Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

The Rifle

Can we please clarify this? The Lee Harvey Oswald still states it as an... M-C [doing so because I don't know how to spell it] rifle when this article says it's just the C. Car-something. Mr. Raptor (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the article is clear. In the "Carcano rifle" section, it clearly states that 'Mannlicher-Carcano' is not the correct name, and that the correct name is simple Carcano. If a reader wants to know from where the confusion comes, then the reader can follow wikilinks to find out. The origin of the misnomer is of no relevance to the subject. --Legion fi (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The first rifle found was a Mauser. There's extensive documentation of this, pictures, interviews, the express statement of the secret serviceman/bodyguard that came into the schoolbook depository, he and several others asked a police officer that had extensive gun knowledge from owning a gun store, he pointed out that it looked like a Mauser, pointed to the stamp on the Rifle that clearly stated "Mauser". This is not a theory. This is documented fact that all the official _stories_ left out, even if the laughable warren commission omits it does not make it any less a fact. There are photographic evidence of the Mauser with the scope. Why does the article not reflect the facts?

Please sign your comments. The House Select Committee on Assassinations examined the Mauser theory in detail, using photographs, the Thomas Alyea film, and eyewitness testimony, and found it to be a false identification. There was no stamp on the rifle that said "Mauser". More here, here, and here. — Walloon (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"...as Mrs. Kennedy put her arms around him in concern."

Don't you think 'concern' is an understated way to put it when he had just been shot in the neck? Zazaban (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Kennedy did not know that her husband had been shot through the neck. He had more of a puzzled look on his face than anything else, as she described it in her testimony to the Warren Commission:

Mrs. KENNEDY. I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand.

— Walloon (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Connally's words

When Governor Connally was shot the articles states that he shouted My God, THEY are going to kill us all. The word they is very significant. That single word indicated that bullets were coming from one than one direction-and gun. More proof that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone.--jeanne (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Flimsy. Badger Drink (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

you all need grammar lessons

from the introductory paragraph: "though none of these theories has been proven"

correction: "though none of these theories HAVE been proven"

reminds of the type of grammar you'd find in a lolcat picture.

Why the hell can't I edit this page? It's horribly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 42WonkotheSane (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Has" is correct, as the subject of the sentence is the indefinite pronoun "none". "Theories" is merely the culimination of the noun phrase. See the bottom of #1, here Perhaps you've been reading a few too many of those lolcat pictures? Badger Drink (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Merriam-Webster, the pronoun "none" can take a singular or a plural verb. If anything, a singular verb is slightly preferred. So, "none of these theories has been proven" is correct grammar. You cannot edit the article at present because you are newly registered. It is a precaution to prevent vandalism. This article is among those that were frequently the target of vandalism. Please remember to sign any comments you leave here. — Walloon (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Earwitness tabulation

The earwitness tabulation used here comes from the study done by Professor John McAdams of Marquette University, summarized here. Dr. McAdams has indicated to me that he plans to change the status of Dallas police officer Joe Murphy, removing him from the "knoll" earwitnesses. I have temporarily placed Murphy in a new category "either knoll or Depository", waiting to see how Dr. McAdams will reclassify him. — Walloon (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lee Harvy Oswald did not kill John F Kenedy. First of all he was not shot from the libraray. But from the grassy nole. Sevral witnesses support this thery. Dispit unsibstansial evidence found by the gouvernment Lee Harvy oswald was wronly killed. If anyone actually thought about it. It was impossible to be shot through the head from obove the third floor of the library. Omung the witnesses that say he was shot from the grassy nole was a couple walking with there children. They were infront of the grassy nole and they saw a man with a gun behond them. They pushed there children to the ground and lay on top of them. That by itself diserved further investigation. This is very substancial reason why I not only belive but I know that it was not Harvey who killed Kenedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.54.160 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well yes Oswald was wrongly killed because he was murdered by Jack Ruby. Not going to comment on the rest because it has been extensively investigated elsewhere. – ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The couple with children were the Newmans, and they never claimed to have seen a man with a gun anywhere. — Walloon (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Drawing depicting the posterior head wound of President Kennedy. Made from an autopsy photograph

This drawing is nothing like the photos why isnt this covered?

How about the actualphotos?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The drawing is very much like the photo it was made from. The autopsy photographs are not in the public domain. — Walloon (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Image needed of Lee Harvey Oswald

There should be an image of Oswald on this article. Do any of the other editors object to a picture of Oswald being added?--jeanne (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Adlai Stevenson

The article should mention that Adlai Stevenson, who had been assaulted in Dallas just a month prior to the presidental assassination by an anti-United Nations protestor, had advised Kennedy not to visit Dallas.--jeanne (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing Caskets?

Am I not right in saying that the caskets were mercaulasly changed between the boarding of AF1 and the autopsy? It's probably in the articke but I can't seem to find it! Would be good to put this in as a "claim" no? 89.240.203.82 (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's on the conspiracy theories page. Canada Jack (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in numerous documentaries as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not merge this article with elements of other related articles?

The article that describes the various conspiracy theories offers some valuable counterpoints to this article and would greatly improve this article's objectivity. For example, the article about the JFK assassination conspiracy theories notes that both Gov. Connelly and his wife were certain that both men (Connelly and JFK) were hit by seperate shots. This fact is not in dispute. There are also references to later evidence, such as the analysis of shooting 3 aimed shots, in no more than 6 seconds, at a moving target, using the alleged rifle. The conspiracy theory article mentions that a team of professional Marine snipers could not accomplish this feat. This article also fails to mention, in significant detail, the political, social, and economic climates during the time of the assassination (of which, the conspiracy theories article alludes to).Jb79 (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The article in fact refers to a) the fact that most people believe there was a conspiracy and b) that there are numerous conspiracy theories to challenge the official versions of events. And there is even a section here which discusses some of the various conspiracy theories with a link to the larger article. Indeed, there are at least three links to the conspiracy article! Not sure how the article is therefore not objective. BTW, the only "fact" in regards to the Connallys is that it is a "fact" that they believed a separate bullet struck Connally. It is also "a fact" that they thought Oswald did it alone and there was no conspiracy! As for the claim that a "team of professional Marine snipers" could not duplicate what Oswald did, then that team should hang their heads in shame because an Army sniper not only duplicated what Oswald did for the Warren Commission, he improved on what Oswald did, and numerous reconstructions - with moving targets, with heights etc reproduced - have also shown that Oswald's feat was not that hard at all if you were a decent shot. As for the "context," that would be somewhat leading. Because setting a "context" suggests that that "context" resulted in the death of the president. So that is why the article sticks to "facts," and those "facts" are that there were several investigations which led to several conclusions, and there have since emerged numerous arguments as to why those investigations were wrong and JFK's death was the result of multiple players. Canada Jack ([[User talk:Canada

Jack|talk]]) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to Canada Jack (sort of an odd name for a discussion of a U.S. historical event), I am aware of the way wiki works and know why related stories are crossed referenced. But, this is a very controversial subject matter (atleast, here in the U.S.), and it is my opinion that this article is not as objective as it should be. Your comment about the Connally's is correct, in that they "believed" there were two different shots, and this contradicts the single bullet theory. And in the same way, an eyewitness "believed" he saw a gunman on the sixth floor of the depository, matching Oswalds description. Why would you value one witness testimony over another, especially if those witnesses were the closest to the event (the Connally's)? Further, if you have an objection to the findings of the Marine snipers, then you should be aware that Oswald was also trained, as a marksman, in the Marines. He was not in the Army. So, either your comment on this subject has no merit, or Oswald was a substantial over-achiever, who could shoot better than those who currently train Marine snipers. And, what I mean by "context" certainly would not taint the article, as they are "facts". The "Bay of Pigs" insurrection happened, the Cuban Missle Crisis happened, and it has been proven that the FBI had tried to use the Mafia to kill Castro. These facts may or may not support a conspiracy theory, but they do provide an understanding of the 60's, currently absent in the article's narrative. I would settle for just one allusion to the fact that this event took place in the 60's (that is not the date info, at the top, or a photo caption).Jb79 (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am Canadian, and though my ancestors left America circa 1760, I nevertheless had ancestry there going back some 140 years. Not that the fact I am Canadian somehow disqualifies me here... As for your opinion on whether the article is objective or not, you seem to have a rather skewed idea of what "objective" is. Why, for example, is your opinion that witness A is somehow more relevant and should therefore be included somehow enough to warrant inclusion here? The article quite simply explains the sequence of events in terms of the bare facts of the assassination, followed by the various investigations and what they concluded, and a section on various conspiracy theories. Numerous aspects of the case - such as the single bullet theory - have their own page. But the page here is not designed to focus on one theory or the other, nor to wade into the various debates and controversies. It is designed to spell out the basic facts of the case, the following investigations, and the fact that numerous alternate explanations have been offered owing to controversy over the conclusions of the Warren Commission. Those controversies are dealt with on various pages.

As for your non-sequitor about the Marines, you utterly fail to miss the point. Why is the fact (if it is a fact) that Marine sharpshooters couldn't replicate Oswald's feat when an Army sharpshooter could, and many others could, somehow something of great importance? The question is not whether marines could do this feat but whether a gunman could. And, as I said, those Marines should hang their heads in shame since a ton of other marksmen could easily duplicate what Oswald did and improve on his time. The movie JFK lies when it says no one could do what Oswald did, as within the context of the time-frame of the film, the Warren Commission reported one Captain Miller in fact improved on Oswald's feat.

And, what I mean by "context" certainly would not taint the article, as they are "facts". The "Bay of Pigs" insurrection happened, the Cuban Missle Crisis happened, and it has been proven that the FBI had tried to use the Mafia to kill Castro. These facts may or may not support a conspiracy theory, but they do provide an understanding of the 60's, currently absent in the article's narrative. Uh, but why is this relevant? If Oswald was a lone nut and acted on his own demons, what does the Bay of Pigs have to do with it? Why not include the top pop songs of the day or the Oscar-winning movies of 1963 using your logic? They provide "context" too! The problem with your "context" is it suggests that, somehow, these events play a part in the assassination. Some indeed think they do. But not others. So, to include this "context" in fact suggests support for one of several scenarios over other scenarios. Which is introducing a POV element into the piece.

I would settle for just one allusion to the fact that this event took place in the 60's (that is not the date info, at the top, or a photo caption). ??? Have you actually read this article and the attendant articles? Here are the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st words of the article: "Friday, November 22, 1963." Are you suggesting we need an aside to note for readers who may not be aware of this that Nov 22 1963 was during the 60s? Canada Jack (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) To answer the original question, both articles are too large to be merged together at this point. The conspiracies article is a spin-off of this article, as is the rifle article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point Ramsquire, but my suggestion was to incorporate some elements of the conspiracy article, not the whole article. Canada Jack, I will concede that I now understand and agree with your position on "context" and the scope of this article. But, I am very disappointed in you, on the third point. I never even alluded to the film JFK (a horribly inaccurate movie), I was using this fact to bolster my position on the scope of the article. There is an actual book that puts forth the opinion of a veteran Marine sniper specialist (who has written other books on the subject professional marksmanship). You can look it up on amazon.com. You'll note that the footnote references a website, which is partially about the book. You will find no reference to the film JFK. Perhaps, you should have posted this information (about the Army tests) on the movie's discussion page.Jb79 (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, my apologies for implying your connection to "JFK," though it was more to note that many have the impression that the shooting feat by Oswald was impossible because that is what the movie said. Of course, Oliver Stone was repeating the erroneous claim of other conspiracy theorists. And I am also well aware of the book and the claims made therein. But the Marine is making a claim - that because he couldn't replicate what Oswald did that no one could do so - which is demonstrably false. The conditions have been recreated, the feat duplicated and bettered by numerous marksmen. It was an army specialist who did it by the timeframe of the film JFK (ie, by 1969). Specialist Miller hit 2 of 3 targets (as Oswald did) in 4.45 seconds, and this was in the Warren Commission report. That was using, btw, the same gun Oswald was said to have used, the actual rifle. Then CBS recreated the scene in 1967 (which was during the timeframe of "JFK") and though using the same model (not the same rifle) as Oswald's, they found that the average time for the 11 marksmen to fire off three rounds was 5.6 seconds, well within the time Oswald needed, with one marksman getting 2 of 3 in under 5 seconds, one getting 3 of 3 in 5.2 seconds. Canada Jack (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok Jack, now its becoming a bit irritating. I am not here to debate the assassination with you, which I could do, in great detail. But, we have resolved the question that I have put forth. There is no need to make this into a traditionalist-revisionist discussion, as it would require too many back and forth comments. So, please, let it go. I have more important things to do with my time. You are not going to persuade me, and vice versa. Goodbye.Jb79 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb79 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute

It's unfair to the FACTS and intellectually dishonest for this page to present the Warren Commission's side of the story as the truth. The tone of the article suggests veracity when the actual events are in complete conflict with the WC. Yet the editors of this page have the AUDACITY to present the magic bullet theory as a credible theory. Obviously none of this happened, so why is it presented as real? This page is no different than someone writing an entry about magic and citing warlocks as evidence. Give me a fucking break. This article needs tangible facts, take all of the WC material off considering their conflict of interest and blatant lies and give people the facts and put the WC story under conspiracy theories.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.139.143 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. – ukexpat (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll bite. What "actual events" are in "complete conflict" with the WC? In terms of the article, the event did happen, and the various investigations did happen, and those various investigations came to conclusions, and those conclusions have been challenged. Those are the "facts" found on the page. If you can identify something which, for example, the Warren Commission did not in fact claim, then that would be a "non-fact," but all we are interested in here is whether they made various assertions or not, not whether those various assertions are based on reality. Canada Jack (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

James Leon Ward Involvement with JFK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F7pqn9hMWQ&feature=channel_page

this is not theory, it is actual involvement

James Leon Ward was in deep with Frank Costello and was hired to drive the two shooters (Herbie Echo and John Argo) from the hit, and to kill and bury them. He implicates LBJ staff (W. Tom Johnson/CNN and Bill Moyers/PBS) as planning the assassination with Costello's men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.130.186 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a theory. And this discussion belongs on the conspiracy theory page (where the identical note was posted).Canada Jack (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Ward and Costello make 216 different individuals who it is claimed were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Echo and Argo make it 84 different individuals who it has been claimed were actual assassins that day. (Bugliosi, pp. 1491-1499) As Bugliosi wryly noted, with all those assassins firing away that day, "it's remarkable that Kennedy's body was sufficiently intact to make it to the autopsy table." Canada Jack (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting how the longstanding theories have created difficulty seeing reality when it is in front of us. Let's just ask these questions to all the other people you refer to: 1) How many people provide actual statements themselves, 2) How many people were a driver and bodyguard to Frank Costello, 3) How many people ran arms to Cuba, 4) How many people knew Echo and Argo (the most prominent torpedos that were for hire), 5) How many people knew Jack Ruby, 6) How many people were granted presidential papers from President Ford, giving their name back and forgiving over 600 warrants. I know it's common to make fun of these issues - but as the reality hits, how will people view the statements that you have made on this site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.130.186 (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we can exclude Jack Ruby from any involvement. Honestly, can you picture a group of ambitious people with so much at stake, trusting an unstable character like Ruby?! Ruby was the guy who came on the scene and upset the apple cart. Without Ruby shooting Oswald on live TV there wouldn't have been much ammo for pro-conpiracy theorists (of which I am one BTW).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is, 63, one can come up with any number of scenarios, some more plausible than others. But the bottom line is there is no credible evidence - none - that anyone other than Oswald fired shots that day. And no credible evidence - none - that Oswald worked in concert with others. Maybe you buy the line about Costello. Problem is, there is no evidence to link these people to the event in question. So they can yap up a storm, and people like you who probably aren't well-versed in the facts of the case might find these stories plausible. But some "confession" nearly a half century later does nothing to alter the facts of the event. And those facts eliminate any shooter other than Oswald finding his mark. Canada Jack (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the limitations of this domain - I will not bother you with facts that are too difficult for you to process. End. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.130.186 (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do is tell is how your Costello stuff works despite evidence to the contrary. You are the one making the claim, so let's see that evidence! The evidence as I understand it makes your scenario implausible if not impossible. But your response tells me one thing: You now realize you are out of your depth here. The old line "bullshit baffles brains" may work with people who don't really know much about the subject, but here you will have to put up or shut up. (Prediction: 63 will do one of three things 1) hurl more insults along the lines of "the truth is too difficult for you to understand." 2) not respond at all as he knows I will ask specific questions which he will not be able to answer. 3) change the subject. Canada Jack (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(Prediction: 63 will do one of three things 1) hurl more insults along the lines of "the truth is too difficult for you to understand." 2) not respond at all as he knows I will ask specific questions which he will not be able to answer. 3) change the subject. Could not have said it any better myself. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the challenge, but this is not about me. There is information provided and either you have a sincere interest to investigate or your interests relates to personal volleys which are non productive to the underlying objectives to seek the truth. If you are interested you will view the statements provided; otherwise you are using this platform for personal interests to dominate a topic of interest. Either you value and are open to information, or you are threatened by it. This whole negative tone seems rather limiting to cooperative management of issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.130.186 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be a deft combination of 1) 2) and 3)! Clearly, you can't be bothered to employ your critical faculties in addressing some rather simple and straightforward questions - i.e. why is this guy, sitting at a table and yapping, so compelling? And why he is more compelling than a) the Warren Commission or b) the several hundred others said to be either co-conspirators or actual assassins? In other words, how have you determined that he is not spinning some yarn and is in fact the real deal?

Since you seem bent on simply tossing something out and hoping it sticks to the wall, then I will return to the video, and pull quotes from Mr Ward to ask you how you account for certain... "discrepancies." Stay tuned. Canada Jack (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, on Youtube there is a six-part monologue by one James Leon Ward who claims he was hired to pick up two hitmen, after they had performed a hit, shoot them, then bury their corpses in several pre-determined graves. But, contrary to the impression given by 63 above, even assuming this guy was telling the truth and had been approached to do deal with these two men, there was nothing the men who hired him - who he named - said to indicate it was the president of the United States who was to be assassinated. How did he connect these two men - who he said were John Argo and Herbert Echo - to a plot to kill JFK? Well, he had been told that he would be called in Waco, where he would be waiting for a call, and that in Fort Worth, there'd be a hit, and he'd pick them up there. Realizing the morning of that JFK was in Ft Worth, he called the police there who, presumably, sent reinforcements, foiling his would-be assassins' plans. But when he heard later in the day that JFK had indeed been murdered - but in Dallas - he assumed that they must have carried out the job there instead.

