into two sub-articles it will save space in the main article, but much more importantly, it provides for all readers the freedom of choice to view which side, or both, sides of the considerations that they want to view (there is much physical evidence that can be defined both ways, just as there are some witnesses observations whose total observations can be interpreted both ways, and there is much evidence and observations, etc. that can be defined only one way) Seems logical to me. What do you think? :) JFKtruth 16:21, 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It is an unwelcome proposal, JFKtruth. WP is not intended to bifurcate article topics into disparate point of view articles on the same topic. That format was considered awhile back and was rejected. A rival online encylopedia was even started using that format. That format is fundamentally inconsistent with NPOV policy because it asserts that only a certain POV is to be presented for a particular article at the exclusion of other POVs. However, under NPOV policy no article is to advocate nor oppose any particular POV. To comply with WP's NPOV policy, a topic will be considered in one article with various POVs presented (in NPOV fashion, of course) on that one article. —B|Talk 19:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
BoNoMoJo believes JFKtruth's suggestion is "an unwelcome proposal," but in the tangible, real world of ever-more-intelligent persons reading, thinking, studying, researching, and concluding for themselves what has been documented and what information is most up-to-date that is exactly what has happened with the conclusions about the assassination. No amount of fascists editing out, ignoring recent information, or spinning facts will ever change it. A Good suggestion JFKtruth. Why would the lone nut apologists not want to have their own section to detail lone nut documented considerations? :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CBS on 11/22/1963

I added before discussing. I apologize. Feel free to edit what I have typed. I have a copy of the 11/22/1963 episode of As the World Turns, so I'm working from primary sources here. This is what I've added:

The news of Kennedy's death was made public at 1:38 pm CST. News anchorman Walter Cronkite passed along word of the assassination. The television transmissions were first interrupted around 12:35 pm CST. At this time, the top-rated As the World Turns was airing across the country. As Nancy Hughes (Helen Wagner) turned to Grandpa to discuss a domestic matter, the CBS News bulletin card was abruptly placed on the screen. After the first notice was read that President Kennedy was wounded, the affiliates went back to As the World Turns, at least for a couple of minutes. Walter Cronkite read more news reports and then, around 1 pm CST, the affiliates joined Cronkite in the news room. After news footage was shown of a luncheon in Dallas where Kennedy was supposed to speak, Cronkite read the press release on-air:

"From Dallas, Texas, the flash -apparently official- President Kennedy died at 1 p.m. Central Standard Time a hour ago... ...Vice President Johnson has left the hospital in Dallas, but we do not know to where he has proceeded. Presumably, he will be taking the oath of office shortly, and become the thirty-sixth President of the United States." Mike H 01:41, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

some "allegedly"s

I inserted "allegedly" in the following two "Known Witnesses" lines:

(William Harper) Just before the assassination a witness testified that he observed a second rifle-armed assassin through a west window.
One witness stated that they saw a second rifle-armed assassin in a depository sixth-floor west window just minutes before the assassination.

If these statements are true, the witness needs to be named and inserted as a bullet point in this list, or moved to the "unknown witnesses" list and referenced as such. Tempshill 20:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arnold Rowland (not William Harper) and several other witnesses stated they saw more than one person on the depository 6th floor -in different 6th floor windows- in the minutes before the assassination. :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Murder of Tippit

At 1:15 to 1:16 pm, Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit was shot dead 0.85 miles from Oswald's rooming house. Thirteen people either witnessed Oswald shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene. After the Tippit murder Oswald was witnessed traveling on foot toward the Texas Theatre.

I recall the film JFK cites witnesses who gave a description of Tippit's murderer who doesn't match Oswald. Is there any source for this? Also has anyone ever explained why the police responded so heavily to what was reported as a fare dodger? Timrollpickering 23:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is more info at the Oswald and Tippet articles. 13 people witnessed Oswald either shooting him or fleeing the scene. The police responed in force to the theater because they thought that fare dodger was Tippit's murderer. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 01:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I believe it was only 11, and will check official investigations primary sources on that. Closest witness, Benevidas, did not identify Oswald on 11-22-63. Just like Brennan on 11-22-63 did not i.d. Oswald as the one shooter he saw. Brennan testified he heard a shot while he was looking directly at that shooter but did not see that weapon muzzle blast disrupt the air, Brennan did not see that weapon emit even a small flame, and Brennan did not see that weapon emit even a small amount of bullet cartridge and/or rifle cleaning oil smoke when Brennan heard a muzzle blast. When the WC requested the FBI to test fire the actual weapon in evidence the FBI documented (buried documented within the WC canard's 26 supporting volumes) that the weapon in evidence did emit a flame, did disrupt the air in front of the muzzle, and the weapon in evidence did emit white smoke. :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

List of Witnesses to the Assassination

Abraham Zapruder - 'Filmed the entire attack with his movie camera. A November 22 note from a Secret Service agent (Warren Commission Document, CD87) stated that Mr. Zapruder heard shots originate from behind him (behind Zapruder was the picket fence and triple overpass areas of the grassy knoll).' The entire second sentence is unnecessary, probably violates the NPOV standard and may be misleading. In numerous interviews Zapruder made it clear that with all the echoes in Dealey Plaza, he had no idea where the shot came from. I would like to delete the second sentence OR put in a clarifying clause.Ramsquire 20:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

James Tague - An Air Force veteran who was also wounded during the assassination while standing 270 feet (82 meters) in front of the limousine. Tague testified he thought he was wounded with the second or third shot he remembered hearing, and when pressed for which shot, he testified it was the second shot that he was wounded by. Tague stated that the shots came from near the monument on the grassy knoll. The Main Street south curb 23 feet 6 in (7.2 meters) away from Tague was impacted during the assassination and left behind bullet lead but no copper from a bullet sheath. It was not until May and June of 1964 that the growing public awareness of Tague’s wounding forced all investigating authorities to completely revise their original 3-shots theory of 3 impacts/8 wounds, to a "new" theory of 2 impacts/1 missed shot/8 wounds. To be more neutral there should be more discussion of the possibility that Mr. Tague could hve been hit with a fragment of the bullet that struck the Presidents head or a piece of bone fragment, which are both likely to have caused his injuries.Ramsquire 20:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rosemary Willis - Clearly seen in the Zapruder film, at the start of the assassination she was running with and facing the limousine on her right, then circa Zapruder film frame 190 (hereafter "Z-190"), she stops running and then slightly turns her head to face the southwest corner of the depository. After the sitting upright president is hidden by the "Stemmons Freeway" traffic sign in the Zapruder film, she suddenly, very rapidly, beginning at Z-214 snaps her head (http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSEwillisANNOUNCEMENT.html) 90 degrees westward within only 0.16 second to face Abraham Zapruder and the grassy knoll. Precisely 0.55 second after her extremely quick headsnap towards Zapruder and the grassy knoll, President Kennedy emerges back into view --still sitting upright-- with his face and arms already reacting to being shot. She also told the HSCA committee that while she was still facing the grassy knoll picket fence she was attracted to view the quick movements of a person quickly drop down out of sight behind a wall. This is simply wrong and should be deleted. The girl stops running at around frame 177 of the Zapruder film and there is no shot of her turning toward Abraham Zapruder. By frame 190 she has already stopped running completely, she is not in the process of slowing down. The slowing down occurs circa frames 160-165. She has stated that she stopped when she heard the shot.Ramsquire 20:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Carolyn Arnold - A pregnant depository employee stated she observed Oswald sitting by himself in the depository second-floor lunchroom at 12:15 to 12:20 PM eating some food. Totally irrelevant since the assassination took place at 12:30 PM.

