Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

In the opening:

Later studies, including one by the National Academy of Sciences,[4] have called into question the accuracy of the evidence used by the HSCA to support its finding of four shots.

I consider that weasel wording, at the very least. The NAS did far more than "call into question the accuracy of" the evidence supporting a grassy knoll shooter. They demolished it. The sole piece of evidence was the Dictabelt recording of a police radio with a stuck microphone that supposedly captured the extra shot, but the NAS panel conclusively proved that it was actually made 1 minute after the assassination. Without that one piece of evidence, they had absolutely nothing left. Karn (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To say the NAS "totally demolished" the evidence is POV even if (and I agree with you on this) their evidence was conclusive. "Calling into question" is more neutral language and is accurate language. Even those who dismiss the NAS reasoning agree that they "called into question" the evidence. In the case of the JFK assassination, there is very little, if any, agreement on what evidence is "conclusive." The autopsy photos, for example, conclusively rule out any shots from the front or side, yet we are still debating the presence of a Grassy KNoll assassin 47 years after the fact, are we not? Canada Jack (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jack, Are you misleading or plain ignorant ? Two autopsies have been made, one under jurisdiction of Dallas coroner, the second one in Bethesda. The latter contradicts the former, and files of the former have conveniently been ignored by WC. Plus the Naval examiner, Commander Humes, was not qualified in forensic pathology, never having performed an autopsy in a gunshot case, received the President’s body and was told to perform an autopsy.

www.jfkresearch.com/JFKSecondAutopsy.pdf

Not sure what you are talking about here. The link is to a researcher who identifies what he sees as discrepancies and suggests a second autopsy AFTER the Bethesda one (not sure when the "Dallas autopsy" could have taken place), but this is based in part on a truly inane suggestion that the images were reversed. The original NEGATIVES were closely examined. They are authentic, not reversed, not copies. And ALL of them were examined, not just the ones stolen by Groden. Further, and it is almost laughable to note, the body would show evidence of the embalming procedure if his argument was true. Instead, we see bloody, matted hair. AS for the comments about Hume, there were two other pathologists there that night, and their observations and conclusions were corroborated by numerous pathologists in subsequent investigations, including the pro-conspiracy pathologist Cyril Wecht. Canada Jack (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So in this section it's written "The rifle supposedly used by Oswald"

in the "Carcano rifle" part of the article and in the full article "John F. Kennedy assassination rifle" it is clearly stated (and so it is in the sources brought) that this was definitely proved to be THAT rifle. So why "supposedly"? The palm print, the fibers, the picture...etc... so why supposedly?Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed that, good catch. Also, the quote from Curry from 1969 should probably go, as it reflects the opinion of Curry well after the fact. The FBI etc found compelling evidence to link Oswald to that rifle in the building, and two witnesses saw Oswald holding the rifle. Canada Jack (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks, i wasn't sure where the doubt could be, thus my question.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Some claim that the initial misidentification of the rifle being a Mauser was in fact an accurate identification, and that it was switched with the Carcano which could be linked to Oswald. This despite all the forensic evidence linking the rifle to the bullets actually fired, etc. And this despite the existence of news footage of the discovery of the rifle which shows that the rifle the Warren Commission linked to Oswald was indeed the one found in the TSBD. Canada Jack (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"The FBI etc found compelling evidence to link Oswald to that rifle in the building, and two witnesses saw Oswald holding the rifle." Sources ? These are highly doubtful. Hale Boggs again… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Zapruder film we can see several people with cameras taking pictures of JFK. Where are the film and pictures? 184.96.228.177 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The "Recording of the assassination" section mentions that some 32 people photographed or filmed the events of Dealey Plaza. While the section is not specific as to who is appears in the Zapruder film, Phillip Willis and Ike Altgens are both visible, Altgens the lone professional photographer on the ground in the plaza. As far as I am aware, two people who appear to be taking film or photos are unidentified, a woman in a blue dress (though I can't find a reference for this person elsewhere - it may have been an insertion by an editor) - and the so-called Babushka lady. So, by my count, 32 of 34 apparent photographers have been identified, their images published.

For various reasons - copyright, space, lack of need to further illustrate - there is no attempt to include images from all 32 photographers. Canada Jack (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, there seems to be a woman in a blue dress and the so-called Babushka lady who remain unidentified, as per Buglioisi. Canada Jack (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

After JFK was shot there's people right by the car taking photographs. It's quite obvious what happened to those people and their photographs. Those pictures would give real insight into just what kind of wounds JFK had. Seeing as most experts agree the autopsy photos are doctored. 184.96.228.177 (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be misinformed. Ike Atgens was one of those people - his photos were on the front pages of papers around the world. Further, since the Zapruder film is what many base their problem with the WC conclusions on, one wonders how, if films were being confiscated, this one evaded the net. Or, how 32 photographers had THEIR photos published.

As for "most experts agree," that is, in a word, bullshit. "Most experts" in fact agree that the autopsy photos are authentic, based on examination and comparison with known photos of JFK, and that the x-rays are of JFK, based on known images of the president. Further, that those images were not altered in any way. If "most experts" in fact believe those photos to be forgeries, that would be startling news, contradicting what I have seen. Those forgeries would have been easy to detect when the HSCA did the forensics on them back in the 70s. Not sure where you are getting your information, 184. Canada Jack (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Most experts", Mister Jack ? Sources ? Quantx

You should really do some research here, Quantx. Here's a link to the wiki page.(!) [[1]] If you bother to do so, instead of relying on bullshit from people trying to make a buck off the assassination, you'd know that ALL the pathologists who looked at the autopsy photos in subsequent investigations agreed with the WC descriptions save for a dispute on the precise location of the head wound and some what they termed as sloppiness which had no bearing on the WC conclusions. The nine-member panel of the HSCA had members with an accumulated 100,000+ autopsies between them. Further, the HSCA investigated the images and x-rays and their authenticity (i.e, were they in fact images of the dead president) using forensic anthropologists, who concluded the images were of the slain president, then photographic scientists and radiologists examined the original x-rays, negatives and transparencies and found no evidence of tampering. Do you wish a list of all these individuals? Given that amateurs like Groden, when given the opportuntiy to view prints of the autopsy STOLE some of these images (which is why we have some now in the public domain), the originals are not generally accessible. Canada Jack (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this the only filmed footage? No local news? No network news? No other people gathering around? No one else filmed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.251.190 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The section "Recordings of the assassination" covers this. As mentioned there, about 32 photographers were taking film or photos in Dealey Plaza, about 10 films were taken of the motorcade within the Plaza. Four filmed all or part of the assassination itself. Most of the press were in the motorcade itself (well behind the assassination), or waiting at the Trade Mart for the president's arrival; only one professional photographer was in the Plaza recording the events. Further, in terms of news-worthy views of the motorcade, the main street of the procession was quite crowded and was likely seen as affording the best "newsy" shots of crowds and ticker-tapes, while the relatively sparsely populated Dealey Plaza was not an obvious place for a "photo opportunity." Obviously, in retrospect, the Plaza afforded the best opportunity for newsworthy images, but no one knew that in advance, did they? Canada Jack (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, photographers would most likely have assumed the motorcade would travel at a faster speed than it actually did that morning, hence their waiting at the Trade Mart to snap Kennedy upon his arrival. I had always wondered, though why the local news didn't film the motorcade. It wasn't everyday that the US President passed through downtown Dallas!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere recently that the visit was the very first official presidential visit to Texas, or at least to Dallas. Both these sound highly unlikely, but what do I know. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a political move to unify the Democratic party before the elections of 1964. Kennedy initially chose LBJ for his runnng mate because he needed Texas and also LBJ was the majority leader of the Senate. Even so, Texas in 1960 went Democratic only by a whisker-- 24 electorial votes almost lost (Nixon would have been president if they had been lost). Then, LBJ lost all his power upon election-- a VP has almost no political power at all, really. Nothing close to a Senate majority leader. In this new power vacuum John Connelly, the Democratic governor, and Yarburough, the state's Democratic senator, weren't getting along. LBJ told JFK that if he didn't go to Texas and help make peace, the Democrats might well lose Texas in 1964, and the damage to the party as a whole might be even worse. So JFK was stuck doing it himself, as LBJ had lost his mojo.

JFK had been to Texas three years before, but as president-elect in mid-Nov 1960 (Nov. 18 is the "truly bad day" JFK talks about while shooting deer with LBJ, in the film 13 Days (2000) about the Cuban missile crisis). If any other presidents before JFK visited Texas, while president, I don't know about it offhand. JFK and Texas were oil and water. If you've seen the historical footage of JFK's clear discomfort with the gift Texas-cowboy hat, in the breakfast speech he gave a couple of hours before he died, you see the general fact clearly. JFK was just NOT going to put that damn hat on, even for an expectant audience. And of course, he never did. SBHarris 20:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone has inserted this text, or similar text, several times. A note here to clarify. While it is true the WC had "neck" put in, at the behest of Gerald Ford, this was based on an autopsy sketch which slightly misplaced the entry wound several inches higher, along with some testimony based on the sketch which repeated the error. The sketch shows an entry wound which is, anatomically speaking, at the base of the neck, but the correct anatomical location as per the autopsy photographs (not accessed by the WC, but by later investigations) is in fact the back. Canada Jack (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We should try to obtain a clearer image of the "x" on Elm Street marking the spot where the fatal head shot occurred. The current image offers a nice view of the TSBD but one can barely see the X.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's clear enough to me, and has the advantage of showing some context of the environment, without which the X would be meaningless anyway. I must admit, I don't see any real problem with the current image.--Korruski^Talk 09:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It was just a thought. If others are happy with the current image so be it. Admittedly the second image of the X is better than the first and it does show part of Dealey Plaza in the background.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I do see what you mean actually. I was looking at the second image. Yes, I agree on the first it's not that clear, although having the arrow does probably do the job well enough. Still, there may be a better one available.--Korruski^Talk 10:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

When last I was there (2003) the spot on Elm across from Zapruder's position where JFK was hit the last time, is marked on the street surface by a modest little painted Christian cross, not an X. In the 2006 image in this article, it's much more a cross, and is larger. They must re-do it every so often. SBHarris 04:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose a change of the flow of information to date-time-person-place-description, written in this fashion it seems to have better cohesion than the current version. Will leave this for others to review.

On Friday, November 22, 1963, at 12:30 p.m. CST (18:30 UTC) John F. Kennedy, the thirty-fifth President of the United States was assassinated in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was fatally shot while riding with his wife Jacqueline in a Presidential motorcade, becoming the fourth president to be assassinated in the history of the United States.

J.Rly (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How on earth a man shot in the back of his head could have sucvh a violent movement of the same head and torso from front to back ? Please… You should ask yourself a very simple question : is it an acceptable thesis to say two brothers, most prominent figures of the most powerful country in the world, have been assassinated by TWO lone nuts four years apart ? general de Gaulle famously replied to the US ambassador announcing him JFK had been killed by a lone shooter : "Not to me, monsieur l'ambassadeur, please, not to me. I beg to differ" If you were cognoscenti in roman history, you would know Caesar is never been assassinated by a lone nut. There is no such thing at the head of the state. I'm displeased to see Wikipedia propagating pure propaganda about this, without leaving space to knowledged contradictors, and describing them as "conspiracy theorists". Poorly thought out. Kind regards, JFHG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 March 2011

Do you have any sources for the information above. Right now it appears to be your personal opinion that the information you are presenting is true. We need to have reliable sources so that readers and editors can verify the information. GB fan (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Quantx should read WP:SPA and see if he/she falls into that category. Then askwhether or not he/she is trying to help the encyclopdeia or just trying to fix some sort of POV into the article. Some people watch too many movies and movies always get history wrong.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your point makes clear you ignore the facts of History. Did you see the film Abraham Zapruder shot in Dallas which constitutes the main evidence ? That film has been reviewed by federal authorities, so it's not subject to any doubt. On that film, which has been widely circulated in the world since 50 years, that you apparently never saw, president Kennedy's head and torso are violently projected to the back and the left. This film is not a fiction movie, as your ignorance seems to make believe. That film is a piece of History, evidence among many evidences. I repeat my question : how on earth a man shot from the back can have his head violently projected to the back ? Please study the law of physics… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The same federal authorities that you mentioned said that the shot came from behind. You appear to be adding your own synthesis per wikipedia core content policy WP:OR.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Federal authorities and a Secretary of State stated under oath there were AMD in Irak, too. You live in a world where official report go indisputed. This is not what science and history are about. Regarding neuro-physiological reaction as cited above by Doctor Jack, this is plain funny. Where did he google this ? My wife studied traumatology for five years. Doctor Jack's assertion made her smile.

Plus, HSCA did question seriously WC conclusions. You choose the WC because it suits your POV. HSCA was also an official committee.

