Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 15
 | 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) on Oswald
| The article talkpage is not an appropriate place to present syntheses of original research |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I suggest a new chapter "Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA)" or integration into the existing article of the following content:
The casts from Lee Harvey Oswald’s paraffin tests were subjected first of all to normal spectrographic analysis. According to an FBI memo, "the results show Punctate traces of nitrate found in the paraffin on the right and left hands consistent with that of a person who handled or fired a firearm. The paraffin of right check [sic] showed no traces of nitrate."[2] Redlich and Gallagher had also neglected to mention that controlled tests had taken place on the paraffin casts. This became public knowledge when the New York Times quoted Dr Vincent P. Guinn at a conference in Glasgow.[8] External Reference: For more about NAA and the JFK assassination, see: References 2: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62258&relPageId=23 3: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62255&relPageId=140 4: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58211&relPageId=171 5: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=24356 6: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=24362 7: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=24361 8: New York Times, 28 August 1964, page=32 9: Harold Weisberg: Post Mortem: JFK Assassination Cover–Up Smashed, 1975, ISBN 9780911606058, page 437 Icarus4 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
On a more general level, this is an example of why the evidence is only lightly addressed on this page. Many authors have pointed out evidence which runs counter to the conclusions of the Warren Commission. However, those arguments - like this one - have strong counter-arguments. So, very quickly, the page would be waded down by an argument over whether Evidence X does or doesn't indicate Oswald was innocent or there was a conspiracy. Just look at the debate above on the issue of Oswald carrying the rifle into the building. Or the oft-quoted testimony of Vickie Adams who ran down the Depository stairs "immediately" after the shooting and didn't see or hear Oswald. It's rather easy to find a million sources of those who claim this "proves" Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor, but there is a counter-argument which also "proves" she didn't descend the stairs until AFTER Oswald did (see Archives 13). The point is not what the argument is, the point is that in getting into that sort of detail this page becomes an unwieldy mess and a forum for debate. The page, if one reads it without ideological blinkers, simply describes the event, describes the conclusions of several investigations and describes the doubts raised by conspiracy-oriented authors and others. And that's all it really should do. Canada Jack (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As a final note, as I said earlier, this might more properly be placed on the page dedicated to the rifle. Canada Jack (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Purpose of the talk page
With now two discussions closed on this talk page, let's review the function of this page. I am guilty (as always) of contributing to discussions which are falling off the purpose of the page here - to improve the article.
While the "buff" discussion may have been of some academic interest, since that word is not on the page, nor was there any serious proposal to include it, it clearly was out of bounds. If this was a page on the etymology and usage of the word "buff," maybe.
The NAA discussion was possibly more relevant, but Icarus seems more bent on promoting the issue than addressing the fundamental point - is this section worthy of inclusion on this page? I'd say clearly not, notwithstanding his contention that the issue "proves" Oswald's innocence. He says it's only my o"opinion" that the section is not suitable here: Yet he fails to make any argument for its conclusion other than the bland statement that people want to know who actually killed Kennedy (even though his proposal says nothing about that). For a page which takes a broad approach in describing the event and the conclusions of the official investigations and conspiracy theories, it's hard to justify a long-winded discussion of a rather arcane corner of the assassination. As I repeatedly said, the issue more properly would reside on the rifle page.
And, let's recall, opinion is not fact. While Icarus may, as an example, assert that his evidence "proves" Oswald did not fire the rifle, that assertion is an opinion and not a fact, however well-cited and well-documented that opinion may be. The "facts" on this page concentrate on the agreed-upon events of the assassination, and where there is disagreement, for example, a note that the "Warren Commission" concluded such and such. The FACT is that the WC concluded something; what they concluded is not treated as a "fact." A distinction seemingly over the heads of some who demand the "lies" on this page be corrected. I challenge anyone to find a "lie" or an opinion masquerading as a "fact" on the assassination page.
In conclusion, to suggest inclusion to this page, the first discussion is why said proposed inclusion enhances the page. If there is consensus on that issue, then the next discussion is on what the actual text should be. While I did attempt to steer Icarus towards those lines of discussion - I even had some proposed text - I was also guilty of extending the debate on the arcane details of the evidence. Sorry. Canada Jack (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I've been concerned about the tendency on this page for editors to wander into speculative discussion: it's a strong temptation, and it's a fascinating subject, so I don't blame anyone for doing so, but we do need to exercise some restraint and keep our primary focus on improving the article rather than having an interesting discussion that from time to time touches on the article. We also need to conclude discussions that haven't gained any consensus for change. Since I've not been involved in the content of the article, apart from obvious vandalism reverts, I've tried to find a balance between closing discussions and allowing free exchanges of ideas before closing. This is a subject where all sorts of ideas have been advanced, but it's not Wikipedia's role to draw conclusions: we leave that to a preponderance of mainstream published sources, so in the end, however fascinating alternative discussions may be, we must circle back to the central historical narrative found in acknowledged mainstream scholarship and investigation, in accordance with long-established Wikipedia policy. Acroterion (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I, too, apologize for straying from discussion focused on improving the article. I started the "buff" section to keep that side issue separate from the other matter, and now recognize that I should have simply ignored the criticism I was subjected to. Let's move forward. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Category suggestion
Along with Richard III and the Princes in the Tower and various other such 'category of talk pages that tend to wander into Original Research, partisanship and otherwise go off-WP-message areas and would do so even if a self-contained wiki was set up (including the contributions of the Silence (Doctor Who), lizards, the Large Hadron Collider attempting to prevent its creation 'and any other plot devices people can think of').