My basic argument is that this entire section is devoid of certain qualifying facts and is therefore lacking in NPOV. I would like the opportunity to either edit this to make it more neutral or simply delete it altogether.

This article needs a substantial overhaul as it is simply too pro-conspiracy without enough supporting facts.

Perhaps the article should stay away from naming witnesses because there is always a bias in the witnesses someone would choose to write in this kind of article. The writer here decideds to use Jean Hill as a witness even though her "testimony" has largely been found unreliable and in many instances, untrue.

Over 90% of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza supports what later went into Warren Commission. Granted everyone perception is different, but I think to marshall only the experiences of the 10% and to misconstrue the tales of the other witness goes into the area of advocacy which is totally inappropriate.Ramsquire 20:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would support these changes. You might want to pop over to Abraham Zapruder and other related articles. Too many wikipedia articles present conspiracy and speculation as fact, and it's too much work to track down and disprove every assertion except for the most blatant. This particular article is a mess and does need an overhaul. I have mixed feelings about deleting the entire witness section, but it is overloaded with pro-conspiracy witnesses. Gamaliel 02:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dealey Plaza witness Rosemary Willis's statements to the HSCA (and specifically her statement to the HSCA about seeing a human being drop down quickly out of sight behind a wall) ARE documented in the HSCA final report. See HSCA Volume 12, Page 7 within the subject entitled, "Presence of Possible Gunmen on the Grassy Knoll." (like numerous Warren Commission instances, do not assume that just because a bit of information is not in the final report, that totally conflicting information is not documented in the supporting volumes of evidence) Additionally, her running movement is clearly seen and documented in the Zapruder film; as is easily seen, Rosemary Willis does not even START to slow down her running pace until the Zapruder frames in the late Z-170's, then, either of her feet completely stop moving forward circa Z-200 (about 2 seconds after she first starts to slow down). As with her running and then stopping movement, her headsnap westward towards Mr. Zapruder and the "grassy knoll" is documented for everyone and clearly seen in the Zapruder film (within the 1998 released/previously suppressed sprocket area of the physical film). Her headsnap westward towards Mr. Zapruder and the grassy knoll behind him is clearly seen STARTING at Z-214. (less than 1 second after she is completely stopped, and, 0.3 second after a gunshot impulse present of the Dallas police radio-recorded tape) Her headsnap westward towards Mr. Zapruder and the "grassy knoll" nearly directly behind Mr. Zapruder from Rosemary's line-of-sight is the fastest measured headsnap rate that is displayed by all documented witnesses seen in any of the four documented/known assassination films. (close assassination witness, the "babushka lady," clearly seen in the Zapruder film circa Z-285 filming during the assassination, has yet to be made public) Of note is that Rosemary Willis also stated that, exactly like the HSCA concluded, that she heard 4 shots.

This is just it. It is a great topic point with views on either side mostly because witnesses on both sides present conflicting reports and over time stories have changed. However, tt shouldn't be in a neutral article unless you want to discuss info from the other side which would in my opinion would just make the article more cumbersome.Ramsquire 20:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel statement above, "Over 90% of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza supports what later went into Warren Commission" is such a supercilious, very mis-leading, myopic, over-generalized statement that clearly reveals his non-neutral point-of-view, despite the myriad of investigatory facts and statements documented within the supporting volumes of the Warren Commission, House Select Committee on Assassinations, and Assassinations Records Review Board, and other related official investigations. Over 60% of the Dealey Plaza assassination witnesses --who were there-- who have expressed a specific opinion of the shots source(s) are documented that, at least, one shot did not come from the intersection of Elm and Houston streets where the book depository was (keeping an open mind that in the real world, and within 107' of the book depository, were also located two taller buildings, both also to the rear of the president)


Supercilious? It was just an offhand comment. It is not meant as a statement of fact. It seems you are the one getting haughty. No I am not neutral on the subject, but that is besides the point. Putting some of the witness reports who reported three shots (and regardless of what you think of them, there were quite a few)would present a counter-balance to the obvious pro-conspiracy bias of the piece. Here's the only forensic evidence presented from the case. One bullet was found, it was matched to one gun, and the one gun was matched to Lee Harvey Oswald. These are the sorts of facts that is missing in the article that would provide balance to the fact that the artice is pro-conspiracy.Ramsquire 20:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • So put the witnesses in the article that are documented and we will check them. Ramsquire "forgot" to mention that there was never even a micro-speck of blood nor human bodily matter ever seen nor found on the one whole bullet found (a.k.a. WCE399, a.k.a. "the magic bullet") Ramsquire "forgot" to mention that the four persons who first handled WCE399 refused to ever identify it as the more-pointed tip bullet that they first touched on 11-22-63. Ramsquire "forgot" to mention that several documented witnesses saw two men on the depository 6th floor. Ramsquire "forgot" to mention that of all the witnesses who saw either of those two armed men seen on the depository 6th floor, no witness identified Oswald as either of those men (Brennan was the only witness who identified Oswald as one of the men, but Brennan did that only after Oswald was silenced, and, only after 7 documented "visits" over 2 months by the FBI and/or Secret Service, etc. Additionally, by 1978, Brennan refused to testify before the HSCA). As then-Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry even succinctly stated to the world for all of us, no one has ever been able to put Oswald behind that gun during the assassination. **Ramsquire "forgot" to mention that a previously un-identified fingerprint found in the far east 6th floor boxes has now been identified by several professional forensics latent print examiners as belonging to "Mac" Wallace, a convicted killer, mafia member, and friend of Lyndon Baines Johnson. Possibly persons like Ramsquire and Gamaliel should consider actually reading the many investigations reports and supporting volumes, and keeping up with current research. The totality of the documented evidence (keeping in mind that some 3% of the WC and some 20+% of the HSCA files are still sealed until 2017) does not so much exculpate Oswald completely, as the documented evidence leads to others also being involved 12.220.116.188 05:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't forget anything. You aren't listening to what I wrote. That is the basic forensic evidence. The bullet was fired from a gun that Oswald owned. Now you want to say that that bullet was somehow planted or the forensics was botched, go ahead, but you have the burden of proof on that one. I don't think I ever intimated that Oswald acted alone or was a shooter, just that it was his gun that fired at least one shot into the limo. Could there have been two people in the window, sure there are witnesses that say so, but there are other witnesses that only saw Oswald. There's a witness who saw the President get out of the limo, there are witness who say that Kennedy and Connally were in different limos, the shooters were on the third floor, and one witness even heard nine shots. Point is, witness schmitness. To non-conspiracy folk, this reliance on witness is all selective nonsense. I can make up a theory right now, and find a witness that would support it. Also there were partial Oswald prints found on the gun, but again the conspiracists will say this was planted or not true. But whatever.Ramsquire 16:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • ”the burden of proof on that one” has been settled, long-ago… when the first 4 witnesses who handled the “magic bullet” refused to identify it as the bullet they each handled on 11-22-63. Whether it was fired through the rifle found. Who fired the “magic bullet,” when whomever fired it, and where whomever fired it when are totally, separate issues from those 4 persons on 11-22-63 who have refused to identify it.
While Mr. Zapruder's very first --i.e., earliest-- publicly documented statement (Warren Commission Document, CD87) IS inconvenient to the WC apologists because it documents that Zapruder said a source of gunshots was behind him (NOT just in front and to the left of him--where the depository is located), it is also, none-the-less, his first statement. (Posner even states in "Case Closed" that the earliest witness statement should carry more weight) As any/all experienced attorneys (and many private, referenced research studies) will attest to, it is a witnesses earliest and first documented statements that predominantly carries the strongest supporting evidentiary weight --especially when several witnesses also concurrently support the same evidence and elements of the same evidence, as was done in this, officially still open, case.

