Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 6

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 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Hey everybody, Well... there has been a lot of interjecting quotes and statements into this article over the past two months, stating the exit wound was at the back of Kennedy's head. I thought we put this issue to bed? Every official investigation has concluded back entry wound, frontal exit wound. Warren Commission, Ramsey Clark panel, and the HSCA all concluded a rear shooter for the head shot. And a clear viewing of the Z film shows where the exit wound was (the upper right front of the head). Anecdotal statements, and recollections 3 decades after the fact may have there place, but not sprinkled throughout the article. If they support a frontal entry wound, they are all provably false. Like I said before, these people may be sincere, but they are sincerely wrong. So these statements should be given very little, if any, mention

Here is a link that explains my position:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/

The JFK Autopsy: Critics say it was corrupted because it didn't show there was a fourth bullet or that the fatal shot entered the president's head from the front, not the back.

In the chaos and confusion of that day, many mistakes were made in the autopsy on Kennedy's body. But the medical photos and X-rays confirm that there were only two shots that struck the president and both came from the rear. Four separate government investigations have so concluded. The last one, the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978-79, had the largest forensics panel reexamining all the evidence.

As for the president's backwards head movement, the second and fatal shot -- as seen in the enhanced Zapruder film -- makes it appear that the shot came from the front. But experts explain that two things are happening in that split second. As the fatal bullet destroys the president's brain, he goes into a neuromuscular seizure and his body starts to stiffen up. At the same time that the bullet wound explodes out the right front side of his head, and as that blood and brain tissue moves out, it forces him in the opposite direction, the jet effect, back and to the left, violently.

Mytwocents 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know that I support your reasoning. Ramsquire 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So do I, for reasons you've given. Greer, driving the limo, says that JFK's head looked like a "hard boiled egg with the top chopped off" [1] and that's more or less what the Z film shows. Even Dr. Burkely (he whom 2-shooter theorists take to be gospel when it comes to the back wound) said the head wound was a simple matter of a bullet through the head and mentioned the right temple. There are two pictures which are nearly identical (which I should line up one day) of the White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his right temple for the press corps at Parkland Hosp, and of Abraham Zapruder pointing to HIS right temple for the benefit of the TV host, just an hour or two after the assassination. The doctors at Parkland mention the back of the head but that can mean many things, including everything rear of the ear. [2] Kemp Clark at the Parkland news conference says "Principally on his right side, towards the right side."

Now, having said all of that, it should be noted that if the right side of the head is closed over the ear, it still leaves a big hole in the upper right occiput, and we have sketches of that from several of the doctors.

But there's one additional scalp and skull wound which I almost hesitate to mention (because it complicates all this), and that's the only bit of scalp that the mortician and his tech found they had to replace with a rather small piece of rubber, after they got through replacing all the bone and cementing the remaining flaps of scalp over it. That piece, and that remaining bit of wound, is rather low-- so low it's in the dark area of the back of the head photo on autopsy, just above the rear hairline at the nape of the neck. AND it really is close to the occiputal protuberance, which the autopsy docs originally put as the entrance wound, then later the HCSA moved up 4 inches to the cowlick area. And I think it's what the Bethesda team were originally talking about, as an entrance wound.

This rather small lower wound under the hair near the nape of the neck can be seen in the back of the head photo if you use your imagination (how's THAT for weasel-like) but I'm trying to be honest. And it looks a little funny-- which is why conspiracy theorists point to it and say the photo has been doctored here. It hasn't-- what you're seeing is a dark patch under the hair which is a second hole. [3]. The mortician Robinson put it here: [4] and said scalp was available for everywhere else once they put it back in place, but this area was neatly hidden because the head rested right here on the pillow, so they just put rubber over it, combed hair over it, and that was that. It's relatively small, as noted. It corresponds quite well to the missing piece of occipital bone found by the medical student, called the "Harper fragment" [5] which didnt go to Bethesda and therefore Robinson the mortician didn't have it to reconstruct this small patch.

One more thing is explained by this bit: in that area it would also be quite possible to have some cerebellum coming out of the head, which at least one Dallas doctor thought he saw. I personally think it's a second small blow-out area which is too small to see in the Z film, and which simply got missed in the hoopla attending the MAJOR head wound, which is the "top of the boiled egg" thing that takes everything on the right-top of the head above the right ear off, and what we see in the Z film. No, I don't think this is a separate bullet wound-- just a bit of skull which got blown out lower down, took some scalp with it, and allowed cerebellum to protrude to confuse the Dallas docs.

You see, I suspect that EVERYBODY who saw JFK's head was right. It's just that the wounds are so massive and so amenable to getting covered and revealed in various procedures, that nobody really saw the whole thing.

However, you can see pretty much the whole thing in the front skull X-ray [6]. My only problem is it gets misinterpreted to say that the face is damaged! It's not, of course. But all that missing bone behind the face (including the back of the head on the right) makes it look like it is. Anyway, that's my "original research" thought. Take for what it's worth. I can't exactly push this as a POV in the article. SBHarris 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If this boy put as much elbow grease in the article as he do on this here page, we ol´timers would heff to pack up our stuff and hit the lonesome road, by golly. This boy sure can talk, I´ll give him that. Ol´ Muddy 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Investigates the use of lead fingerprinting. To me the title is misleading as it doesn't really challenge the lone gunman theory but tries to challenge the lead batches that were analyzed. I thought this was interesting in that the lead batch angle isn't in the Wikipedia article. Lead fragments left in Connelly and Kennedy had identical compositions of impurities (i.e. the magic bullet is real). This story attempts to repudiate it from a legal admissibilty point-of-view but I think it's still very strong evidence that their was only one shooter. Someone with more experience with this article might want to add this in. --Tbeatty 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence from witnesses that the casket that landed in Washington was not the same as the funeral home provided in Dallas, and there was a rough "V" cut on Kennedy´s head/forehead that was seen in Washington, but not seen on photos in Dallas. andreasegde 13:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are these witnesses? Ramsquire 22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy was "shipped" to Washington in a bronze casket. The hospital had two caskets delivered. One from the back (a grey, normal shipping casket) and one (the bronze one) from the front. I will find the refs again. I think it was a ruse to confuse the media, BTW, or maybe not... andreasegde 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Check this: [7]. It´s not mcadams though. andreasegde 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting on a new paragraph. Don't give me flack about it; if you get these things with too many colons you end up with way too wide a left margin <g>. The source on the casket stuff is Lifton (Best Evidence), and other people have debunked Lifton, so I won't bother [8]

