Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Zapruder film

A silouette that appears to be a person with a rifle can be seen from frames 420 to 485 of the Zapruder film. The silouette moves similarly to the way the human body moves; at one point it appears to hunch its shoulders. The silouette is in a portion of the frame the does not move with the background. This suggests that it is a reflection. Possibly from light entering through the eye piece and onto the film. This happens on Aaton 16mm cameras if you leave the eye peice oncovered (i.e. take your eye away from it). I don't know weather anyone has looked into this before, but I think it should be concidered for entry into the wiki article on JFK.

Every frame of the film can be found here - http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe485.html. Ethoen 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Original Research is forbidden by Wikipedia. Find a reliable secondary source and we can discuss it further. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I presumed there would be something like that, which is why I didn't include it in the artical without a reliable source. I can't find anything that mensions the siloutte. Infact most clips of the Zapruder film do not include the last 65 frames that show the silouette. Ethoen

"Editors" must learn that it is improper to delete properly cited information because the editor doesn't like it

(Personal attack removed by Ramsquire 23:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)).

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Gamaliel 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what irks me about this? On RPJ's talk page, I explained my edit concerned only Griffith's opinion, and if he wanted to link the doctor's testimony from the WC, I'd have no problem with it. Instead of taking my opinion in a good faith way, he writes this stuff. Ramsquire 18:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, just because a pesron writes a book on the Mormon religion as you claim Griffth has done does not disqualify any of his work on the Kennedy assassination that he has published as source that may be cited in Wikipedia. This is the "stuff" of yours that I find to be incorrect.

Second, the Griffith work that was cited as a link, gathered all the pertinent medical testimony together in one work and saves the reader many many hours trying to locate and gather the information on the subject. Therefore, your alternative of simply citing reams of medical transcripts as an alternative to the painstaking efforts already expended by Mr. Griffith is simply not accepable. Don't you agree?

RPJ 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, RPJ, the fact that Griffith has written books on the Mormon religion had absolutely nothing with why I deleted the cite to his website. And to try to link the two is really bad faith on your part. My objection to him was that I don't believe he is notable enough to qualify under WP:RS. I feel that way because he had written four books unrelated to the topic, and the stuff he has written on the topic was mostly in pro-conspiracy bulletins, and the like. Trying to cast an allusion that I'm some kind of bigot is really low, even for you. Grow up, RPJ. Ramsquire 17:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of my cosmetic change

criticism- 1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely. 2. A critical comment or judgment.

Keep in mind that "criticize" means to find fault with or to judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate.

scrutiny- 1. A close, careful examination or study. 2. Close observation; surveillance.

Therefore, what exactly is the beef with my change of words? Scrutiny is just as accurate as criticism here. I used scrutiny because there has been no official condemnation or blaming of the FBI, that I am aware of. It has come mainnly from pro-conspiracy authors. Scrutiny encompasses all views on the Hosty subject. Ramsquire 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The editor above must learn that his editing is subject criticism

(Personal attack removed by Ramsquire 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

Um... you're the one who seems to have a problem with emotions here with your page long responses and all. Anywhoo, back to the topic, nice strawman argument. I have no idea what you are talking about. The changes I made were in relation to Hosty. You're talking about investigation of conspiracy. The FBI has not been criticized because of the Hosty situation. However, Hosty's actions, as an FBI agent has been scrutinized. Ramsquire 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The above post left out the necessary citation to the English encyclopedia

Note: In order for readers to draw their own conclusion they need to review the citation which is to the English educational encyclopedia called Spartacus. Here it is:

• Soon after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, [FBI agent]Hosty was called into the office of his superior, Gordon Shanklin. Hosty was asked about what he knew about Oswald.

• When Oswald was shot dead by Jack Ruby two days later, Shanklin ordered Hosty to destroy Oswald's letter.

• The Federal Bureau of Investigation discovered that Hosty's name and phone number appeared in Oswald's address book. J. Edgar Hoover was worried that this indicated that Oswald had been working closely with the FBI. That he might have been an FBI informant on the activities of left-wing groups such as the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Instead of passing Oswald's address book to the Warren Commission, the FBI provided a typewritten transcription of the document in which the Hosty entry was omitted.

• When it was discovered that Hosty had misled the Warren Commission he was suspended from duty. Later he was transferred to the FBI office in Kansas City. [Apparently the authorities never caught who deleted the FBI agent's name from Oswald's address book]

• It became public knowledge when someone in the FBI tipped off a journalist about the existence of Oswald's letter. Oswald's relationship with Hosty was explored by the Select Committee on Intelligence Activities and the Select Committee on Assassinations.

• Hosty admitted that he had misled the Warren Commission by not telling them about the existence of the letter from Oswald. Gordon Shanklin denied knowing about the letter but this evidence was contradicted by the testimony of Hosty and William Sullivan, the Assistant Director of the FBI.

RPJ 05:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire is wrong again

Unfortunately, editor Ramsquire is wrong again. Ramsquire wants to delete from the article information that the FBI not only got caught destroying evidence (a letter from Oswald to an FBI agent two days before Kennedy was murdered), but also that a Congressional Committee that was empowered to investigate the Kennedy murder, concluded that the FBI failed in its duty to investigate a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. Congressional Committee said about the FBI. Read it--its history.

