Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Infobox violates NPOV

Long discussion on our showing LHO as the perpetrator. We do. Enough said.

The field "Weapons" in the infobox contains 6.5×52mm Italian Carcano M91/38 Bolt-action rifle and the field "Perpetrator" contains Lee Harvey Oswald. Both fields violate the policy of neutral point of view. This policy states "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.". It shouldn't be necessary to say that the conclusions of the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations have been contested. If these fields have not been modified or deleted by one month from now, I will insert alleged before both "Weapons" and "Perpetrator," unless someone gives me a convincing reason for not doing so. I am using alleged in the broad sense. Robert O'Rourke (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Please do not insert "alleged" in the article. There are many theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination, but the weight of reliable scholarly sources on the subject is firmly in the side that Oswald was the assassin. Wikipedia reflects mainstream sources, in conformance with NPOV. Placing "alleged" into Kennedy-related articles would introduce a bias in favor of a host of varying conspiracy theories, violating NPOV. Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC) The assertion that the weight of reliable scholarly source is firmly in support of Oswald being the assassin is not verifiable. Even if it were, the assertions about the perpetrator and the weapon would still be seriously contested. Inserting alleged in the field names will not introduce bias to the article; it will reduce its bias in favor of the lone gunman theory. Robert O'Rourke (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC) You misunderstand WP:V: Wikipedia editors makes decisions on the prevalence of scholarly weight all the time, almost always by consensus on talkpages such as this one. Canada Jack sums it up well below: the HSCA was the investigation that was supposed to disprove Oswald's sole guilt as Kennedy's assassin, but it ended up reaching the same conclusion as the Warren commission in the narrow sense of Oswald's specific actions and guilt. There are no comparable analyses of the same stature, just a lot of Internet speculation and many, many speculative books striving to come to a novel theory about the Kennedy assassination, none of which have overcome the weight of mainstream media and scholarship. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC) The infobox of Lindbergh kidnapping has no perpetrator field. Bruno Richard Hauptmann was convicted of kidnapping and murdering the Lindbergh baby and executed. The verdict was never overturned and there have been no official investigations other than the trial. Who misunderstands Wikipedia edits? Robert O'Rourke (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC) OSE applies to keeping, deleting, and creating articles, content, and policy. WMWE? Robert O'Rourke (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC) The bottom line is the official investigations came to identical conclusions in regards to the weapon used to kill the president and the person who was the assassin. While many may disagree with these conclusions, they can't cite an official investigation which came to a different conclusion. In many regards, though the conspiracy crowd would never admit it, the HSCA was "their" investigation with a House determined to conclude "conspiracy" (which they did), but in terms of questions unsettled (such as the veracity of the autopsy conclusions) or the role of Oswald (the WC was accused, with merit, to the accusation of having an a priori assumption of Oswald's guilt), the forensics were found to be sound and stood the test of time in terms of Oswald's role and the weapon used. For us to include another person in the perpetrator box, or a different weapon, we'd need an investigation on par with the WC or the HSCA, not simply the amateurish attempts by conspiracy buffs to raise questions which were largely answered back in 1979. Canada Jack (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC) The NPOV article states, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts," not "Avoid stating assertions seriously contested by official investigations as facts." The article states the conclusions of the Commission and the Committee and has links to the articles on them, which have external links to their reports and evidence. This is enough. An insistence on calling their conclusions facts betrays a lack of confidence in the power of their work to convince the open-minded. I am not an admirer of the Commission or the Committee, as you might have guessed, but I'll say this for them: they did not give someone else's assertion that Oswald was an assassin as a justification for their assertion that Oswald was an assassin. Robert O'Rourke (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC) But in a criminal investigation, we are talking about forensics and evidence. And the investigations which actually addressed this evidence came to identical conclusions. You want us to elevate researchers' conclusions - the vast majority of whom who had no access to the evidence and forensics, even if they have the expertise - to an equal footing. You could make the same argument in terms of evolution - sure the "experts" say it is real, but a good many researchers question if it is. Should we insert some text therefore which casts that doubt on its veracity? I'd say not, even though in that case evidence CAN be directly assessed by holders of contrarian views. And in the United States, as with the JFK assassination, high percentages don't believe the "official" line. Canada Jack (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) "An insistence on calling their conclusions facts betrays a lack of confidence in the power of their work to convince the open-minded." First I'd say that any "fact" is contingent on current knowledge. So we could raise similar objections about anything presented as "fact." But, for those who investigated, that was their conclusion in terms of Oswald and the rifle, and that CONCLUSION is the only "fact" - that they came to that conclusion. But that "fact" of a conclusion is only in the info box. The conclusions about the rifle and sniper are identified within as being the conclusions that the investigations came to. The article does NOT state as "fact" that indeed Oswald was the sniper and that the rifle used was a Carcano. Canada Jack (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Another important point to note is that the WC, and to a much greater extent the HSCA, had access to in many cases the ORIGINAL files - so the ACTUAL X-rays (and not multi-generational copies), the actual bullet and bullet fragments, the actual rifle, the actual negatives and transparencies from the autopsy, negatives and first-generation prints of the backyard photos, etc etc. In most of not all cases, conspiracy claims are based on degraded multi-generational copies of evidence or photos of evidence. IOW, there has NEVER been an investigation which handled the actual evidence which did not reach an identical conclusion as to the perpetrator and the weapon used. Indeed, the level of denial from the conspiracy crowd in terms of addressing the reams of concrete evidence linking Oswald and the rifle to the crime is such that it approaches Holocaust denial. EVERY piece of incriminating evidence was planted and/or faked many of them claim. While there may be some who indeed believe that, we don't likewise insert "alleged" to the Holocaust because there are those who claim the official investigations were frauds. To deny the evidence is to deny the veracity of standard forensic techniques and therefore the conclusions of ANY criminal case. Canada Jack (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Indeed, the level of denial from the conspiracy crowd in terms of addressing the reams of concrete evidence linking Oswald and the rifle to the crime is such that it approaches Holocaust denial." Oh thanks. To put it politely, I think one tends to lose some credibility when one plays the Holocaust Deniers card. Do you really, really need to constantly remind those who've looked at the evidence and reached a different or less conclusive conclusion that you that they are crazy and/or disingenuous? Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) You do realize there is a bit of irony in asking someone to AGF on the part of "researchers" when it is those very people who do not AGF on the part of others. They state that the CIA lied or faked evidence, the FBI lied or faked evidence, the Secret Service lied or faked evidence, members of the Dallas police, members of the media (who are disinformation agents for the CIA), the Warren Commission, the Army, Navy, LBJ... the list goes on and on and on. Where they do AGF is in the words of Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billie Sol Estes, Abraham Bolden, James Files, and a host of others who simply made shit up. Location (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC) No, I realize that there's a bit of irony in being lectured by someone who clearly hasn't read the best-known books by contrarian historians and has no idea what they've said. Anthony Summers, Sylvia Meagher, Gaeton Fonzi, Josiah Thompson, James DiEugenio and Gerald McKnight and other authors have studied all the evidence, conducted research on evidence and interview on their own, and come to conclusions on the case at odds with the official conclusions. And those conclusions are not based on the government lying about or faking the evidence. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Given that you are well-read on the subject, then you know that Summers believes the CIA has withheld information; Meagher believed the FBI intimidated witnesses into changing their testimony and that the Warren Commission was involved in a cover-up; Fonzi said the "Warren Report is a deliberate lie"; DiEugenio believes the HCSA covered-up the Warren Commission's cover-up; Thompson believes the Warren Commission deliberately ignored certain witnesses; and McKnight's publisher states: "The Warren Report itself, [McKnight] contends, was little more than the capstone to a deceptive and shoddily improvised exercise in public relations designed to 'prove' that Oswald had acted alone." In my mind, I'm not certain that it is possible to believe there was a conspiracy without also believing that the government either had some part in it or had some part in covering it up. But that's not to say that the above people, or you, are cranks. Location (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC) So what are you telling me? It's inconceivable that the government would lie? The investigations did ignore some witnesses and mischaracterized what they said. Do you need text and page citations to believe that? And for that reason contrarian historians can be dismissed out of hand? Which of the researchers under discussion is a "crank"? Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "To put it politely, I think one tends to lose some credibility when one plays the Holocaust Deniers card." I'm not sure in the eight years I've been here I've ever made the analogy, but being exposed to the tactics and attitudes of many in the conspiracy crowd, the analogy is apt. Sorry, Joe, but the sort of denial in this case is nearly identical. We aren't talking about a "different interpretation," on various pieces of evidence, we are talking about a) suggesting corroborating evidence has been faked and/or planted with ZERO evidence that this is so (just as the Holocaust deniers claim); b) labeling experts on various forensic fields as being "liars" toeing the "official" line, with zero evidence this is so (just like Holocaust deniers do); c) elevating non-experts to the level of sage truth-tellers in regards to evidence they have no established background in being able to assess, notwithstanding their lack of access to the actual evidence, with opinions at odds with actual experts in the fields in question (just like the Holocaust deniers do); d) suggesting many questions are being "ignored" or "unanswered" by the official investigations even when those precise questions HAVE been addressed, in some cases 50 years ago (just like the Holocaust deniers do); e) suggesting a "massive cover-up" of the truth has been enacted thus painting ANY official statement as a complete and utter lie (just like the Holocaust deniers do). "Do you really, really need to constantly remind those who've looked at the evidence and reached a different or less conclusive conclusion that you that they are crazy and/or disingenuous?" But that's part of my argument. For the most part, those who have reached other conclusions HAVEN'T SEEN THE EVIDENCE. We STILL have people arguing the backyard photos are "faked" based on examination of 3rd, 4th generation images, for example. Or making conclusions on "examination" of the x-rays without ever having actually examined them, for the most part, relying on poor-quality multi-generational copies as another example. The bottom line is that when extensive investigations have been done on the actual evidence, the conclusion were identical as to the weapon and perpetrator. These forensic conclusions, made by the top experts in the field, were nearly unanimous. Others disagree, but almost NONE have had access to the actual evidence. Until such time as a thoroigh investigation is held which draws different conclusions on the perpetrator and the weapon used, we have no option but to list the weapon and perpetrator as is current. Canada Jack (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I agree that the infobox is suitably neutral in telling the reader that Oswald was the perp and the Italian rifle was the weapon. Of course there are other opinions, held by many, but the established ruling is Oswald and rifle. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Are we to assume the good faith of such self-described liars as Marina Oswald and Howard Leslie Brennan? Robert O'Rourke (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Like I said, the list of people or groups that "researchers" think lied or faked evidence goes on and on and on. Thanks for proving my point. 03:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC) The "researchers" who concluded that Marina lied included Warren Commission counsel. Both Oswald and Brennan testified to the Commission that they had lied. Robert O'Rourke (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC) ??? This is an example of the half-truths we see from the conspiracy crowd. Marina ADMITTED she lied, it's in the WC testimony! So your point is...? What is germane is whether the conclusions that Oswald was the sniper were based on her - or Brennan's - testimony. They weren't. But you knew that, didn't you? You've read the Warren Report, of course? Canada Jack (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC) The Warren Commission cited Brennan's testimony to establish that the shots were fired from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. If the shots were not fired from that location, they could not have reached the conclusion that Oswald fired the shots. Robert O'Rourke (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Hmmm. Have you read the Warren Report, Robert? Because they also cited the testimony of Amos Lee Euins, whose description of the source of the shots was radioed out at 12:36 PM. And Robert Jackson's testimony of seeing a rifle barrel being pulled in - along with James Underwood, Thomas Dillard, Malcolm O. Couch and James Darnell who were in the press car with Jackson and all reported that Jackson spontaneously exclaimed he saw a rifle in the window. Dillard immediately took two photos of the window in question, and Couch saw the same rifle barrel. Others reported "an object" or "movement" from the same window, they include Mrs. Earle Cabell and James N. Crawford. Further, while they did not see the actual rifle or sniper, James Jarman, Jr., Bonnie Ray Williams, and Harold Norman, all directly below the sniper's nest, reporting hearing the shots from directly above them and what sounded like shells falling to the floor above them. This is a familiar tactic with conspiracy authors who cast doubt on a single witness while ignoring, in this case, what? TEN corroborative statements from witnesses who said the sniper was in the same window. A similar tactic employed with the shooting of Tippit where doubts are cast on one witness while ignoring the corroborating testimony of some 10 others who either saw Oswald shoot Tippit and/or flee, most of whom positively identified Oswald. But if you read these authors, it all comes down to an emotional and confused single witness. Which is why these "researchers" often can't be taken too seriously. Canada Jack (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC) The Warren Commission had access to the autopsy photographs and X-rays, but did not introduce them as evidence or cite them as grounds for their conclusions. Robert O'Rourke (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC) The failure of the Warren Commission to examine autopsy photographs and X-rays is a valid criticism of it, however, it doesn't change the fact that Ramsey Clark's panel did, the Rockefeller Commission did, and the HSCA