So, what do we have here? Someone who was hired to transport two hitmen - from Fort Worth - but who never carried out the job an, without ever being told who these guys were going to hit - assumes that their target was JFK himself!

However, Ward himself says that someone in Texas owed a lot of money to Frank Costello. So while he indeed may have been witnessing a plan for murder, it seems that it was for someone who ran afoul of Costello in terms of money rather than the president of the United States. But there are other rather large questions here. Costello by 1963 had been shoved aside as being, essentially, the Godfather. His power in 1963 was vastly reduced. And we are to suppose that he would freelance and kill JFK? That seems highly unlikely. Further, since wiretap investigations reveal that while despising JFK and RFK intensely, there was no evidence of the Mob actually planning JFK's murder. None. Which leaves us with Costello freelancing.

SO, if we assume Costello was freelancing, then we have to ask: What was so special about Texas? By Ward's account, several weeks out, maps of Ft Worth were poured over by these guys arranging the hit. But these guys were up in New York and Jersey, the president was in Washington. Why arrange an assassination thousands of miles away in a place largely unknown to you? Indeed, by Ward's account, everyone had to be sent down to Texas - what the hell for? What seems far more likely was that Costello was settling some old score with someone down in Fort Worth and it simply happened to be the same timeframe as JFK.

And the rather bizarre detail that the two guys Ward says he didn';t know there in the hotel room while he was being hired for the job, were none other than Bill Moyers and Tom Johnson, two of LBJ's top men. Even if we get hallucinogenic here and assume that they were acting on LBJ's behalf, what possible reason would they have to be in that room with the guy who was being hired to deal with the assassins?(!)

Further, an assassination attempt in Fort Worth, at least the morning of Nov 22 makes little sense as the Kennedy's stayed in the Texas Hotel, gave a speech there, then drove in his motorcade to Carswell base. And while a phone call from Ward may have alerted the cops there (which is what Ward assumes happened after he tipped them off for "a murder" about to occur there), the would-be assassins would have no way to know this beforehand and if they were going to try to get JFK in Ft Worth, they'd have to very hastily change plans to zoom off to Dallas and very hastily find somewhere to shoot at JFK. But JFk got to Carswell for 11 am, meaning a mere 90 minutes for the assassins to get to Dallas and prepare. Doable, but how likely is this?

Finally, as numerous investigations have underlined, only two bullets were recovered, only one fatal shot occurred, and that bullet was conclusively linked to Oswald's rifle. So, even if these two went to Dallas with ill intent, they probably got stuck in traffic and Oswald was left to do it on his own. And what, prey tell, did Oswald have in connection to these guys? Oswald's movements for the several months before Nov 22 have been meticulously traced - to account for the time before the JFK trip was announced and before Ward's meeting took place. Further, if these guys were such fabulous shots, how come only bullet find its mark? And that bullet was from Oswald's rifle!

In the end, all we have is some guy who has convinced himself that some mobsters out doing a hit were actually out to get Kennedy, even though he heard no one say JFK was to be killed and despite the fact the hit was to take place in Ft Worth, not Dallas. Even if this guy is 100 per cent sincere, he can ease his conscious by reading the evidence which links Oswald to the bullets which killed JFK. Canada Jack (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We have already discussed the impossibility of the mob being in any way connected to the assassination; they just did not have the power in America to suborn the autopsy reports, Warren Committee, Dallas police, etc. The same goes for foreign governments.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada Jack - The Information you cite is not correct. The conflicts you express in your summary above can be self resolved if you take the time to get the facts right from the videos. I was expecting intelligent and productive questions - but it seems everyone is too busy flexing their opinion (even at the risk of making untrue references). This seems to be a platform for self-reinforcing bias, so I won't try to force you to face the realities before you. As history unfolds you can review your comments here and see what you chose to do when you were given an opportunity to actually uncover the truth about the JFK Assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.130.186 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

63 - There you go again. Here are some of the wild claims you made:

James Leon Ward was in deep with Frank Costello and was hired to drive the two shooters (Herbie Echo and John Argo) from the hit, and to kill and bury them. He implicates LBJ staff (W. Tom Johnson/CNN and Bill Moyers/PBS) as planning the assassination with Costello's men.

I went to the trouble of watching the entire 60 minute video, and I noted some important problems and discrepancies. For one, Costello's men said nothing about a plan to assassinate JFK! I didn't say that the guy was a liar, indeed, I operated on the premise he was sincere. But all we have here is his opinion that the hit that he was involved with in fact was a hit of the president. He offers no evidence - none - that JFK indeed was the intended target for the hit other than the extremely implausible assertion that Bill Moyers and Tom Johnson were in the room as the escape route for the killers was being planned. Even if we accept the premise that LBJ was involved, it makes no sense that Moyers and Johnson would be in the room. None. In other words, Ward, even if he described events which actually occurred makes wild assumptions and comes to conclusions which simply do not add up.

So, what do we get from you, what response from my critique? I was expecting intelligent and productive questions - but it seems everyone is too busy flexing their opinion... Huh? Are you incapable of responding to someone who took the time to address specific concerns? If you want to be taken seriously, you might actually address some of the gaping holes in the premise the video you promote has.

I have to conclude that you, Mr Anonymous 63, are somehow behind this video, perhaps you produced it or are otherwise promoting it. Why do I say this? I noted that only about two dozen or so people have actually watched the video on Youtube. I also noted that 63's claims about the video are unusually specific (W. Tom Johnson/CNN and Bill Moyers/PBS), more specific than Ward himself is in the clips. And I further noted that it was Ward himself who supposedly posted the video. But the guy looks like he could be 90, so I feel that is not too likely. My guess is that 63 is probably behind the video and his near-instant resort to lines like As history unfolds you can review your comments here and see what you chose to do when you were given an opportunity to actually uncover the truth about the JFK Assassination tells me that he has more of an interest in promoting the video than in defending the content, which he thus far has completely avoided. And there's a good reason for that: What Ward describes clearly has nothing to do with JFK's assassination. And it is not in 63's interests to discuss any content here as the content does not add up. Canada Jack (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You can find brief responses to a few questions at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQYCJD8cAG8&feature=channel_page

There seems to be some perseveration of a need to personalize or direct your attention away from the issues. If you have a question, ask - don't be so eager to throw out attacks and drama. No one is trying to convince anyone of anything - just look at the real experience as it happened historically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.130.186 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Drama? I've asked several specific questions based on the clips. You have ignored every single one of them thus far. We are simply waiting for a response. Canada Jack (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

CanadaJack, I can see you need assistance.

1. Read/View the answers to the questions at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQYCJD8cAG8&feature=channel_page

2. If you still have questions - be simple and write it in the form of a question. 1, 2, etc.

3. No one is trying to convince or theorize. James is just sharing his experience so people can have more information to piece things together for themselves.

4. JLW was not present at the Dallas location, so he does not have answers to bullets, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.130.186 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the one making the claims, 63, not me. So the onus is on you to defend what YOU presented as "evidence" of a conspiracy. Thus far you have avoided answering some pertinent and obvious questions. Mr Ward partially addresses some of those concerns in the link you posted, so I will frame queries in light of what he says. But if you want to continue playing your games, fine. I'll do it your way. What is this, the sixth back-and-forth on this? And you've yet to answer even a single question. So I will post specific, numbered questions. Don't count me as one who is surprised if you avoid answering those questions. Canada Jack (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The working presumptions I am going on here are a) Mr Ward is more or less accurately recalling events which occurred around the time of the JFK assassination and b) Mr Ward sincerely believes the events he speaks of were connected with the assassination.

As requested, in a format 63 presumably finds more reasonable, here are some questions about the posted video (and, if there are small errors of fact, then correct them instead of directing me to re-watch the 60-minute video). Some of these questions simply point out the unlikeliness of Ward witnessing the planning of the assassination and the more mundane likelihood he witnessed a common mob hit being set up. Still, I would appreciate some comments here to say why the assassination is more likely.

1) What, if anything, 63, did you have to do with the video in question? Did you shoot it or otherwise post it to the internet?

2) Why are you portraying Ward's testimony as "not a theory, actual involvement" when he himself admits that none of the people he spoke of said anything about killing JFK? It is a theory, is it not, because it is Ward's own assumptions, not any specific knowledge he has about the assassination, which led him to believe this had any connection to the assassination. Ward's rather tepid response to the fundamental point that no one names JFK is "The fact that they did not name him, that doesn't mean it wasn't him." Well, sure. But it is the duty of someone making an extraordinary claim to have some extraordinary evidence, not to resort to the debating trick of putting the onus on doubters to disprove his theory, as it is often almost impossible to prove a negative. And we are not just talking about some two-bit killing here. We are talking about one of the most sensational murder cases in history.

3) Why would Tom Johnson and Bill Moyers be in the room when escape routes were being planned? Ward: "Well, if they had the money to buy a hit, where in the hell would they be? In Delaware? They'd be in where they could find a power to do it, and that would be in Manhattan." This utterly misses the point. When the argument is that everything proceeds on a "need to know basis," if these people were ordering a hit and if they were indeed Johnson and Moyers, they would certainly NOT "need to know" the details of who was going to deal with the killers. If this was indeed a hit on JFK, their role would be as hidden as could possibly be, especially if they were relatively recognizable as Johnson and Moyers were.

4) How did Ward get away with not only NOT carrying out the job he was hired for, but also presumably running away with the $10,000 he was paid in advance? IOW, if all he says is true, why is he alive now to tell us the story? Wouldn't the "conspirators" want to kill him too, in case they came to the rather obvious conclusion (after Ward wasn't answering the phone in Waco to get his orders) that Ward would have realized what was going on? I mean, if they are going to the length of killing the "assassins," surely they'd off Ward as well, especially after reneging on the contract.

5) Presuming the killers would want any link to LBJ etc hidden, then why bury the killers' corpses adjacent to the Johnson ranch? This makes no sense at all, especially since mobsters routinely dispose of corpses. Indeed, why give this crucial job to a driver?(!)

6) Why would Frank Costello, who since 1959 was no longer in effect the head of the Mafia, going "freelance" on such a huge hit? We need a bit more convincing evidence that Costello would contemplate, let alone carry out, such a huge hit, especially given his diminished stature in 1963 and given the Mafia's tendency within America not to strike at politicians.

7) Why, if this was a hit on JFK, would Washington-based political operatives hire New York-based mobsters to carry out a hit in Texas? What was so special about Texas? Ward says this: "The money is there, that's why it is so special." This makes no sense at all. Even if we accept the premise that Texans were behind this, or LBJ specifically, it doesn't follow therefore that the hit had to take place in Texas. It's a complete non-sequitor. What makes this even stranger is that if, indeed, Texans were financing an assassination, and an assassination in Texas then why hire New York mobsters and their east-coast-based hitmen to carry out the deed? The only Texan who we see actually involved was Ward himself! It does make sense to have a hit by New York mobsters on someone in Texas if that someone in Texas somehow wronged Costello. Some thug behind on his payments or whatever. It makes very little sense if they were acting on behalf of some Texans to carry out a hit in Texas when the president was rarely ever there.

8) If we are to accept the premise that political operatives from Washington hired Frank Costello to take out JFK, why would Costello be insane enough to carry out such a job which, if caught, would lead to the annihilation of his interests and the mafia's interests in America? Indeed, though we don't know the fate of the alleged assassins, we do know that the driver seemingly was of so little concern here that they let him back out of his crucial role unannounced without reprisal. Right.

9) Why attempt a hit on JFK the morning of November 22 in Fort Worth where there'd be few opportunities for an assassination? Something which would be known several weeks in advance?

10) If Ward alerted authorities in Ft Worth, how would the assassins know this in time to make a change of plan and get to Dallas, set up and carry out the assassination there?

11) Ward talks about pouring over maps. But what purpose would this have if, as he presumes, assassins from buildings would be carrying out the murder? If there was a motorcade route, surely that would have been readily apparent to Ward, even if no one told him what the "route" they were referring to actually was. Once a route was known, casing the scene for assassin perches would be the next step, not pouring over maps for escape routes. It seems far more likely that the people setting up the hit knew the various locales of their intended target, and were exploring many options.

That's a start. Let's see a few serious responses. Canada Jack (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

JLW gives a response to #5 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5PDlTvS-og —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.130.186 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee, seems Ward is directly responding to my questions... Indeed, each of the points of #5 is answered in turn. And, we have some reasonable responses. One, it was Ward, not the guys setting up the hit, who was more specific about where to bury the bodies near Brownsville, the proximity to LBJ's ranch was a coincidence. Two, in Jersey bodies may be disposed of by mobsters in places like the Hudson River, but in most hits, per Ward, bodies are not disposed of. This was a special case where all tracks had to be covered, Ward said he was told. And, finally, why give this crucial job to him, a driver? Because, admits Ward, he was the type of guy who would not only know the highways there in Texas and how to avoid detection, but he was also a guy who knew how to carry out a hit. He offers no details, so we will take his word on that.

The responses he gives to #5 sound reasonable to me, but once we remove the issue of the LBJ ranch, which seemed to be some sort of suggestion of his involvement (it wasn't), then all we have here is a thorough hit, where tracks needed to be covered. However, several questions arise - one, beyond the possibility of these hitmen confessing to their crime, whatever it was, one has to ask what evidence would be found on their person to connect them to the assassination of JFK? Dead men tell no tales, so what was the need to dispose of these corpses? If we accept the premise that these men had to be silenced, we next have to ask What tale would their corpses tell? If these guys were identifiable, surely the discovery of their corpses would be seen as some sort of mob reprisal. It's a bit harder to see how any connection to JFK would be seen.

Well, that's a start. But we are still far short here of establishing that these events add up to a plot to kill Kennedy. It still sounds like a mob hit of some sort, but not an assassination. Canada Jack (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. How does Oswald tie in with these guys? The assassination of JFK was not the only crime perpetrated in North Texas in 1963! It's not like gangsters called a truce out of bereavement for the slain president--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

JLW gives a response to #9 and #10 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAe8p45fTS4&feature=channel_page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.130.186 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Ward addresses questions #9 and #10. 9) Why attempt a hit on JFK the morning of November 22 in Fort Worth where there'd be few opportunities for an assassination? Something which would be known several weeks in advance? 10) If Ward alerted authorities in Ft Worth, how would the assassins know this in time to make a change of plan and get to Dallas, set up and carry out the assassination there?

But, unlike with the above response, I don't find his answers here too convincing. For one, he re-iterates that the team was focused on Fort Worth, not Dallas. Yet as I said earlier, on the morning of November 22, there would be few opportunities to assassinate JFK, if that was the actual intent of the men Ward describes. So that to me suggests there was something special about Ft Worth in terms of the real target that caused them to focus there - and since Ward again mentions that he was told when he asked who the target was that someone down there "owed money," we again are stuck with the basic problem that no one said that JFK was the intended target and we are left with Ward's opinion that JFK was the intended target. We don't even have hearsay evidence here. Simply an opinion.

To me, this is a rather gaping hole in the entire premise that JFK was a target. Why the focus on Ft Worth when a motorcade route was published for Dallas where one would presume would be a more logical place to plan an assassination? The answer is simple: Whoever the target was, he was largely based in Fort Worth and therefore that was the primary focus for the killers. Secondary places - Dallas and a third that Ward doesn't mention in the response were locales where, presumably, the target also frequented, but not as reliably as Ft Worth.

And, even if we put aside those basic objections and assume that, yes JFK was the target and their plans were foiled in Ft Worth owing to increased police presence, well there still is the problem of zooming off to Dallas, getting to a perch undetected and leaving undetected. It doesn't sound to me to be very likely, especially given no people as he described were observed in the several obvious assassin perches in Dallas. Sure, their main concern was to leave undetected. But we aren't talking about the Invisible Men. In the end, even if we accept that these men were there to shoot JFK, for whatever reason - they couldn't secure a perch, they were caught in traffic from Ft Worth (remember, unlike Mr Ward, these guys were unfamiliar with the area) - it would seem they failed in their plan. And Oswald, if connected or not, carried it out for them. Canada Jack (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your dysfunctional reasoning is quite entertaining in that you frequently display a need to only see what you need to as a means to support your theory of Oswald (and yes, Oswald is just a theory in that it has never been proven, and it has progressively lost confidence over the years). If you view the information without your inherent bias, you would realize that locations as primary, secondary, etc refer to sequential flow rather than priority. And if you took the time to let information saturate before you ramble on with lame interpretations, then you would also realize that the fact that they were well aware of the overall locations (making Ft. Worth just as viable as Dallas) makes it a more credible plan associated with those that had more information on locations which may provide opportunity for an assassination. Who would find one great opportunity for an assassination (which isn't too likely)? They would focus on a variety of opportunities to ensure the end result - in this way even the smallest opportunity holds a great deal of value to the outcome.

You have an extremely valuable opportunity to facilitate the truth - don't go down in history as playing the role of a fool.

Ok, I'll step in to play referee here, as the personal attacks seem to be on the rise (and unfortunately all too familiar). One, this entire discussion while entertaining and informative is not suited here because the anon has not presented ONE reliable source for this theory--YOUTUBE is not a reliable source. Therefore, this video is not something that can be added to the article and further discussion of it is not geared to improving the article per the purpose of talk pages. Two, please keep in mind that we are not out here to prove "truth" but what is verifiable. Take your search for the truth to your own blog, this isn't the forum for it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really getting any constructive discussion here at all. There are slams against what I believe, but what 63 fails to perceive is what I think on the subject is not really relevant here. For the purposes of wikipedia, we need something verifiable - at least in the sense that this has been published somewhere. Whether the account from Ward is believable or adds up is of academic interest, of course, but for this to appear on this page or the assassination theories page, we need something more than a Youtube video. How are we to know if this isn't some sort of elaborate hoax? Once it's published, that's different, hoax or not. I mean, personally, I think there is more credibility here than, say, with Lifton's altered corpse theory, but until this appears outside of a Youtube video seen by a few dozen, we can't do anything with this. Canada Jack (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

One final note, 63, I believed in a conspiracy for more than a quarter-century, from 1972 until about 2000. But when I started to examine the evidence in a relatively objective light, I started to realize just how strong the case against Oswald was. In fact, far from Oswald's guilt being "just a theory" as you out it, there are at least FIFTY pieces of physical, witness or circumstantial evidence linking him to the assassination. One or two or five pieces of evidence could be explained away. But not 50. In contrast, from you I have precisely ZERO evidence. NOTHING from Mr. Ward a) recounts a plot targeting JFK, as JFK was never identified as a target, and whoever the person was "who owed money" in Texas clearly was not JFK; b) NOTHING Mr Ward says ever places the two killers in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Indeed, he can't even be sure they ever set foot in Dallas, or Fort Worth, let alone Texas; c) Mr Ward has mentioned NO evidence which might corroborate his story, such as a spent bullet case which could have come from a gun his killers were known to possess, or reports of men matching the description of the two men at the scene of the crime or fleeing the scene of the crime. Or some new evidence he may have. Nothing. It's a pretty skimpy case, IOW.

