Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Citations

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

Citations are provided. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam Tag

I'm not sure why the spam tag is placed above the external link section. If certain links are indeed spam, they should be identified and moved. Otherwise, I will remove it, if there are no objections. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

RPJ case and the Spartacus site

“ A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC) ”

Added by Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Former President Bush defends Warren Commission against Conspiracy theorists during Ford Eulogy

The first President Bush recalled Mr. Ford’s service on the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. “And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final, definitive say on this tragic matter,” Mr. Bush said. “Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it, and Jerry Ford’s word was always good. [1] 69.114.117.103 19:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Given that the members of the WC have often been accused of dishonesty in their Report, it does not surprise me that someone at the funeral would take shots at those who believe there was a conspiracy. It does however surprise me that George H.W. Bush would want to broach the subject, given his personal ties to George De Mohrenschildt, the CIA and a lot of other dark forces.[2]

In my view what he was reacting to were the 9/11 conspiracy theories in which published polls have indicated 35% to 45% of the American public have a belief in. He comes up as a prominent figure in many of these. The theories center around the 30 year business relationship between his family and the Bin Ladin Family and more specifically the Carlyle Group in which he several of his cabinet members including James Baker and Bin Ladin's brother had a prominent role as of September 2001. Back on topic I think his remarks should be put in this and the Warren Commission article. 69.114.117.103 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

GHW Bush and the CIA: breaking news! [3] Joegoodfriend 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One needn't be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" for faulting the Warren Commission. Here, for example, is Christopher Hitchens in a recent Slate column:

"You may choose, if you wish, to parrot the line that Watergate was a "long national nightmare," but some of us found it rather exhilarating to see a criminal president successfully investigated and exposed and discredited. And we do not think it in the least bit nightmarish that the Constitution says that such a man is not above the law. Ford's ignominious pardon of this felonious thug meant, first, that only the lesser fry had to go to jail. It meant, second, that we still do not even know why the burglars were originally sent into the offices of the Democratic National Committee. In this respect, the famous pardon is not unlike the Warren Commission: another establishment exercise in damage control and pseudo-reassurance (of which Ford was also a member) that actually raised more questions than it answered." [4]

SMB 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do an internet search on "george bush texas school book depository" and you'll see that he was already in the CIA (though he denies it). A letter from J Edgar Hoover confirms this. There is also someone who looks just like a young George Bush on the steps of the depository building with a bunch of police just after the shooting. Bush does not remember what he was doing when JFK was killed. He must be the only person over 50 today who doesn't know what he was doing when JFK was shot. Bush is still covering up for his crime. I doubt he was the shooter, but he was probably running interference to steer the cops to pursue LHO. 71.132.198.8 (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What is up with the Autopsy section

There seem to be some tables and empty images, they need repairing from OP or deletion

Assassination section

The bullet that struck Gov. Connally in the back did not pass through his lung. It passed around the lung along the 4th rib and removed the last 4 cm of it before striking his wrist. This caused a pneumothorax ("sucking wound" or puncture of the chest chamber surrounding the lung) which would, if air is allowed into the chest, cause the lung to collapse. See: testimony of Dr. Shaw 4 WC 103[5]

The Altgens photograph was taken at same time as frame 255 of the Zapruder film. According to Altgens, it was taken just after the first shot and before any other shots.[6]--Saskcitation 11:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lovely: many thanks for pointing that out. Extremely sexy 11:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}The description of the "first shot" which "exited" Kennedy's throat and subsequently inflicted multiple wounds on Connally should be CLEARLY and IMMEDIATELY qualified as being according to the Warren Commission. This is due not only to the controversy that has raged over this fanciful notion for decades, but also to the fact that, as any sniper or big-game hunter knows, a bullet exiting soft tissue like the base of the throat causes blood and tissue splatter that would have been clearly evident in the Zapruder film, and is not. Ever seen the Edgerton film of a rifle bullet passing through an apple?71.218.128.9 08:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does NOT state that the bullet that exited Kennedy's throat subsequently inflicted multiple wounds on Connally. In fact, it is worded very carefully to be agnostic on that question. I know, because I wrote that section.

As for your second point, by virtually all agreement, Kennedy was first struck at some point between Zapruder frames 210 and 225. During almost that entire period, he was behind the Stemmons Freeway sign relative to Zapruder's camera. And nothing in Mrs. Kennedy's testimony indicated she saw blood and tissue splatter after the throat shot. In fact, "No blood or anything" were her exact words. I'm not sure what you're implying — that Kennedy was not shot through the neck? See the testimony of Dr. Malcolm Perry, who performed the tracheotomy on Kennedy at Parkland Hospital: "In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly." — Walloon 09:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you wrote the paragraph to be "agnostic" on the subject is beside the point. The point is, anyone familiar with the conclusions of the Warren Commission knows that the first Kennedy hit subsequently inflicting multiple wounds on Connally is the very essence of future Senator Specter's infamous "magic bullet theory". Nobody to my knowledge has ever argued that the third, fatal shot to Kennedy could have possibly hit Connally, so that leaves at most two bullets to hit three different spots on the Governor if one accepts the three-shot scenario that this section recites as gospel. Yet even with two shots hitting Connally, the location of the wounds would have required a zigzag trajectory of at least one of them. These inherent contradictions are the exact reason this section needs to be clearly identified as the speculation of the Warren Commission.

As for my second point, thank you for reinforcing it, even if you didn't understand it. It seems Mrs. Kennedy saw exactly what I saw. My implication is perfectly consistent with that evidence, and should be perfectly obvious. The shot that went through Kennedy's neck CAME FROM THE FRONT.71.218.128.9

Your arguement on the neck wound coming from the front is severely flawed. If that were the case, as you assert above, the exit wound would have cased "tissue and blood splatter" on Kennedy's back, which was certainly not the situation. You also show your ignorance on bullet performance. A long, round-nosed bullet (such as fired from the Carcano) traveling at relatively low velocity (less than 2000 fps) can and will transit soft tissue without causing anything more than an exit hole. Such bullets also possess penetrating powers all out of proportion to their modest ballistics. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect a bullet of this type to travel through both Kennedy and Conolly, ultimately wounding Conolly in the wrist. The "single bullet" theory is both plausible and explainable. The WC just didn't do a very good job of it. Dukeford (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is only semiprotected, so almost any editor can make the changes, if appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

from utachi i thank we should say how unless we get the aposlute truth for one thang i apsolutly thank that lee was the blaming dummy and i look forward to the 51 dacuments being releaset in 2029 hopfully we can get all the answer thin or more bull but ill find out what happend one way or anuther

sinserly

Utachitimeshifter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.178.163 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Implicit bias

Why is the "treason" handbill displayed so prominently on the page? It's as if the editors are insinuating something from the start of the article. 129.71.73.248 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

New film??

• Are you all aware of the new film that has emerged? New JFK film: 90 seconds to assassination Should probably be mentioned in the article... Smee 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

The film was not taken in Dealey Plaza, and does not add information to the article. There were numerous films taken of the presidential motorcade before it reached Dealey Plaza. — Walloon 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It does and it is very significant! One of the major conspiracy theories about the JFK assasination is based on the fact that the entry and exit marks on Kennedy's torso and business suit does not match at all. However, George Jefferies' newly surfaced 8mm footage is very good quality and clearly shows that the president's suit was heavily wrinkled as he sat in the car and thus it is quite logical that the bullet holes won't overlap. Jefferies' film thus kills a part of the conspiracy. Definitely, it should be added to the article! 82.131.210.162 09:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The 8mm movie does not introduce anything new: there are numerous other pictures (some quite clear) of the jacket bunching up. Any such discussion belongs in the Kennedy assassination theories article. — Walloon 12:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note for this Talk page -- the Jefferies footage of the TSBD was taken the next day, not November 22. I don't think it belongs in the article, but someone may try to add something about that. I've already seen stills of the footage being advanced to prove the position of Oswald one way or the other.--Dhartung | Talk 11:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, photos of JFK's suit jacket and shirt show one nice, neat, round hole well down the back in each garment, which is incompatible with them being bunched up, as you would have multiple, jagged holes through the inevitably resulting "ridges." This is especially true if you accept the "explanation" on the ABC News special aired on the 40th anniversary for why C.E. 399 suffered absolutely minimal deformity, i.e., that the bullet was "tumbling"; no chance of the clean entry indicated by the clothing holes that way. These two holes line up perfectly, and match the location of the back wound marked on the human body diagram on the official autopsy form. And I've never heard of any photos or film showing bunching. I have seen quite a few films and photos of the presidential car and its occupants, and the word "clear" does not apply to that degree to any of them. I have heard of experiments indicating that bunching to the extent required by

1: the wound location mandated by the Warren Report's hypothesis

and

2: the mutual location of the bullet holes in the clothes

is physically impossible for someone just sitting in a car seat as Kennedy was (until he was shot, which is too late to help this, of course). I admit to not having direct documentation of these tests, hence I am not putting that claim in the article. Ted Watson 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I must make one slight correction: The bullet hole in the shirt is not round but rectangular, horizontally so (and still incompatible with the bullet tumbling, which a vertical rectangle would have theoretically been consistent with), but nevertheless small and neat. The one in the jacket is indeed exactly as I described it. Sorry for the error. Ted Watson 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please watch this movie and decide for yourself who was responsible for at least pulling the trigger. This is the original footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DwKK4rkeEM and this is an enhanced version of the footage: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jfk+being+shot&search=Search.