RPJ 05:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A minor point

I have to make a point, which is; if someone scrutinises something (meaning investigating it) they must then absolve someone of wrong-doing, or criticize them/sentence them, for doing something wrong. --andreasegde 16:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your point. Do you think I fundamentally changed the paragraph? If so, please explain. Ramsquire 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on Improving article

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • allege
  • correctly
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the above information from the peer review information for those of you interested in improving the article. Ramsquire 16:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The video link to the assassaination needs to be authenticated

The video tape needs to be authenticated. about three or four months ago another unauthenticated tape was put on the site and the editors complained and it was taken off. This version is terrible.

Hasn't anyone checked it out?

RPJ 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has changed for the worse over the last 6-8 months

I've looked at the article and compared it to last spring and its gotten terrible. There is almost nothing about the assassination itself anymore. Almost all the description of what occurred, during the assassination and immediately afterward has been deleted. Why bother having an article on the assassination if it the actual events, that are very well documented, are deleted and replaced by a bunch of argument about Oswald. Isn't there an Oswald article?

63.164.145.198 18:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Be bold. Make any improvements you feel need to be made. Ramsquire 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rifle misidentification

Recently we have had two editors adding the rifle misidentifcation issue to the article. I agree with the administrator on this issue: leave it out. Yes, it's true that NBC and WBAP radio identified it as a British Enfield .303, and the officers who found it initially identified it as a Mauser. However, if the editors feel that this information belongs on Wikipedia, there is already a better page for it, John F. Kennedy assassination:Rifle. Joegoodfriend 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, can you point me to that NBC, WBAP identification? I always thought that the Enfield stuff came about because an officer was photographed seen handing his pump shotgun to another officer outside the TSBD. Ramsquire 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we can have a brief mention of the misidentification of the rifle as Mauser and a Enfield. The section clearly explains that the rifle was proven to be a Mannlicher-Carcano. An expanded story of the mis-id, can be told on the rifle sub-page in a neutral, non conspiracy slanted way. Mytwocents 18:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You can find a documented summary of the misidentifications here [1]. Also there exists a news video which shows a rifle being brought out of the SBD by police. In the video, the announcer states that it is the assassin's rifle being brought down from "the roof" of the building. Some have claimed that the rifle in the video is not a Cacarno (or a Mauser) and is, in fact, an Enfield. Joegoodfriend 18:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussing the misidentifications in a brief, neutral way would be fine for the rifle page. Gamaliel 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That movement to another page is a "point of view fork." It is prohibited on this web site since it is a tactical device to move information an editor personally doesn't agree with to a separate page. It is not quite as crude as simply deleting material but it is clearly wrong under web site rules.

08:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"The rifle was proven to be a Mannlicher-Carcano."

Isn't this based on someone, measuring the barrel of a rifle in a picture 15 years after the Warren Report and coming to the belief that it was the same length as a Carcano." Am I mistaken as to the proof?

What is so puzzling is why didn't the Warren Commission just hand the rifle to the police officers who found it and ask them under oath whether that was the rifle they in fact found? That is how they do it in court.

Some one also deleted out of the article the statement by the Dallas police Chief, Jesse Curry who explained to the newspaper later on that they never did have any proof putting the rifle into Oswald's hands.

Another question: wasn’t the rifle booked into evidence as a Mauser? What is very strange is that the rifle that allegedly shot the president of the United States has almost no authentication that would be normal and a history of being misidentified.

RPJ 08:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this as a brief mention on the JFKA page? The mis-id story can be expanded with names etc., to paragraph length on the JFKA Rifle page.

Initial news reports referred to the rifle found in the snipers nest as a "Mauser", a German bolt-action rifle similar in appearance to the Mannlicher-Carcano [2] and also as a "Lee-Enfield". Later reports correctly identified the recovered rifle as a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Mytwocents 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The rifle in question was a 23 year-old somewhat obscure surplus foreign military rifle. It was an Italian model 1891 Carcano, but it had an action copied from a German Mauser and it looked like a German Mauser and I'm not surprised the cops thought at first glance it was a Mauser. It didn't SAY Carcano on it. All it said was “Made in Italy”, “CAL.6.5”, “1940”, and the serial number C2766. That information was eventually enough to identify what kind of rifle it was and where it came from, to the exclusion of all others. What's the problem? The rifle still exists. Klein's was known to be selling Carcanos of that period (I happen to own a copy of the American Rifleman with the exact advertisement that was clipped out to buy this weapon). Klein's sold a surplus Carcano to A. Hidell in Dallas at Oswald's PO box, with that particular serial number. The Carcano with the serial number C2766 went from Chicago to Dallas, to Oswald's PO box, in March 1963. There it was picked up by somebody. Who do you suppose it was? The rifle was later found on the sixth floor of the TBD, but it had been bought and shipped long before Oswald ever worked at the TBD (he was at the time working for Stoval), or before JFK's people ever decided to drive him by the Depository. What do you you think the person ordering the rifle to be shipped to Oswald's PO box, intended it to be used for?? SBHarris 18:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

<Deleted PA>

The recovery of the rifle in the TBD was filmed by Tom Alyea AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED. [3] [4]. The rifle was also held up for several other reporters to photograph. These photos show that it was a Carcano, not a Mauser. It really doesn't matter what the police booked the rifle "as". Since the model of the weapon wasn't printed on it, the police could easily have made a mistake in naming it. So what if they did? But we know for certain, because we have many photos of it being recovered, that the TBD rifle was a Carcano. From the HSCA reoport:

The alleged assassination weapon was the subject of many photographs. An hour or so after President Kennedy was shot and killed on November 22, 1963, the Dallas police found a rifle in the Texas School Book Depository. (69) The police photographed the rifle where it was found. During the search of the building, a 16-millimeter motion picture was taken by Thomas Alyea of television station WFAA. This motion picture film depicts the rifle at the time that it was discovered by the police. (70) A police officer carried the rifle from the building and, as he walked east on Elm Street and across Houston Street, reporter Allen, of the Dallas Times Herald, took a series of about seven pictures in rapid succession. (71) As the rifle was carried through the halls of the police station, it was held overhead for reporters to see. Numerous photographs were taken at that time.