. Basically a lot of the nonsense about the 2 caskets arriving at Bethesda comes from P. O'Connor, who is not to be trusted. For example, it's O'Connor who claims that the Air Force One casket was bronze and "ornate". But how would he know? (SEE BELOW) He was never on Air Force One. Photos we have of this casket going on and off this airplane show a fairly plain metal burial/display casket with rounded corners and handles. This one was damaged and was discarded in favor of the big mahogany casket which JFK went out of Bethesda in, and which was used for the lying in state and so on, and in which the body was buried.

Any casket a body is shipped in can be called a "shipping casket." Yes there are things like Ziegler cases which are only used for shipping, but nobody other than O'Connor thinks JFK ever went in one. Also, a lot of people including McHugh and Kellerman never left the casket between the time it came out of Air Force One and it went into Bethesda. Kellerman assisted in the autopsy-- where's Kellerman supposed to be during all this body switching?

Lifton gets a lot of mileage out of the fact that here were two ambulances (one used as a decoy), and the somewhat comical effect that the main group decoyed by the decoy was the casket team which went off into the night chasing it and couldn't find their way back for some time. However, there's no doubt where JFK's body was all this time-- there's no place else it could have gone. It was sitting in front of Bethesda in the ambulance with his wife from 7 PM or so, until an argument finished about whether or not JFK could be embalmed at Bethesda. A huge crowd gathered and were watching. Following which Jackie and Bobby went into the hospital about 7:15, and Bethesda's Admiral Galloway himself (yes probably in scrubs) got behind the wheel and drove the thing around back (people had troubling finding the morgue entrance, and certainly Greer had no idea where it was). With Kellerman and McHughs and some FBI people still in it. Humes got the body at 7:35.

Lifton makes something of somebody noting the body into the autopsy suite at 8 pm, but this is obviously an error since photography has started by then, and the first incission is 8:15 (before which a LOT of the autospy photos we have had already been taken, so all this started well before 8 pm). Basically, there's just no time for what Lifton and O'Connor's stuff to happen.

Finally, I have to note that O'Connor screwed things up badly enough by insisting that JFK had no brain. Then admitting that he wasn't in the room though a lot of the autopsy, so maybe he missed its removal, duh. Jim Jenkins saw Humes and Finck remove the brain, and Jenkins never left the autopsy except for one 10 minute sandwich break. Jenkins, unlike O'Connor, actually knew some pathology. That's for those people who think the three pathologists who signed off on the autopsy, didn't. SBHarris 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say I've been very entertained by this casket swapping stuff. I hadn't heard about it before andreasegde brought it up. Very interesting stuff. Ramsquire 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"A lot of the nonsense, who is not to be trusted, this is obviously an error, screwed things up badly enough so maybe he missed its removal, duh, unlike O'Connor, actually knew some pathology..." Well, there´s no arguing against that.

So the Dalllas undertaker gave them his best casket, which was a "fairly plain metal burial/display casket with rounded corners and handles" did he? Bronze is not plain metal, rounded corners make it more expensive, and all caskets have handles. Saying it was a "fairly plain metal" casket makes it sound a shipping casket, which is what O´Connor saw. [9] andreasegde 11:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The National Archives released documents Tuesday that answer a question historians have asked for years: what happened to the bronze casket that bore the slain body of President John F. Kennedy from Dallas, Texas, to Washington after the assassination? [10]

One document said Dallas undertaker Vernon Oneal wanted the casket back so he could display it in his funeral home. Another memo indicated that the undertaker was offered $100,000 for the casket and the hearse that carried it from the hospital to the airport. [11] Caskets for every occasion - real cheap 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said O'Neal gave them his best casket. A casket that is bronze in color can be made of any metal. You can buy a bronze color metal casket for $800 today from COSTCO. As for rounded corners making a casket more expensive, you don't know what you're talking about. All caskets have handles, but only display caskets have the ceremonial handles on the sides used by pallbearers. These fold in, in dedicated shipping caskets, which this one obviously isn't, from the photos (there's a much better set in Lifton). SBHarris 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as sure as eggs is eggs he wouldn´t have given them a cheap casket, would he? P.S. I am always irritated by your comments that everyone else is wrong but you. If you know so much about it, then why not write a book about it so that we can all go home? Call it, "OSWALD DID IT, by SBHarris". (A catchy title.) andreasegde 21:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