PS : I forgot : On August 4, 1964, in Tonkin Gulf, North Vietnam "attacked" two US destroyers, leading to Vietnam War. Unfortunately, such attack never occurred. And there were official reports and the most senior officer in charge claiming there were : president Lyndon Johnson himself. Pity history revealed this was an error of transmission plus pure panic on board of the two destroyers, which prompted that fiction. That fiction cost the US 58 000 lives, and the RDV more than a million dead. Sources ? John Prados - Vietnam - The Unwinnable War. The most prominent historian about CIA and Vietnam to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And none of this has anything to do with this article. Do you have reliable sources to verify the the information or is this just your interpretation of the data? GB fan (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Nothing, of course… I will not repeat myself. You're a religious believer of the official truth. There were AMD in Irak. Hanoï attacked the US in the Tonkin Gulf. WC told the truth. Beatus est. Te absolvo. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't know what I believe happened in Dallas because I have never stated what I believe. My opinion of what happened in Dallas does not make any difference for this article, what makes a difference is what the reliable sources say happened. If you have reliable sources agree with you, I will help you put the information in the article, if you don't I will take it out. Good luck. GB fan (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do implicitly. Your choice of words ("conspiracy theories/theorists") tells volumes per se about your agenda. Why not mention "critics" or "alternatives analysis" ? Why for one don't you publish in your article the undisputable frames of Zapruder film that revealed the WC hoax more efficiently than any long discussion ? You know, the pictures that show the "neuro-physiological shock" so dear to Doctor Jack hereabove… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't used the words, "conspiracy theories/theorists", anywhere in this conversation, so I am not sure how you can say what my agenda is. The article is not mine, I have made a total of 40 of the 8800 edits to the article. 28 of those edits were marked as minor so they are probably straight vandalism reverts, because that is usually the only thing I mark as minor. I am just one of several thousand editors that have contributed to the article. As far as those frames being "undisputable", there are people who have disputed that they show what you are saying they show so they are not indisputable. With reliable sources they can can probably be added but so far all you have offered is your opinion of what they show. Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say and the weight each side is given in the article is based on how much weight the reliable sources give the different sides. If you don't provide reliable sources to back up what you want to add then there is no possibility that it will ever make it into the article. GB fan (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A 10.4 gram bullet moving at 670 m/sec has a momentum of about 7 kg*m/sec, the same as a baseball moving about 107 mph. Getting hit with such a thing in the head would bean you badly but wouldn't knock you about physically (any more than catching a fastball at 100 mph does anything much to a pitcher). If you had any violent reactions other than your head moving forward (which JFK's actually did, just at first) it would be neurological. A man can fire a rifle without being thrown around like JFK was, and a rifle doesn't kick any harder on one end than it does on the other. The Carcano has a moderate kick-- distinctively less than a .30-'06 (for example, an M1 Garand).

You can't explain JFK's body motions just from the momentum of the projectile unless somebody shot him with heavy artilery.

The second thing to remember is that the man's wounds and this holes in his clothes show a downward moving bullet from high back to his throat. That path goes down through Connally and into the interior of the car (unless it sticks in Connally, which it did). If you want to reverse that shot, who is to fire it? If a second shot comes from the front, you have to have not only two shooters within 5 seconds, but the front shooter has to fire right past Zapruder and the man just keeps filming. Have you ever stood in front of a high-powered rifle and had somebody fire past you? SBHarris 01:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do your homework. Nine examiners at Parkland wrote in their medical report the president had a gaping hole behind the head, with skull bone missing. They were interviewed and filmed citing this. They confirmed this to the HSCA. The press secretary was film in the classroom transformed in press room and showed the same wound on his own head. These images have been widely broadcast. Are these false too ?

Check Youtube. Kilduff is on there saying death was due to a shot to the brain and pointing to the right side of his head. He didn't see it. The Dallas doctors didn't examine JFK's head very carefully, and the wound had been mostly closed by flaps of scalp. They drew the wound in various places, with the most famous being about midway between the rear and the side (where it really was). You see the exit hole more clearly in the Zapruder film, and as described by Zapruder himself, less than 2 hours after the assassination, and before his film had even been developed (it was sitting in the camera at the TV studio where he'd done to have it developed). Ulitmately they couldn't do it, and he took it to a Kodak lab. However, what he saw matches exacly what the film shows. [2] The secret service men also saw the same, with several putting the wound above the right ear, and very large. The autopsy and X-rays confirm that. The HCSA chose to believe that autopsy rather than a quick ER look by shocked doctors who had worked on the throat but not pulled back the scalp. SBHarris 16:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, in history, no head of state of such a powerful nation has ever been assassinated by a so-called "lone nut". To believe so is quite naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but here you simply choose to believe what you want to. The best evidence is that both presidents Garfield and McKinley were assassinated by "lone nuts." That makes 3 out of 4 U.S. presidents. The only people arguing otherwise are people who refuse to believe in lone nuts no matter how many lone nuts there are. SBHarris 16:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The person who needs to do their homework before they post here is you, 109. First off, as noted, a bullet of that weight could not account for the president's body movement to the left. If you claim otherwise, you don't know your physics. Why did the president jerk back to the left? There are several possibilities, but the force of an impact from a bullet COULD NOT have caused such a movement, it's as simple as that.

Secondly, while you focus on the back of the head, all we have are SOME of the doctors at Parkland who said that, not all. From the moment Kennedy was placed on a gurney from the limo, to when the people came in to place him in a coffin once declared dead, he was ON HIS BACK. How could these doctors describe such a wound to the back of the head when that part of his body was not visible? IN addition, we have numerous other witnesses which describe a wound to the side of the head. So, who is correct? Well, we know who is correct because we have the Zapruder film which quite gruesomely shows the side of his head blowing off and the rear of his head looking intact. And we have the testimony of the pathologists whose job was, unlike with the Parkland doctors who were trying vainly to revive the president, to closely examine and describe the wounds. And further to that, we have the photographs which have been examined by pathologists who UNANIMOUSLY agree that the wounds were as described by the Warren Commission, with a bit of confusion over the precise entry point to the head.

In the end, the only naive party here is you, 108. Naive in believing that doctors in an emergency room have more credence than a score of pathologists who have examined the evidence. Naive in believing, implicitly, that all these pathologists were somehow part of a "conspiracy" which they would have had to have been to so misrepresent the wounds you describe. Naive to believe that the photos and films were somehow faked and that the experts who testified to their unaltered reliability were themselves part of a conspiracy to hide the truth.

And, most naive in believing that if powerful interests have something to gain, then powerful interests carried out the assassination, despite the mountain of evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt. And, naive in believing you are getting the straight goods from a bunch of authors and others who have made a pile of money and a good living out of shouting "conspiracy" for these past 47 years.

In my experience, those who claim others who don't buy their uncorroborated views are "naive" typically have a rather amusingly bizarre idea of how the so-called "real" world operates. In other words, they don't know what they are talking about and are usually the only ones who don't realize it. Canada Jack (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"From the moment Kennedy was placed on a gurney from the limo, to when the people came in to place him in a coffin once declared dead, he was ON HIS BACK. How could these doctors describe such a wound to the back of the head when that part of his body was not visible?"

This one is really the funniest. You're really at your best here. Did you ever came in a ER and tried to examine a patient ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFq_0aOfZRM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qc4fhaBoxI&feature=related So to save the president's life, to monitor is condition etc. they just let him lie on his back and watched… Try to explain this to any surgeon… And you did observe all this because you were there. ;-) Please try at least to reach better denial arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about clueless. Do us a favour, and read what actually happened when Kennedy was in the operating theatre. If you had the slightest idea of what you are talking about - and you don't - then you'd realize one of the main witnesses claims he stared at the gaping hole in the "back" of JFK's head for something like 10 minutes while the president was lying on his back. Please explain how this was humanly possible.

But more to the point, I've explained, patiently, that there are differing witness reports of what the condition of Kennedy's head was. And I've explained why the WC and others chose to find the side-of-the-head wound accounts more credible than the back-of-the-head accounts. In your fantasy world, you have the "truth" which sounds to me a repeat of what a lot of people who have a vested interest in promoting, yet you've not explained how a) the other witnesses were wrong, b) the PATHOLOGISTS were wrong, c) the photographs were wrong d) the Zapruder film is wrong and e) all the photographic experts who testified to the authenticity of the images are wrong.

The fact that there is conflicting evidence is not surprising - it's to be expected. But how your cherished beliefs are to embraced is left unsaid, outside a rather inane declaration that "all" heads of states who are killed are killed as a result of a conspiracy.(!) Wow. That sure solves the case! Canada Jack (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice. What a piece of chance Jack Rubinstein, former aide to Nixon's congressional campaign since 1947, had the gut to suppress the "silly little communist" in a generous move to avenge the slain president's memory. "That sure solves the case." http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Oe7ul3c8tYc/SSxlZZEbMgI/AAAAAAAAAdg/yPTQOEKmsLg/s1600-h/JFK0116.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Oe7ul3c8tYc/SSxle1I_qgI/AAAAAAAAAdo/RW-V1l7D1Jk/s1600-h/JFK0117.jpg Oh, and by the way, reagrding the lone nut, make it two, one for each brother, and that too solves the case. You know, Sirhan, the man who could shot 12 bullets from an 8 rounder Iver Johnson — and killed a second Kennedy, this time with a bullet which entered behind the ear. But Sirhan was in front of RFK. Front… Back… you see… always the same little ballistic problem.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding the evidence again, are we? Not sure what Robert Kennedy has to do with this, other than changing the subject. So, tell us oh wise one, how can that doctor stare for some 10 minutes at the gaping wound in the back of JFK's head when the president was lying on his back? AS for "ballistic" problems, you've yet to account for the autopsy and the autopsy photos, the pathologists and the Zapruder film. Canada Jack (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

AND also for Zapruder's testimony on camera before he'd seen his own film, AND for the testimony of secret service agents, all of who saw a wound on the right side of the head, just as is seen on the Zapruder film. Also, there is no back-of-the-head wound (just dark hair) in the Moorman photo taken just after the head shot, from directly opposite the grassy knoll and Zapruder.

The side-of-the-head wound is NOT directly seen on initial autopsy photos (which is all that are public, save for one photo take from behind that is hard to interpret for the non surgeon, but is quite horrific when you realize what you're seeing, as an entire quadrant of skull is gone). On the initial survey photos, scalp covers this wound again, so it does not look as it did when created (the loss of skull, of course, IS seen on X-ray). One wonders why, if somebody went to so much trouble to create the side wound after JFK was dead but before he reached Bethesda (as some especially gonzo theories suggest) they didn't leave the side wound more clearly open, for all to see? And how did they FIX that monster rear head wound as seen in Dallas? It's one thing to make a wound in a body, it's quite another to make it go away. SBHarris 19:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Not sure what Robert Kennedy has to do with this, other than changing the subject." Now you're reaching new heights. You are quite far-sighted. Thank you so much. You've really made my day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Still trying to change the subject.... In the end, the Warren Commission and subsequent investigations had a ton of evidence to wade through. Now you can focus on evidence which suggests another scenario, but you have to also account for the evidence which doesn't fit that other scenario. It is rather easy to account for the testimony from Parkland doctors and others which suggest a rear head wound. SB above has shown that. It is NOT so easy to account for the list of evidence, some of it physical, which suggest a wound to the right side of the skull. And you've not even bothered to attempt to address it, which is... typical.

In the end, if we are to embrace the back-of-the-head wound testimony, we'd have to construct an ever-elaborate house of cards of unlikely scenarios to account for the alternate evidence. HUNDREDS would have to have been part of a conspiracy here, NONE of whom, in 47 years, have come forward to assuage their guilty conscience. Doctored wounds and/or doctored photos. Doctored x-rays. A team of pathologists - who, unlike the Parkland doctors, were tasked to examine and describe the wounds to the president - who willfully and consistently LIED about what they saw. And all the individuals involved with the investigation, all presumably loyal Americans, willfully and consistently LYING about one of the most heinous acts in U.S. history, the murder of a president.