The penalty for 'shooting a President who is not an obvious threat to society in general/the international world order' - likely to be 'prompt and nasty'; the penalty for blackmail (you do as we say or your private life appears in the news) discovered is likely to be much less.
There are, in fact, two separate questions:
- Why would "rational actors" wish to kill JFK in particular and at that specific point in time and locality (with Archduke Franz Ferdinand the date and location of the event were signficant).
- Was LHO acting on "propaganda of the deed" in which JFK's assssination was one possibility - if it had not come off he would have tried someone or something else.
The evidence points towards the second rather than the first option. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- While motive of course is of interest, it's not important in terms of whether Oswald killed Kennedy, if the evidence points to him as the killer. One of the long-time fallacies of the conspiracy crowd is they START with a motive and generally avoid talking about the actual evidence, as if it is sufficient to identify players with the most compelling reasons to want to kill Kennedy. It's an ass-backwards approach that usually fails to address the evidence.
- For the purposes of this page, which doesn't discuss motives as the accused never admitted to the act and no one else has stepped forward to admit responsibility, it is sufficient to describe the day's events and the conclusions from the major investigations that Oswald did it. There are many credible theories as to why he'd do it, but we'll never know unless a confession note miraculously appears. Canada Jack (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Jack has it exactly backwards. What we in the "crowd" do is observe that the evidence likely precludes the possibility that Oswald acted alone, then consider who (unlike Oswald) had means, motive and opportunity to kill the President. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt Oswald killed Kennedy. Of course, very few in the conspiracy crowd are reasonable, and they twist themselves into contortions to try to explain away the some 50+ separate pieces of evidence linking him to the crime in a manner which would make Rube Goldberg blush. And, no evidence "precludes" the possibility that Oswald acted alone. But, there you go again, Joe. "...then consider who (unlike Oswald) had means, motive and opportunity to kill the President." "Motive" is IRRELEVANT if one has evidence linking someone to the murder. A rather basic premise which many in your crowd seem utterly incapable of comprehending. Which is why we have a laundry list of who "really" was behind the killing, based on what the crowd believes who had most to gain. Which is a basic fallacy. Canada Jack (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:CIV and WP:EQ. Especially important when discussing controversial topics. But saying that, Wikipedia is not the place to promote, investigate or propose theories of any kind; we simply include the notable ones. And we can also discuss it without resorting to name-calling et al.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt Oswald killed Kennedy. Of course, very few in the conspiracy crowd are reasonable, and they twist themselves into contortions to try to explain away the some 50+ separate pieces of evidence linking him to the crime in a manner which would make Rube Goldberg blush. And, no evidence "precludes" the possibility that Oswald acted alone. But, there you go again, Joe. "...then consider who (unlike Oswald) had means, motive and opportunity to kill the President." "Motive" is IRRELEVANT if one has evidence linking someone to the murder. A rather basic premise which many in your crowd seem utterly incapable of comprehending. Which is why we have a laundry list of who "really" was behind the killing, based on what the crowd believes who had most to gain. Which is a basic fallacy. Canada Jack (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here's my prediction. Long after we are all gone, say 100, 200 years from now, they will exhume Kennedy from his crypt and discover... the head wound exactly as what the autopsy surgeons and photos described (okay, the entry wound higher than what the surgeons described). And the general consensus will be Oswald did it and did it alone. But there WILL be one avenue where we will know more, though it won't point to conspiracy. And that will be in regards to Oswald's Cuban contacts in Mexico. None of this profoundly silly "imposter" crap, but far greater suggestions that the Cubans and Oswald were in contact - and the very real possibility that Oswald might have made his case for defection better - might have been told this - if he did something high-profile. I would guess that those Cubans were stunned to see what he ended up doing and quickly made sure everyone was silent, and Johnson we know did not want to go to war against the Cubans or the Soviets.
