Open main menu

Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Assassination of John F. Kennedy was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 7, 2005Good article nomineeListed
October 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 12, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 22, 2004, November 22, 2005, November 22, 2006, November 22, 2008, November 22, 2009, November 22, 2010, and November 22, 2013.
Current status: Delisted good article

Contents

JFK Assassination Files DisclosureEdit

The conspiracy theory section is not an appropriate place to mention the October 26th, 2017 release of new information. The entire article needs to be rewritten in light of the new facts present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.175.144 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any new fact disclosed which would change any of the conclusions presented on this page. Perhaps you could be more specific? Canada Jack (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph 4, sentence 2 states "The Committee was not able to identify any individuals or groups involved with the possible conspiracy." This sentence appears to be false, as the HSCA specifically identified Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante as having the means, motive, and opportunity to assassinate JFK, stating "The committee found that Trafficante, like Marcello, had the motive, means, and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy." (Source:[1]) These HSCA findings were supported by alleged confessions from Marcello in 1985 to an FBI informant and Trafficante in 1987 to his attorney, Frank Ragano. (Sources: [2][3][4][5] )

It seems that paragraph 4, sentence 2 should be updated to "The Committee found that Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante had the means, motive, and opportunity to assassinate president Kennedy." (Source:[6]) Nopoliticsatthetable (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Saying someone had motive means and opportunity to carry out the assassination is an entirely different thing than saying these people were involved in the actual assassination. Any competent judge would say "okay, Carlos wanted him dead, and had the means to carry it out. But where is the evidence that he actually had him killed?" Besides, the committee did leave the door open for the possibility that individuals in some of the organizations many have claimed may have had a role.
The full HSCA summary spells this out: Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination. There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate, for example had been involved. Canada Jack (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Canada Jack. I think we agree that the 1979 HSCA found insufficient evidence, at the time, to support a finding that any individual member was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. But paragraph 4, sentence 2 specifically states "The Committee was not able to identify any individuals or groups involved with the possible conspiracy." The HSCA did identify individuals such as Marcello and Trafficante that were involved in the "possible conspiracy", but did not have enough evidence at the time to find that they were involved in an actual "conspiracy" to assassinate JFK. That is why the sentence appears to be misleading/incorrect.
In response to your question "Any competent judge would say "okay, Carlos wanted him dead, and had the means to carry it out. But where is the evidence that he actually had him killed?". As stated earlier, these HSCA findings were supported by alleged confessions from Marcello in 1985 to an FBI informant and Trafficante in 1987 to his attorney, Frank Ragano.
Sources list which were wrapped in ref tags earlier:

https://apnews.com/80182423bc7a738bde2714580b1ba911 https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-684-19568-1 https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/c/ce/Pict_legacyofsecrecy_marcelloconfession.jpg http://jackvanlaningham.com/bio.html

Note - The 1985 Marcello confession FBI report image is hosted at https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/c/ce/Pict_legacyofsecrecy_marcelloconfession.jpg given that the National Archives does not yet have an online link for this operation CAMTEX FBI report. According to Legacy of Secrecy co-author Lamar Waldron, the document can be found in person at the National Archives as record DL 283A-1035-Sub L. Jack Vanlaningham confirmed that he was the undercover FBI informant that recorded Marcello's confession and many other conversations with Marcello over a 2 year period in Texarcana prison, sometimes sharing a prison cell with him.

Nopoliticsatthetable (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is you are trying to characterize the HSCA conclusions in a way they don't characterize it. The line at issue says: "The Committee was not able to identify any individuals or groups involved with the possible conspiracy." So is that a fair characterization of what the committee said? They said: "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." And... "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.... The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved."
What you are doing is trying to elevate the part about "means, motive and opportunity" in regards to Trafacante etc to something that negates the very conclusions of the report. They quite clearly say that "on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.... and "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved."
IOW, this is a POV assertion - YOU are claiming they have "identified" possible players, despite the fact the conclusions of the report state the precise opposite while saying evidence doesn't preclude the involvements of certain individuals. If this was not so, then why not mention in the conclusions that the committee had identified players who were possibly involved? Because, as the committee stated, they lacked the evidence and "means, motive and opportunity" is not evidence of anything.
As well, here is what the HSCA actually said: "(6) Carlos Marcello.--The committee found that Marcello had the motive, means and opportunity to have President John F. Kennedy assassinated, (263) though it was unable to establish direct evidence of Marcello's complicity." and... "The committee found, in the context of its duty to be cautious in its evaluation of the evidence, that it is unlikely that Trafficante plotted to kill the President, although it could not rule out the possibility of such participation on the basis of available evidence."
"As stated earlier, these HSCA findings were supported by alleged confessions from Marcello in 1985 to an FBI informant..." And therein lies your error. The original quote characterizes the conclusions of the HSCA, while you are citing a confession made years after the report which is, obviously, not part of the report. The relevant question is: Does the line fairly represent the conclusions of the HSCA? I have shown it does, this despite what years later may have been said. Canada Jack (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
This wikipedia article claims to be about the "Assassination of John F Kennedy" and doesn't mention Carlos Marcello or Santos Trafficante a single time, even in the expanded section on the HSCA. It definitely doesn't mention their alleged confessions in 1985 and 1987. The article isn't only about the HSCA conclusions, and leaves out these later confessions that support some of what the HSCA found in 1979 regarding Marcello and Trafficante's potential involvement (Also, I never asserted the 1985 and 1987 confessions were part of the 1979 HSCA report, only that it's findings were later supported by these confessions).
You stated "The relevant question is: Does the line fairly represent the conclusions of the HSCA? I have shown it does, this despite what years later may have been said."
This is incorrect. The relevant question is "Does this article truthfully describe what is publicly known about the assassination of JFK?" The answer is no. Even if the question were "Does the line fairly represent the conclusions of the HSCA?", the answer would still be no, as it leaves out critical information from the HSCA's own report and related updates that weaken the validity of the Warren Commission report.
The next question is who has the ability to correct a locked down article such as this one with misleading/incorrect information in it?

Nopoliticsatthetable (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

"The relevant question is 'Does this article truthfully describe what is publicly known about the assassination of JFK?' The answer is no." Ah, so I've shown how you were incorrect by posting the relevant omissions you made from the HSCA report and now you move the goalposts. But in terms of what is "publicly known" about the assassination, we on this page simply go by the conclusions of the two major investigations on the assassination, with reference to the fact that claims of conspiracy have been around since nearly day one. It is not the function of this page to insert all that is "publicly known" about the assassination as in so doing the page would have to be 10 times longer.

One huge aspect not even touched on is how Oswald was tied to the crime, besides the rifle. By your logic, it is more important to include this stuff about the mafia guys then to spell out the case against Oswald. Huh? In the end, the page is more of a narrative than a breakdown of the various theories, so a) the event is described; b) the immediate aftermath and charging of Oswald and his subsequent murder; c) the various investigations and their conclusions.