O´Connor: "Then I found out that the casket I saw come into our morgue in Bethesda wasn't the same coffin that he was put in at Parkland to ship to Bethesda". [12] He didn´t know about the bronze casket, he found out about it later. andreasegde 22:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did that come from? Maybe Oswald shot Jack with an ice pick. [13] andreasegde 12:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Blow up a balloon and then make it explode in some way that simply causes it to fail, such as sitting on it. Now, spread out the result and take a look at the tears in the rubber. Many of them, perhaps most of them, will be triangular and pointed. Thin materials with elasticity and a reasonable amount of tensile strength, whether balloon rubber or human scalp, fail in this way during overpressure explosions. Tears propagate in straight lines. If a single line isn't enough, new points of tear propagate out from the original. The intersections of linear tears produce acute points. SBHarris 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Many of them, perhaps most of them" is not conclusive, and would be regarded as a POV. When the doctors from both hospitals talked with each other, none of them knew where that strange incision had come from, or who had done it. It was not a surgical cut, because it was so crude. [14] andreasegde 21:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Tears propagate in straight lines". What are you on about? I have no idea... andreasegde 03:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You would if you'd try the balloon experiment. I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink. Blow up and pop a sealed cheap plastic sandwich bag. Open your eyes. Don't just sit there and be skeptical and do nothing. Or, on the other hand, be my guest and do nothing. Anybody else is free to do the experiments I suggest, and you can continue to sit there and make noise. SBHarris 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So... I´m a horse, I am blind (or refuse to open my eyes) I am lazy, and I sit here and do nothing. Interesting. Everybody is allowed to have their own opinions, of course. --andreasegde 11:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that a human skull is not a balloon, but everybody knows that anyway. If it was, then every skull would burst like a balloon as soon as it was damaged. I also think doing tests on apples, strawberries, balloons or anything else apart from a human skull are worthless.

Both sets of doctors at both hospitals say that they do not know where the V cut came from. andreasegde 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

When the gun is fired, it discharges gases directly from the muzzle into the wound along with the bullet. The gases penetrate into the subcutaneous tissue, where they expand causing the skin around the entrance wound to stretch and tear. The tears or lacerations radiate out from the central defect giving the wound a stellate or star-shaped appearance.

Exit wounds can appear round, oval, slitlike, stellate, or crescent shaped. In other words, exit wounds can take any shape whether small or large (Figure 3 ). A common misconception is that an exit wound is bigger than its corresponding entrance wound. Size does not determine whether a gunshot wound is an exit wound; rather, it is the lack of a margin of abrasion that distinguishes an exit wound from an entrance wound. Exit wounds may have small marginal tears caused by the bullet pushing the skin outward. Exit wounds may also have an atypical appearance.6 One example is a shored or reinforced exit wound (Figure 4 ). This is an exception to the rule that only entrance wounds have an associated margin of abrasion. Shored exit wounds are encountered when the skin is supported by a firm surface, such as a wall or floor, as the bullet exits. The exiting bullet pushes the skin into the supporting surface, which scrapes and abrades it. Articles of clothing, such as leather belts, may also provide sufficient firmness to produce shored exit wounds. Of course, where there is an exit wound, there must also be an entrance wound. Even so, a shored exit wound can closely resemble an entrance wound and may occasionally challenge even an experienced forensic pathologist.

Exit wounds from high-powered rifles may be large because of the high velocity and kinetic energy of rifle ammunition (Figure 5 ). Stellate-shaped exit wounds, which in rifle wounds occur over soft tissue as well as over bony surfaces, are common and may resemble contact entrance wounds. Even though an exit wound from a rifle may be larger and may cause more damage than an exit wound from a handgun, an exit wound from a rifle will still lack a margin of abrasion. By approximating the wound edges, the presence or absence of a margin of abrasion can be confirmed. [15]

This is from Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine: Vol. 130, No. 9, pp. 1283–1289. "Practical Pathology of Gunshot Wounds." Let me know if you need more explaining about what the word "stellate" means. If you don't understand that it implies the presense of V-shaped corners in skin cuts, just let me know. I'll be glad to explain in even smaller words. SBHarris 04:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and nowhere does it say "straight", or "straight line", such as in "tears propogate in straight lines." If the wound was stellate, it would have had to be extremely large. It was a v-shaped cut. [16] I think someone just shot himself in the foot. andreasegde 08:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe "I'll be glad to explain in even smaller words" should be written as `simpler words´, or `in a simpler way´, and not "smaller words", because that would indicate a difference in the size of the typeface. andreasegde 14:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It WAS extremely large! It was whole right side of the man's head! I can't believe you're looking around the edges of a large wound and saying "Gee, what are these little triangular flappy things....?" What you see as a "V-shaped cut" is just one star point of many from the whole side of the head being blown out. The "devil's ear flap" of bone, which is also triangular, is another of such pieces. LOOK at the top of the man's head. The scalp flaps reflected back are a series of narrow strips with fairly straight edges, all coming to ends and points, radiating back from a center. How much clearer does it have to be? [17] SBHarris 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the third bullet made a very large, and almost perfect, star shape on the back of Kennedy´s head? [18] I have no idea which planet you are on. You would be laughed out of every court. 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have looked at your photographic reference, and it shows nothing. It does not even show the V-cut. andreasegde 21:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor would it be expected to, since it does not show that area. The blow-out wound is to the SIDE of JFK's head, above his right ear. And no, it's not perfect. It is, however, more or less surrounded by tags and strips of scalp and dura which are more or less linear and which taper to points. You can see some of them hanging down in the shot above [19], but their original position was to cover the side of the head. They aren't (obviously) in their original position. As for the V-cut and the devil's ear boneflap near JFK's forward hairline (at his right temple), they are merely points of a large star-shaped (stellate) wound to the side of JFK's head, which is the type which would be expected in such circumstances, as the forensic reference I provided notes. I can't make you believe it. SBHarris 19:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you can´t. "It´s not perfect", "more or less surrounded", "more or less linear", and "the type which would be expected" explain my reasons, which more or less sums up the point I am making, which is what would be normally expected. A POV is a POV. I have also never read anything about a huge star on Kennedy´s head (not even by Posner).