Bold textAgain, this is not a forum to build a case. It is supposed to be NPOV, so if you choose a witness, you probably should place everything he said, not just what YOU want to give more weight to.Ramsquire 20:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The importance of Carolyn Arnold documented statement that she observed Oswald sitting by himself in the depository second-floor lunchroom at 12:15 to 12:20 PM eating some food is that at 12:16 Howard Brennan documented that he first observed a man in the depository 6th floor, far-eastern window. The additional importance of Carolyn Arnold documented statement that she observed Oswald sitting by himself in the depository second-floor lunchroom at 12:15 to 12:20 PM eating some food is that Arnold Rowland documented that at 12:15 to 12:16 (‘’concurrent with hearing a Dallas police radio transmission on a closeby motorcycle radio’’) he observed a man in the depository 6th floor, far-eastern window, and within seconds of seeing that man he also observed a second man standing about 5' back from an open window on the far WEST side of the depository 6th floor, ARMED also with a rifle. These ARE inconvenient, documented facts and statements for the Warren Commission apologists (among a multitude of facts and statements documented within the supporting volumes and reports of the easily-available Dallas police, Texas Rangers, Texas Attorney General, FBI, Secret Service, NSA, MIG, NIS, DIS, CIA, Warren Comm., Ramsey-Clark Panel, Rockefeller Panel, Schweiker-Hart Committee, Church Committee, HSCA, and ARRB supporting volumes) that --just because they are inconvenient to the "lone nut" apologists-- will not be allowed to be buried nor covered-up, and will continue to be documented. It is high-time to notify additional official hands-on case investigators and long-time case experienced researchers about this --and several other-- related articles. User:205.188.116.13 13:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bold textThis is why this topic is so confusing and should probably be kept in small indisputable blurbs. Because it is the conflict of witness stories from 40 years ago. Using your own standard, of earliest testimony being more precise, Arnold Rowland said he saw one man in the TSBD window. This contradicts the testimony of others but who can say who is telling the truth, or what the facts are.

All I'm saying is if you are going to compile a list of witnesses in this topic, it's best to do it from both sides to try to keep it neutral. Lord knows there are so many competing stories, so many frauds, so many people out for a quick buck, so many inaccuracies and so many hoaxes, that no one will ever know the truth. Ramsquire 20:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Ramsquire, could you please sign your comments? The anon editor seems to be confusing the two of us. You can do that by adding four tidles (the squiggly things like so ~) to the end of your comments. Gamaliel 19:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Still a newbie here. Ramsquire 20:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The writer states: "Several witnesses testified that gun smoke lingered long enough to be seen near where they heard at least one audible shot originate from --the picket fence of the grassy knoll." I am seeking permission to either delete the word gun or to add a clause saying that it is unlikely that the smoke came from a gun since it is pretty well known to ammunition experts that most modern (i.e. post-Civil War) guns are virtually smokeless, so it is unlikely that any smoke lingered in Dealey Plaza.Ramsquire 21:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • Ramsquire (as with too many "lone nut" Warren Comm apologists) has demonstrated a lack of knowing vital information deeply buried in the Warren Commission canard 26 evidentiary volumes of support. Instead of assuming as smoke being unlikely to be seen, try actually reading Warren Commission Exhibit 3133 (WCE3133), which is a documented report available for all within the WC canard that was generated by the FBI after the WC requested that the FBI test the rifle (WCE139) found on the 6th floor of the book depository at 1:22 pm on 11-22-63. Buried deeply back into the WC canard is CE3133. The FBI, after being asked by the warrenatti to test fire the found rifle then wrote a report to the WC that the, alleged, assassination rifle was fired both in "direct sunlight, and, in full shade to determine whether any flame was visible." CE3133 further documents that "No flame was seen, but, a small amount of white smoke was visible."
    • Additionally, Ramsquire (as with too many "lone nut" Warren Comm apologists) also must not have ever actually read the similar House Select Committee on Assassinations concerning under its section "Do rifles using smokeless powder emit smoke discernible to the eye when fired?" The HSCA concluded "When a cartridge is fired, the propellant is not completely consumed or burned. Due to this, residue and smoke are emitted. During the test firing of CE 139 by the members of the panel, in October, some smoke was observed coming from the muzzle of the weapon." This is available for all in the HSCA volume 7, page 373. So, not only did weapons emit smoke then, but, the rifle found in the depository emitted smoke during several tests. Get over the bold. Go to the sources, as inconvenient as they actually are for WC apologists. "Unlikely" and "Assumption is the 'mother' of all F--- Up's" 12.220.116.188 05:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • The rifle in evidence was, indeed, tested and seen emitting smoke which is also documented in the Warren Commission's own volume 26, page 811. This is also directly related to Howard Brennan testifying that even though he saw a man aiming for a shot, Brennan also testified that when he heard the last shot that he remembered hearing after seeing that man aiming for a shot, and even though Brennan was looking directly at that man continuosly for several seconds, Brennan specifically testified that he did not see that man's rifle emit any discharged fire, Brennan did not see that man's rifle disrupt the air in front of the rifle muzzle end, Brennan did not see any smoke emitted by that weapon, and Brennan did not observe any recoil of the rifle, which the F.B.I. also tested for and concluded that the rifle in evidence always displayed a prominent recoil (WC volume 3, page 451) 52yearinvestigator 12:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Listen people I am not here to argue one way or the other. I have never ever claimed to be an expert in this area, nor do I want to be. But I do know that this is supposed to be a neutral site and a lot of the "info" here is not neutral in the slightest. Since I have a life, unlike the anonymous user above, I really don't feel like debating the pros and cons of conspiracies in a murder that took place over 40 years ago. However, I do care that the site maintains its NPOV. So here is a solution, create a separate article called "JFK conspiracy" and all you conspiracy buffs can print whatever you think the truth is in that article. Obviously I don't think there is a conspiracy but I do follow the theories because I find them interesting as I am sure many other non-conspiracy leaning people would.