These photos all show a Carcano. I would think that would be the end of the disussion. SBHarris 22:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not end of discussion

These questions need answering on this point:

• Who at the Warren Commission proceedings identified the rifle that the Commission believed was the one found in the building on the day of the murder?
• Why weren't the officers who found the rifle asked to identify the rifle as every other witness would be asked in any other murder case?
• Why wasn't a proper chain of custody kept on the rifle, especially when they knew that Oswald was claiming he was framed?

The rifle was never properly verified under oath as being the weapon found, nor was a proper chain of custody ever kept on the weapon from the time it was found. That would seem pretty important since Oswald claimed he didn't own a rifle and was being framed.

But, you argue it doesn't matter, because the rifle in evidence is the one that was found. Why, because you argue that we can tell from the pictures taken of the rifle at the time it was found. Yet you point out that the rifle can easily be mistaken for an entirely different rifle, and that the police repeatedly did misdientify the type of rifle found. That's fine. Sometime weapons look similar.

But then how can the rifle be so definitely identified from that picture you cited us to look at? Is that what the Commission relied upon?

RPJ 09:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The rifle can be easily misidentified by people making a visual inspection with no materials to assist them. The rifle can be easily identified if you have, as professionals do, books with pictures of every rifle ever manufactured, knowledge of identifying characteristics, etc. Gamaliel 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Where did the Warren Commission use any of this "easy" secondary identification?
2. If it did use unusual police methods, why were basic proven procedures abandoned for some secondary source of identification?

• These questions are asked because it is very difficult to find people who will commit perjury to verify a murder weapon as being found on the scene of a crime.
• If one has a weapon that is not verified to be at the crime scene and not kept in a strict chain of custody it is basically useless as evidence.
• It is so odd that the in JFK's murder (the "Crime of the Century") there is no evidence verifying the alleged murder weapon.RPJ 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to state that the rifle was switched, find a reputable source to cite. A conspiracy page, of course, won't do it. The chain of custody was not perfect, but Oswald's M/C rifle was determined to be the murder weapon. But, I think any of your statements on this talk page since your last block, that even hint at a PA or are off subject, should be deleted from the talk page. You need to learn to get along with other editors and stop acting the troll. Mytwocents 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

RPJ, Here is the diff of the edits you made this afternoon [5]. You basicly added some conspiracy arguments with POV launguge that implies the rifle was switced and the bullet and palm print were planted. That won't wash in an encyclopedia article. Mytwocents 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• All significant points of view are put in a encyclopedia, otherwise it misleads the reader into believing that it has all the significant relevant knowledge on a subject matter when the reader doesn't. The facts should be put in and let the reader decide.

• One should not fear information and knowledge but learn from them. How will the reader understand the controversy over the Warren Commission findings, if the reference work excludes well known facts about the Commission's defective investigation and contrary facts?

• Why should the observations of the Dallas Police Chief about the Kennedy murder be excluded?
• Should we simply put in observations from people who agree with the Warren Commission? RPJ 22:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

outdent

“Made in Italy”, “CAL.6.5”, “1940”, serial number C2766

I'm not sure a perfect chain of custody is even relevant here. The rifle found in the TSBD was identified by as WWII Carcano on the basis of footage of it in the act of being found in the TSBD, by photographic experts in the HSCA, not the Warren commission. This is a unique and odd weapon. A Carcano with serial number C2766 was sold by Klein's in Chicago to A. Hidell (Oswald's alias), and sent by them to Oswald's PO box in Dallas. Where it was picked up either by Oswald, his wife, or by A. Hidell, the only people authorized to get stuff from the post office under that number (no, I don't think the rifle fit in the PO Box hole-- somebody had to physically ask the postal employee for it, and show ID.) That rifle and no other is now in the national archives. How do YOU propose it got there? Carcano C2766 was mailed to Oswald's PO in Dallas. A WWII Carcano was filmed being found at Oswald's place of work 100 yards from where JFK was shot. That Carcano went to the police where it went back and forth from Dallas to DC a number of times, but at the end of all this, Carcano C2766, the one that went to Oswald's PO box, is now in the Archives. If THAT Carcano is not THE Carcano found at the TSBD, we have two old surplus Italian Carcanos. Is that what you're arguing? Don't be shy. SBHarris 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is a good post that cuts to the heart of the matter. Yes, it's true that due to the chaos of the day's events some evidence was misunderstood, misreported, or its chain of evidence/possession was corrupted. But in the case of the Cacarno, these issues simply don't lead anywhere. Now I believe that there were multiple shooters, but there is no evidence that any other weapons were recovered in Dealey Plaza that day (and of course <snark> Umbrella Man managed to escape with the dart gun </snark>[6]).

Without any evidence of authorities recovering a Mauser, Enfield or any other weapon, the misidentification issue does not belong in this article. Are other historical articles chock full of trivia on how events were misreported just after they occurred? And haven't we already agreed that such trivia is OK fine for the Assassination Theories and the Assassination:Rifle pages? Can't we just close the book on this one? Joegoodfriend 21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let’s cut to the heart of this issue

Issue: Oswald claimed he was being framed. But, according to the Warren Commission, key evidence against Oswald was a rifle called a Carcano. The Commission believed it was owned by Oswald and found where Oswald worked—right near the “sniper’s nest.”