I think we all know deep down what happened on that day, and its about time the American people woke up and came to realize exactly who the monsters are that they have voted into power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chateauxc (talk • contribs) 08:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the Kennedy assassination. — Walloon 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural/public impact

I'd be interested in seeing a section on the cultural, political, and popular impact of the assassination on the U.S. and the world; perhaps include the announcement of the assassination, viewership of the funeral/memorial service, and the impact it had on how history views Kennedy's life and presidency. I don't have much direct knowledge of this--any additions would be appreciated. Thanks. TheSPY 16:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just not acceptable

This article is not really that long...other material should be included in this...more information on JFK's wounds, Oswald's involvement in the FBI and with Hoover himself...the oddities found between the doctor's stories in Dallas and the doctors in Washington, D.C....the article is far too vague and seems to output an "accept the Warren Commission" vibe. Someone (an expert) needs to have a serious look at this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mine187 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

The article is already too long as it is. More information could be added and added and added, but at some point, enough is too much. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, which summarizes. Individual articles about aspects of the assassination exist, and that is where additional information can be included.

As for point of view, it has been deliberately and carefully worded not to be partisan. For example, there is no claim in the description of the assassination that the same bullet wounded both the President and Governor Connally. And the article also summarizes statistically the contrary testimony of the earwitnesses about the direction of the shots.

But encyclopedia articles should not be used to argue a specific side of a controversy. They should try to be as strictly neutral as possible. — Walloon 19:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no two sides to this issue. There is facts and there is fantasy. The conspiracy is a fantasy propelled by lies in the oliver stone film. Strunke 02:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The rifle

Nowhere is it written on this page or the page specific to the rifle that it was a cheap hunk of junk that cost 12 bucks, that the sight was like 3 dollars, or that the sight was "supposedly" out of line anyhow. No remarks on the condition of the rifle, i.e.: well kept or rusty, etc. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a link to the rifle article here. Add that information there (provided it is verifiable, of course). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

When the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a rigorous series of shooting tests, it concluded "it is a very accurate weapon." The Carcano is rated an effective battle weapon, good at killing people, and as accurate as the U.S. Army's M-14 rifle. The Carcano's bullets, 6.5 millimeter shells, are 30 to 50 percent heavier than the average bullet of that diameter, and travel with the same velocity, 2,100 feet per second, as the Russian AK-47 assault rifle. — Walloon 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rated effective by whom? The Carcano doesn't even rate a mention in the several histories of 20th Century armaments I've seen. It seems the FBI thought more highly of the weapon than those who actually used it in combat, as evidenced by the fact that more armies and guerrilla forces didn't adopt it, as opposed to the myriad U.S. and German weapons of similar vintage still in use around the world to this very day. And as a former competitive shooter myself, the pervasive ignorance surrounding gun issues never ceases to amaze me. The statement that the Carcano was as accurate as the U.S. M-14 actually doesn't say much. The generally accepted standard for military accuracy worldwide has been a 9-inch shot grouping from bench clamp at 200 yards, which is marginal at best by hunting standards and positively awful by competitive or sniper standards. Contrary to popular myth, the imperative for military procurement is NOT accuracy - it's MASS PRODUCIBILITY, as in capable of being cranked out by the millions on short notice. That's why snipers almost never use standard-issue weapons - even their ammo is specially produced and packaged for that specific purpose. And the AK-47 comparison is a red herring; by historical military standards, the AK is a weak weapon. Even the U.S. M-16, with a substantially higher muzzle velocity than the AK, can't match the range of the lowly, bolt-action Gewehr 98 used by German infantry of the Second World War. TRANSLATION: Any sniper worthy of the name would have used a better weapon that day in Dealey Plaza, and given the state of gun laws in Texas and many other states at the time, a far better weapon would not have been difficult to obtain.71.218.128.9

President's motorcade

The link to John Ready's wikipedia page is a link to someone else - how do we handle this? Should we remove the link, or create a new page? (I am still a bit new to Wikipedia) -- Dudebri1 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from main article

Moved here b/c it's more appropriate for talk page:

* Warning - wikipedia readers need not bother to try to contribute to this site as the person who seems to think it's their property will cancel it out! Is this only for Americans or can British people take part? Considering I was working at the BBC at the time I don't know why my contribution isn't as valuable as the trivial points mentioned above? You don't seem to be taking notice of the discussion points - someone there has asked for Cultural/Media aspects! I'm annoyed!

by 80.175.95.201 — (Ebyabe talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Maybe you could assume good faith and simply ask the editor what his problem with your edit is, instead of whining about censorship. Every edit here is subject to challenge and reversion. It's up to you to show that your edit is worthy. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of trivia sections

Considering the length of the article, I would like to delete the "Fictional Detectives..." and "Television and Film portrayal" sections from the article. They are a trap for listcruft and unverifiable information. Their inclusion makes this article seem unencyclopedic, and if these works are truly notable, then perhaps they should have their own article. If I don't hear a substantial objection to this proposal, I'll delete the sections on Monday. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What about spinning them off into something like an article called "Media portrayals of the Kennedy assassination"? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

LBJ news

This article talks about E. Howard Hunt's (from the "Watergate Scandal") recent confession to helping LBJ assassinate JFK, and the "Rolling Stone" also has an article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/print. 205.243.71.250 13:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is a travesty. I wonder if the author did any research at all. Hedegaard discusses the "three tramps" incident as if it's still a mystery. Researchers obtained the names of the three from the Dallas Police in the mid-90's and tracked down and interviewed two of them and the family of the third. There's no question any more that they were anything other than three vagrants catching a ride from Houston to Dallas. Joegoodfriend 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There most certainly still is a question about this. The only "researcher" I've seen contesting the Hunt and Sturgis identification was a self-proclaimed former police investigator whose "analysis" was just as loony as anything else I've ever read about the assassination. Colonel Fletcher Prouty claimed, on camera, in the multimedia features packaged with the Director's Cut DVD of Oliver Stone's "JFK," that several of his former Pentagon colleagues independently confirmed his own identification of Edward Lansdale as one of the "three tramps." Lansdale was the Air Force Major General that Stone mistakenly implied was "General Y" and visible from behind in the "tramps" photos. I challenge anyone out there to find a jury who wouldn't compare the "tramp" in the tweed jacket and polo shirt to the photo of Lansdale from Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History" (Chapter 6 - "America's Mandarin"; photo section fourth page; top photo) and reach the same conclusion.71.218.128.9

Try doing a little research. After the names of the three were release in the early '90's, Mary and Ray LaFontaine tracked down two of them and the sister of the third. Their interviews confirmed the identities of the three and their simple story of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The oldest of the three (the one who looks like Sturgis) was interviewed for tv news, and again, his id was confirmed. No mystery here. Joegoodfriend 01:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I did do research. I presented it here, and it doesn't agree with yours, so get over it. If you're the authority on research, what, pray tell, happened to the testimony of the deaf witness who claimed to have seen, from an overpass behind the railway bridge, a man behind the fence toss a rifle to another man dressed as a railway employee, who broke the rifle down and stowed it in a toolbox before walking toward the trains? Oh, and by the way, the oldest of the three tramps looked like HUNT, not Sturgis. It seems your own research leaves a bit to be desired...71.218.128.9

So your "research" doesn't agree with the facts I presented? So what did happen? Were Lansdale, Hunt and Sturgis the tramps, and had fake ID's when arrested, and were carrying current ID's with the same fake names when interviewed in the 1990's, and no one said, hey, that's Frank Sturgis/Howard Hunt? Or did Hunt and Sturgis pay some guys to get plastic surgery so as to look just like them and claim to be the tramps for the interviews, and pay their family members to back up their stories in every detail? Also, what color is the sky in your world? Joegoodfriend 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Virgil "Ed" Hoffman's story, examined in detail. — Walloon 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hobos carrying IDs - hmmmm. That's a new one. We'll discuss that later. All sarcasm aside, I need to apologize in advance for the long post - a larger issue of great importance to the Wikipedia community has been raised here, so I need to be thorough, painful as that may be, and no reader of this discussion can claim Joegoodfriend didn't ask for research. But he's made at least two errors in his various postings that should be obvious to anyone familiar with academic writing standards, and they go to the heart of Wikipedia's mission, collegiality, and credibility. First, he makes sweeping assumptions about the viewpoints of those who disagree with him, and second, he makes sweeping declarations of fact. Factual accuracy is not a function of loud argument, endless repetition, or decrees from Joegoodfriend; it is instead determined by reasoned discussion and logical analysis, and in that spirit I will ignore his increasingly shrill and defensive tone and cut right to the "facts" he so loudly proclaims. For despite 20 years as a more patient and consistent consumer of TV and print journalism than the vast majority of people out there, I'd never heard of the "researchers" to whom he gives so much credit. This actually put me in a perfect position to objectively evaluate their work, having no prior knowledge of it other than its possible conflict with my own information (and readers of the above paragraphs need no reminding that I don't agree with everything Oliver Stone claimed in "JFK", either). So in the interest of fairness and accuracy I took Joegoodfriend's advice and actually did even more research than he suggested, which leads me to conclude that I must modify my earlier statement. Joegoodfriend's research does not, in fact, seem to leave a bit to be desired; it DEFINITELY leaves a LOT to be desired. The LaFontaine claims are JUNK, and here, specifically and verifiably, is why. It's not only because the LaFontaines have, by their own admission, sold their stories to tabloid shows like "Hard Copy" and "A Current Affair", putting those segments' journalistic integrity barely one step above Infomercials. Nor is it only because of my own inability to verify Mary LaFontaine's radio-show claim of having produced reports for PBS - my search of show transcripts and credits dating back as far as 1990 on the PBS web site failed to turn up a single mention of either her or her husband's name. Nor is it only because the LaFontaines' book, "Oswald Talked," has been roundly denounced by people on all sides of the assassination controversy - try the Amazon.com reviews link for a sampling that includes several clearly tongue-in-cheek posts, like the "Da Tramps" rap and the "Lone Nodder/Disintegrationist schism" exposition, and a few that one can only hope, for the sake of all concerned, are sarcastic (like the favorable review claiming much of the story was "thoroughly fact-checked and confirmed by the notoriously conservative Washington Post" - those last four words will get you laughed out of any bar in DC). A less fulsome review claims the book reveals information that "threatens to bust the case wide open." OK, maybe, but if so why haven't the LaFontaines succeeded in gaining a more permanent place for such important "discoveries" in forums governed by journalistic, rather than entertainment, standards? Why did they instead undercut their own credibility and confound that purpose by promptly entangling themselves in what apparently became a precedent-setting Internet Libel case? If their information was so airtight, why did they resort to personal attacks, escalating to public accusations of pedophilia, against one of the critics who posted a negative review on Amazon.com - attacks that were not only pointless, but exposed them to legal liability? If you doubt me, try Googling "Bochan v. LaFontaine" for legal summaries and some seriously bizarre and off-topic Internet posts from the defendants - hardly the actions of crusaders for truth nobly battling the forces of evil conspiracy, and hardly the kind of behavior that would be tolerated on Wikipedia, or so one would hope. No, my contempt for their speculations stems from all of these things, and more. Maybe there are perfectly valid and innocent explanations for some of their lapses, but given the pattern it looks as though "hucksters" would be a more accurate description than "journalists" or "researchers."