- My bone to pick with the conspiracy crowd is they don't realistically assess what these groups would or could do. For example, why would the FBI want to have Kennedy killed, when Hoover - who ran circles around Kennedy's Ivy-league boys - would have a ruthless equal in the form of Johnson as president? Hoover was in an almost apoplectic panic after the assassination, fearing Johnson would shut down or diminish the FBI, and end up blaming them for the assassination. The creation of the Warren Commission certainly fed these fears. For almost all of these other groups - the CIA, the mafia, the KGB, the Boy Scouts of America - it really made little institutional sense to actually remove Kennedy to further their interests, or to resort to the form of the assassination as it was carried out. Indeed, the way it happened - in full view of several hundred people with several dozen photographers recording the event - basically precludes a conspiracy as none of these groups would be so stupid as to carry out an assassination in such a public manner.
- Cuba, however, is something different. Gus Russo and Stephen Molton built on research by Wilfried Huismann to spell out the antipathy between the Castro and Kennedy brothers, AND the lurid back and forth spying and intrigue, a 1962 thwarted terror attack, a key double-agent who likely told Fidel of the plans to assassinate him, the role of another double-agent, Fernando Gutiérrez Barrios in investigating and silencing key Cuban/Mexican witnesses. In short, while the Cubans may have not actually engineered the assassination, they likely encouraged Oswald, if not to kill Kennedy, to do something spectacular. And my belief is that over the course of years, this will be the "truth" we know: Oswald, a loner seeking glory and acknowledgement, felt he could gain both the respect of his Cuban friends and become a hero of the revolution by killing Kennedy, an act probably suggested to him by some in Mexico City. He, however, conceived and carried out the assassination. Canada Jack (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
See: WP:FORUM, WP:FORUM and WP:FORUM--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Motive" is IRRELEVANT if one has evidence linking someone to the murder." Too bad you weren't Oswald's prosecutor. I'd love to hear you say that to a jury. From wikipedia, "In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.
- I notice that all these conversations are repeating themselves. You make an unfair, insulting generalization about those who disagree with you, I call you out on it, then rather than explain yourself, you just move on to a new insult and remind us again that your interpretation of the evidence is right and others are wrong, full stop. You say, "One of the long-time fallacies of the conspiracy crowd is they START with a motive and generally avoid talking about the actual evidence," This simply isn't true. Who are you talking about? Who, exactly, has noted that Oswald had no motive but refused to discuss the evidence? Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Perhaps you should re-read that, Joe. The key phrase is a popular cultural summation of the aspects. Ask any prosecutor, and he`ll tell you that while it`s satisfying to know why someone did something, it is not needed to get a conviction if the evidence is there pointing to guilt.
I call you out on it, then rather than explain yourself, you just move on to a new insult I`ve repeatedly made the same point about motive and you repeatedly say the same fallacy about motive. Not sure what you don`t get here, Joe. And you`ve repeated it yet again.
they START with a motive and generally avoid talking about the actual evidence Joe, when it comes to the Kennedy assassination, we must first look at the evidence of what happened in Dealy plaza and what that tells us. What many authors do is ignore the evidence tying Oswald to the crime, and come up instead with scenarios as to why, say, the mafia had an ax to grind, or how the CIA feared being cut off, or the anti-Castros were angry about the Bay of Pigs, WITHOUT LINKING IT TO THE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE. That`s the fundamental fallacy when I refer to motive.
Who, exactly, has noted that Oswald had no motive but refused to discuss the evidence? Oswald`s motive is irrelevant in terms of the crime because the evidence points to him and therefore we know he did it. WHY he did it is of course an interesting question, but we don`t need to know it to assign guilt to him. That`s one of the fundamental points here. So your question betrays a misunderstanding of what I am saying. And that is whatever motive Oswald had is not crucial in assigning his guilt as we have all the evidence pointing to his guilt. AND identifying people WITH motive is only relevant if we can link said evidence to those people or organizations. The evidence, IOW, comes first, motive is secondary in terms of determining guilt. Canada Jack
- "One of the long-time fallacies of the conspiracy crowd is they START with a motive and generally avoid talking about the actual evidence," Do I get an explanation of who you're talking about, or not? If you're going to insult those who've reached different conclusions than you as stupid/dishonest/crazy every time you post, you should have some examples. Otherwise, excuse me, you're bullsh*t. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The best example off the top of my head is the most-influential source for most average people of conspiracies surround this case: Oliver Stone's film "JFK." How does that movie start? With a speech from Eisenhower, talking of the "military industrial complex," suggesting to us we have to keep a close eye on these people. How does this relate to the events of Deally Plaza? None is stated, other than the supposed fact that these guys had vested interests which were being thwarted, later, by Kennedy. Then, later, with ZERO connection made to the events of Deally Plaza, we see a "re-creation" of a bunch of military types saying that Kennedy has to go. I say "re-creation" as this supposed meeting never took place. It was Stone's imagining of what such a meeting would have been like.