"Even if the question were "Does the line fairly represent the conclusions of the HSCA?", the answer would still be no, as it leaves out critical information from the HSCA's own report and related updates that weaken the validity of the Warren Commission report."

I will post what the report said about Carlos Marcello or Santos Trafficante again, as you obviously are being fed things without actually reading the report: "(6) Carlos Marcello.--The committee found that Marcello had the motive, means and opportunity to have President John F. Kennedy assassinated, (263) though it was unable to establish direct evidence of Marcello's complicity." and "The committee found, in the context of its duty to be cautious in its evaluation of the evidence, that it is unlikely that Trafficante plotted to kill the President, although it could not rule out the possibility of such participation on the basis of available evidence."

Maybe I should highlight the conclusion again on Trafficante: "The committee found... that it is unlikely that Trafficante plotted to kill the President."

"The next question is who has the ability to correct a locked down article such as this one with misleading/incorrect information in it?" Who is being misleading? You made it sound like the HSCA basically accused the two of being involved when in fact they did not, just that it couldn't be ruled out, a massive difference.

But, again, the page functions more as a narrative on the assassination, its aftermath and the various investigations' conclusions, with links to expanded pages. There is a TON of information on this very subject, the role of the mafia/members, describing Blakely's conclusions behind Marcello's involvement. Even if we were to follow your idea and start listing those other players who may have been involved... well Bugliosi notes that by 2007, 82 individuals have been identified as having fired shots at the president. Further, as any student of the assassination would tell you, while the mob was seen as the perpetrator by many researchers in the 1970s and the 1980s (certainly by many on the HSCA), the shift now has been towards rouge elements of government agencies, LBJ, and the military-industrial complex. Canada Jack (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Since you start almost every post falsely claiming that you've proven me incorrect or accusing me of moving goalposts, I'm going to stop responding to that type of argument. But for the record, you are the one who has moved the goalpost and are incorrect (See how easy that is to say in argument, declaring yourself correct means nothing.). You asked for supporting evidence which later supported the HSCA's prior suspicions about Marcello and Trafficante, and I provided it with sources. Now you want to limit the article to what the Warren Commission and HSCA found, and only include the information that supports the Warren Commission narrative? If you want to accurately cite the HSCA, the sentence should read "The Committee was not able to identify any individuals or groups involved with the possible conspiracy, but found that Marcello and Trafficante had the means, motive, and opportunity to assassinate president Kennedy. The HSCA noted that they believed it unlikely that Trafficante plotted to kill the President" It seems you are not open to the possibility that the article needs to be updated. Therefore, we should involve other moderators and reach some kind of consensus on the issue instead of essentially debating the meaning of the word "is" and then declaring yourself correct at the end of each post. Nopoliticsatthetable (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I did show you were incorrect. Not only did you misleadingly omit pertinent material about the two from the HSCA report ("The committee found... that it is unlikely that Trafficante plotted to kill the President") but you are attempting to add to a page which is basically a narrative of the assassination nonsense allegations as if they were the gospel truth. Again, on a page which barely even discusses why Oswald was seen as complicit why do the allegations about these two - and not the many dozens of others who were accused - rise to the level of inclusion not only onto the main page but into the lede itself? What makes these claims special above the many others? This logic is besides the obvious wikipedia requirement of a reliable source. And citing an author or ex-lawyer in a newspaper doesn't count as a "reliable source."
As for the claims themselves, I'm pretty amazed you are buying into b.s. that has been discredited even within the conspiracy crowd for decades. With Marcello's, one truly has to wonder how this supposed jailhouse confession would be made to someone who was apparently a complete stranger when for months in 1979 and 1980 he was under constant surveillance and even when the HSCA report was released (in 1979) he said nothing that indicated any involvement, even while he complained about RFK who "threw me out to the dogs." So, he'd lie to his close associates for months on end while under surveillance but spill his guts to someone he just met in a jailhouse yard? If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you. And, may I note, Jack Van Laningham seems even less credible given the fact that the "evidence" in regards to Hoffa/JFK he secured from Marcello did not result in any charges or followup. Surely, the HSCA would have a field day with this guy's evidence. Did they? Need I say more? Indeed, if you ignore the obvious typos and factual errors on the guy's page ("In 1960, Attorney General, Bobby Kennedy came down hard on the Mob..." for example) his attempt to paint who at the time was perhaps the smallest (literally and organizationally) mob bosses in the U.S. as the guy who ruled the south and Cuba, then you have to ask: Is this guy trying to sell a screenplay? Viola! Leonardo de Caprio stars as Jack!
Ragano. So, he claims he relayed a message from Hoffa - who was under constant FBI surveillance at the time - to Marcello and Trafficante whom (at least in Trafficante's case) he had not even met a request to kill the president. Just a second - if they carried out the assassination as claimed, Ragano's own actions constitute involvement in conspiracy! He was exposing himself to a potential murder charge! (There's no statute of limitations for murder.) Further, don't the mob have that code of honour - surely if he spilled the beans on something as big as this, he'd be a dead man? (He died in his sleep six years after these claims were published at the age of 75.) Of course, Ragano would have nothing to worry about if his story was complete fiction, which it obviously was. Doesn't seem that logic and common sense operate much in conspiracy land. Even Anthony Summers, one of the leading pro-conspiracy authors, thinks he's full of it, and investigated the "deathbed confession" claim. He found that Trafficante wasn't where he claimed he was (he was in North Miami Beach, not Tampa as claimed, not been there for months); none of the family saw Ragano when he claimed he saw them when he picked Traficante up from the house, which couldn't have happened, as already mentioned, as he hadn't set foot in it for months; that the three others he said who could corroborate the claim he has refused to identify. Gee, was this guy trying to sell a book, perhaps? Yup!
So, in the end your request to add text about Marcello/Trafficante fails to gain muster for three basic problems with it. This isn't "moving the goalposts" as you accused me of doing - it is pointing out you have multiple goalposts here and you fail at each one: 1) The page offers an overview and narrative of the assassination, discussing the conclusions of the main investigations with links to other articles such as one that describes conspiracies. It does NOT discuss the numerous claims and counter-claims over who "actually" ordered/carried out the assassination, other than a brief listing within the "conspiracy theories" section, so this sort of detail is beyond the scope of the page, let alone worthy of being included in the lede; 2) putting aside that fundamental issue, what you sought to insert was factually incorrect and misleading. Beyond the obvious point that the HSCA saying someone has "means motive and opportunity" is pretty meaningless in any legal sense (the same could be said for perhaps 100s of government spy and military agents who had some personal beef with the president, let alone a near-infinite number of foreign players), the full HSCA text indicates the HSCA felt they didn't do it. And this is from the pro-conspiracy HSCA who many accused of zeroing in on the mob in the first place; 3) even putting that aside, the claims themselves do not hold water. Sources for these claims are either not identified or are from people who stand to gain from their sensational claims, Ragano was caught lying about basic facts surrounding the supposed Trafficante "death bed" confession, and refused to supply the names of the three who could corroborate, while all surveillance and other evidence gathered by agencies found nothing which linked these two to the crime, as the HSCA found in 1979 and which the ARRB also found - after investigating Ragano's claims - in 1998 (he had claimed, for example, to have made contemporaneous notes of his meetings. He was subpoenaed for them but the notes he produced he admitted he may have written for the book).Canada Jack (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2018Edit