All this is required to embrace your scenario. But in the real world, people make mistakes, they say they saw things they didn't actually see. Pride prevents some from admitting an error. In the real world, not the fantasy land where conspiracies are under every rock, anything remotely approaching the scope of complicity required to pull this off would collapse like the house of cards such a scenario is in the beginning. Canada Jack (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Hale Boggs… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Typical. Completely avoids dealing with the evidence which suggests Oswald did it. Boggs? Reading too many Ludlum novels, I'd say. Canada Jack (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to dismiss so smugly a man who was a conscience in the US Congress and WC ? Ludlum is probably all the extent of your readings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you brought it up, and since we are discussing the Warren Commission and not Mr. Ludlum or poor Mr. Boggs, have you actually read the Warren Commission Report? The one-volume summary, of course. You sure spend a lot of time denouncing it, so I trust you have read it and understand their reasoning before dismissing that reasoning. It's one thing to bring up objections to the WC, and to cite people like Mr Boggs who despite endorsing its conclusions ended up questioning it, it's quite another to actually present a scenario - ANY scenario - which accounts for the evidence which the WC was presented with. Canada Jack (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

""One of the stated objectives [of the Warren Commission] was to calm the fears of the people about a conspiracy. But in our country, the government has no right to calm our fears, any more than it has, for example, the right to excite our fears about Red China, or about fluoridation, or about birth control, or about anything. There's no room in America for thought control of any kind, no matter how benevolent the objective. Personally, I don't want to be calm about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I don't want to be calm about a president of my country being shot down in the streets." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You have made the amateur's mistake of making this ad hominem-- ignoring evidence at the expense of trying to examine the motives of the people who believe one thing or the other. Evidence first. All the witnesses (multiple secret service men and Zapruder) and at least two photographers at Dealy Plaza document a side head wound and no back head wound. At Bethesda, ALL the pathologists, photographs, and an X-ray show no rear head wound (the X-ray shows a lack of skull over the ear, just where the Zapruder film shows it, and Zapruder put it in his testimony before he'd seen the film). So, where is the rear head wound? It is described by Dallas ER personnel, one of whom drew it midway between the very back of the skull and the side, obviously confused. There is really no other way to put together all this evidence, with the most witnesses (those at the begining and end) and ALL the photographs (which are from beginning and end, from civilians and officials) agreeing. The middle part at Parkland, which is poorer quality evidence anyway (since the man was on his back and the doctors had other things to do in the less than 30 minutes they had) must be discounted if it is contradictory. Most of it actually isn't, however. Most of it has the wound extending into the parietal skull, which is above the right ear. [3]. Read it. SBHarris 20:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly no amateur in your soviet style way of ignoring evidences that don't suit your official view. You decide to believe religously WC conclusions, despite testimonies contradicting its conclusions, despite HSCA denying partly its conclusions, despite filmed interviews from news reels showing ALL pathologists at Parkland having that gesture indicating a wound on the front of the temporal. I've provided several links to indisputable documents you and your sparring partner consistently choosed to ignore. Having myself published in two major european countries a 600 000 words history of the CIA and closely worked with the author, a notorious historian, on that book, I'm always baffled to see any responsible citizen take official truth for granted, especially after 8 years of Bush/Cheney denial administration. But as said before, such a piece of luck Mr Ruby avenged the slain president in a spontaneous move. Ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The HCSA did not reach your conclusion. No pathologist saw JFK at Parkland (they do autopsies). The six doctors who saw JFK there have testimonies noted in the above link (read it). Do you know where the temporal bone is? Ruby was lucky, indeed. At the time Oswald was scheduled to be transferred Ruby was a block away at a Western Union wiring money to a stripper (not the act of your normal assassin). He also had his dog in the car (what-- was he planning to make a getaway with it?). Oswald paused to change into fresh clothes-- a late request that Ruby could not have known about. If you think luck doesn't play a part in assassination history, you should read [4]. WW I only started because the Archduke's driver took a wrong turn, stopped to back up, and stalled. If the result weren't so terrible, which would have been comedy of the highest order. SBHarris 20:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not believe I would cross one day the path of someone credulous or self-deceitful enough to lend credence to Ruby's story (shabby Sheba alibi…). You pick your truth, aren't you ? Pity Ruby himself begged several times to differ. Quite comical indeed you cited mere chance about Gavrilo Prinzip. Just a chauffeur taking the wrong turn and a car stalling ? Frankly, my dear… If you were not plain ignorant about european history, you wouldn't have used that example, giving credit to what you call "conspiracy theories". You shot yourself in the foot, here. As did WC. At least, W-pedia paper on this event is a credible one, contrary to the JFK ludicrous soviet-style poor rendition. In 1914 as in 1963, there was no such thing as a lone assassin — except in official fantasy (and yours). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria#Planning_direct_action —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

For someone who claims to have written or co-written a history of the CIA I find it... interesting... that thus far a simple question has been left unanswered by 109 - "Have you read the Warren Report?"

And for someone who probably has the intelligence to know better, I find it astounding that you are so readily falling prey to a number of logical fallacies. To wit - even if the Warren Commission had a pre-determined "no-conspiracy" mandate, even if the CIA, the Mob, pro- and anti-Castro factions, Johnson, all wanted Kennedy dead, this does not mean they were involved in a conspiracy to kill the president. And, knowing "motive" may satisfy the human need to know why, but it isn't necessary to establish guilt, especially when there is plenty of evidence pointing to the perpetrator of the crime. And it is DEFINITELY not a replacement for hard evidence which links someone to a crime. We don't have to ever know WHY Oswald did what he did, we just have to know that he did it, as there are perhaps 50 pieces of evidence which directly link him to the crime.

You're certainly no amateur in your soviet style way of ignoring evidences that don't suit your official view. You decide to believe religously WC conclusions, despite testimonies contradicting its conclusions, despite HSCA denying partly its conclusions, despite filmed interviews from news reels showing ALL pathologists at Parkland having that gesture indicating a wound on the front of the temporal. I've provided several links to indisputable documents you and your sparring partner consistently choosed to ignore.

What is wrong with the above? For one, what evidence is being ignored? As with the WC, if one embraces a particular scenario, one has to account for evidence which suggests a different scenario, something we have done and you have consistently avoided doing. We've given reasons why the Parkland DOCTORS (not pathologists which, incidentally, is another reason to question their authority, and not "all" doctors as some describe the wounds along the lines of the WC) were likely mistaken, you have yet to spell out how Zapruder, his film, the actual PATHOLOGISTS, the photographs, and the numerous pathologists (including pro-conspiracy pathologist Cyril Wecht) ALL agree with the WC description of the head wound and how it is possible that this evidence can be trumped by witnesses none of whom had a close examination of the wound in question. The only major dispute is the precise entry point of the wound on the rear of Kennedy's skull.

Jack Ruby? If you knew anything about him, you'd know that his word was not necessarily to be relied upon. The WC didn't rely on his account of how he came to shoot Oswald - they investigated his ties to the mob, and they had forensic evidence to place him in the post office at the same time Oswald would have been through the garage if he had not asked for a sweater. That corroborates Ruby's claim of a) a spur-of-moment impulsive act and b) no one put him up to it.

As for "official" views, the HSCA concluded there WAS a conspiracy, yet embraced the head-wound evidence and SBT that the WC set forth. And, for one who trumpets "indisputable documents," the existence of contrary evidence is not being disputed, it is the normal part of a criminal investigation where contradictions have to be assessed and weighed. The problem with dismissing a lot of the evidence the WC saw as being credible, one has to construct increasingly far-fetched scenarios as to how mountains of evidence wwhich incriminated Oswald were somehow manufactured and all the witnesses who would have known otherwise lied consistently. For the doctors, it is easy to see how they have been confused or mistaken given the extraordinary circumstances. It's a lot harder to account for a lot of the other evidence, however. And I see you've not even tried, instead resortimg to a bunch of obfuscating arguments suggesting that anyone who accepts anything a government says is a fool. Which is a pretty weak argument. Canada Jack (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"We have not been told the truth about Oswald." —Hale Boggs, Warren Commission member

"I don't think some agencies were candid with us. I never thought the Dallas police were telling us the entire truth. Neither was the FBI." —Burt W. Griffin, Warren Commission co-counsel, Rolling Stone, April 24, 1975

Victor Marchetti, former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA - "The more I have learned, the more concerned I have become that the government was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." April 1975, True magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy." —Final Report, House Select Committee of Assassinations (HSCA), 1979

". . . Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are the fingerprints of intelligence." —Senate Intelligence Committee member Richard Schweiker

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle. No one has been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." —Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, United Press International, November 5, 1969

"I now fully realize that only the powers of the Presidency will reveal the secrets of my brother's death." —Robert Kennedy, June 3, 1968 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

109, have you read the Warren Report?

As for your list of quotes, the opinions of many do not prove a case. If so, once the 50 per cent threshold was reached, a conspiracy would be the conclusion.

But let's have a little fun with your list. Boggs: "We have not been told the truth about Oswald." And... 40 years after Boggs' death, nothing has been revealed to suggest connections to others who would have been involved in the assassination. NOTHING.

"I don't think some agencies were candid with us." He doesn't "think" they weren't candid? We KNOW they weren't candid! What is particularly inane about the inclusion of that 1975 quote is that later that same year, the Rockefeller Commission revealed the dirty tricks many US government agencies were engaged in. You act as if this is some sort of smoking gun. Sure - those agencies didn't want to admit to their own incompetence in preventing the assassination of the country's leader. And, sure enough, there were revelations from 1975 on that the FBI in particular tried to cover up that bungling. For one, destroying the letter left at the FBI Dallas office a few weeks before the assassination wherein Oswald threatened an agent. And this guy wasn't placed on a watch list? What so many like you fail to realize about these sort of agencies is they spend more time covering their asses for screw-ups than they do in "plotting" to kill the head of their own government.

Victor Marchetti, former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA - "The more I have learned, the more concerned I have become that the government was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." April 1975 Huh - I thought it was the CIA who was behind the assassination, according to most? You are reproducing quotes from the time when political pressure was brought to bear to reopen the case. In the Spring of 1975, I remember it well, it seemed clear that a new investigation was needed. That was done. NO evidence was turned up to implicate any government agency.

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy." This is a particularly inane quote. The reason - the ONLY reason - a conspiracy was the conclusion - was due to dictabelt evidence. That evidence was PROVED to be incorrect. Once that evidence is removed, there is NO evidence of a conspiracy. Indeed, if you care to read the next lines in the conclusions, you will see that there was NO evidence that any of the oft-mentioned major players were behind the assassination. One wonders, when we had a House Committee on this, concluding "conspiracy," why NOTHING was uncovered by the investigation here? These agencies, despite the beliefs of many people weaned on James Bond spy movies, AREN'T THAT SLICK. They can and DO screw up. They COULD NOT have covered all their tracks. 47 years later, we are still waiting for the evidence!

". . . Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are the fingerprints of intelligence." —Senate Intelligence Committee member Richard Schweiker ...and those connections are???? We are waiting to hear about them! Pulling a quote from a Senator is one thing, producing ANY evidence which corroborates what he said is another. Which is what too many like you utterly fail to get.

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle. No one has been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." —Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, United Press International, November 5, 1969 Just because we don't have a film of Oswald actually firing the gun doesn't mean he didn't fire the gun. Unfortunately for those who see this quote as some sort of massive admission, we have a) witnesses who saw him fire the gun, b) witnesses who saw him carry a package known to hold the gun into the building, c) proof that he in fact owned the gun, d) he had access to the floor in question and ADMITTED he was on the floor that day, e) about 20 individual bits of forensic evidence which directly links Oswald to the rifle in question, and to the fact of his presence in the window from where the shots were fired. So, the only question is, what constitutes "proof" for conspiracy buffs? And how can all these individual pieces of evidence be explained away? Indeed, why did Oswald LIE about things which he provably did or owned?

I now fully realize that only the powers of the Presidency will reveal the secrets of my brother's death." —Robert Kennedy, June 3, 1968 Yes, and we got a lot of those secrets with the Rockefeller and Church commissions, and with the HSCA. Those investigations confirmed the belief that a lot of those agencies were more interested in feathering their nests and covering their asses than in keeping their eyes on the ball and cooperating with investigations. Given the famous enmity between him and Hoover, he no doubt would have been enraged by the FBI's handling of Oswald's threat towards the FBI. I can imagine how he would have been livid to hear that. If the FBI did their job correctly, JFK likely would not have died. However, when it comes to "secrets" involved with the actual assassination, the Warren Commission got it largely correct, something which both Robert and Ted Kennedy repeatedly emphasized. IOW, to call the FBI, CIA etc to task is NOT equivalent to suggesting there was a conspiracy and a cover-up of that alleged fact. Something most in the conspiracy community don't get. Canada Jack (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for you, a bit of original research. Notice the long flaps of scalp with pointed ends hanging to the rear. The scalp is very tough, due to the hair that penetrates it like reinforcement bar (re-bar) in concrete. Scalp is rarely is blown to peices, but rather tears at lines of stress, which allow pressure to be releaved, while keeping all flaps of scalp attached at their base. There is really very little loss of scalp here.