And the questions don't stop there. One website promoting their supposed identification of the three tramps, jfk-online.com, has several immediately obvious flaws. First, the leading (and unattributed) picture of the tramps being marched in front of the "diamond gate" is a still frame from "JFK," not the actual 1963 photo, and the gentleman the LaFontaines claim was "Harold Doyle," whom Prouty and others have identified as Lansdale, more closely resembles the actor in Stone's film than the "tweed tramp" of the original photos. Now if this error is the fault of the web site then the LaFontaines certainly can't be blamed for it, and the picture only further confuses the discussion. But if the JFK still represents the LaFontaines' own source material it puts a hole in their claims big enough to drive a truck through, for the question then becomes whether the interviewees identified themselves in a scene that was staged in 1990. Second, the text of the page clearly states that the tramp identification story was sold to "A Current Affair," which begs the question of whether the interviewees were paid for their statements - "Enquiring minds want to know," as the saying went. Not to mention the description of the program itself; lines like "His story was not sensational, but rang of truth," are syrupy even by tabloid standards, to say nothing of their author, identified as Richard Trask, who in a later passage must have been either misquoted or unacquainted with the meaning of the word "feigned." In any case, the page's third and most significant flaw is the most important for this discussion and concerns a footnote in which the page's author asserts that the LaFontaines' book, "Oswald Talked" was "quickly discredited" on publication, yet goes on to blithely state that "none of this, of course, affects the factual nature" of Mary LaFontaine's "discovery" of the three tramps' identities. HUH?!? How so, exactly, when there is no other reference given to back up that assertion? When the only source of that information was the same person whose later work was just dismissed as "untenable?" Try that one in a court of law sometime, I dare you. And many of the criticisms leveled at the star witness of "Oswald Talked," John Franklin Elrod, can be addressed to the others interviewed by the LaFontaines as well, and supported by anyone who's ever known reformed drinkers unable to reliably recall shared experiences from their earlier years of impairment.

But something tells me that, despite all this, Joegoodfriend's still going to want to cling to the LaFontaine tramps thesis. Fine, let's cling to it ourselves and answer one of his own questions at the same time. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the LaFontaines were at least partly correct, and that some or all of the persons they interviewed were indeed present on the day of the assassination. And let's not deride Joegoodfriend's assertion that hobos would be carrying IDs, since the two better-dressed ones look like they might not have been bums for quite long enough to lose theirs yet. Let's also suppose that Marrs and Stone's minimum figure of a dozen taken into custody was instead the lesser maximum that jfk-online.com's tramps page insists on but fails to specify. Let's not waste anybody's time with semantic arguments over who was "arrested" versus "detained" - I seriously doubt, in the confusion of those hours, that even the station's Desk Sergeant could have told you which was which, assuming he'd even had time to make the notation. Let's consider instead the possibility, indeed the LIKELIHOOD, that persons flashing Federal credentials that afternoon would not have been processed, nor even logged. There's nothing inherently sinister or unusual about this, since public-safety agencies at all levels mutually extend such "professional courtesy" all the time - just ask your local Sheriff. And this is for a very simple reason: nobody in law enforcement wants to be on the hook for obstructing another agency's investigations, emergency responses, or undercover officers, particularly in the middle of a national crisis. Such considerations would have been paramount for a police department scrambling to maintain control over a chaotic situation, and needing all the help it could get. Unfortunately for the LaFontaines, they'd also blow claims of having identified all detainees and arrestees out of the water by rendering the official number in police records meaningless, and making conclusive determination of who-was-in-what-picture through mathematical deduction impossible.

...Which brings me to why all the gory detail is even relevant to this forum. There's a mention, elsewhere on this page, of the concept of "reliable sources." Reliability includes CREDIBILITY, and I've included enough verifiable information here to call Joegoodfriend's only referenced source into serious question. But there's one fact - and I use that word deliberately - that puts the final nail in the coffin of the LaFontaines' credibility regardless of their motivation or methods. To wit: information directly bearing on the LaFontaines' tramps and Oswald theories comes from the same source - the records of the Dallas Police Department. Yet in one case we're expected to disregard that source even as it forms the cornerstone of the other. We're expected to believe that in the tramps case, despite numerous dissenting witnesses, questionable information collected in the midst of pandemonium should be regarded as Holy Writ, but in the Oswald case we should somehow summarily dismiss the same Police Department's perfectly sensible, corroborated, and far less disputed information, duly recorded in a far less demanding situation, just because it runs counter to the premise of "Oswald Talked." In light of all this I fail to see how the LaFontaines can possibly be considered a REMOTELY reliable source. But in the end, the issue for Wikipedia is not the minutiae of the three tramps; after all, choosing to accept a mid-'80s picture of a Harold Doyle who may have looked like the "tweed tramp" back in '63 versus the 1960s photos of an Edward Lansdale (including the one in his own Wikipedia article) who undeniably did, is up to the reader. The issues for Wikipedia are RESPECT for the opinions of others and DILIGENCE in defending one's own. Whatever one may think of my analysis in this section, and however long-winded it might be, the record shows that I've gone after Joegoodfriend's EVIDENCE, and done so without dismissing it as a rant, questioning his motives, nor impugning the atmosphere of his home planet. Furthermore, I've provided far more references in support of my position than he ever has for his, so I think a little less arrogance from a purported guardian of this forum is in order. And finally, although the strictest Wikipedia standards may not apply here given that the posts aren't article text, and the fact that Wikipedia certainly can't be held responsible for the content of unrelated sites, I do think that when an Editor of a protected article uses a particular source as the basis not only for categorical statements like "there's simply no question," but insulting dismissals of contrary opinions as well, holding that source to a higher standard of journalistic integrity and intellectual honesty certainly isn't too much to ask.71.218.128.9 08:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your post is a bundle of misconceptions and premature conclusions which appear to be based on ignorance of the evidence.

First of all, Fletcher Prouty never suggested that the tramp identified as Harold Doyle was actually Lansdale. What he said was that he thought Lansdale was photographed near the tramps, "What caught my eye right away was the fact that some other person is in the first photo walking in the opposite direction." says Prouty, singling out one particular shot. "Here he is, during one of the most important events in our history, casually walking past two police with guns and the tramps, not even looking at what could've been the killers of the President."[7]

Second, here’s the facts on the tramps: The confirmation of their identities goes way beyond the work of the LaFontaines. When the three tramps were arrested, they were identified as Harold Doyle, John Forester Gedney and Gus W. Abrams. Their names were release in 1992.

Ray and Mary LaFontaine set out to find Harold Doyle, whose address was listed on the arrest record as Red Jacket, WV. The trail led from West Virginia to Amarillo, TX, where they found one of Doyle's former neighbors who remembered him talking about his arrest in Dallas. Doyle was finally located in Klamath Falls, OR. He also told his story on camera and was also interviewed three times by the FBI. The FBI and private researchers also sought the other two tramps. Gedney was located in Melbourne, FL, serving as a municipal officer, a respected member of the community who had not spoken about former life as a vagabond until interviewed by researcher Billy Cox, and twice by the FBI. Both Doyle and Gedney told the same story of spending the night before the assassination at a rescue mission. Abrams, the oldest of the tramps, was deceased. Researcher Kenneth Formet interviewed his sister, with whom he had lived the last 15 years of his life. She identified Abrams from the 1963 photos and confirmed that he had long been a hobo. Details here[8].

Regarding the LaFontaines, you claim that you are “in a perfect position to objectively evaluate their work.” Then, rather than doing this, you announce that their work is “junk,” not because you checked for independent verification of the facts they presented, but only because the researchers are associated with tabloid journalism and because their book isn’t well thought of on amazon.com. In your last post, you also suggested that we have “reasoned discussion and logical analysis.” Any chance you’re going to start offering any of that in near future? Joegoodfriend 01:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No one denies that the three tramps were detained after they were found in a rail car near Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination. They have provided endless fascination to conspiracy theorists, even though the three have been identified beyond any reasonable doubt as Doyle, Gedney, and Abrams by Dallas police records, the arresting officers (in 1992, former Dallas police officers Marvin Wise and Roy Vaughn identified Doyle, Gedney, and Abrams as the three tramps they had taken out of the boxcar), the men themselves and/or their relatives. To which I ask, (1) Is there any physical evidence connecting Doyle, Gedney, and Abrams to the assassination of JFK? (2) Is there any eyewitness evidence (not hearsay evidence) connecting Doyle, Gedney, and Abrams to the JFK assassination? Without either of those, including the three tramps in a factual, and not speculative, article on the JFK assassination is unjustified, if not plain libelous. — Walloon 01:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting names for the three stooges. However, they are different from the ones I've heard.