Change

"John F. Kennedy"

to

<a href="/wiki/John_F._Kennedy" title="John F. Kennedy">John F. Kennedy</a>

in deaths section 24.228.152.64 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  Not done We do not use html but rather wiki markup.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

CIA Withholding of JFK Assassination Related InformationEdit

Copy/paste from primary source by a series of sockpuppets
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In a declassified September 2013 article published in the CIA's "Studies in Intelligence" by CIA Chief Historian and author of "John McCone as Director of Central Intelligence, 1961-1965", David Robarge describes former CIA Director John McCone as having taken part in a "benign cover-up".[7]

"McCone did have a place in a "benign cover-up," or what also has been termed "a process designed more to control information than to elicit and expose it" The protective response by McCone and other US government officials was inherent in the conflict between the Warren Commission's stated purpose-ascertaining the facts of the assassination---and implied in its mission defending the nation's security by dispelling unfounded rumors that could lead to destructive international conflict."[8]

"The DCI was complicit in keeping incendiary and diversionary issues off the commission's agenda and focusing it on what the Agency believed at the time was the 'best truth': that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy."

"Under McCone's and Helms's direction, CIA supported the Warren Commission in a way that may best be described as passive. reactive. and selective...CIA produced information only in response to commission requests-most of which concerned the Soviet Union or Oswald's activities while he was outside the United States--and did not volunteer material even if potentially relevant-for example, about Agency plans to assassinate Castro. Helms told the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 that be "was instructed to reply 'to inquiries from the Warren Commission for information from the Agency. I was not asked to initiate any particular thing."[9]

"When queried, "[I]n other words. if you weren't asked for it you didn't give it?," Helms replied, "That's right".

"Examining the assassination in a different political climate, the Senate's Church Committee concluded in 1976 that the Agency's inquiry was "deficient" in examining Oswald's contacts with pro-Castro and anti-Castro groups before the assassination, and that senior CIA officials "should have realized that the Agency's Cuban operations "needed to be considered" by the commission. In 1979, the House assassinations committee levied a similar criticism: "The CIA acted in an exemplary manner in dealing with the Warren Commission regarding its narrow requests for information. In another area, that of Cuban involvement and operations, the CIA's actions might well be described as "reluctant"."

"Moreover, the DCI shared the administration's interest in avoiding disclosures about covert. actions that would circumstantially implicate CIA in conspiracy theories, and possibly lead to calls for a tough US response against the perpetrators of the assassination. If the commission did not know to ask about covert operations against Cuba, he was not going to give them any suggestions about where to look."[10]


"In 1976, in response to a freedom of information suit, the CIA declassified a State Department cablegram received from London on November 28, 1963. It read: On 26 November 1963, a British Journalist named John Wilson, and also known as Wilson-Hudson, gave information to the American Embassy in London which indicated that an "American gangster-type named Ruby" visited Cuba around 1959. Wilson himself was working in Cuba at that time and was jailed by Castro before he was deported."

"In prison in Cuba, Wilson says he met an American gangster-gambler named Santos who could not return to the U.S.A. ...Instead he preferred to live in relative luxury in a Cuban prison. While Santos was in prison, Wilson says, Santos was visited frequently by an American gangster type named Ruby. (65) Several days after the CIA had received the information, the Agency noted that there were reports that Wilson-Hudson was a "psychopath" and unreliable. The Agency did not conduct an investigation of the information, and the Warren Commission was apparently not informed of the cablegram. The former staff counsel who directed the Commission's somewhat limited investigation of organized crime told the committee that since the Commission was never told of the CIA's use of the Mafia to try to assassinate Castro from 1960 to 1963, he was not familiar with the name Santos Trafficante in 1964. (66)"[11]

"Finally, the committee developed corroborating evidence that Ruby may have met with Trafficante at Trescornia prison in Cuba during one of his visits to Havana in 1959, as the CIA had learned but had discounted in 1964. (310) While the committee was not able to determine the purpose of the meeting, there was considerable evidence that it did take place.(311)"

"McWillie testified before the committee that he had visited another detainee at Trescornia during that period, and he recalled possibly seeing Trafficante there... McWillie further testified it was during that period that Ruby visited him in Havana for about a week, and that Ruby tagged along with him during much of his stay. (74)"[12]

This section is beyond the scope of the page and has been removed. If you want it included, discuss reason why we should have a section on the CIA which exceeds in length the description of the assassination itself. Canada Jack (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Photograph of assassination site needs a scaleEdit

The Section "Shooting in Dealy Plaza" contains a photograph of Elm Street and the Texas School Book Depository. The photo also contains an arrow that points to the exact spot in the road where President Kennedy was struck by the bullets. One of the first rules of photography is to have a scale in the photograph. The photo gives the appearance that Dallas is a ghost town. There should be at least one person and one vehicle in the picture to provide a scale. If I lived in the Dallas area, I would take a better picture—with signs of human activity—of the assassination site, delete the existing picture, and upload the new photograph.Anthony22 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a scale is really needed. We see the multiple stories in the several buildings so we get an idea of the sizes involved, plus the photo above shows the TSBD and cars for scale anyway. That being said, I don't think the photo adequately shows Dealy Plaza, scale or not. Something more like the photo near the top from the Warren Report, an aerial shot, would be much better in showing the layout of the crime scene. Canada Jack (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Mistaken report of second fatality at Dealey PlazaEdit

I was just watching archival footage of Walter Cronkite's initial reports of the assassination, and just a few minutes before reporting the official confirmation of Kennedy's death, he reported that a secret service agent had also been killed. I wonder if this should be mentioned. I'm reminded of the 9/11 coverage that included erroneous reports of a car bomb exploding outside the Capitol. I wonder if it's also possible the "secret service" agent mentioned could have been an erroneous reference to Officer Tippit. Cronkite, though, reports the supposedly killed agent was shot during the assassination itself. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not think that this needs to me mentioned. Broadcast news operations regularly make major mistakes in the immediate aftermath of shocking events. After the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, several networks reported that Reagan was not hit by a bullet (he was) and that Jim Brady was dead (he wasn't). Here is coverage in the Smithsonian magazine. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Abrupt head-turn of JFK, Jackie and Connally at Zapruder frame ~160Edit