Example, notice the long flap closest to the camera. It ends in a triangle. Rotate it upward and to the right (toward the president's right eye) and you see it fits neatly into the triangular wound above JFK's right eye. But wait-- you can't do that because there's hair in the way! No, there's an exterior scalp flap in the way which covers an area that needs the tissue put back under it. Lift this up and you can rotate the rear flap closest to the camera back into position above the eye. You can also rotate the next flap to it (where you also see underside of scalp) to cover a section of the head next to it (one which is now superficially covered with hair). Then the hair can be put back in place approximately where it is, now. But what IS under this region, above the right ear? Well, according to testimony, a rather large hole. See where it is, now? SBHarris 21:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC) "a bit of original research" : this invites to smile indulgently. This is a more serious work than your mere speculation from photographs taken during a notoriously botched autopsy by a pathologist who never did bullet wound, only performed to match reality with official fiction. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/frontal_shot%28s%29/tobias_frontal_shots/Fourth_wound.html Next time, don't mix up entry/exit wound bevel (on cranium bones). And explain brain tissue missing in your famously doctored pic. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/frontal_shot(s)/tobias_frontal_shots/Photos/X-28.h3.jpg http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/frontal_shot(s)/tobias_frontal_shots/Photos/F5.htm7.jpg http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/frontal_shot(s)/tobias_frontal_shots/Photos/F6.htm9.jpg http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/frontal_shot(s)/tobias_frontal_shots/Photos/F7.htm10.jpg http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/frontal_shot(s)/tobias_frontal_shots/Photos/F8.htm11.jpg Plus, just for you : http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/frontal_shot%28s%29/tobias_frontal_shots/Photos/Sewer_sequence.html "Entry becomes exit and exit becomes entry but because there are four wounds to be caused by only one Oswald bullet, one of the wounds must be ignored. Bullets absolutely positively do not divide into perfectly round parts causing perfectly round skin exits in the skull. In F8 the .45 and the white circle wounds #3 and #4 are round and cannot be exit wounds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC) The HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS (HSCA): Accepted the Warren Report’s findings of the three shots however they decided their was a FOURTH shot from the right front picket fence area which did not hit JFK thus Oswald did not act alone and a conspiracy probably existed. [Note that they test fired a .45 cal. bullet from the right front knoll area during re-enactments.] · They also found that the autopsy Doctors had failed to accurately report the wounds as they appear in the autopsy photos. The 3rd shot was moved to enter the skull in the crown area about four inches above the official autopsy reported location to the right of the occipital protuberance as was done by the Clark panel in 1968. · After entering in the crown area and it divided into perfectly round fragments causing round exit holes with the largest exiting the parietal area above the right ear and the smaller exiting at the right temple hairline which is opposite of the Warren Report. This finding is due to autopsy Photos F3 and F8. [Note bullets do not fragment into perfectly round parts nor do they cause round exit holes in the skull’s skin.] No perfectly round fragments were recovered from the car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC) A high velocity bullet will make an extremely large temporary cavity creating gaping tears in the tissue and usually a large ragged exit wound. Figure X-28, near the end of this document, is a man shot in the right temple from a 30-30 rifle, from a distance of about 60 ft. The wound of entrance is marked. This is very similar to JFK’s wounds. The skin tears ALWAYS point to the round entry wound with a circumferential marginal abrasion [compression ring] or an irregular shaped exit wound. Skin tear wounds from distant high velocity bullets are a result of the intense increase in pressure within the skull due to the temporary cavity of the bullet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a more serious work than your mere speculation from photographs taken during a notoriously botched autopsy by a pathologist who never did bullet wound, only performed to match reality with official fiction. There were three pathologists, Quantz, the other two had the bullet wound experience. And the numerous pathologist who later examined the evidence, and who had 100,000+ autopsies between them, also had the bullet wound experience. And they ALL signed off on the WC conclusions, to wit - JFK struck by two bullets, from behind. The entry wounds were that - entry wounds. And they were proven to be so.

Next time, don't mix up entry/exit wound bevel (on cranium bones). And explain brain tissue missing in your famously doctored pic. The rear bullet hole was an entry wound, period. The bevelling proves it. The photo wasn't doctored, as numerous photographic experts attested to. Further, they had access to ALL the photos. You do not.

"Entry becomes exit and exit becomes entry but because there are four wounds to be caused by only one Oswald bullet, one of the wounds must be ignored. Bullets absolutely positively do not divide into perfectly round parts causing perfectly round skin exits in the skull. In F8 the .45 and the white circle wounds #3 and #4 are round and cannot be exit wounds." The image in question is a highly interpretive one. This analysis was based on a poor-resolution image. The panle of pathologists for the HSCA had the ORIGINAL images to work from, yet UNANIMOUSLY sided with the Bethesda pathologists. So how were all the pathologists so wrong - unanimously wrong - on these basic points? Including Cyril Wecht who says there was a conspiracy? The answer - they weren't. This same sort of "analysis" finds cities on Mars.

HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS (HSCA): Accepted the Warren Report’s findings of the three shots however they decided their was a FOURTH shot from the right front picket fence area which did not hit JFK thus Oswald did not act alone and a conspiracy probably existed. And that evidence was shown not to be correct. It was recorded at a different time than the assassination, therefore it couldn't have recorded any "fourth" shot. The ENTIRE basis for "conspiracy" was with that recording. What is most telling and damning for those who reject the SBT and the rear shot to the head is that DESPITE embracing "conspiracy" and a Grassy Knoll assassin, the HSCA nevertheless unequivocally (unlike the WC) states ONLY TWO SHOTS STRUCK THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR, the precise conclusion of the WC. Can't have it both ways, Quantz. Can't embrace the HSCA when it says "conspiracy" then ignore it when its exhaustive research actually corroborates the WC, at least without some rationale.

They also found that the autopsy Doctors had failed to accurately report the wounds as they appear in the autopsy photos. The 3rd shot was moved to enter the skull in the crown area about four inches above the official autopsy reported location to the right of the occipital protuberance as was done by the Clark panel in 1968. This is true, but how does this destroy the case as laid out by the WC? Recall, the WC went by the TESTIMONY of the doctors, never examining the photos and xrays. Yet, the HSCA AGREED with the WC as to the basic facts here: Oswald fired three shots, and two shots struck and caused all the wounds. While it is true that the Bethesda autposy deserves critism for sloppiness, its conclusions were not affected, a point ignored by the pro-conspiracy crowd. This was underlined by the HSCA conclusions on the bullet wounds as they concluded "conspiracy" and, presumably, had no incentive to "cover up."

The wound of entrance is marked. This is very similar to JFK’s wounds. The skin tears ALWAYS point to the round entry wound with a circumferential marginal abrasion [compression ring] or an irregular shaped exit wound. Skin tear wounds from distant high velocity bullets are a result of the intense increase in pressure within the skull due to the temporary cavity of the bullet.

How many gun-shot wounds have you experienced in your years as a pathologist, Quantz? Let us know, and while you are at it, let us know how your no-doubt professional opinion trumps that of the nine on the HSCA panel, and on the earlier panels. You have somewhat of a hill to climb, especially given your access to the autopsy images and x-rays are via multiple-generation copies, and limited as not all were released to the public by Groden et al. Canada Jack (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a much better copy of F8 in High Treason #2 (Hardback). This crappy one [5] given above is so contrasty that you can't tell anything from it. The top "entrance wound" is a back-lit hole in the scalp all right, but it's a SLIT. Clearly made by exiting bone shards. The ".45 hole" isn't a hole at all, as you see in a better copy, but simply a vaguely circular patch on the inside of the scalp, with one peice of bone stuck to it. Yes, we are seeing a camera shot from behind in F8. The round light is the lip of a specimen bottle and one can see a ruler and three gloved fingers. The entire right upper part of the skull (or where it should be) with the scalp reflected back at the midline, but one cannot (clearly) see either bullet entry or exit wounds in this photo, since they are at the edges of a very large defect, where the right upper quadrant of skull (all in the right parietal section) is missing. There might be an entry hole but not where you say.

The anterior (front) margin of the big missing section of parietal skull, is just barely visible as a lip, in front of the posterior (rear) margin of the missing skull, closest to the camera-- that's how big this defect is (the rest, in the front, is the inside of the scalp, which rises from missing skull margin). Again, the tattered slit of an "entrance wound" marked in the copy you link certainly isn't a bullet wound. The .45 hole (why would an assassin use a .45??) isn't a hole. The only thing I agree with is that the section of rear of the skull defect looks bevelled outward (larger outside) suggesting something passing from inside to outside AT THE REAR. Which doesn't fit. But this section of bone is larger than any bullet, and obviously this blowout from inside->outside is made by something else. It's either tissue and pressure wave (the man's head DOES explode like a watermellon from a firecracker) or else it's due to a .60 cal elephant gun bullet that exited the back of the man's head without leaving a scalp hole seen on the autopsy photos, Moorman photo, or Zapruder film.

The collar of the actual entry wound is probably just below this "exit" area, where I see a very black neat circular hole in the bone, almost complete, at the edge of the defect in the posterior skull. The patholgists reported that the entry skull wound was properly bevelled, but you can't see this small hole well enough to see the inside of it. All you can see is that the OUTSIDE lacks bevelling, so it could well be the entrance.

Oh, yes, and I agree that we see the edge of a bruise on the inside of the scalp which has been reflected to the left side of the head. Reflect it back into place and it's just at the level of the small black skull hole. The scalp bruise probably surrounds the bullet entry wound in the rear, which is not visible in this photo because it's below the roll of scalp here (right where expected). And yes, the autopsy docs and WC did make a mistake, putting the entry wound near the occipital protuberance (low), when it's plainly seen in all photos (including F8, where it shows as a small hole and that bruise) higher, in the upper part of the parietal, near the lambdoidal suture where the two parietals joint at the top of the triangular occipital. The skull doesn't blow out along that right lambda suture, because I think one can actually see that suture cross the skull in the field of view of posterior skull bone of F8, going top to bottom in parallel with the defect, under it, left to right on the skull, in F8. So the wound left the occipital bone intact, save for that lower crack that goes way back and may penetrate into it.

Finally, all that nonsense about scalp flaps being required to point to a wound, only applies to ENTRANCE wounds. For exits, where the skull is blown apart from the inside, it can and does happen the other way. Linear tears can travel outward form a large central area, and if they don't go perfectly in parallel and intersect a distance away (as at the top of JFK's face) they form a acute angle, and thus a pointed flap when they touch, and and scalp gives way to the pressure under it, lifting that flap away. SBHarris 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nosenko. 1965.

Richard Helms. Testifying for Congress Investigation Committee : "In other terms, it's the Soviet Union who assassinated president Kennedy." LBJ : "Pdt Kennedy tried to get Castro, but Castro got him first." Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes. Doubleday, 2007. Pulitzer Price, National Book Award A reading not for the anti-conspiracy theorists plaguing Wikipedia.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to keep JFK picture in this page? It should be removed later because its nasty to have such a picture 201.230.31.110 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I admit the image is very graphic, but it's being used to provide a visual aid to the discussion taking place in this section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, 109 avoids the basic question while posting references to those who suggest conspiracy which, duh, we all know about.(!) And what evidence did Helms produce. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. LBJ? Earlier you said HE was behind the assassination.(!) So which is it? LBJ? Castro? And what evidence did LBJ have on Castro? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. What are you going to produce next? Castro musing that LBJ carried out the assassination? Do you know the difference between speculation and evidence? And why do we keep getting the logical fallacy of arguments from authority from you? It's not "evidence." But as long as people like you lack the requisite critical thinking to make your way through the illogic of most of the conspiracy theorists, they'll be making a lot of money off of you and others. Here, for the third or fourth time - You have clearly read a lot of conspiracy books. Have you read the Warren Report? Canada Jack (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Full of yourself, you must be talking about the Anti-Conspiracy Theory Warren ? Attaboy.

At least, something of the trth sometimes transpires from Wikipedia auto-propaganda : The Warren Commission and the F.B.I.

Six months after the assassination, Tague was called to testify before the Warren Commission. When he gave his testimony, Tague initially stated that he was wounded on his facial cheek by either the second or third shot of the three shots that he remembered hearing. When the Commission counsel pressed him to be more specific, Tague testified that he was wounded by the second shot. When the Commission counsel asked Tague where he sensed was the source of the gun shots, Tague testified the shots originated "from the monument or whatever it was" which was the area of the North Pergola Monument, located on the grassy knoll, several hundred feet west of the Book Depository building.

Later, forensic tests by the F.B.I. revealed that the chipped bullet mark impact location did not have any copper metal residue embedded in it.[citation needed] This strongly indicates that at the instant that the bullet or bullet fragment struck the curb, it did not have a military jacketed copper outer casing, such as those required by the 6.5 mm military jacketed copper encased bullets, allegedly, fired from the far eastern sixth floor window of the School Book Depository.

Sometime after being forensically examined by the F.B.I. in 1964, the F.B.I. spectrographic slides containing the trace physical elements of the bullet embedded into the curb's chipped scar disappeared from the F.B.I. evidence storage.[citation needed] The F.B.I. later claimed (only after author/researcher/Congressional investigator Harold Weisberg filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit) that the F.B.I., itself, had destroyed the spectrographic slides to save space within the F.B.I. building.

Very unconvenient indeed. No military jacketed copper encased bullets. My, my. Where THAT bullet did come from ? From the GRASSY KNOLL ? Impossible. (WC) Wikipedia Commission said it didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We are clear on how you view the Warren Report. The question, however, is not your opinion about its veracity, the question is far simpler: Have you read the Warren Report? Canada Jack (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you think this all proves, 109. Use some logic here. Even if we don't agree whether shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll, we KNOW shots were fired from the TSBD. If there were shots AS WELL from the Grassy Knoll, logically, Tague would have reported shots coming from TWO different locations. He didn't. The plaza was an echo chamber, people reported shots coming from a number of locations but almost everyone (95%-plus) reported ALL the shots coming from ONE direction, NOT two. Further, if you care to look at where he was standing, where the limo was at the fatal shot and where the grassy knoll is, you'd see that to hit Tague, a shot would have had to change direction by something like 130 degrees - going backwards. And this after presumably striking JFK. If his head was made of steel or concrete, maybe. It's even worse if we assume the second shot deflected back. It's pretty hard to imagine how this possibly could have happened.