did. The medical evidence supports "above and behind" which points to Oswald and his rifle. Location (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Correct, Location. For many in the conspiracy crowd, it's as if it is still 1977 when many of these critiques of the WC conclusions were valid - I remember as I was one of those people who thought the WC was a sham. But those valid critiques were addressed and the claims were brought to heavy forensic scrutiny. As an example, whether there was a different rifle found in the TSBD. Those critiques centred on witness claims there was a Mauser and not a Carcano found. The HSCA examined the question, comparing the news film of the rifle is situ, the film and photos of it being recovered, photos of it carried out the TSBD, and its numerous appearances at the Dallas police headquarters, photographed by numerous news organization, and compared these images to the rifle at the Archives - the rifle in the photos and films was the same rifle as in the Archives, which was the Carcano. This is as definitive as you can get, yet many in the conspiracy crowd refuse to accept this clear-cut evidence, nor do they explain how the photos were wrong and several witnesses - who likely had never seen a Carcano before - were right. Indeed, they typically ignore the forensic analysis done by the HSCA, some claiming the authorities "ignored" the issue. To this day, many cite those several witness claims, ignoring the fact that this question was fully explored and resolved. Canada Jack (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC) To be on par with the Commission, an investigation would have to ignore the backward movement of the President's upper body after the fatal shot, present two frames of the Zapruder film spliced together as frame 207, omit frames 208-11 without explanation, and transpose frames 314 and 315. To be on par with the Committee, an investigation would have to ignore an oak tree in Dealey Plaza. Robert O'Rourke (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Wow, Robert, time to do some research for yourself and not rely on the mendacity and half-truths of the conspiracy crowd. AGAIN, these issues were examined by the HSCA - which, it should be noted, concluded there WAS a knoll sniper, but that his shot missed. They concluded that the backward lurch was consistent with a muscular reaction resulting from the death of the brain stem. Unfortunately for the conspiracy crowd, the movement associated with an actual bullet strike would be about 1 or 2 inches, not the near-foot we see. If this was not so, why wasn't JFk knocked down by the back shot and why wasn't Connally knocked to the floor? You've been watching too many cops and robbers movies. Real life isn't like that, Robert. Be my guest, do the physics on this, a 200 grain bullet, travelling ~2000 feet/sec., striking an object ~180 pounds with a complete transfer of momentum. I'll save you the trouble of doing the calculations, 1 to 2 inches is the answer. We actually see this movement - forward - from 312 to 313. This is why we don't rely on armchair critics who don't actually ask the basic question: How much movement would we expect from a direct bullet strike. Do the physics. One or two inches, max. Frame 208.... and...? Yet more examples of the silliness of the conspiracy crowd. You obviously have been reading Robert Groden, Robert, as his nonsense has been repeated an infinitum on the internet even though this was answered by 1966. Life magazine accidentally damaged frames 207-211, but Zapruder had made copies, so we have the frames, but the WC had a damaged copy from Life. And I have yet to hear of some sinister "truth" hidden in those frames. As for the transposition of 314-315, since the result would make it appear like JFK was instantly hit by two bullets, how does this "hide" conspiracy? AS for the oak tree, both the WC and the HSCA keyed their timing of the shots based on when the limo was clear from the oak tree as per the line of sight from the TSBD. But that's par for the course for most of these conspiracy authors, who simply lie about what the investigators did. Canada Jack (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC) There are numerous references within the page to the fact that a majority of people believe there was a conspiracy in the assassination, though, interestingly, often the poll question is along the lines of "do you believe Oswald acted alone or with others," while most conspiracy theories see Oswald as not being involved, at least not in the role of a sniper. And, as I have noted frequently in the past when the "bias" of the page is identified by others, any conclusions are described as being those of the particular investigation, not as the absolute truth as to what happened. Canada Jack (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC) The above comment and others by its author advocate that Wikipedia adopt a modified version of the Führerprinzip. Not modified enough. Robert O'Rourke (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC) No, Robert, I am not a Nazi for suggesting that to modify the infobox would need an actual investigation on par with the WC or HSCA to come to different conclusions in regards to the perpetrator and weapon. It's called employing common sense. The onus is on you to show us a comparable investigation that came to a conclusion contrary to what is in the infobox. What you don't seem to appreciate is the evidence which the WC and HSCA used to come to their conclusions and that to deny that evidence REQUIRES you to reject standard forensics AND to assume a massive deception, directed by Rube Goldberg owing to the staggering complexity required, for which there is no evidence. Which is on par with Holocaust denial, which we also don't elevate to the point where we affix "alleged" to the event. Canada Jack (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Robert, the scores of highly-credentialed researchers who have reached who have reached different conclusions than Jack's on this controversial subject are all uniformed, stupid, crazy or disingenuous. There is only one way the evidence may be interpreted. Robert, God, thanks for chat. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)::: Joe - it's not a question of the credentials of some making claims, it's the nature of the investigations being carried out. Name a full-borne investigation which assessed the actual evidence and which came to a different conclusion. Can't? Then the request to include different conclusions in the infobox can't be accommodated as there are no investigations which concluded a rifle other than the Carcano was used, or that someone other than Oswald was the sniper who killed the president. It's as simple as that. It's the same reason we don't affix "alleged" to the Holocaust on the basis of the claims of some researchers, some of whom may have similar bona fides in several fields. Canada Jack (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC) When classmates called me stupid in the third grade, I did not seek to engage them in endless debate as to why I am not stupid. Instead I'd say a prayer for them to grow up and become a little more open-minded. But I will answer this question. "there are no investigations which concluded a rifle other than the Carcano was used, or that someone other than Oswald was the sniper who killed the president." The Warren Commission was kind enough to publish all its evidence and testimony. Sylvia Meagher, for example, examined all the same evidence and testimony and found the Commission's conclusions wanting. So have dozens of other scholars, many of whom have also conducted their own original research and interviewed persons the WC ignored. It's one thing for you to note that for encyclopedia purposes, independent investigations don't carry the weight of official investigations. It's another thing to suggest that they carry no weight at all in any context, because in your view there cannot be any possibility that they are right and you are wrong, and thus anyone who finds their research compelling is exactly the same as those racist cranks who, without research or analysis at all, have simply gainsaid the irrefutable facts on the Holocaust. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC) "Sylvia Meagher, for example, examined all the same evidence and testimony and found the Commission's conclusions wanting. So have dozens of other scholars, many of whom have also conducted their own original research and interviewed persons the WC ignored." And, as previously noted, the HSCA re-investigated the case based largely on the claims of researchers like Meagher, applying rigorous forensic techniques to evidence which virtually none of those researchers had access to. And they concluded that the rifle found and the rifle used was indeed the Carcano, and that Oswald used it to kill the president. "It's another thing to suggest that they carry no weight at all in any context, because in your view there cannot be any possibility that they are right and you are wrong..." Uh, no, Joe. It's not a matter of coming to the "correct" conclusion, it's a matter of whether the issues were investigated properly or not. As I also previously stated, the HSCA did the investigation that critics claimed (and I happen to agree with the critics) that the WC failed to carry out. And on the two points we are discussing - the weapon used, the perpetrator - they came to identical conclusions. That was 35 years ago, the evidence hasn't changed in the intervening years. There have been no other investigations of this scope and scale which came to other conclusions, and therein lies the rub. "...and thus anyone who finds their research compelling is exactly the same as those racist cranks who, without research or analysis at all, have simply gainsaid the irrefutable facts on the Holocaust." But we have the same situation here, Joe. This isn't about "interpreting" evidence one way or another: It's about conspiracy researchers consistently claiming that irrefutable forensic evidence is fraudulent or lies or part of a cover-up. It's true with the rifle, the bullets, the fingerprints, the paper sack, Oswald's ownership of the rifle, the photos of him with same, the witnesses who identified Oswald, and now, even the Zapruder film itself. So, it's no longer a case of simply disagreeing on the weight we should give to a piece of evidence; it's a case of claiming that tons of evidence is fraudulent and part of a pattern of lies and a cover-up by the government. Identifying the rifle found in the TSBD is a case in point. Because of strong arguments from people like Sylvia Meagher, the HSCA investigated very thoroughly whether the rifle found was in fact the same rifle the WC identified as being the murder weapon. They did so by examining numerous press films and photos, some of which show the rifle before it was touched by the detectives. It's the Carcano - there is no dispute here. Except by those who dismiss investigations by some as prima facie "fradualent." So, to this day, we have conspiracy authors quoting witnesses who were clearly wrong claiming their testimony was "ignored" even though both the WC and HSCA addressed the "Mauser" claims, while ignoring the investigation the HSCA did into this precise issue! If one does not know the evidence and simply repeats what they've read, that's one thing. But these researchers surely know better and many are deliberately obfuscating the evidence we have on this and on many other issues. That forensic investigation on the rifle was the end of the story. But in the misleading hands of many others, they say the issue was not addressed, and that contrary evidence was ignored. These are the same tactics Holocaust deniers use, pretending that we are being fed a host of lies and issues are being ignored when in fact they weren't, so invoking those Holocaust deniers is entirely appropriate as the same pattern of denial in the face of irrefutable evidence and claims of government lies can be found in both cases. So, when we get a comparable investigation which actually addresses the evidence, and it comes to contrary conclusions, we can insert alternate info into that infobox. But not simply based on the claims of authors no matter their bona fides. Canada Jack (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC) WP:NPOV is about giving due weight to diverse views - not finding some "neutral" position. Our article complies with NPOV because it follows the weight of evidence. There just isn't the same weight of evidence linking any other person, group, weapon or narrative. Just the occasional doubt and inconsistent witness statement. And a vast weight of fanciful supposition based on little but imagination. We might acknowledge such castles in the air, especially where they are widely believed, but we do not state them as fact. We've been through all this before with climate change, the Holocaust, evolution and all the rest. Look, it's been fifty years. We've seen the most closely guarded secrets of WW2 exposed and discussed and made into documentaries, despite the people involved swearing the most awful oaths not to tell. How come none of those involved in what surely must have been a vast conspiracy have done the same? All it takes is one thread to unravel the thing, and not one of those thousands of government officials, police, military and media folk have come up with anything that undoes the conspiracy. Just maybes and whatifs. We show LHO as the lone assassin, using a Carcano rifle, because that's the best evidence we have. And not just the best evidence out of many competing narratives, but evidence that has been examined in excruciating detail. As opposed to someone writing a book with a few grainy photographs. --Pete (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC) "And, as previously noted, the HSCA re-investigated the case based largely on the claims of researchers like Meagher, applying rigorous forensic techniques to evidence which virtually none of those researchers had access to." "There have been no other investigations of this scope and scale which came to other conclusions," So you accept the conclusion of the HSCA that JFK was killed probably as the result of a conspiracy, due to the preponderance of evidence suggesting a second shooter on the Grassy Knoll. And you accept the official reports of the HSCA researchers, who reported that Oswald was apparently collaborating with David Ferrie. Do I have that right? Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC) It's not about whether we agree with the HSCA or not, it's about what reliable sources have to say on the subject. I'm not sure that the HSCA says what you think it says regarding Ferrie, but their report states: "A. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy; the second and third shots he fired struck the President; the third shot he fired killed the President" and "B. Scientific Acoustical Evidence Establishes a High Probability That Two Gunmen Fired at President John F. Kennedy". Point B is included in the article, so what is the problem? Location (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Perhaps "collaborating" is not the right word. From the wikipedia article on David Ferrie, In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that Oswald – who had been living in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 – had established contact with anti-Castro Cubans and "apparently" with American anti-Castro activist, David Ferrie. The Committee also found "credible and significant" the testimony of six witnesses who placed Oswald and Ferrie in Clinton, Louisiana, in September 1963. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC) No, I don't agree with the conclusion of the HSCA that there was a conspiracy, which was based solely on the disputed dictabelt evidence (the "conspiracy" conclusion only came after the last-minute dictabelt presentation as can be found in the dissent.) As for Ferrie, we have the air cadets, and we have the Cuban shenanigans. But no other credible reports - except for Clinton. But you are a bit behind the times on the Clinton sighting, Joe. This is a fascinating claim, and in 1978 was the main "smoking gun" cited by the HSCA as unresolved - seemingly credible witnesses who reported seeing David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald and Clay Shaw together in Clinton LA on a voter drive several months before the assassination. But it has been subsequently revealed that these claims were in fact manufactured by Garrison's team in 1969 for the Shaw trial. It's a complicated tale, and the truth of what happened - yet another example of manufactured "evidence" by Garrison - did not emerge for some 30 years. In short, nothing the witnesses originally said described men who we'd recognize as the three. But in the hands of the Garrison team, memories "improved." On McAdams website: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinton1.htm It's a long read, but well worth it. Canada Jack (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC) I don't understand. You've gone on record as saying, the official investigations used, "rigorous forensic techniques to evidence which virtually none of those researchers had access to." and "There have been no other investigations of this scope and scale which came to other conclusions." Then you cite that which has been "subsequently revealed" which leads to to dismiss what the HSCA report said. Isn't this a gross contradiction? Consider the work of Anthony Summers. He has studied all the evidence for decades and interviewed many witnesses which might go in the "subsequently revealed" category. He has not suggested a cover up or the manufacture of evidence. Yet reading he work has lead many to the conclusion that there may well have been a conspiracy and that there is a possibility that Oswald was not on the Sixth floor. Never mind, you say, this independent research cannot possible carry weight, as "There have been no other investigations of (the) scope" of the official investigations. Yet in terms of what the HSCA reported re Oswald and Ferrie, you prepared to come right back with, yeah this was debunked. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC) I don't understand. You've gone on record as saying, the official investigations used, "rigorous forensic techniques to evidence which virtually none of those researchers had access to." and "There have been no other investigations of this scope and scale which came to other conclusions." Then you cite that which has been "subsequently revealed" which leads to to dismiss what the HSCA report said. No, it's not a contradiction because the issue at dispute is the infobox which says the rifle was the Carcano and Oswald was the perpetrator. Even if we accept the HSCA conclusion as correct in terms of the knoll shot, they nevertheless concluded Oswald alone killed the president with the Carcano. As for the rest of the article, those varying conclusions, such as the conclusion regarding conspiracy from the HSCA are discussed, as is the development of the conspiracy movement. As for Summers, he is only one of hundreds of authors on the subject, with one of literally hundreds of scenarios. Any particular reason his analysis rises to the front? Canada Jack (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC) I think you're dodging the question because you've realized that what I said was true: you've grossly contradicted yourself. You say, “the issue at dispute is the infobox.” No, I conceded that point. The issue is your assertion that those questioning the WC/HSCA scenario can be equated to Holocaust deniers because their positions on the subject are not based on scholarly analysis and interpretation of the facts but on their own stupidity/ignorance/insanity/mischievousness. I point out that some of the best-known researchers have studied all the evidence that the WC and HSCA used as well as conducting research on the witnesses and evidence that the official investigations ignored, and that these other investigations led these researchers to conclude that the WC/HSCA conclusion is doubtful. Irrelevant, you say, because these researchers are all trumped by the HSCA. “the HSCA re-investigated the case based largely on the claims of researchers like Meagher, applying rigorous forensic techniques to evidence which virtually none of those researchers had access to.” You cannot on the one hand endorse the HSCA as on some issues, while openly rejecting it on others without allowing others to do the same. You are literally taking the position that other researchers cannot reasonably conclude that the HSCA was wrong on some issues, because the HCSA was “rigorous” and because they lack the HSCA's resources, but at the same it is not reasonable for other researchers to endorse the HSCA's conclusions. The HSCA concluded a likely conspiracy, its Director maintains that the evidence the HSCA uncovered shows that JFK was murdered by the Mafia, and its leading investigator concluded that Oswald was working with Ferrie, and with the CIA, and that an anti-Castro group was also responsible in Oswald's death. Separate to this contradiction, you continue to falsely state that the case for conspiracy relies on “claiming that tons of evidence is fraudulent and part of a pattern of lies and a cover-up by the government.” Many of the principal contrarian historians say only that there are other possible interpretations of all the evidence. It's only your personal interpretation says that some of the evidence against Oswald as lone gunman is irrefutable. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC) The issue is your assertion that those questioning the WC/HSCA scenario can be equated to Holocaust deniers because their positions on the subject are not based on scholarly analysis and interpretation of the facts but on their own stupidity/ignorance/insanity/mischievousness. I never said anything like that, Joe. That's what we call a "strawman" argument. I never suggested that stupidity and ignorance is the hallmark of conspiracy theorists, indeed I wasn't even saying particular CONCLUSIONS were wrong per se - after all, the HSCA concluded "conspiracy" - I was saying a particular approach and METHOD was wrong. And that the approach and method from many (I never said "all") in the conspiracy crowd smacks of the approaches and methods of those who deny the Holocaust. Those methods and approaches include but are not limited to: asserting a particular conclusion is the correct one and anyone who believes or asserts otherwise is a fool or a shill for those engaged in the "cover up" of the truth as they see it; declaring contrary evidence to have been planted and/or faked; calling contrary witnesses "liars" as opposed to being simply wrong; focusing on a single suspect witness or piece of evidence and declaring that the official case therefore falls apart, even when there are multiple corroborations (Brennan, Markham come to mind); simply ignoring evidence which corroborates the official view; trying to suppress contrary evidence while asserting the authorities are doing the same. You cannot on the one hand endorse the HSCA as on some issues, while openly rejecting it on others without allowing others to do the same. You are literally taking the position that other researchers cannot reasonably conclude that the HSCA was wrong on some issues, because the HCSA was “rigorous” and because they lack the HSCA's resources, but at the same it is not reasonable for other researchers to endorse the HSCA's conclusions. Again, you mischaracterize what I am saying. The HSCA applied a rigorous method to their analysis - and they made their conclusions based on all the facts as they knew them. Sure, we now know the dictabelt evidence has been discredited, but we didn't know that in 1978. The same applies for the Clinton sighting claims. Based on what they knew they made the contingent conclusions - which was, given what was claimed, that it was possible Oswald knew Ferrie and Shaw - but that even if true, how they were associated was a mystery given the evidence they had. Today, however, we know the witnesses were coached into asserting that several men who got out of a black Cadillac - who were identified by Corrie Collins back in 1967 as Estus Morgan and Winslow Foster, with a driver who wore a hat and tie (Shaw never wore a hat) - were Shaw, Oswald and Ferry. Garrison fired the assistant DA who talked to Collins, put someone else in her place and the witness tales changed remarkably. This was not revealed until 1994. (And, you are right about Summers, he is more honest than most. He is one of the few conspiracy authors who dismiss Garrison's trial as a sham.) The crucial difference is most of the conspiracy crowd DO NOT apply a method other than embracing scenarios which support their beliefs while either ignoring the contrary evidence or pretending it doesn't exist. Director maintains that the evidence the HSCA uncovered shows that JFK was murdered by the Mafia, and its leading investigator concluded that Oswald was working with Ferrie, and with the CIA, and that an anti-Castro group was also responsible in Oswald's death. Wrong on the mafia, Joe. He sure WANTED to find the goods on the mafia - the committee just couldn't find the evidence to establish any complicity. We all know he BELIEVED the mafia was involved, but that's as far as we can go given the evidence they uncovered. Oswald worked with the CIA? Huh? Sorry, what page of the HSCA report are you referring to? The Ferrie connection came from the Clinton sightings - which since 1994 have been revealed to have been concocted by the NOLA DA. Anti-Castro agents killed Oswald? What page of the HSCA report is that on? I point out that some of the best-known researchers have studied all the evidence that the WC and HSCA used as well as conducting research on the witnesses and evidence that the official investigations ignored, and that these other investigations led these researchers to conclude that the WC/HSCA conclusion is doubtful. On the specific issues of what happened in Dealy Plaza, there is no "interpretation" of the evidence: the forensics are iron-clad. That's what I am chiefly saying here. Kennedy was struck and killed by two bullets, fired by the same Carcano rifle, from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and that person was Oswald. To pretend the evidence can be interpreted another way means forensic science is a sham and/or evidence pointing to Oswald was planted, with zero evidence that this in fact happened. There is no other way out. The evidence hasn't changed in 50 years; only the infinite imagination from many who pretend it can be ignored or implausibly rejected. And, I repeat, to deny this evidence is akin to the approach the Holocaust deniers use in terms of rejecting standard forensics and accusing the government of manufacturing lies to hide its complicity. You have more of a case when it comes to whether Oswald had assistance from others, but despite your claims otherwise, though many on the HSCA believed there was a conspiracy (not just owing to the dictabelt evidence), there was NO credible evidence which they found which actually established that (outside, again, the dictabelt evidence). Canada Jack (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC) I don't think I understood all that, but I guess that's my problem. I asked for an explanation and I got one. OK. One clarification, and one small request. The clarification is, my comments on the HSCA regarding the Director and principal investigator did not refer to the official reports, but to G. Robert Blakely's very bad book, The Plot to Kill the President, and Gaeton Fonzi's very good book, The Last Investigation. One small request. Admittedly, it's true that Holocaust Deniers refute the irrefutable, and that if one is convinced that certain evidence in the JFK assassination is irrefutable, then JFK researchers who deny that evidence are, at least in one way, akin to Holocaust Deniers. However, Holocaust Deniers are also closely associated with ignorance, prejudice, paranoia, agendas that have nothing to do with historical truth and a total lack of of any scholarly research on their parts. Given these other, deeply negative, connotations associated with the term Holocaust Denier, could you please refrain from using that particular expression to refer to those who disagree with you on these talk pages? P.S. I was once compared to Holocaust Deniers on the Alger Hiss talk page. I'm just glad you have taken up that subject. You are, and I mean this in the most positive way, a fiendish disputant. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Fine on the HSCA clarification. I will say that while those people believed that there was involvement by the mafia, CIA etc., the actual evidence gathered by the HSCA - and I would say subsequently gathered - does not rise to the level where one can definitively or at least confidently assert involvement by those agents. As for the Holocaust Deniers, let me more specific. I don't for a second want to suggest that if you believe "conspiracy" that you are like a ignorant racist who denies the reality of 6 million Jews being systematically exterminated, etc. And I also want to narrow the comparison to largely the events of Dealy Plaza and the evidence there. In terms of claiming there was a CIA link or pro-/anti-Cuban links etc there is no "Holocaust denier" equivalent. That's because Oswald's associations are more in the realm of historical debate in terms of a) what associations Oswald had and b) how important were those associations - like Ferry. Oswald probably met him, but I'd say the relationship was inconsequential and limited to the Air Cadets, while others believe evidence points to something more substantial. And the level of involvement by others, not necessarily connected to Oswald is open for debate, but it has to be in context of the evidence we have there - which points irresistibly to Oswald's involvement. When it comes to the evidence at Dealy Plaza, I'd say the comparison is more apt. I might write something here that, for me, underlines the "denial" comparison in terms of the evidence pointing to Oswald etc, but I will afterwards not make the comparison. Canada Jack (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC) The David Ferrie article needs to be updated in that it does not accurately reflect what the HSCA said. The HSCA said: "There were six Clinton witnesses, among them a State representative, a deputy sheriff and a registrar of voters. (186) By synthesizing the testimony of all of them, since they each contributed to the overall account, the committee was able to piece together the following sequence of events."[1] Acknowledging a possible association between the two, the HSCA summarizes its position with: "The committee concluded, therefore, that Oswald's most significant apparent anti-Castro association, that with David Ferrie, might in fact not have been related to the Cuban issue."[2] The context of all of this is their investigation as to whether anti-Castro groups may have been involved in the assassination. None of it refutes Oswald and his rifle. Location (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC) "a conspiracy, due to the preponderance of evidence suggesting a second shooter". As noted, we deal with the HCSA conclusion of a conspiracy. The basis of that was that analysis of audio evidence indicated more shots than LHO fired, so logically there must have been a second shooter. The audio has since been re-examined and found not to support that conclusion. The links for all this are in the article. In actuality, there is no "preponderance of evidence" for a second shooter. There is no solid evidence whatsoever. This has all been dealt with many times before in discussion. Pleasant though it is to talk about all the colourful details and to push one's own opinions, this is not what this talk page is for. "Alleged" stays out of the infobox and the article because consensus, informed by wikipolicy, says so. --Pete (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC) I'm sure Jack understands the context of my question and can speak for himself, thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC) This is not a private conversation, nor a debate. Feel free to continue any private discussions on user talk pages. I'm seeing nothing here that hasn't been said before, and it's beginning to look disruptive. The personal opinions of editors carry no weight here. --Pete (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC) So you offer your personal opinion on the case, then immediately announce that the thread is disruptive and debate should be closed. Isn't that a bit contradictory? I'd like to give Jack a chance to answer my question. If he doesn't, I have only one more comment to make. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC) @Joegoodfriend: may I politely and respectfully direct your attention to the notices at the top of this page. Discussion on improving the article is welcome, but not general chit-chat on the subject or attacks on each other. In general, everyone gets along just fine, but when a discussion on a topic goes on too long it becomes disruptive because one is distracted from other work to see if anything substantive has emerged. When it is just another round of you said, I said, he said, blah blah blah, then it becomes tedious. Bear in mind that this article has been in pretty solid shape for a long time, and we're talking about events of fifty years ago. Unless something new has emerged or some wikiformatting issue arises, there's not much call to change the article. As noted, this "alleged" business has been dealt with before, and the situation isn't likely to change from the last time and the time before that. Canada Jack is most patient - I think he has a genuine interest in showing how the thing sits - but I don't have his reserves. Once the discussion starts going around in circles, I'm done reading. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC) The editor who equates other editors to Holocaust deniers is "most patient" but those editors who want an explanation of this attack are disruptive. Personal opinions have no place here, except apparently for yours. Thanks for your valuable contribution. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC) This thread is (or ought to be) about whether to add "alleged" to the infobox. I have read the entire discussion and am in complete agreement with Canada Jack, Pete and Location that adding that word is inappropriate. The conclusions of the two official investigations confirm that Oswald was the killer and his Carcano the murder weapon. There is no plausible, widely accepted alternative killer or weapon, but only a mass of contradictory speculations. Enough said. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

