Talk:Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 16, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Saul

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

[edit] Re: Saul

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

[edit] This article was ruined in 2007, let's fix it in 2008

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

Have a look at a copy of this article from about a year ago: [1], and I think you'll see that that it wasn't in nearly such bad shape as it is now.

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to fixing many of these problems in the next year, and I especially look forward to having my erudite friends on this page making sure I don't step out of line on the facts. Thank you for reading and I welcome your comments. Happy holidays, Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first fix along these lines. I have restored 'Theories in Books' as 'Other Published Theories.' I have also eliminated the 'Saul' section but folded some of the info into the bullet point for Appointment in Dallas. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Next fix, total re-write of The Three Tramps. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced theory

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

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

Anyway, I will repeat what the issues are with this addition:

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

Bradipus (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Three Tramps

Whoever previously "edited" the "The Three Tramps" article, please try to be mindful of the facts in the future. You erased much of the sourced material that refutes the conspiracy theories, openly distorted the facts (ranging from minor quibbles such as saying that they stayed in Houston, when they actually stayed in Dallas), and organized the article in a confusing way (why should we wait until the end to actually discuss the facts of the matter? We know the records were released - we shouldn't cloud the historical data with empty speculation for two pages beforehand). I was disappointed and confused to see that, just after this issue had been resolved on this site, someone came along and seemed to actively try to re-obfuscate the issue. Jlray (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

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

-These all started to be theorized long after the fact and have no bearing to the reality of who they were. -There are dozens of proposed people and this list is arbitrary. I feel like this section can be a lot shorter, offer a blanket explanation of what happened and who they were, and move on. Jlray (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Jlray