So, which bullet hit him? The one that struck JFK in the head needed only to deflect about 10 degrees to strike Tague. He was, IOW, almost in a direct line to be struck by the third bullet or fragment. No copper jacket? Well, the large bullet fragments found in the limo are presumed to have been from that bullet, so we'd expect the fragment which hit Tague to have no copper jacket. So, the main problem here is simply that Tague was uncertain about which bullet struck him (he said 2nd or 3rd) and he reported a source close to the Grassy Knoll, as did many others.

What is easier to believe? That assassins who no one saw and vanished without a trace fired bullets which somehow deflected backwards (through the reinforced windshield, even) and hit Tague. OR, an assassin who some DID see fired a bullet which shattered (and we have bullet fragments) and a fragment deflected hitting someone nearly in a straight line TSBD-limo-Tague? And that that person was inaccurate as to which bullet hit him and where it came from?

Clearly, you've not even read the Warren Report. Which is why it is very hard to take you seriously. Further, you fail to use any common sense in analyzing this for yourself, relying instead on the blatant nonsense of the conspiracy crew. You raise the issue of the FBI destroying evidence into this grand "cover up" even when the fragment which struck Tague should have had the very characteristics which were recorded. Noting that evidence was destroyed doesn't mean something was being covered up. And, logically, anything that hit Tague COULD NOT have originated from the Grassy Knoll.(!) Canada Jack (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oswald fires three times, as there are 3 empty cases found on the 6th floor, and one live round in the rifle. There is an easier explanation for Tague's wound, and that is that Oswald's first shot missed the limo entirely (as most modern analyses suggests). That shot happens early, when the limo is obscured by the oak tree partly, but the Z film jumps from something when the limo is under the tree from Oswald's view (about frame 150) and this is when the little girl stops and looks toward the TSBD in Z's film. Tague may very well not have registered his minor wound until the time of the second or third shot-- people don't always report knowing exactly when they are hit. Otherwise, there is no accounting for that bullet. It could well have hit a branch, gone off down Elm street in the same general direction it was already going, to finally hit the Commerce street curb near Main St. where Tague was (way out near the Triple underpass), 450 feet away from the TSBD. Bullet bits (including lead from its core after it disintegrated on hard street or cement curb) could have hit Tague. If that's all bullet #1 does, it's fine, since we don't have much else for bullet #1 to do but hit the pavement and ricochet away, never hitting JFK or the limo (never coming very close to them) and not hitting anybody BUT Tague. Bullet #2 was recovered from Connally's stretcher nearly intact, so it didn't wound Tague. I agree it is quite improbable for Tague to be hit by fragments of bullet #3 (the one that hits JFK's head), since one would expect the car itself to contain most fragments of that bullet (which it did-- they weren't moving very fast, and together add up to about one badly mangled bullet, as CE 567 (found driver's side front seat of limo [6], CE 569 (found beside front seat of limo [7], and CE 840 (3 small fragments from underneath left jump seat). Note that CE 569 has lost its interior lead core, so that happens. For a bullet to get from Oswald to the street, than back up to the level of Tague's cheek, it must have had to ricochet off something quite hard, like pavement. Witnesses did see a bullet strike sparks on the pavement, and that wasn't bullet #2 (the magic one) or #3 (the coup de grace). So that leaves #1 for Tague. As has been pointed out, a shot from the grassy knoll would be far less likely to hit Tague than one from the TSBD. The angle of ricochet is much smaller. SBHarris 01:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Check out this very interesting and detailed analysis of the NAA analysis of the fragments, and a pretty good reconstruction as to how the third bullet indeed may have been the source of Tague's injury. [8] Canada Jack (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My edit from last night didn't get posted. I think the link above is convincing. I hadn't reckoned on the fact that the angle of depression for shot #3 is much more shallow than #2, since the limo is farther from Oswald. Thus, the initial angle of #3 is closer to horizontal. That, plus the fact that a fragment of #3 hit the top of the windshield and dropped to the floor of the car, leave ample probability that another might have escaped over the top of the windshield, where it's very nearly a straight line (on the horizontal axis) to the Main Street curb and then up to Tague's cheek on Commerce. In fact, since we know some fragments go to the North of Oswald's line of fire at Z-313, it's quite reasonable by conservation of momentum that some will deviate a bit south of this line (not much) and that puts them in front of Tague. Also interesting is the finding that high-speed direct ricochets of high-velocity bullets at large angles (30 degrees) to asphalt rarely rise much, and certainly don't "reflect" at the same angle of incidence. That also argues that Oswald's first shot was a hurried (and missed) one before the limo disappeared behind the live oak in front of the TSBD, and that this bullet likely carried across the street at a low level were it did damage to the South (opposite) curb of Elm very close to the TSBD, as described (nobody ever investigated this site, that I know of). It's really too bad that we didn't gat any neutron-activation analysis (NAA) of the Main St. strike or any fragemet from Tague, which would have sealed this case.

The link you give does have some good points independent of the NAA: the bullet fragment in the front seat ballistically came from Oswald's rifle, and so did the stretcher bullet. Even if somebody planted the stretcher bullet, did they plant the front seat frag also? More and more and more unlikely. SBHarris 19:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So many data (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/frontal_shot%28s%29/tobias_frontal_shots/Photos/Sewer_sequence.html) contradict the Anti-Conspiracy Warren Theory you have a lot of work to reconstruct a reality that suits its flawed theory. I'm flattered you spend so much time to debunk the poor arguments of this contributor. BTW I tried to insert Tim Weiner perefectly sourced (Doubleday, 2007, p. 320 sq.) citations in the JFK Assassination paper. It has been also suppressed. Motive : Unsourced. A real agenda here. Laughable. As is your comment about Richard Helms, arguably the most competent DCI to date. It's interesting because we're preparing for a french prominent magazine I'm working with a large investigation about the way Wikipedia re-writes reality in some aspects. This will be probably a case study, maybe even a textbook case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the Warren Report? I don't blame you for avoiding the answer to that basic question. But your credibility in slamming it is close to nil if you've never read it.

But the bottom line here is the various scenarios you have mentioned here do not fit the available evidence. The scenarios SB and I have mentioned DO fit the evidence. And we've accounted for other possibilities and why they are likely wrong or won't work - like why a shot from the Grassy Knoll would not - probably could not - have struck Tague. It has been said many times before - you are entitled to your opinion (even about a document - the WC report - you've obviously never read); you are not entitled to your own facts.

Richard Helms? There you go again. Arguing from authority. We need EVIDENCE. Helms may be the most brilliant person in the history of mankind. But without evidence to back up an assertion, he is only expressing an opinion. And an opinion does not establish a fact. What can't you comprehend here?

Tim Weiner? If this in reference to his CIA book, then that belongs on the conspiracy page. He may be another brilliant person, but that doesn't mean his opinions warrant being on the top of the page. Here's a suggestion. There already is a page devoted to CIA conspiracies in the JFK assassination. Why not incorporate that information there? The basic problem here is that Weiner's take on the assassination in only one of HUNDREDS of theories about what "really" happened. Why does his take rise to being definitive? Further, since you have already admitted to publishing articles on this subject, this sounds like it may be a conflict of interest. Canada Jack (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As for your "case study," please reveal to the world while you are writing this whether you have actually read the Warren Report which you so roundly denounce. That will tell people what credentials you have on this subject. And, while you are at it, since there is already a page here on CIA conspiracies to kill the president, and numerous other pages on conspiracy theories regarding the assassination, how any information is being "repressed." And, further, how THIS page is the POV pro-WC lie you suggest it is, though you've not told us how it is so. Canada Jack (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Plane crashes are very convenient under Nixon White House. To cite a few : Hale Boggs (already discussed) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reuther —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.39.130 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the Warren Report? Yes or no? As for "convenient" plane crashes, what evidence do you have that this crash was engineered? And that it was engineered to silence a critic of the Warren Commission? Let me guess. NONE. No, instead, you see a WC critic, he dies, therefore he died because he was a WC critic. This is what we call a logical fallacy. This is the problem with too many critics of the WC - they not only completely ignore the evidence that links Oswald and only Oswald to the crime, they pretend this evidence does not exist. Then, they cite as "evidence" the deaths of people they view as "suspicious."

Here's a question since you are incapable of any critical thought when it comes to the issues we have raised - you've not even bother to address them - if critics like Boggs are being "killed off," then why are NONE of the conspiracy authors meeting suspicious and untimely ends? And how could have Garrison possibly carried on with his investigation? One would think that if there was a conspiracy to silence the critics and suppress the truth that those people who actually are front and centre with those allegations - the conspiracy authors - would be meeting untimely and suspicious deaths. Yet it ain't happening. Gee, I wonder why. Canada Jack (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe you've taken so much time to debate things with this 109 guy. He's just endlessly hopping from point to point, avoiding any real discussion of anything.

Hey, 109, your appalling spelling and grammar are rather at odds with your claim to be a published author and not bothering to sign your posts with either a name or a username doesn't help. If you've read the Warren Report, say so. If you haven't, say so. If you have any properly sourced evidence that back up your assertions, then show us. Shouting down anyone who disagrees with you as a stooge of the conspirators doesn't make you sound any more credible.

This discussion page is about the Wikipedia article not your theories on the assassination or a page for hectoring those who disagree with you. There is another article dealing with the various alternative theories as to what happened. Wikipedia has to narrow its scope to a certain extent in order to be a useful information resource. For example, on another page (about the actor James Robertson Justice), I was unable to correct his date and place of birth because all the published sources state the incorrect one and the only evidence I have for the one I'm proposing is his birth certificate. Wikipedia thus stuck with a birth-date that was known to be wrong until a creditable source referenced the correct one. Wikipedia isn't a place to do research or publish theories; it's a place to reference already published, creditable sources. If you can produce information that complies with Wikipedia's defined standards, then do so. And look, here's four tildes which will magically transform into a username. Please try it. Kodabar (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I echo Kodabar's comments - this page is ONLY for discussing specific improvements to the page, based on reliably sourced material - not the place for theorizing or posting pictures to make one's case. I've moved the previous material to archive - can we get back on track here to discuss this specific article please. Tvoz/talk 18:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just as guilty for getting in a shouting match here. But to underline why this page largely describes the conclusions of the Warren Commission and HSCA despite the fact that since about 1966 the majority of Americans doubt those conclusions: Those conclusions are the conclusions of the official investigations, and are specifically and consistently identified as such. These investigations are exhaustive in a way that NONE of the conspiracy authors are, and as mentioned below in fact form the source for much of the evidence in dispute. The fact that there are disputes over these conclusions are mentioned in the lede and in the sections describing conspiracy theories. As for why we don't discuss the assassination from, say, the views of those who suggest a second gunman at the grassy knoll, there are very good practical reasons. One, there is no, single, counter-theory to the Warren Commission, certainly none which a large segment of society subscribe to. Indeed, there are likely hundreds of counter-theories. (Indeed, the HSCA DOES suggest a grassy knoll gunman and a conspiracy, which is mentioned. IOW, the conclusion of one of the official investigations is "conspiracy.") Second, almost ALL of the conspiracy theories reference the Warren Commission and the HSCA, and almost all use the evidence gathered by those bodies to come to their conclusions. So to build this article around the views of a leading conspiracy author would omit the main source for the evidence cited. Canada Jack (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why 109's response in french was removed - it pertained to this debate. The fact he made a point in french in response to a dig at his spelling and grammar (english being a second language) so he made his point in his mother tongue should mean his comments stay. But a response to his point as to why when the majority view is that there was a conspiracy this page reflects the non-conspiracy view of the WC: The page in fact largely reflects the WC and HSCA investigations, the latter of which concluded "conspiracy." However, most of the WC conclusions (such as the SBT, involvement of LHO) were confirmed by the HSCA. The underlying problem with the "conspiracy" angle is there are literally hundreds of versions of what "really" happened so there is no agreed-upon scenario to feature. For example, one can embrace the SBT yet also conclude "conspiracy," as the HSCA did. The ONLY well-known complete investigations were carried out by the WC and HSCA, hence the page is largely built on their conclusions (one of which, I repeat, concluded "conspiracy"). Is "conspiracy" ignored? No. It's mentioned in the lede, there is a section on this page discussing it, and there are separate pages devoted exclusively to the theories, and some theories have their own page. Canada Jack (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