In the current article "JFK assassination" we just give a vague recissitation of facts based on news reports, and other uncontrovertable things. Sort of like "JFK was assassinated 12:30 PM in Dealey Plaza near Downtown Dallas Texas. As the motorcade turned from Houstot to Elm, shots rang out one fatally injuring the President. Later LHO was arrested for his murder and the murder of Tippit in a Dallas theater, LBJ was inaugrated President at whatever time that was, and LHO was killed by Jack Ruby on national TV." No mention of witness, no mention of the WC just to say it existed, and found that LHO acted alone and the HSCA said probable conspiracy. And then end with that the murder is still controversial, the Oliver Stone movie, and some of the books written on the subject.

And to the anonymous user, I still say it is unlikely that there was any smoke lingering in Dealey unless the guns used were muskets. I don't care what the WC says, I am using common sense and my knowledge of modern fire arms. And unlikely and assumption is not the mother of all f** ups. Actually rushing into nonsense without getting the proper reference is the mother of all f** ups. I am not going to believe something just because it is in some government report. I'll believe my actual experience with the kind of rifles that were probably used in the assassination. These guns are virtually smokeless, and it is impossible that any smoke would linger from the shot. IMO, if there were a grassy knoll shooter, the more appropriate witness would be Lee Bowers saying he say something like a flash of light. That is more accurate and believable.

Instead of debating whether I am an idiot or a dupe, how about we see if my idea could be starting point to clear up the NPOV issues in the artice? Thanks.Ramsquire 18:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Amusingly, when Oliver Stone attempted to film the smoke from the rifle of the supposed grassy knoll shooter, they had to use a smoke machine because they couldn't get smoke from a rifle.

Gamaliel 01:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • Without a doubt, Oliver Stone has always admitted his movie is, in his paraphrased words, "counter-fiction to the Warren Comm's fiction." What Stone did in 1991 in no way, shape, or form changes the facts that some dozen or so persons are documented on record as saying they observed smoke lingering at the grassy knoll -as inconvenient as that is for WC believers.
      • Perhaps it was from that nearby steam pipe in Dealey Plaza that conspiracy believers find so inconvenient. Gamaliel 23:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • The steam pipe, when you know the real facts, is not inconvenient, in even the slightest degree. Anyone who tries to utilize the "steam pipe was the smoke excuse" has... A) not ever actually been to Dealey Plaza when the steam pipe was still there, because if they had, they would already, immediately, realize that the 3' elevated steam pipe ran across, and was attached to, the inside east side of the triple overpass in a north-south direction (in fact, several of the overpass witnesses who saw smoke at the grassy knoll picket fence corner were actually leaning on and standing very close to the steam pipe), and that the grassy knoll runs east to west UP TO the triple overpass, and, UP TO the steam pipe. Where all of the 10 smoke witnesses (8 on the overpass, 2 close to the limousine) documented that they observed the smoke was at the far east end picket fence corner that was a 180’ distance away from the smoke’s closest point to the steam pipe running directly across the triple overpass... B) from the location on overpass where the grassy knoll smoke witnesses were standing, the north end of the steam pipe closest to the grassy knoll is located 85 degrees to the triple overpass witnesses far left=almost directly left, but, where the triple overpass witnesses documented that they saw the smoke was actually at the far east end of the picket fence corner on the grassy knoll that was only 25 degrees to the left of the triple overpass witnesses who saw the smoke... C) A Dallas policeman standing right in front of the depository, Joe Marshall Smith, heard shots and, instead of running into the depository he was only 50' away from, he rushed 280' westward, completely passing the depository, towards the grassy knoll picket fence far east corner area where he immediately smelled the lingering, acrid smell of what he described, for the rest of his life, as gun smoke. Smith is also documented to have encountered a man in a suit in this very same grassy knoll picket fence far east corner area who flashed at Smith a U.S. government identification badge (even though it is also documented that NO U.S. government agents, at all, were ever stationed, officially, any where within Dealey Plaza before/during the assassination, and the one Secret Service vice-presidential agent, Lem Johns, who left the motorcade upon hearing shots, was filmed, and had already gotten back into a car, before Dallas policeman Joe Smith ever had his encounter with the, supposed, grassy knoll "agent") Additionally, another 7 Dealey Plaza witnesses besides Joe Smith, either standing near or riding through the kill-zone at street level, (remember, the, supposed, "lone nut snipers lair" was 61' and more above the 3-degree-declining Elm Street, and, as documented in films during the seconds of the assassination, the wind effects are clearly seen on several ground persons coats blowing towards the east-to-northeast from the grassy knoll, towards the depository) are also documented to have smelled the lingering, acrid smell of what they also described as gun smoke )... D) NBC cameraman and motorcade-riding witness Dave Wiegman's 36.5 second, continuously running film: In several Wiegman film fframes that correspond to around Zapruder frame 453 (about 8 seconds after President Kennedy's head explodes) can be seen what appears to be a light-colored, small cloud of smoke seen lingering under the low-overhanging oak trees located right at the far east end of the picket fence corner in the exact same area where these several smoke witnesses all are documented to have also pinpointed where the smoke was. When the Wiegman film frames are toggled individually, this smoke drifts slowly in an easterly direction. E) when the HSCA performed its recreated shooting tests in July of 1978 to match the gunshot impulses present on the Dallas police radio-recorded tape with a shooting source location, one of the tape gunshot impulses sinewave was scientifically matched to a shot that was fired from a location also at the far east end of the picket fence corner in the exact same area where these several smoke witnesses all are documented to have also pinpointed where the smoke was, and where the Wiegman film concurrently shows the smoke to be (again, at a distance of 180' at it closest point away from the steam pipe --a steam pipe that only a few persons seem to not know much about, at all) 152.163.100.14 04:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Amusingly, and much more directly-related to the actual seconds of the assassination, a conveniently-sized, 6.5 millimeter, nearly-round bullet fragment is now seen on the, supposed, Bethesda autopsy x-rays. Unfortunately, on 11-22-63 while at the Bethesda autopsy, not one of the medical professionals ever saw this conveniantly-sized bullet fragment (and not one of them ever testified to the WC about it in 1964), even though the Bethesda medical pro's did see, and did retrieve, bullet fragments that were up to 11 times in area smaller. Suddenly, sometime after 1966 (when the tax-payers-owned x-rays were transferred to the U.S. National Archives from being witheld by the Kennedy family) this conveniently-sized bullet fragment suddenly shows up on the, supposed, original x-rays. Another important fact about this conveniently-sized, 6.5 millimeter, nearly-round bullet fragment now seen on the, supposed, Bethesda autopsy x-rays is that it is physically located at the rear of President Kennedy's head, some 4" ABOVE the Bethesda autopsy determined bullet entrance point, AND this post-1966-noticed, conveniently-sized bullet fragment is documented on the, supposed, Bethesda x-rays embedded on the OUTSIDE of President Kennedy's skull... so the question then, really, becomes, "in the real world, how can a whole, military-copper-jacketed, non-frangible bullet, supposedly, fired from the rear, and traveling at 1800 to 2000 feet-per-second, shear off of itself, then embed a conveniently-sized, 6.5-millimeter, nearly-round fragment upon penetrating the skull at a, supposed, rear head entrance point, that is documented some 4" ABOVE the Warren Comm entrance point?" 52yearinvestigator 12:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can do a draft summary and have you guys edit it for NPOV, cites, links and grammar to replace the current article, but it will take a couple of days for me to finish it. If I were to do this, would there be a way to lock it so some other pro-conspiracy couldn't just add speculation to it?Ramsquire 16:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no way to do that. It will just have to be constantly policed for NPOV.
Instead of rewriting the article all at once, perhaps you could submit a section at a time? It will be easier on you to write and easier on everyone else b/c we can argue about it in smaller chunks. Gamaliel 17:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Additionally, bear in mind that the main topic of this article is the "John F. Kennedy assassination." While non-assassination related people and non-assassination related events before, during, and after the assassination could and should be very briefly discussed here, the main focus should be pinpointed on the main topic, which is the actual seconds of the assassination within Dealey Plaza. We can always develop links to non-assassination-related people and events (i.e. Oswald's silencing just 2 days later by a known organized-crime-related Jack Ruby, wasting paragraph's here on Cronkite's announcement of JFK's death, wasting paragraphs and space here on the memorial/funeral/burial, wasting paragraphs and space on Mrs. Kennedy's post-assassination life years later, etc., etc.) Since the documented observations and documented evidence of the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda Hospital witnesses are integral to the assassination itself they should also be discussed in the topic "John F. Kennedy assassination" along with the actual assassination witnesses in Dealey Plaza. All official investigations assassination forensic tests and recreations results can be discussed within the main assassination topic here also. Of course the article could be seperated into 2 linked articles; one article providing details supporting a conspiracy, and one article providing details supporting only one shooter. Finally, there seems to be some confusion displayed by a few persons in what is, and what is not NPOV: if a specific detail is documented in a previous investigation or investigations, and if that specific detail is reflected here accurately, just because that detail indicates a conspiracy or not does not mean that it is not NPOV. If a specific, documented investigations investigated detail is reflected here accurately then it is NPOV, whether that detail points one way or the other. 52yearinvestigator 12:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hey 52yearinvestigator, at the bottom of this page I propose a replacement article. If you have any info regarding the autopsy feel free to add it to the starting point. My problem with the original piece isn't necessarily the witnesses who say pro-conspiracy things, it is the fact that over the years many of these witnesses made conflicting statements, recanted one thing, or sometimes their quotes are taken out of context. So, for example, if you are going to use the secondhand note from the FBI officer that says Zapruder told him the shot came from behind him, you should also use Zapruder's statements that he does not where the shots came from. I think that would be neutral, or simply not using any statements from witnesses can be just as neutral.Ramsquire 19:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed replacement article: Let me know what you think