House of Representatives anonymous edit.

https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/489064859095810048 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That edit was reverted two minutes after it was made.[3] Location (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And since this is a protected page, the edit never made it to the actual article. It was a pending edit. Canada Jack (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Former President Ford Admits CIA Compromised the Warren Commission's Probe of JFK Assassination

I am curious why the JFK entry does not have any reference to Gerald Ford's deathbed revelations. I'm not going to spend any effort though on editing, because historically my edits get killed by moderators. If you believe it is appropriate for inclusion into the JFK article, mods, then please take the time to do so. Here is a link to get you started.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/former-president-ford-admits-cia-compromised-warren-commissions-probe-jfk-assassination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.160.170 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What "revelation" is found here? That Ford suspected that the CIA hid their operations and in so doing raised suspicions they were hiding "truths" about the assassination even though Ford himself thought it was to hide non-related activities? This is news? Sure, the "possibility" that something connected to the assassination was afoot can't be totally dismissed, but that is what ALL official statements - from the Warren Commission through the HSCA to today - have always said!

This is the usual breathless nonsense we get from the conspiracy crowd. By not categorically dismissing even the notion of a conspiracy - which is what any intellectually honest person HAS to do in this case - Ford is simply stating empirically what we know to be so: The investigations found no evidence for involvement by the CIA or others in a conspiracy to kill the president, but the possibility can never be absolutely dismissed. However, the evidence they DID have pointed quite clearly to Oswald and Oswald alone (with the caveat about the HSCA's dictabelt evidence). Funny how the article fails to mention that rather basic conclusion. But this crowd can never be accused is being intellectually honest. Hell, the article even repeats the rather weak contention that Ford changed the entry wound from "back" to "neck" so as to make the SBT more plausible, a highly misleading claim. Canada Jack (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

neither nor grammar

Re revert of revert on "Neither X nor Y" was/were" where Y is singular. With or and nor, the verb agrees in number with the last noun or noun phrase (Y). See, e.g., http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp and https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/599/1/ "2. When two or more singular nouns or pronouns are connected by or or nor, use a singular verb."Kdammers (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternative but non-conspiracy theories

I don't seem to be the only editor who thinks that Mortal Error, the idea that a Secret Service agent accidentally discharged the third shot, is both clearly notable in itself, and of ample weight to get a mention in this article. Others seem to disagree, though on no obviously-supportable grounds.

Apart from the notability of this specific idea, some mention of the non-conspiracy, but non-standard theories seems to be required. Whatever we may think of them, they are, at least collectively, notable.

Does anyone have any comments before I put in a brief mention? Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a comment. Anybody who has sat with no ear protection just in front of the muzzle blast of an AR-15 or .222 or similar high powered varmint rifle, should cringe at the very premise of this book. The driver of the chase car, front seat passenger, and right front running board secret servce agent must all have been in agony. Yet the car does not swerve and not a person says a word-- then or later. How likely is that? SBHarris 01:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Mortal Error theory certainly merits a mention in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, but why here? It's a hypothesis that has scarcely moved the debate, and is rarely entertained seriously. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the assassination of Kennedy, not fringe alternative theories about the assassination. The Donahue/Menninger/McLaren theory is about as fringe as it gets. As it is not obvious to you, this fails WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. -Location (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This is why I added the 'Other Published Theories' section to the conspiracies article years ago. Someone tried to added hundreds of words regarding 'Mortal Error,' I cut it back to 3 sentences or so. I think it's a good way of dealing with all these cases of "this theory exists so it must be mentioned." Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As Joe points out, significant bodies of work do need to be mentioned even if they are fringe (and, though we aren't here to commit OR, I would suggest that the Mortal Error theory at least is rather more than that). The theories fall into three groups: Set-up (Oswald didn't act on his own, by consensus a notable but collectively fringe set of ideas which we cover suitably), Cock-up (accidental discharge), and Cover-up (of anything, again we summarize well the story of highly-stressed data gathering, bumbling investigations, missing information, etc). A couple of sentences on alternative, but non-conspiracy ideas, with wikilink to Mortal Error as the most notable cock-up theory, would appear appropriate. Joe, would you like to suggest a form of words? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the only other alternative but non-conspiratorial theory that occurs to me is Norman Mailer's far-out suggestion of a coincidental second shooter. The conspiracies page mentions both this and Mortal Error. Perhaps it's time to call it the Alternative and Conspiracies Theories page? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Could be, though I'd like to leave the suggestion that this page should indeed mention Mortal Error briefly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's OK with me, but here's the problem. There's a cadre of editors who will probably disallow it. The thinking is, this article exists as a narrative of the official explantion(s), the conspiracies article is for anything else. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Every November there are a flurry of news articles that discuss the assassination and various conspiracy theories. The later frequently touch on the mob, the CIA, Cuba, etc. The Donahue/Menninger/McLaren theory is rarely touched upon. As alternative theories go, it is an extreme outlier and not suitable for inclusion here. - Location (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Mortal Error is far too sane to appeal to conspiracists, so that's the main market out, and it clearly isn't in the current official version. On the other hand it's just been on the BBC, again... the idea that it should not even be mentioned in this article strikes me as bizarre. However there is as Joe says clearly a cadre who are determined to disallow it. I'll take this page off my watchlist now, but feel free to contact me if there's anything that I can contribute. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The central idea of Mortal Error is the theory that a Secret Service agent accidentally discharged the third shot and there has been a conspiracy to cover it up. It would not be appropriate to present this as an "alternative" or "non-conspiratorial" theory. A mention in the Conspiracy theories section of this article may be appropriate, but only if it is shown to be a highly notable conspiracy theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lucky. Trajectory analysis by the HSCA and by others on the fatal head wound produce a cone which encompasses the top floors of the Depository building. Therefore, for this Mortal Error theory to be correct it would REQUIRE a conspiracy by those consultants who did the trajectory analysis and the HSCA to cover up the true facts of the assassination. Recall, as I have underlined before, there are TWO separate conspiracies most are talking about - the plot to kill the president; the plot to cover up the facts of who actually killed the president. While "Mortal" supposes JFK dies as a result of a screw-up and not a conspiracy, the second conspiracy (a cover-up) is still pre-supposed by the authors.

Besides, RB, didn't you point out before that one of the films - the Bronson one, I think - shows the fatal bullet strike and ALSO shows the agent in question in the wrong position in the follow-up car to have discharged his weapon towards Kennedy? Canada Jack (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ensure it has very good sourcing. As in books published by University presses. There has been so much speculation, and everyone has their own pet theory and so many people have published books. We can't list them all and much of it is low quality or speculation. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Dictabelt which the HSCA based their claim of a fourth gunshot has since been discredited

This needs to included in the article. It is not okay to censor reliable information. The sources I added were also originally sourced in the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations article.184.97.234.40 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No one is attempting to censor reliable information; it appears as though the information you added is redundant to what is already in the article. I have left your edit "pending" so that others can take a look. Location (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It was an awful lot of material, and I confess that I rejected the change after looking at only the first source, which was unreliable, some sort of Kennedy Assassination personal website. If that source is in the other article, it shouldn't be (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). I actually have little interest in this article and don't feel like spending the time to sort it out, so I will neither be accepting nor rejecting the latest change.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to have a little bit more material about the Dictabelt in this article, especially something saying the 4th shot conclusion has been debunked. Before our friend the IP from St.Paul, MN, came by and added a bunch of stuff, the article left it up in the air, telling the reader "The back and forth on the acoustics evidence continues to this day", which comes from journalist Anthony Summers who is no expert on acoustics or recording equipment. The Ramsey Panel of the National Academy of Sciences said the Dictabelt evidence for a 4th shot was bunk, that the supposed 4th shot was a frequently heard noise found repeatedly on the tape. Acoustics researchers hired by political scientist Larry Sabato in 2013 agree with this finding. They also point to the fact that the siren sounds come later in the recording, and the siren sounds fade in and then fade out, with Doppler shift in frequency, which means the open microphone was not in the same motorcade as JFK, the motorcade which very quickly started racing away from Dealey Plaza with sirens blaring. The whole Barger case, and the conspiracy conclusion, depended on the open microphone being in Dealey Plaza about 130 feet behind JFK, but it was not.

I don't think we need to say much more than the sequence of Dictabelt conclusions, that Barger's acoustic conclusion was accepted by HSCA in 1978, that it was dismissed by the FBI in 1980, that it was discredited by the NAS's Ramsey Panel in 1982, that Thomas affirmed Barger's conclusion in 2001, but that the NAS rebutted Thomas in 2005. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Who is Michael O'Dell? Do the editors agree that article on McAdams' blog is adequate to state flatly that the Dictabelt evidence has been discredited? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to state in the text by whom it has been discredited, and provide a little more solid link? Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the fact that this page gives a mainly cursory look at the main issues in regards to the assassination, I'd say we need only note what Binkekster says above. ie the conclusion of 1978, dismissed in 1980 and 1982, with further back and forth.

After all, do we see ANY detail on how the Warren Commission came to its conclusion that Oswald did it and did it alone? I'd say that that would be a bigger issue than the acoustic issue. Canada Jack (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree that the issue does not need to be discussed here in-depth since there is an entire article devoted to it as well as an entire article devoted to the HSCA. Location (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been working on improving the HSCA main page, and would submit that instead of having the final word being the "back and forth" of acoustic scientists, we have something along the lines of the HSCA article's coda: In light of investigative reports from the FBI’s Technical Services Division and the National Academy of Science Committee determining that "reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman", the Justice Department concluded “that no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy in … the assassination of President Kennedy”. I'm planning on trimming down some of the HSCA section of this page (including the details of the dictabelt), and will probably include something to that effect. Both quotes from a ~1984 Justice Dept. memo. Koijmonop (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The federal investigators have debunked the mistaken Dictabelt conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the Secret Service

Why is the Criticism of Secret Service subsection in the section entitled Official investigations? This should be in a subsection of material about the HSCA's findings. -Location (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the following content from this section:

Sgt. Davis, of the Dallas Police Department, believed he had prepared stringent security precautions, in an attempt to prevent demonstrations like those marking the Adlai Stevenson visit from happening again. The previous month, Stevenson, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, was assaulted by an anti-UN demonstrator. But Winston Lawson of the Secret Service, who was in charge of the planning, told the Dallas Police not to assign its usual squad of experienced homicide detectives to follow immediately behind the President's car. This police protection was routine for both visiting presidents and for motorcades of other visiting dignitaries. Police Chief Jesse Curry later testified that had his men been in place, they might have been able to stop the assassin before he fired a second shot, because they carried submachine guns and rifles.

First of all, this section is about the "Official investigations", so the material is misplaced. Secondly, this appears to be an original synthesis and interpretation of primary source data. Curry's testimony seems to suggest that he would have preferred for a car of his detectives to have been placed between the President's car and the Secret Service follow-up car and that those detectives would have been in a position to whirl around after the first shot to a rain fire down upon the sniper's nest. This all seems a bit ludicrous given that Adlai Stevenson was merely clunked with a protestor's sign in Dallas. If there are any reliable sources discussing this facet of Curry's testimony, please let me know. -Location (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Recordings of the assassination

It seems strange to me that the youtube videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-LA0ypFXig

or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1qSGk8oMQ

are not cited at all. Are these new? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimacq (talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel they would be useful as citations. They seem to be collections of existing archival footage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

How good he was

jfk was a good man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.145.132 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Mary Woodward and Connally witness statements

Several attempts to add POV material have been made the past few days and have been reverted - not by me, but I agree with keeping this material out of the article.

The material in question cherry-picks several witness statements to cast doubt on a circa frame Z160 occurrence of the first shot, which the HSCA concluded missed everyone (the Warren Commission made no conclusion of which of the three shots missed). The page in fact relates the sequence of events as per the conclusions of the WC and the HSCA. As has often been stated, there is no agreed-upon sequence of shots from the conspiracy community, who have multiple scenarios about the sequence of shots - dozens of scenarios in fact. (One, two, three or more snipers, four to eight shots, etc.) The Z160 initial shot is more or less the standard starting point of the main scenario for the single gunman conclusion. While other single gunman conclusions put the missed bullet after the Z224 shot or even after the fatal shot, these are minority opinions (though the Warren Report did spell both these possibilities out).

So, to include some evidence which suggests another scenario - without spelling out what the scenario is - is beyond the scope of the page as this is focused on the conclusions of the main investigations. There is simply no way to include the numerous conspiracy claims here as the entire page would have to be given over to the numerous claims and counter-claims as there is no agreed-upon sequence of events from within the conspiracy community (even given that the HSCA concluded "conspiracy" yet confirmed the Single Bullet Theory upon which the circa Z160 initial shot partly rests). So, while citing evidence which seems to contradict the official conclusion may impress those who are not too familiar with the evidence, NO scenario I've seen lacks seemingly contradictory evidence.

Simply plonking down POV material which suggest another scenario without a connection to another specific scenario or to those who claim the evidence suggests a different specific scenario is not how wikipedia operates. As it stood, some editor personally believed this evidence contradicts the official conclusion, and therefore inserted it. With specific citations (what does this suggest; who says this is what it suggests, etc.), this issue can be explored on the conspiracy page where many of these claims reside.