Problem: The rifle found was first identified by the police as a Mauser—not a Carcano.

Warren Commission Reply: It was mere “rumor or speculation” that a Mauser was found. Instead, the Warren Commission claimed that the Carcano that was marked as an exhibit was Oswald’s Carcano and was found near the sniper's nest—not a Mauser.

Flaw: No evidence was submitted that it was a Carcano rifle found in the building. The men who found the rifle were put under oath; but the Carcano rifle was never handed to the witnesses nor were they questioned about it being the one they found. This is a stunning error by the Commission especially because:

• The Commission knew Oswald had claimed he had been framed
• The Commission knew that several policemen had identified the rifle as a Mauser
• Yet, the Commission didn’t take steps to authenticate under oath that the rifle marked as the exhibit was, in fact, the one found in the building.

• Remember, this was the rifle the Commission believed was used to murder the president.

The Wikipedia article, as written, wants to tell the reader that the rifle found in the building was a Carcano and not a Mauser. In fact, the article now states:

This[film] footage [of the rifle’s retrieval]shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, and it was later verified by photographic analysis commissioned by the HSCA that the rifle filmed was the exact same one identified as the assassination weapon. (emphasis added)

The HSCA report doesn't say this. Therefore, there isn't a citation for this statement in the article. RPJ 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wrong. The HCSA doesn't say this in these exact words, but it says the same thing in other language. The only thing you're right about is that there isn't a cite for them. Why don't you add it, since you're so familiar with the HCSA's report? Here are the two paragraphs:

In addition, the relative lengths of component parts of the alleged assassination rifle at the National Archives were compared to component parts of the rifle that appeared in various 1963 photographs, including the backyard photographs.(104) They were found to be entirely consistent, component part for component part, with each other.12 Upon completion of its analysis, the photographic evidence panel concluded that the rifle depicted in the backyard photographs is the one that was found in the book depository after the assassination and that was stored at the National Archives. (105)

Of equal significance, a detailed scientific photographic analysis was conducted by the panel to determine whether the rifle held by Oswald in the backyard photographs was, in fact, the rifle stored at the National Archives. The panel found a unique identifying mark present on the weapon in the Archives that correlated with a mark visible on the rifle in the Oswald backyard photographs, as well as on the alleged assassination rifle as it appeared in photographs taken after the assassination in 1963.(103) Because this mark was considered to be a unique random pattern (ie., caused by wear and tear through use), it was considered sufficient to warrant the making of a positive identification.

SBHarris 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We have to face facts: the frame up defense looks good. If you don’t have a citation don't put the statement in the article. Isn’t that a common sense and simple rule? RPJ 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, can't you find it yourself? I've already given you the cite over on the LHO TALK page. SBHarris 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dallas Police Chief's opinion saying no "proof"

Without a word someone deleted from the article the statement by the Dallas Police Chief,Jesse Curry, about Oswald and the rifle. Chief Curry was there during the assassination and later said there was never any proof "that Oswald fired the rifle."

Someone, for no reason, deleted the statement from the article, despite the fact that it is undeniably a significant point of view on the subject. Unless there is a very good reason not to do so, I am going to put it back in:

Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry later said "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand.". http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcurryJ.htm

RPJ 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

District Attorney stating that a Mauser was found--not a Carcano

District Attorney Wade in Dallas and his associates studied the rifle found in the building.

It was shown to the television audience repeatedly as some enforcement official carried it high in the air, with his bare hands on the rifle. After hours of examination Wade said without hesitation that “the murder weapon was a German Mauser.”National Guardian [7]

RPJ 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The FBI now states that “no palm prints were found on the rifle.”

This conclusion, first carried in the Fort Worth press, was later leaked to reporters by the FBI in off-the-record briefing sessions. The FBI at that time took the position that “we don’t have to worry about prints in this case.” The FBI indicated anger with [District Attorney] Wade for stating that a palm print was present when in fact it was not.[8] National Guardian

RPJ 06:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did the bullet come from?

The "magic" bullet was used to plug up many holes in the Warren Commission theory. This is the bullet that is used by the Warren Commission to build a circumstantial case that Oswald was the at least one of the shooters.

However, the evidence was slim, and he said he was framed. Oswald denied shooting anyone and then was murdered. After that, anyone could say anything they wanted about Oswald, and blame him for everything.

However, tne one piece of evidence was the "magic" bullet that it tied to a rifle that Oswald purports to hold in a picture. Where the rifle appeared from and put into evidence is still a mystery, but where the bullet came from is a bigger mystery.

The Warren Commission claims that it came from Governor Connally. On the other hand, the FBI said that the bullet came from Kennedy's body.

Telephone conversation between Lyndon B. Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover (29th November, 1963)

J. Edgar Hoover: All three [bullets were shot] at the President and we have them. Two of the shots fired at the President were splintered but they had characteristics on them so that our ballistics expert was able to prove that they were fired by this gun... The President - he was hit by the first and third. The second shot hit the Governor. The third shot is a complete bullet and that rolled out of the President's head. It tore a large part of the President's head off and, in trying to massage his heart at the hospital, on the way to the hospital, they apparently loosened that and it fell off onto the stretcher. And we recovered that... And we have the gun here also.