- But the quintessential moment where motive overrides evidence comes where "Mr X" (played by Donald Sutherland) starts to talk to Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner). First, the idea that "evidence" is pretty worthless, a rather amazing declaration but a common refrain in conspiracy circles: "That's the real question, isn't it -- "Why?" -- the "how" is just "scenery" for the suckers . . . Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, Mafia, it keeps people guessing like a parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question -- Why? Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up?" It's important to note that in the film, the reams of evidence which point to Oswald... are almost completely ignored. Of course, evidence is just "scenery" for "suckers."
- And, how about one of the stars of the conspiracy crowd, Jim Marrs? His higky influenctial book "Crossfire" spends a lot of time implicating just about every orgazination around, as they had "motive," while completley leaving unaddressed as how any of these groups are in any way linked to the evidence found within Deally Plaza. Oh yeah. "Evidence" is for "suckers."
- Here are some quotes from "Crossfire": [JFK] set out to shake up the status quo of Big Banking, Big Oil, Big Military-Industrial Complex with its powerful Intelligence Community, and Big Organized Crime, which had gained deep inroads into American life since Prohibition. There were -- and most certainly remain -- numerous ties among all of these powerful factions. It is now well documented that the mob and the CIA worked hand in glove on many types of operations, including assassination. The various US Military intelligence services are closely interwoven, and in some cases, such as the National Security Agency (NSA) are superior to the FBI and CIA. Therefore, when Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, began to wage war on organized crime, it quickly became a matter of self-defense to the mob and the banks and industries it controlled. Officials of the FBI and CIA, likewise, were fearful of the Kennedys, who had come to realize how dangerously out of control these agencies had become. The anti-Castro Cubans felt betrayed by Kennedy because of his last-minute orders halting US military assistance to the Bay of Pigs invaders and were quite willing to support and assassination. However, no matter how violent these crime-intelligence-industrial cliques might be, they never would have moved against this nation's chief executive without the approval of -- or at the very least the neutralization of -- the US military. Already angered by Kennedy's liberal domestic politics, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and his signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union, top military brass undoubtedly were incensed in late 1963 when Kennedy let it be known that he planned to withdraw all US military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1965. With that decision, the military turned against him and, even if they wouldn't openly plot against him, the military leadership would not be sorry if something were to happen to Kennedy.
- You can search in vain, but there is no evidence - none - proffered linking any of these groups to the actual evidence surrounding the assassination. And Stone, Marrs are in no way alone in talking "motive" while leaving unaddressed the evidence linking Oswald to the crime. Which is why it is very hard to take most of these people seriously. Canada Jack (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, I should give credit where credit is due, at least in terms of where I got the above quotes. David Reitzes wrote on the same subject I did - how "motive" trumps "evidence" for many in the conspiracy crowd - and the above comes from a page of his. Took me about 10 seconds to find a good example. If pressed, I'm sure I could come up with 100 examples of this from the conspiracy crowd - I read it from them all the time.
- Last word here to Mr Reitzes who sums it up well: Crimes are solved through an investigation of the evidence... In the case of the JFK assassination, for example, one of the bullets that struck John F. Kennedy has been conclusively linked to a single rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles. That rifle has been conclusively linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, to the exclusion of all other individuals. Either this evidence is authentic, or else some or all of it has been forged and/or planted; there is no other alternative. If evidence is inauthentic, one must determine its provenance through its documentary trail and interviews with each of those individuals known to have handled it. Once it is determined who planted the evidence, it can then be determined upon whose initiative such individuals were acting. Curiously, this seems to be just about the only avenue of inquiry the JFK research community has not pursued over the past four decades. Canada Jack (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oh now I get it. Jack, I declare you the winner on this one. The point as summarized in your analysis of JFK the film is valid. I had the same reaction reading G. Robert Blakey's "The Plot to Kill the President." The book doesn't provide any real link between the evidence in the assassination and the Mafia. Instead it's, the HSCA found a conspiracy, Carlos Marcello repeatedly verbally threatened the Kennedy brothers, so there you go.
- Now when I read that the conspiracy crowd, "generally avoid talking about the actual evidence," my reaction was, that's silly, I have every major conspiracy book and they all talk about the evidence, dissecting it in loving detail for things that suggest Oswald did not commit the crime or did not act alone. It turns out you meant "they generally do not connect the persons or groups they accuse of involvement with any of the evidence or witness statements to be found in Dealey Plaza or directly involving Oswald or his activities." And that's true. Even those few researchers who name another assassin (Lucien Sarti or Mac Wallace as the accused for example) haven't provided any hard evidence. I like Eugene Hale Brading as a person possibly involved, and he was arrested in Dealey Plaza, but of course he's not connected to any of the evidence. I don't agree with everything you've said above, but again, the argument is yours. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Last word here to Mr Reitzes who sums it up well: Crimes are solved through an investigation of the evidence... In the case of the JFK assassination, for example, one of the bullets that struck John F. Kennedy has been conclusively linked to a single rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles. That rifle has been conclusively linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, to the exclusion of all other individuals. Either this evidence is authentic, or else some or all of it has been forged and/or planted; there is no other alternative. If evidence is inauthentic, one must determine its provenance through its documentary trail and interviews with each of those individuals known to have handled it. Once it is determined who planted the evidence, it can then be determined upon whose initiative such individuals were acting. Curiously, this seems to be just about the only avenue of inquiry the JFK research community has not pursued over the past four decades. Canada Jack (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Joe, that's what I am saying. And it's not a trivial point I am making. If these authors limit themselves to a discussion of the actual evidence (and a good many do just that), then that is fine. I will certainly quibble with those who focus on the one witness who says "A" while 20 others say "B" and the need to somehow account for counter-evidence. (On the other side, I have to explain why "all" the Parkland staff saw a rear head exit wound while I cite other evidence which says there was no such wound, as an example.) What many authors, however, do NOT do is account for the evidence we have and how it connects to the people they identify as being behind the assassination. For too many of them, the "evidence" they supply is that of "motive," and why Suspect A would want Kennedy eliminated.