1. Charles Harrelson (father of actor Woody Harrelson), who died in prison doing time for shooting a judge with a sniper rifle. Hmmm...proficient with a sniper rifle, eh? Oh, and Harrelson was a bouncer at Jack Ruby's strip bar. He apparently bragged that he killed JFK.

2. E. Howard Hunt gave his deathbed confession to his son Saint. Hunt was involved in the failed Bay of Pigs coup. One of the watergate "plumbers".

3. Frank Sturgis was not CIA, but was involved in CIA-related activities. One of the Watergate "plumbers".

You need to connect the dots to answer why the Watergate break-in occured, and the JFK assassination. 71.132.207.34 (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

References

The references are sort of a mess. Those which only show a link with no text in place over it or explanation of the author, publisher/organization, date created, and date accessed need to be fixed. References used more than once need to be fixed to form the ^abcde... appearence. I'm suprised that this article made it to GA status with the references looking like that, and it will likely lose GA status if it isn't fixed. I'll start working on it soon. --Wasted Sapience 18:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Israel's role in assassination of Kennedy

See this: [9] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.219.236.17 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

This is baloney. Aljazeera is a joke.Strunke 02:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with this?

I don't agree with this revert at all: it's good. Extremely sexy 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Stating the conclusion has been rejected, without stating by whom, violates NPOV. It gives the false impression that no one accepts the original findings of the acoustic evidence. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay then: gotcha. Extremely sexy 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

the fact that it was rejected

if majority of people reject both the WC an why the hell is it still the most represented idea in this article?...it belongs in the conspiracy page...for that matter should we have any other page than the conspiracy page displaying what people think happened? we know the WC was wrong a so why is it still being smeared all over this bullshit article?...this article should speak only of true hard facts, things we know happened that day. I myself am not even sure if the zapruder film is legitimate anymore. What I do know for sure is that "lone-nutters" are the minority..most people, along with majority of the evidence, believe oswald, at the very least, was not acting alone. so why is this view represented as the majority when clearly it is not?...i am really losing faith in this whole wikipedia idea...i think, at 22 years old, i can find more respectable places to find my information. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many JFK assassination-related articles on wikipedia. As this is an encyclopedia, it is appropriate that the "main" article be focused on the official conclusions, with doubts about those conclusions elsewhere. Additionally, while including ALL official conclusions as well as counterpoints, doubts and theories in one place might seem to provide for a more balanced article, it would violate wiki guidelines on Article length. PS-Try to relax. Joegoodfriend 22:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What JGF said, plus the requirement that we use reliable sources narrows down tremendously what goes into the article. It isn't based on what we "know". In addition, you may want to research the issue more clearly because "what we know" is often challenged by the actual evidence. But yes, please try to relax. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

if you openly know something is not true, despite the fact that it is "official", where do you draw the line? for that matter why do YOU get to decide what is right or ethical? the warren commission is wrong and that is all that should matter. i dont ever want the children i may have to come to wikipedia to do a report on this assassination and state to his teacher that the warren commission is even "sorta" right. it is represented as the truth. WE KNOW THAT IT IS NOT. conspiracies aside, how can you, morally, add information to an article you know to be false? so, being redundant for you two, the warren commission report is a MINORITY VIEW. it does not represent the view held by the majority of the scientific community...so wtf are we talking about here? people using wikipedia to squash conspiracy theorists? why do i have to fight so hard to get a page that really and truly represents the facts? the warren commission is not "the facts"... redundancy again, i know, but people dont seem to get it. it not true. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 16:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason why we "get to decided what is right or ethical" is because the articles are built through a Consensus arrived at by the contributing editors. Wikipedia has a number of guidelines for writing articles, and they are not based on opinion polls. If wikipedia is not zeitgeist-intensive enough for you, perhaps you could start you own online encyclopedia. Joegoodfriend 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

JGF-- these rants sometime make me wonder if these people actually read the article. How could you write an article about the JFK assassination and not write about the WC and it's findings? Plus, in the article we mention that it no longer enjoys widespread support, we link the article to the conspiracies page, and we mention some of the controversial aspects of the case with a synopsis. The article only says that the WC found that OSwald acted alone, the assassination doesn't have Oswald doing the shooting (granted it does follow the WC timeline and placement of shots based on the testimony of the witnesses), and the rest is simply a recap of all the investigations. I just don't see the problem. Unless, of course, you want a POV, unfair presentation of the event. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people vandanlize wiki articles for kicks. Some of the stuff that goes into the talk pages is really vandalism as well, of a (very slightly) more subtle kind. The topic poses as a discussion of changing the article, but really it's just a stream-of-consciousness rant posted for the purpose of provoking others. The real debate here is, how ridiculous does a post have to be before it's beneath other editors to post a response. Joegoodfriend 18:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mine187--If you have verifiable information that is not in the article, feel free to add it. There are no gatekeepers here. Nothing in the article is presented as gospel. It is presented in the format of "According to the WC..." which is how an ecyclopedia. If something is demonstrably false, and you have a source to support it, by all means, be bold and edit the article accordingly. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The article as written is careful to take a neutral stand on its description of the events. It does not state the direction from which any of the shots came, it merely reports the numbers and percentages of witnesses who believed they came from a certain location or locations. It reports accurately that the great majority (76.7%) of witnesses believed there were three shots. It does not assume or even mention a single-bullet theory in its description of the wounding of Kennedy and Connally. It does not say Howard Brennan saw Lee Oswald firing from the window of the TSBD, it says he saw a man whose description he gave to police. It does follow the best research today on which shot missed; this is not from the Warren Commission Report, because the WC itself said, "The evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which missed." The preponderance of the eyewitness testimony was that the head shot was the final shot. Wherever possible, the article relies on primary sources — eyewitness testimony — rather than secondary sources.

There is an entire article on Wikipedia that does deal with Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, arguing the single-shooter and multiple-shooter theories, as well as for the usual suspects: CIA, Mob, Cuba, LBJ, etc. — Walloon 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me state in no uncertain terms what I believe 10 Bucks, who started this thread, was trying to say, and in the highly improbable event that it is not, it is still a very good point that needs to be dealt with---The Warren Report is being put forth here as if there is no doubt about its accuracy whatsoever; at various points, some of its claims are being presented with absolutely no qualification that they are nothing more than the Warren Commission's conclusions, and come across as unchallengable facts, which they are NOT (the single-bullet theory--"the same bullet entered [Governor Connally's] back..."--is perhaps the definitive example [or was until I got here 9 August '07, i.e., yesterday], as the evidence is conclusive that it is physically impossible, the government's refusal to admit this--because such an admission throws the entire Oswald-as-lone-assassin position out the window--notwithstanding). Walloon's "The article as written is careful to take a neutral stand on its descriptions of events," is indefensible, as is Ramsquire's "Nothing in the article is presented as gospel," and his "wonder[ing] if these people actually read the article," being just sarcasm that is unsupported by the content of the so-called "rants" is worse (remember that all of this was posted months ago, well before my addition of a "Warren Report" qualification to the one-shot-hit-both-men passage). You both remind me of the supporters/defenders/apologists of the Commission/Report that I've encountered over the years, who have cared little if at all about the accuracy of their statements to that position. I repeat, that this article puts forth the widely-disputed official version of events with no acknowledgement at that point of the dispute, and at places even no acknowledgement that it is that version rather than absolute fact, is a very big problem for an encyclopedia that is supposed to be factually accurate and objectively informative, not propaganda. Ted Watson 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ted, thanks for joining this talk page so you could make unwarranted personal attacks on the editors who are long-time contributors. If you'd bother to the read the discussion threads, you'd find out that Walloon and Ramsquire are both highly knowledgeable, fair, and have made serious commitments to improving the articles related to the JFK assassination.

Furthermore, the idea that the Warren Report is being put forth here as if there is no doubt about its accuracy whatsoever is patently false. Right from the first paragraph, we have the notations that most Americans as well as a congressional investigation have disagreed with the WC, as well as a link to the Kennedy assassination theories page.