I just reverted a change to a section of the description of the assassination on the missed shot of Zap frame ~160. I believe the editor in good faith misunderstood the point of the passage, which discusses the evidence for a missed initial shot, as the editor inserted material about JFK's reaction to being struck by frame 207, which virtually no one claims. However, in doing so, we are left with a lack of reference to the claim of the evidence for a missed shot being the sudden head movement of the three mentioned. I have one source for this, but it may not pass muster: http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html as it may not rise to the level of "reliable source," so I will later check to see if Buglioisi discussed this in detail suitable for the cite (I believe he did). Canada Jack (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


Sorry, I did indeed misplace the timing of JFK's reactions. I was just looking to cite the official HSCA report which does indeed say that JFK's reacts to being struck by frame 207. Isn't this the last government word on when Kennedy was shot in the back? Anyway, I've removed JFK from the sentence for now. Please feel free to put him back in when you find the Bugliosi citation. Epideme12 (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, Bug speaks of Connally and Kennedy - but not Jackie. The above-mentioned source mentions all three. But the caveat is that JFK's turn may be to acknowledge the crowd as his demeanor doesn't change, while Connally of course lived to describe his turn upon hearing the shot. The testimony of the girl who said she stop running when she heard the first shot also matches the time frame. As for the HSCA's placement of the first shot "by 207," that interpretation has been discredited in favour of the later strike at 223/224, when high-resolution versions of the Zapruder film became available some 20 years later.
The HSCA went further and suggested that at about frame 190 is when an alignment of JFK and Connally allowed for the two to be hit by the same bullet. Virtually no one agrees with this interpretation of the evidence, and it seems that what the HSCA did here was align their interpretation of the Zapruder film with the acoustic evidence which had a pulse that aligned with the fatal shot's pulse if it was at that frame. Indeed, their own analysis indicates that if the fatal shot (of 4 identifiec) was the fourth shot, then the shot that hit JFK in the back would have been at frame 188-191, if the fatal shot was the third shot, then the other shot would have struck 205-208. [1]
So, it seems that though there was evidence for a strike as they emerged from behind the sign, they likely moved the single-bullet shot up as per the acoustic evidence, which was, of course, soon debunked. And while that "by frame 207" could remain here, it should be noted that subsequent research shows 224 to be the consensus as to when Connally and therefore JFK (per the SBT) was hit. IOW, a bit of a rewrite is in order.
One more comment and this is really just something I came up with, but one of the pieces of evidence the HSCA used to conclude a hit ~190 is that JFK's demeanor seems to change from cheerful to concerned, perhaps indicating he has been hit. But I think his reaction was to seeing a heckler. He may have seen the protester holding the umbrella in what JFK surely would have known was a dig against his father - "appeasing" Hitler with the symbol of that - Chamberlain and his umbrella. He sees that final insult and within a second or two, he is struck by a bullet. Canada Jack (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, when I said "first shot" around frame 207/190, I of course meant the first shot to strike, the second shot overall. Canada Jack (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that "subsequent research shows 224 to be the consensus as to when Connally" should be added to the article after the phrase "House Select Committee theorized that it struck exactly at Zapruder frame 190", but I'm not entirely sure how to source 'consensus'. Maybe citing both Posner and Bugliosi? Epideme12 (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Buglioisi would be a good source for that, yes. Though I'm not sure if the HSCA said it struck exacly at 190? They gave a range? The basic problem with the HSCA's conclusion, seemingly shoehorning the timing to match the audio evidence, is that the view from the TSBD is blocked for most of that sequence. But the text can read "the HSCA concluded the bullet struck ~190 or by 207, though most researchers now place it at ~224" (per Bug). Canada Jack (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into the thick of the little print/little details of this matter at this point as the OP did above, since it is pretty much pointless at this time. But I just have to comment here that a supposed "consensus" on a detail between Bugliosi and Posner just means a bogus "consensus" between two of the greatest apologists of the Warren Commission Report ever to publish anything on the matter. I.e., what happened there is precisely whatever the WC Report says happened there and nothing else, which is also pretty much the view of WP on all the details of the assassination anyhow. And this point of view is scrupulously maintained as a matter of routine by the OP in this section, as well as across the board in WP on any article related to the matter. Nice job, once again. warshy (¥¥) 18:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Then obviously you've not read the Warren Report as the Warren Report did not state that JFK was struck at Z224, it instead gave a range of Z210-225. But you misunderstand at least my intention of quoting Buglioisi on this "consensus." He spells out what the current view on this is, based on what was not available to the Warren Commission - or to the HSCA - the high-resolution versions of the Zapruder film which only became available in the 1990s. If we go by what many who believe there was a cosnpiracy, then we have to start going down the rabbit hole of whacky where the Zapruder film is a forgery, this despite the rather obvious insane premise that "the conspirators" would prefer to do the enormously complicated task of forging this film, basically overnight, instead of going the obvious route (if it threatened to expose the "conspiracy) - i.e. destroying the film! Canada Jack (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, keep up the good work of maintaining the conclusions of the Warren Report as explained, elucidated, and finally proven a last and final time by Posner and Bugliosi. I for one like reading your long expositions on every little detail that might come up for a new question every once in a while. The contortions eventually generated also make up for an interesting read, always. Cheers, warshy (¥¥) 21:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"The contortions eventually generated also make up for an interesting read..." The case laid out by the WC actually makes sense and accounts for the evidence they had, so I have to conclude that you either have not read the Warren Report or you don't understand it. No "contortions" are necessary. It's called "laying out a case," which the conspiracy crowd routinely avoids doing after highlighting some "discrepancy." But if you want to really take on "contortions," read the claims from the conspiracy theorists on how the Zapruder film is a forgery; how the Couch film shows Oswald in the TSBD doorway despite the testimony of Truly, Baker and, indeed, of Oswald himself; how, despite the fact 95% of witnesses heard a maximum of three shots AND 95% of witnesses said the shots came from one, not two (or more) directions, the conspiracists routinely claim there were at least 4 shots and a shooter from the knoll in addition to one from the TSBD. I could go on and on, but the conspiracy crowd generally is not interested in rational discussion. Canada Jack (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for outlining the problems with the HSCA's conclusion. I agree that there can be no 'consensus' on such a controversial matter (i.e. where up to 80 percent of Americans suspected that there was a plot or cover-up). I would still like to know how the "current view" is defined, if that is why we are relying solely on bug. Epideme12 (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Narrowing down the bullet strike to Z224 isn't that controversial anynore as the high-resolution film shows a lapel flap and near-instantaeous shoulder collapse on Connally's part. I'll find the cite. Canada Jack (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And, despite whatever the numbers are in terms of how many suspect a cover-up, whatever the WC concluded, whatever the HSCA concluded are there for the record. BTW, I changed the "190" line - the HSCA said "approxiamately" at that frame. Also, on the other page I made a few modifications. You correctly noted that the HSCA medical panel was often not unanimous on the findings - Wecht was a consistent dissenting vote on the 9-man panel. But the NAA no longe being used in forensics is misleading, owing to the fact that bullets made today are indistinguishable from one another via their composition, unlike bullets from the 50s/60s. And there are experts who make this precise point. So, this is not a case like with the parafin tests which are considered useless. The NAA is no longer used because of the changes in manufacturing processes, not because it couldn't distinguish bullet fragments. Also, while the head entry wound was moved, I put more neutral language to what you had - the HSCA panel, for example, did not see this discrepancy as having any material effect on the findings (well, with maybe one dissent...). But keep up the good work - there are details here you are catching that need to be corrected. Canada Jack (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The entries should be as factual as possible and where there is excellent scientific proof that HSCA conclusions were wrong, it needs to be pointed out. NAA is a proven science, but CBLA is no longer used. According to https://www.nap.edu/read/10924/chapter/6#107, the fact that 'bullets made today are indistinguishable from one another via their composition, unlike bullets from the 50s/60s.' has absolutely no bearing on the reason why it is no longer used.
'Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives' clearly states:
'a conclusion of material evidence for only two bullets in the questioned JFK assassination specimens has no forensic basis.' For that reason I suggest reverting back these links, but toning down the language about CBLA no longer being used. Epideme12 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I did a quick check - wasn't this debate somewhere already? Yes, on the single bullet theory page. What that page lacks is Sturdivan's rebuttal to the Randich/Grant paper. Canada Jack (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
That page has Sturdivan's rebuttal to the Randich/Grant paper. It even has Grant's re-rebuttal. BTW, What has Baker and Truly's testimony got to do with Oswald alledegly being in the doorway? **IF** Oswald was in the doorway, he could have easily made his way to the first floor rendezvous while Truly was shouting for the lift (there was another set of stairs that went to the first floor only). Epideme12 (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, What has Baker and Truly's testimony got to do with Oswald alledegly being in the doorway? Well, he might have gone back, but where is the evidence for that? Both Baker and Truly would have seen him in the doorway, wouldn't they? Baker for sure. And yet Baker confronts this man, pulling his gun, probably 30 seconds later, someone who he just had passed by. So why did neither mention seeing him in the doorway? It's much like the contortions made when Bower's testimony is addressed - if there was a sniper behind the fence, why didn't he mention it? Yet Bower is treated like some prime witness to the knoll assassin. Canada Jack (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