In the end, it's all very fine to paint me as some clueless rube, 63, but I have a distinct advantage over you - I can link the guy I say killed JFK with some 50 pieces of evidence that paint him as the assassin. You, on the other hand, are stuck at zero. Which means I can build a case, but you can't. Canada Jack (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Moste terrible photo for 21+ year people only!

Full color photo of JFK lying on the dissection table, with 1/3 missing skull and brain tissue out of cavity. Photo originally published by SAM.kg, a kirgizhistan webpage, but removed recently by powers unknown: Since this photo is the work of a US federal employee, it has no copyright and should be uploaded to wikimedia! 91.83.20.2 (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be spam. Nothing in the photo indicates that it is Kennedy on the table and the pic appears to be photo shopped and badly too. I would delete as vandalism, but since this could be a good faith misunderstanding, I'll let others decide what to do here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, clearly nonsense, nothing like Kennedy. – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy Assassination Linked To UFO's

check the recent articles, they all confirm that he CIA killed JFK because of UFO Disclosure. It's VERY interesting! You should add a section on this maybe even a conspiracy.

http://exopolitics.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.114.177 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE. I know, I know, DFTT. – ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply saying WP:FRINGE would have sufficed. WP:AGF. CopaceticThought (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"his brain is in my hand"

The citation immediately following this statement does not have this statement. If you google the phrase it is only found on wikipedia. Not sure why people enjoy doing things like this.

Please sign your comments. From Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. SPECTER. Did President Kennedy make any statement during the time of the shooting or immediately prior thereto?

Governor CONNALLY. He never uttered a sound at all that I heard.

Mr. SPECTER. Did Mrs. Kennedy state anything at that time?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; I have to — I would say it was after the third shot when she said, "They have killed my husband."

Mr. SPECTER. Did she say anything more?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; she said, I heard her say one time, "I have got his brains in my hand."

Mr. SPECTER. Did that constitute everything that she said at that time?

Governor CONNALLY. That is all I heard her say.

. . . .

Mr. SPECTER. Did President Kennedy say anything at all after the shooting?

Mrs. CONNALLY. He did not say anything. Mrs. Kennedy said, the first thing I recall her saying was, after the first shot, and I heard her say, "Jack, they have killed my husband," and then there was the second shot, and then after the third shot she said, "They have killed my husband. I have his brains in my hand," and she repeated that several times, and that was all the conversation.

— Walloon (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Kennedy and climbing onto limousine

Although it is often said that Jackie Kennedy "climbed onto the rear of the limousine", her knees and lower legs never leave the back seat, as the Zapruder film shows. I have given a more accurate description — that she reached back over the rear of the limousine — with links to the Zapruder film frames. — Walloon (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Walloon, I put "climbed" back, and you have reverted this, twice. First, I think you should look up the word "stood" as, quite clearly, Jackie never stands on the back seat of the limo.(!) Secondly, even if you want to argue that, somehow, there is an anatomical description for "stand" which covers the position Jackie is in in the various frames of the Zapruder film which are relevant, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who describes that as "standing." Besides, in my view, she is not standing, so you are inserting a POV description of Jackie.

The description should, therefore, revert to "climbed onto the rear..." as that is what the sources describe Jackie as doing. Indeed, though I suppose you may find someone, somewhere, who actually said "stood," the vast majority of people and the sources I have seen describe her actions as "climbing back" or what have you. And since we should be reflecting not our personal opinions on the page but the mainstream opinions, it is time to remove the "stood" description.

So, please revert your changes. Canada Jack (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not perpetuate errors or sloppy language, no matter how widespread. A person does not "climb onto" a table when she leans over and reaches for something on the table. She "climbs onto" the table when her knees and lower legs are on the table. Jackie Kennedy's knees and lower legs never leave the back seat of the limousine. The primary source — the Zaprduer film, to which I have linked — trumps secondary sources. — Walloon (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, Walloon. You are simply imposing your subjective opinion here. For one, I think she in fact is "climbing onto" the back of the limo, even if her legs didn't get on the rear. So it would seem that we each see the same thing differently. Which is why something like this should be cited. Besides, I don't care how much we quibble about "climbing," she is certainly not "standing" on the back seat. And I doubt there are sources in the majority which say so. So, your choice is to either supply published sources which support your viewpoint, or revert to what was there before, which was cited. If you don't do the former, I will do the latter. Canada Jack (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have supplied a published source — the Zapruder film. — Walloon (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Walloon requested my input. I don't believe I've ever edited any of the articles related to the assassination and have no viewpoint on this matters. Let me lay out some principles. First, the Zapruder film and the Warren Commission testimony are both primary sources. See WP:PSTS. Primary sources must be used with care, and secondary sources are much preferable. A usual standard is to use primary sources only for confirmation or illustration of assertions in secondary sources. We should always avoid drawing conclusions from primary sources, such as describing what we see in an image unless it is 100% non-controversial. (If I knew nothing else I'd say she was sprawled over the trunk rather than necessarily climbing onto it.) Second, in reading over the transcript I note that Mrs. Kennedy refers to "climbing out the back". "Climbing" is different than "climbed". I could put a hand on a ladder and say that I am "climbing" it, but it would be incorrect to say that I have "climbed" it. In other words, "climbing" can include beginning to climb, while "climbed" implies a completed climb. So a useful variation in this matter might be "began to climb". My conclusion is that we should consult reliable secondary sources and use whatever language they use, and ignore our own interpretations.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We should always avoid drawing conclusions from primary sources, such as describing what we see in an image unless it is 100% non-controversial. There is probably no other piece of evidence on the planet more open to subjective interpretation than the Zapruder film.

My conclusion is that we should consult reliable secondary sources and use whatever language they use, and ignore our own interpretations. Eminently sensible. Canada Jack (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your change looks good to me, Walloon, though, and this is getting picky, I'd not keep the Zapruder frames there as a reference, for the reasons stated by Will above. But it's up to you if you want to change that. Canada Jack (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A comprehensive article

Just wanted to congratulate all of you on a comprehensive article. Had reason to check out the equivalent page for Yitzhak Rabin, which involves deeper, perhaps more immediately relevant and certainly more emotional controversies, and was struck by how very sparse that article was, also by the lack of any in-article link to its conspiracy page. Given the tone of that talk page, I decided against being bold, there.

The one odd note on this talk page was the perceived non-relevance of other government agency actions during the period of time in question, such as the multiple assassination attempts against Castro. As I understand the writer, the purpose of the citation would not be to demonstrate that those actions were in any direct way linked with Kennedy's assassination, but simply to demonstrate that some government agencies at the time had been documented as having taken similarly extreme actions elsewhere. Citing the historical context thus establishes that at least a few people in positions of control in a few government agencies were capable of contemplating assassination as a tool to remove a problem. This is neutral evidence which does apply here. (I know we don't like to think of our own governments in these ways.) However, to go even one step further makes it into an argument supporting one particular interpretation or another.

I end by reminding why Wikipedia is based on verifiability rather than truth; since even the best explanation which fits the known facts can only ever be just that - one of several possible explanations which fits the known facts. Ptolemy's dynamics perfectly described every known facet of the universe until it was discovered that gravitational acceleration on a solar scale had to be taken into account. Wikipedia can draw together the known evidence and source various secondary sources for interpretation, but that is not one and the same as absolute proof. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.214 (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

when was he shot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.223.70 (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Motorcade list

How is the motorcade section encyclopedic or even necessary? Is a reader going to want to know who was 3 cars down riding a motorcycle? The important details of the motorcade are already in the body of the text, listing every car is a great example of listing indiscriminate information. Pirate^Argh!!1! 14:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think readers are interested in every single detail of the Kennedy assassination, down to the names of motorcycle cops, the secret service agents, and the brand of shirts they wore!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Should we add that too? Names of all the witnesses? Make of model of each vehicle along with performance specs? A list of all secret service agents, their years of experience and a description of their service weapon? "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be..." If someone wants to condense that into a summary of the motorcade in an encyclopedic format is one thing, but otherwise it's just a list. Pirate^Argh!!1! 14:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The level of the detail of the list is like listing the key grip in an article about a movie. It's inclusions adds nothing to an article about the John F. Kennedy assassination. It there were an article about the motorcade itself, it would be a good starting point. Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, but if readers wnt to know this information, they should read a book about it. This is the kind of information that somehow always gets its own article/ Perhaps that is a better route, than to edit war here.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Pirate and Jojhutton. --John (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

I have been removing the following section which was added by User:74.137.130.209 several times. It has no citations and needs to in order to avoid WP:BLP issues. If we want this content in, we really need to add some sources to back it up.

E. Howard Hunt had some kind of involvement in the assassination. He gave his son tapes Hunt recorded in 2004 and asked his son to release them prior to his death. The assassination was a conspiracy and there is no doubt about it. Lyndon B. Johnson was probably the mastermind considering his lust for power. He assembled a team of CIA covert operatives to assassinate and cover up the assassination to make it look as if a Marxist had done it. Someone needs to investigate Jack Ruby. There was a polygraph test that said that Ruby really did kill Oswald, but Jack Ruby was also considered legally insane. The mob also had something to do with this atrocity, but LBJ is the biggest one to blame. The JFK assassination was a cover-up made possible through LBJ and is a conspiracy.

Any objections to leaving it out? --Shirik (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep it out, as this is all discussed on the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page, where it properly belongs. Indeed, Hunt has his own section there. But Hunt's allegations aren't any more compelling than the literally dozens of others out there which, added up, would require about 200 assassins roaming around Dealy Plaza. There was a polygraph test that said that Ruby really did kill Oswald... So, it's not good enough that there was also live coverage witnessed by millions of Ruby actually shooting Oswald? That's the sort of nonsense spread by the conspiracy theorists who conveniently and consistently ignore the ton of evidence against Oswald, the complete lack of evidence for any other assassins at the crime scene, and the lack of credible connections of Oswald to any of these groups or persons who, it should be added, would not in a million years want to hire a loser like Oswald to carry out a crime if they so desired. And, it should be added, ascribing "motive" to an individual such as LBJ does not mean anything at all if there is no evidence attached to the crime itself, as one could (and many have) dream up "motives" for dozens if not hundreds who might want JFK dead. And, further and more to the point, that "evidence" has to overcome all the evidence which exists which established a single gunman and no connections of that gunman to other perhaps motivated persons or groups. Canada Jack (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Linking in Article

I've been bold and linked to the Zapruder Film the first time it is mentioned (in the Assassination section). I left the link in the Recordings section as well (because that's where it's further explained). If there's a reason that it's not linked, you can revert, but I'd appreciate knowing why. Buddy431 (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

JD Tippit in infobox

JD Tippit was not killed in Dealey Plaza so why is he in the infobox? The article is about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, not the killing of Officer Tippit. They are two separate events that happened to have occurred on the same day, and were allegedly perpetrated by the same person. The murder of Tippit took place in Oak Cliff, several miles from Elm Street 45 minutes after Kennedy was fatally shot and Gonernor Connally wounded. Tippit's name should therefore be removed from the infobox as it's glaringly misleading.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've no problem with deleting Tippit from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a fait accompli.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How can it be factually correct to include Tippit in the infobox when he was not killed in the sniper attack that caused the death of the president and wounded Connally and Tague? I suppose if Oswald had gone on a shooting spree inside the Texas Theatre before his arrest, those murdered patrons would also be listed in the infobox?!!!!!! Including Tippit is not only blatantly false, and misleading to readers as it implies he was present in Dealey Plaza where the assassination took place, but it's a clear case of POV-pushing and Original Research. The killing of JD Tippit was a separate event that occurred 45 minutes after the JFK assassination and in another Dallas location-namely Oak Cliff.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It just wouldn't make sense to include Tippit in the infobox. If he were included the reader would surmise that he was the victim of an assassination type murder while sitting with or near the cavalcade. Commonsense tells you he shouldn't be included. Jack forbes (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. They were two different events separated by location and time. The only connection is that the alleged perpetrator for both killings was Lee Harvey Oswald. I really hope his name will not be added back into the infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't object, but I don't think it's necessary. The talk page isn't all that active, so you could really wait until there are 20 or so stale threads, then manually archive them. -Rrius (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's how it is now. That can and IMHO should be automated.--Oneiros (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Jacqueline clearly attempted to climb onto the trunk

In the Zabruder film one can see that Jacqueline Kennedy did more than just reach out onto the trunk. She actually attempted to climb out and one can see her torso and her knees on the trunk. SS agent Clint Hill raced to the running board and pushed her back into the seat. The article does not state this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming an intention that we just do not know. In any case, as seen in the Zapruder (not Zabruder) film, only her hands, and briefly her left forearm, ever touch the trunk lid. Your memory is incorrect: her knees are never on the trunk; her legs never leave the back seat of the limousine. Frame 380, Frame 390. And Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who did climb onto the trunk, testified that she appeared to be "reaching for something". Thus the verb used here in the article is "reaching". (Mrs. Kennedy herself had no recollection of that part of the assassination.) — Walloon (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had meant to say Zapruder. Anyway, I have just seen a couple of clips of the Zapruder film on YouTube. In slow motion Jacqueline's torso clearly is on the trunk but as you correctly say her knees don't ever reach the trunk because Agent Hill pushes her back into the seat before they touch. The article needs to state that she attempted to climb onto the trunk but was prevented from doing so by Clint Hill. The way I view the clips, her stomach made contact with the trunk's surface.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the import of this factoid. In the big picture, it doesn't help the reader if we include it. We have no story to tell the reader about why, and the result was nil. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a very notable and dramatic event caught on the Zapruder film. I believe it does help readers if we include it in the article; however we cannot speculate as to her intentions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It can only be dramatic if we interpret her actions. The encyclopedia cannot interpret in this case because her intentions are unknown. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We already had this discussion. She, in the eyes of most observers, was "climbing" onto the trunk. "Reaching" sounds like someone turning and grabbing something behind themselves. I see her action as "climbing" not "reaching." In the end, while there are some pedants who want to establish she was "reaching" and not "climbing," [1]there is little doubt that most people have described her actions as "climbing," (as the link readily admits) therefore, as long as it is an accurate descriptions (I contend it is), "climbing" should remain. Indeed, Jackie herself described her actions as "climbing" to the WC. Canada Jack (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Image layout

The layout of the images in the lead section has been bothering me for a while - it distorted the layout of the lead and the ToC. So I have had a go at fixing it using a vertical image stack. It could be widened if necessary. Thoughts? - ukexpat (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the layout is jumbled. Hopefully someone better than I at coding and image layout will help edit it. — Walloon (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks better now than it did before I stacked them. – ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Most Academic Thoughts

I was reading over this page, and the page on the various conspiracy theories, and so on. I was trying to get an idea of what the current most academic thoughts are by historians and those who study this stuff in academia. Instead it seems like everyone who has ever written a book has their ideas mentioned here. What do the professional historians actually have a consensus on? Or do most academics think it was just Oswell? I'm not even sure what to think of these two articles themselves, because there is so much in them and it doesn't really seem summarized in any real layman's way. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion of historically factual material about Tippit murder

Walloon (talk) has recently deleted this factual information about the J.D. Tippit crime scene from the "Lee Harvey Oswald" section, claiming it is a conspiracy theory. It is not a "theory", it is simply data about the crime: Some witnesses reported two men at the scene of Tippit's shooting, and the two brands of cartridges found at the scene did not agree in number with the two brands of bullets found in Tippit's body. It was also considered suspicious that, although Oswald was armed with a revolver, spent cartridges were found at the murder scene, meaning he would have chosen to eject them at the murder scene instead of fleeing.[44] The first officers on the scene found the spent cartridges and reported that Tippit had been shot with a .38 automatic, while Oswald's weapon was a .38 Special revolver, even though the type of bullet is clearly marked on the bottom of the cartridge.[45] I think this information should be restored. Also, please describe your edits in the space provided!Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on the number of grooves, groove widths, groove spacing, and knurling on the four bullets recovered from Tippit's body, three were copper-coated lead bullets of Western-Winchester manufacture, and the fourth was a lead bullet of Remington-Peters manufacture. This contrasts with the four recovered cartridge cases, which consisted of two Remington-Peters and two Westerns. There are several possible explanations for this variance: (1) the killer fired five cartridges, three of which were Western-Winchester and two of which were Remington-Peters; one Remington-Peters bullet missed Tippit; and a Western-Winchester cartridge case and the Remington-Peters bullet that missed were simply not found. (2) The killer fired only four cartridges, three of which were Western-Winchester and one of which was Remington-Peters; prior to the shooting the killer had an expended Remington-Peters cartridge case in his revolver, which was ejected with the three Western- Winchester and one Remington-Peters cases; and one of the Western-Winchester cases was not found. (3) The killer was using hand-loaded ammunition, that is, ammunition which is made with used cartridge cases to save money; thus he might have loaded one make of bullet into another make of cartridge case.

At the time of his arrest, of the six live cartridges found in Oswald’s revolver, three were Western .38 Specials, the other three Remington-Peters .38 Specials, the same manufacturers of the shells found at the murder scene.

Witnesses Domingo Benavides, Barbara Jeanette Davis and Virginia Davis testified that Oswald was emptying his gun as he was fleeing, not "instead of" fleeing. Helen Markham testified that Oswald was "fooling with" his pistol as he left the scene. On its own, a semiautomatic or automatic ejects the shell from the chamber of the gun to the ground the moment the bullet is fired.