[9]

RPJ 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text that RPJ added to the article. IMO it is four conspiracy arguments strung together and called a encyclopedia paragraph. The text was deleted from the article page for POV pushing. The points made in this paragraph would be better suited on the JFK conspiracy theories page.

A bullet found on Connally's hospital stretcher, was ballisticly matched to the rifle in evidence but that bullet also fell into controversy since it was almost a whole bullet and it is known that the bullet that hit Connally fragmented and left pieces in Connally.[10] Moreover, a week after the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover told President Johnson that the "matching" bullet came out of Kennedy--not Connally-- when Kennedy was given heart massage.[11] The Warren Commission believed that the previous March, the rifle had been bought by Lee Harvey Oswald under the name "Alek James Hidell." [12] A partial palm print of Oswald was purportedly found on the barrel of the gun, but not until much later when someone said they forgot to tell everyone about a palm print was purportedly found much earlier. [13]

Mytwocents 17:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the details belongs either in the rifle article or in the assassination article. But that is not my only issue. The above phrase encompasses many violations of Wiki policy and cannot remain in the article until fixed.

A brief review of the cites shows that RPJ, is conducting original research and is violating NPOV. Insted of simply repeating what the Warren Commission says, he is editorializing it by adding POV words like "purportedly" and qualification phrases like "The Warren Commission believed". In addition, he is adding unsourced assertions like "that bullet also fell into controversy since it was almost a whole bullet and it is known that the bullet that hit Connally fragmented and left pieces in Connally." The Warren Commission does not say this. The WC lays out why it believes the bullet was from Connally and why it is excluded as possibly coming from the President, in effect answering Hoover's mistake. Finally the WC, matches the print to OSwald, there is no purportedly. Since this is unsourced, as well as the inaccurate phrase above, it is original research, and should not be allowed in any article on the Wikipedia.

Ramsquire 17:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody is also guilty of confusing J. Edgar Hoover with God Almighty. But here are some helpful ways to tell the difference: J. Edgar Hoover, as a fallable human being, has the right to still be confused about some of the facts of the JFK assassination, especially early in the investigation of it. Also, God Almighty would have no need to wiretap Martin Luther King having sex with prostitutes, because God could no doubt hear that directly. SBHarris 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

POV Fork

From WP:POVFORK:

“ Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.

However, it is possible for editors to act in bad faith and make article spinouts as POV forks. For instance: Editor A tries three times to insert a statement of his POV in an article section called "Criticism of XYZ"; each time the change is reverted by other editors. So he announces that he is spinning off a new article called Criticism of XYZ, and for the initial text of this article, he uses the "Criticism of XYZ" section of the main XYZ article -- with the disputed statement that he could not get accepted by consensus. This is a POV fork; Editor A is trying to get around the fact that his changes have not met consensus by inserting them in a different location.

”

Since this is not one of the bad faith examples given, it is entirely appropriate to keep the rifle section here brief and concise while having the discussion regarding misidentifications, and speculation about the bullet take place in the rifle article. Otherwise, what is the point of having the rifle article in the first place.

Ramsquire 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A "content fork" where viewpoints are inadvertantly split up on the same topic has the same bad effect on the professionalism of Wikipedia as a "point of view fork." Therefore an alleged "good faith" fork is also outlawed by Wikipedia. Please see discussion below where the rules are quoted.

RPJ 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a fundamental policy against forks in articles.

A "fork" will splinter viewpoints on the same issue into two separate articles. Forks often come up in controversial articles where two or more editors will want only one set of viewpoints given to the reader in an article. Wikipedia forbids this because it is bothersome for the reader to go to other articles and sometimes don't know to go or don't have time. Also, it is hard to compare the various viewpoints flipping back and forth.

Sometimes "unpopular" viewpoints on a subject will be relegated to a sub-page so as not to compete for attention with the "popular" viewpoint on the main page.

Here is the Wikipedia policy against forks:

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.

The Kennedy assassination article has a section on the rifle that the Warren Commission believed was owned by Oswald and was used by him to shoot Kennedy. This is the Commission's view point.

• Oswald denied it and said he was be framed but then was murdered.
• The Dallas Police Chief Curry believed there never was any proof that Oswald fired that rifle.
• The Warren Commission did not obtain any verified identification of the rifle that was found, and no proper chain of custody was kept on the rifle that the commission had gotten possession.
• An identification of the rifle is purportedly done 15 years later by a Congressional Committee looking at an old TV film but it was not able to identify it from the film.

Recently the assassination article had a statement that Oswald's Carcano was found in the building and used cherry picked evidence to try to make it seem true.

In fact the warren Commission claimed it was found and made other claims that have created a storm of controversy ever since. Therefore, trying to split the article in two with a fork flies in the teeth of a fundamental policy.

RPJ 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no fundamental policy against forks. There is a guideline to avoid them wherever possible. But as I explained above, this is one of the situations where a spinoff has been created and IMO, is the right way to go. And the information you seek to insert, once fixed and in compliance with actual fundament policies of this Wiki, should go into the rifle article. Ramsquire 20:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia does not distinguish between forks as some editors believe and allow "good faith" forks to be used. A "good faith" splintering of relevant views has the same negative effect on the quality of an encyclopedia as a bad faith fork. It is an unprofessional piece of work.

Some editors want to argue an unpopular viewpoint is wrong and therefore should be put "in in the closet" so to speak in a sub article.

Of course that is wrong on two levels:

Editors don't screen out viewpoints because they personally don't believe them; and there is a direct policy against forks.

Editors have to live with the rules.