This is just a bare-bones starting point for what I was thinking about for a new JFK assassination article. It still needs fleshing out as most of it comes directly from the top of my head. Also any NPOV additions would be really appreciated

Concerns the events surrounding the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 at 12:30 PM in Dallas, Texas. President Kennedy was in Dallas on a fund-raising trip in preparation for the upcoming 1964 elections. As his motorcade entered Dealey Plaza, after turning from Houston street onto Elm Street, shots rang out. One shot fatally injured the President. Governor John Connolly, who was driving in the same limousine as the President was also injured.

President Kennedy’s body was immediately taken to Parkland Hospital before it was transferred to Bethesda Naval Hospital where his autopsy was eventually performed. Shortly after the fatal events in Dealey Plaza, Dallas police arrested Lee Harvey Oswald, originally as a suspect in the murder of Dallas police officer JD Tippit, in a Dallas theater. Later that evening he was charged with the murder of President Kennedy.

Oswald himself was murdered 48 hours later by local Dallas bar owner, Jack Ruby, on live national TV.

Vice President Lyndon Johnson was inauguarated as the 36th President, aboard Air Force One, 98 minutes after the assassination in Dealey Plaza.

The circumstances surrounding the events of the assassination of John F. Kennedy continue to intrigue the nation. Many Americans still believe Kennedy was assassinated as part of a conspiracy. [[See JFK conspiracy]]. The issue has been covered in numerous books and media reports and received a new spotlight due to Oliver Stone’s popular film, JFK. That film surrounded the events of the trial of Claw Shaw brought by New Orleans District Attorney, Jim Garrison. Ramsquire 19:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revised article

Responding to the request to peer review this article, I have introduced a number of significant amendments. My aims were:

  1. To make sure the article was smaller than the 32kb limit
  2. To make the article easy to read
  3. Not to delete any notable information from Wikipedia
  4. To make it easy to find other information that the user may be interested in

Not all the information that was in this article remains in the article. Information redacted is now in the following new pages:

Some redacted information is now incorporated into:

I also think the article should be moved to Assassination of John F. Kennedy but have not put this through.

I do not claim this refactoring to be perfect - but given the length and nature of the article, I do think it needed a big bang. I believe the refactoring does allow the article to breathe again, however, and I look forward to it being improved further. jguk 11:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • If I'm reading the edit history correctly SNIyer1 is restoring large chunks of the article. I guess we have to work out here a consensus about what can go and what needs to stay. Personally I think stuff like 'life of the widow after the assassination' is the least essential material here as people interested in that can simply go to the Jackie O article. Whatever we decide, much of this stuff needs to go; the article is far too long and nearly unreadable. Gamaliel 01:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that's harsh on SNIyer1. And to be honest, he wouldn't have much to restore anyway - I've not really removed that much, just spread it about a bit more. The bit on 'life of the widow after the assassination' does clearly belong in the Jackie O article (and IMO it is already there).
My only 2 quibbles with SNIyer1 are the reinserting the Jackie O bit in the wrong articles, and I'd rather SNIyer1 stayed away from some of the melodramatic terms he uses, which seem more suitable in a paean than an encyclopaedia article. Other than that, I'm happy to let him edit away and improve the articles. jguk 23:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let me clarify. When I said "Long and unreadable", I was referring to the article as a whole, not SNIyer1's material in particular. There's nothing wrong with his/her contributions, I just feel that they are misplaced here and belong in the Jackie O article. When we are spinning off material about the events of that day into other articles and keeping long chunks of stuff about things that happened to one person many years later, our priorities are misplaced. Gamaliel 02:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Investigations don't "believe" anything- they publish "conclusions" based on "determinations" (or lack of them).