When I first saw "JFK" back in 1991, I was pretty impressed, I thought it made a pretty good case for assassination. I can now look at it with a critical eye and much of it is truly laughable. You aren't here defending that film, Joe, so this is no dig at you, but wouldn't it help the credibility of the claims to explain how Oswald, Clay Shaw and the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually worked together to carry out the assassination? I mean, I see all these scenes with generals etc., then I see Joe Pesci foaming at the mouth as David Ferrie and I ask "What, pray tell, is the connection here? Did the Joint Chiefs of Staff hire a bunch of New Orleans-based homosexuals to kill the president?" Canada Jack (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The key point is 'what motives' are there for shooting JFK in preference to some other means of action (especially given that LBJ/assorted talking heads/assorted other interested parties etc would probably get #very, very nasty# towards anyone who supported the assassination attempt (even if a motive had been provided). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that motive doesn't trump actual evidence. If the evidence points to a particular person, "motive" is irrelevant. We don't ever have to know why Oswald did it if the evidence points to him. Period. If there is no evidence linking someone to a crime, then we start looking at who would want person X dead, THAT'S when motive becomes relevant, though evidence actually linking that person to the crime would be demanded. But that's not what we have in this case. Canada Jack (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Currently there is an orphan article for this person. Anyone has an objection to merging its content with this article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Belongs in JFK assassination conspiracy theories not here. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Got it, thank you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
New chapter "Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)"
Mad Hieronimo, you gave the edit summary WP:NEGOTIATION. Let's discuss what changes you propose to the content I provided so that the AEC investigation can be integrated into chapter "Official investigations" to improve the article.Icarus4 (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose inclusion of this material. It was discussed at length last month and there was no consensus in favor of including it. Experts agree that this test is prone to false positives and false negatives. Adding this material would give undue weight to test results that are inconclusive given the inherent shortcomings of the testing procedure. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cullen328, you are repeating all the same arguments that I have already proven to be wrong. See chapter NAA on Oswald.Icarus4 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Icarus, nothing has changed since the last time. You have failed a) to make the case for inclusion on this page. Why does this relatively arcane issue warrant inclusion on this page, which broadly discusses the assassination and briefly recounts the conclusions of the investigations, and not, say, the rifle page where it may have more relevance? And b) the text as written is so laughably POV that I don't know where to start. Howlers such as "The FBI and the Warren Commission conspired to suppress the NAA test results, which do not appear in the report or its appendices." Your credibility would be increased, Icarus, if you managed to distinguish between "opinion," which that quote is, and "fact," which the line as written appears to be. And, here's another: "The only tenable conclusion that could be drawn from the NAA tests was that Oswald had not fired a rifle on the day of the assassination." Really? Says who? Are you actually claiming there is no - not a single - other interpretation? That is what we call up here in Canada, where we seem to be a bit more frank about this stuff than many others, a load of bullshit. If, for example, this test was so sensitive, then why didn't it pick any residue from the many rifles Oswald was known to have fired over the years? Because the residue had worn off or washed off in the intervening time? Oh, so it isn't THAT sensitive, eh? So, how do we know that didn't happen on Nov 22? The control tests were done immediately after the test firing. Oswald's test was done at about 8 pm - at least 6 hours after the assassination. Gee, maybe he washed his face? Or maybe, simply, there was no residue blow-back as the nozzle of the rifle was sticking outside the window and the wind blew it away?