So Oswald can get down creaky stairs past 3 witnesses (Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles and Dorothy Garner) without being noticed, but not escape the notice or Truly and Baker who would have had their minds on other things? There is a wealth of circumstantial evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor, but the testimony of Truly and Baker is not part of it. Epideme12 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a ton of circumstantial evidence places him on the 6th floor, but let not that imply that is "only" circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence also places him there, but that is the witness testimony of Howard Brennan, which in a court room would be far easier for a defence lawyer to dismantle than much of the circumstantial evidence - such as the devastating presence there of a rifle purchased by Oswald with his fingerprints.
As for the staircase, first off, we have around nine witnesses to the fact someone fired shots from that window, so if not Oswald, someone managed to escape the notice of the three mentioned, creaky steps notwithstanding - the assassin escaped the notice of everyone. (The only person who didn't have an alibi corroborated by others was Jack Doughtery, but I've never heard anyone claim he could have carried this out.) Secondly, whoever it was would have made a beeline to the exit, not so the others, who no doubt lingered for a few seconds - 15 or 20 was all Oswald (or whomever) needed to get past their floor. And, since we have Adams' testimony that she encountered Lovelady at the bottom of the stairs, that means Baker and Truly had already gone up. If they passed the floor while Baker and Truly were encountering Oswald, and failed to see them (how could they have NOT seen them if they "immediately descended"?) then that explains it and means that Oswald had time to descend before they did. Especially with the witness who says Baker and Truly ascended after Adams etc descended. What's the response from the conspiracy crowd? Lovelady is a liar and Adams was "told" to say she saw Lovelady. Right.
As for Baker and Truly, we can forgive Baker for not realizing that he had just seen Oswald, a stranger, as he entered the TSBD, but what about Truly? He surely would have seen Oswald in the doorway at some point before or during the assassination. He didn't. Indeed, neither did any of the other employees see him there, and we are talking about something like a dozen people, maybe more, who would have, within a few hours, been aware he was charged - yet none - NONE - came forward to say "I saw him in the doorway seconds after the assassination," or "I saw him come from the lunchroom immediately afterwards and stand in the doorway." Instead, the first sighting if him - besides Truly/Baker - is him walking through the offices with a bottle of Coke after that encounter. Canada Jack (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Zapruder frame 224 - I checked Buglioisi as a potential source for the generally accepted stand that Z224 is the frame Connally was struck, but he didn't nail that down or say that that was generally accepted - so the text as it stands (HSCA ~190, WC 210-225 or whatever) is good. Canada Jack (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for checking. Even the Warren Commission regarded Brennan's subsequent testimony as not conclusive evidence that Oswald was the gunman in the sixth-floor window. Victoria Adams denies making the statement that she saw Lovelady at the bottom of the stairs and it is nonsense anyway because Lovelady was no where near that location for a considerable period. Oswald would have had to have hid the rifle and someone moved boxes at the sniper's nest at least 30 seconds after the shootings. OK, I'll give you Truly's testimony, but I do not think Baker's testimony places Oswald anywhere except for the first floor. Epideme12 (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
In regards to the Brennan evidence my point was to underline that circumstantial evidence is often better than direct evidence, even when the direct evidence directly implicates the person charged. I admit you may not have meant that "only" circumstantial evidence placed Oswald on the sixth floor, as if that is flimsy evidence by definition, but your response buttresses my point on the utility of direct evidence. We indeed have direct evidence of Oswald shooting JFK, but as you correctly point out the Warren Commission itself did not find Brennan's testimony probative in identifying Oswald - just that he saw someone who resembled Oswald, at the least - but his testimony WAS probative in terms of confirming a gunman fired from that window. Other witnesses also saw a man shoot from that window. The reams of other evidence - the rifle, the fingerprints, etc. - means identiying Oswald as the assassin was pretty well inevitable. And what happened to that gunman (if not Oswald) plays into this, as if we accept for the sake of argument that Oswald indeed was eating in the lunchroom during the assassination, that still leaves the problem of what happened to the gunman. He seems to have vanished into thin air!
Well, as for Adams, it seems that inconvenient evidence is again dismissed by the conspiracy researchers. Her testimony in front of the Warren Commission was quite detailed and specific - she even describes what she said to Lovelady. It's only "nonsense" that he was there if you accept as a given that Lovelady took too long to get there, but that is only if you accept as a given the scenario that they took the stairs almost straight away. So instead we have the dubious claim that her evidence was cooked up, her testimony to the commission inserted by others, the same with Lovelady's testimony where he was either coached to say he say her, or that was fraudulently inserted. Right.