Wikipedia should certainly mention (in detail) the various conspiracy theories surrounding JFK's murder, but most serious researchers do accept the overwhelming evidence that a deeply troubled Lee Oswald acted alone in a tragic crime of opportunity. Readers should be aware that seemingly sinister second and third hand connections with both political and crime figures are not so uncommon in the real world, especially for a disgruntled former Marine who had defected to the USSR, married a Russian girl, became disillusioned with life in Russia, returned to the States, continued to dabble in radical politics, was fired from several jobs, botched one assasination (of the right-wing General Walker), only to stumble into a seasonal job in a book warehouse and a twisted opportunity to be remembered by history. - Wyss 22 Nov 2004

Wyss, Thank you for your personal opinion in your above paragraph, especially your revisionist attempt/personal opinion about "serious researchers." Poll after poll documented over the last 40 years clearly documents an average anywhere from 65% to 80+% of the population--which includes "serious researchers"--do not agree that a single assassin planned and killed President Kennedy on his own. Hundreds, perhaps even, thousands of professional, official investigators (as opposed to thousands, perhaps millions of non-professional, non-qualified, armchair researchers) have investigated and documented this still, officially, open case. When the documented facts are revealed, as long as they are publicly revealed accurately that is the most important key to a fact being neutrally presented. If that fact happens to support a conspiracy, or, if a fact happens to support a lone nut is secondary to presenting it accurately. Wyss, are you aware that some 20+%--thousands and thousands of pages--of the HSCA's professionally investigated documents are still not available to the public? (and 3+% of the WC documents, and untold thousands of pages from the CIA, NSA, etc., etc.) Are you aware that the HSCA wrote in the 1970's one way about what the head wounds witnesses said they saw, but, when these head wounds witnesses professionally investigated documents were actually, finally, released in the 1990's to the public the actual descriptions by the head wounds witnesses, in a vast majority of the documented, instances, was completely opposite to what the HSCA wrote in its report to The People. Replete throughout this talk page are prime examples of persons who obviously have spent only a small amount of their time (in an ever faster paced world) actually researching the documented primary investigator facts. No matter which side of the picket fence you are on, there is no substitute in this case for reviewing primary documents, primary witnesses (many are still alive), primary evidence investigated by professionals, and even then, comparing these documents to each other, especially if they overlap in same subject(s) coverage(s). MRbud 11:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No opinions here. The forensic evidence is clear, 2 shots from behind, 6th floor corner window of the TBD with Oswald's rifle. Lee Oswald may have had more brushes with the CIA than we'll ever know about (they were clearly scrambling to change records pertaining to Mexico DF in the hours after the assasination), but there is zero evidence of conspiracy, only vague possibilities and seamy connections. There is however, lots of evidence of people changing their stories years later to make money selling books and appearing at conventions (not to mention grinding anti-federal axes of various kinds- this latter activity in itself by the way is definitely a worthy and long respected hobby). - Wyss 83.115.144.128 19:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great job jguk. I don't disagree with anything you've done, and it is way more NPOV than the previous article.Ramsquire 20:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey Wyss, it has been my experience that it is just better to ignore most of these pro-conspiracy "researchers". Most of their "facts" don't stand up to logical skepticism, and as you said are mostly based on supposedly mysterious connections. Besides Wiki is not a soapbox, so you don't have to engage them in endless debate, just fix their unfairly biased articles.Ramsquire 20:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hard to understand

"Doctors have stated that his wife's pulling him onto her helped cover up his sucking-air front chest wound and saved his life." I can't figure out what that means. Can someone pleas rewrite this?

Done. Wyss 83.115.141.10 15:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some comments

I have some detail comments on this article.

Just to let you know, while I currently believe that LHO acted alone, I have tried to create an article for Wikipedia in french about the assassination that is the most neutral possible.

I therefor applaude the effort to create a neutral article about this event, and I think the people who did it did a pretty good job. After all, this is not supposed to be another conspiracy or no-conspiracy page, but a neutral informational tool that must allow people to search the subject for themselves if they want to.

Anyway, I would like to make the following suggestions. Take it or leave it, I prefer not to intervene directly on the page.

Comments:

“When Kennedy was struck in his head, it moved slightly forward and down 1 to 2 inches (25 to 50 mm). After a 0.11 second pause, Kennedy's upper right torso and right arm moved quickly upwards”

Although there are conspiracy theorists that deny the forward movement, I think it is fair to say that most of them accept this. So I guess it is OK to state it as a fact. My issue is the “0.11 seconds pause”. I imagine this does refer to the fact that the Zapruder camera was taking 18.3 frames per second, i.e. a frame represents about 55 ms. What can be seen in the Zapruder movie is the following: Z312 – Z313 : forward movement Z313 – Z314 : slight movement to the left Z314 - Z315 : the backward movement has started: the head of the president is almost back in the position it had in Z312. So if you consider the following:

  • the forward movement is finished at the end of Z313
  • the head of the president has moved backward when Z315 is exposed

it means that the backward movement has already started when the exposition of Z315 started.

So basically, between the end of the forward movement and the beginning of the backward movement, you have only one frame. Taking into account some blurring of the frames and the fact that each 55 ms timespan is probably split into the time where the frame is exposed (25 to 35 ms?) and the time between the frames where nothing is exposed (20 to 30 ms?), it would probably be more exact to say “After a pause of 60 to 80 miliseconds”.

“His (Governor Connally) injuries occurred a split second after JFK's first injury (probably as a result of the same bullet, although this is still disputed by some).”

You acknowledge the fact that the theory is disputed, but you present as a fact that Connally was wounded a split second after Kennedy. This “fact” is disputed by conspiracy theorists (although I believe in it and produced some animations from the Z film that show it clearly in my opinion). I would suggest : “According to the Warren Commission, the HSCA and to researchers (including certain conspiracy theorists), his injuries occurred a split second after JFK's first injury (probably as a result of the same bullet, although this also is still disputed by some).”

"The HSCA's test firings within Dealey Plaza in 1978 also acoustically matched this same grassy knoll fence location 9' to the west of the picket fence east corner where several witnesses claimed to observe gun smoke."

I would replace it as folows: "HSCA acoustic experts ran test firings within Dealey Plaza in 1978 to compare their acoustic signature with impulses some experts identified as gunshots on a recording allegedly made through a dictabelt microphone on the Plaza at the moment of the assassination. Although the method and the results have been since criticized, experts acoustically matched "dictabelt" impulses with a shot from this same grassy knoll fence location 9' to the west of the picket fence east corner where several witnesses claimed to observe gun smoke."

If you really want to learn the most up-to-date conclusions --that continue to support the HSCA conclusion-- please read the below provided links for Dr. Thomas's most recent scientifically peer-reviewed and forensically peer-reviewed conclusions. 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also think the tabulation of witnesses (TSBD vs. Knoll) is not fully correct and somewhat misleading, but the fact is that there are various tabulations, so I understand this is a difficult issue. Maybe you could add some sentence to the effect that testimonies are not always that clear and that there are also interprestations of what witnesses did actually say? On witnesses, see http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm to see how interpretation between researches can vary. Alex_lbh

Yes, it is past time for the 0.11 second pause to go. And the pause is from what to what - from frame to frame, right? So what would 60-80 ms pause mean? JimWae 21:05, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC).