I don't think there's any basis for your complaints. If you have some specific edits you'd like to discuss, I'm all ears. Joegoodfriend 18:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what happened here, as I composed and submitted a response to the above, but it's not here, so here goes again: I don't care what sort of prior record Walloon and Ramsquire have, I am talking about what they posted here, and I described that accurately. They may very well be "highly knowledgeable...and have made serious commitments to improving the articles related to the JFK assassination" but their definition of "improving" is supporting the cover-up. Your "unwarranted" is unsupportable. You want to deal with the specifics I gave before, then I am all ears. My criticism of the article is that at various points within the article (and until it was recently cut to the bone, the assassination section of the general JFK article; that reads quite objectively now, I readily admit--see, I am fair) aspects of the Warren Commission's highly dubious conclusions are put forth with no acknowledgement at that point (I emphasized that phrase before and you chose to ignore it; don't do that again) of their low credibility, and that some of it is not even labelled as theirs, but implied to be flat fact. One of the latter was the crucial single-bullet theory ("...the same bullet penetrated [Connally's] back...."), at least until I quite recently revised that passage, which at this writing remains in place (surprisingly). Ted Watson 23:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the Assassination section of the article has 13 citations, all pointing to the Warren Report. It is therefore redundant to start adding "According the Warren Report" to the text in this section. Second, the article makes it very clear that there is widespread doubt about the Commission's conclusions. The reader can therefore easily infer that there is public and scholarly doubt about the way the assassination is described in the text. So what's the problem? Joegoodfriend 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that the recent addition of an explcit single-bullet theory description of the shooting was by Mytwocents, not by me, and is not something I agree with. As I've stated here before, I prefer that the article be neutral on the question of the single-bullet theory — not because I find it dubious (in fact, I find the single-bullet theory the only credible explanation; more here), but because (1) it is a highly contentious issue that will probably lead to edit wars, (2) it is possible to describe the shootings without it, and (3) the Kennedy assassination theories article is available for partisan marshaling of evidence. BTW, the single-bullet theory is not just a Warren Commission thing; it was also the conclusion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979, even though the HSCA believed that two gunmen shot at the motorcade, and thus that there was a conspiracy. — Walloon 04:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the majority of Americans agree with the WC, its main conclusion that Kennedy was killed by 2 bullets fired by Oswald is has still essentially not been unequivocally disproved. Exile (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be in the best interest of neutrality to move the WC specific events in the Assassination section down to the WC section? The paragraph that starts with "According to the Warren..." could be less specific with regard to bullet paths and could lose the words "same bullet" without losing anything. Everything else is on video - who did what, in what order - and could also be cited with first person and eye witness accounts (even if those accounts are from the WC report). How many bullets there were and what they hit in what order is the part that creates the widespread doubt mentioned earlier. This section should be filled with "what I saw" and "what I did" information, not "what I theorize may have happened" info. The deleted info could then be added to the WC section as being the disputed/doubted findings of the WC, and no information would be lost. Ptventura 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, some editorial decision making is always necessary. Some witnesses said the first shot missed, some said the second, some said the third, and Mrs. Connally said that each of three shots hit a passenger of the limousine. Most witnesses (76.6%) heard three shots, 10.5% heard one or two shots, 4.1% heard two or three shots, 8.7% heard four or more shots. An editor takes all evidence into consideration, weighs them, and makes an informed decision. In most detailed crime investigations with numerous witnesses, there will be contradictory evidence, but eventually a jury has to make a decision on what really happened. Likewise an editor. An encyclopedia article cannot be book-length; it must select and condense. — Walloon 19:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Walloon, your statement, "I find the single-bullet theory the only credible explanation," [personal commentary about another editor removed], as any one who has studied the evidence thoroughly knows that it is physically impossible. That link of yours leads to a page with an animation depicting the single-shot theory as requiring multiple impossible turns by the bullet, and a message board discussion that is quite hot; click on it yourself if you don't believe me! Also, check out my recent posting to another thread on this board, "New film??", where I point out, with details that I won't bother to repeat here since the original is so close at hand, that the explanation offered for the minimal "deformity" (the word is applicable only in the most technical sense) suffered by C.E. 399 is incompatible with other, inarguable physical evidence of the damages inflicted by the shot(s). This leaves the long-held assertion--which BTW was even made to the Warren Commission, by no less than JFK autopsy surgeon Commander James J. Humes when shown the slug itself (the 26 volumes of testimony & other evidence from the hearings, Vol. II, p. 375)--that 399's "basically intact" (Humes' words, ibid) condition is incompatible with the damage it supposedly inflicted upon the two men (Humes went even further, testifying that Connally's rib and wrist injuries alone were too much--same reference again; start attacking his credibility and you open a whole 'nother very big can of worms!). Another insurmountable problem with the single-bullet fiction is the unavoidable requirement that the governor did not initially realize he had been hit, yet went to his grave describing the impact of the bullet into his back. When one has a delayed reaction to an injury, as the Commission insists here, one has no memory of the act of infliction itself, but merely realizes quite suddenly but after the event that he has been injured. That is, the person failed to notice that he had been hurt when it happened, and consequently has no memory of it because he never did know it had happened! This has happened to me, although with nothing as severe as a broken rib, collapsed lung and shattered wrist, which is also said, by Connally's own doctors, to be beyond a delayed reaction. Hence (your being a willful participant in the cover-up, I refer to), there is nothing to be gained in discussing the matter any further with you (If I had said this and simply left it at that, I'd be wide open to shots, so I backed it up, even though it's a waste of time as far as you're concerned; there is a lot more to contradict the claim). Ted Watson 20:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of "being part of the cover-up". See WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Watson, please keep in mind that I am favor of NOT using the single-bullet theory in this article. (And the link I included does not depict "the single-shot theory as requiring multiple impossible turns by the bullet" — it depicts the exact opposite.) — Walloon 21:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel---When someone makes a statement that absolutely proves [personal commentary about another editor removed], I'll say so, and I also deny that making a factual and relevant statement is "uncivil." On the other hand, if you don't think Ramsquire's "These rants sometime make me wonder if these people have actually read the article" is lacking in civility, I have to doubt the validity of your definition. Walloon---Change "requiring" to "making," and that's exactly what I saw after clicking on your link. Ted Watson 17:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for being blunt, but no, you are not going to say so. The civility policy requires you to refrain from such accusations against other editors. It is rude and it does not promote collaborative editing. The fact that others may have been uncivil is a matter for you to bring up with them, not an excuse for you to attack unrelated editors. Please do not make such comments again or they will be removed. Restrict your comments to article content and refrain from offering your negative opinions of other users. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with your being blunt, but the lack of validity to your content is something else. Like I said, my comment was factual (not opinion, as there is no other possible basis for Walloon's statement) and relevant to the discussion, which was about article content. Rude or not, it needed to be said and I stand by it. The fact that others on this very thread had been rude but you issued no warning goes directly to the credibility and objectivity of your doing so to me, and was therefore also relevant for me to point out. I had in fact pointed out Ramsquire's sarcasm to him or her previously, by the way, which indicates you hadn't familiarized yourself with the whole thread, and by extension the full context of my comments that you chose to warn me for (before you rule that this is uncivil, think again because it all is a proper defense, and any "Civility Rules" that block a proper defense are garbage). Ted Watson 20:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I haven't read the whole thread and I'm not going to. If you feel aggrieved about previous instances of alleged civility, I am sorry. If you wish to file a grievance regarding a specific matter (as opposed to a general gripe about other editors), please post a message on my talk page with a link to the specific comments you found offensive. Regardless, these alleged past instances of incivility do not excuse your comments. It did not "need" to be said and the rules of civility demand it not be said. In the future, you will discuss article content without offering your opinions of other users. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have said and will say one more time [personal commentary about another editor removed], is NOT an opinion but a fact, and one that is quite relevant to this discussion. Let me explain this in terms as clear as I can possibly make them. Anyone who has carefully studied the evidence is well aware of the FACT that the single-bullet theory is physically impossible, for reasons I have already specified on this thread and on the other thread on this page that I previously referenced here "New Film??", as well as much additional material I can cite if necessary, but what's already up here is conclusive (the federal government's refusal to acknowledge it notwithstanding; that is the cover-up). When Walloon, who has been described as "highly knowledgeable" of the assassination, stated, "I find the single-bullet theory the only credible explanation," (unless by those last two words he meant something quite different from "reasonable interpretation of the evidence," though I can't imagine what that might be; I AM open to a specific and solid clarification from Walloon to that effect, however, and if he gives one, I will gladly withdraw and apologize for all this, and I should have said so much earlier, an oversight for which I do apologize right now), he placed himself within the cover-up, PERIOD. [personal commentary about another editor removed], and is therefore a 100% relevant fact to point out here. As yet, you have not dealt with one aspect of this defense of my position here, and indeed by repeatedly referring to my "opinions," seem to be willfully ignoring it. Please deal with it. This is the second time I have been given a "Civility Warning" for my behavior on a Wiki talk page, and I find both to be unwarranted. The person responsible for the first one dropped the matter after I posted my refutation of it. (BTW, I am going to be unavailable for the next few days, so please don't interpret my lack of postings as conceding by default; it isn't.) Just to show how civil I try to be, there was a comment concerning your first sentence, about not having read the whole thread, that came to mind but I chose not to include. It would have been factually accurate and relevant, but would also have come across as somewhat derogatory, so, as I said, I left it out. Ted Watson 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not dealt with your defense because your "defense" is merely an attempt to justify your incivility by claiming it is a "fact" and not merely your opinion. Here on Wikipedia you have to collaborate with people who disagree with you and the bounds of civil discourse here prohibit you from addressing others in such a matter, regardless of how you attempt to justify your personal commentary. If you still don't think such offensive personal commentary is prohibited, then please refer to the Arbitration Committee proceedings against RPJ, who was banned from Wikipedia for a year following a long series of similar remarks. This is all a fact, so, to quote your last post, "please deal with it". Since there isn't anything more to say, and this discussion appears to be an excuse to repeat your comments about Walloon over and over again, please direct further objections to my personal talk page. Any further comments about Walloon or other users will be removed, as I removed your comments above. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the neutrality issue I was talking about. The undisputed truth is that the motorcade entered the plaza and the president was assinated in an attack that also wounded the governor. The single bullet theory belongs in the WC section. If your interest is brevity, you may notice that the WC section includes the path of the bullet, as does the Assassination section. (Interestingly, the WC section includes the word "likely"...) You're not writing a book, you're presenting the facts of the assassination. Check out footnote 9 for the HSCA report - right there at the top it says "President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him." That should suffice for the "According to" paragraph. Perhaps the "Others Wounded" section could be merged into this paragraph (and shortened, as it's already been established that the governor was riding in the same limousine in a seat in front of the President.) Moving the information and rewording the paragraph shortens both sections and puts the appropriate information in the appropriate sections. Ptventura 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Book recommendation