For me, this is an example of the conspiracy crowd tying itself in knots to explain away inconvenient evidence, which is why their credibility is close to nil in most cases. The same goes for the arguments about how the paper bag holding the rifle was actually made by the police or whomever to incriminate Oswald (without credibly explaining how he got his prints on it), when the basic question of why the "conspirators" would feel the need to make a bag in the first place is never addressed, as Oswald could have snuck the rifle in on any occasion or took the bag in his jacket pocket when he left the TSBD and tossed it!
Anyway, the glaring hole in this Lovelady evidence, like with the conspiracy claims about the bag, is the fact that it makes no difference - why was it necessary to have them both falsely claim to have seen each other? The biggest hole in the scenario is not in seeing Lovelady, it's in not having seen (or heard) Truly and Baker! Not on the stairs, not on the dock. If Oswald, it is argued, could not have descended before Truly and Baker ascended, how could she have been down the stairs and out before their arrival? If the timing of her descent, as the conspiracy argument goes, meant they would have seen Oswald, then they would have ALSO seen Truly and Baker. Obviously, they had their timing wrong. Canada Jack (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your thought on this. It does make me pause and reconsider the evidence again. There is a lot more to the eye than people seem to think. So you are saying Barry Ernest is lying when he says that Victoria Adams denies saying (in the WC testimony etc.) that she saw Lovelady? We are also talking about the other witnesses. Dorothy Garner said she would have heard someone on the stairs and that she saw Truly and Baker run up after Adams went down. https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Stroud-Letter-Victoria-Adams.jpg Epideme12 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that the evidence we have suggests Oswald shot the president and ran down the stairs. I don't know if Barry Ernest is right or wrong here, but he wasn't there and Adams' testimony is quite specific on this, even down to what she said to Lovelady. I do think it is implausible that both Lovelady was instructed to lie and that Adams had her testimony altered. I think this is a case of a desperate attempt to suggest inconvenient evidence was altered or planted to paint a pro-Warren Report scenario. It also distracts from the main point that neither she nor Truly nor Baker saw each other, which puts a big hole in the claim that Oswald couldn't have made it down the stairs, as she surely would have encountered Truly/Baker at the least at the foot of the stairs if she went down before Oswald. IOW, why would her testimony need to be "faked" when seeing Truly and Baker was more critical to the timing issue?
I want to underline that point. If, as it is often claimed, Oswald did not have the time to descend the stairs before the encounter with Truly/Baker, then how was it possible for Adams etc NOT to have seen Baker/Truly as it would have taken even longer to reach the dock, where Baker/Truly tried to call the elevator? Even with the extra time needed for Truly/Baker to arrive (see below), they surely would have seen or heard Adams and vice versa by the dock.
What is most likely is that she started her descent AFTER Oswald, they'd only need to have paused 20 seconds or so before leaving the window to give Oswald enough time. Then he descends and makes it to the second floor. Truly and Baker come up the stairs and confront him, and Adams etc pass by without seeing them (none would have ssen each other if Baker was in the midst of confronting Oswald in the vestibule area by the Coke machine). By this time, Adams reaches the dock and sees Lovelady. And Baker and Truly ascend, seen by Garner. Recall that the only person who we believe to have been at the back of the TSBD at the time of the assassination was Jack Dougherty. Garner was watching the motorcade along with Adams etc., so was not in a position to possibly see Oswald if she, like the others, lingered for a moment by the window.
Further on the timing issue, the Couch film, the source of the "prayer man" claim, is also a record of when, exactly, Baker approached the TSBD, as it can be calibrated to other films, like Wegman's. Far from showing Baker reaching the door of the TSBD "within 10 seconds" of the fatal shot, as some claim, we last see Baker 18 seconds after the fatal shot, and it would have taken him about 13 seconds to reach the door, giving Oswald even more time than assumed to make it down the stairs.
It should also be noted that these witnesses - Adams, Lovelady etc - didn't think the real action was happening in the TSBD - they thought the shots came from elsewhere and were focussed on what was going on outside where all the action seemed to be. So not hearing footsteps on the stairs is less important when you realize they were more focussed on seeing what was going on outside and not on hearing an escaping assassin.
In short, to believe the Warren Report, one must only assume that Adams descended later than she thought. Everything else fits. But to believe the conspiracy claims, we need to believe a) Lovelady lied; b) Adams' testimony to the WC was changed; c) the "real" sniper disappeared without a trace, evading all people in the TSBD who would have noted a stranger; d) Adams not encountering Truly/Baker or even hearing them on the stairs is a non-issue even though not hearing Oswald is touted as some sort of proof Oswald wasn't on the stairs. Canada Jack (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Again you miss the other witness Sandra Styles, who when asked "whether she saw the Presidential limousine go into the underpass" to which she retorted "No, I don’t remember see that at all. That was when we left". So we are left with 2 implausible timelines: 1) The girls went down the stairs after Oswald, and somehow did not bump into or even see Baker and Truly (who was standing in a door and visible from the stairs). Baker and Truly encounter Oswald, but completely miss Vickie and Sandra and then go up the stairs and are seen by Dorothy. 2) The girls went down the stairs immediately after the 3rd shot and somehow got out before Baker and Truly arrived at the stairs.