Dallas police officer H. W. Summers, at 1:37 p.m., called in to the radio dispatcher that the suspect in the TIppit shooting had an “automatic pistol” in his right hand, and Sergeant Gerald Hill, one of the officers who arrived at the Tippit murder scene, called in on his police radio to the dispatcher at 1:41 p.m. that “the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol [revolver]”. But it turns out there was no real basis for Summers’s or Hill’s radio transmissions. Summers’s source for his transmission was Ted Callaway, who was too far away from Oswald’s weapon to clearly see it, basing his conclusion that it was an automatic on the fact that the “motion” of Oswald’s hands as he carried the gun was like the way Callaway carried an automatic in the Marines, hardly a reliable and substantive indicator. And Hill, who hadn’t seen the weapon at the time of his radio transmission but had seen the shells, admitted to author Dale K. Myers (With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit, pp. 256, 260–261) that he had “assumed” it was an automatic simply because the shells were found relatively close to each other—again, certainly not a solid basis for concluding it was an automatic.

Mark Lane, in his book Rush to Judgment (pp. 193–194, 200, 280), claimed that Acquilla Clemons “told several independent investigators that she saw two men standing near the police car just moments before one of them shot Tippit. The killer then waved to the other man, she said, and they ran away in different directions.” He cited an article in The New Leader of October 12, 1964, by George and Patricia Nash based on a tape-recorded interview of Clemons in 1964 as support for this. But the New Leader article doesn’t make any reference to Clemons saying she saw one of two men shoot Tippit, nor to his thereafter waving to the other man and each of them running off in opposite directions. The authors wrote in their article, "Her version of the slaying was rather vague, and she may have based her story on second-hand accounts of others at the scene."

The section on the killing of Officer TIppit and the arrest of Oswald is intended to be only a brief summary, not a debate about the implications of this piece of evidence and that piece of evidence. It has taken five paragraphs here to present the other half of the story of the "factual information" that was added to that section. If the "factual information" you refer to were retained in the section, it would be intellectually dishonest not to include both halves, but to do so would go way beyond the scope of that section. — Walloon (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But the effect of your edit is to make is look as if there is no conflicting evidence. It's true that the bullets in Tippit were of different manufacture and didn't add up with the shells found. It's true that some witnesses claimed they saw two men with Tippit. It's true that the police first reported a .38 automatic was the murder weapon. It seems extremely unlikely that the police would rely solely on bystanders to ID a murder weapon at the scene of a crime. The fact that shells were on the ground would be one tip-off it was an automatic, and I would image they MIGHT, just might, actually examine the shells before making a radio call about the murder weapon. I understand your point that we don't want to get into exhausting detail, but I think it's important that we don't give readers the false impression that there is a seamless, airtight version of events. You are, in effect, airbrushing history. When one sees the pattern of so many strange details, like police repeatedly misidentifying weapons, relying on bystanders for readily available crime scene info, Oswald carrying a hodgepodge of different bullets around in his pocket and ejecting the shells out at the murder scene, conflicting witness testimony, missed details, like the Carcano rifle being reportedly found with the clip still in the rifle, when the rifle is designed to drop the clip after the last round is chambered, that you get an eerie sense that something strange was going on. If you clean up the story, you make the story sound almost reasonable.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghost, there is always conflicting evidence in cases such as this, especially with multiple witnesses. Witnesses, in good faith, give details which are wrong, conflated or confused. The problem, identified by Walloon, is doing what you did - adding details on conflicting evidence - would by necessity massively enlarge the article as each and every point of "conflict" can be readily addressed. And it turns into a debate over an incident which rightly needs to be only briefly addressed. There is NO debate that Oswald was arrested and charged with the murder of Tippit. For the purposes of the scope of the article, that is all that we need to see. Canada Jack (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, let me address once again what you write. "It's true that the bullets in Tippit were of different manufacture and didn't add up with the shells found." I gave three scenarios, above, in which the bullets do not conflict with the shells found. "It seems extremely unlikely that the police would rely solely on bystanders to ID a murder weapon at the scene of a crime." But Officer Summers said, in the same radio transmission in which he reported that the suspect was carrying an automatic, that he did rely on a witness for the weapon identification. He had to; at the time of Summers' radio report (1:37), no shells had been found. Officer J.M. Poe testified that witness Domingo Benavides did not give him the two shells he found until after Poe had interviewed witness Helen Markham and a description of the suspect had been broadcast from the scene (1:37); shells three and four were found by the Davis women later than that. Officer Hill told author Dale Myers that he not only relied only on how the shells were found close together to guess that the gun was an automatic, but as he testified, he didn't even see the shells on the ground himself; they were shown to him in an empty cigarette pack. And the four shells were not found at the curb and in the street where Tippit was shot, as they would have ejected by themselves from an automatic or semiautomatic at the moment of firing; they were found by witnesses in the grass and bushes of the yard at the corner of the block, where those witnesses had seen the gunman emptying the gun after the shooting (testimony of Barbara Jeanette Davis, Virginia Davis, Domingo Benavides). — Walloon (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't aware that the shells were found by witnesses some distance from the crime scene. But it does seem odd that witnesses were out there collecting evidence instead of the police. Sort of destroys the chain of custody of the evidence, too... Just another strange footnote.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing "odd" about witnesses collecting evidence. It's the bane of law enforcement to have bystanders disrupting crime scenes. What to me is "odd" is how many people accept the arguments of Mark Lane, the same guy who deliberately misled the Warren Commission when he said Helen Markham gave him a description of Tippit's killer totally at odds with Oswald. The WC had to force him to supply the audio tape he had made with her as he put up every roadblock to delivering this obviously crucial piece of evidence. Turns out he had posed as the chief of police, then fed descriptions to her to agree to, which she didn't, then claimed she made those descriptions anyway. And he was still repeating the lies about those descriptions for decades. Might do yourself a favour by reading one of the non-conspiracy books, Ghost, especially the one by Bugliosi. You don't have to agree with its conclusions, but by reading it you will get a better picture of how much b.s., lies and outright fabrications litter the conspiracy literature on the assassination. As has often been said, one is entitled to one's own opinion, however, one is not entitled to one's own facts. Too often, they simply make it up as they go along, hoping no one actually checks (like Walloon on Lane's other b.s. claim about two people). Canada Jack (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Metal fragment in Connally's thigh bone

Re my removal of the assertion that both the Warren Commission and the HSCA said that the bullet that hit Governor Connally "threw off a small piece of bullet lead that passed further inside and embedded into the outer layer of his left thigh bone", I refer you to the HSCA Appendix to Hearings, vol. 7, p. 162:

The [HSCA pathology] panel concurs with Dr. Reynolds' opinion that the 2-millimeter density is a missile fragment that was just under the skin and was not deep within the thigh in the femur bone, as described in the Warren Commission Report. The panel believes the density in the femur bone was erroneously described and is an artifact in the X-ray film and not a bullet fragment.

— Walloon (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Carcano / Mauser rifle

The material detailing some initial descriptions of the rifle found in the TSBD being a Mauser and not the Carcano identified as being the murder weapon has been deleted by me for the same reason Walloon deleted the material on discrepancies Tippit's killing.

This material is beyond the scope of this page, which DOES NOT wade into the various conspiracy theories. Nothing about a "conspiracy" was mentioned with the inclusion of the Mauser, but this is the only relevance it might have. It IS mentioned on the page dealing with the rifle itself. And, as Walloon also mentioned with the Tippit controversy, there are very strong arguments to accept the WC contention that the rifle indeed was the Carcano and was misidentified. But those arguments would greatly lengthen the section and, again, are beyond the scope of this article. Canada Jack (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see, you want a tight little story with no inconvenient loose ends, no matter how well referenced or historically accurate. Does everyone concur?Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What if I include the Mauser information in the Conspiracy section of this article? There is no place for it in the Conspiracy article, because it is not a conspiracy theory, but simply historical facts that some suggest could point to a cover-up. Interesting that there doesn't seem to be a place for this type of information.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mauser information removed a second time, this time from Conspiracy section. Why?Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I really think the Mauser information belongs in this article, but for now I've added a section to the "Conspiracy" article called "Possible evidence of a cover-up".Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This appeared on my talk page. Reposting here to continue discussion:

Ghost, clearly you are new here to wikipedia. You were told at least three times why inserting the material you did was inappropriate as a) the insertions were not germane to the article and b) properly resided elsewhere. Why? Because they are assertions from those who question the veracity of the sequence of events established by the various investigations. And the page is, chiefly, the sequence of events as established by the various investigations. IOW, wading into debate over evidence is beyond the scope of the page. There is a brief section on those who believe otherwise which leads to a page on those various conspiracy theories. You might have more success there as that page is a bit of a mess. Canada Jack (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The proper place for this discussion is on the article discussion page at John F. Kennedy Assassination. You removed the Mauser information from the Carcano section. It is historical fact supported by references, that the weapon was first identified as a 7.65 Mauser. Just because some editors express a preference doesn't mean they are right. But, in an effort to be agreeable and cooperative, although I disagreed, I moved it to the Conspiracy section of the article. It was removed again, without any discussion. So let's discuss this on the discussion page, shall we?Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofnemo (talk • contribs)

Why, exactly, do you think historical facts connected with the assassination which do not support the official version of events should be excluded from this article, even from the Conspiracy section? You say because the assertions are not germane to the article. Do you mean they are not connected to the assassination of JFK? And b) they properly reside elsewhere. As I explained, the Conspiracy article is about conspiracies, not factual information about the assassination. But I have created a section in that article. I feel facts about the JFK assassination belong in this article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I see, you want a tight little story with no inconvenient loose ends, no matter how well referenced or historically accurate. Uh, no, we want a page which sticks to the facts as established by the various investigations. As Walloon and I have repeatedly told you (I believe this is the fourth time now), the discussion for the identification of the Carcano properly resides on the pages dealing with a) conspiracy theories or b) the rifle itself. The problem with your "historically accurate" inclusions is that while it is true that some initially identified the rifle as being a Mauser, they were wrong, and proven wrong as the actual recovery of the rifle was recorded by newsman Tom Alyea of WFAA - TV and those images are of not only the Carcano, but the same Carcano which Oswald was holding in those photos in his back yard, and the same Carcano ballistically matched to the whole bullet and bullet fragments found in the limo and the stretcher. Not only that, the men who identified the rifle as a Mauser later admitted their error.

There is no place for it in the Conspiracy article, because it is not a conspiracy, but simply historical facts that some suggest could point to a cover-up. Interesting that there doesn't seem to be a place for this type of information. Okay, Ghost, let's see if I have this straight. The Mauser issue is not a conspiracy, so it doesn't belong there. Fine, then why did you insert the info in the conspiracy section then? If it's simply "historical facts" possibly suggesting a "cover-up," then, if there is no conspiracy, then who is doing the cover up?

Beyond the troll-like approach you have thus far employed (and looking at your home page, I see this is a frequent complaint towards you), you are in essence ripping up a page which has been the result of years of compromise because you - and only you - know best how to present evidence in this, perhaps the most controversial subject in history.

Let us remind you what the function of the page is - it is to describe the sequence of events as established by the various inverstigations. It is NOT a page to start a debate on which evidence is to be believed or not, what evidence is being ignored or not, or what some people think about particular issues beyond a general mention that the public disbelieves the WC and that numerous conspiracy theories abound.

If you want to avoid being blocked or otherwise sanctioned, do us all a favour: When multiple editors raise similar objections to your changes, don't simply barrel ahead and do more changes, discuss the changes you are to make, seek consensus for changes and, if you achieve consensus, then, and only then, make the changes. Canada Jack (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lots of threats, accusations and name-calling there, not much discussion. What if two rifles were found in the DSBT? You are the one who insisted the Mauser info goes with conspiracy theories, not me. I thought it was important to point out the facts about the discovery of the weapon. You seem intent on defending an official version of events, and excluding any evidence to the contrary. That's fine, but you should rename the article "Official Version of the John F. Kennedy Assassination" to let readers know that, like the Warren Commission, anything that doesn't fit the official version of the story will be excluded or spun to make the story tight and simple.Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can't read, Ghost, so I will resort to large type as this is, what? the fifth time we've underlined this: THE PAGE IS CHIEFLY THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS PER THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS. The debates belong elsewhere. It's not about "defending" anything.(!) Which is why, throughout the article, you see phrases like "...government investigations concluded..."; "According to the Warren Commission..."; "The Warren Commission theorized..." and why, if you glance at the notes and references on the bottom, the large preponderance of citations are from the Warren Commission.

The reason this is so is that there is little dispute over what the investigations claimed, IOW, there is no argument that the WC claimed a single bullet caused JFK's non-fatal wound and Connally's wounds. The moment we start to open up the debate, the page massively opens up to disputes back and forth over evidence. Why? BECAUSE THERE ARE HUGE DEBATES OVER VIRTUALLY EVERY ASPECT OF THE ASSASSINATION. To delve into those debates would make the page completely unwieldy, and so those discussions are left to the attendant pages, where relevant. The "Mauser" debate is relatively unimportant as most reasonable conspiracy theorists don't believe that anything but the Carcano was found. It also strains credulity, since the recovery of the Carcano was filmed, as to how this could be anything but a case of mistaken identification. The more important issues surround the single bullet theory for one, and Oswald's connections to agencies for another. WHICH IS WHY THERE ARE SEPARATE PAGES FOR THESE ISSUES.

Hasn't it occurred to you, even for a second, why these things aren't already on the page? It's because we've already had these debates and the consensus for the best approach here is to present the evidence largely as deduced by the WC and HSCA, refer to the aftermath and development of the case, then on the relevant pages, flesh out some of the controversies. Like on the SBT page, or on the Carcano page, or on the conspiracies page. Canada Jack (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now we've gone from name-calling and threats to insults ("perhaps you can't read"). You'd better step away from the keyboard and count to 10 Canada! The title of this article is "John F. Kennedy Assassination" NOT "JFK Assassination - Warren Commission Findings". It does include the conclusions of the 1979 HSCA report, which did NOT agree with the Warren Commission on many points (second shooter likely, a conspiracy was probable). It is YOUR personal preference, or the preference of a group of editors, that this page only reflect the official version of events. That is fine, but please change the title of the article to reflect that. Electrons are free, and there is plenty of room for another section called "Conflicting evidence" or "Evidence anomalies". Eh?Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the judgments of "official" sources, such as government reports and the conclusions of reputable historians. It does not reflect the speculation of theorists and uncredentialed amateur investigators. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a reputable historian who begs to differ with the official version of events. David Kaiser, Harvard University Press: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/KAIASS.html. Why not this - a section on the Warren Commission version of events, then the HSCA version (they may not have a full-blown official version though, since it was probably a more objective examination that did NOT try to force an official story on the public). Then have a "Questions not resolved" section.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Another book by a university historian that suggests a conspiracy: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-JFK-Assassination-Debates/Michael-L-Kurtz/e/9780700614745.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There are always dissenters. There are a few credentialed scientists who doubt global warming, or evolution, or that HIV causes AIDS, etc. But we don't rewrite the articles to make them a back and forth between the majority of experts and a handful of dissenters. Besides, I doubt that either one seriously contends a Mauser switch given the weight of the evidence against it. Gamaliel (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but you also have people who were considered crackpots who said the earth is round and it revolves around the sun.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghost - The bottom line here is a) this page is the result of several years of sometimes contentious debate as to how it should be formed; b) you have attempted some rather fundamental changes to what that consensus was without prior notice; d) three editors have now made similar objections to your approach; e) you have been requested to adhere to a basic requirement, a hallmark of wikipedia, and that is to gain consensus before making substantial changes; f) you continue to argue this simple and basic point.

We KNOW there is substantial resistance to the WC conclusions - I was the one who inserted the "from 1966" bit in, ferchrissakes! But the above oft-mentioned approach was the one which most passed muster, so live with it! You always have the option to suggest a new approach to the page, but you are on notice that so far you've not made a compelling case that the page needs to be changed. One of the key reasons that this page is in large part focussed on the WC and HSCA conclusions is that that approach greatly simplifies the page. Because, just as when someone demands "God" be taught in the classroom and the response is "Whose?", pointing out inconsistencies and problems in and of itself does not make a coherent article, nor does it enhance knowledge necessarily. For example, with your insertion about the Mauser rifle, what does that mean? A second rifleman at the TSBD? The rifle was switched? Oswald in fact used a Mauser? Or Oswald was framed? But there are those who claim Oswald did the crime, but had accomplices. There are others who said he didn't do it, but another person fired from the window, with the Carcano. Others say with the Mauser. Others say Oswald was there with this other assassin, others say no. Still others say no shot was fired from there, but from the Dal-Tex building and/or the Grassy Knoll.

The same goes with the questions surrounding Tippit. It is one thing to say there are problems with the WC. It is quite another to detail all the permutations possible. And, by opening the door to the Mauser, to Tippit, you open the door to making the page completely unwieldy, even if we dispense with the objections to that "evidence."