...and since there have been several attempts to include material and reversions of same on this discussion page... let's be clear here. If there is an issue of why we largely report what the WC and the HSCA concluded, while giving relatively short shrift to other interpretations, that I believe is answered above. And that discussion, since it directly pertains to the page, should be here. But simply inserting material like "how come the WC ignored this material..." etc does NOT belong here as that is debating the particulars of the assassination rather than improving the page per se. As said above, I am just as guilty as others in extending discussion on issues which don't properly belong here. But it is not "censorship" to remove this material when, as mentioned before as well there are numerous pages exploring the various issues which some see as indicating conspiracy, etc. Canada Jack (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:Jfk funeral arlington.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

i have a Daily Kennebec Journal an (EXTRA) the papor was established in 1825 vol. cxxx11-no.279 Augusta Maine Friday November 22 1963 President Kennedy Shot To Death with pitcure perfect just like the day it was delivered,, and a red hard cover book (The torch is passed its the associated press story of the death of a president,,, it to is in great shape,,,just was not sure if they were something u would be intrested in

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.87.99 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

After the sentence ending with "—or perhaps some combination of these." I had added the following:

(some speculate that Johnson masterminded the assassination, but that he had arranged for either the Mafia, or the CIA [between the two, the line is quite blurry] to carry out the attack...the latter of which either in concordance with E. Howard Hunt, or at the very least with his knowledge [see: E. Howard Hunt deathbed confession])

...and an editor (Sören Koopmann talk) reverted my edit and contacted me. I fully acknowledge the unattractive vernacular of that entire sentence/paragraph. I simply often find it difficult to accurately describe the information whilst using satisfying grammar, and I am constantly trying to find ways to (literally) perfect literally everything I write, I just don't always succeed. In any case, I thought it a good compromise to simply change the link to the E Howard Hunt page to a link to the Conspiracy Allegations/Death section of the E. Howard Hunt page. Apparently the editor didn't agree; he reverted it back. I strongly feel that this would've been a good compromise, but more importantly that it would've been a better option than simply linking it to the E. Howard Hunt page. I realize it's a minor change, but it could make a big difference. More importantly, I think when it comes to these conspiracy type of topics, it is extremely important that any & all theories/hypotheses are discussed and included in articles, as information on these topics is dodgy and unverifiable, and any of the given theories could be the correct one. If nobody else objects to this edit, I would like to change it back again.

Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 1:42 PM EST, 26 July 2011

Not sure how Howard Hunt rises to the level of being one of the major players here needed to be mentioned. "CIA" is sufficient on this page, just as we don't list the various Mafia leaders said to be involved as "Mafia" suffices. There are literally hundreds of theories of who may have been behind the assassination, which is why we list many of them on the conspiracy page. And literally hundreds of scenarios as to how these various players were involved with each other. It is definitely NOT important to spell out each and every one of these theories, at least not on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, but all I am asking is that we link the E. Howard Hunt text to a sub-section of the E. Howard Hunt page, instead of to the page by itself. That isn't spelling out any of the theories, but Hunt did have quite a logical deathbed confession, and considering his connections to the intelligence community and also the fact that it was a deathbed confession, not just some confession, make the information much more reliable. However again, I'm not asking to add that whole long sentence I butchered there, I'm just asking to change the E. Howard Hunt link slightly. Do you really think that's a big problem? It basically gives just as much of a chance to all of the other theories too, since it doesn't involve explaining anything, as I had originally proposed. However I do think his testimony holds a lot more weight than many of the other "theories" out there, some of which are reasonable but some of which are downright arbitrary. I find Hunt's confession to be one of the most likely scenarios; I realize this is just my opinion but many of the different theories, if you pay attention to them, often seem like they're all different versions of the same story told slightly differently, from which one could deduce that certain events probably did happen and certain others probably didn't. In any case, that isn't important. I just want to change the link a little bit. Do you really object to that?

Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 5:42 PM EST, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To quote the Rolling Stone articlewww.infowarscom/articles/us/jfk_hunt_last_confessions_rolling_stone.htm ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} on Hunt’s “confession,” Hunt’s big reveal consisted of giving his son, “two sheets of paper that contained a fuller narrative. It starts out with LBJ again, connecting him to Cord Meyer, then goes on: "Cord Meyer discusses a plot with [David Atlee] Phillips who brings in Wm. Harvey and Antonio Veciana. He meets with Oswald in Mexico City. . . . Then Veciana meets w/ Frank Sturgis in Miami and enlists David Morales in anticipation of killing JFK there.”

In other words, Hunt’s “confession” actually clears Hunt himself, while accusing eight other people (seven of whom are deceased and can’t respond) of complicity in murdering the President. He offers no evidence, but hints that he might reveal a great deal more…provided he’s paid a lot of money.

The big “hook” in the whole business is the strong suggestion that Hunt really was one of the three tramps arrested in Dallas on the day of the assassination. As if it wasn’t long ago proven that the “tramp” in question was Mr. Gus W. Abrams. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can accept/respect what you're saying, but again, my question hasn't been answered. This is such a minor edit and it really doesn't do anything to suggest that Hunt's claims are true, all it's doing is associating Hunt's own association/possible involvement in the assassination (as implied by his mention in this article at all) with his claims about the assassination, instead of just to himself. I really was trying to compromise here. I don't think that implies any speculation about the validity of the claims one way or the other; it's simply associating him with his claims a bit more clearly. Again I know it's a minor edit, I just really feel like people aren't getting what I'm saying here. And I had said before, though a minor edit it is, I feel it noteworthy enough information to warrant this minor edit.

Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 4:44 AM EST, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's a minor edit, but a quick look at the text as it stands reveals that Hunt was only recently inserted. We are not here to determine who is more credible, or what is the most plausible conspiracy claim. But what I am saying is that, unlike the other mentioned players - Castro, LBJ, the Mafia, anti-Castro elements, the CIA, the Eastern Bloc - Hunt is relatively obscure. I mean, I could make a good argument that certain particular Mafia heads were more plausibly behind the assassination (it's what drove the HSCA investigation after all, the working assumption all along). Why not insert Carlos Marcello? No need. Hunt and many of the others are covered on the conspiracy page. So, My suggestion is to simply omit Hunt as he falls under the general heading of "CIA." Canada Jack (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but I won't omit it, I'm just leaving it as-is.

I can appreciate why you say that though; now that I really think about it I realize that Hunt's confession wasn't an admission of guilt; his story claimed that he knew who'd been involved but not that he was directly involved himself after declining an offer to take part (But ultimately I think he was the first person, in the intelligence community anyway, to claim that Johnson had orchestrated the whole thing). This is the only part of his story I find the least bit suspicious, as keeping his name clear even after death could be important to a person, sure. Although I'd never believed he was any of the three tramps.

The only reason I won't omit him is because this is enough for him to be directly associated with (in the mind of many people) the Assassination, even if he played no role. Few members of the public do know, or do claim to know, what exactly happened that day and his claiming that he did know (and his laying his claims and/or knowledge out for the listeners) makes him a part of that narrative in history, whether the claims are true or not. Because we simply don't know if any of the claims about "the big event" are true or not (except the magic bullet thing...I think any reasonable person knows he was shot from the side; from the knoll/book depository parking lot, and also that there were multiple gunmen), so all of them are associated with it.

Although I do wish there was some better (i.e. more grammatically satisfying to read) way to explain the very blurry line between Mafia and C.I.A. people, since the C.I.A. have long contracted out, hired as operatives, or just generally associated with various members of organized crime, namely Mafia. JFK was once quoted as saying something to the effect of, "If there ever is a coup in the United States, it will without a doubt be carried out by the C.I.A."

Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 6:50 AM EST, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I won't omit him is because this is enough for him to be directly associated with (in the mind of many people) the Assassination, even if he played no role. Uh, it's not "enough" that some believe he was involved, I could (literally) produce a list of 100+ people of which each individual named have "some" believe they were involved. Which is why the list here is quite short, limited to several very prominent people (LBJ, Castro) and organizations (CIA, Mafia, FBI, etc). Canada Jack (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

hi call me he told coretta scott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.151.190 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

in the current version, the photo that is captioned "Looking south, with the pergola and knoll behind the photographer: the X on the street marks the approximate position of Kennedy in the limousine at the moment of the fatal head shot" is not the location where JFK was at Zapruder frame #313. Employing a surveyed map of the plaza and calculating photogrammatical angles measurements shows that photo is actually where some persons theorize the first shot was fired, and, have also marked Elm Street with another "X" mark, near the large oak tree - the shadow of that tree is also clearly seen in the photo, and there are no trees close to the street near JFK's true Zapruder frame #313 location. A new photo of the real Z-313 spot is needed, or, the existing photo needs its caption corrected

a side note here please. E Howard Hunt's face (photo) is seen in fiction books he has authored since the 1960s. In photos of hobos and railroad workers rounded up near the shooting of JFK in 1963 one of the men exactly resembles Hunt. I think its most important to be added in to the report in wiki on the JFK assassination. Blondeignore (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI: This point already received significant coverage in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. It doesn't need to be outlined here. Location (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... No reason was given for its deletion. It obviously has historical importance, is supported by considerable third-party research, etc. I suspect the petition for deletion was caused by someone's emotional response to the fact that today is the anniversary of JFK's assassination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.186.124 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:CE2892.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read anything in this article about the so called "Magic Bullet Theory."
I would think that such evidence would be highlighted in this article being one of the best pieces of evidence
that there were multiple people shooting at the president. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In the description of the sequence of shots, the WC and HSCA conclusions that a single bullet caused JFK's neck wound and COnnally's wounds is described, with a link to the Single Bullet Theory page. Canada Jack (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that this theory, which has it's own article on wikipedia, doesn't deserve to mentioned in the article for JFK's assassination? 24.79.40.48 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he is telling you that it is already in the article and where you can find it. Location (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone reads the lead section only, they will be left with the impression that the HSCA concluded that there was a fourth shot. The lead section does not mention that this comes only from the dictabelt recording, which was disproven years ago. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

But the HSCA DID conclude there was a fourth shot. Whatever happened later doesn't alter that fact. Canada Jack (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying take that out, but rather expand on it. If someone reads the lead section only they will get the wrong impression. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Dale Myers' work be added to the lede? Location (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

But it is a fact that the second major investigation of the assassination concluded what the lede says it concluded. As for the dictabelt being "disproven," even though I agree the evidence does not stand up, that is a contentious viewpoint as there are many who say otherwise. As long as the article addresses those concerns, I don't see a need to include this in the lede, as it does not mislead. The WC indeed concluded Oswald, Oswald alone. The HSCA indeed concluded Oswald fired the shots which struck, but there was a conspiracy. And many indeed dismiss the contention that Oswald acted alone or even was involved. It would be giving "the wrong impression" if we suggested otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The National Academy of Science examined the evidence after the HSCA and came to a different conclusion. That isn't in the lead. In fact Dictabelt evidence relating to the assassination of John F. Kennedy isn't linked anywhere in the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The NSA wasn't an official investigation, per se. It focused on investigating that particular evidence. It seems to me that this can be resolved by adding something along the following lines to the HSCA section on the page... "...concluded conspiracy, largely based on dictabelt evidence which suggested a second shooter, evidence which has been disputed." ANd THAT can link to the dictabelt page. So, I don't agree this needs to be in the lede, I do agree that it should be mentioned in passing in the investigations section, but that the issue should be more fully discussed on the dictabelt page. Canada Jack (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

But the NSA investigation did prove that the only reason for the HSCA saying what they did about the conspiracy was wrong. And the FBI and the Justice Department both investigated the Dictabelt recording and also said that the HSCA was wrong. (I added some of that to the Dictabelt article yesterday.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If all sides agreed that the dictabelt evidence was wrong, then that'd be reason to mention that. But that simply is not the case. So to say that the NSA "proved" the inadequacy of the evidence is POV. And, like it or not, the NSA and the others weighing in on that issue can't negate the HSCA's conclusions - those conclusions stand fixed. I mean, isn't it obvious that the WC based their conclusions of "no conspiracy" on relatively light investigations of many aspects of Oswald's past and associations, and without important knowledge of what the CIA was in fact up to in terms of, for example, trying to assassinate world leaders and working with the Mafia? Should we not, therefore, qualify the WC's conclusions in the lede with some note saying "but they did not adequately investigate many possible conspiracy avenues"? Again, as long as these things are spelled out later in the text or in the sister pages, we need not include this in the lede. Canada Jack (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. But the HSCA did investigate all of the "usual suspects" for a conspiracy and found no evidence of a conspiracy, other than the dictabelt recording. They explicitly ruled out the usual suspects. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I;m not disputing any of that, though to be accurate, the usual suspects weren't "explicitly ruled out." The HSCA stated, as they had to, that there was no evidence presented that implicated any of the groups they listed. Canada Jack (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. I added a short paragraph of explanation to the body, in the HSCA section. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is related to the discussion above. It is wrong to say the HSCA based their 4th bullet conclusion solely on the dictabelt evidence. Here is a link to page 84 of the HSCA report: page 84. It is clear the HSCA based the finding on much more than just the dictabelt evidence.