"I don't think any of us got a good look at the head wound" (Perry) [8]; The President had quite thick hair, and there was a lot of blood and tissue (Midgett) [9]; the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted ... (Perry) [10]; He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn't tell what was wound versus dried blood (Baxter) [11]; [20]

"describing the head wound as circular, about 5 inches," [21]

Yeah a POV is a POV. How many bad scalp wounds have your sewn up, and scalp flaps rotated into place to do it? I've probably done about 50. I look at the scalp flap that hangs most nearly downward in [22] and can guess that as a superficial piece of scalp, it rotates up and quite neatly fits into the "V" wound above the right eye, the one everyone says is surgical. It's not surgical. It's a stellate blowout evulsion. The great big bullet exit hole over the ear basically has one piece of scalp with hair draped over the middle of it, coming from the left side of JFK's head. Too bad they didn't just lift that up and away, and you could see the whole thing, which fits more or less with the loss of one you see that entire side area on X-ray. But there are plenty of triangular flaps here hanging away from the wound, and they are all ends of a classic star-shaped pattern. And there's one star-shaped point on the forehead where one of them came from. Again, you don't have to believe it. You can believe gray aliens did al this with a probe, if you like. But it's clear to me what probably happened, as I've seen much like it (though of course nothing this bad, and not with skull and brain blown out under it, except once). SBHarris 17:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about your own original research, and you are still being vague. (My italics in your comments, BTW.)

Give me just one photographic example of when a bullet comes out of a forehead and makes a V-cut. It shouldn´t be too hard, if it´s so common. The ball is in your court. --andreasegde 21:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The "V" cut - Part Two

Why does it have to be a forehead?? If you can find the famous photo of mobster Bugsy Siegel lying dead on Virginia Hill's couch in the famous 1947 hit (not the photo of his face in his Wiki, but the one which shows him on the couch from back of his neck with face hidden), you can see a beautiful triangular skin flap blasted away from the neck, with the tip pointed at the ear, where the bullet which entered his right cheek exited the neck. That's a stellate exit flap. Sorry I can't find it on the net. There's a copy in the Wolfe book The Black Dahlia Files, just preceding page 115. Photo credit is the "Delmar Watson Archives." Perhaps you can find it. SBHarris 21:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And here are a lot of stellate wounds with "V-cuts" from contact firearm blasts. Nobody did any surgery on any of them. Now, you may argue that these were caused by gas expansion and contact. Yes, but as the forensics article already cited above points out, high velocity rounds through skull can mimic contact wounds, since the pressure failure is similar. The point here is that disrupted scalp comes apart in triangular peices naturally under pressure. No scalpel is required for the straight edges or the V-shapes seen in the torn out tissue. Do you get, er, the POINT? [23] SBHarris 22:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reference is ALL about CLOSE CONTACT wounds, and the gasses emitted. Oswald was NOT standing next to JFK. Are you missing the point here? Give me a photo, or at least a proper reference, please. andreasegde 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Denton paper, already referenced, shows V-flaps in two exit wounds, and one of them (in scalp) is not even a high velocity one. Also the paper points out that stellate wounds are possible on exit in high velocity situations, or over flat bone, no gas or contact necessary. [24]. If you want to view the V-cut bullet exit in Bugsy's neck, the Black Dahlia Files ISBN is 0060582499 [25]SBHarris 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Note the stellate wound due to the entry of a high velocity projectile." (NOT exit.) [26]

"Contact wounds typically cause a characteristic star or stellate wound. Contact wounds possess the characteristic stellate pattern." [27]

"a standard firearm, when pressed tight to the skin, will produce a stellate rupture. This is because the skin is burst outwards by the expanding gasses which follow the course of the projectile. [28]

She had suffered a "deep punctate stellate wound above her right forehead." This type of injury, according to medical textbooks, often occurs as the result of a contact gunshot wound. When a gun is fired touching flesh, the resultant gasses, trapped between a layer of skin and the underlying bone, can cause a bursting, tearing effect on the surrounding tissue leaving a star-shaped (punctate stellate meaning star-shaped puncture) wound.” [29]

Entry, not exit. "A high-velocity projectile". You are advocating a shot from the knoll. --andreasegde 11:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Exit wounds from high-powered rifles may be large because of the high velocity and kinetic energy of rifle ammunition (Figure 5 ). Stellate-shaped exit wounds, which in rifle wounds occur over soft tissue as well as over bony surfaces, are common and may resemble contact entrance wounds. Even though an exit wound from a rifle may be larger and may cause more damage than an exit wound from a handgun, an exit wound from a rifle will still lack a margin of abrasion. By approximating the wound edges, the presence or absence of a margin of abrasion can be confirmed. [30]

This is from Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine: Vol. 130, No. 9, pp. 1283–1289. "Practical Pathology of Gunshot Wounds." Let me know if you need more explaining about what the word "stellate" means. If you don't understand that it implies the presense of V-shaped corners in skin cuts, just let me know. I'll be glad to explain in even smaller words. SBHarris 05:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think this has gone far enough. You are now repeating yourself (see above):

"This is from Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine: Vol.......... If you don't understand that it implies the presense of V-shaped corners in skin cuts, just let me know. I'll be glad to explain in even smaller words."

After having read your talk page (where you are very often friendly and helpful) it is quite clear that you use this page, and others, to "let off steam". Example: (please do stop using policy pages as a soapbox. Jkelly 19:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

"Please do stop using policy pages as a soapbox" is merely wikispeak for somebody who is pointing out that wiki polity could use a change in some area. It does evolve, you know, and nearly every aspect of it now was something not there in the beginning. Nor will you recognize the place in in a few years. Example: the bio policy on living persons evolves daily. I expect that eventually living persons won't BE bio'd here. As for personalities here, what may be "quite clear" to you about ME, may not in fact be true at all. You know next to nothing about ME from reading my TALK page. Making such sweeping judgements about somebody you do not know, is a bad idea. If you'd read every one my many thousands of edits here, you just be beginning to have some idea of who I am and what I'm on about. Then you might start on my tens of thousands of posts to Usenet, then my published articles, scientific writings, patents and so on. After that, you'd have some chance of accurately commenting on what I do where, and why. Until then, don't waste your time.