The truth, whatever one believes it to be, is found within these pages. The difference between what here stands and what you have tried to do is that what stands is a relatively coherent account of this most complex event. Your approach would invite chaos and confusion. Canada Jack (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting logic. I'm the one on notice, because I've been adding well-referenced, historically accurate material, not the person who has been removing it! As I've said several times, your approach is fine, but please, please change the title of the article to reflect what you are telling me. I suggest "John F. Kennedy assassination - U.S. government investigation findings".Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you also suggest "Evolution - scientific investigation findings"? Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Evolution - Darwin's findings" would be good, if all later discoveries were prohibited from being mentioned.Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think that is appropriate, go for it. But we're not going to start overturning long-standing Wikipedia policy and practice on this article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, when you say "go for it" do you mean changing the title of the article? I don't understand. Which longstanding policies are you referring to?Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In his last message Canada Jack summed up the situation very well and I don't see any point in repeating what he's already covered well. I suggest you have another look at his message because it deserves more than a glib response. You are welcome to suggest a title change if you wish, but don't be surprised if your ideas for title changes or content changes are rejected for the very reasons spelled out by CJ. Gamaliel (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

His postings are rather long and rambling, laced with accusations, threats and name-calling. As a Wikipedia administrator, could you perhaps provide some links to the appropriate policy pages?Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the part about not making "substantial changes" without consensus? I don't see how inserting referenced material in the appropriate sections is a "substantial change" to the article. He feels that it's "the camel's nose under the tent" but that's because he feels there is a certain way the article should read or a certain restriction of the content that is not apparent from the title of the article. I naively assumed I was not making a "substantial change" to the article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And, as I pointed out above, when he objected, I moved the disputed material to the Conspiracy section. But he removed it again!Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And now, I've moved it to another article, but he's still complaining!Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories challenge nearly every minor and major point of fact about the assassination. For reasons of space, flow, clarity, accuracy, policy, and sanity, we cannot allow this article to become a battleground between warring points of fact. We report the consensus of reports and historians, because the other way is madness. We have an article where each major theory can be discussed in detail, perhaps your material is better suited for that one. Gamaliel (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This article would appear to be that article, but it's not, that's why I'd like to see the name changed. In the real world, there is no consensus on this topic.Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And the reason the current article bothers me is that it gives the false appearance of a consensus.Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add disclaimer at top of article

I propose that a disclaimer be placed at the top of the article so that readers will be aware that this article is restricted to the findings of U.S. government investigations and to research that supports those findings. The average reader will likely assume, based on the title of the article, that the article covers this topic from a neutral position, that it includes the perspectives of all serious historians, and that it includes research conducted since 1979, which it currently does not, because the editors have expressly said it is forbidden to go beyond the finding of the U.S. government investigations. My suggested disclaimer is "This article is based on the findings of the Warren Commission and the HSCA investigations. Any material at odds with those two U.S. government bodies has been excluded from this article. The narrative of events has also been simplified to avoid contentious issues and to keep the article narrowly focused on the official version of events."Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This will also warn other editors not to add neutral, referenced, historian published, or scientific new material to the article if it conflicts with U.S. government findings.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that disclaimers are generally discouraged by Wikipedia, so I have referred this issue for dispute resolution at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you will look at John F. Kennedy autopsy you see that 5 goverment reviews over 30 years are cited, also including the Ramsey Clark panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the partial review of documents and photos undertaken by the Records Board. These do not touch on all aspects of the assassination, but they do touch on the most important piece of evidence, which was the body of the murdered president. The reason limited note is taken of other people's opinions, is that they are generally of lower quality, not that they are not "official." If you look at the Single bullet theory article you'll find note taken of anybody who did a good balistics study, even if it was NOT the government. The natterings of skeptics who never did any original work, and/or had no access to primary evidence, cannot be fully referenced by Wikipedia at this time, since there's a whole library of it. Again, if you want to start to index, subindex, and subsubindex it all, the conspiracy theory article is the place to do it. SBHarris 22:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of continuing a dispute which has likely gone as far as it can - since we've had adequate discussion and ghost has received no consensus for his proposed changes - perhaps I can reiterate what I and others have suggested here. Ghost, why not focus on the conspiracy page and other relevant pages and help improve those pages?

Keep in mind that you should follow the structure of those pages. For example, I see that you have inserted the material about the Mauser rifle on the conspiracy page, but it is more or less simply plonked down at the end of the intro with no reference to what conspiracy is being discussed here. There are several ways to address this, I believe - one would be to incorporate that evidence about the rifle dispute into one of the existing conspiracy theories or, and I think this might be a better idea, create a section which incorporates various strands of evidence which, while not pointing to a specific conspiracy per se, is nevertheless considered evidence that more than Oswald was involved. It seems to me that this was your intent, but I must point out that text such as "...pointed out inconsistencies, oversights, errors, or changes in the official Warren Commission version of events, which could suggest a cover-up, without putting forward a conspiracy theory" should disqualify the text from being there as the page is "conspiracy theories" not "cover-ups." Cover ups, per se, are not evidence of a conspiracy. For example, the CIA, it is well known, covered up the fact that an agent received a threat from Oswald and destroyed the note after the assassination, and hid that fact in front of the Warren Commission. But this is not a "conspiracy" in the sense we are using that term on that page.

So, might I suggest you create a section which EXPLICITY links evidence such as the Mauser rifle to authors who claim it indicates conspiracy, even if the people behind that conspiracy are not identified. In that particular case, one of your sources, Graf/Bartholemew, explicitly make that argument: "And that irrefutable fact leads, as the reader will see, to conclusive proof of conspiracy in the JFK assassination." Indeed, I am confident you would gain consensus if the page was restructured along the lines of separate sections such as "Groups identified as being behind a conspiracy" and "Evidence suggestive of conspiracy." Remember also that it is crucial to always indentify the authors of such claims, even if it is a footnote added to "some claim." Canada Jack (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing the "JFK Assassination conspiracy theories" article, we are discussing this article. It seems clear that this article is limited in scope, limited to official government investigation findings and supporting evidence ONLY, and that should be reflected in the title of the article. The current title is extremely misleading to the readers and to other editors who do not realize the article has been limited, and they are likely to draw the FALSE conclusion that this article covers the topic from an objective and unbiased point of view. This article, as currently titled, is not NPOV (neutral point of view). If the title is changed as I have suggested, it would become NPOV because it accurately reflects THE GOVERNMENT'S official version of events.

To digress to the OTHER article, the new section I created was created because you excluded material that did not fit the official version of events. It was not a "conspiracy theory" because it did not put forward a theory as to who committed the crime. It does point to the possibility of a government cover-up. IF there was a cover-up, all the evidence you are citing could have been tampered with. It's just a possibility. The possibility of a cover-up and conspiracy theories would normally be in the main article, but they have been excluded. Fine, but please rename this article to accurately reflect its contentsGhostofnemo (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, here is a review of a book by one of those "conspiracy nuts" whose opinions would be excluded from this article. http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/kurjfk.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually not a real review, but information from the publisher about the book. It reads like a review - my mistake.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of "conspiracy nuts" are included in the article, Ghost. Always have, so that frequent complaint of yours is not valid. If the lede and the article was misleading in terms of suggesting there was no controversy, that no one believes anything other than what the WC or other official investigations have concluded, then other editors here and on the other page would have agreed with you.

But they haven't.

If crucial information was so lacking as to render anything but the conclusions of the Warren Commission as inescapable, then other editors here and elsewhere would have agreed with you.

But they haven't.

Your complaints were not seen to be accurate or valid. So I have suggested where you can enhance a few other articles as a positive outcome to your failure to gain support for the changes you have sought. Now, you can choose to belabour a point expressed with certainty as to its accuracy though no one else here but you subscribe to it, and no one else but you will likely be convinced by it, or you could make some positive contributions to some of these pages. Sounds good to me. Canada Jack (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some alternative theories in the "Conspiracy" section, but even that section is tightly controlled to keep out unapproved points of view (i.e. my Mauser information). In the rest of the article, it is the official version of events, and even a very simplified, cleaned-up version at that. Are you saying this the first and only time anyone has ever challenged the impartiality of this article? Are you saying you don't understand my problem with this article? Or are you saying you understand but disagree? It seems from your comments that only official government investigation findings or supporting material is allowed, and that anything else goes in the "Conspiracy" article, that you have failed to understand my point, which is that your exclusion is entirely artificial and shows a bias towards the official version of events. It is a minority position to say that the Kennedy assassination is a closed case with no lose ends, and that the evidence clearly proves Oswald was the lone assassin. Even the HSCA investigations found this to be unlikely. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED but this article pretends that we do. It is biased and evidence challenging that bias is excluded. Thus it is not NPOV.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I just posted this on the Editor Assistance page. Thought it might help editors here understand where I'm coming from: "Let me put it more simply. Now we have article "A" (the Truth) and article "A - excluded (presumably false) points of view". Under my scheme we'd have article "A - government investigations" and article "A - other points of view"".Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere is the material on the page presented as "the truth." But, hey, you know better than anyone else here, Ghost. Go for it. Canada Jack (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not "go for it", please. The article needs no "disclaimer"—the proposal is a trivial one, made in frustration. This article hews to Wikipedia standards in every way, and doesn't need a warning stating its standard stance. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your good faith description of my position. My problem with this article is not "trivial" - I feel the article is extremely misleading, because readers and editors are not aware of the "rules" that have been set by other editors - that material added must not only agree with the government investigations, but it must also not challenge the simplified version of those findings that the editors have agreed upon, or digress into details about conflicting evidence. The average reader assumes, due to the title of the article, that this simple account of the government's findings is "the truth" about the assassination. No real historian would say "we know the whole truth about what happened - here it is in a neat, little package. Case closed, trust us, DO NOT ask too many questions."Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter what more experienced editors say here, Binksternet. And, given that he's received identical responses from editors on the other pages, I predict he will simply shop another forum. So, go for it. Waste your time. Canada Jack (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the next step is to post this dispute as a NPOV issue on the Neutrality Noticeboard.Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Gee, am I psychic or what? The "next step," ghost, would be to focus your energies on a positive improvement of several pages related to this topic, as I and others have suggested instead of shopping for forums where you have yet to find even a single editor who agrees you have a valid argument. Canada Jack (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that this article remain as it is, with no changes. Binksternet (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article as currently titled not NPOV

I have open this topic at the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#John_F._Kennedy_assassination_-_title_of_article_misleading Please check it out to see if I am accurately representing the majority opinion.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

and consensus is against you there as well. Now please move on and takes Canada Jack's advice and seek to improve the current articles instead of disrupting wikipedia with your forum shoppping. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There's not even a shred of a possibility that there is a neutrality issue? Am I the only one who has ever suggested this is a problem?Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You want to write about JFK assassination conspiracy theories? Great! Please contribute to the conspiracy theories page. I've been trying for years to build a page that reflects the facts of the conspiracy theories. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check out the discussion at the Neutrality Noticeboard (above). This is not really about the "Conspiracy" article, it's that this article presents the WC (Warren Commission) findings as "truth" and excludes any challenges to the WC findings.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and on the neutrality noticeboard you will see that despite numerous claims from Ghost that this page is slanted towards a biased view of the assassination, each and every editor who has commented sees that because the controversy is noted and linked from the lede and within the article, there is no issue in terms of NPOV. The precise point which I and others have made repeatedly. So, your views have been aired, Ghost, and your views have been explored. But you have failed to find anyone who agrees with them. Since this is a place where consensus is sought, it's time to work to improving various related articles instead of beating a dead parrot. Canada Jack (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And the reason there has been no progress towards resolving this is that, although I see your point of view, and I have no problem with the article as long as it is title appropriately, you refuse to admit even the POSSIBILITY that the article is not NPOV, even though you seem to agree that only a SIMPLIFIED VERSION of the official GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS' version of events is given (actually mostly the WC version). So just imagine the possibility of a cover-up. You are presenting as the unchallenged truth a version of events by the same organization that could be involved in the cover-up. You have to at least entertain the possibility that this could be the case, since historians do not agree that the "lone gunman" theory is the only possible scenario, not even the HSCA (House Special Committee on Assassinations) investigators thought it was a slam dunk. This is mentioned at the beginning of the article, but then the WC version is given in most of the rest of the article, as if these issues don't exist, and presents the WC version as the only "acceptable" version of events, to the point that WC findings cannot even be challenged or questioned. NPOV? If you could tell me that no "real" historian has ever questioned the validity of the WC investigation, that there is a consensus that Oswald was the lone gunman, that no one who has studied this seriously admits the possibility of a cover-up or conspiracy, then I could see leaving the title as is. Can you do that?Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's so much crap on the intertubes about the assassination that it is now a breath of fresh air to get the official version. That this version is summarized briefly here cannot be criticized; this is an encyclopedia article, not a seven-volume hardbound textbook series. Say, I wonder if you know that both Ted and Robert Kennedy grilled the Warren Commission principals mercilessly for a few hours, were satisfied with the results, and accepted the Warren Commission's version as fact. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

People like simple answers, but that doesn't mean they are the truth. We aren't doing readers any favors if we mislead them to believe this is a simple "cut and dried" issue. This is one of the major issues in U.S. history, and it deserves better. The Bush administration apparently lied 935 times before invading Iraq http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1580119/20080123/index.jhtml We can't afford to perpetuate a myth that our government never lies to us. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about trusting the government, it's about trusting reliable sources and historical consensus. We can report government lies when they are documented by those sources. But all we have here are suspicions regarding the consensus viewpoint, suspicions that can be documented in the appropriate article. Gamaliel (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the appropriate article! Maybe this is just how Wikipedia works, there is an "official" position on a topic, and any challenges to that are put on a separate page, but I think most quality reference works acknowledge controversy and try to explain the controversy. They don't try to simplify issues, or repeat or protect official truths.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On the reliability of the Warren Commission's findings (on which this article is mostly based, which is the basis for the simplified version of events given, and which is the basis for excluding other information):

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/191397_kennedy18.html

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=52023

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-11-21/news/0311210105_1_oswald-assassination-of-president-assassinated-jfk

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/hsca.htm Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate article to fully explore the opposing viewpoints, for the various previously stated reasons. And that has been determined by the consensus of the editors here, and the editors on the various assistance pages. The discussion is over, quit wasting our time and focus your attention on improving the articles. Canada Jack (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The current title is appropriate and should not be changed. It accurately describes what the article is about, namely the assassination of John F. Kennedy. There's an expression in the US military: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's about the JFK assassination, but for the most part, it gives the Warren Commission version of events, without any disclaimer to let the reader know this. You have to assume, if someone is looking this up in a reference work, that they don't know all the background. Someone who reads this article will assume the Warren Commission version of events is the widely accepted and unchallenged last word on the subject, even though it was published in 1964, and there has been a LOT of research done since then that challenges its findings. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another example of the sort of horseshit peddled as "fact" by many conspiracy theorists, one which would require reams of copy to address: the fourth link above which states: "Four witnesses (Caroline Arnold, Victoria Adams, Terrance Ford and Pierce Allman) placed Mr. Oswald on the first floor of the depository when the president was shot."

Well, sorry, but Ford and Allman witnessed the assassination and afterwards entered the TSBD where they said they encountered Oswald who directed them to a phone. Oswald mentioned an encounter which was likely this, but he said it happened AFTER he encountered Baker and Truly. So, Oswald was therefore seen several minutes after the assassination by those two, not "when" the assassination occurred. Caroline Arnold: Yes, she said she saw Oswald, but well before the assassination. 12:15, "maybe" 12:25. Before the 12:30 assassination. Why do we know this, besides her testimony? Because she went out to find a spot to watch the motorcade! Victoria Adams: She wasn't on the floor in question! She was on the fourth floor and descended after the assassination. Some have said she would have seen Oswald use the same stairs, problem is a) she didn't see Truly and Baker ascend and b) she encountered two employees at the bottom who took several minutes to get to the rear of the TSBD.

This is just a small example of the endless lies and bullshit which, if Ghost had his way, would have to be stuffed onto this page and which would require a full airing of the pros and cons. And, underlines why the page is structured as it is and why the controversies are given their own space. If we were "ignoring" the views of those who dispute the investigations, they wouldn't even be mentioned, let alone given their own page.(!) Canada Jack (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It would take several paragraphs just to describe the claims and counter claims about how he left the building. And it's like that with every single fact. Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never suggested that we give every possible scenario. I just think it needs to be clear to the readers that this is a SIMPLIFIED version of events based almost entirely on the WARREN COMMISSION'S report, and that ALL OTHER SCENARIOS, ALL CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, ALL CRITICISM OF THIS ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO have been excluded. It's deceptive not to note this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We have an article for that stuff. Should we integrate in into this one? How? Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, renaming the article is the simplest way. Or, you could note, before the narrative of the story, "The following version of events is a simplified version of the Warren Commission's findings. It is a theory based on evidence available at the time it was written. The Warren Commission did not approve this version of events unanimously, but was split 3-4 on its findings. Its findings have been challenged by some researchers but supported by others." Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't find the reference supporting the 3-4 split. Swear I saw it. Will keep looking.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimers and renaming have been rejected by the majority of the editors here, so consensus seems to be against that idea. You could start an WP:RFC, maybe. Gamaliel (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to withdrawn the 3-4 split decision line. I can only find a line in an Earl Warren article that he insisted the report be approved unanimously, so he worked out compromises among the members of the committee.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I withdrew the disclaimer proposal after I discovered that Wikipedia has a policy against general disclaimers on articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles), but I don't think that would prohibit pointing out exactly what your material is based on. The example disclaimers given seem very different from what I am proposing. Who could we ask about this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules Seems a bit dangerous though - too much of that going around already.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, because you lack consensus. What do you not comprehend here? It would help, however, for you to get a bit better acquainted with that which you so roundly denounce - your ignorance is displayed with this "3-4 split" comment. (!) Let me ask you this: When was the last time you actually read the Warren Commission Report? Canada Jack (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't see any discussion of my disclaimer proposal above, probably because I withdrew it immediately.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the Warren Commission Report is 26 volumes. No, I haven't read it.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Report, including all the volumes of evidence and citations, is indeed 26 volumes, but the summary volume is only about 300-400 pages, depending on the edition (I have an AP edition). Are you telling us, you who identify all these problems with the Warren Commission Report, you who insist on disclaimers, or a new title owing to deficencies you identify in the Report, that you have NOT EVEN READ IT!?! I hope you are joking! Canada Jack (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I rely on the opinions of journalists, researchers and historians, and don't assume to question them based on my personal (original) research. By the way, since you often question the validity of news stories and the published findings of historians, are you qualified to do so?Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Report" is one volume. The 26 volumes of "Hearings and Exhibits" were published later. — Walloon (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada Jack must have a shorter version - "The commission concluded in its 912-page tome -- supported by 7,000 footnotes and 26 volumes of exhibits and testimony -- that Oswald fired three shots, killing Kennedy and seriously wounding Texas Gov. John Connally." http://www.seattlepi.com/national/191397_kennedy18.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet you presume to loudly question the validity of the Report you've never even bothered to have read? The problem with your approach is, if you lack familiarity with the Report and the attendant issues, you end up making inane and irrelevant contributions to the page. You mentioned elsewhere Gerald Ford changed "back" to "neck" in the Report as if this was some huge revelation of a cover-up.(!) It's a small example of your lack of a grasp of the issues which has made this process so frustrating.