Oh, also, i already described the ways in which your version of the edits left out a lot of key info. I didn't feel the need to be redundant. Jlray (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Jlray
I'm not sure we're anywhere near a compromise. Let's review your points.
One. "These all started to be theorized long after the fact." On the contrary, most of the identifications listed predate the release of the names of the three. Once again you lecture me on the facts when you clearly aren't doing your research.
Two. "This list is arbitrary." It is? Name for me some other identifications of the tramps as well know as these.
Three. "i already described the ways in which your version of the edits left out a lot of key info." No you didn't. What key info did I leave out? You are the one who is clipping key information. You've eliminated all the reasons why researchers and historians were so interested in them in the first place: the fact that, unlike so many other people detained or interviewed after the assassination, the names of the three were not released, and that they didn't look at all like hobos.
Four. "Offer a blanket explanation of what happened and who they were, and move on." Why? This page is called Kennedy Assassination Theories. Perhaps it should include well-known theories on the assassination of President Kennedy? The tramps have been a significant part of the theories for four decades. They were a key part of Jim Garrison's case against Clay Shaw, the speculations of Fletcher Prouty (which were worked into the film JFK), and a key part of Hunt's unsuccessful attempt to sue a publisher who suggested that he had been in Dallas that day.
Five. "the facts are getting squelched." It is your version that is not factually accurate. Again, you make it look like the identifications were made principally after the release of the names. They weren't. You seem to think there's something wrong with describing the major events in the story of the tramps in chronological order, but you don't say why. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You got the location of the tramps' shelter wrong, you made up a 'death-bed confession' (the guy lived four years after that) and made up its contents (he never implicated a single person and didn't provide a single piece of evidence of any kind), and in general your version of history here is completely misleading. The records were always available, just no one evidently thought to dig them out. This is not a big issue that you're making sound really "suspicious" and "anomalous" when the only suspicious thing about it is how conspiracy theorists have so adeptly ignored the facts of the matter entirely. Jlray (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
Oh, also, don't accuse someone of "not doing the research" when you erase all of his research and replace it with things that aren't true, as you did. Thanks! Jlray (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
I asked you to address five different points of the accusations you make, and your response is to change the subject. Now my edit is misleading because the records had always been available? The records weren't available until the police released them. And are you or are you not going to tell me what "research" or "key info" I erased/left out? Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what's so confusing about this. Here is what you got wrong and left out. Again.
"You got the location of the tramps' shelter wrong, you made up a 'death-bed confession' (the guy lived four years after that) and made up its contents (he never implicated a single person and didn't provide a single piece of evidence of any kind), and in general your version of history here is completely misleading."
Once more.
"You got the location of the tramps' shelter wrong, you made up a 'death-bed confession' (the guy lived four years after that) and made up its contents (he never implicated a single person and didn't provide a single piece of evidence of any kind), and in general your version of history here is completely misleading."
Did you catch it that time? Here you go again.
You got the location of the tramps' shelter wrong, you made up a 'death-bed confession' (the guy lived four years after that) and made up its contents (he never implicated a single person and didn't provide a single piece of evidence of any kind), and in general your version of history here is completely misleading.
I'm going to edit this article now. Oh, by the way, you got the location of the tramps' shelter wrong, you made up a 'death-bed confession' (the guy lived four years after that) and made up its contents (he never implicated a single person and didn't provide a single piece of evidence of any kind), and in general your version of history here is completely misleading. Jlray (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
I can't tell whether you are trying to be antagonistic for fun or whether you just aren't doing any research. Did you read the reference on the shelter? According to Gedney, "He and the two drifters had gotten cleaned up at a homeless shelter in Houston." As for Hunt, I take it that your concern is that according to Hunt's son, a very ill E. Howard Hunt began revealing secrets to him in 2003, but did not actually die until early 2007, after which Hunt's son went public with his father's stories. So your problem with the "facts" appears to be the subjective use of the word "deathbed." You also claim that I am wrong because Hunt didn't implicate anyone. If you'd bother to read the Rolling Stone article where the information first went public, you would have found out that Hunt said in describing the plot, "Then Veciana meets w/ Frank Sturgis in Miami and enlists David Morales in anticipation of killing JFK there... E. Howard asks Sturgis what he's talking about. Sturgis says, "Killing JFK.""
Ok, deathbed comes out. Otherwise the edit goes back. You have failed to back up any of your claims that what I have written is inaccurate or misleading. Whereas you, on the other hand, can't seem to get the facts straight, and what you have written omits the reasons why researchers were interested in the three in the first place. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a "subjective" use of the phrase "deathbed" - it's the "wrong" use of the word deathbed. You're also misquoting the Rolling Stone article, which I cited when I edited the "deathbed confession" section that you also evidently felt should be changed to include fewer facts. Perhaps you'll note that I cite sources that are not junky conspiracy sites as your version does. I also did, clearly, explain why conspiracy theorists were interested in the first place, just in a less misleading fashion than yours. Out with the garbage, back in with the facts. Jlray (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
Oh, also, another good example of why your version of history is misleading. Your quote: "given the fact that police did not reveal their names to the public even though they were potential witnesses if not directly involved in the crime" is misleading for many obvious reasons - police do not have to and usually do not reveal the names of criminal witnesses; the police did in fact take and make records of the three that were simply buried in the bureaucracy; no leading conspiracy theorist to my knowledge ever initiated an FOIA suit to actually go after those records, etc. etc. This is just one example among many of why you're trying to fill this article with loaded language that is going to confuse and mislead the reader. Here, I've reached a compromise. The history is in, but so is some of your ahistorical speculation. Both the conspiracy theorists and the people actually interested in the facts win. You're welcome. Jlray (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
Everything about your interpretation of the records shows ignorance of the facts as well about basic points of law. They were not detained as witnesses, they were arrested. Arrest records are available to the public. When researchers inquired about the records, they were told that the records were "lost." Obviously, this would fuel accusations of conspiracy. The arrest records were buried with a lot of other material held by the city of Dallas that was not available to the public until 1989-92. If the records had been subject to the Freedom of Information Act, researchers would have acquired them years if not decades earlier. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You're only proving my point by continuing to change your argument. You yourself misleadingly wrote that it was suspicious that "given the fact that police did not reveal their names to the public even though they were potential witnesses if not directly involved in the crime," and then deny that they would even have been "detained as witnesses," without even acknowledging the impossibility of that as they were arrested in a location that would have prohibited them from witnessing the assassination - a train just pulling into town. You're just looking for reasons to argue against the historical record, and then completely losing your coherence once the facts catch up to you. You also continuously assert that I'm "not doing the research" despite the fact that my knowledge of these events is demonstrably impeccably better than yours. You have made it abundantly clear that the facts are not relevant to this article, and for that reason you should ask yourself whether you're actually interested in a fact-based history, or just the promotion of your own pet conspiracy theories. I don't think you're qualified to continue to edit this article and ask that for the sake of the facts that you stop trying to hide and bury the facts. Perhaps you could come back when you've figured out pretty much anything about the last thirty-five years of history, or at least know what a "death bed" is. Thanks. Jlray (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
You have been demonstrably wrong on the facts half a dozen times in this argument, because you clearly aren't bothering to read the references cited in the article. When this is pointed out to you, you simply change the argument. You don't seem to have any concept of what information is legally available to the public in a police investigation, and your statement above show that you have no understanding of the difference between a "witness," someone able to give material evidence, and an "eyewitness," someone who sees a crime occur. I know that you and your "brother" enjoying editing wikipedia on the family computer when you're "home from school," but how old are you anyway? "demonstrably impeccably?" Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Small changes made to your last edit. Possibly we are close to compromise. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you're trying to be funny by suddenly trying to act like I'm the one here who has gotten pretty much everything wrong, especially on things that you yourself started mistaking in the first place (this "witness" vs. "eyewitness" thing, which is not technically speaking correct) but in the mean time, no, I think the record here speaks for itself. You have yet to respond to the numerous things I have proved you wrong on and, worse, you continue to assert that errors are okay so long as you're the one making them. Anyone and everyone who actually cares about the quality of this article can check the history for themselves and see what exactly a perverted idea of "history" this kid here seems to have. Now, some of us have work to do that doesn't involve making things up on the spot. Your position, sir, is on it's deathbed. Let me know if you need help figuring out what that means. Jlray (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
Oh, also, it's difficult to reconcile this error you wrote: "Dallas police claimed to have lost the records of their arrests" with the fact that the Dallas police did in fact make, save, and release to the public the record of their arrests. Let me know how many more times I have to copy and paste that "error" (by now it seems difficult to believe you could be so badly muddying the historical record out of pure incompetence) for you before you realize that it is not correct. Thanks. Jlray (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
I will endeavor to find references for the text that you have recently marked as needing valid cites to back it up. Otherwise, I presume this edit war is over. I suppose that somewhere Gus Abrams is laughing at us while he takes another slug of 3 Angels vodka from his heavenly boxcar. Good day. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of getting this started again, the note you offered for the "alarm" bit:
"Author Henry Hurt notes, "They had been in a potentially good location to see activities that could have helped in an investigation.""
Is technically not true, because they were arrested... inside a boxcar. I motion for removal. Jlray (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
The point is valid. Text altered. Here's the point I'm trying to make. The FBI and Dallas police were very diligent in running down and documenting every lead regarding witnesses. They were trying to build a case, and they wanted to caution, shall we say, those who started telling wild stories to the press. But in the case of the tramps, they apparently couldn’t care less what they might have seen.
I hope to avoid Tramp War II. I’ve run out of good insults. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Samgiancana.jpg