Besides, both Mary Woodward and Connally's statements are directly contradicted by the Zapruder film which clearly show a sudden turn to the right by the limo occupants circa Z160 and no subsequent reaction to a gunshot report before JFK is hit in the back. Sure, that's my opinion, but it also happens to match what the HSCA concluded. Canada Jack (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that Connally disagreed with the single bullet theory is already mentioned in John Connally#Kennedy assassination and Single-bullet theory#Number and sequence of the shots. - Location (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Governor Connally did say he turned to his right upon hearing the first shot. However, he also claimed the time between the first shot and the one which hit him were fired very close together. Governor Connally informed both the FBI and the Warren commission that the time between the first shot and the one which hit him was very brief. In fact according to Connally, it was so brief that he initially believed somebody was shooting with an automatic rifle! He also claimed the Limousine travelled between 150 and 200 feet (further down Elm Street than the position at frame 160). His recollections are therefore more in line with a shot fired between frames 178 and 190 (as per the witnesses who observed Kennedy waving). Of course, there is every reason to believe his memory could’ve been badly affected by his injuries. However, couldn’t the same be said of his recollection of turning to the right following the first shot? Of course it could.

In fact, during an interview with life magazine in 1966, Connally was shown frames of the Zapruder film, where he was asked to give his opinion of when he was hit. Connally had ultimately decided on frame 234. However, the most telling part of the interview was when he made the statement he turned to his right when the limousine was behind the sign. From Pat Speer’s website: "You can see my leftward movement clearly...I had turned to the right when the limousine was behind the sign. Now I'm turning back again. I know that I made that turn to the left before I was hit. You can see the grimace in the President's face. You cannot see it in mine. There is no question about it. I haven't been hit yet."

So there you have it folks. Despite the claims by lone gunman theorists, Connally himself claimed to turn to his right when the limousine was behind the sign. Clearly, the limousine was not behind the sign at frame 160. We can see the limousine disappear completely behind the sign at circa frame 200, and we see Governor Connally emerge at circa frame 223. Let me just state for the record, that unlike many conspiracy theorists, I do believe Connally was struck by a bullet at frame 224! However, I don’t believe in the single bullet theory (I will discuss my beliefs on these matters in a future post). Let’s bear in mind that Connally’s claim of turning to his right as the limousine was behind the sign, is perfectly consistent with his earlier claims of the time span between the shots being very brief. It is also consistent with his claim that the limousine could have travelled between 150 to 200 feet along Elm Street, before the first shot was fired. I'm sorry.

Goodbye.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.147.178 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.159.6 (talk)

And the Zapruder film clearly shows Connally reacting to the shot at circa frame 160, along with others in the limo. AND it shows him being struck at Z224. That's 4+ seconds later. The problem with the conjecture that if he could be wrong about the timing, he could also be wrong about the reaction is that we have at least 3 in the limo and at least one spectator showing near-instantaneous reaction to something at the same time. That "something" could only be a gunshot report as Connally is still making his right-hand turn as he goes behind the sign. Otherwise, you have a problem - when does he react? The SECOND right-hand turn is AFTER he is shot, as he turns to see the struck president.

And, with the lapel-flap first observed in 1975, we have the instant he was struck. Facial expressions are not indicative of the instant of trauma - people react differently and not always instantaneously, however the physical manifestation - lapel flap, head exploding - ARE instantaneous with the passage of a bullet.

If you agree C was hit at 224, then you MUST believe in the SBT, as the bullet that struck was a tumbling bullet, slowed significantly, having hit something earlier - JFK. Further, any bullet which struck C at that instant came from a direction which was blocked by JFK. Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think an explanation for Connally’s head snap (circa frame 165) is answered in the article by reporter Mary Woodward.

“We had been waiting about half an hour when the first motorcycle escorts came by, followed shortly by the President’s car. The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us…After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right.”

So there it is. Woodward claimed that both Kennedy and his wife, turned towards them as they started to clap and cheer. Now wouldn’t Governor Connally, who was also watching crowds throughout the motorcade, turn his head quickly from looking to his left (just prior to frame 165) upon hearing the clapping and cheering? Of course he would. After all, isn’t that precisely the sort of reaction we would expect from anybody hearing cheering? I sure believe that to be the case.

Now, Woodward herself never claimed that Connally had turned towards her. This is understandable however, considering she was paying attention to the President and his wife, and not Connally. Supporting Woodward’s observation, many other witnesses made it clear that both the President and the first lady turned to their right before the first shot, not after. I honestly don’t know how much clearer it could be. When we also take into account the witnesses who observed Kennedy waving as the first shot was fired, along with Connally’s claim of turning to his right as the limousine was behind the sign, it’s obvious the first shot was fired between Zapruder frames 178 and 190. It makes little or no sense that President Kennedy would hear a loud noise such as a gunshot, and continue to smile and wave.

And like I said, I don't believe in the SBT; refer to my blog for this matter: The Single Bullet Fantasy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.159.6 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The unidentified user posting under IP 84.13.159.6 has made a false claim. I am acquainted with the actual author of the blog and cited article, The Single Bullet Fantasy. The actual author protests this impersonation, [4] Ruidoso (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your scenario lacks common sense. It was a motorcade with thousands of cheering people - you make it sound like someone cheered and, startled, Connally and the Kennedys all turned at the same time! If they reacted like that to every cheer and yelling spectator, they'd have whiplash by then! What makes more sense - since we also have the reaction of the kid on the road - is that they indeed reacted to a startling sound - a gunshot. Which is precisely what Connally said he heard which caused him to turn. You still have failed to account for Connally's specific description of turning in reaction to the shot, then being hit. The turn starts with Z160, the subsequent turn is well AFTER he has been hit, there is no additional turn behind the sign - there was no time for it!

And, again, if you believe Connally was hit at Z224, then you HAVE to believe Kennedy was hit by the same bullet, all the physical evidence backs that contention: the nature of Connally's back, wrist and thigh wounds; the velocity of the bullet associated with such wounds; his position some 34 inches in front of Kennedy; the lack of a separate bullet from Kennedy if there were two bullets, etc. Canada Jack (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And, a close look at the Zapruder film shows JFK turning to his right immediately after turning onto Elm, then forward, then turning again to his right at ~Z160. So those witnesses who also say he turned to his right before any claimed shot are not at odds with a bullet from Z160. Canada Jack (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The statements of the men on the 5th floor

Now, and for the last time. Somebody keeps modifying the section about the statements of Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams, and James Earl Jarman, who were viewing the motorcade from the 5th floor of the TSBD. The user(s), is deliberately cancelling Bonnie Ray Williams’ story that he informed both the Dallas Sheriff’s office and the FBI, that he heard two shots fired above his head, and that Harold Norman did not make the claim of claiming to hear the bolt of the rifle being worked and hearing three shell casings hit the floor above him in his first interview with the FBI - which could mean that Norman is possibly not a credible witness (notice: I say possibly, while these people just put forward in his claim in which he always maintained he heard what he heard). Excuse me for being so rude but this is a real source and it is kind of important isn’t it?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.50.151 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted your changes because you changed a witness saying he heard three shots to a witness saying he heard two shots. This is a complete - and potentially significant - change of direction. I think it bears talking about in some detail, rather than being sort of snuck in without discussion. As I said, Kennedy's been dead for fifty years, so what's the hurry? --Pete (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Now why would someone insert material which might cast doubt on some witness testimony? To suggest that perhaps witness testimony was tampered with? To suggest there was a conspiracy? To counter the "pro lone-nut" take of the page?

Well, why not, you may ask, have evidence which casts doubt on the official conclusion? The short answer is because the page is set out as a narrative, not as a presentation of the evidence which established a single gunman in the mind of the Warren Commission. The evidence we are talking about is part of the initial events which partly led to the arrest of Oswald. The bottom line here is we don't delve into the evidence which later established Oswald in the minds of the WC and HSCA as the man who fired the shots which struck the president. Why? Because that evidence would fill this page. Suffice to say that Brennan (another "liar" in the minds of the conspiracy crowd) reported he saw a man firing shots from said window, and the three employees on the fifth floor heard shots and shells fall which came from right above them. In the normal course of events, this would establish that, indeed, a sniper fired from the window in question. And soon, Oswald, the only employee of the building who was not accounted for, was sought out as was the man Brennan described who - given the mountain of evidence we now know - was one and the same.

But just in case the poster hasn't thought this through (and it seems most in the conspiracy crowd haven't applied logic and common sense here and lead many credulous down the garden path towards "conspiracy"), the Warren Commission did NOT establish three shots were fired on the basis of Norman and Jarman's testimony, or establish a sniper fired from the TSBD based solely on Brennan's testimony. What the conspiracy crowd tend to ignore when discussing Oswald in the window and how he couldn't make it to the second floor in time to get a Coke, is the fact something like TEN witnesses either saw a man actually shooting from the window, the barrel of the gun firing from the window or, as the witnesses below reported, shots from directly above. That established for the WC the FACT that a sniper shot from the window; no other person was observed firing shots in Deally Plaza that day.

And what almost every conspiracy author who claims Oswald couldn't have fired a shot does NOT do is tell us who that sniper in fact was. No surprise there, since ALL employees were accounted for at the moment of the assassination, save Oswald (Jack Doughtery, said he was alone on the 5th floor rear but no one claims he was even capable). It's a rather massive hole in their scenario which is usually papered over with ever less-plausible claims of witness collusion and "lies," as we are asked to believe at the same time Oswald "couldn't" have done it as he didn't have time or would've been seen going down the stairs that the REAL sniper DID sneak down those stairs with no one seeing him, and vanished into thin air as all the exits were manned and watched!

Recall, the article does NOT say "Oswald fired three shots from the window, killing Kennedy..." it states instead that shots were fired (from where is not stated) and the WC and others concluded he was the sniper, while also stating that other theories came to different conclusions.

Further, on whether 2 or 3 shots were fired, the conspiracy crowd ignores the fact that 97 per cent of ear-witnesses said a MAXIMUM of three shots were fired. Virtually ALL conspiracy theories REQUIRE four shots to have been fired, something completely at odds with what witnesses in fact reported. Secondly, and most glaringly, the same percentage of witnesses, while some reporting shots from the area of the Grassy Knoll, reported that the shots CAME FROM A SINGLE DIRECTION. So, the crucial thing is not whether Williams heard two shots from above, not three, it is that he heard ONLY two shots, not a third or fourth FROM ELSEWHERE. IOW, the crucial point is not where the witnesses said the shots came from - we KNOW for a FACT shots were fired from the TSBD - it is whether many witnesses said they heard shots FROM MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS.

I made this fundamental point on a different forum when a well-meaning but misled man made what he felt was an iron-clad mathematical argument that suggested that it was near-impossible in terms of probability for all those witnesses who claimed shots from the direction of the Grassy Knoll to have been mistaken. I begged to differ. But he simply would not accept my point that 97 per cent said shots came from a single direction, 10 or so SAW a rifle or man firing a rifle from the TSBD - therefore establishing someone - fired from there, therefore establishing a single gunman firing from the TSBD. He and others made the implausible suggestion that, well, different witnesses heard different shots. An argument which, I pointed out, brought with it fundamental and obvious problems for multiple-gunmen theories. For him, it seemed that the 60 per cent or so who said "Grassy Knoll" trumps the 97 per cent who said 3, maximum, shots, and the 97 per cent who said "one direction."

Further, to the other attempted insertion of Bower's supposed claim he saw someone throwing a rifle into a car, he never testified to that claim, someone else did. This despite Bowers talking to a known conspiracy theorist who, strangely, didn't get ANY testimony about men with guns or snipers from him. Indeed, he told Mark Lane, who interviewed him on film, that there was NO ONE behind the fence who was in a position to fire shots when the motorcade passed, testimony which Lane excised from his film which he edited to make it seem something DID happen behind that fence. Bowers, if he was so "afraid" to testify publicly about a rifle thrown into a trunk, surely would have not consented to a filmed interview with a known pro-conspiracy advocate. Yet that is what the credulous in the conspiracy also want us to believe. Canada Jack (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"What the conspiracy crowd tend to ignore when discussing Oswald in the window and how he couldn't make it to the second floor in time to get a Coke, is the fact something like TEN witnesses either saw a man actually shooting from the window, the barrel of the gun firing from the window or, as the witnesses below reported, shots from directly above. That established for the WC the FACT that a sniper shot from the window; no other person was observed firing shots in Deally Plaza that day. " A number of witnesses saw someone who did not look like Oswald, or saw two people on the sixth floor.[5][6] Who are these TEN who saw someone shooting from the window? I've never heard that number. You don't have to ignore what those witnesses saw to believe that Oswald could not have made it to the 2nd floor in time; the shooter might not have been Oswald.

""And what almost every conspiracy author who claims Oswald couldn't have fired a shot does NOT do is tell us who that sniper in fact was. No surprise there, since ALL employees were accounted for at the moment of the assassination" At the moment of the assassination? What do you mean? They were accounted for later at a roll call. And why does an alternate assassin have to have been an employee?