In the end, it's not a matter of who is "qualified" to question the validity of various sources, it's whether one knows enough about the subject to be able to discuss issues surrounding the article rationally; to be able to assess the "serious" critiques from the silly ones. Why, for example, Dr Wecht is such a potent critic and Mark Lane is a clown. If you haven't even bothered to take the time to read the Report, you shouldn't be presuming you not only can rewrite or rename the entire article, but that your objections rise to the level of getting the entire wikipedia brass involved. Canada Jack (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Associated Press thought the Ford revelation was significant enough to do a story on it: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/ford.html (although I doubt that is the original title of the article). Here's another, based on Ford's book: http://www.crimemagazine.com/former-president-ford-admits-cia-compromised-warren-commissions-probe-jfk-assassination. I've got some references. Do you have references that Mark Lane is a clown? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And this backs up my assertion that the Warren Commission was split at one point, although they later came together, probably after some arm-twisting about the "good of the nation": http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,400884,00.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "rewrite" the article. I just want a disclaimer that this is the official version of events based on the government's investigations (look at the Oswald section for example) or a change in the article's title to reflect that the article is based on the government's investigations.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You've not read the Report. Your citiques of the Report therefore carry little weight. If this was not so, Mark Lane's behaviour in front of the WC would not have to be referenced for your benefit. Yet another example of you in one breath demanding references for something you would be familiar with if you had bothered to read the Report, yet on the other hand demanding a disclaimer to inform people this is the official view even though you obviously don't know what is in the official Report.

As for Ford, if you, again, had bothered to read the Report, you would find the following describing the back/neck wound from the autopsy report written within hours of the assassination: "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process." (Appendix IX) This precisely locates the wound as per the autopsy photos. The problem, as anyone versed in the assassination lore knows, is that Dr Hume testified to the Warren Commission several times that the wound was in the lower neck, and this was reflected in the sketch done for the WC directed by Hume. That's because he was doing this from memory and from his rough sketches. Why? Because the WC did not assess the autopsy photos. So, it is a stretch to state that there was a Ford cover-up as he merely was reproducing what the sketch had and what Hume testified to. Which placed the wound in the lower neck.

The HSCA, of course, had access to the autopsy photos which showed the wound to be two inches lower, as accurately described in Appendix IX, thus clarifying the error of Hume's testimony and the sketch. This is no mystery, it was one of the issues addressed by the HSCA - but it in no way affected the key issue here - whether the trajectory to the TSBD was possible. The HSCA, even while concluding a conspiracy, concluded that the SBT was correct. Which is the only relevance here.

But if you had bothered to read the Report, you would have known this. Canada Jack (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I commend you for your personal knowledge, but I don't see any references to back up your research - something that discredits the news reports and articles about the significance of Ford's change. You obviously have a lot of faith in the Warren Commission's report, so I don't understand why you are so opposed to a disclaimer that states that this article is based on government and supporting sources and that conflicting material is excluded.Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I just quoted from the actual autopsy report, Ghost. But, hey, you know better. Canada Jack (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename article proposal

Since the apparent consensus of the editors of this article is that only the findings of official U.S. government investigations be included, I suggest the title of the article be changed to "John F. Kennedy assassination U.S. government investigation findings".Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Since your suggestion is that everybody else's theories be included also, I suggest that the article be renamed: John F. Kennedy assassination: a compendium of everybody's theories, including Oliver Stone's, anybody who's written a book, all the websites, yours, and your barber's. You can add the "too long" tag right at the beginning, to save time. SBHarris 03:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the title "John F. Kennedy assassination" implies an inclusive rather than exclusive article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

An inclusive article wouldn't fit. And would be composed of the two shelves of books I have, most of which are crap, and all of which were written to make somebody money. Why discuss theories that can't be made to work? Oswald, the only employee to be missing from the TSBD, bought a Carcano (and 6.5 x 55 ammo for it) from Klein's Sporting Goods, 8 months before the assassination, and had it shipped to HIS mailbox. He was photographed with it by his wife, a few weeks after getting it. He sent a photo of him holding it to his friend de Mohrenschildt, and SIGNED it! A Carcano (and one live round with three expended brass) was found on the 6th floor-- we have video of it being found, and it has the markings of Oswald's weapon. It's not a Mauser. That Carcano found in Oswald's workplace was sent to the FBI, where it had Oswald's handprint on it. A bullet fired from THAT WEAPON was found in the hospital JFK and Connolly was taken to. The X-rays of JFK's skull show a 6.5 mm bullet copper end plate, not anything larger. And so on. A Carcano looks something like a Mauser, and in fact is a partial copy of it. If somebody messed up in the initial ID of this odd weapon, so what? SBHarris 03:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "wouldn't fit"? Is there a limit on the length of the article? Well, all the better then to break it up. I'm not trying to support or deny any particular theory, but evidence is evidence. What if there were two rifles (and two shooters, as the HSCA investigation suggests)? What if there was a cover-up? You can't censor the article to exclude hard evidence and historical facts just because they conflict with official investigations.Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a length limit to all WP articles, generally about 100 kB, and this one is already 86 kB and you see a "getting too long" tag every time you edit it. Breaking an article up, per se, is not done, though oversized sections are summarized and the expanded material moved to a subarticle, per WP:SS. Here, as has been pointed out to you, there is a John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article which ITSELF has many subarticles. You can start one on the Mauser idea in the appropriate place there. If it gets too long, it can even be an entire separate article. However, we don't just shoehorn in any harebrained idea in main articles on WP. SBHarris 18:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't report "what if". We report the consensus of what reliable experts and sources say happened. Gamaliel (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus! That's why there are so many different theories and books by respected researchers.Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Do high schools and colleges teach conspiracy? Do leading historians advocate it? (In general, not a few specific ones.) Leading reference works? Sorry, we're just not going to give equal weight to amateur theorists. That's not how Wikipedia works. Gamaliel (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure they don't restrict their classes to only the government investigations and supporting researchers! The two references I gave you above were both written by college historians i.e. college history professors and neither is considered a crackpot. Can you imagine a college or even high school course that taught ONLY that Oswald was the lone gunman?Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Easily, because most history classes and textbooks already do. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a clear statement from CanadaJack about the real scope of this article, in his own words: "THE PAGE IS CHIEFLY THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS PER THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS." And anything to the contrary is a violation of Wikipedia policy per CanadaJack and Gamaliel for disrupting consensus.Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to seek another consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think renaming the article is a better solution, because of the long-standing consensus that has been built up around it. I don't want to upset the applecart, but I do think we should make it clear that the material in the article is restricted to material that agrees with the government investigations. The reader has no way of knowing that.Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I will oppose any move to rename this article, or to include material more suitable to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "wouldn't fit"? Is there a limit on the length of the article? Well, all the better then to break it up.

As they say in Boston "the light shines on Marblehead." If there was a historical consensus at odds with what the WC and HSCA concluded, then it would be a simple matter to incorporate that consensus into this article. But there ain't. Which is why the official versions of the event are presented here, with references to the controversy.

But, hey, you know better, Ghost. Canada Jack (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus! That's why there are so many different theories and books by respected researchers.

The two major investigations on the assassination came to identical conclusions in regards to whether Oswald was involved, whether the shots which struck the limo occupants were fired from the TSBD and whether Oswald had any other connections. The sole major difference was the HSCA conclusion, solely based on acoustic evidence, that a shot, which missed, was fired from the grassy knoll. This acoustic evidence was later shown to be erroneous, therefore the earlier conclusion that there was no compelling evidence of a conspiracy stands.

On top of that, the various other smaller investigations, such as the one on the autopsy, came to identical conclusions. There in fact is a very strong consensus from those who had the resources and legal authority to compel statements from witnesses that the sequences as largely described by the Warren Commission were correct.

This despite the well-founded criticisms of the Warren Commission which did not explore issues around the autopsy outside the testimony of the doctors; which largely ignored testimony from those who said they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll; which completely ignored what to many was dramatic evidence of a Knoll assassin via Kennedy's head snap; which did not explore the various government agencies which were more or less permitted to supply self-serving accounts, etc etc.

IOW, in terms of the official investigations, the key findings of the Warren Commission have stood the test of time, and outside (for the most part) the conspiracy community and the polled opinion of the general public, the overwhelming historical consensus is in fact that Lee Oswald shot and killed the president, and did so on his own. Because there is enough controversy on this subject, that controversy is mentioned on this page, with links to larger explorations of various aspects of the assassination.

Your proposals would needlessly toss out what stands as a good and straight-forward account of what was said to have happened, along with various alternate strands. And it all stems from what seems to you to be your view that you know better than anyone else here. Yet on the actual issues here, it is clear your grasp of the issues is relatively slight. This is not meant as a dig, but if you carefully read some of the other responses here, you will see what a can of worms this would open in terms of massively increasing the size of the article. For example, it's clear you are confused on this "second rifle" business - the HSCA concluded a second rifle, but are you now suggesting that a Grassy Knoll assassin used a Mauser, dashed UP the TSBD stairs, stashed the rifle and left, undetected and THIS was the second rifle? (!) And this is, relatively speaking, a minor issue, one which many conspiracy authors agree was a case of mistaken identity. Canada Jack (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that anything be thrown out, I'm not suggesting the article be changed, I'm not proposing any particular theory of events. I'm just saying this article is the "official" version of events based on the Warren Commission investigation, which the HSCA investigation found to be seriously flawed, and the HSCA investigation, in which some investigators later concluded the CIA and other agencies withheld information from investigators. If this article is restricted to the version of the government investigations, it should CLEARLY state that, and not lead people to believe that it is based on the latest research or that all the evidence has been presented. Since it is a "cleaned up" version of history, at the very least, there should be a disclaimer at the top of the article "This article is based on the findings of the Warren Commission and the HSCA investigations. Any material at odds with those two U.S. government bodies has been excluded from this article. The narrative of events has also been simplified to avoid contentious issues."Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1. KEEP article title-- For the points that have made by several editors to this user repeatedly now. It appears that he is the only one to have been "misled" over the several years this article existed. As Gamaliel stated, "[This article] reports the consensus of what reliable experts and sources say happened." Until their consensus changes, there is no need to change the article name. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose rename. WP:POINT applies here. ThemFromSpace 00:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Keep article title. And keep current article structure. Canada Jack (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Keep article title. And keep current article structure. SBHarris 02:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the John F. Kennedy assassination page should not rely on the Warren Report, the 1979 HSCA report, the Rockefeller Commission, or the Ramsay Clark Panel. These are reports that have not withstood the test of time. I am not saying that everything in those reports are wrong, just that their general conclusions don't reflect historical reality. I think that historical reality is that Lyndon Johnson and the Central Intelligence Agency murdered John Kennedy for many reasons both ideological and personal. In others words the ESSENCE of the JFK assassination is that there was a conspiracy by the political elites, both inside and outside of government (the shadow government) to murder John Kennedy. So the "JFK Assassination" page should include a lot of material discussing the Lyndon Johnson and CIA angle to the JFK assassination which the vast majority of scholarship now accepts. A superb book to read on this is JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters by James Douglass (2008). Douglass implicates the CIA in JFK's murder and says that he was a dove in a cage full of war hawks. I agree and do think that Lyndon Johnson was deeply involved in the murder and cover up of John Kennedy.

In sum, the historical REALITY of a high level conspiracy - very likely emanating from Lyndon Johnson and the CIA, needs to be integral to any page on the JFK assassination. For the minority of folks who, in my opinion, give mistaken credibility to the Warren Report or even the HSCA (which did conclude a conspiracy), that would be better discussed in the section on the Warren Report, where a full vetting of the FLAWS of the Warren Report can be discussed at length. Morrow321 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for expert review?

It seems that none of us is an accredited expert on this topic. Here's another idea. If you go over to the Domestic violence article, there is a banner at the top requesting expert assistance. I assume in our case that would mean a historian, journalist or someone who is a recognized expert on the topic, and hopefully one who is not wedded to any particular theory. Why don't we try that here?Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I have in mind

• {{POV}}
• {{expert-subject}}

Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Who's to say who's an expert? - Paul Newman

Steven B. is a physician with a tremendous knowledge of the facts of this case. I'll take him as an expert. Matter of fact, I'll take most of the people on this talk page as experts. I'll stack my personal knowledge on the subject against anybody's. I think you're barking up the wrong tree my friend. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What does Steven B. think about Kennedy's autopsy? If his professional opinion is that it was a botched job, he can't point that out here, not even with supporting references, unless they are government investigation references. Otherwise, it goes in the "conspiracy theory" article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You lost the debate, Ghost. End of discussion. Canada Jack (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of everything that has been said on this discussion page, ghost's suggestion of adding a disclaimer about the debate of the neutrality is probably the most grown up, mature, and intelligent suggestion in this entire discussion. Mojokabobo (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that we don't do "disclaimers" like that. Any issues about alleged non-neutrality should be taken to the talk page (which they have been), discussed (which they have been) and consensus reached (which has been). – ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well actually, consensus was not reached, but I conceded because everyone else seems to feel it's ok to have an article that appears to be NPOV but which, behind the scenes, is actually limited to views that support the findings of the government investigations.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure it was, consensus does not mean unanimity. The consensus was against you. – ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny how the issue of domestic violence hasn't had a consensus agreed upon yet, but issues like the 9/11 attacks and the JFK assassination are case closed. lol. Mojokabobo (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wording of this entry displays a double standard when contrasted with 9/11 entry.

I'm boldly archiving, no point flogging this horse any more. – ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The first few paragraphs of this article only describe the findings of the Warren Commission, and do not claim them to be fact. The 9/11 article claims the conclusions of the FBI and the 9/11 Commission to be fact, and does not merely report on what they are. Why the double standard? Chattanoogan (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Warren Commission version of events has been challenged, not only by historians and other researchers, but by other government investigations. As the years go by, more details will probably emerge about the 9/11 events as well, and may call into question the findings of the 9/11 Commission. There are many groups (groups of architects, scientists, engineers etc.) who have already questioned its findings.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutetly. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that both the assassination and 9/11 are case closed as far as the FBI is concerned BUT Wikipedia has treated these two events very differently. The assassination in Wikipedia is treated as open to interpretation as it should be, but the main page for 9/11 claims that the conspiracy claims are false, no ifs ands or buts. Chattanoogan (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The JFK assassination article is only open to VERY LIMITED challenges to the official story, like cases where one government investigation questions findings by other government investigations. That's what this huge debate has been about. Anything that conflicts with or challenges the government investigation findings is removed, and editors are told to put it in the "JFK assassination conspiracies" article. That doesn't seem NPOV to me, but I'm a minority of one apparently, so I can't save Wikipedia from itself. I have to assume good faith, but I have to admit that the rejection of the common sense solution, to rename the article "JFK assassination - government investigation findings" has me scratching my head.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem NPOV to me, but I'm a minority of one apparently, so I can't save Wikipedia from itself. I have to assume good faith, but I have to admit that the rejection of the common sense solution, to rename the article "JFK assassination - government investigation findings" has me scratching my head.

I couldn't make this stuff if I tried. Wow. Thanks for descending from your lofty perch to attempt to lead us to the promised land, Ghost. Sorry we failed you. Canada Jack (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would say this article is POV or that it should be renamed. A great deal of article has nothing to do with the government investigations. When it does discuss the investigations, at every point it also mentions doubts about the official conclusions. True, it does not go into the minutiae of where the Warren Report may have erred. But at the same time it doesn't attempt to bolster the official investigations by going on at length about the ways in which they answered critics and exhausted alternate theories of the crime. We also don't have the finer points of the history of Oswald's firearms ownership, or a lot of other things, because there are already other wikipedia articles that discuss these things in great detail. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The article assumes there is only one suspect and one shooter, LHO, who used the Carcano rifle to kill the President. Ruby killed Oswald for no apparent reason. No mention of Ruby's mob connections. No mention of witness or evidence anomalies. The WC's "magic bullet" theory is not questioned, and no conflicting evidence challenging the "lone gunman" theory, except buried in "HSCA" and "Conspiracy" sections.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted that info you would simply click on the links to LHO, the assassination rifle, or Jack Ruby. They are all linked in this article, and further details can be found in the respective articles. You are really stretching the assumption of good faith, since you have had this explained to you by almost everyone involved repeatedly over the last few weeks. You are getting very close to trolling the talk page at this point. As for comparison between this article and the 9/11 article, there isn't any. Each article evolves differently. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, trolling? Didn't Joegoodfriend say, "I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would say this article is POV or that it should be renamed." I conceded, but I'm still being asked to explain my position, as if it hasn't been explained a zillion times during the discussion.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obscene remarks on John F Kennedy's page

While I am just a junior in high school I find it appalling that anyone can put remarks such as "The assassination of Mickey Mouse, the thirty-fifth President of My Left Testicle, took place on opposite day;22, 1963, in A Vag, Ballsack, at 69 p.m. Central Standard Time (18:30 UTC) in Dealey Plaza. Kennedy was fatally shot while riding with his wife Jacqueline in a Presidential Sausage Fest." or "and other government investigations concluded that the President was assassinated by a bunch of niggers, that were brought back to the plantation before they could masturbate." While I do not have the knowledge required to fix these remarks, I humbly ask that someone who is an expert on this topic fixes these comments.

It's vandalism, it happens, it's been fixed. – ukexpat (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it hasnt stopped; he was assassinated by yoda who was assassinated by yoda before he could stand trial? vandilism...some one fix.

I for one agree totaly and also find it hilarious (ben tomlinson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentomo97 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

the assasination of john.F.Kennedy and abraham linkoln

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln happened on the very same day that JFK was born, and the assassination of JFK happened on the date that Lincoln was born... im not sure about you, but i think there's a government conspiracy afoot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentomo97 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to demand the resignation of your history teacher. The Lincoln assassination occurred on 14 April 1865 and JFK was born 29 May 1917; whereas the Kennedy assassination took place on 22 November 1963 and Lincoln was born on 12 February 1809.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox: Belligerent

Since this case is highly controversial I suggest we add a footnote to this part of Infobox which indicates that there are different theories and different ideas about those involved in the Assassination. I don't mean Oswald's name should be removed just a footnote be added. -- And Rew 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson's view on the JFK assassination

I think that the John F. Kennedy assassination page should include information on WHO Lyndon Johnson said he thought was responsible for the JFK assassination. In particular I think it is highly relevant that President Lyndon Johnson told his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown on New Year's Eve 12/31/63 that was Texas oil and the Central Intelligence Agency that was responsible for the JFK assassination (Texas in the Morning: The Love Story of Madeleine Brown and President Lyndon Baines Johnson, p.189).