Hi, I know that Wikipedia talk pages are supposed to discuss how articles are supposed to be improved (rather than be a discussion about the subject matter), and I know that this is going to sound like a plug, and I know that there’s a separate article solely on conspiracy theories, and because of all this I apologize for posting the following comment (and hope people won’t flame me), but I’d like to call attention to a new book, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years by David Talbot (blog). I wanted to mention this book because I have never given any credence to JFK conspiracy theories and am extremely skeptical about conspiracy theories in general, always having found them to be propounded by people with personal agendas, but something about this book completely shattered my long-standing faith in the official version of events. Again, my sincere apologies for violating the talk page guidelines. —Technion 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider this to be a violation at all: nice. Extremely sexy 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read Talbot on this subject before and I had the same reaction now that I had then. Sure, RFK believed there was a conspiracy, but where is the evidence? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in this review of Talbot's book (that I haven't read) that seriously questions the author's methods. The critic is written by Don Bohning, a journalist that started covering Latin America for the Miami Herald in 1959 and wrote a book about the Cuban operations (The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba, 1959-65). Bradipus 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Technion's plug for the Talbot book. It should be read closely, carefully, and in its entirety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.230.228 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bullet fragment analysis

Before anyone jumps the gun (so to speak) about the most recent news about an upcoming article in Annals of Applied Statistics, about five bullet fragments in the Kennedy assassination, let's review what the old research did and did not say, and what the new research does and does not say. Here is the gist of what Dr. Vincent P. Guinn testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations:

Mr. FITHIAN - Equally important … is the second conclusion you make, and that is that there is no evidence of a third, fourth, or fifth bullet represented in any of the fragments that you tested?

Dr. GUINN - That is correct.

Mr. FITHIAN - And therefore, it is highly likely — is that the term you used to Mr. Wolf — that all fragments tested match up with two bullets and two bullets only?

Dr. GUINN - Yes, sir. The other three samples that we have been referring to — one being the fragments recovered from President Kennedy's brain, and then two different groups of particles found on the floor of the limousine — those three specimens are indistinguishable from one another, but markedly different from CE-399 and 842. So there is only evidence for the presence of two different bullets.

Dr. Guinn based this conclusion on his finding that each bullet in the Western Cartridge Company's lot of Mannlicher-Carcarno bullets was sufficiently different from the others that every bullet had close to a unique metallurgical profile. The new analysis by a team of researchers disagrees, saying,

We also found that many bullets in the same box have matching antimony and silver levels; this discovery is contrary to Dr. Guinn's testimony that based on these two elements virtually every bullet of this type is unique … The results reveal that Guinn's matches should not be equated with coming from the same rifle or even the same box of bullets.

Thus, the new research does NOT disprove that all five of the bullet fragments could have been from the same two bullets. It merely states that the bullet fragments are not limited by any unique profile to having come from only two bullets; they COULD have come from two bullets, or from three or more. — Walloon 03:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Zappone

Has anyone heard of photographer Tony Zappone‎? This article says he was part of the conspiracy. But there are no sources or references listed. --K72ndst 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)‎

Nowhere in this article is there even a remote inference that Tony Zappone was part of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy. He spent the day following JFK around four days prior to Dallas. His photography was used during the investigation and he presented photos to Robert Kennedy for the Kennedy Library. For Pete's sake, the guy was 16 years old at the time. Please review the article.

For your information, Zappone's photos have appeared in nine Kennedy books over the past 40 years and he is working on one of his own now with Ed Guthman, former press secretary to Robert Kennedy, as editor. FloridaFox 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange undoings

I see that my edits have been reverted. I honestly don't understand why... Someone care to review my changes and tell me why they weren't deemed worthy on this page - it's not like they were factual or anything, they were just links and a clarification... I'd redo my original edit myself, but I don't want to get into an edit war here, it just harms Wikipedia. Lilac Soul 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Debunked" vs. "Called into Question"

There is a burgeoning edit war over which language to use in the introduction regarding the dictabelt recording. "Called into question" (CIQ) is preferable because it adequately states that there is a dispute as to the probative value of these recordings. Every year it seems there is new research supporting the findings of the HSCA, and then later research "bebunking" it. As the issue is constantly in flux, it is better to simply state CIQ or "in dispute" rather than to definitively state debunked. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree for that reason of neutrality, and also simply because "bunk" and "debunked" are too informal, if not slang, for an encyclopedia article. — Walloon 17:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You are both wrong. Here is the reason why: the evidence has, in fact, been debunked. You are also wrong about "debunked" being slang, although, if you like, I'll go with "disproven". As to the actual issue at hand, if you read the actual text of this very article, you will see that it goes into detail, saying how and why the analysis of the HSCA is wrong. I do not look for edit wars to engage in but I care more about the article being right than anything else. Vidor 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vidor, try not to look at it as right or wrong. I am not a scientist, so I don't know which research to believe, so I am not arguing for or against the "findings" on the dictabelt. The last research mentioned in the article, in 2005, supported the findings of the NAS that the recording did not occur at the time of the assassination. However, the are follow-up articles both criticizing and upholding that research. The point is, that since some scientists are still holding to the premise that it is an "acoustic recording of the assassination" that there has been no definitive "debunking" of "disproven" at this time. What there has been is continuing dispute. FTR-- the most convincing debunking of the dictabelt evidence IMHO was by Dale Meyers and ABCNews, but considering this debate still continues, I don't think we can be that definitive. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

try not to look at it as right or wrong. Well, no. Anybody who is writing an article who goes into it not caring about right and wrong is going about it in exactly the wrong way. The dictabelt evidence has been disproven, and shown to be from a motorcycle that was idling at the Trade Mart. The question you should be asking is do you want the article to be more accurate, or less accurate? Vidor 22:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on content not the contributor, please. What I meant by not looking at it as right or wrong is that the test at Wikipedia is "Verifiability" over "Truth." It is verifiable that the dictabelt evidence is in dispute, and the dispute is listed under the dictabelt section of the article. Is it verifiable that it has been debunked? If so, by whom and when. You'd need to attribute this debunking, the text in the article doesn't show any explicit debunking. It only lists the research done and the varying findings. Plus no one is arguing that the HSCA or Thomas's findings are accurate, only that we cannot dismiss it without attribution. One more thing, if there is a source that debunks the dictabelt, I have no problem with using that word. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you have read the "response to the Dictabelt" section? And the studies from the National Academy of Sciences, ABC News, and Science and Justice magazine? The article already has citations showing that the HSCA evaluation of the Dictabelt is incorrect. Now, again, should we make the article more accurate or less accurate? Vidor 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did and I must ask did you read the portion of that section detailing the research by Thomas, done after the NAS and ABC News research, and his response to the Science and Justice magazine? I am filing an RfC on this issue. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what an RfC is. But it would be a good thing if the article reflected the overwhelming consensus that the Dictabelt does not show a fourth shot. Vidor 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I’d like to discuss this controversy in the context of wikipedia’s rules for editing, as I believe the suggested change violates the rules.

Specifically, we are talking about whether the dictabelt evidence has been “disproven” rather than merely being “called into question.” The relevant tests for new text on include:

1. Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources and original research by the editors is prohibited. I do not see any reliable sources saying that any overwhelming consensus exists regarding the dictabelt evidence, only the editor’s subjective opinion that such a consensus exists and that there is “proof” resolving the controversy one way or the other.

2. Verifiability says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. The word “disproven” as added to the text is being challenged, and the new text has no attribution.

3. Consensus says that over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community and when there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation. The change in question is being made in violation of text agreed to in the past. The phrase “called into question” has been the consensus. If the editor wants to substitute the word “disproven,” he will need to build a new consensus. And for the record, no, I do not agree with the changing the text to “disproven.” Joegoodfriend 02:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm asking to be yelled at, but I've changed the text in question to what I personally think is a decent medium: "...recorded acoustic evidence, the analysis of which has since been the subject of much critical scrutiny." I did it in the hopes that the Red Sea would part and maybe, just maybe, everyone might settle on that wording. If not, revert me, and feel free to flame on my talk. Vbdrummer0 02:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"disputed" "called into question" and "critical scrutiny" are in effect the same thing, so I don't have a problem with it. BTW-- we try not to flame people here, especially when their suggestion makes sense. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any reliable sources saying that any overwhelming consensus exists regarding the dictabelt evidence. You should read the section that deals with the Dictabelt. Three impartial sources vs. one. Either the article can be made right, or it can be allowed to remain wrong. I guess the majority will eventually rule here, but I hope the majority does not vote to make the article incorrect. Vidor 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A majority of sources cited in the article hardly constitutes a consensus among experts. Again, do you have data from a reliable source suggesting that most experts have reached the same conclusion regarding the dictabelt evidence, or have you simply reached your own conclusion, i.e., conducted original research? Joegoodfriend 03:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you regard reading the actual sources in the article as orginal research? Vidor 05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Once more, the section regarding dictabelt evidence comes to no conclusion that it has been disproven, it is a recital of the scrutiny it has received. Sure we (you and I, Vidor) have the same opinion that it has been debunked, but that is only our opinion, without a reliable source verifying this opinion, it is original research synthesis. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that calling it "original research" does not make any sense. I do not know how anyone can call reading the article and the sources linked "original research". We might as well call up down and black white. The fact of the matter is that, as the article already shows, the Dictabelt evidence has been disproven by subsequent analysis. We can make the article right, or we can allow it to be wrong. Vidor 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read this and explain to me how your edit is different from what is prohibited. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...must I put yet another link to Vincent Bugliosi's book, which discusses how the Dictabelt has been debunked? Like I said above, one can decide to make this article right, or make it wrong. Vidor 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Although providing citation is a step in the right direction it does not resolve the issue. This is a scientific dispute, therefore we would need a source stating that a consensus of scientists who have reviewed the evidence has debunked it. Technically, the Science and Journalism research is much more conclusive than Bugliosi, as he is not a scientist. In addition, his opinion cannot be stated as objective fact (See undue weight). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Debunked vs. "Called into Question