Oh, I see... you think a pause is not a pause just because it was a short pause? The film shows what it shows. The film shows a pause in head movement. Now go study some physics and ballistics. One of many starting point mandatory considerations is, what was President Kennedy's weight?
Actually, the most up-to-date study --which is currently being peer-reviewed-- concludes that there is virtually no forward movement of President Kennedy's head from 312 to 313 (it appears to be due to photographic exposure edge detection processes for which we have more up-to-date methodologies now available) This recent consideration is detailed here:
Measurements of JFK's Front to Back Head Movements in the Zapruder Film
64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, finally someone says it is his head that is supposed to have paused, at least we have that now. HOW can you be sure of a pause when each frame is just a brief moment in time? If you throw a ball straight up & take a snapshot of it 0.055 seconds before it reaches the top & 0.055 seconds AFTER it reaches the top, does that mean it PAUSED for 0.11 seconds? --JimWae 19:42, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Well, as there is one frame where the head does not move backwards (Z315) I figured out you should take the time for 1 frame (55 ms) plus something accounting for the timespan between the frames.
Thinking again about it, If you consider that between each frame there is about 20 ms unexposed and that each frame represent 35 ms (maybe this is not the right figure, I just try to figure out), and if you count from the end of the exposure timespan of z313 to the beginning of the exposure of Z315, you have 20ms + 55 ms + 20 ms = 95 ms.
OK, I am not sure any more about my above suggestion ;-)
But definitely, 0.11 second is a much too precise figure, so my suggestion would then be to repakce this by "about a tenth of a second".Alex_lbh

Warren Comm apologists can debate the length of time of the pause all they want to. The fact is the film is documented to show a pause in movement of President Kennedy's head AND weighty upper torso, then, his head and weighty upper torso have been measured to accelerate rapidly backwards and leftwards, further amplified because the rapidity of the backwards and leftwards movement had to, first, also overcome the forward inertia of the limousine. (the limo speed has been measured to not have even started to accelerate until almost 2 seconds after the President motion previously started and his body had already slammed against the back seat cushion) No amount of "spin" will ever change what the film, clearly, shows in that respect. (Then there is the scientific testing --supported by several close witnesses----several of those were weapons-experienced close witnesses----that shows a shot was fired distinctintly after President Kennedy's head had already exploded. :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

The section on the Warren Commission has the item: "Not telling Dallas police, specifically, whom 'authorized personnel' were, to stand on bridges or overpasses". I can't tell what that means. Is it listing two things that the police weren't told? Factitious 08:30, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

=

In my humble opinion, this sub article has again descended into self-parody. By removing almost all references to Lee Oswald and his movements that day (forcing the reader to tunnel down even further into the separate Oswald article), Wiki's perspective on the assasination has again returned to pro-conspiracy. The documented record is clear: Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK with two shots fired from the TSBD building, fled to his rooming house to pick up a handgun, murdered a Dallas p.o., ran into a movie theatre without paying, tried to shoot another p.o. when the police confronted him there, and was murdered by a two-bit strip joint owner two days later. Stating the various conspiracy theories is fine, but giving them equal credibility to what the forensic evidence has clearly revealed is... odd, and diminishes Wiki. Thanks for listening. Wyss 83.115.17.152 13:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Warren Commission

The article on the Warren Commission is almost entirely a report on what people think was wrong with it. That is ludicrous.--JimWae 18:33, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Stop and consider... Perhaps people now think (after reading previously witheld documented information that was finally released, and, after reading more up-to-date conclusions reached by other official investigations/committees/panels) there are things about the Warren Commission canard that are "wrong with it" is precisely because there HAS been found MANY conclusions that ARE, indeed, "wrong with it" (much of it buried in the 26 "supporting" volumes of the Warren Comm canard, itself; with 3+% of the WC and 20+% of the HSCA and other agencies documentations still being witheld from the People) :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consider: Previously there was hardly anything presented in Wikipedia about what the WC actually said, so if I were say 30 & wanted to find out what this was all about, I would not be able to find in Wikipedia what the WC said. I thus could not really get reliable info from wikipedia on what was wrong with it, either. --JimWae 02:37, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

edit war/related articles

I'm in a bit of a minor edit war with an anon editor in the articles Charles Brehm, Badge man, Mary Moorman, Magic bullet, and, bizarrely, Fort Wainwright. The most serious point of contention seems – and I say seems because anon either blanks or doesn't respond to talk page comments, s/he just makes rude comments in the edit summary – to be statement that the HSCA "scientifically determined to more than a 95% probability and concluded that a shot had been fired from" the grassy knoll, which is of course utter nonsense, and relevant to the HSCA article and not these witness articles in any case. Perhaps with some assistance from other editors we can achieve consensus and some more stable version of these articles. Gamaliel 19:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hasn't ABCnews recently debunked the entire premise of the HSCA finding. That the blips on the dictabelt could not have come from the officer they said it came from and was probably recorded minutes after the assassination took place?Ramsquire 21:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, unfortunately for the Warren Commission apologists, ABC has not de-bunked the HSCA conclusion that states to a better than a 95% probability that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll. ABC admitted that its presentation was never scientifically nor forensically peer-reviewed and its presentation was based on the 22-year-old 1982 study which was debunked by Dr. Thomas 3+ years ago.
Anyone interested in the truth, and interested in knowing the most up-to-date information that substantiates and strongly supports the HSCA conclusion to a better than 95% probability that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll can take the time to update him and herself by actually reading (and comphrehending) Dr. Thomas's excellent work on the subject which has been scientifically peer-reviewed and has been forensically peer-reviewed during the most recent 3+ years:
Additionally, Dr. Thomas also presented in September 2004 in Washington D.C. his newest findings that further support the HSCA conclusion to a better than 95% probability that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll. That new information is in the process of being scientifically peer-reviewed and forensically peer-reviewed and will be published and made available for everyone thereafter.
As has been mentioned by many people on this talk page, there has been much more up-to-date information released from being witheld that has been made public since the Warren Commission canard (with even more information still being witheld to come). Whether an individual chooses to enlighten him or herself with the many up-to-date considerations is a personal decision (or a personal shortcoming) :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I give up on this topic. If a simple question can turn into a harangue on WC apologists, or whatever names you want to call people who disagree with you, then this is hopeless. If I need info on the JFK assassination, I'll just go to Brittanica where conspiracy nuts (that's right! how's that for a label) are kept at bay by undisputable facts. Just to make it clear, the HSCA conclusion is a fact only in the limited sense that the HSCA said it. However, the government saying it, doesn't make it so (e.g. Saddam Hussein possessing WMD's.). Also, wasn't the WC a government conclusion? I guess so, but since it doesn't support your thesis, you'll just attack it and anyone else who don't buy into a conspiracy. That is not intellectual honesty. Let the facts, guide your conclusion, not the other way around. Ramsquire 21:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I don't believe the WC 100%, but the direct evidence (limited as it is) implicates LHO, and there is no concrete direct evidence of a conspiracy in that evidence. However, I don't know if there is a conspiracy, because there is not enough credible evidence to prove or disprove the existence of one. I don't think that makes me an apologists for anyone, just someone looking for more information. Ramsquire 21:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A serious decision by the leadership of Wiki is needed

Yes, HSCA was a politically driven exercise by the House of Representatives a quarter century ago. Most of their conclusion that a conspiracy 'may' have been involved was based on the dictabelt recordings. The HSCA's interpretation of those recordings has since been thoroughly discredited.

(see above about the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed findings by Dr. Thomas) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even the 'Badgeman' has been identified as nothing more than grainy artifacts of light from a coke bottle sitting on a retaining wall.

That is your POV; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several other professionals who have studied the badge man image have concluded the image is human. :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Warren report had its flaws, but it is an exhaustive document (that most people have never even come close to reading) and it clearly demonstrates motive, means and opportunity for Lee Oswald to have been the lone assassin. Subsequent forensic work and computer modeling have only tightened its conclusion, that Oswald fired two fatal shots from behind (missing the first): The second shot wounded JFK in the throat and caused Connolly's wounds, the third struck the president in the head and killed him.