"and vanished into thin air as all the exits were manned and watched" They were not. Witnesses stated random persons entered and exited the SBD for some time before it was sealed off.[7] "Commission finding.--Police may have begun to take up positions at the exits to the building as early as 12:33, but it is unlikely that they had blocked them off completely until 12:37 p.m. at the earliest."[8] You realize that if Oswald had not been identified later, he could have been said to have "vanished into thin air." No witness actually saw him leave the building. The same could have been true for anyone else. "Sgt. D. V. Harkness of the Dallas police said that to his knowledge the building was not sealed off at 12:36 p.m.... Although Oswald probably left the building at about 12:33 p.m., his absence was not noticed until at least. one-half hour later."[9]

"the 97 per cent who said "one direction."" Source? Thanks. "Twenty one officers said their reaction to the gunfire was to go search the area famously known as “the grassy knoll.”" [10]Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You know I'll follow up with more, Joe... but here are the numbers from McAdama in terms of numbers who said max 3 shots (it's 95% not the 97% I thought might be it), and one direction (97%, got that one right). Canada Jack (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

d'oh! might help if I supplied the link... [11]

Hmm. McAdams' page says "31% knoll". Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The point is not how many said "knoll" or "tsbd," it is how many said two directions. Shots from at least two directions is a REQUIREMENT for most of the theories which have a knoll assassin. McAdams' compilation says 97% one direction, as I stated. The other tabulations come to similar conclusions: Josiah Thompson 94% one direction; the HSCA 96% one direction; Stewart Galanor 96% one direction.

What I love about conspiracy theories is that they have no evidence. No witnesses, no gun, no casings. Just suppositions to fill in the grey areas. Of course witnesses gave different statements about where the noise came from. The sound echoed off the faces of the buildings and people were unsure about what was going on. A lot of them were scrambling for cover. But we have eyewitnesses who saw Oswald firing and heard his casings fall to the floor just above their heads. We know there was a shooter there, and nobody has ever identified anyone but Oswald.

Nor have they credibly placed a shooter anywhere else. Fifty years on and the grand secret hasn't leaked? Come on! Oswald was a nut with a gun and the opportunity. Nobody ever said he was stupid, just unstable. He saw the opportunity, made his plan and carried it out. That is the explanation, as determined by inquiry after inquiry.

And yet we have these fellows grasping at inconsistencies, speculating, guessing, trying to fill in the grey areas with doubt. Never, never, never any actual evidence. Just maybes and whatifs. This is Wikipedia. We need sourced statements, not confected logic and speculation. --Pete (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Question for Pete. How do the following points not constitute evidence?

1. Dr. Malcolm Perry stated three times that he considered the wound in Kennedy’s throat to be one of entrance, not exit. Dr. Perry, who was experienced in interpreting bullet wounds, had inspected the wound before he performed a tracheotomy on the president.

2. From the Sibert and O’Neill Report FBI report on the autopsy:

• The back wound “was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column,” a location consistent with the bullet holes in the president’s shirt and jacket but, according to some, too low to be consistent with the single–bullet theory.
• “This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.” Again, according to some, a bullet entering at a downward angle could not have come out through the throat, as the single–bullet theory demanded.
• “Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.” It became known several years later that the pathologists had been forbidden, presumably by one or more of their military superiors, to dissect the back and throat wounds.

3. Ballistic experts suggest that the presence of dozens of tiny bullet fragments in the president’s skull and brain indicated that the wound to his head had been caused by one or more soft–nosed bullets, and not by metal–jacketed bullets such as those associated with the shells that had been discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

4. Governor and Mrs. Connolly were adamant that the Governor was not hit by the same bullet that struck the President. Many interpretations of the Zapurder film agree. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The Perry statement comes from where, precisely? - I'm not seeing a reliable source here. Likewise your other quotes. I'm seeing synthetic arguments, not evidence. --Pete (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Me: "something like TEN witnesses either saw a man actually shooting from the window, the barrel of the gun firing from the window or, as the witnesses below reported, shots from directly above."

Seems my memory was correct (though you might quibble about #7, still 9 is "something like 10"). Those ten are: 1) Howard Brennan, who saw a man firing the last shot after taking "positive aim"; 2) Amos Lee Euins saw a man shooting from the same window; 3) Jame Worrell Jr. saw the barrel and forestock of a rifle sticking out the window after the first shot and saw it fire; 4) Robert Jackson saw the barrel of a rifle being pulled back into the window; 5) Malcolm Couch also saw the rifle in the window; 6) Mrs Earle Cabell saw a "rather long looking" "projection" from the window after the first shot; 7) James Crawford saw movement in the window after the third shot which he described as a person moving back from the window; 8), 9), 10), James Jarman Jr., Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman were all in the 5th floor window directly below the sniper's nest and reported that shots seem to come from above them, loosening debris which fell into Williams' hair, that they could hear bullet shells falling above them and the action of the bolt of the rifle.

These accounts are corroborated by other witnesses who said they were told, immediately, of seeing a gunman/rifle: Brennan immediately told police what he saw; Euins told Sgt D. V. Harkness of the Dallas police what he saw immediately as well, and told reporter James Underwood as well; Jackson's account corroborates the account of the 5th-story employees as he also said he saw two of them straining to look above them, and Jackson followed their gaze to see the rifle. James Underwood confirmed that Jackson immediately said he saw a rifle and James Dillard took photos of the window in response. Couch also corroborated Jackson and, as mentioned, looked up to see the rifle. He also said he saw one of the 5th-floor employees leaning out of the window to see above. Mary Ann Mitchell corroborated Crawford's account by saying after the third shot he said the shots came from the building in question, but she didn't see the particular window he referred to.

I probably won't have time to address the other points you make for a few days, but a quick remark about the autopsy points: 1) Perry relied only on visual inspection of the throat wound, therefore his claim it was an entrance wound was an opinion, not a fact, as tests determined the back wound and rear head wounds both to be wounds of entrance. Further, a bullet passing through a body cleanly as this bullet was said to have done would be expected to leave an exit wound indistinguishable by the naked eye as to being entry or exit. Still further, the bullet passed though JFK's tie and the threads passed outward as expected if it was exiting, not inward. 2) Sibert and O'Neill didn't do the autopsy, so why are their notes more persuasive than the actual pathologists'? The precise measurements were described by the pathologists, we don't know if Sibert and O'Neill got the measurements from the clothes. 3) "Downward at a 45-60 degree angle." The wound was reported to actually travel upward as per the anatomical position, but this is one of those cases where common sense dictates that Sibert and O'Neill HAD to be wrong. Think of that angle - it implies that the sniper had to be 45 degrees up - even higher if JFK was leaning forward - the sniper would have had to be standing on the trunk for that angle to make sense, or from a helicopter well above the rooftops of downtown Dallas! 5) You didn't make the claim, but the "short distance" by the finger probe was not a surprise as this was done nearly 12 hours after the death of the president, and rigor mortis was setting in. Unless JFK was in the precise position he was in when shot, the wound could not be probed. As for the autopsy, this sentence is highly misleading: "It became known several years later that the pathologists had been forbidden, presumably by one or more of their military superiors, to dissect the back and throat wounds." There indeed WAS pressure - from Robert and Jackie Kennedy - to speed up the autopsy, this we know now. And, there was no perceived need to do the throat and neck dissection as the presumption was during the autopsy that the back bullet had fallen out. They were not aware until they were done that there had been a neck wound. If they HAD known that, they would have performed the dissection. It wasn't seen as necessary before then, and there were fears from the Kennedy family that it might be revealed that JFK had Addison's disease if a complete autopsy had been done, hence the pressure to wrap up only what was necessary.

6) Bullet fragments: We have the fragments of the shattered full metal jacket bullet, therefore the presence of numerous bullet particles is consistent with a single bullet to the head; the back bullet's relatively pristine state is matched by the relative lack of bullet particles found only in Connally and THOSE fragments are consistent with lead from a backwards tumbling bullet, again entirely consistent with the SBT. 7) Nellie's testimony is not consistent with the SBT, however John's is. He HEARD the first shot, turned and was hit by the second shot, he only PRESUMED JFK had been hit by the first shot but only turned to see JFK after he himself had been hit. Reading his testimony and watching the Z-film matches what the HSCA in particular concluded - first shot c Z160 missed; second shot hit both. While he always supported Nellie's story, his account in fact differs from her's. Canada Jack (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Thanks. I didn't ask for a counter-point, I asked why these things are not "evidence."

2. Governor Connolly,[http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/john-connally-debunked-jfk-single-bullet-theory/] “They talk about the ‘one-bullet or two-bullet theory,’” he concluded, “but as far as I’m concerned, there is no ‘theory.’ There is my absolute knowledge, and Nellie’s too, that one bullet caused the president’s first wound, then an entirely separate shot struck me.” “You can see my leftward movement clearly,” Connally explained to Life as he studied the frames. “I had turned to the right when the limousine was behind the sign. Now I’m turning back again. I know that I made that turn to the left before I was hit. You can see the grimace on the president’s face. You cannot see it in mine. There is no question about it. I haven’t been hit yet.” Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, look at your own statements, Joe. You feel the need to interpret the quotes, whose source and context you don't provide, and your interpretations lead us where, precisely? Nowhere but more speculation. There's nothing solid in it - follow it all along and it just melts away into "maybe" and "could be". --Pete (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic at all. Yes I feel the need to interpret the quotes. When Governor Connolly and his wife say he was not shot by same bullet that hit JFK in the back, I interpret that as meaning that the single-shooter scenario is impossible unless the Connollys are wrong, which I think is highly improbable. Is there another way to look at evidence, other than using data points and deduction to reach conclusions? Others believe "maybe" Oswald was the assassin because it "could be" that Howard Brennan's identification of Oswald at the window was valid. It's exactly the same kind of deduction.

And are you going to answer my original question: How are the things I listed are not evidence? You said, "We need sourced statements." You've got them. Click on the links. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll put it another way, then. When someone is apprehended by the police and questioned over some crime for which he is a prime suspect, a common tactic is to say, "Well maybe it coulda mighta been someone else, someone you haven't found?"

Well, maybe. But if after fifty years of intense investigation, you haven't found that second shooter, not one skerrick of evidence, don't you think you might have the right guy after all, the one they were looking for within minutes and found an hour later desperately evading capture?

What you've got isn't evidence. It is a confected argument leading nowhere but that grey land of "could have, maybe, might have been". There's no "evidence" of anything unless you include in your opinion - "improbable" as you say in the case of Connally. That "improbable" isn't anything objective, it's your personal opinion, and it's because you hold some deep inner conviction for which, after fifty years, there is no actual evidence. It just goes round and round and round and leading nowhere. Do we have an eyewitness report of a second shooter? No. Do we have any shell casings? No. Do we have anything at all? Not a skerrick. And yet we have LHO, a trained marksman, a man with a boatload of grudges, a man with a rifle, a man who was seen to fire, from a place where not only the spent cartridges were found, but the rifle itself with his prints on it. He fired three rounds: the first missed, the second hit Kennedy in the back, the third was a bullseye. Sounds exactly like someone correcting their aim when firing in an unfamiliar situation. We have the man, the motive, the weapon, the circumstances. For the second shooter, all we have are theories. No evidence. Just that grey area of speculation. --Pete (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"you haven't found that second shooter" We haven't caught the Zodiac either. Maybe those folks shot themselves?

"not one skerrick of evidence" Here's[12] one of the photos of the many people, including numerous police officers, who ran straight to the Grassy Knoll because they heard a shot and/or saw smoke there. This is where a shot from the front could have originated from, consistent with many interpretations of the Zapruder film, the bullet fragments (some of which are inconsistent with Oswald's ammunition), the debris from the headshot spread some distance behind the limousine rather than in front, again combined with the fact that if the Connollys are correct there must have been a second shooter somewhere. All of which is consistent with Dr. Perry's statement, "There was an entrance wound in the neck." All of that is evidence. And the fact some have reached a different conclusion from the same data points is just fine. But that doesn't mean you have to attack the integrity of those who simply disagree with you. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Joe, but you're just not getting my point. This is Wikipedia. We can't use confected arguments to support our articles. Including your preferred edits would have the effect of leading the reader to the edge of a logical precipice beyond which there is no evidence at all, and inviting him to make a leap of faith.

Looking at your example of the Zodiac Killer, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that there was such a person. It's not a "mighta, maybe, couldabeen" situation such as the second shooter you are positing. No, they haven't found the Zodiac guy, but there is no doubt of his existence, is there? People saw the killer, he phoned the police, he did any number of things to demonstrate his existence.

Smoke from the Grassy Knoll? Well, that rather rules out anybody using modern firearms, wouldn't you say? Took a shot at the President with a Civil War musket, perhaps? How silly. --Pete (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Joe, your citation of the Connally's evidence simply does not stand scrutiny and is an example of the refusal of the conspiracy crowd to actually closely examine the evidence they themselves present. It has been long known that the Connallys were adamant that John C and John K were hit by separate bullets. But as he says in his own sworn testimony, he turned WHEN HE HEARD THE FIRST SHOT. And THAT turn is at circa Z160. He is completing his turn leftward when HE was struck. He did NOT look at the president until he was already struck. So, while Nellie was adamant that they were hit separately, there was no way for John Connally to know which shot hit the president as he didn't see him until they were both hit! IOW, to claim that he turned after the first shot, then was hit as he returned to facing the front would mean JFK was struck at Z160 or so for his "separate bullet" theory to be correct, a claim no one makes. What seems most likely to me is he chose to believe his wife and what SHE believed, the contradictory testimony notwithstanding. (They both can't be correct - their testimony contradicts one another.)