Here is how this text could appear - on the rifle page. "The NAA did tests on the paraffin samples which found no evidence of rifle residue from Oswald's, but did find evidence of residue in control samples. Some have interpreted this to mean that Oswald could not have fired a rifle that day." That's all that is needed here, given the NAA tests on the bullets is extensively covered on the SBT page. The stuff about the years it took to get the NAA data on the rifle is not particularly relevant - we are talking about evidence, after all, not the disposition of evidence - though claims this was part of a cover-up might garner a mention on the conspiracy page, with reference to those who claim this is evidence of such. Canada Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, Icarus, the mere fact you claim to have "proved" a point, tells me that your credibility on these matters is not as great as it should be. Perhaps you should get that old Merriam Webster dictionary out and look up what that word means. Nothing you have argued before "proves" you are right. And the problem here is your seeming inability to see the provisional nature of your argument. This is a common trait in the conspiracy theorist crowd, I have noticed, where the word "proof" is bandied about by people who have failed to supply anything remotely close to that. Canada Jack (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Canada Jack, you wrote, "Icarus, nothing has changed since the last time." As I announced (4th paragraph) to do, I provided content to the article which was never before published on Wikipedia, contains only quotes respectively summaries of quotes from independent third-party sources, and is completely rewritten relative to my original content proposal to be more suitable for the article.
- You wrote, "this page broadly discusses the assassination and briefly recounts the conclusions of the investigations." Yes, and after having considered Cullen's argument about undue weight, I will provide (and currently work on) an improved version of the content.
- You wrote, "You have failed to make the case for inclusion on this page". The case for inclusion is self-evident: This article broadly discusses the assassination and briefly recounts the conclusions of the investigations, and the investigation of the Atomic Energy Commission was one of these. Remark: This AEC investigation appears arcane because there has been a conspiracy to suppress its results, first by only the government (1963-1981), afterwards including the media and the scientific community which both failed to publish about it (with the exceptions I provide as sources).
- You wrote, "Why [...] not, say, [include it in] the rifle page where it may have more relevance". Because the chapter on the AEC investigation is about the investigation, not about the rifle.
- You wrote, "the text as written is so laughably POV". The content I provided only consists of quotes or summaries of quotes from expert scientific independent third-party sources in history respectively NAA (I previously gave also the original sources). "The FBI and the Warren Commission conspired to suppress the NAA test results, which do not appear in the report or its appendices" is from Gerald D. McKnight, Breach of Trust - How the Warren Commission failed the nation and why, 2005, p 209.
- You wrote, "if you managed to distinguish between "opinion," which that quote is, and "fact"". I have no problem with that distinction. Read the Warren Commission report and its appendices, and see that the NAA test results are not included - neither those of Oswald's paraffin casts nor those of the bullet fragments. Also read the relating FBI, DPD, AEC and Warren Commission Executive documents (all of which also are not included in the Warren Report) and note that FBI agents Frazier (McKnight 2005, p 202) and Gallagher (McKnight 2005, p 210) and the Warren Commission (McKnight 2005, p 211) knew about the NAA test results and their meaning at the time when these FBI agents testified. Warren Commissioner and CIA chief Allan Dulles also knew it months before the report was printed (McKnight 2005, p 207). FBI chief Hoover also knew it and mislead the Commission (McKnight 2005, p 208, 423). The FBI agents negotiated with the Warren Commission on what questions would be asked and what topics must not be addressed in testimony (McKnight 2005, p 211, 204, see also p 205). "The only tenable conclusion that could be drawn from the NAA tests was that Oswald had not fired a rifle on the day of the assassination" is from McKnight 2005, p 208. This sentence has the same meaning as the memo from Warren Commission's (general counsel J. Lee Rankin's) special assistant Norman Redlich to CIA director Allen Welsh Dulles, "There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle".
- You wrote, "That is what we call [...] a load of bullshit". You denounce my content using the profanity bullshit. This behaviour is diametral to the civil conversation style Wikipedia wants its editors to adhere to and it only reduces the chances of improving articles because it incites quarrels.
- You wrote, "Are you actually claiming there is no - not a single - other interpretation". I do not claim that, but McKnight 2005, p 208, "Lacking any other plausible explanation." Also Norman Redlich claims it in his memo to Allen Dulles, "There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle."
- You wrote, "why didn't [the test] pick any residue from the many rifles Oswald was known to have fired over the years?" Because AEC's NAA expert Vincent Guinn has only shown that NAA allows conclusive gunpowder residue detection if the paraffin casts were taken up to 24 hours after the shooting (without attempts of washing the residues off). In forensics the problem is that with each hour that passed since the shooting, the probability increases that the shooter had washed off the residues.
- You wrote, "Oh, so it isn't THAT sensitive, eh? [...] maybe he washed his face?" It is so sensitive, that an attempt to get rid of the residues is extraordinarily difficult, because the residues are stored in the pores of the skin and are to be gotten out of there by hot paraffin or prolonged sweating: "Even if Oswald had scrubbed his skin, the scientific certainty is that there would still remain enough residues to be detectable. Short of spending an afternoon in a Russian steam bath sweating out is pores, the negative results of the paraffin cast of his right cheek argue strongly for his exculpation." (McKnight 2005, p 212, 424). Oswald had 3 to 4 minutes time for entering and leaving his room, putting on a jacket and equipping himself with his revolver. This leaves very little if any time for washing his face and hands. Also, the fact that residues were found on his hands strongly indicates that Oswald did not wash himself.