The issue concerns the following sentence in the introduction: Vidor's position is that the dictabelt section of the article shows that this dictabelt evidence has been debunked, and therefore called into question should be replaced by debunk. The opposing position is that there is no reliable sources making that definitive of a claim, therefore the proposed change violates WP:V and WP:OR. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This issue appears to be a non-starter. If there are no reliable sources that state the dictabelt evidence has been completely debunked, and not just "called into question", then it should remain as it is. Parsecboy 16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of several formulations to end this discussion and still keep the article in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Would the editors here be inclined to accept this as a solution. ""[The HSCA's]... conclusion was based on recorded acoustic evidence, which has since been called into question, and have led some to discredit it." Well, let me know what you think. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be better. Vidor 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's more clear than what I tried above ("critical scrutiny"), and gets both sides. Vbdrummer0 03:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Assassination Records Review Board

I slapped a "Disputed-section" tag on this section, since I can't find any sources on the bolded parts:

From 1992 until 1998, the Assassination Records Review Board gathered and unsealed many documents. However, tens of thousands of pages of other documents will remain classified and sealed, away from the public, until 2017, including:

• 3+% of all Warren Commission documents;
• 21+% of the House Select Committee on Assassinations documents;
• An undeterminable percentage of CIA, FBI, Secret Service, National Security Agency, State Department, US Marine Corps, Naval Investigative Service, Defense Investigative Service and many other US government documents.

If no one can clear this up, the quantifiers should go.--Sloane 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Zapruder 313?

If possible, I think it will be good to post Zapruder 313 on here. It's one of the most famous deaths captured on film; at that exact moment is when Kennedy was assassinated. I think it's a powerful and compelling image to include, if we can sort out copyright issues. — Deckiller 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if the absence of this image is based on any copyright issue. After all, this article shows, top of the page, Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg 30px based on fair use, while Image:ARC194273.gif File:ARC194273.gif or Image:Robert Croft photo showing JFK's car on Elm Street.jpg are free and could have been used instead.

And there is by the way a free version of z313 Image:CE390.jpg File:CE390.jpg: I uploaded it to Commons a while ago based on the copy from the Warren Commission report (work of the governmement, hence free). Bradipus 22:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates, 293 F.Supp. 130, 146 (D.C.N.Y. 1968) has already established that there are fair use exceptions to the copyright on the Zapruder film. The better question is ethical: "powerful" and "compelling" is also "gruesome" and "unncessary" when there are many other Zapruder frames that are available. — Walloon 22:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, fair use it can be, but you will note that the fair use is accepted by the court because of the uniqueness of the frames. My comment was that I am not sure the fair use can actually be accepted for Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg, as there are free alternatives like Image:ARC194273.gif or Image:Robert Croft photo showing JFK's car on Elm Street.jpg. Bradipus 19:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was coming here to make the same comment. Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg also happens to be a press agency photo, which are specifically excluded at WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #5. WP:NFCC #1 also mandates that if we have a free alternative that can serve the same encyclopedic purpose, then we are required to use it. I am planning to nominate this image for deletion. Let's see if we can't find a free (or more appropriate non-free) image to replace it. howcheng {chat} 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Snatch of BBC World Service on new evidence on second riflge

Did I dream this or in fact hear something to that effect - I;'ve scoured wikipedia but can find nothing? Engineman 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. Check the website of BBC News. — Walloon 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

broken link in the section 'Recordings of the assassination'

The current link to the video from "The Sixth Floor Museum, Dallas, Texas" is broken. Here is the new link http://www.jfk.org/media/George_Jefferies_Film.wmv SeBas891 15:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WC investigation vs. FBI investigation

"The assassination is still the subject of widespread speculation, and has spawned a number of conspiracy theories, although the Warren Commission itself did not do any investigating on its own and relied solely on FBI reports for its information. The Commission also refused to interview many eyewitnesses who held conflicting views on Oswald as the lone assassin, and ignored other hard evidence on Kennedy's murder."

I have removed the above edit for three reasons: (1) NPOV violations (e.g., "hard evidence"), (2) lack of sourcing, (3) inaccuracy. The first two are self-explanatory. But "The Warren Commission itself did not do any investigating on its own"? The Commission by itself took the testimony of 489 witnesses. Find any other murder investigation for which 489 witnesses were interviewed. An additional 61 witnesses gave sworn affidavits, and 2 gave statements, total 552 witnesses. The final, heavily footnoted Report was based mainly on this witness testimony. Besides that, WC counsel Wesley J. Liebeler said, "The work the FBI did on the physical evidence, the ballistics work, the fingerprint work, the hair and fibers work, that sort of thing, in many, if not all cases, was checked by independent criminal laboratories." The WC interviewed and included testimony from several dozen witnesses who said one or more shots came from places other than the Texas School Book Depository. It interviewed and included testimony from leading conspiracy theorist Mark Lane. It interviewed Sylvia Odio, whose testimony indicated Oswald may have revealed his assassination intention to anti-Castro Cuban exiles, and investigated that lead. — Walloon 06:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Rifle Name

The came apprantly used to shot JFK was a Carcano rifle not a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle this is a common mistake in the US so could someoner please change this thanks.59.100.226.52 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mannlicher-Carcano redirects to Carcano, and the explanation given there is that The misleading Mannlicher designation comes from the fact that the rifle depends for proper usage upon a magazine system using en bloc charger clips developed and patented by Ferdinand Mannlicher, but the actual and superior variant used in the Carcano is derived from the later non-Mannlicher German Mod.

So I guess that indeed it is a good idea to be fully accurate in the present article. Bradipus 22:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

the grassy knoll did it..... remember, remember, the 22nd of November 68.36.214.143 (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

20-year curse

I have just removed this section as it appears an interesting but trivial item - not appropriate for an encyclopedia, but perhaps worth posting on a talkpage to get consensus. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to other presidential deaths in office

With one exception, every United States President elected or re-elected in 20-year intervals since 1840 has died in office: William Henry Harrison (elected 1840), Abraham Lincoln (elected 1860), James A. Garfield (elected 1880), William McKinley (re-elected 1900), Warren G. Harding (elected 1920), Franklin D. Roosevelt (re-elected 1940). Kennedy's assassination continued the pattern of the 20-year curse or the zero factor. However, the pattern was broken with Ronald Reagan (elected 1980), although he was shot in an attempted assassination on March 30, 1981, which he survived.

Does that mean George W. Bush ("elected" 2000) is going to get shot? --RucasHost (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is an entire article on it: Curse of Tippecanoe and it is a common topic in connection with JFK - he being the last to die "under" it. It probably does not merit a section of its own, but inclusion in ==See also== is insufficient. Perhaps there is a place to "work in" a one-sentence direction to a link to Curse of Tippecanoe --JimWae (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • easier to debunk are the Kennedy-Lincoln similarities: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp --JimWae (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, all 3 contestants on Jeopardy the other night could not correctly come up with the date LBJ was inaugurated - and presumably neither could they come up with the date of the assassination. IIRC, 1st was off by 1 day, next by 7 days, & the 3rd did not even try. They were apparently all too young to remember --JimWae (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

citation ogogogo

On May 19, 2044, the 50th anniversary of the death of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, if her last child has died, the Kennedy library will release to the public a 500-page transcript of an oral history about John F. Kennedy given by Mrs. Kennedy before her death in 1994.

citation needed

also, shouldnt that be in the jko article too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.147.153 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

New Evidence

This picture is very peculiar, and are shots from two seperate photographers about 2.5 seconds apart. Notice the figure next to the small tree, and its absence in the photo to its left. I think this should be added to the article page as evidence of a conspiracy.Lytle1 (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC) File:Kennedy Assasination.jpg

• For the sake of argument, if your figure of 2.5 seconds is correct, a person walking at a slow pace would do 3.5 meters in 2.5 seconds. So the fact that somebody is not visible at the same place at a 2.5 seconds timespan does not mean much; besides, the fact that somebody was there is not evidence of anything else than the fact that...somebody was there (and as a matter of fact, there are indications that people who were present on the Plaza never surfaced to testify).
• Buth wathever, Wikipedia is not supposed to provide evidence. WP is supposed to give the current status of the existing research, not to do research. 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. Well, in fact, they are derived from material that is probably copyrighted, so it might well disappear in a short delay, except if you demonstrate the photos you have been working on are free. Bradipus (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What Bradipus said above. Plus: (1) the photos are not taken from the same angle (notice the much different placement of the streetlight in relation to the middle ground), hence do not show the same background -- the second photo shows a background area more to the right than the first photo does; (2) the "figure" in the background is a structure located north of the railyard; it resembles and may be a grain elevator; (3) the second photo was taken at least a minute after the shooting. -- Walloon (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And, in arguement to Bradipus's first bullet, that is why it is a "conspiracy". If it was a definate figure, there would be no mystery. Just like the "wink" photo to LBJ cannot be said for certain because that is just a conspiracy. Nobody said that the photos had to prove truth, just show what various people are speculating, and giving evidence in favor of a conspiracy.68.111.166.226 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the photos were taken approximately 2.5 seconds apart. And no, that thing is not a grain elevator, the elevator is approximately 2 inches right of this figure (although it isnt visible here because the images were cropped). And, I put the same licensing tag that is on the photo that currently exists on the picture at the head of this article-if mine is deleted, I will fight for the deletion of all the photos on this page as "stolen work". And the two gunman theory is an actual theory, so claiming its original research is wrong when, in fact, it is a theory. 68.111.166.226 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it is a theory, it appears to be yours, which is the definition of original research. So please leave it away for the moment from Kennedy assassination theories as well, where I deleted it a second time. If this theory has been exposed by one of the many researchers in the case, please provide us with a source before putting it in an article.