FYI, in the exchanges above, I have cited published science that high velocity exit wounds from bullets may produce stellate wounds, which means in practise that they have triangular flaps. I have gotten angry at Andreasedge who doesn't believe this, despite being shown the literature and several other examples from history (only one of which is JFK). The fact that I become angry at such behavior does not mean that I come here to "let off steam." Such behavior, which amounts to unreasonable skepticism of forensic science by a novice, is completely worthy of anger. Do you want to comment on this specific topic? Because the raw facts of it underlie all of your other comment, and must back it up. It's one thing if I'm angry at somebody who doesn't believe in (say) CO2 caused global warming. It's quite another if I'm angry at somebody who doesn't believe men ever landed on the moon or traveled in space. The facts themselves dictate the appropriate emotion from the rational man. Okay, now your turn. SBHarris 06:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's nothing more frustrating than someone who will simply gainsay or ignore a fact without a rational reason. Like this one time, I pointed out that both persons who saw Oswald with his infamous paper bag testified in exacting detail how the bag was too small to hold his rifle, and an editor responded by telling me that the simple answer was that both persons had faulty memories. Joegoodfriend 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheap shot. Frazier said he didn't get a good look at it, and we know Randle didn't. Also Randle's initial estimate was 3 feet (just about right) and she changed it later. This is NOT a matter of science. Come on. [31] SBHarris 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're taking remarks out of context to make it sound like the two were ambiguous or inconsistent regarding their description of the bag. They weren't. Frazier's subjective remark about a 'good' look doesn't contradict his statements that the bag fit between armpit and palm, and that the bag found in the SBD didn't look like it was made of the same material. Randle demonstrated that she wasn't very good at estimating the lengths of things in inches, but her description of what she saw was consistent with her brother's: Bag too short. On the other hand, I guess I shouldn't have changed the subject for this old argument, and I'm not qualified to discuss exit wounds and stuff, so I'll retreat from this one. Joegoodfriend 04:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Randle's testimony through the window, which kept changing, is for me right out. As for Frazier, when he said he didn't get or take a close look I think we should take him at his word. Much has been made of the bag carried between palm and armpit, but the truth of the matter is, that without really looking at a man from both sides (as he pirouettes in front of you), who has something carried that way, and doing it very carefully, you can't TELL if it's all up under his armpit, or just extends to there and continues on up, hidden by the shoulder, on the other side. You're especially likely to be fooled that way if you're not paying attention. It's like a coin held between the fingers of a magician. Try it yourself. You can make a package look superficially like it's just to the armpit, to somebody looking at you from just one angle, so long as it's not so long as to actually extend ABOVE your shoulder on the other side, which this one would NOT have been. Hard to explain this in words, but I've made a paper package with a yardstick and tried it out, and it's very possible to carry it somewhat deceptively, so long as you know where your audience is. Again, try it. SBHarris 22:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Insulting the intelligence of other editors is not considered good form. Stop it. --andreasegde 19:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted all of your (andreasegde´s) edits on this article today, because I feel you may have cut too deep. When making that many non-minor changes, you may want to explain yourself on the talk page to provide other editors with the opportunity to reach a consensus on your work. Also, please remember to not delete information you believe to be true or general knowledge simply because it is not sourced. Lastly, if you delete paragraphs, be nice enough to put it on the talk page so that we can try to reach consensus as well. Thanks.

"It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. However, some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source, particularly when the material is not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful. Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the [citation needed] template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding the not verified template or the unsourced template at the top of the page."

"Do not, however, remove statements that you believe to be both true and common knowledge, simply because they aren't sourced. Don't, for instance, remove a reference to "earth's elliptical orbit" simply because the writer has not supported the assertion that planetary orbits are elliptical."

"If you do honestly disbelieve a statement, do remove it and request a source on the talk page. If you do honestly think it isn't common knowledge, do tag it as requiring a reference or query it on the talk page."

Sorry about adding all that Wiki policy language. I hated doing it but I figured it be easier for everyone to see what I'm talking about instead of simply citing to WP:RS.