It is absolutely critical that this information be included because it directly contradicts what Johnson, Hoover of the FBI and later the Warren Commission would be trying to foist on the American people, i.e. that it was a lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrow321 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That book is widely seen as bullshit. And more properly belongs on the conspiracy page. Canada Jack (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take anything written by an alleged presidential mistress as being a reliable source. They can invent anything out of spite!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most people would consider the Warren Report to be bullshit. And because, obviously, there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, it belongs on this page. Madeleine Brown is not an "alleged" mistress of Lyndon Johnson, she is the MOTHER of one of his children, Stephen Mark Brown, who she dedicates her book to. Another thing that makes Madeleine's statements so credible is that she was still in LOVE with Lyndon Johnson when she wrote that book in 1997, a full 34 years after Johnson died. Additionally, Madeleine Brown says that LBJ told her that on New Year's Eve 1964 (12/31/63) at the Driskell Hotel. Johnson is proven to have been at the Driskell Hotel that night - see the book Sam Johnson's Boy by Steinberg, p. 652. Also, check out the link http://huffingtonpost.com/bill-lucey/how-former-us-presidents_b_405850.html Morrow321 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

While I don't believe in the WC report nor in Oswald having been the lone assassin, this book appears to be sensationalism-nothing else. How can you take what this Madeleine Brown says as the truth? And the fact that she's still in love with LBJ after all these years doesn't lend credibility to her story.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most people would consider the Warren Report to be bullshit. And because, obviously, there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, it belongs on this page.

It is your opinion that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, not a "fact." There is a page dedicated to conspiracy theories. That is where this belongs. There is also a page for Ms Brown. There are hundreds of theories on JFK's assassination, this one is one of the least credible. Because she was in LOVE with LBJ doesn't add any credibility to her claims. Especially given that when she published her book, LBJ's widow and daughters were alive. Some "love." But, hey, bullshit baffles brains. Canada Jack (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Madeleine Brown sounds to me like she's using her alleged romance with LBJ to seek a place in history aboard the JFK assassination float. Sorry, but this is one theory I don't buy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

LBJ is widely known to have had many lovers and many affairs, probably more than a few children as a result. It seems a little self-serving (let alone disingenuous) to suggest you are, out of "love," publishing a book which shows LBJ to be at best a cad, and at worse, complicit in one of the most notorious crimes of our time. But, and this can't be said often enough: Bullshit baffles brains. Canada Jack (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I cannot imagine LBJ engaging in political pillowtalk.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is Brown full of shit? She claims to have been at a party with LBJ the night before the assassination with others, including Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover. Putting aside the ludicrous notion that Nixon would want LBJ in the White House, and would be complicit in such a plan, LBJ's whereabouts were documented and he could not have been at the party, and Nixon was seen at a show with Joan Crawford. Canada Jack (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, MB is just another bitter, jilted humpty-dumpty out for revenge, money and headlines. One cannot include her in a serious debate on the JFK assassination.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Imagine if you will, Joe Kennedy sitting down with Texas oil tycoons in 1960 and working out a deal whereby Jack Kennedy would get the Democratic nomination and LBJ the VP spot. Now imagine that LBJ then set into motion a plot to murder JFK that took nearly four years to come to fruition. That's what you have to believe if you find Brown credible. All of this is over on the conspiracy theories page in the LBJ section (which I wrote). I suspect what we have here is another case of an editor asking 'Why doesn't wikipedia talk about X?' when in fact it does talk about it, and the editor just didn't bother to look. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely there was a "conspiracy" to murder John Kennedy. I think that has been settled now. This is the "John F. Kennedy Assassination" page NOT the completely discredited "Warren Commission" page, therefore this page needs to reflect historical reality. If you actually READ Madeleine Duncan Brown's book, you will clearly see that she is still in love with and infatuated with Lyndon Johnson. She loves him and that is what makes her account all the more credible. She loves this guy and she is telling you some awful stuff about him, i.e. that he said that Texas oil and the CIA were behind the JFK assassination. More than that, Madeleine has stated many times that Johnson was FULLY AWARE that the JFK murder was going to occur, which pretty much makes him one of the plotters. This does not mean that every last detail of Duncan's account is credible. Madeleine likes to drop the names of the powerful people she was associated with and she clearly loved being in the company of the power players of Texas in the Johnson era.

And because of Madeleine's INSIDER ACCESS to these power players, she can give invaluable insights as to who they were. Madeleine had a longterm affair with LBJ from 1948 to 1969. They had a son Steven Mark in 1950.

My take on Madeleine is that some of the minor details of her account may not be accurate (such as who was at what party, and the exact date of it), but that she is probably 100% correct on the blockbuster stuff such as Lyndon Johnson calling her the day of the assassation of JFK and saying "That son-of-a-bitch crazy Yarborough and that goddamn fucking Irish mafia bastard, Kennedy, will never embarrass me again!" (p.167, Texas in the Morning). From her account it sure looks like Lyndon Johnson was a participant in the JFK assassination.

And then there is Lyndon Johnson's statement to Madeleine at the Driskell Hotel on 12/31/63 when she asked him who killed JFK: "It was Texas oil and those fucking renegade intelligence bastards in Washington." (p.189, Texas in the Morning). Johnson, according to public accounts, was definitely placed at the Driskell Hotel on the night of 12/31/63. So that is a CONFIRMING factor in Madeleine's account. It was common for Johnson to be at the Driskell - he kept a room there for his assignations with mistresses (room #254, still today, available for occupancy for $600-$1,000 in 2010 year).

A key point to make about Madeleine - if you actually READ her book - is she is NOT bitter about Lyndon Johnson in the slightest. She is madly in love with him in 1997, 24 years after his death. Yet, based on LBJ's private comments to his beloved mistress, Madeleine is convinced that Lyndon Johnson was involved in the JFK assassination. I think Madeleine is just telling the truth about Lyndon Johnson, even if it is an ugly truth that some folks just can't accept. Morrow321 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's buying Madeleine's story, I'm afraid.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have over 200+ books on the JFK assassination and I think that Madeleine Duncan Brown is very credible on the big picture especially when she quotes Lyndon Johnson as saying that Texas oil and the CIA were responsible for the JFK assassination. I know plenty of credible researchers who DO believe Madeleine. So YOU don't and you just speak for you. When it comes to witnesses a lot of folks believe and disbelieve them just based on their preconceived biases about the case. The bottom line is Madeleine had a child with LBJ, was his closest, most beloved mistress for 21 years, and she definitely ran with the Texas Democratic elite of the 1950's, LBJ's circle. Morrow321 (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Major General Edward Lansdale identified at Texas School Book Depository

I think that we ought to include a section about the identification of Major General Edward Lansdale on the sidewalk on the southwest corner of the Texas School Book Depository. Lansdale was the CIA's expert on counterinsurgency and assassinations. He wanted to be US ambassador to South Vietnam, but Kennedy put him in charge of Operation Mongoose instead. Lansdale is in this photo, with his back to the camera: http://www.apfn.net/dcia/tramps1.jpg Col. Fletcher Prouty identified Lansdale and spoke of the significance of him being on site in Dallas on 11/22/63: http://www.prouty.org/letter.html Also, General Victor H. Krulak identified Lansdale in this photo: http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html

Prouty and Krulak had both worked with Lansdale in close quarters and thus were able to identify him from the side and back. Here is a bio on Lansdale: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDlansdale.htm

The bottom line is the presence of Maj. Gen. Edward Lansdale in not just Dallas, but directly in front of TSBD is an ominous one and I think he probably had a lot to do with the JFK assassination. In fact, he most likely was running field operations for the JFK assassination; I can think of NO other reason why Lansdale would be there. Morrow321 (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Makes sense to me. If you are in a conspiracy to kill the president, why not stand there in front of the building where (at least some of) the shots were fired? One can only wonder, why didn't the general have a sandwich board on saying "I AM GENERAL LANSDALE HERE TO WATCH JFK BEING SHOT"? Maybe he forgot it? It never ceases to amaze me the ludicrous horseshit so many people swallow when it comes to this case. All that notwithstanding, this properly belongs on the conspiracy page. Canada Jack (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying Morrow is that anybody in the vicinity of the TSBD on the morning of 22 November 1963 is a potential JFK assassin?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Canada Jack, info on Lansdale belongs on THIS page because there was a LBJ/CIA conspiracy to murder JFK. All that stuff about LHO and lone nut/Warren Commission gibberish belongs on a "fantasy page." It never ceases to amaze me of people willing to promote the ludicrous horseshit of the Warren Commission and its lies and fantasies, especially after so much ugly truth has come out over 47 years. Gen. Edward Lansdale was deep CIA and its expert on counter-insurgency, coups, assassinations, propaganda. He had big time experience with this in the Phillapines, Laos, Vietnam and JFK had put him in charge of Operation Mongoose to run operations against Cuba. It is a very real possibility that the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans who HATED John Kennedy in fact decided to murder him as they considered him a traitor. Col. Fletcher Prouty was the military liason with the CIA and he worked in close quarters with Lansdale. There is no other reason for Lansdale to BE ON SITE IN DALLAS except for being there on business in the JFK assassination. The CIA has a long history of being the Harlem Globetrotters of coups, assassinations, propaganda - all useful skill sets which they no doubt put to use in the murder of John Kennedy. So I do think this PHOTO OF EDWARD LANSDALE - identified by Prouty and Gen. Krulak - is very valuable and it very probably means Gen. Edward Lansdale was in Dallas overseeing the JFK assassination for the Agency as well as the shadow government outside that works hand in glove with the CIA - e.g. Texas oil players of that time, HL Hunt, etc.

Edward Lansdale had wanted to be US ambassador to South Vietnam, but JFK gave that to Henry Cabot Lodge, another one of the war hawks in the JFK administration, while Kennedy himself was becoming quite dovish behind the scenes on all fronts, much to the consternation of the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and even the State Department. Kennedy put Gen. Lansdale in charge of Operation Mongoose where he was mixing with folks in the CIA and the anti-Castro Cubans who hated John Kennedy with a white hot passion, as much as they hated Fidel Castro.

I think for these folks, the murder of John Kennedy was the ultimate ploy of Operation Northwoods; they hoped it would be a catalytic event for an invasion of Cuba. They could kill the hated John Kennedy on day 1, blame it on the patsy and fake communist, US intelligence agent Oswald and ride that momentum into an US military invasion of Cuba. Morrow321 (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, Morrow. Let's examine your remarks. The Warren Commission and its supporters has been peddling "ludicrous horseshit" these past 47 years. Here's a question: Have you read the Warren Commission report? While I agree there are some gaping holes in the Report - in particular with the autopsy - its examination of Oswald, his background, the forensic evidence connecting him to the murders and the assassination itself stands the test of time.

Edward Lansdale was deep CIA and its expert on counter-insurgency, coups, assassinations, propaganda. And what evidence links him to a plot to kill the president? NONE.

It is a very real possibility that the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans who HATED John Kennedy in fact decided to murder him as they considered him a traitor. Motive is not evidence in and of itself. Which is what too many who suggest conspiracy don't get. We HAVE a guy who has a ton of evidence linking him to the crime. His name is Lee Harvey Oswald. We have NO evidence linking Lansdale to the crime. NONE.

There is no other reason for Lansdale to BE ON SITE IN DALLAS except for being there on business in the JFK assassination. If ever there was a line which deserved the designation "ludicrous horseshit," it is that. THOUSANDS of people were in Dallas on that day. Are they also somehow linked to a conspiracy in regards to the assassination? You have it all ass-backwards, Morrow. What we care about is what the evidence at the scene points to. And we don't have to "explain" why a particular individual was there if there is no evidence connecting him to the crime. All you have is a purported motive - which is not evidence!

So I do think this PHOTO OF EDWARD LANSDALE - identified by Prouty and Gen. Krulak - is very valuable and it very probably means Gen. Edward Lansdale was in Dallas overseeing the JFK assassination for the Agency as well as the shadow government outside that works hand in glove with the CIA - e.g. Texas oil players of that time, HL Hunt, etc. A PHOTO of Lansdale is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT if there is no evidence that he was involved in the assassination. The only "evidence" is that he may have been standing there at the time of the assassination. Any CONCLUSION to be drawn by that is pure speculation on your part - you have no evidence that he was involved in the actual assassination!

I think for these folks, the murder of John Kennedy was the ultimate ploy of Operation Northwoods; they hoped it would be a catalytic event for an invasion of Cuba. It's a nice theory, Morrow, but we need evidence. And "evidence" is NOT a description of possible motives. Hundreds, maybe thousands, had a motive to kill the president for whatever policy reason, anti-catholic sentiment, anger at his philandering, international intrigue, what have you.

In the end while it sure would be nice to know WHY Oswald chose to shot Kennedy, it is IRRELEVANT to determining whether he in fact killed Kennedy if the evidence points to him. And it does. You, like most conspiracy theorists, have it ass-backwards. You start with motive and ignore the fact that there is a) no evidence linking these scenarios to the crime in question and b) tons of evidence linking Oswald to the crime. What the WC and others did is see where the evidence points. Motive? The WC had a chapter on what may have triggered the crime. But in the end, that is pure speculation.

So, the fallacy here is that while you may speculate on MOTIVE, you can't speculate on EVIDENCE. "Proving" motive is irrelevant when you have counter evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to comment on the "Lansdale photo" as someone who's actually read all of Prouty's stuff. A couple of things to consider:

For all his celebrity, the actual evidence of conspiracy that Prouty brought to the table was exactly zilch.

Be aware of the full context of Prouty's belief about that photo. Prouty, like some before him, believed that the 'three tramps' in the photo were actually the CIA's hired guns: Howard Hunt, Charles Harrelson and I forget, the Dread Pirate Roberts or somebody. Also that the cops in the picture are fakes, hired to make sure Hunt and Co. get away clean. Thus Lansdale is with them to coordinate the whole thing.

This was all debunked years ago. Now that we know the tramps were just tramps, and the cops were real, do you really believe the guy in the photo is Lansdale? Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember GEN. VICTOR KRULAK also identifies Gen. Edward Lansdale: Krulak: " As to photo no. 1. That is indeed a picture of Ed Lansdale. The haircut, the stoop, the twisted left hand, the large class ring. It's Lansdale. What in the world was he doing there? Has anyone ever asked him and who was the photographer? Why did he take the pictures? What did he do with them?"

So TWO people, Col. Prouty and Gen. Krulak, who worked closely with Lansdale, have identified Lansdale as being ON SITE at the foot of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Lansdale specialized in counter-insurgency, assassinations, propaganda - all useful skill sets in the assassination of John Kennedy. It is one thing for a black Dallas maid to come out to watch John and Jackie Kennedy's motorcade. It is quite ANOTHER thing for the CIA's expert on coups, assassinations, counter-insurgency to be ON SITE in Dallas at the literal foot of the TSBD. Also, Lansdale ran Operation Mongoose where he was do doubt in contact with plenty of Kennedy haters in the CIA/anti-Castro Cuban community. These folks consider John Kennedy an appeaser at best and a traitor at worst. They hated JFK as much as they hated Fidel Castro.

So the question again: WHY IN THE WORLD IS GEN. EDWARD LANSDALE ON SITE AT THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN KENNEDY? Answer: because I think he was there to kill him, unlike the many thousands of native Dallas onlookers in the streets to welcome the Kennedys to Dallas.

Re: Canada Jack. Yes, I have read selected parts of the Warren Report such as its thesis about the discredited magic bullet theory. What a load of horseshit that is! The vast majority of the real information about the JFK assassination does not come from the laughable Warren Report, it comes from a dozens of sources outside of it and the human intel that has been dripping out for decades, such as the revelations of Madeleine Duncan Brown and Billie Sol Estes and E. Howard Hunt, just to name a few.

Remember, it is very likely that the murderers of JFK were folks like Lyndon Johnson and Allen Dulles. So that is like asking a murderer to appoint a judge, jury and prosecutor to acquit himself. The Warren Report is a red herring, useful mainly at examining the propaganda of the murderers of JFK as they covered their tracks. Canada Jack, have you read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he Died and Why it Matters by James Douglass? You will get a lot more TRUTH in that book than in all 26 volumes of the discredited Warren Report or anything that came out of the mouth of Lyndon Johnson, Allen Dulles, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, George Herbert Walker Bush, the New York Times, especially when relating to the JFK assassination. Morrow321 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So the question again: WHY IN THE WORLD IS GEN. EDWARD LANSDALE ON SITE AT THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN KENNEDY? Answer: because I think he was there to kill him, unlike the many thousands of native Dallas onlookers in the streets to welcome the Kennedys to Dallas. The REAL question is - what evidence links Lansdale to the crime? What don't you get here, Morrow? If you stood up in court and entered this photo as evidence, the judge would say "Okay, Lansdale was there. So what? Where is the evidence to link him to the crime?" At best, all that you are "proving" is that someone was at a particular location.

Further, aside from your fantasizing, you'd have to account for all the evidence which links Lee Harvey Oswald to the crime, as the lone assassin, and somehow establish a link between these individuals. 47 years has failed to find any substantive links between Oswald and anyone who potentially would have wanted JFK dead.

Re: Canada Jack. Yes, I have read selected parts of the Warren Report such as its thesis about the discredited magic bullet theory. What a load of horseshit that is!

So, you admit you've not read the Warren Report. Far from "discredited," the higher resolution Zapruder film corroborates the single bullet theory. And further reconstructions of the positions of the occupants of the limo corroborate what the WC realized early on - any bullet which exited JFK would have HAD to have hit Connally. This is another example of the conspiracy theorists not explaining the evidence as we have it. Such as - if separate bullets struck, where is the other bullet? - or, since Connally's wounds indicate he was hit by a tumbling bullet, what, if not Kennedy, did this bullet hit before Kennedy?

The Warren Report is a red herring, useful mainly at examining the propaganda of the murderers of JFK as they covered their tracks. But you've not read it!