Picture: I do not know what pic you refer to, but as far as yours is concerned, it is not clear that your work has been done with picture who are free or under GFDL. Bradipus (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop using Kennedy assassination theories as some sort of garbage can for this article. By the way, as Walloon said, it is cristal clear that the 2 pics are taken more than 2.5 seconds apart: in the first one, the Newmans are lying on the ground, in the second one they are standing, at ease, with the little boy' hand in his father's hand, and the 2 photographers are gone. There is no way this could happen in 2.5 seconds. So all in all, it is not surprising you do not seem to have another source for your theory, because at the end of the day, if you could demonstrate that this figure is a person (which it is probably not), you would have demonstrated nothing but the fact that at an undetermined moment after the assassination, somebody would have appeared near the construction on the top of the knoll, maybe walking in the direction of Elm Street probably coming from the parking lot. According to you, does the fact that a lot of people come by and take a look when they hear an accident occured indicate that these people were involved in the organisation of the accident?  ;-) Bradipus (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have striked-through the comments posted by banned user Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs). Banned users are not permitted to edit any part of Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Autopsy photos missing?

There is a problem with this:

Several key pieces of evidence and documentation are described to have been lost, cleaned, or missing from the original chain of evidence (e.g., limousine cleaned out at hospital, Connally's suit dry-cleaned, Oswald's military intelligence file destroyed in 1973,[82] Connally's Stetson hat and shirt sleeve gold cufflink missing, forensic autopsy photos missing, etc.)

Various conspiracists (most notably Gary Aguilar) have collected a fair amount of witness testimony claiming that this or that photo was shot -- but is not included in the extant set.

The problem is that the testimony is all over the place, and there are seldom (if ever) two witnesses who name the same photo as having been taken but not in the set.

Another problem is that many of the witnesses talk about "missing photos" in the context of testimony where they clearly should have had a photo taken -- but probably did not.

The earliest extant inventory exactly matches the set of photos in evidence today.

So the passage should at least be amended to say "autopsy photos claimed to be missing."

John McAdams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.247.65 (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

1. The lead should be expanded to better summarize the article. Due to the length of the aritcle, it should be about three or four paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for more guidelines.
2. Consider expanding the "Funeral" section, with a few more sentences about the preparation for it and the actual funeral. The "Reaction to the assassination" section should also be expanded.
3. "From 1992 until 1998, the Assassination Records Review Board gathered and unsealed about 60,000 documents, consisting of over 4 million pages.[2][3]" Convert these links to inline citations.
4. The external links need to be trimmed down, (consider using some as inline citations), remove the ones that don't conform to the guidelines of WP:EL.
5. The article would benefit from a few more images. Maybe images of President Kennedy, the autopsy, J. Edgar Hoover, Earl Warren, Ramsey Clark, and/or the motorcade (I added one of the rifle myself).
6. This isn't required for the article to keep its GA status, but it would help to improve the article. The inline citations that are only listed as an URL would benefit from using the citation templates used at WP:CITET] to include the author, article title, date, accessdate, etc.

The following need inline citations:

1. "Kennedy had chosen to visit Dallas for three main reasons: to help generate more Democratic Party presidential campaign fund contributions in advance of the November 1964 presidential election; to begin his quest for re-election; and, because the Kennedy-Johnson ticket had barely won Texas (and had lost Dallas) in 1960, to mend political fences among several leading Texas Democratic Party members who appeared to be fighting politically amongst themselves."
2. "Doctors later stated that after the governor was shot, Mrs. Connally pulled the governor onto her lap, and the resulting posture helped close his front chest wound (which was causing air to be sucked directly into his chest around his collapsed right lung)."
3. "At that time, it was not a federal offense to kill the President of the United States."
4. "On May 19, 2044, the 50th anniversary of the death of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, if her last child has died, the Kennedy library will release to the public a 500-page transcript of an oral history about John F. Kennedy given by Mrs. Kennedy before her death in 1994.[citation needed]"

Overall, the article was an interesting read and it's great there are a lot of free images. Many of these should be easy and quick to fix, while some of the expansions may take a little while. If the above issues are addressed, I believe the article will meet the broad and verifiable requirements of the GA criteria. Consider using reliable websites for adding citations for the above statements if books are not readily available. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects/task forces so that the workload can be shared. This article documents an important event in American history, and the above changes will definitely improve the article for the many readers that probably look at this page each day. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAR

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was delisted. Please see the archived discussion for further information. 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Title

Is there any way the title of this can be changed to something like "The Assasination of John F. Kennedy"? The icon on the start menu says "John F. Kennedy ass..." and even as mature as I am, I can't stand it. Thanks =D 65.96.73.66 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I'm sorry but reading your comment I can't help but think: "The Ass. of John F. Kennedy"...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by XcepticZP (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Guy Banister

For want of a better place to put this flag ... anybody skeptical of conspiracy theories might want to take a look at the Guy Banister entry on Wikipedia. It reads like somebody channelling Jim Garrison. I would tweak it myself, the article on Banister on the "JFK 100" site being a good place to start, but somebody with more access to sources would probably do a better job. MrG4.225.213.246 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it with an NPOV tag. Multiple editors should probably go over the article and address the obvious problems. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The current picture on top of the article is not free. Somebody recently found a very good quality free pic he put on the french WP article: Image:John F. Kennedy motorcade, Dallas.jpg. I'd suggest a replacement. In any case, the fact that this pic exist decreases the fair use rationale of the current picture. Bradipus (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Background of visit"

This first sentence in this section, discussing the President's reason for visiting Dallas, makes absolutely no sense and appears to have been vandalized or something.

Kennedy had chosen to visit Dallas for three main reasons: to clear the US of Debt, and create a debt free currency.

The rest of first paragraph is, in my opinion, written poorly and could use improvements, but at the very least that first sentence needs to be revised and corrected. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.10.216 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

jfk was the thirty-sixth president

it says in the first paragraph thirty-fith. not a big deal but its kinda a "duhh" thing if ur gonna write a article about him you should really know about him

Um re-check your sources. He was the 35th.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nellie Connally's words to Kennedy

I'm really surprised that the article fails to mention the comment Nellie Connally made to the President before he was shot. "You can't say Dallas doesn't love you today, Mr. President" As he was leaning over to reply, he received the first shot. Not only did the papers at the time quote this but at the Sixth Floor Museum they note her remark.jeanne (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just an oversight. If you have a reliable source, be bold and add it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nellie Connally (WCR 4H147): When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, “Mr. President, you can’t say Dallas doesn’t love you.” Then I don’t know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Governor Connally (WCR 4H131): (...) just as we turned on Houston Street off of Main. and turned on Houston, down by the courthouse, Mrs. Connally remarked to the President, “Well, Mr. President, you can’t say there aren’t some people in Dallas who love you.” And the President replied, “That is very obvious,” or words to that effect.

Jackie Kennedy (WCR 5H180): (...) that is (as they had turned off of Houston onto Elm right by the Depository Building) when she said to President Kennedy, “You certainly can’t say that the people of Dallas haven’t given you a nice welcome.” (...) I think he said- I don’t know if I remember it or I have read it, “No, you certainly can’t,” or something.

Bugliosi, p. 37 (quoting a bedside interview of Governor John Connally at Parkland Hospital by CBS’s Martin Agronsky) writes: Nellie Connally is overwhelmed by the unexpected response of the people of Dallas. She turns and beams brightly at the president. “Mr. President”, she says as the president leans towards her, “they can’t make you believe now that there aren’t some people in Dallas who love you and appreciate you, can they?” The president leans back, waves, and flashes the famous Kennedy smile at the passing faces. “No, they sure can't,” he grins.

Two lessons:

1. It will be hard to quote something that is so variable. A lot of books just use the quick and easy quote as mentionned by Mrs Connally (“Mr. President, you can’t say Dallas doesn’t love you.”), but other people present remember something a bit more elaborate.
2. He was definitely not shot as he was leaning to answer. He did answer and was shot a little while later (probably just a fistfull of seconds, but we know that in this case there are endless arguments about fractions of seconds).

Bradipus (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well as the standard is verifiability, not truth, any one of those formulations could go in, as they are all reliably sourced. Kind of weird for an encyclopedia. But alas, that is Wikipedia. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware Kennedy replied to Mrs. Connally. I read it in an old copy of the Humboldt County, California newspaper published the day after his assassination. I re-read it at my mother's house two years ago, then I saw the same thing written at the Sixth County Museum. The article states that he was leaning over to reply when he was shot, but obviously, a lot more facts regarding that fateful day emerged later on so we really cannot rely completely on an article which was published so quickly following the assassination. The article looks fine as it is.06:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

The reason Jackie accompanied Kennedy to Texas

I notice the article doesn't mention the reason it was decided that Jackie should accompany the President to Texas. It was felt that the presence of the elegant First Lady would alleviate some of the hostility many Texans felt toward Kennedy. I don't have the source available but I have read this many times. Perhaps Walloon or Ramsquire can confirm this?jeanne (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to the article. Plus it is customary for First Ladies to travel with the President, so I am not sure we need to delve into the reason Jackie accompanied JFK. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I only mention it seeing as the visit was to a place decidedly hostile to Kennedy and it was felt that her appearance would placate the Texans. It's just an idea.I'll leave it up to you guys.jeanne (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15