If you are speaking about Dale Myers computer recreations, are you aware that Myers has never submitted his base data for peer-review that he based his entire modeling recreation on? Why do you suppose he has never once submitted his work for peer-review in the past 11 years? :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If we are referring to the ABCnews report, didn't he just use a composite of all the home videos taken that day in Dealey Plaza to recreate the assassination in a computer diagram? Why would that need to be peer reviewed? ABCnews can easily review it by double checking the home videos the computer animation is based on. Ramsquire 22:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jack Ruby had some mob ties, like most nightclub/stripjoint owners at the time. After 41 years not a shred of evidence has emerged connecting the 'mafia' with JFK's assassination (the vague, unsubstantiated, self-justifying and dissembling remarks of mobsters and convicted felons on this topic carry little significance). Ruby was well-known to the Dallas police as an impulsive, hot-tempered gladhander and local character. One of the little known facts of Oswald's murder is that, at the moment Ruby fired, one of the Dallas detectives cried out, "Jack, you son of a bitch!" A close examination of his life in Dallas easily reveals why he was able to casually slip into the police garage. His statements immediately after he shot Oswald clearly show that he thought he'd be celebrated as a hero and as more than one Dallas detective pointed out, he probably (briefly) thought he might make a bit of money out of it. Indeed, the first reaction of the crowd waiting outside Dallas police HQ to news of Oswald's death was applause. However, Ruby's attitude quickly changed. Riding on the elevator to his jail cell, Ruby remarked to a detective that after all, it looked like he'd "f***ed up." Indeed, had he killed Oswald while the assassin was still fleeing, Ruby probably would have become a celebrity, but impulsively murdering Oswald when he was already securely in police custody was anything but heroic.

Which brings us to the motives of most conspiracy buffs (and a handful of Dealy plaza witnesses): Their theories are without exception based either on changed testimony or unscientific, amateurish interpretations of incomplete swatches of evidence. They are reinforced for this behavior because conspiracy books and conventions generate substantial sales overall.

A POV lone nut rant. There are many more researchers and persons who have simply a genuine interest to simply know the Truth of what happened (and you know that). I am wondering how many official investigators you have spoken with personally, and I am wondering how many actual Dealey Plaza witnesses you have spoken personally with? (I predict you have not spoken to even one) :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln was murdered by a conspiracy. The assassin (Booth) was subsequently shot by a 'nut' who disobeyed orders. Other conspirators were relentlessly tracked down, incarcerated, and hung (at least one, according to some critics, unjustifiably so).

John Kennedy was assassinated by a tragic, dyslexic misfit, a washout from the US Marines and defector named Lee Oswald who had already tried his hand at political assassination and stumbled into an opportunity to change history at a time when security surrounding presidents was much more lax than it is today. Like Booth, Oswald was in turn murdered by a 'nut' who thought he might be a hero, but who did the world substantial additional damage: With Oswald dead (especially so soon after the assassination) and unable to speak, certain details about Lee's life in the months leading up to when he murdered JFK will forever remain shrouded in mystery. For example, this defector and Castro-sympathiser probably had more contacts with the CIA than we'll ever know about. There's evidence that when they realized it was Oswald who'd killed Kennedy, they did some housecleaning to deflect possible blame from the agency, which was certainly aware of him. As for the FBI, sure, Hoover was a strange guy, but most of the posturing in the days after the assassination was done with the object of avoiding a nuclear war while presumably protecting high level beureaucrats who let Oswald fall through the cracks. Given the evidence, to imply that LBJ (for all his faults) had anything to do with a conspiracy is, in polite terms, delusional and paranoid.

So long as Wiki promotes paranoid and utterly unsubstantiated conspiracy theories relating to this important 20th century topic, Wiki will remain diminished as a reliable and credible reference source.

Correct, because as long as Warren Commission apologists keep vandalizing out and editing documented and supported conclusions that are "inconvenient" to the Warren Commission apologists (some of which are buried deep in the Warren Commission 26 supporting volumes and some of which are from more up-to-date considerations that were originally hidden away for 75 years) the documented 60+% to 80+% of the population that does not believe Oswald was a lone nut who killed President Kennedy by himself will continue to view the Wikipedia JFK assassination article just like the Warren Commission canard-frought with POV inaccuracies. As has been pointed out on this page several times now by many persons, present all of the important conclusions --exactly as they were printed-- from ALL of the official investigations and from ALL of the related official committees and from ALL of the related official panels and from ALL of the most up-to-date, recently-released by those official bodies documentions as they were printed so the reader can decide for him and herself. As has been demonstrated when persons include documented conclusions from ALL of these official investigations/committees/panels a Warren Commission apologist tries to remove them (or even "lock" the article like a book-burning fascist would hope for) from the people having free access to all documented (so far) considerations. :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article should be written with a focus on Oswald as the murderer (following the evidence), followed by a summary of the conspiracy theories and the cogent arguments against them. The article should then be locked, with any proposed changes subject to mandatory peer review before inclusion.

Wyss 83.115.145.152 10:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you should start your own wiki site and be the dictator there, instead of playing netcop here where you don't have a fiddling ounce of power to alter the free flow of information as you so obviously desire to.
After monitoring the JFK assassination articles for a couple months, I'm inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately that's not going to happen unless there is a significant change in wikipedia policy. While there are some small debates going on proposing various peer review strategies, this obviously isn't something that will be implimented any time soon, if ever. So until then we simply have to do it the hard way, by monitoring the articles and thwarting any attempt to present conjecture and conspiracy as fact. With that said, I'm not sure engaging the conspiracy debate is the best use of our time. We're not going to convince someone who thinks they have a monopoly on the Truth and waves around the number how many Dealey plaza witnesses they've harrassed. What's important here is not who wins the meaningless debate, but what goes in the article. Gamaliel 19:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Wyss and Gamaliel but I have no idea if there is anything that can be done. As long as there are people who are going to believe things like a modern rifle caused smoke to linger in Dealey Plaza because it is evidence of a grassy knoll shooter, and thereby ignore photographic evidence that shows no smoke, and will also ignore the high improbability of it based on the makeup of modern guns I don't think we'll ever get anywhere. I've made the split the baby suggestion a couple times, but there continues to be pro-conspiracy edits all the time. Ramsquire 22:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

External links

There's been a lot of changes in the article of late, and somewhere in there all the external links disappeared. I can't be bothered to sift through the changes and retrieve all the links, but it's for the best because the list of links was far too bloated and thus pretty useless. I strongly feel that we should have some links, and I added the links that I have found most helpful and comprehensive. Others are free to add whatever links they want from whatever perspective. I would ask that everyone on all sides of the debate refrain from again using the section as a dumping ground for anything and everything and add only significant pages with a lot of content and not simply every two page geocities rant or picture they find on the net. Also, try to use subpages when possible - to choose a nearby example, those Dr. Thomas links can go on the dictabelt subpage, but don't need to be in the main JFK article.

I'm not sure why the links went away in the first place, but what we don't need is a weird disclaimer and instructions on how to use keyword searches to find JFK information. Gamaliel 19:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)