Ramsquire 17:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely fine by me, Ramsquire. It´s called working together, which I heartily approve of. (I agree that I went too far on some things, BTW...) andreasegde 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don´t think the Oswald photo should be there. It´s next to the funeral section. Doesn´t anyone think it´s in bad taste? It´s also too large for the section it is in. andreasegde 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's in poor taste but I have no problem if you want to remove it. Although, someone may want a photo of the accused assassin somewhere in this article. Ramsquire 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think of it as bad taste because it's historical. Maybe if you were talking about JFK's page, but I think people expect to see information about Oswald, and even his picture, on the JFK assassination page. --Hobbes747 18:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is in a section that clearly links to Oswald´s own page. My point is that it is too big for the section, and that being next to the funeral it is in extremely bad taste. Are there not enough photos of Oswald´s mug shot elswhere? I will delete it, and wait for the flak... andreasegde 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the time-line and moved the Oswald piece and the rifle away from the funeral. Maybe the photo could go in there now. OK, OK... I will put it in. andreasegde 21:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Some sections repeat a lot of information that can be found on other pages. The links under the headers defintely point to the right place to look. andreasegde 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of the "recordings" and "official investigation" sections, most of the sections in this article are two or three short paragraphs. I don't find them to be redundant or long. Maybe the HSCA section could do with some trimming, but all the other stuff seems fine to me.Ramsquire 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean The Carcano rifle, The Warren Commission, and The House Select Committee on Assassinations. It would be nice to have a general summary of what readers can expect, rather than delving into facts: "A 6.5 mm 160 gr. round-nosed fully copper-jacketed military-type bullet, of a type normally used in 6.5 mm military rifles (such as the Mannlicher-Carcano) was found on Connally's stretcher." P.S. I have just re-read "The Carcano rifle" piece, and there is more deatailed stuff there than on the "John F. Kennedy assassination rifle" page... Merge, maybe? andreasegde 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I sort of agree with the WC and HSCA sections but that length grew out of NPOV concerns and for that reason, I'd be hesitant to touch it. I guess if you think the rifle section is too detailed, which is different from too long, then I guess we can use more sumarizing languge, e.g. just saying that the bullet found was matched to the rifle, instead of describing the actual bullet.Ramsquire 19:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Will do. andreasegde 14:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Done the rifle piece. andreasegde 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don´t understand this: A bullet found on Connally's stretcher, (CE 399, see single bullet theory), was ballistically matched to the rifle found in the book depository building. The previous March, the rifle had been sold by mail-order to an "A. Hidell," was put back in again. It is already on the Rifle page. Why....? andreasegde 11:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Without the information you deleted, the section is irrelevant. That piece of information ties Oswald to the weapon and ties him to the assassination. It has to stay in this article or simply delete the section.Ramsquire 16:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The rifle section is longer than Oswald´s... andreasegde 12:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the correlation. You can't delete the information which makes the article relevant because it is longer than another section. Ramsquire 17:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it looks as if the rifle is more important than Oswald. andreasegde 12:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. The substance of the sections clearly denote which is more important, regardless of the size of the section. But if you feel strongly about it, we can do an RfC on it. Ramsquire 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no RfC, Ramsquire. This is only a very minor point, and it is not a disagreement. It´s only a question of style, and layout. If you really think it should be as it is, then that´s fine by me. (I do think that the two articles should be balanced in terms of content, though...  :) andreasegde 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't want to do an RfC either. I just suggested it because if it was something that was important to you, I would not have minded hearing a third or fourth opinion. Ramsquire 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it was only a minor point. It´s good that we´re discussing style. This is a good thing for an article, is it not? --andreasegde 15:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What was controversial about Christchurch Star (New Zealand's paper) press release Kennedy assassination? Could you please include that into article? --195.210.230.222 13:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this but I don't know exactly what does it actually mean: As reported independently by Colonel Fletcher Prouty USAF (Retired), whoever set Kennedy up, accidentally launched a full international newswire biography on obscure “killer” Lee Harvey Oswald, without first taking the trouble to check his world clock. --195.210.230.222 13:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Prouty is full of it, as usual. They rushed out an edition covering the assassination, but it hardly required foreknowledge to do so, and why would The Conspiracy alert some paper in New Zealand? Gamaliel 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Because they accuse Oswald even before he was accused. --195.210.230.222 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Only if you don't account for the 19 hour time difference. Gamaliel 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

They had a photo of Oswald in a suit and tie, and not in a t-shirt. Where did they get that from? andreasegde 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I presume they obtained it from news archives of previous coverage of Oswald, such as his defection or his activities in New Orleans. It looks much like this picture which on the JFK Lancer website is labeled "Oswald in New Orleans". Gamaliel 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is a "still" taken from video/film when Oswald was on TV in New Orleans - arguing about whether he was a Communist/Marxist/Leninist/whatever, after his "Fair Play for Cuba" thing. It is not a posed photo.

Although not suggesting a conspiracy, I would be interested to know how they got a photo (without fax or internet) to New Zealand in such a short time. andreasegde 21:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not terribly familiar with telecommunications technology of the 1960s, I'd imagine it wouldn't be impossible. It's a low quality photo and fax machines did exist at the time, I believe. Has anyone in the conspiracy press like Prouty just asked the newspaper? Gamaliel 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right; fax machines had existed for decades by that time. The first transoceanic fax took place in 1924, and took only six minutes for a photograph. Office and home fax machines had to wait until the technology allowed for smaller machines; this clearly would not have been an issue for a newspaper. --Charlene.fic 17:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mystery solved. Gamaliel 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

From http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Heritage/Newspapers/Star23Nov1963/

Bob Cotton was a reporter at the paper at the time and can recall clearly the events of November 1963. He says that even in 1963 global communication was fast and effective everywhere and an assassination of a US President meant that everything and everyone on the Star worked doubly quick. News then came by AAP and various wire services which would have been competing to get the news out to their subscribers. Photographs were usually wired to Australia, then to Auckland and thence to Christchurch. This time, to get the photographs early, some of the geographical links were by-passed through technical ingenuity at the Star. Even so the paper would not have been published until 1.30 pm or 2.15 - 2.30 pm depending on the edition. Bob Cotton says that the Star was never published in the morning during his time on the newspaper (from 1958). The JFK character Mr X is not even shown with a genuine Star newspaper. He buys a thin-width broadsheet whereas the Star was always produced as a full-width broadsheet.

Bob Cotton also explains that every newspaper has a large store of biographical material and says that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a stranger to the media. Information on him would have been readily available in US newspapers and media offices and would have been sent out quickly. In 1959 there had been much coverage in newspapers about young men defecting to the Soviet Union and Oswald's defection had been covered in detail in The Washington Post, The Washington Evening Star and The New York Times. Again it was widely reported when Oswald, now with a Russian wife and child, returned to the United States in 1962. The portrait of him in the Star had appeared in The Fort Worth Press on 16 November 1963.

Questions

• I have to say that using a phrase like “Mystery solved” (without colons signifying an answer, or not signing in for the later comments) is beyond the pale. If one knows so much about this, then why does one not write a book about it, so that we can all go home? However (unfortunately) this is not the case: [32]
• “Photographs were usually wired to Australia, then to Auckland and thence to Christchurch. This time, to get the photographs early, some of the geographical links were by-passed through `technical ingenuity´ at the Star”. “Technical ingenuity” - how was this done?
• “Information on him would have been readily available in U.S. newspapers and media offices and would have been sent out quickly.” New Zealand as well?
• “In 1959 there had been much coverage in newspapers about young men defecting to the Soviet Union.” How many young men defected in 1959?

This is really interesting:

• “The portrait of him (Oswald) in the Star had appeared in `The Fort Worth Press´ on 16 November 1963,” (but presumably in The New Zealand Star as well). This was was 6 days before Kennedy’s assassination.