Yes I feel the need to interpret the quotes. When Governor Connolly and his wife say he was not shot by same bullet that hit JFK in the back, I interpret that as meaning that the single-shooter scenario is impossible unless the Connollys are wrong, which I think is highly improbable. But they ARE wrong - they cite different, contradictory scenarios. They both can't be right. They imply and many conspiracy proponents claim that their testimony is corroborative, but it isn't outside their belief separate bullets struck. Their testimony is not consistent. For Nellie to be correct, the bullets found their mark pretty well within a second of each other. But John Connally said he reacted to the first bullet by turning to his right, then back to the left, before he was struck, which was from c.Z160 to c.Z224, approximately 4 seconds. This doesn't add up. There was no additional turn after the first shot and before Connally turns - after being shot - to see JFK also reacting. I presume that John did not want to contradict his wife even though there was no way he could know from within the limo when JFK was struck, and he did not live to see the high-resolution Zapruder film which firmly establishes he was hit at Z224. Canada Jack (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Time to underline the b.s. behind some of the common conspiracy arguments repeated ad infinitim by that crowd, as cited again by Joe: one of the photos of the many people, including numerous police officers, who ran straight to the Grassy Knoll because they heard a shot and/or saw smoke there. This is where a shot from the front could have originated from, consistent with many interpretations of the Zapruder film, the bullet fragments (some of which are inconsistent with Oswald's ammunition), the debris from the headshot spread some distance behind the limousine rather than in front

Crowds run to the Grassy Knoll because they heard a shot from there. One of the oldest b.s. tropes from the conspiracy crowd. The truth is somewhat different. What happened? Well for a minute or so NO ONE rushed the knoll, then policeman Clyde Haygood, who was well back in the motorcade and had no first-hand knowledge of where the shots came from, stopped his motorcycle by the knoll, past the fallen Newman family, and dashed up the knoll to confer with a policeman he saw by the overpass. It was only then that crowds massed up the knoll, following Haygood in the apparent belief that he was chasing a suspect. Even then, the much-photographed "rush" was even later. Bottom line? People rushed there WELL AFTER the assassination and did so because a COP went there - but he went there to confer with another cop - NOT because they, as you claimed, "heard a shot/saw smoke there." Yet the conspiracy crowd has been peddling this dishonest claim for decades, a patently false claim.

Saw smoke/smelt gunpowder Again, the truth is far different from the claims put forward by the conspiracy crowd. First off, we would have clearly been able to see smoke from one of the several films made from across Elm Street, or when Zapruder had panned to his right, if the claim that gunshot smoke was visible by the stockade fence. Yet there is nothing there. If the smoke was too faint to be seen by the cameras, then humans would not have been able to see it either.

However, witnesses did say they saw smoke - but conspiracy authors dishonestly claim they saw it by the fence when in fact they described another location. Sam Holland was on the overpass and said he saw a puff of smoke from "behind the arcade" through the trees (via his vantage point), and only after the FIRST shot, not the later shots. His description sounds like he saw the smoke from the pergola, NOT the fence. Austin Miller, standing near Holland also described smoke - from the pergola, NOT the fence. "I turned and looked toward the — there is a little plaza sitting on the hill. I looked over to see if anything was there, who threw the firecracker or whatever it was." James Simmons, also on the overpass, said "near the embankment in front of the TSBD." He saw through the trees to the same area - by the pergola, NOT the fence.

Earle Brown claimed he smelled gunsmoke - yet he was positioned at the RAILWAY overpass - over the Stemmons Highway! 100 yards from Elm Street. Other witnesses were close to the assassination and can't credibly have been able to smell smoke which would have had to have travelled some 50 yards to their position in a matter of several seconds, such as Billy Martin, a motorcycle cop on the LEFT side, just behind the limo, or Senator Yarborough, in the second car behind the limo. Tom Dillard, in the press car, said he smelt gunpowder as the car he was in turned the corner at Elm and Houston - below the TSBD - yet he is cited as evidence of a knoll assassin! In the end, what we likely have here are the smells of cars and motorcycles gunning their engines, not blunderbusses expunging clouds of smoke and the smell of gunpowder at the speed of sound!

the bullet fragments (some of which are inconsistent with Oswald's ammunition) ??? Where does this come from? Please cite which fragment(s) is(are) not consistent with Oswald's ammo. Though some fragments could not be ballistically matched to the rifle as they were too shattered and deformed to have identifiable groove patterns, the composition of the fragments were consistent the whole bullet and the identifiable fragments.

the debris from the headshot spread some distance behind the limousine rather than in front This is not true. Fragments were blown upwards and forward, and fell back as the limo moved forward through the cloud of debris. Canada Jack (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"there was no way for John Connally to know which shot hit the president as he didn't see him until they were both hit!" They were there, you were not. "Mrs. Connolly was very clear about seeing them hit separately.

"Sam Holland was on the overpass and said he saw a puff of smoke from "behind the arcade" through the trees (via his vantage point), and only after the FIRST shot, not the later shots. His description sounds like he saw the smoke from the pergola, NOT the fence." Jack, have you ever been there? The corner of the fence is right next to the pergola. Holland said he saw, "a puff of smoke..from behind the arcade through the trees." Those trees are right behind the fence.

"People rushed there WELL AFTER the assassination and did so because a COP went there - but he went there to confer with another cop - NOT because they, as you claimed, "heard a shot/saw smoke there."" No, you are wrong. Are you just consulting McAdams?

Lee Bowers described "smoke or something" behind the fence. Deputy Sheriffs Smith, Weitzman, McCurley and Oxford all spoke of witnesses who called their attention to the fence, saying they believed shots had come from behind it (Josiah Thompson, p119). Officer Hargis was the first office to run from the street towards the knoll. He told the WC the thought a shot had come from that direction. Thompson P.121-2: "In all, at least seven people standing on the overpass saw smoke in the area of the parking lot and the stockade fence. Dodd, Simmons, and Holland were so sure a shot had come from the corner of the fence that (as soon as the President's car disappeared beneath them) then ran to their left off the overpass and into the parking lot adjoining the fence." Patrolman Smith stated he smelled gunpowder there (WC CD 205). Bill Newman standing on the sidewalk in front of the fence, felt that the shots had come from directly behind him. This includes a list of more than three dozen witnesses who described shots from the general direction of the knoll:[13]

"the bullet fragments (some of which are inconsistent with Oswald's ammunition)" A number of researchers, such as G. Paul Chambers[14] have concluded that fragments that appear on the x-rays of JFK's skull could not have come from the kind of ammunition supposedly used by Oswald, and instead came from a high-velocity, frangible missile, such as the ammunition used by an AR-15.

""the debris from the headshot spread some distance behind the limousine rather than in front." This is not true." It is true. Some more excerpts from Thompson: "These reports describe a first umbrella of impact debris dispersed forward over the occupants of the limousine in a pattern that would be the natural outcome of a shot fired from the rear. But there is another pattern of debris, greater in magnitude, that distributed itself over the left rear of the car and over the two motorcyclists riding behind and to the left." James Altgens described the shot as exiting from the left side of the President's head. Debris was found by the curb 10 to 15 feet to the left of where the limousine passed. All this is consistent with a shot from the front, not the rear.

So my comments are "b.s."? It pains me that after 10 years on these talk pages, you can't show me a little courtesy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

They were there, you were not. "Mrs. Connolly was very clear about seeing them hit separately. John Connally was adamant he was hit by a separate bullet, Joe. But there is no way in God's acres he could know whether JFK was hit with the first bullet or not while he rode that limousine. Period. He didn't turn to see JFK until AFTER he was hit. And his testimony is quite clear and he never budged - he turned to his right immediately after he heard a sound he recognized as being that of a rifle shot. The ONLY turn which that could have been was the one he starts at circa Z160. That means, if he was correct in terms of there being separate bullets, then JFK would have had to have been struck at Z160, not Z223/4 or so as per the film. That doesn't work. This is a classic example of the conspiracy crowd covering their ears and going "blah blah blah" when they are faced with evidence which clearly destroys their case. For the SBT to be correct, we simply have to accept Nellie was wrong - and unless she possessed supereyes with which she could actually SEE the bullets strike, we are faced with only an OPINION, not a FACT in terms of what she thinks she saw.

Jack, have you ever been there? The corner of the fence is right next to the pergola. Holland said he saw, "a puff of smoke..from behind the arcade through the trees." Those trees are right behind the fence. Sorry, Joe. The witnesses - three of them - said the "arcade," NOT the fence. Another example of conspiracy theorists changing witness testimony to buttress their case. Further, when Holland was asked to mark the location, it was well in FRONT of the fence and the puff came from the pergola. Conspiracy theorists do the same with Newman's testimony, from which he has not wavered for 50 years - he heard the shots coming from the direction of the pergola, yet many conspiracy theorists simply change that to the fence. More dishonesty on display.

Re- rushing the fence. No, you are wrong. Are you just consulting McAdams? Joe, you are relying on the word of the conspiracy theorists too often. They lie about evidence and mislead. The FACT is there was no rush to get to the grassy knoll until the cop stopped. We KNOW some thought they heard from there - but that is not what you said, you said this: "one of the photos of the many people, including numerous police officers, who ran straight to the Grassy Knoll because they heard a shot and/or saw smoke there." That photo you refer to was taken about two minutes AFTER the assassination and ONLY after a cop ran up the hill. Mr. HAYGOOD. When I first got to the location there, I was still on Houston Street, and in the process of making a left turn onto Elm Street I could see all these people laying on the ground there on Elm. Some of them were pointing back up to the railroad yard, and a couple of people were headed back up that way, and I immediately tried to jump the north curb there in the 400 block, which was too high for me to get over. Once Haygood went up there - seeing nothing - many others followed as they assumed he was chasing a suspect. This is corroborated by Lee Bowers who was behind the fence in the railway tower: Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline. Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?.... Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this... Mr. BALL - Afterwards did a good many people come up there on this high ground at the tower? Mr. BOWERS - A large number of people came, more than one direction. One group converged from the corner of Elm and Houston, and came down the extension of Elm and came into the high ground, and another line another large group went across the triangular area between Houston and Elm and then across Elm and then up the incline. Some of them all the way up. Many of them did, as well as, of course, between 50 and a hundred policemen within a maximum of 5 minutes.

So, are you still claiming that that crowd went up there because they "heard a shot and/or saw smoke there"? Or will not now admit that Haygood - with no first-hand knowledge of where a shot came from - started the rush up there?

And this classic LIE by omission from the conspiracy crowd: Lee Bowers described "smoke or something" behind the fence. First, he NEVER described "something" from the FRONT of the fence - i.e. from his vantage point where a sniper was according to the conspiracy crowd, he described a commotion BEHIND the fence, i.e., the Elm Street side in plain view of the cameras which filmed "the commotion." News flash, Joe: That "commotion" was the president of the United States being assassinated, something Bowers could not directly see other than suggestively through the fence and trees. He knew SOMETHING happened, he just couldn't see it. But the real LIE comes when one realizes that Mark Lane, who, arguably, has done more to push the conspiracy viewpoint than anyone else, was caught suppressing key testimony from Bowers who he filmed for his 1966 documentary on the assassination and for which a transcript emerged many years later, kept by the cameraman. One would think, given the claims of "lies" by the Warren Commission, that Lane would have asked the simple, direct question "avoided" by the Warren Commission: "Mr Bowers, when the motorcade passed behind the fence from your vantage point, did you see any of these individuals you mentioned before, or anyone else, still between you and the fence? And what where they doing?" But Bowers, probably realizing Lane was taking him down a road of irrelevant details over the "commotion" he described to the WC, said this: LEE BOWERS: "Now I could see back or the South side [BOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."

Dodd, Simmons, and Holland were so sure a shot had come from the corner of the fence that (as soon as the President's car disappeared beneath them) then ran to their left off the overpass and into the parking lot adjoining the fence. Another LIE from the conspiracy crowd. As previously noted, Holland and Simmons both testified about the smoke from THE ARCADE, NOT the fence. Sure, they said they said smoke, but the conspiracy crowd CHANGES that testimony, shoe-horning it to fit their scenario, as they do with numerous so-called "knoll" witnesses who in fact said the shots came from the pergola, underpass or elsewhere. But, as we saw, THERE WAS NO ONE THERE, as per Bowers. Canada Jack (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"the bullet fragments (some of which are inconsistent with Oswald's ammunition)" A number of researchers, such as G. Paul Chambers[12] have concluded that fragments that appear on the x-rays of JFK's skull could not have come from the kind of ammunition supposedly used by Oswald, and instead came from a high-velocity, frangible missile, such as the ammunition used by an AR-15. The head bullet shattered, we have the fragments which were recovered establishing that that head bullet likely shattered, so finding bullet fragments in the skull is entirely consistent with the ammunition used, the fragments of which were fired by Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other rifles on the planet. Further, the x-rays show a dispersion pattern entirely consistent with a rear-entry shot, and entirely inconsistent with a side-entry shot. Further, lacking the actual fragments we can't declare that the fragments didn't come from the same bullet the recovered fragments came from, so Mr Chambers et la have no basis to make definitive statements. Still further, if one is to accept those x-rays as real, one also has to admit that thye show wounds inconsistent with a side entry, yet Chambers et la try to claim otherwise. Such as Oswald's rifle shot frangible bullet(s).