RPJ 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's the thing. Above all Wikipedia is a consensus driven community project. Go through WP:LOP and you will see there is no policy preventing forks. What the guideline seeks to avoid is users, like yourself, who has not gained consensus for their information creating forks or mirrors where they then insert previously rejected material. Admittedly that is not the case here, so the fork issue isn't in play. However, Wiki does allow spinoff articles when the main article has gotten too long. This is the situation here. There is a spinoff article on the rifle, therefore info on said rifle should be placed in that article. But while we're on the subject here, let's look at some other actual policies that you seem to not want to discuss, i.e. WP:V and the further explanations of verifiability under WP:RS. Also, there are numerous forums for you to attempt to develop a consensus for your changes but you never use them. Consensus can change, but right now, every editor who has offered an opinion has asked you to stop putting that language into the article for various reasons. Continuously citing Wiki policy, arguing the same points over and over with the same editors or cherry picking a certain paragraph from NPOV will not get anyone past these issues. Ramsquire 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What is point of view pushing?

Someone keeps deleting information by paragraph claiming simply "point of view" pushing.

Could he explain what that means and give and example. After he gives an example explain why he doesn't edit rather than revert wholesale?

RPJ 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Warren Commission believed"

One editor is under the mistaken impression that when one mentions what the Warren Commission said happened should be written as fact and complains that someone would qualify the article by stating:

"The Warren Commission believed." This is the proper form of what should written especially with when the subject is controversial.

RPJ 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I will ignore the unnecessary condescension in your tone, and just say I am under no mistaken impressions. And your attempts to mischaracterize my point, once again, is just weak. The WC made findings and conclusions based on expert testimony, scientific evaluations, and several layers of consensus seeking discussions. Is everything in their report accurate? No. But to say "the WC believed" at the beginning of a sentence, then give a misleading summary of the finding in the middle, and then add unsourced contrary information at the end of the sentence is unencyclopedic and violates WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. When dealing with a government commission, the proper format is the "The Commission concluded" and "the commission found".

Conclude: To arrive at (a logical conclusion or end) by the process of reasoning; infer on the basis of convincing evidence.

Ramsquire 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The advice and critique above were inaccurate

In the Kennedy article, it said a Carcano rifle was found near the scene of the murder. The particular make of the rifle is important to the guilt or innocence of Lee Oswald.

Oswald claimed, prior to being murdered, that a man had a Mauser rifle in the building two days before the president was assassinated.

At the time the rifle was discovered, the police were all heard to say or believed that the rifle found near the scene of the murder was a Mauser.

Therefore, I inserted at the beginning of the sentence that it was the Warren Commission who reached the conclusion that the rifle found was a Carcano—rather than a Mauser. Here is the sentence with my changes in bold type:

The Warren Commission came to the conclusion that a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano]M91/38 bolt-action rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone soon after the assassination of President Kennedy.

The language I inserted about Warren Commission concluding the rifle was a Carcano was, surprisingly, deleted. One of the editors defends the deletion, and argues:

[T]o say "the WC believed" at the beginning of a sentence, then give a misleading summary of the finding in the middle [of the sentence], and then add unsourced contrary information at the end of the sentence is unencyclopedic and violates WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS.

May I respectfully respond to the critique of my sentence?

• After the insertion of the introductory phrase, I simply repeated the sentence as it previously existed in the article.

• I don’t understand your remaining critique of me for the rest of the sentence which you find misleading and in violation of Wikipedia policy.

• I didn't add, subtract or edit the sentence in any other way.

• Here is concluding and puzzling fact:

[personal attack removed] hasn't taken out what he considers is the "misleading summary in the middle" of the sentence nor corrected any of the other alleged "violations" of web site policy.

The only thing deleted was my proper insertion that identified who concluded the Carcano rifle was found.

RPJ 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I am not indignant. Please stop trying to characterize my emotional state, and just respond to the issue, which is my problems with your editing style.

2. One part of your response is correct, it is not one sentence, but actually two. So I admit that the sentence that begins with "The WC believes" does accurately state its conclusion and finding. The other sentence is improper. I will go through the paragraph in question and list my objections.

• • A bullet found on Connally's hospital stretcher, was ballisticly matched to the rifle in evidence

This is fine.

• • but that bullet also fell into controversy since it was almost a whole bullet and it is known that the bullet that hit Connally fragmented and left pieces in Connally.[8]

This is unsourced opinion and original research. The cite at the end contains no information to support the conclusions in the sentence.

• • Moreover, a week after the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover told President Johnson that the "matching" bullet came out of Kennedy--not Connally-- when Kennedy was given heart massage.[9]

Factual, but irrelevant since there is no showing that Hoover did the same kind of research the Commission did to come to his conclusion. The cite given points out how and why the Commission came to conclude the bullet came from Connally. This sentence is misleading to say the least.

Hoover was the Director of the FBI which conducted the investigation for the Warren Commission. Hoover was giving this information to the President of the United States. The FBI director said the bullet came from Kennedy not Connally. This is a significant viewpoint on the origin of the bullet that needs to be placed in article. It is not for any of the editors of Wikipedia to decide that the Warren Commission's perception of where the bullet came from is better than Hoover's contrary opinion.

It is especially inappropriate to delete if because an editor believes that what the FBI Director said is "misleading" in some undefined way.

RPJ 03:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not to place undue weight to insignificant minority viewpoints. Hoover's viewpoint that the bullet came out of Kennedy is equal in significance and popularity to the viewpoint that Sun revolves around the Earth. Does that make my position clear? Hoover could have been King of All Worlds when he made that phone call, but the overwhelming evidence, in pro-conspiracy circles as well, is that he was wrong.

“ Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. ”

Ramsquire 17:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire: Your argument is not pursuasive. You do not cite the "overwhelming evidence" that you believe exists that the bullet came out of Connally. As I understand it the bullet in question is highly controversial. In fact, is also sometime called the "Magic" bullet. Am I wrong?

Isn't there a huge number of books and articles that question whether the bullet in question could have caused all of Connally's wounds and remained almost "pristine?"

It seems this bullet and its origins is highly controversial and it is improper under the neutrality rules of this web site to exclude a viewpoint that the magic bullet is not from Connally. RPJ 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Please register an account if you wish to seriously contribute at Wikipedia.

2. I am not arguing any of the facts of the JFK assassination, I am arguing that you, RPJ, and whoever else who wish to add information to the article need to cite the information to a reliable source.

3. Since you mention it, the controversy surrounding the bullet is a) it's trajectory, b)it's condition and c) if it actually caused the damage to Connalley and Kennedy. There is no widespread belief that the bullet came from Kennedy, and it is not up to Wiki editors to present an argument that it did, unless it has been published in a reliable source.

Ramsquire 18:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to think this through.

• The article already points out FBI never agreed with the "magic" bullet theory of the bullet going through Kennedy and strking Connally. The FBI believed the first and third shot hit Kennedy and the one shot hit Connally.

• Therefore, it is not surprising that Hoover's investigation, as he reported to the president, disclosed that the "magic" bullet didn't come from Connally but came from Kennedy.

• It cannot be said that the FBI's position on the source of the "magic" bullet is like someone believing the earth is flat.

• If the "magic" bullet didn't come from Connally, then where did it come from?

• Is this an issue that needs to be resolved by dispute resolution? I hope not.

RPJ 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Having an RfC would be an improvement over how disputes usually end here. I don't think it is necessary though. I will try to explain my style dispute one more time. The edit is factually accurate, but is misleading in this sense. Once the WC finished its findings, we would need a reliable source showing that Hoover maintained the bullet came from Kennedy. That would make his first impression equal to the WC who conducted 10 months of investigation. When Hoover made the statement, a week had passed. I have spent some time searching for a reliable source on this topic, a source showing Hoover maintained his early position on where the bullet came from and have come up empty. Therefore, it was probably a mistaken assumption made early in an investigation, as is known to happen frequently, and should not be given undue weight by having it as a counterbalance to the WC finding. Finally, note how I made several points, and how this is the only one that has been responded to. If you agree with the other points, it would be nice if you said so, instead of looking to go from one argument to the other. Ramsquire 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The Warren Commission believed that the previous March, the rifle had been bought by Lee Harvey Oswald under the name "Alek James Hidell." [10]

As discussed above, the Commissions opinion was based on serious research, I would say Commission concluded, but it is not a big deal.

• • A partial palm print of Oswald was purportedly found on the barrel of the gun,

The Commission found partial palm prints of Oswald all over the gun, there is no purportedly. They found them. If there is a reliable source that has done research on the subject and didn't find Oswald's prints then place it in the article. Otherwise, the use of purportedly is speculation of an editor which is original research.

• • but not until much later when someone said they forgot to tell everyone about a palm print was purportedly found much earlier. [11]

Totally unsourced, and untrue.

Ramsquire 19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we are getting off track on the facts regarding the prints. Here's what happened. The police identified several traces of prints on the rifle on 11/22 (WR 122-3), but all of them proved to be useless when examined by fingerprint FBI expert S.F. Latona on 11/23. Then a curious series of events occurred. On 11/26, when the Dallas police transferred all of the recovered evidence to the FBI, Lt. Day of the Dallas Police produced a lifted palm print clearly identifiable as Oswald's, which he claimed to have recovered from the rifle stock on 11/22. So here are the issues that concern those of us who don't take the Warren Report at face value: 1. The FBI was quite clear when testifying to the WC (4H 24) that there was no trace of the palm print when they examined the rifle. 2. There has therefore never been any means to connect the lifted print to the rifle other than the word of Lt. Day. 3. It is very strange, to say the least, that Lt. Day failed to alert the FBI about the print before they had examined the rifle. It is even more alarming that he continued to keep the FBI in the dark for several days regarding this crucial evidence. Joegoodfriend 05:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I can understand skepticism of the finding of prints because of the mass confusion going on at the time. I've read a book about this time called First Evidence or First Day or something like that, and it goes into detail about the rifle and the prints discovery. But, that being said, we are trying to write an encyclopedic article here. My problem with RPJ, was his editing style, not his beliefs. Ramsquire 17:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Day: "I respect the FBI. I know I told him [FBI Agent Vince Drain about the print]. Now, I don't know if he heard me or paid any attention to me or what. I know what happened. People who claim there was a planted print don't know anything about fingerprinting. You can't even place a print on something from a card, and that's all we had on the first night, when I lifted that print. After lifting the palm print, I could still see traces on the stock with my reflective light. I can't guarantee it was still there when it got to the FBI office. They either overlooked it or it wasn't good enough to see by the time that gun arrived there. We found that print doing solid police work, and nothing anybody says can change that fact." Gamaliel 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Get page presentable for 11/22/2006

Obviously there will be many readers coming to this article on or around November 22 and this group of related article are not in good shape.

I tried to lay out the three points of view. The Oswald did it and no Conspiracy view. The Oswald did it, and in a conspiracy, and Oswald didn't do it and a conspiracy.