- You wrote, "maybe, simply, there was no residue blow-back as the nozzle of the rifle was sticking outside the window and the wind blew it away?" Eyewitnesses saw that only few inches of the rifle were visible which means that the shooter did not put his head and the trigger outside the window. There is no wind inside a room. The rifle had a strong blow-back. There is no indication that hypothetical wind at the trigger could prevent the deposit of gunpowder residues on the shooter's cheek. You are again recklessly speculating without any indication supporting you.
- You wrote, "The stuff about the years it took to get the NAA data on the rifle is not particularly relevant - we are talking about evidence, after all." The suppression of evidence and knowing misrepresentation by the FBI is obstruction of justice (with a maximum penalty of 20 years prison) in a trial. The fact that several government entities (AEC, FBI, Warren Commission, DoJustice) worked together to suppress that evidence from 1963 to 1981 is in itself a conspiracy. The suppression of evidence can influence the conclusions of investigations and therefore this is relevant to the reliability of all government controlled investigations. Therefore its also relevant to the article's depiction of contemporary history. See also WP:BIASED and conflict of interest. Regarding the media blackout after the revelation, see Freedom of the press, and some presidential speeches on how to handle so called "conspiracy theories": CIA director and President Bush Sr.'s speech on Warren Commissioner and President Ford (who arbitrarily changed the localization of JFK's back wound in the WC report), also in closer detail. Relating to a more recent event: President Obama and President Bush Jr., see also that, President Clinton about this. The media follows the presidents' order to not debate and slanders the people which request a media debate. In response, the people protest the media blackout during live event. The people have an urge to overcome the media blackout. Some claim that the US has no free press because of strong concentration of media ownership in the hands of super rich persons. "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them." - after George Santayana.
- You wrote, "the text as written is so laughably [...] Your credibility would be increased, Icarus, if you managed to [...]. Your credibility on these matters is not as great as it should be. [...] your seeming inability to see [...]" You suggest to the readers that I lack credibility. And by saying, "This is a common trait in the conspiracy theorist crowd" you go on by generalizing your imputation onto approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of the US population. Again, this goes against the established conversation style of Wikipedia and only incites quarrels.
- Last, but not least: Mad Hieronimo, you wanted to negotiate. My invitation to discuss with you remains. Icarus4 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Migod, Icarus. I'll make it plain and simple for you.
1: You have made no credible case for inclusion of this material on this page. The AEC analyses were NOT an "investigation" of the assassination per se, as they were simply very narrow tests on some very specific pieces of evidence, as opposed to the other actual investigations. And, so far, you've convinced no other editor this should be treated otherwise. This belongs on the rifle page. You will not win on this point.
2: All we need - ON THE RIFLE PAGE - is along the lines of what I suggested above: "The NAA did tests on the paraffin samples which found no evidence of rifle residue from Oswald's, but did find evidence of residue in control samples. Some have interpreted this to mean that Oswald could not have fired a rifle that day." And your claims this was "obstruction of justice" etc are more properly to be placed on the conspiracy page where that claim can be expanded.
You suggest to the readers that I lack credibility. That's because you inserted large blocks of text on a page which is flagged as a controversial one, and despite your experience in receiving objections and having the text removed, YOU DID IT AGAIN. Further, your text, as I pointed out, was laughably POV, stating as "fact" mere opinions of the conspiracy crowd. YOU sure think this material is earth=shattering and important, but you've failed to convince anyone else of its import, which is a basic requirement here given the parameters of the page. Canada Jack (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:CIV and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND --Connelly90 11:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Icarus, this is the third time you have attempted to insert this material without gaining any consensus, despite repeated notification that this needs to be achieved. The reasons already have been oft stated. 1) This page broadly covers the assassination of the president, with brief references to the official investigations. This wasn't an official investigation, it an agency limited to testing some evidence for the FBI who were gathering evidence for the Warren Commission. 2) As written, the material treats as fact controversial contentions, such as the claim that the Warren Commission deliberately withheld evidence. Your source for these contentions is an author and it is his opinion that this is fact what happened. Such material MUST make explicit that the claim is the OPINION of the said author, how well-cited his claims may be. 3) As previously noted, the material about the paraffin tests could go on the rifle page, with text along the lines of: "The NAA did tests on the paraffin samples which found no evidence of rifle residue from Oswald's, but did find evidence of residue in control samples. Some have interpreted this to mean that Oswald could not have fired a rifle that day." 4) The claims of a cover-up of this evidence could go on the assassination conspiracy page where such claims can be expanded upon.