But there is another pattern of debris, greater in magnitude, that distributed itself over the left rear of the car and over the two motorcyclists riding behind and to the left. Joe, this is rather elementary, but yet another example of the conspiracy crowd making silly, non-nonsensical arguments. If we are to buy the premise that debris went BEHIND the limo, we need to be clear: If debris went behind where the limo was AT THE TIME OF THE FATAL SHOT, then there'd perhaps be a case to be made. But we SEE the forward spray, particularly in the enhanced Z313 image! [15] There is no "backwards spray" of significance though a small portion of the material indeed DID spray out backwards (don't believe me? look at the enhanced image) but material, since the motorcade was going that same direction, drove into that spray and the debris! This is common sense, except for the extremely silly conspiracy crowd, desperate to make a case when they have none. Canada Jack (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Another quick point about the fatal shot and the spray of material. What isn't obvious until you see the films and photos from other points of view besides Zapruder's of the moment Kennedy was hit with the fatal shot is that what we are seeing in Z313 is Kennedy already toppling over to his left, at something like a 45 degree angle. What this means is, 3 dimensionally, the ejected material is spraying upwards and mostly towards the leftward part of the limo and the motorcade. Which is why the bloody debris within the limo, on its rear hood and the mist of material the motorcycle cops drove into is entirely consistent with a shot from the rear. A shot from the front we'd expect more of a backwards spray, with little of the gore within the limo itself. But this is not in fact what we see, further evidence that there was no shot from the front right. Canada Jack (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"This is a classic example of the conspiracy crowd covering their ears and going "blah blah blah" when they are faced with evidence which clearly destroys their case." My interpretation of the evidence is just as valid as yours. Especially since mine is backed by what Mrs. Connolly saw and what the victim, Governor Connolly, corroborated.

"The witnesses - three of them - said the "arcade," NOT the fence." "So, are you still claiming that that crowd went up there because they "heard a shot and/or saw smoke there"?"

WC CD 5: "As (Weitzman) came to the top of the fence at the top of the grassy slope, some bystander mentioned that the firecracker or shot had come from the other side of the fence."

19H514: McCurley: "I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed smoke from the bullets cam from the vicinity of a stockade fence."

19H530: Oxford: "When we got there, there was a man who told us that he had seen smoke up in the corner of the fence."

So what do we know?

Dodd, Simmons and Holland believing a shot had come from there, rushed to the parking area behind the fence, the corner of which is only a couple of feet from the pergola or "arcade."

Holland was not the only officer who was there because he thought a shot had come from there. So was Edgar Smith, who "ran" over.[16] Deputy Sheriff Mooney described himself "running full speed" for the area because he felt a shot had come from there.[17] Officer Weitzman also said, "I ran in a northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots came from."[18]

Other officers converged on the area. Some of them had done so because witnesses had told them shots had come from the knoll area. As noted above, McCurley, Oxford and Weitzman all met witnesses there who believed a shot had come from there. Clearly, those witnesses had converged there because they believed a shot had come from there.

"The FACT is there was no rush to get to the grassy knoll." Why are you ignoring the evidence? There's a photo showing Hargis (left) and another officer (center),[19] taken no more than 30 seconds after the last shot, already running to the knoll after Hargis had dropped his motorcycle. Dodd, Simmons and Holland ran to the parking lot immediately after the limousine cleared the plaza.

What I really don't understand is why you think the timing of the photographs, or whether smoke was behind the fence or instead a few feet away is somehow of key significance. The point is, dozens of witnesses were confident that a shot had come from behind the fence, and a number of witnesses saw smoke. Some of these witnesses did immediately, not a minute or two later, ran to the parking lot, Your suggestion that people gathering there was somehow exclusive of belief that a shot came from there is wrong.

"There is no "backwards spray" of significance." You're in denial or haven't read the evidence. From Thompson, p.100. "The main thrust of the impact debris was directed over the rear of the car on the two motorcycles riding in the convoy to the left. Clint Hill went on to point out how there "was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car (2H141." "Officer J.B. Martin, riding the outboard cycle some 5 feet to the left and 6 to 8 feet to the rear of the presidential car, noticed, "blood stains on my helmet... [and] other material that looked like pieces of flesh" (6H290)." "Officer Martin's partner, riding the inboard cycle, was even more splattered." "I was splattered with blood and brain." (6H294)." Also of note: Yet another motorcycle officer, James Chaney, said he saw the President "struck in the face" by the last bullet.

"the fragments of which were fired by Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other rifles on the planet. Further, the x-rays show a dispersion pattern entirely consistent with a rear-entry shot, and entirely inconsistent with a side-entry shot. Further, lacking the actual fragments we can't declare that the fragments didn't come from the same bullet the recovered fragments came from, so Mr Chambers et la have no basis to make definitive statements." Right, the only person who gets to make definitive statements is Jack. Many disagree with you. To disagree you is does not mean I am lying, uninformed or crazy. Remember I'm responding to the contention that those who believe there was a conspiracy never use evidence. We do use evidence. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

WC CD 5: "As (Weitzman) came to the top of the fence at the top of the grassy slope, some bystander mentioned that the firecracker or shot had come from the other side of the fence." etc.

Joe, will you re-read what YOU said and my response to it? AGAIN: "one of the photos of the many people, including numerous police officers, who ran straight to the Grassy Knoll because they heard a shot and/or saw smoke there."

And I will repeat: I am not disputing that witnesses claimed shots claim from the general area of the Grassy Knoll! What I AM disputing is that, immediately after the assassination there was a stampede of people running up there because, and I quote you again, ""... they heard a shot and/or saw smoke there." And YOU supplied the corroborating evidence to what I have said all along! Weitzman HIMSELF said that HE went there because SOMEONE ELSE said they heard a shot from there! THEN, once Haygood made his dash up the hill - and he did not hear where the shot came from - the crowds followed, which is corroborated by the footage later and by Bowers! The images you have posted don't show this "stampede" which is dozens of people!

The underlying point is that, contrary to what the conspiracy people claim, there was NOT an immediate stampede to the Grassy Knoll, as there was shock and general confusion as to where the shots came from. Some of the cops encountered witnesses who said the area of the Knoll. Others said the Depository. Still others said the underpass. Hell, if Baker had thought the shots came from the Knoll, we did he make a b-line to the Depository?

As for this: "Dodd, Simmons and Holland believing a shot had come from there, rushed to the parking area behind the fence, the corner of which is only a couple of feet from the pergola or 'arcade'" Did they or did they not (Holland and Simmons) in fact testify that the smoke came from the arcade? If yes, well, that is a good 20 or 30 yards away from the fence where the conspiracy theories typically place the alleged sniper. This is no small point. You even quote one of the consistent false claims on this very issue: "Bill Newman standing on the sidewalk in front of the fence, felt that the shots had come from directly behind him. This includes a list of more than three dozen witnesses who described shots from the general direction of the knoll." He in fact indicated the PERGOLA, which is 20 or 30 yards away. I've seen him consistently indicate the pergola AND have conspiracy authors claim this is the picket fence. It most certainly is NOT. Check out this Jesse Ventura interview with Newman which actually shows Newman POINTING to the pergola, only for the editor to dishonestly insert the picket fence, at 1:03! [20]

What I really don't understand is why you think the timing of the photographs, or whether smoke was behind the fence or instead a few feet away is somehow of key significance. Because YOU claimed that people rushed over there BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THEY HEARD THE SHOTS COME FROM! yet you've supplied testimony which corroborates what I said! Many if not most of the people who ran over there did so because they saw OTHERS do so and assumed they were onto a suspect! OF COURSE some who went over did so because that is where they thought the shots came from. But you can't pretend that this why most of the people rushed over there, and I spelled out for you the basis of that - most people rushed over there on the basis of seeing others - in particular cops - going over there. If this was not so, why did the "stampede" not occur until about 1 to 2 minutes after the fact? Because they followed cops - Haygood in particular - who DID NOT KNOW WHERE THE SHOTS CAME FROM. I will repeat again: Do you still believe that most of the people who went there did so because they thought the shots came from there? Because if you do, you don;t have the evidence to support that claim! In fact, you've supplied evidence which corroborates my position! As the pergola, it isn't just a few feet we are talking about. The pergola was 40 to 80 feet from the fence area, depending on the position claimed, a significant distance. (A straight line from Holland through the trees to the pergola is the far side of it, some 80 feet away, for example.)

You're in denial or haven't read the evidence. (re the splatter) Frankly, Joe, I don't understand how I can make this more clear to you. The spray was FORWARD initially, but the motion of the limo and everyone else was ALSO forward - which means they drove into a spray of all the material! The material EXPLODED out - in 1/18th of a second, as you can see in frame Z313, matter was ejected from Kennedy's head on the order of some 5 or 6 feet, easily initially faster than the movement of the motorcade. What do you not understand here? There was debris on the trunk because the limo moved INTO the spray for the most part, though a small proportion flew out that way initially, as seen in the image. Did you look at Z313? Unless you believe your eyes are part of the conspiracy, you can plainly see that the spray of material is FORWARD. Here is a better look at it: [21] Again, recall that we are seeing much of that material going vertical and towards the left of the limo because JFK was toppling over at about a 45 degree angle when he was struck. And here is the Muchmore film, showing the alternate angle - and where the debris flew off - you can actually SEE it blast forward, mostly towards the left. [22] Canada Jack (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You've done a fine job of summarizing the differences between the way you and I interpret the same evidence. Thanks for getting through several paragraphs without calling me a liar for once. Appreciated.

Last question. What is the deal with, "This includes a list of more than three dozen witnesses who described shots from the general direction of the knoll." He in fact indicated the PERGOLA, which is 20 or 30 yards away.""? Take a look at this picture,[23], or this one:[24]. Witnesses made clear they thought shots had come from the parking lot behind the picket fence at the top of the knoll. In the photos you see the pergola, the corner of which is just a few feet from the east side of the fence. Regarding smoke, Holland said, "behind the arcade through the trees." Dodd said, "from behind the hedge." Austin Miller said, "from a group of trees north of elm off the railroad tracks." Simmons said, "near the embankment." Clemon Johnson said, "near the pavilion." Walter Winborn and Thomas Murphy said (according to Thompson, not a quote), in the trees along the knoll. Now my point would be: look a the photos. The embankment, the trees or "hedge," the fence, the pergola are all withing a few feet of each other - these reports are very consistent. Smoke near the east end of the picket fence would from most vantage points be "behind" the pergola. And these witness observations were also consistent with the many witnesses who believed a shot or shots came from the parking lot.

But again, what do you mean, the pergola is, "20 or 30 yards away"? Regards, Joegoodfriend (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you look at a schematic of the Plaza, you see that the near edge of the pergola is 10 yards from the area of the fence most often identified as being where the knoll sniper would have been (as you can see in the photo you supplied), the far edge something like 30 yards. And if you draw a line from where Holland stood through the trees to the pergola, that part of the pergola is some 30 yards from the knoll sniper position.

As for this: What is the deal with, "This includes a list of more than three dozen witnesses who described shots from the general direction of the knoll." He in fact indicated the PERGOLA, which is 20 or 30 yards away.""? That was in specific reference to Josiah Thompson's line about Bill Newman's testimony (you omitted Newman from the top of the quote), the rest showing how conspiracy authors dishonestly claim he was among those who said the fence (they all too often lump everyone who heard a shot from Elm somewhere as a "Knoll" witness). In HIS case (we can quibble about where, precisely, Holland etc meant), he quite clearly and consistently pointed to the part of the pergola some 20 to 30 yards from the knoll sniper position. Check out the video I linked to. BTW, this is not the source for me identifying where he thought the shots came from, he on numerous occasions was quite specific that it came from the pergola, the mid-to-east part of it, i.e., closer to the TSBD than the knoll sniper location. Yet many conspiracy authors cite him as a "knoll" witness. Canada Jack (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe next time I'll catalog the other reasons why I think the single-bullet scenario is impossible (the reasons not directly related to a second shooter). Lively times... Regards, Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting deletion of the conspiracy section?

In regards to edit 03:17, 14 March 2015‎ Sunrise . (→‎Conspiracy theories: there are NPOV and UNDUE issues with having this much content here. Replace with the lead of the main article, as is standard under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE)

I have a couple issues with this edit.

Yes, the conspiracy section of this article was long, but we aren't running out of space here. If the large volume of newly-written material about the JFK assassination is any indication, there is significant modern interest in conspiracy theories. As such, it is fair to accord a larger amount of space to the history and main points of the conspiracy movement.

The JFK assassination conspiracy theory article is enormous! It has several more subpages on specific conspiracy theories. And unfortunately, the format of categorizing and detailing each theory doesn't really lend itself to the kind of chronological overview that was written on this page in the conspiracy section. So we lost the only humanly-readable overview of the movement. Perhaps it could be added to the conspiracy article, but it hasn't happened yet.

The copied material from the lede of the conspiracy article that was pasted over the previous work isn't very useful now. About half of it is repeating other parts of this article.

Sunrise's new version doesn't include the proper tag to redirect to the main conspiracy article.

Does anyone else want to revert this? Perhaps work on trimming down the conspiracy section if there is any consensus that it is too unwieldy for this overview article. Koijmonop (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the amount of information here is about right. John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories already exists and there about 200 other articles that refer to various tidbits of JFK conspiracy theories. I have fixed the lack of a redirect to the main conspiracy article. The chronology of the development of various conspiracy theories belongs there. - Location (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)