Image:Samgiancana.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lbj1964.jpg

Image:Lbj1964.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name Change

I disagree with the name change of the article as it is not solely related to conspiracy theories. The first section clearly presents the "non-conspiracy" theory of the Warren Commission. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Mac Wallace: Delete

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

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

[edit] LBJ Conspiracy and J.Edgar Hoover conspiracy: Delete

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

Hoover section: Fails to even suggest, much less document, complicity in a conspiracy by Hoover. Propose this whole section go, to again be replaced by a reference in Other Published Theories, suggested is Mark North's Act of Treason which suggests that Hoover actively sought to keep the crime unsolved. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ramsquire. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the LBJ and Mac Wallace sections with a new Lyndon Johnson section limited strictly to conspiracy theories. The controversy generated by McClellan's book after it became part of Turner's documentary series acutally got a lot of media play a few years ago. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archives?

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

There were here (18:00, January 12, 2008 Joegoodfriend (Talk | contribs)
Dissappeared here # # 14:57, January 17, 2008 MrKIA11 (Talk | contribs)
MrKIA11 perhaps accidentally deleted, so someone should figure out how to put back or cut and paste them back. Carol Moore 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I've restored the archives to the best of my ability. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 16 Wash Post article on questions on bullets and shooters

I don't know much about this aspect, didn't see ref in article. In case people missed it:

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

In a collision of 21st-century science and decades-old conspiracy theories, a research team that includes a former top FBI scientist is challenging the bullet analysis used by the government to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot the two bullets that struck and killed President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Carol Moore 15:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The official investigations of the assassination have contended that an analysis of all recovered bullet fragments demonstrates that they all came from the same "batch" of bullets. This contention has long been controversial. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)