- To insist on inserting this material gives undue weight to the importance of it. As it stands, this extremely narrow examination of paraffin and bullet evidence would have about as much space on this page as the Warren Commission itself. Indeed, there would be more discussion on this relatively arcane issue than on the evidence which the investigations cited to conclude Oswald was the assassin. Canada Jack (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Icarus4 (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Icarus4 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Backward snap indicating a shot from the front
92 has tried to delete the qualifier "to many" from the following text: "Almost immediately, with the film showing a backward snap of President Kennedy’s head, indicating to many a shot from the right front and hence a conspiracy, there were new demands for a re-investigation." The film referred to is the Zapruder film.
It has been reinserted by me, and more recently by another editor. Just to clarify the point, there are many ballistics experts and many who know their physics who see that movement as NOT consistent with a bullet strike, at least, in terms of a transfer of momentum from a presumed bullet striking from the right front to Kennedy's head and body. Why? Because the physics involved with a bullet of about 200 grain bullet traveling at c. 2000 ft/sec striking a man weighing c.180 pounds works out to a body movement of about 1 to 2 inches, not the near-foot we see in the film. In fact, as many have pointed out, we DO see a movement of about that amount when Kennedy is struck initially - and it is towards the front.
This canard - that the head movement "proves" a strike from the right front - ignores basic physics, and ignores evidence found within the same film. If such a movement WAS consistent we'd expect Kennedy, when earlier struck in the back, to be violently thrust forward. Or, if you argue he was struck then in the neck by a shot from the front, as some do, then Connally would have been knocked down by the bullet which struck him. Neither of these movements were witnessed. The consensus from the investigations is that Kennedy's movement is consistent with a neuro-muscular reaction to the near-destruction of the brain stem by a bullet passing through. The head-movement canard is further disproved in the Zapruder film by the violent ejection of brain matter and skull fragments OUT the right front of the skull, and not the opposite side where one would expect if struck by a bullet in the right front of the head.
It is for that reason that the qualifier "to many" was inserted, as those who actually know their ballistics and their physics - and their forensics - know that the head moves means very little. IOW, those who know what they are talking about don't see the head movement as indicating a strike from the right front. Those who don't know what they are talking about, and who say stuff like "every action requires a reaction" obviously failed their high school physics as you'd need something near the size of a baseball to knock a man over like that. Canada Jack (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, as many have pointed out, we DO see a movement of about that amount when Kennedy is struck initially - and it is towards the front. I was referring here, of course, to the 1 or 2-inch movement associated with the transfer of momentum from a bullet of about 200 grains striking from the rear. Canada Jack (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Article and NPOV
Since Robert Rourke has repeatedly tried to insert a POV flag on the page, but has failed to initiate an attendant discussion thread on this subject (the above thread is about the infobox, not the article in general), I, in good faith, have decided to start the discussion.
So, Robert, outside of the infobox, which has already been discussed, please describe the parts of the article which in your view violate wikipedia's neutrality dictates. Canada Jack (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Unites States Government (24). Warren Commission Hearings Volume XVII, Commission Exhibit 399. p. 928 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=138875. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=and|year=/|date=mismatch (help); Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ A. Rosen (23). FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 8. p. 23 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62258&relPageId=23. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=and|year=/|date=mismatch (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|DUPLICATE_author=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help); More than one of|pages=and|page=specified (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ R. H. Jevons (27). "Memorandum to Mr. Conrad, Re: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy". FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 5. p. 140. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=and|year=/|date=mismatch (help); More than one of|pages=and|page=specified (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ FBI, Washington, D.C. (6). FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 94. p. 171 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58211&relPageId=171. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=and|year=/|date=mismatch (help); Missing or empty|title=(help); More than one of|pages=and|page=specified (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ John F. Gallagher; Det. Arthur Mandella, NYCPD (15). "Testimony of John F. Gallagher". Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XV, Section: John F. Gallagher. p. 746. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=and|year=/|date=mismatch (help); More than one of|pages=and|page=specified (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ John F. Gallagher; Det. Arthur Mandella NYCPD (15). "Testimony of John F. Gallagher". Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XV, Section: John F. Gallagher. p. 752. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=and|year=/|date=mismatch (help); More than one of|pages=and|page=specified (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ John F. Gallagher; Det. Arthur Mandella NYCPD (15). "Testimony of John F. Gallagher". Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XV, Section: John F. Gallagher. p. 751. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=and|year=/|date=mismatch (help); More than one of|pages=and|page=specified (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ New York Times. 28 August 1964. p. 32.
Dr Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the General Atomic division of Genreal Dynamics Corporation, has been working on the problem with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "In the case of murder or any crime involving a gun," Dr Guinn said, "there is a paraffin test where a wax impression is taken of the hand and cheeks. There is a need for a better procedure and about three years ago we began working on activation analysis. We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and conducted two parallel tests."
{{cite news}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ Weisberg, Harold (1975). Post Mortem: JFK Assassination Cover–Up Smashed. p. 437. ISBN 9780911606058.
{{cite book}}: More than one of|pages=and|page=specified (help)