Finally Lovelady told the HSCA that it took him at least 20 minutes to get into the TSBD (supported by pictures and film). So the whole testimony about Adams and Lovelady meeting after the stairs descent is absolute nonsense and can be discounted. Whatever side of the debate you fall on (and I'm careful to stay neutral), something about these timelines is not right.Epideme12 (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Styles didn't state how long they waited before they left the window. Adams did. "Mr. BELIN - How long do you think it was between the time the shots were fired and the time you left the window to start toward the stairway? Miss ADAMS - Between 15 and 30 seconds, estimated, approximately." If it was "30 seconds," that was more than enough time for Oswald to have descended before her.
The problem with them getting out of the building before Truly and Baker arrived is the inconvenient testimony of both Adams and Lovelady:
"Mr. BELIN - When you got to the bottom of the first floor, did you see anyone there as you entered the first floor from the stairway? Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN - Who did you see? Miss ADAMS - Mr. Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady. Mr. BELIN - Where did you see them on the first floor? Miss ADAMS - Well, this is the stairs, and this is the Houston Street dock that I went out. They were approximately in this position here, so I don't know how you would describe that. Mr. BELIN - You are looking now at a first floor plan or diagram of the Texas School Book Depository, and you have pointed to a position where you encountered Bill Lovelady and Mr. Bill Shelley? Miss ADAMS - That's correct."
That's quite detailed and specific. Lovelady also testified to seeing a "girl" though he wasn't as certain as she was as to her identity.
As for Adams claim that she got out of the building right away, what did she encounter when she "ran" to the first railway tracks (immediately adjacent to the TSBD)? A cop who was already stationed there who told her to turn back. But Lovelady, who had also ventured out to the same area described confusion and police arriving - clearly he had been there BEFORE Adams was - and reconstructions put the swarm of people there and subsequent police cordon at least 2 or 3 minutes after the fatal shot.
Finally Lovelady told the HSCA that it took him at least 20 minutes to get into the TSBD (supported by pictures and film). He also testified that "3 or 4 miniutes" after the shots, he and Shelly were on their way to the tracks when they turned and saw Baker encounter Truly on the steps. In fact, that encounter happened about 30 seconds, 45 seoonds tops, after the final shot. The trot over to the first set of railway tracks would have taken maybe 30 seconds - immediatley adjacent to the TSBD, then he entered from the west side of the building.
With all the efforts to discredit Lovelady, we have the inconvenient fact that Adams very specifically described an encounter with him and Shelley. So the conspiracy crowd is left with the implausible claims that a) Adams testimony was faked and b) Lovelady lied. The problem with the latter is Lovelady gave crazy times for how long everything took - AND he wasn't certain that the "girl" he saw was Adans. And some claim ths is coached testimony?
But again, we come back to the basic problem with what has been a bizarre fixation of clearing the man who clearly assassinated the president - Oswald. If it indeed was not Oswald up there in the sixth floor, what happened to the "real" assassin? How come no one saw him?
Putting aside what everyone claimed how long their actions took, we see a plausible reconstruction from all this testimony (with some actual calibrated time): The final shot is fired. Shelly and Lovelady probably within 20 seconds make their way along the stub of Elm. Eighteen seconds after the shot, the Couch film shows Baker moving towards the TSBD, it took him about 13 seconds to get to the door from the last frame of the film. Baker encounters Truly at the doorstep, which both Shelley and Lovelady testify to seeing as they are already halfway to the parking lot/railway tracks. Meanwhile, Oswald has stashed his rifle, having paused a beat or two after the final shot. He could have dashed from the window, placed the rifle and been at the top of the stairs in 10 seconds. He descends. Meanwhile, Adams and crew are still at the window, and go to the staircase, but likely would not have moved as quickly as Oswald did. Shelly and Lovelady get to the tracks, see confusion and shouting, the police arrive and they go back towards the TSBD. Truly and Baker have now entered the building, dashing to the elevator, they call it and after five seconds or so, start their ascent. Oswald has by now reached the second floor, he enters the vestibule and relaxes, headed to the Coke machine. Shelly and Lovelady are on their way to the dock, and Baker gets to the second floor, sees moovement and encounters Oswald. Adams at this point passes by, but does not see them. WHile Baker and Truly were focussed on Oswald, they wouldn't have noticed Adams - and if Adams wasn't looking down the hall towards the vestibule - why would she be? - she easily could have missed them. Lovelady and Shelley are now by the dock, and Adams arrives, briefly chats with them and goes to the railway yard, which is by now guarded by police.
The testimony of Lovelady and Adams destroy the premise that Oswald couldn't have made it down. Not only because Adams describes seeing Lovelady, but because Adams' testimony clearly indicates she was by the railway tracks well AFTER Lovelady and Shelley were. For whatever reason, Lovelady and Shelley inflated the estimates of the time everything they did took, and Adams etc minimized the time what they did took. The testimony of all involved clearly establishes that. Canada Jack (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
A brief note on the Baker/Truly encounter with Oswald - there were a series of doors - if the two had gone through to encounter Oswald by the Coke machine, they would not have been visible to Adams (there are numerous schematics that show this). There are two sets of doors they would have gone through. Not sure if the doors had windows but Adams would have only seen them if she was directly in line of sight (assuming windows on the doors). Canada Jack (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
So to be clear you are stating that Truly started to continue on up the stairway to the third floor, but did not hear 2 women running down the creaky stairs in high heels. He then leans into the vestibule door, where he would have been visible to anyone running down the stairs and yet the women fail to notice him. Truly and Baker then leave immediately and still do not see the girls. Can you understand why I find this implausible? Yes, someone was at that 6th floor window but all Truly and Baker's testimony does is give Oswald had a pretty good alibi and I've never understood how Oswald could have placed his rifle, moved boxes and got down to the second floor in time. No way could he have "been at the top of the stairs in 10 seconds". I also find it implausible that Oswald's rifle was used by someone else. This does my head in and is not as simple as some make it out to be. Epideme12 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I have a solution for you both. Arguing about the little split second details of eye witnesses accounts of what happened there will not solve the problem. The problem has no solution, it is an unsolved mystery. And that is also why anybody who cannot buy the conclusions of the Warren Report is called since a conspiracy theorist in American culture. That is the genesis of the concept "conspiracy theory" in contemporary American culture. An unsolved mystery will always produce unproven theories, from the very nature of the issue, because it is precisely that and nothing else: an unsolved mystery. The only way to "resolve" an unsolved mystery is through a theory that is by nature and definition unproven, since it tries to resolve an issue that is unsolved. Summers, following Warren himself, changed the name of his book, which contains everything one needs to know about the controversial details of this unsolved mystery, from "Conspiracy" to "Not in your lifetime." But the truth is that we will never know what exactly happened there and how it was done. All we know is the result. And the reason we will never know what exactly happened there and how it was done is because the basic conclusion of the Warren Report (that Oswald was communist lone nut who did it all just by himself, out of his own derangement) was already telegraphed by J. Edgar Hoover to all the involved FBI field offices less than 20 minutes after the assassination on November 22, 1963. The fact that it is an unsolved mystery is not even the fault of the Warren Commission, since its conclusions were dictated by the evidence it was supplied by the FBI under Hoover. That is all the evidence that was left in the FBI archives on this issue even before there was a Warren Commission, and the only conclusion possible from this existing evidence is the conclusion that Hoover himself had already telegraphed less than 20 minutes after the deed. Anything else is just a theory that cannot be proven for lack of evidence. Case closed. warshy (¥¥) 15:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