I removed sentence that said the conclusion was solely from the dictabelt evidence along with the sentence explaining the dictabelt evidence. I'm not saying the second sentence doesn't belong, but with the first sentence removed it's not clear how it fits in.

You would have to speculate about what the HSCA would have concluded if the dictabelt evidence was disputed when they were forming their conclusions and that's impossible now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, from my reading of that, the HSCA had a single strong piece of evidence which scientifically suggested a shot from the knoll, and was corroborated by some witness accounts and was not disproved by some photographic evidence. However, if you compare that to, say, "scientific evidence" used to establish that someone fired shots from the window of the TSBD, there is a ton of specific evidence, as well as corroborating witness evidence.

To be fair, I say it is a good point to say that, as worded, "The HSCA based its opinion of a second gunman entirely on a Dictabelt recording" is not accurate, as it sought corroborating evidence, but, this is rectified by taking "entirely" out instead of the entire section. As page 84 clearly indicates, the HSCA would not have considered the corroborating evidence as probative without the dictabelt evidence. IOW, without the dictabelt evidence, it could not substantiate such a conclusion. The key phrase is "Scientifically, the existence of the second gunman was established only by the acoustical study..." Canada Jack (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the HSCA considered their findings probative at all. In the end they qualified their main finding as being "highly likely." The summary of findings is full of qualifications, and they noted the Warren Commission was too definitive in its statements. What you're assuming is that if the HSCA couldn't scientifically prove a 4th bullet they would have sided with the Warren Commission. I think it's likely they would have just said "at least 3 bullets were fired." But that's just speculation.

Either way, the edit doesn't fix the problem. The HSCA based their conclusion on the dictabelt AND corroborating and independently substantiating scientific projects. Would they have concluded a 4th bullet if they lacked this other evidence? We don't know. We'd have to speculate. What would they have said if they lacked the dictabelt? We don't know.

I don't have an opinion on whether there was a 4th bullet. But this section is about what the HSCA thought. The lack of conclusive scientific evidence may mean one thing to you, but we don't know that's what it meant to the HSCA. I think we should stick to what the HSCA actually said.

Ggeezz (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What is that "corroborating and independently substantiating scientific projects"? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

After sleeping on this, I have some more thoughts. Basically I agree with you that without the dictabelt the finding of a second shooter wasn't probative. (Though you made a mistake above: the dictabelt was the single piece of evidence scientifically establishing a 4th bullet. There were other scientific projects "supporting" and other circumstantial evidence supporting.)

My point is the HSCA wasn't necessarilly concerned solely with what was probative. They were concerned with what was likely and how likely it was. Their finding was "4th bullet/conspiracy, highly likely" based on the whole investigation. It is speculation to say how the removal of any one element would have changed their finding. Perhaps it would be "likely", or "more likely than not" or "inconclusive" or reversed completely. The point is we don't know. Ggeezz (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Ggeezz, there's a bit of history here you don't seem to be aware of. By mid-December 1978, the HSCA was virtually finished their work and had already drafted their report - which concluded Oswald was the lone assassin and that there was no conspiracy. However, when the dicatbelt evidence was presented, the committee reversed itself and concluded conspiracy - based on that evidence. In the report, the stated quite clearly that this was the only scientific evidence they had to come to that conclusion, but they said that other evidence tended to corroborate it, and photographic evidence didn't disprove it. But there is NO DOUBT that without the dictabelt evidence, the HSCA would have concluded "no conspiracy" as that is what they had concluded before the dictabelt testimony despite having assessed all that "corroborative" evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As per what I wrote above, I re-inserted the original text (at least, what I had before as of yesterday afternoon), as that was accurate - the conclusion indeed was based on the dictabelt evidence, the key being that the original conclusion of the committee was "no conspiracy" until that testimony. So, this can be a basis for what will stay on the page, though it could of course be rewritten slightly. Sorry Bubba, Ggeez - didn't mean to wipe out what you guys added - it's just that the basic point was correct, and we can add more based on that. Canada Jack (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday I added two references with quotations, and that is now gone. The quotations dealt directly with some of the points you made above. (1) It talked about how there was a preliminary draft saying "no conspiracy" but then the dictabelt came forward and they put that in the "Summary". (2) Blakely said that without the dictabelt analysis, there would be no evidence of a conspiracy ("that would be the end of it"). Can these go back in? They certainly seem useful. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Canada Jack, no disrespect to you, but could you point me to some evidence that the HSCA reversed their conclusions solely on the dictabelt evidence? There's nothing about that in the HSCA main article. Furthermore, the HSCA's findings on the deficiency of the Warren Commissions and FBI's investigations would have had nothing to do with the dictabelt, since they couldn't analyze the audio the way the HSCA did. And if the HSCA said the Warren Commission was too definitive in its statements (again, irrespective of the dictabelt), why would the HSCA state definitively that Oswald was a lone assassin unless they had found more supportive information than the Warren Commission did?

I would like to see the draft of the report myself to clear up those questions. The overall message of the HSCA was they were frustrated that evidence was lost, not shared, or not pursued. That has nothing to do with the dictabelt.

Bubba73, Blakey also said there was other evidence of a conspiracy as in the quote I referenced. Later he was more supportive of the HSCA's findings and then less supportive. IOW, Blakey seems to be all over the place if you just cherry pick quotes. However, it seems to me if you a broader view Blakey is supportive of the HSCA's finding and thinks there is much more to go on than just the audio. I have to admit that I haven't done the research necessary to definitively summarize Blakey's view, but that schoolnet article I linked shows several comments through the years that show Blakey as a conspiracy believer and him discussing evidence other than the dictabelt pointing in that direction. I don't think it does the topic justice to point out one comment cherry picked by a Warren Commission supporter.Ggeezz (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Bubba, I didn't sort out all the changes as they were substantial, but seeing what you did on the dictabelt page tells me that that material could be added for those references. Sorry if you in fact added the references which substantiated what was there - why not revert to your version? Or did you rewrite as well? I didn't check as closely as I should have, my apologies. Canada Jack (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ggeezz: You seem to be conflating several things here. On the question of the dictabelt evidence as being the source of the "conpsiracy" conclusion, that is not only pointed out by Bubba's references to the conclusions of the draft, it is also underlined by the quotes from Blakely. The simple fact is, at the last moment when the HSCA was prepared to conclude "no conspiracy" - and the draft is the proof of that - the dictabelt evidence changed the ballgame. The other evidence suggesting "conspiracy"? That was presented, assessed, yet the committee was prepared to state "no conspiracy." This is, again, not speculation. This is the course of events in December 1978.

It is further bourne out by the masses of investigations into the various groups accused of having a role in the assassination. Despite some pretty exhaustive digging, despite the "new" conclusion based on the dictabelt evidence, the HSCA nevertheless concluded that the evidence they assessed did not point to the groups they specified being involved in a plot to kill JFK. IOW, the HSCA was NEVER in a position to conclude "conspiracy" as they couldn't even find convincing evidence of any of these people being involved in one.

As for the deficiences of the WC and FBI etc., that is another issue which has nothing to do with that conclusion. Whether the WC was incompetent does not equate with a finding of "conspiracy." If the WC was too stupid to be capable of discovering "conspiracy" hiding under a rock, that does not mean that there indeed was "conspiracy" hiding under a rock. And I'm not sure that the HSCA said the WC was "too definitive" in its statements, it seems more that they failed to push many issues they should have then said "based on available evidence," etc. which is, the HSCA underlines, a sin of ommission.

The overall message of the HSCA was they were frustrated that evidence was lost, not shared, or not pursued. That has nothing to do with the dictabelt. Yes, but that does not play into the conclusion of "conspiracy" or "no conspiracy." It plays into the competence of agencies assigned to uncover the truth, and that they failed to do so adequately. What I read from that is, if there was a conspiracy to be uncovered, these guys (the WC, FBI etc) were incompetent or institutionally disinclined to uncover one. But it is a logical fallacy to suggest that that means there WAS a conspiracy to uncover, if not for those deficiencies. Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I put the two references with the quotations back in. They are footnotes #120 and #121. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying I reject the premises of the "draft supporting lone assassin theory, then comes the dictabelt" but there's no reference or citation supporting that argument. It's there on the Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy page but without support. And in some preliminary searches on Google I couldn't find it. If the wording in this article is based on that reasoning, then shouldn't a visitor be able to trace a source?

As for the HSCA saying the Warren Commission was "too definitive," it's on the top of page 5 of the report.

And as far as convincing me, I'm just asking that you give me references that allow me to verify it for myself. I hope you would ask nothing less of me if the situation were reversed. Bubba73 has a quote from a book by Gerald_Posner, that seems to be the basis for the dictabelt changing everything. According to Wikipedia Posner has been involved in plagiarism and false quote scandals. Would a reference to his book hold much weight with you if you were me? Should it be the basis for this whole line of reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The references seem to be there now, so I'm not sure what you mean. (Maybe you didn't see them as Bubba has added to the section) We have Bugliosi and Sturdivan on top of Posner for sources saying that, not solely Posner. Go to Bugliosi where this is discussed briefly in the pages of his book, then at length in his endnotes. Canada Jack (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

but Ggeezz took out Posner and seems to want to take out Sturdivan. And on my talk page he doubts that Bugliosi is a reliable source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I just removed Posner as I'm pretty sure he doesn't meet the criteria of a reliable source. I don't see where Bugliosi or Sturdivan mention the December draft. Am I missing something?Ggeezz (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't quote their enitre books. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are on firm ground on declaring Posner an unreliable source. As for Bugliosi (also page 380, I believe it is): Vincent Bugliosi, 2007, endnotes pp. 202–3, citing the HSCA report, p. 84. Sturdivan: "The acoustic evidence that was the sole objective, scientific support for the existence of a conspiracy in the HSCA investigation was debunked.", Sturdivan, 2005, p. 77

from WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." According to that wikipedia article Posner does not have such a reputation. In fact, the specific allegations against him (with examples) of false quotes is exactly what I'm worried about here. And I'm trying to confirm. Is too much to ask for a more direct reference or a reference from someone who hasn't been shown to do false quotation?

I'll try to find the Bugliosi reference, but the Sturdivan quote there doesn't mention the december draft. Does Sturdivan mention it elsewhere?Ggeezz (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Lovely. Bugliosi does mention something about the draft on page 380 with a citation. However, the footnotes were originally included on a CD and are not in the Kindle version.Ggeezz (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have Bugliosi's end notes and footnotes in a PDF file, about 4MB. Do you want me to send them to you? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

HSCA report, pg 495. Not only is there a quote concluding "no conspiracy" straight out of page 64 of the "December draft", the text explicitly states that that conclusion was ready to be delivered to the American people until the dictabelt testimony changed everything. Canada Jack (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The actual quote is "the available scientific evidence is insufficient to find ... conspiracy." There's a difference between saying "we conclude no conspiracy" and "we couldn't find the evidence to scientifically prove conspiracy." We should also note this is from the dissenting opinion of Edgar. Regardless I trust that his quote from the december draft. It's also notable that Edgar discusses the other evidence in favor of a 4th bullet. What's clear is that before the dictabelt there was a consensus of insufficiency. After the dictabelt there was a consensus of "more likely than not" (which is not the same as "scientifically established"). The dictabelt was a linchpin. It was key in the committee's change of direction. But I see no evidence that it was the "basis" for a finding of "probable". I think it's likely that the dictabelt swung a few votes and new compromise on the wording of the finding had to be created.

Consider the dissenting opinion of Chris Dodd. He cast doubt on the dictabelt/acoustic evidence. He wanted further study. And yet he said "the preponderance of supports ... a gunman fired from the grassy knoll." pg 486. If I were you I would have quoted Sawyer instead of Edgar. Sawyer explicitly says the dictabelt evidence stands against everything else saying Oswald acted alone and the comittee acted on the acoustic experts alone (bottom of page 504).

So we have one member (Dodd) saying everything besides the dictabelt points to a 4th bullet but he doubts the dictabelt. Another member (Sawyer) says everything besides the dictabelt points to a lone assassin. Such is the topic of the assassination of JFK. It's the definition of a morass.

But on this singular point, it seems the dictabelt acted as a swaying facter among a group of disagreeing politicians working a high risk job.

I see how Sturdivan is an authoritative source for scientific matters, but I don't get how's he's an authoritative source on the nature of the HSCA's conclusions (which is what his quote relates to). Could someone clear that up for me? In addition, it's not clear to me how his book meets the criteria of being a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

He observed ballistics tests conducted for the Warren Commission. As a senior researcher, he was the Army's contact with the HSCA as they did investigations and he testified about the would ballistics of the assassination. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that Sturdivan can speak to the evidence itself in his own right. But the context of the quote is the HSCA's opinion on the evidence and not the evidence itself. And while Sturdivan was familiar the HSCA's process it's not clear that he's an expert on the committee members' opinions, nor that he was even trying to summarize their opinions in this instance.