In the end, Morrow, a lot of naive people have bought the conspiracy line hook, line and sinker. Like you, they've not bothered to read the Report, choosing instead to read critiques of the Report. You are not required to accept the Report, but one should actually be aware of the reasoning behind the conclusions therein, and you, quite clearly, are not. For example, when it comes to the SBT, if one is to dismiss the WC reasoning, then how do we explain the lack of a bullet, and how could Connally's wounds have occurred the way they did?

Canada Jack, have you read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he Died and Why it Matters by James Douglass? No, but from the title alone, one could discern what is going on - we have a "motive" (the "why") - and we will interpret the event around that motive. To hell with the evidence. If you want to see the "truth," or as close to it as we can, read Bugliosi's epic "Reclaiming History." Again, don't listen to the conspiracy folk who dismiss it out of hand - it is in their interest to have the public accept conspiracy. The bottom line is the evidence for Oswald - and Oswald alone - to have done this crime is so overwhelming it is laughable to claim otherwise. To do so, one has to IGNORE a mountain of evidence. Which is precisely what most of these conspiracy authors have done. Canada Jack (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Canada Jack, you are wrong and that idiotic "Report" you cite is nothing more than the self serving propaganda of the murderers of John Kennedy. The vast majority of truth about the JFK assassination comes from people and information that are absolutely NOT in the Warren Report con job. By the way, the MAJORITY of the signing members of the Warren "Report" came to state they did not believe that stinking piece of shit: Richard Russell, Hale Boggs, John Sherman Cooper and Earl Warren who said that truth would only be known 75 years later. And the murderer who appointed them, Lyndon Johnson, COMPLETELY DID NOT BELIEVE the "Report" mainly because he knew the evil truth that it was Texas oil and the CIA who did the hit job (on his behalf). LBJ's cover theories were first it was the Vietnamese who killed JFK then he settle on his other cover story lie that it was Castro and the Cubans. You are in quite rarified territory "believing" in the flaming piece of dogshit Warren Commission con job "Report." The majority of the Warren Commission and LBJ thought/knew it was a fraud. And I suspect Arlen Specter and David Belin also thoroughly understand what a lie it is.

Arlen Specter, in addition to conjuring up the Magic Bullet fantasy, also tried to criminally intimidate Jean Hill into changing her story that she heard 4-6 shots. Told her he could/would stick her in a mental institution. Those are NOT the actions of an impartial truth finder. And we also have the leading questions Specter asked the Parkland doctors, trying to herd them into his Magic Bullshit theory.

Then you had the FBI telling Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers, JFK's 2 closest aides, to lie and perjure themselves that they did not heard shots on the grassy knoll. Years later they told Tip O'Neill that of course there were shots on the grassy knoll. That is the kind of garbage that got fed into the "Report."

If you want learn something useful, then read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he Died and Why it Matters (2008) by James Douglass. He will tell you WHY the CIA murdered John Kennedy - because JFK was a dove in a cage filled with war hawks and he gives many examples. Morrow321 (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Canada Jack, you are wrong and that idiotic "Report" you cite is nothing more than the self serving propaganda of the murderers of John Kennedy. You've not even read the Report. You therefore don't know what you are talking about - you are simply repeating the conclusions of other people, many of whom are making self-serving and implausible critiques/scenarios TO SELL BOOKS. It truly astounds me how many people routinely vilify a report THEY'VE NEVER READ. It's only 400 pages. No one expects the volumes of evidence to be read. You clearly care about the issue, so why have you not done your basic homework?

The initial assumption was that a conspiracy was afoot. JFK was widely vilified in Texas, and it seemed a little too neat and tidy that Oswald - a Marxist! In TEXAS of all places! - was identified and arrested so quickly - and then, conveniently, himself murdered.

However, the evidence points to one person and one person only - Lee Harvey Oswald. If opinion was everything, if "common sense" was everything, then we'd have "conspiracy" as the conclusion. It's what I believed for a quarter of a century. But EVIDENCE is what drew the WC's conclusion. Even if, as many argue, the conclusion was pre-determined, the evidence, if one cares to look at it dispassionately, points in one direction. For example, while many focus on reports from the doctors who treated JFK that there was a hole in the back of his head, the AUTOPSY is what needs to be focussed on, and the photographs. That evidence is irrefutable. The images have been confirmed to be of JFK, confirmed to have not been altered, and in the opinion of (I think) a dozen pathologists show wounds which confirm bullets coming from the rear. Now, many authors focus on the Parklawn doctors as evidence of something else, but the physical evidence says otherwise, and that evidence is irrefutable. It's as simple as that. What about Parklawn? That witness testimony is subject to perception, opinion, and simple error. The physical evidence isn't.

The bottom line, Morrow, is once you start with the body and the wounds, work backwards to the rifle, then to the person of LHO, and then to who he was and he was associated, the conclusion is inescapably what the WC concluded. One huge failing of the WC was to only rely on the testimony and reports of the autopsy surgeons. Critics seized on the discrepancies in their testimony, on Ford changing "back" to "neck," etc. etc. But the evidence itself is irrefutable, as later investigations underlined!

And we also have the leading questions Specter asked the Parkland doctors, trying to herd them into his Magic Bullshit theory. Statements like that tell me you simply aren't aware of the evidence. Answer me this: What happened to the bullet that passed through JFK?

Then you had the FBI telling Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers, JFK's 2 closest aides, to lie and perjure themselves that they did not heard shots on the grassy knoll. The WC report doesn't even mention the Grassy Knoll - that's a major deficiency. However, if you are aware of the physical evidence, and the FACT that, save for a tiny handful of witnesses, earwitnesses say the sounds came from EITHER the TSBD OR the Grassy Knoll (NOT both), yet we KNOW shots were fired from the TSBD, that simply underlines the acoustics of the plaza fooled a lot of people. Canada Jack (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to put some underlying points on this, not to belabour this topic (but, hey, it's been heavily debated for 47 years, it will be for 47+ more years), but most of the arguments stem from evidence which has been, in the opinion of some, either ignored or suppressed. For example, FBI agents being told not to say they heard shots from the grassy knoll, counsels asking leading questions, Parklawn doctors being berated, what have you.

But, if one reads the Warren Report, they will find that often conflicting evidence is mentioned and that the reasons for the most likely scenario (in their opinion) is given. The sneering attitude of Arlen Specter is beside the point. What IS the point is whether testimony from Parklawn doctors - who were trying to save the president's life, NOT trying to determine the extent of his wounds - should or could overrule the opinions of pathologists whose purpose was to do an autopsy, describe and determine the precise nature of the wounds. Later investigations addressed the deficiencies of the WC in relying on mere testimony for the autopsy evidence.

In almost every other area of contention - from how many shots were fired, to identifying LHO - the same is true. There was much conflicting evidence, in particular from witnesses. Why some was seen as more compelling than other conflicting evidence is typically spelled out. But to pretend evidence was ignored - as if the evidence the WC made things up out of thin air - is, in a word, bullshit. Canada Jack (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Canada Jack: You make a big and fatal assumption when you treat the Warren Commission con job as some sort of impartial search for truth in the how and why of the JFK assassination. Lyndon Johnson was not just into ballot fraud (1948 prime example) or bribes and kickbacks (his entire political career). Lyndon Johnson was a stone cold killer, a serial killer comparable to the likes of Ted Bundy or David Berkowitz (Son of Sam). Just read the confessions of Billie Sol Estes and his conversations with Cliff Carter, LBJ's political director and hatchet man. Whacking JFK was just another work day for a man whose hands were as dirty as Lyndon Johnson. And it was this serial killer LYNDON JOHNSON who APPOINTED those Warren Commission con artists, including Allen Dulles who pretty much made the CIA what it is today - the Harlem Globetrotters of coups, assassinations and propaganda. The SAME Allen Dulles who was fired by JFK and who hated JFK. Dulles, who has a very dark history himself was the de facto head of the Warren "Report" cover up and Dulles himself said and (hoped) no one would read it.

Sylvia Meagher did read the Warren Report and all 26 volumes of so-called "evidence" - really carefully selected and manufactured propaganda by the murderers of JFK and she wrote Accessories After the Fact, which pretty much destroys the Warren "Report" (except in your eyes, ha ha). Have you read Accessories After the Fact?

I do have the Warren "Report" in my hands as I type this. Wow is it deficient. I don't see it talking much about the culpability of Lyndon Johnson, the CIA and Texas Oil king men (HL Hunt, Clint Murchison, Sr). So what good is that p.o.s non-investigating report if it leaves out a thorough investigation of the MAIN SUSPECTS: Lyndon Johnson, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, Texas Oil?

Arlen Specter's CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR on the Warren Commission is a good example of why it (the "Report") deserves such contempt. Not only did that con artist Arlen Specter "make up" the laughable, discredited "Magic bullet theory," he was also asking a bunch of complicated, leading questions to the Parkland doctors as Specter tried to manufacture replies not seek the truth regarding the ENTRANCE wound on JFK's throat.

A prime example of the corruption of the Warren "Report" and by extension Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles would be this typical behavior by Arlen Specter as he criminally tried to intimidate Jean Hill into CHANGING HER STORY. Specter was NOT seeking the truth, he was busy manufacturing a lie as he tried to TERRIFY witness Jean Hill into not saying she heard 4-6 shots.

http://arlen-specter.tripod.com/

Jean Hill's account (eyewitness evidence) did not mix with the whopper lie 3 shots and "magic bullet theory" Specter was busy then making up out of thin air.

In Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963, two women, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman were standing on the south side of Elm Street in Dealey Plaza as Kennedy's motorcade passed. They were two of the closest eyewitnesses to President Kennedy when he was struck with the fatal head shot. Jean Hill would later be questioned by Warren Commission attorney Arlen Specter. Hill recalled her encounter (3/24/64) with Specter with journalist/author Jim Marrs:

"The FBI took me to Parkland Hospital. I had no idea what I was doing there. They escorted me through a labyrinth of corridors and up to one of the top floors of Parkland. I didn't know where we were. They took me into this little room where I met Arlen Specter. He talked to me for a few minutes, trying to act real friendly, then this woman, a stenographer, came in and sat behind me. He had told me that this interview would be confidential, then I looked around and this woman was taking notes. I reminded him that the discussion was to be private and he told the woman to put down her notebook, which she did. But when I looked around again she was writing. I got mad and told Specter, 'You lied to me. I want this over.' He asked me why I wouldn't come to Washington, and I said, 'Because I want to stay alive.' He asked why I would think that I was in danger and I replied, 'Well, if they can kill the President, they can certainly get me!' He replied that they already had the man that did it and I told him, 'No, you don't!' He kept trying to get me to change my story, particularly regarding the number of shots. He said I had been told how many shots there were and I figured he was talking about what the Secret Service told me right after the assassination. His inflection and attitude was that I knew what I was supposed to be saying, why wouldn't I just say it. I asked him, 'Look, do you want the truth or just what you want me to say?' He said he wanted the truth, so I said, 'The truth is that I heard between four and six shots.' I told him, 'I'm not going to lie for you.' So he starts talking off the record. He told me about my life, my family, and even mentioned that my marriage was in trouble. I said, 'What's the point of interviewing me if you already know everything about me?' He got angrier and finally told me, 'Look, we can even make you look as crazy as Marguerite Oswald [Lee Oswald's mother] and everybody knows how crazy she is. We could have you put in a mental institution if you don't cooperate with us.' I knew he was trying to intimidate me.... He finally gave me his word that the interview would not be published unless I approved what was written. But they never gave me the chance to read it or approve it. When I finally read my testimony as published by the Warren Commission, I knew it was a fabrication from the first line. After that ordeal at Parkland Hospital, they wrote that my deposition was taken at the U.S. attorney's office in the Post Office Building." Morrow321 (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Morrow, what you don't seem to get is that even if the Warren Commission and Arlen Specter were a bunch of threatening assholes, the evidence STILL points to LHO and his sole involvement. Ms. Hill said that she saw a dog between JFK and Jackie in the limo. Is this evidence being "suppressed" as well? Do we accept that there was in fact a dog in the back seat even though no one else says so, and the photographic evidence seems to suggest otherwise? Again, the statements from one witness don't eliminate other evidence which suggests otherwise. The VAST majority of witnesses said they heard 2 or 3 shots. Why is Hill's evidence of "4-6 shots" more compelling? How does her testimony negate everyone else's? She also claims to have seen Jack Ruby there. But numerous others say he was at the offices of a newspaper. And, she claims she him running from the TSBD to the railway tracks, something no one else saw. The mere fact that we are discussing her testimony would suggest that her evidence is far from "suppressed." It's not "suppressed," it's simply not corroborated. The difference between her and others who made claims no one else did is she asserts everyone else had to be wrong and hallucinating/lying and only she knew the truth. Canada Jack (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the more general charge of the Warren Commission being essentially a criminal conspiracy itself, LBJ being a fraudster, a killer, etc., EVEN IF TRUE, that still does not negate the evidence which we have. For example, you claim the throat wound was an entry wound. But it was only an OPINION that that MAY have been an entry wound - the doctors at Parkland were trying to revive the president, not do an autopsy, and they performed an operation which obscured the wound. But we have the intact back wound, and the nature of the wound PROVES it to be an entry wound. Since there are no other wounds on JFK's body (other than his head) other than the throat wound, that HAD to be an exit wound. It doesn't matter if Arlen or others "wanted" Parkland doctors to say something else, the physical evidence says the back wound was an entry wound, the front therefore was an exit wound. Period.

And I notice, while deriding the Single Bullet Theory, you've avoided answering the very questions the SBT sought to answer - if there were separate bullets, what happened to the one which hit JFK if it didn't strike Connally? And how do we explain the nature of the Governor's back wound if that bullet didn't strike JFK first?

Your approach is an example of the naivety of many, dressed up as a "real politik" approach, where various corrupt actors - like LBJ who stole the 1948 Senate primary against Coke Robertson - are set to effect murderous goals and cover them up. The problem is, the evidence simply isn't there to prove the charges. The bottom line, LBJ, Hoover, the members of the Warren Commission, Dulles, all these guys, all could have been a bunch of back-stabbing killers, capable of any under-handed scheme you could imagine. But all this does not mean they were behind the killing of JFK! Even if they happened to benefit personally from his death! And all this certainly doesn't mean that the MOUNTAIN of evidence pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone killer can simply be ignored. Canada Jack (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Canada Jack, the title of this section relates to General Lansdale - the CIA's coup, assassinations, propaganda expert being identified on scene by TWO people who worked with him closely - Col. Fletcher Prouty and Gen. Victor Krulak. Krulak even got Lansdale FIRED from one of his jobs. JFK put Lansdale (who wanted to be Ambassador to Vietnam) in charge of Operation Mongoose where Lansdale was NO DOUBT in contact with a lot of CIA people and anti-Castro people who hated John Kennedy as much as they hated Fidel Castro. They especially hated John Kennedy in the fall of 1963 because JFK was in back channel negotiations with Castro to "normalize" relations with Cuba and live in peace with them. Read 2 books Brothers by David Talbot and JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass.

The very PRESENCE of Gen. Edward Lansdale with his skill set, history, and position as head of Operation Mongoose is quite and indictment of the CIA and Lansdale. It does not "prove" that Lansdale murdered John Kennedy, but it is a very valuable FACT that Lansdale was on the scene, literally on the sidewalk 5 feet west of the Texas School Book Depository in the aftermath of the murder of John Kennedy. Therefore, we need to put this evidence on this wiki page for the folks to chew on and ponder the significance of.

As a side note, there is little or no "reliable" evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John Kennedy. Oswald was probably NOT even on the 6th floor of TSBD and the wounds and ballistics evidence PROVE that there is absolutely no way the final kill shot to JFK came from the TSBD. So, Candada Jack, you are welcome to believe in your silly little fantasy/discredited lone nut theories on the JFK assassination, as you are welcome to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Elvis being alive today. But you are wrong. And a big problem in your ASSUMPTIONS is you believe stuff that comes out of the murderer-controlled Dallas police, Hoover's FBI, CIA that hated JFK, and the sociopathic, serial killer Lyndon Johnson, and the CIA controlled media. Those are not very reliable sources to base your "information" on LHO and the truly pathetic lone nut theory. Most Americans and the vast majority of the world does not buy this baloney. Morrow321 (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The presence of Lansdale at Dealy Plaza MEANS NOTHING unless you have evidence which connects him to the assassination! And by "evidence," proximity to a crime, especially given the presence of hundreds of others, is not "evidence" per se. Did he and the CIA hate JFK? Did the anti-Castro people have reason to hate JFK? YES! But identifying a motive does not constitute evidence! Murder cases are solved by the evidence linking someone to the crime NOT if there is compelling evidence, or by asking the question "who would want him dead?" Often, though desired to bring a sense of "understanding" to why a horrible crime was carried out, we don't know the motive and we don't NEED to know the motive. Why did Jack the Ripper kill those prostitutes? We don't know but in terms of convicting someone, we don't NEED to know.

Oswald on the sixth floor. He ADMITTED during questioning that he was there on the sixth floor that day, and he was identified by several witnesses as being there during the day and by several witnesses who SAW HIM FIRE SHOTS from that location. Where he said he was - in the lunch room - was refuted by the testimony of those he said he was with. Further, since NO employees reported seeing any other people in the building other than employees before the assassination, then if not Oswald, who was up there? ALL the employees of the TSBD were accounted for - except LHO. HIS fingerprints were found on the boxes moved to the sniper's nest. HIS rifle with his prints were found there, as was the bag with HIS prints which he was observed to have brought to work that morning. HIS work orders, incomplete, were found there thus suggesting his presence and his non-attention to his job that day.

Not sure where you get the idea that the wounds and ballistics "prove" that the fatal shot came from the TSBD. All I have to say is you, who have already admitted to not reading the Warren Report, are not familiar with the autopsy report or the ballistics as the evidence in fact points to shots fired from the rear. Further geometric reconstructions draw a cone of the source of the shot to an area which encompasses the 6th floor window Oswald shot from. So, again, you are simply ignoring the evidence which exists.

In the end, Morrow, to ignore the MOUNTAIN of evidence implicating Oswald, you have to come up with even sillier theories on how just about everyone remotely connected to the government and police forces somehow coordinated and changed evidence to make it seem that only Oswald did it. But, as you said, most people believe a conspiracy was afoot. You are free to cling to your naive view of the world. Canada Jack (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)