So to be clear you are stating that Truly started to continue on up the stairway to the third floor, but did not hear 2 women running down the creaky stairs in high heels.
Good question. First off, it doesn't seem he was asked the question, at least in front of the Warren Commission. Secondly, the encounter with Oswald was the thing he ended up focussing on, so when he heard Oswald had been charged, the only thing of relevance in his mind in all likelihood were the details of that encounter. Whether he did or didn't hear other footsteps would have been, in his mind, an irrelevant detail with no obvious importance, not something he'd likely clearly recall, as opposed to what he actually encountered and the task at hand - finding an elevator and getting to the roof. Hearing footsteps was not anything out of the ordinary that would stick in the mind.
Additionally, let's apply some common sense. The best way to hear footsteps on a staircase is to stop and listen. In both cases - Truly/Baker and Adams - they'd not likely hear other footsteps over their own, and in both cases there is no indication that they ever stopped and paused to see if they could hear others. That was certainly my experience when I lived in a 5-storey walkup in a warehouse with creaky wooden stairs. I could sure hear my footstaps, and sometimes when I'd pause I'd then hear someone else on the staircase above or below. And, let's recall, Adams wasn't paying attention to others on the staircase as she thought the gunshots were from outside the TSBD. For her, only a relavent detail in retrospect, and not something easily heard over her high heels, especially if Oswald did his best to descend as silently as possible. As for Truly and Baker, they were focussed on Oswald, Baker had drawn his gun.
He then leans into the vestibule door, where he would have been visible to anyone running down the stairs and yet the women fail to notice him. Not according to Baker. He said he confronted Oswald from the inside second doorway, and that Truly came up to his shoulder, so, per Baker, Truly did not simply "lean in," he was inside the vestibule, the first door presumably swung closed behind him. Also recall, Truly had just rushed by the door and failed to see Oswald through the window of the door, Baker, following, scanned the area, and saw him. Truly, like Adams, was focussed on the stairs, not on what was at each landing area. If Truly missed Oswald through the doorway, it is not surprising Adams also missed Truly and Baker through the same doorway. Besides, Adams was descending and was even less likely to have seen out of the corner of her eye anyone inside the vestibule, as it was not in her line of sight, as it might have been if she was ascending.
No way could he have "been at the top of the stairs in 10 seconds". He had about 30 metres to run, he was 24 and relatively fit. And he'd have had a very stong incentive to get to those stairs as quickly as possible. Further, the rifle was stashed almost at the last possible place on the way to the staircase. He'd only need to lean and push the rifle between the boxes, that would take all of three seconds. So, okay, maybe 15 seconds to get to the stairs. Still gave him plenty of time to descend and be past the 4th floor by the time the ladies headed to the stairs.
Besides, as I spelled it out, the sequences fit, and account for a) Oswald beating Adams to the stairs and not being seen, b) Oswald getting to the 2nd floor first, c) Adams not seeing Truly and Baker on the stairs, d) Lovelady and Adams encountering each other by the dock, e) Lovelady seeing chaos by the railline and f) Adams greeted by a police corden at the same location soon afterwards. All we have to assume is that people got their time estimates wrong. We know Lovelady did when he said it was "3 or 4 minutes" after the final shot that he saw Baker encounter Truly on the front steps of the TSBD, and we also know that with Adams when she had said she was at the tracks a minute or so after the final shot where she had the encounter with the cop, as we know that it was about 2 or 3 munites after the final shot that those police were in place.
On the other hand, we are required to throw out specific and detailed testimony to satisfy the other scenarios, in particular Adams describing seeing Lovelady and Shelley as it renders other scenarios unworkable. And, indeed, we see this evidence dismissed, as you have yourself with Lovelady's testimony, even though it confirms he preceded her to the railway. Canada Jack (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem has no solution, it is an unsolved mystery. Actually, the sequence spelled out in the Warren Report makes sense, accounts for the evidence, and most of the questions raised by researchers in the subsequent years were answered by the HSCA. And there is no mystery as to why the controversy remains to this day - few have actually read the Warren Report or HSCA report and most people who read the claims of conspiracy theorists don't realize they are making claims that were in many cases debunked a half century ago, or are deliberatly misleading. Like the "changed route." Like the Mauser rifle. Like the "altered photos" of Oswald with the rifle. In terms of "deliberately misleading," my favourite is how Mark Lane, arguably the father of the conspiracy movement, interviewed Lee Bowers, the guy in the railway swtiching tower with an unobstructed view of the back of the stockade fence where Lane claimed there was a sniper (i.e. the Grassy Knoll sniper) and told Lane, on film, that when the motorcade passed, there was no one behind the fence! What did Lane do? He ommitted that key fact from his film and book, made a bundle peddling his conspiracy theory and had Bowers talking vaguely of a "commotion" going on on Elm Street. Fortunaltey for Lane's bank account, Bowers died in a car accident a few months after the interview and therefore was not available to set the record straight.
As for Hoover, I am aware he said something like that, but two days after the fact, not "20 minutes" after the assassination. And while a lot of hay has been made by authors over his apparent rush to judgement - or worse - at that point, it was pretty apparant that they had their man as not only did the suspect kill a cop in an apparent attempt to evade arrest, he was in the building where the shots were fired, his rifle was found at the scene with his fingerprints on it, and no other gunmen had been seen. On Nov 24 1963, it was a slam-dunk case and talk of "conspiracy" was something to be corrected. There is no indication that Hoover actually believed there was a conspiracy at that point. And, no, the Warren Commission did not rely soley on the FBI for their investigations, they used the resources of, I think, 14 agencies and did a lot of the interviews with their own counsels. As for any evidence hidden in the archives, we've yet to see anything of importance to emerge outside of the reluctance of agencies like the FBI to be more forthcoming but this was more to do with CYA than "cover that conspiracy" - like how a direct threat from Oswald to the FBI days before the assassination did not lead to him being more closely watched by the FBI. There was no conspiracy being covered up - there was incompetence being covered up, though. Canada Jack (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
You are entitled to your beliefs, which are abundantly clear for anyone who follows any issue related pages here. In the same manner, I hope I am entitled to mine, which I have stated already. For me the unresolved case is closed. I cannot prove my case to you as I explained, and I certainly do not accept any of what you call proofs as proofs either. Most of them do not stand to simple logic and common sense, in my view. You will certainly continue expounding your views at length, as you do, and no matter what I say anyhow. And I will continue reading your long demonstrations of the truth just for my own amusement too, as I already wrote. Enjoy yourself, and let's leave at that. Be well, warshy (¥¥) 21:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note: This is getting dreadfully bloated and WP:FORUMish. While I find the discussion interesting it might be best to migrate this to either a user talk page or a sub page. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ^ https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html#summary3
  • ^ https://apnews.com/80182423bc7a738bde2714580b1ba911
  • ^ https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-684-19568-1
  • ^ https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/c/ce/Pict_legacyofsecrecy_marcelloconfession.jpg
  • ^ http://jackvanlaningham.com/bio.html
  • ^ https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html#summary3
  • ^ "DCI John McCone and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" (PDF). Studies in Intelligence (CIA).
  • ^ "DCI John McCone and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" (PDF). Studies in Intelligence (CIA).
  • ^ "DCI John McCone and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" (PDF). Studies in Intelligence (CIA).
  • ^ "DCI John McCone and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" (PDF). Studies in Intelligence (CIA).
  • ^ "HSCA Findings". National Archives.
  • ^ "HSCA Findings". National Archives.
  • Return to "Assassination of John F. Kennedy" page.