The answer is probably very simple, but confusing POVs, and quotes without factual/technical evidence only seem to cloud the matter at hand. andreasegde 22:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Gams is referring to how the NZ paper got the Oswald info. That's the mystery that was solved, so to speak. Before the fax machine became widespread, wire services used a machine called a telex, which was similar to sending a telegram. I assume pictures could also be sent by this technology. Otherwise the AP and news wire services would have to mail their photos which would lead to news stories without photos especially if your paper was far away from the scene of the news. Ramsquire 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ramsquire, but what was the quality photo-standard/quality of "Telex" in those days? I also wonder (as previously said) where they got the photo of Oswald in a suit and a tie? It´s a puzzler... andreasegde 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is that a puzzler? There are plenty of pictures of him in a suit and tie prior to the assassination. Gamaliel 23:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple and has already been provided to you. What is "beyond the pale" is your continual sniping over your preferred talk page formatting techniques. Gamaliel 23:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You have insulted me again, Gamaliel. I deeply resent your comment about, "your continual sniping over your preferred talk page formatting techniques". You are an admin, and you know the rules. It is Wikipedia. If you disagree about my comments, then please feel free to say so, but please don´t complain about the rules. (The right amount of colons, please) andreasegde 23:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Gamaliel 23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture quality was poor on the telex, look at the photo in the article. It's grainy and distorted. News agencies have reams and reams of stock photos (and nowadays video) from anyone who has ever appeared on a news program anywhere in the world. Ramsquire 23:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ramsquire, but I think I can not answer your reply, because Gamaliel has added a "Personal attack intervention noticeboard" link above. I think I will have to wait until it is sorted out. It´s unfortunate. andreasegde 23:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't been reported. He's telling you where to take your complaints, if you have any. Ramsquire 23:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I thank you (again) Ramsquire, but I believe that is the last resort, and I am not willing to go there, because it is the last resort.

I don´t apppreciate Gamaliel´s insults, and his flouting of the rules. He has twice pointed out to me on my Talk Page about leaving a summary when I have edited and did not leave a summary. (He was right, BTW). Why can I not make a similar comment when he makes a mistake? andreasegde 00:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The differences are 1)I pointed out on your talk page and didn't clutter up this page and sidetrack and ignore article discussion 2)I did it in what I thought was a civil tone and not an exasperated one, calling it "beyond the pale", etc. 3) I didn't do it while simultaneously making snooty remarks about "writing a book", etc. 4)everyone should be using edit summaries while the matter of adding your remarks as a reply or a new thought is a personal preference. Note that when you started a new section instead of making a subsection, I didn't post remarks here hectoring you about it, I just changed it. Gamaliel 03:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not rise to the bait. --andreasegde 10:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What bait? It was an honest explaination. You need to calm down. Gamaliel 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The assassination happened on Friday at 12:30pm November 22 (declared dead at 01:00pm), so at the moment assassination took place the time in Wellington (New Zealand) was already Saturday 07:30am November 23. Am I missing something? --213.250.13.165 08:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And the paper wasn't published until 1:30 pm November 23 New Zealand time. What's the problem? Gamaliel 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this information from? --195.210.200.27 17:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper's webpage. A link is above in the previous discussion. Gamaliel 17:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And seing the video footage: Is there any doubt that there were at least two (2) shooters?! --213.250.13.165 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What video? If you have pictures of a second gunman, I'd love to see them. Gamaliel 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it´s called the Zapruder film, which was later transferred to video. If you have pictures of Oswald shooting, I´d love to see them. andreasegde 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not rise to the bait. Gamaliel 16:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What bait? It was an honest explanation. You need to calm down. andreasegde 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that we're both on the same page here, can we please return to some semblance of civility? Gamaliel 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be a pleasure, if you stop making "inane comments" and "sniping" remarks. andreasegde 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me, if you can manage to control yourself when someone misplaces a colon. Gamaliel 17:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets everyone take a step back and discuss the article and possible changes.Ramsquire 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. andreasegde 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You will notice that I moved your comment and put it in the right place. andreasegde 18:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And I restored it because it was originally placed exactly where I intented to place it. And if you are truly interested in civility, next time you notice a typo, just correct it instead of putting it in italics. Gamaliel 18:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to take this page off of my watch list; the childish arguing has gotten really annoying. Kennedy would have wanted you all to try to get along. --Hobbes747 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. andreasegde 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Officer Tippett [sic] who Oswald allegedly also killed? It seems that some conspiracy theorists are totally ignorant [sic] of the basic facts that they ignore important issues.

Please sign your edits. Tippit is mentioned in this article and in the Oswald article. Ramsquire 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Officer Tippit is mentioned, but this article is about the assassination of John Kennedy. It would not be prudent (or logical) to include both persons in the same article. He was called Tippit, and not Tippett. --andreasegde

No, it's spelled Tippit. 68.251.249.45 22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, Officer Tippit. I corrected it, and I stand corrected. andreasegde

I watched an interesting video on youtube about how the secret service was told before the assassination to stay away from the President's limo. I recommend that it be watched by everyone. [33]

Whoever you are (please sign in) it is very interesting. There are some points to be made:

• Are there any (previous to Dallas) photos/videos of Kennedy without agents standing on the rear bumper/trunk?

• If there are photos/videos of nobody being there (so we accept that it had happened before) then why did the agent complain so much (at Love Field) about being told to travel on Johnson´s car? If it was normal for him to do that, then why did he complain? (Obviously we can´t hear what was said, but his body language says a lot.)

• Why was he told to not stand behind Kennedy that day? --andreasegde 10:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that it´s not conclusive...