There were varied opinions among the members, so much so that there were 3 dissents and 1 separate view included in the report representing 5 members. It's problematic to make any definitive statements about why those concluded what they did. And if you would attempt it then I think you would have needed to have been present the members made their compromises or at least interviewed them afterwards.

Even if Sturdivan did interview the members about why they concluded what they did and was opining on that rather than his own opinions of the evidence, wouldn't it make more sense to reference a committee person themselves or one of their spokesmen?Ggeezz (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not applying the concept of "reliable source" correctly, Ggeezz. Generally, those not accepted are those who post opinions on blogs, those who have no particular expertise on the subject etc. For the purposes of this page, the quotes from Posner and Sturdivan pass muster, so their citations are appropriate. If we were to apply your logic to, say, the conspiracy page, we'd have to remove most of the citations as many authors have been shown at one time or another to be lying or obfuscating the truth, even if their particular claim is demonstrably true, or their quote is an accurate reflection of what it is they are talking about. Hell, even Winston Churchill told a few howlers over the year, do we therefore remove any reference from him as he is, by your logic, not a "reliable source"?

This is all besides the point. As I have shown by getting the HSCA reference, What Posner, Sturdivan and Bugliosi have stated is confirmed by the primary source.

From page 495 of the HSCA Report, Robert Edgar's dissent:

I agree with the December 13, 1978 first draft of our final report which states on page 64: "The committee finds that the available scientific evidence is insufficient to find that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy." Up to that moment, we were prepared to go to the American people with this conclusion. Only after the report of Mark R. Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy, in the 11th hour of our investigation, was the majority persuaded to vote for two gunmen and a conspiracy.

Are the statements of Sturdivan, Posner and Bugliosi at odds with the documentary record? Clearly not, as they weren't expressing their own opinions (which you seem intent on claiming), they were reporting the fact as expressed in the dissent.

Can we know what "might" have happened if not for the dictabelt evidence? YES! Because they had concluded otherwise before that testimony! And we have a quote from that very report, AND we have one of the committee members stating precisely that the dictabelt evidence changed the conclusion! For the purposes of this page, the claim has been established.

Didn't know this before? Not surprising as the conspiracy community likes to pretend otherwise and are not intent on publicizing information which destroys their case: To wit, without the subsequently discredited dictabelt evidence, the HSCA, the most comprehensive post-Warren Commission investigation into the assassination, would have concluded "no conspiracy," indeed they HAD concluded "no conspiracy." Canada Jack (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And in addition to the committee member you cite in the penultimate paragraph, Blakely, chief consul to the HSCA, said that if the dictabelt evidence is wrong then that is the end of the road for the conspiracy. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's put aside the reliability of Posner, Sturdivan, and Bugliosi. That's not really the issue here (though I think the article is improved by referencing Edgar instead of the others).

I will also agree that we know what "might" have happened except for the dictabelt evidence. You're right. I was not aware of the history before. However, you are wrong to associate my ignorance with the conspiracy community. I have purposely stayed away from their writings. The confusion comes from reading this article and the HSCA's report. If you don't know the history of the december draft and you just read the HSCA report summary findings and page 84, the article seems severely slanted and based on books written by people to discredit the HSCA's findings. The article needed improvement.

Now here's the real issue. The previous finding was according to the quote "the available scientific evidence is insufficient to find that there was a conspiracy." And unfortunately we don't have that draft to get further explanation. But you're saying this is the same as finding "no conspiracy" which I take to mean "more likely no conspiracy than conspiracy." My contention is that "lacking sufficient scientific evidence for B" is not the same thing as saying "A is more likely than B." (where A is the opposite of B) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Now we are getting into POV territory, Ggeezz. That is YOUR interpretation. But we have the original source, which sure sounds like "no conspiracy" was the original verdict, unless you want us to believe the American people were parsing the various forms of evidence and cared more about knowing the scientific evidence verdict (no conspiracy) than the, say, organized group evidence verdict (which, not incidentally, was also "no conspiracy"). Not only do we have a primary source, we have three secondary sources saying it means "no conspiracy" until the dictabelt conclusion.

You would need to do the same, find a primary source which says "the conspiracy verdict was not based on the dictabelt evidence, that verdict would have been the same anyway" AND a secondary source saying that. Canada Jack (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "that verdict would have been the same anyway" (without the dictabelt). In fact I conceded the HSCA was going to conclude "lack of sufficient scientific evidence" without the dictabelt. I said there's a difference between "lack of sufficient scientific evidence" and "no conspiracy." When you say that "sure sounds like 'no conspiracy'" aren't you inserting your own POV/interpretation? I'm just saying the quote from the draft is what it is. And the quote did not say "no conspiracy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes me curious. Why do you think they opted for the "less strong" wording in the draft (i.e., we "lacked evidence" rather we "concluded no conspiracy")? Clearly Sawyer was pushing for more definitive statements toward the lone assassin theory and I would think Edgar was too. I realize this is speculation, but I'm curious as to your opinion, given that the final report was critical of the FBI, the WC, and CIA.Ggeezz (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ggeezz, I think you are being a bit disingenuous here. When we have positive evidence of something, we say "there was a conspiracy," as that can be proved, often scientifically. When we LACK the scientific proof we can't definitively say "no conspiracy" as we can't prove a negative. What we CAN say is that, based on the available evidence, there is no evidence of conspiracy. OF COURSE, no one is ever suggesting - not the Warren Commission, not Posner, not the dissent opinions - that we can "prove" there was no conspiracy, as that is an impossible thing to do, which is why when other evidence on mob involvement says stuff along the lines of "no conspiracy was found with the available evidence," instead of "there was no conspiracy" as a "no conspiracy" verdict can't preclude the possibility that unseen positive evidence exists out there or, that even if no positive evidence exists, that a conspiracy in fact happened. It is theoretically possible to prove Jesus existed if physical evidence could be produced. But it is impossible to prove he DIDN'T exist as all evidence of his physical existence may have been destroyed. Canada Jack (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you I am not being disingenuous. You understand the HSCA was not done according to the scientific method. Neither was it a civil or criminal legal proceeding. It was a congressional investigative committee. A scientist, in most cases, sticks to what can be scientifically verified. A criminal prosecutor tries to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. A civil case has different standards. The HSCA had the latitude to choose their own standards of proof and to state their findings however they wanted to. To a scientist things are binary: proven or not proven. That's not the case for the HSCA.

IOW, the wording in the HSCA's finding is important because it tells how compelling the evidence was. And this isn't just me opining. The HSCA criticized the WC for being too definitive in the presentation of its conclusions. In light of that, how can you accuse me of being disingenuous for asking about the significance of the wording in the december draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The article's accuracy suffers from no mention of the original testimony of the Dallas ED physicians who described an entry wound on the right forehead and a large exit wound on the back ('occipital') portion of the head. It also fails to mention the clear movement of the President's head backwards in the Zapruder film. These facts have to be debated before the article can simply state: "Each group concluded that this shot entered the rear of President Kennedy's head (the House Select Committee determined the entry wound to be four inches higher than the Warren Commission), then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side." I'm not sure the second group did conclude this. It's such a crucial finding you'd think a good article would cite the relevant statements in the reports and the facts supporting it. The House committee concluded there probably was a shot from the Grassy Knoll based on the sound recordings particularly. Obviously the idea that LBJ, JEdgar and the CIA would orchestrate something like this is disturbing to the US social fabric. But it seems to be the truth nonetheless. Not much good if Wikipedia can't put all the facts on the record on the most crucial moment of the assassination.NimbusWeb (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to mention their testimony as they did not perform the autopsy. The autopsy article explores the autopsy at length. Besides, there were many conflicting accounts from various witnesses - some which match the WC conclusions, others which do not - and the article largely concentrates on the conclusions made by the various investigations. The backward movement of JFK's head isn't significant as his movement is too great to be accounted for by the impact of a bullet (which would be 1 or 2 inches at most), which is why investigations conclude that the movement was likely a neuro-muscular reaction.

These facts have to be debated before the article can simply state: "Each group concluded that this shot entered the rear of President Kennedy's head (the House Select Committee determined the entry wound to be four inches higher than the Warren Commission), then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side." I'm not sure the second group did conclude this. The second groups - the HSCA - DID conclude this, they made the same conclusions in terms of the bullet wounds as the WC did, save for the precise entry point of the head wound (the WC had it lower), but this did not affect the findings in terms of where the shots came from. While the HSCA concluded a bullet was fired from the knoll and therefore there was a conspiracy, they also concluded this shot missed as there is nothing from the autopsy doctors, their report, the photos or x-rays which indicate more than two bullets struck the president. With such an exhaustive investigation which explored the allegations in terms of the bullet wounds, down to expert analysis of the photos and x-rays to determine their authenticity, AND with the "conspiracy" conclusion of the HSCA, one would think that that matter was settled. Guess not. Your rather remarkable opinion that Hoover and the CIA were in cahoots is... interesting... but is, of course, just an opinion. Canada Jack (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with this article is that given the House Committee confirmed there was a second shooter and a conspiracy the article inadequately addresses these issues: 1) why secret service Agent Emory Roberts commanded the Love Field recall of Agent Rybka from the back of the President's car and Dealey Plaza recall of Agent Ready 2) why no motorcycle escort alongside the President or roof covering 3) the relative advantages of the grassy knoll compared to the book depository for a sniper both in terms of field of fire, distance to target, escape route 4) why the President's car didn't speed up after the first two shots- discuss whether this was or wasn't this contrary to protocol 5) the motivations and capacity of LBJ to organise a hit (accepting VP to 'lose a battle but win a war')- need to cite the statements of his mistress, Jacki's views that LBJ orchestrated it121.127.197.101 (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We have John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories for the wide variety of speculations and theories related to the Kennedy assassination. This article can't address all of the theories and arguments that have been advanced, and by consensus reflects the Warren Commission conclusions as the most widely accepted account in mainstream media, per Wikipedia policy. As you say, it's a conspiracy theory. Acroterion (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wonder what criteria is used to decide whether Warren Commission is 'widely accepted' 1) not public opinion 2)probably not academic debate (evenly split). This approach isn't encyclopaedic. It's like saying there's one 'widely accepted' version of what the Catholic Church is up to and that's all wikipedia will deal with. Failing to adequately present the evidence for and against is what will hinder this ever becoming a 'good article'121.127.197.101 (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your issue is, 121. First, in the lede, we have this: "the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979 concluded that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy," so while the scenarios here are largely those as set out by the WC, the article in fact frequently references the HSCA - which concluded "conspiracy." Further, despite the conclusion of "conspiracy," the HSCA nonetheless made identical conclusions about the shots which struck, and the man firing those bullets - Lee Harvey Oswald. And finally, most basically, there is NO agreed-upon counter-argument to the WC and HSCA conclusions. It's all very well to say public opinion believes "conspiracy" - and we quote extensively from one of the investigations which concluded conspiracy - but a quick glance as to those theories reveals that THIS page would have to be multiple times bigger to accommodate the differing scenarios. For example, just on the simple issue of Oswald himself, we'd have to add a) Oswald and another person(s) fired at JFK; b) Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination; c) Oswald was involved, but did not participate in the actual assassination. And from there, we have a myriad of possibilities, tracing Oswald's alleged dealings with the CIA, with anti- or pro-Castro activists... etc etc. Canada Jack (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of conspiracy theories. One of them must be right by the law of averages.  :-) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The HSCA was forced to conclude that there were four shots fired, on the basis of a sound recording, and as they could only link Oswald to three shots, there must have been a second shooter. The sound analysis was later found to be flawed, when reëxamined years later, but the report had been written and published by then. There is no evidence that anybody but Oswald knew ahead of time that there would be an assassination attempt in Dealey Plaza, and there is no physical evidence of a fourth shot. if there were any actual evidence of either of these things, it would be included here. Wikipedia is not a part of some vast and secret conspiracy to hush up LBJ's grab for power. --Pete (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, I think you're oversimplifying here. The HSCA also concluded that the WC's, FBI's, and CIA's investigations were severely flawed, that information was not properly shared. They found other evidence suggestive of a conspiracy, but the dictabelt was the only conclusive, scientific evidence (though maybe it wasn't so conclusive). Furthermore, the HSCA members themselves were very divided resulting in several dissenting opinions. And we don't know exactly what the HSCA was ready to say before dictabelt evidence, save for 1 sentence of the draft quoted in 1 of those dissenting opinions.Ggeezz (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is, perhaps, one valid point in everything 121 posted. The HSCA concluded that the Secret Service was "deficient in the performance of its duties," but that was mostly due to preparation. I don't know what the HSCA about performance during the actual assassination. Regardless, I don't see where this is mentioned and it probably should be. There's criticism of the Secret Service, but the HSCA's criticism would be the most official and authoritative.Ggeezz (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Bubba73's above 23:49, 27 June 2012 post: Why? Can't all the conspiracy theories be equally wrong? The so-called "Law of averages" isn't even a real scientific concept, after all. Wordreader (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)