Nov. 18, 1963. President John F. Kennedy's motorcade four days before the assassination – with agents at the rear. [34] Standing in the middle seat with two politicians behind him, but no agents. (June 6th, 1963). [35] In a car without a place for agents. [36] In Ireland, with agents on either side. [37] March 27 1963. No agents. [38] --andreasegde 12:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

JFK himself dictated his Secret Service protection level, and usually it wasn't enough. You're talking about a man who got mobbed once by a bunch of foreign students on the White House lawn, who stole his hankerchief and tie-clasp-- pulled them right off. Too close. JFK waded into crowds in Ireland on a push and shove basis. A week before he was assassinated, he actually called off his usual police motorcycle detail on a trip to Manhattan, and when his limo was stopped for a light on Madison Ave, a woman rushed the car and fired off a flash in JFK's face. Could have been a shotgun. His Secret Service detail freaked and so he re-added the motorcycle escort for Dallas (probably also in part due to Adlai Stevenson's bad experience there). But he refused a car top because he wanted the crowds to see him well. One of the last words of his life was to remind Jackie to take off the sunglasses she kept putting on, whenever the crowds were thin. SBHarris 22:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted a portion of the article attempting to mischaracterize the Warren Commission and containing unverified research. Please note that the WC did not specify any timeframe for the assassination. Ramsquire 21:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: as an expert bolt action rifleman, once desribed by those who ought to know as 'a natural', my opinion for what it's worth, is that the Warren Commission report is an official conspiracy theory.

The news tape shown above about Kennedy's body guard being taken off just before the assassination by Emory Roberts identifies him in a key role. [39] Emory Roberts also shows up again in another key role when he soon afterwards stops a secret service agent from going to President Kennedy's aid once the shooting started.

• William Manchester, The Death of a President (1967)

Agent Jack Ready, started to step off the right running board and was ordered back by [Emory]Roberts

• House Select Committee on Assassinations (1979)

Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, November 22, 1963.

"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...."

HSCA Report points out the same thing about Emory Roberts: “Special Agent Ready, on the right front running board of the Presidential follow-up car, heard noises that sounded like firecrackers and ran toward the President's limousine. But he was immediately called back by Special Agent Emory P. Roberts, in charge of the follow-up car.”167

"The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate."

"The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties."

"Secret Service agents in the motorcade were inadequately prepared to protect the President from a sniper."

Also, Winston G. Lawson (secret service agent in charge of the trip) called off a back-up car of homicide officers who guard visiting dignitaries, as mentioned in the article.

RPJ 03:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the tape is interesting, but look at the "Secret Service" aricle above (and photos) and you will see that Kennedy was sometimes protected, and sometimes not. I have no idea why this happened. As for Emory Roberts... that has to be cleared up, but it is interesting. --andreasegde 19:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

His evidence: "About this time I saw SA Clinton Hill trying to get on left rear step of the President's car. He got aboard and climbed up over the back of the car and placed himself over the President and Mrs. Kennedy. After SA Hill got on rear step of the President's car it appeared that SA John Ready was about to follow and go for the right rear step, however, I told him not to jump, as we had picked up speed, and I was afraid he could not make it." --andreasegde 19:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and none of this is hard to believe. Hill, behind Jackie, was first to jump from the trailing limo. Jackie knew where he was, and her first move after watching JFK's head explode, was to make for Clint Hill. Hill was really Jackie's personal Secret Service agent, in a way. Hill was even her designated tennis partner, most of the time. If there was any agent Jackie was going to go for, in dire danger and emergency, it would be Hill, and vice versa. And that's just what we see on the Zapruder film happen. SBHarris 22:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The film of the motorcade at the airport shows Robert Emory telling a secret service agent not to ride on the back of the platform of the President's car. Clearly if an agent had been riding in the place for him to stand to protect the president, a sniper would have had a very difficult time being able to shoot Kennedy from the back.[40] But, Emory Roberts intervened and told the agent not to ride where he could protect the president.

Then, the House Select Committee on Assassinations found that a short time later after the shooting started that “Special Agent Ready . . . ran toward the President's limousine. But he was immediately called back by Special Agent Emory P. Roberts, in charge of the follow-up car.” HSCA 167

Emory Roberts denies this and said: [I]t appeared that SA John Ready was about to follow and go for the right rear step, however, I told him not to jump, as we had picked up speed, and I was afraid he could not make it."

I assume that Roberts meant that he told agent Ready not to "jump" from the follow up car that he and Agent Ready were riding.

Either version shows Emory Roberts may have cost the President his life. Moreover, if the HSCA version is true then Roberts is also not telling the truth and he is trying to minimize his blame for the president's death. First, when Robetts pulled an agent off the back of Kennedy's car and second when he called back agent Ready who was running to save the President's life.

RPJ 02:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "was about to follow", is highly suspect, but if he is telling the truth, he must be one of the most incompetent agents in history. --andreasegde 11:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited out a summary of the WC findings re:timing by RPJ. I did it because if the WC is considered a primary source, then RPJ's summary is synthesis and thus original research. But if the WC is a secondary source, his section can be re-added. I am just not sure. A primary source can be "an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources." That's my dillemma. Ramsquire 16:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind the above post, misread the original edit. Addition is fine. Ramsquire 18:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy was shot and killed in the United States. Oswald was living in the United States. The FBI has jurisdiction in the United States.

In fact, the FBI had been keeping track of Oswald up to the time of the Kennedy murder but Oswald wasn’t under constant surveillance because he wasn’t perceived as an imminent threat. This fact is well covered in the article

On the other hand, the CIA operates outside the United States. The CIA is specifically prohibited from conducting field operations on U.S. soil. Therefore, Kennedy’s death doesn’t fall within the CIA’s jurisdiction.

63.164.145.198 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. My father is my father, but I don´t know that for sure. I wasn't present at the time. This user (63.164.145.198) has been warned and blocked quite a few times. --andreasegde 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I put in this link to an article that collected some of the physician's testimony regarding the large wound to the back of the president's head.

RPJ 07:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)