That is why the police chief statement was put at top so that all significant view points are included. Thati how an article is kept neutral.

RPJ 02:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

J. Edgar Hoover

I am not going to go through all the websites I've gone through trying to find a source for the discussion held above. However, there do seem to be a recurring theme in all of them. Publicly Hoover supported the findings of the WC. However, it is unclear if this support was just for the findings of a lone assassina or support for all of the other conclusions, including where CE-399 came from. Privately, Hoover had some doubts about the WC, but was never specific either. With that scenario, I stand by my earlier points. If consensus is against me, so be it. Ramsquire 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head with your earlier comments. For this to appear in the article, a reliable source must demonstrate that this was a position Hoover maintained as opposed to a mistaken early impression in a single memo or wherever the quote is being pulled from. Gamaliel 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. It's good to know at least one person got what I was saying. I figure that I should start preparing for all the new traffic this site is going to get in the upcoming weeks. I have to hone my responses to let people know I'm just asking for sources, and not debating the assassination anymore. Ramsquire 22:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The FBI reached its own conclusions regarding the assassination before the WC reached theirs. The FBI Report appears right in the WR. They reached a set of conclusions that no one supports today: Oswald's first shot hit Kennedy in the back and did not exit, the second hit Connally, and the third hit Kennedy in the head (there is no mention of the Tague bullet).

Relevant to the discussion with Johnson, Hoover's statements on this and other occasions shortly after the crime reflect the FBI's premature conclusions. As far as I know, the FBI has never officially changed these conclusions. And as for Hoover, help me out here guys because I really don't know, did he ever actually say that he supported the WC's conclusions? Joegoodfriend 22:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I just finished this research. There are couple of sites that mention Hoover's support for the WC, but I could not find a quote or anything from the man himself. It was all very vague. Also his private concerns about the WC were also vague. No real quotes from him about what his problems were either. Ramsquire 22:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that somebody recognizes that Hoover is to some extent blowing smoke for LBJ as the investigation progresses. He's not about to say he has no idea what's going on, and obviously some of the early conclusions are going to be wrong. One of them is where CE399 came from. Unless you completely and utterly discount Tomlinson's testimony before the Warren Commission, it come from one of two stretchers. One had held a boy unconnected with the JFK murder (I don't think anybody thinks Oswald shot this kid), and the other of which had been used to carry Connally to the O.R. table (where he was most certainly missing any bullets). Nor could CE399 credibly have come from JFK's back, since JFK's stretcher stayed with him until he died, at which point its linens were removed and it was put into trauma room #2. CE399 was found on a stretcher on the ground floor where it has gone after being used to put Connally on the OR table on the second hospital floor and (as the WC notes) was nowhere near trauma room #2. The Warren Commission puts it this way:

Although Tomlinson was not certain whether the bullet came from the Connally stretcher or the adjacent one, the Commission has concluded that the bullet came from the Governor's stretcher. That conclusion is buttressed by evidence which eliminated President Kennedy's stretcher as a source of the bullet. President Kennedy remained on the stretcher on which he was carried into the hospital while the doctors tried to save his life.123 He was never removed from the stretcher from the time he was taken into the emergency room until his body was placed in a casket in that same room.124 After the President's body was removed from that stretcher, the linen was taken off and placed in a hamper and the stretcher was pushed into trauma room No. 2, a completely different location from the site where the nearly whole bullet was found.125 [14]

Now, once we get around to the fact that a bullet certainly went through JFK's neck from back to front (as the fibers in and out, and the X-ray fragments and air bubbles, and the bruising along the wound track show one did), then we're left with the question of where that bullet went to. It didn't hit anywhere inside the limo, but should have, from the angle. We only have a few scratches to show for the stop of this high-velocity projectile (and the bruise shock at the lung tip shows that it must have been a high velocity bullet). That leaves the occupants of the limo. Now, who's available? Well, John Connally is right in front of JFK and in just the right position to absorb that bullet. When a bullet from Oswald's Carcano rifle is found on one of two stretchers in Parkland, one of which held Connally, and certainly neither of which ever held JFK, then the conclusion is obvious. The FBI missed it. The Warren Commission, with more time to think things out, got it right. Hoover certainly didn't publicize the FBI's flub on this small point. The FBI needs no defending: they did solid work in the case, most noticably in tracing the Carcano to Oswald by the next morning (they had men going through sales slips at Klein's in Chicago in the middle of the night, by hand, until they found one for a Carcano shipped to Dallas).

[And no, BTW, they surely weren't looking for a Mauser. The only guy who ever saw a Mauser in the TSBD was a man who didn't examine the weapon closely, and can be forgiven for his mistake, as the actions are very similar.] SBHarris 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is formal dispute panel for the J. Edgar Hoover disagreement necessary?

My position is “Yes” a formal dispute panel is necessary.

Nature of disagreement:

A bullet was found that had ballistic characteristics that matched the rifle the Warren Commission believed was found near the scene of the crime. The bullet in question wasn’t fragmented like the other pieces of bullets found but was almost an entire bullet and only slightly deformed. It later became known as the "magic" bullet.

The question arose: Where did the bullet come from? Is this important to the case? Yes. In the public’s mind, there are a couple of pieces of evidence that convict Oswald of participating in the crime and this bullet is a key piece of the evidence.

Of course, everyone knew Darrell C. Tomlinson claimed he found the bullet on a stretcher in the hospital after the assassination. But what wasn’t known was how the bullet got on the stretcher. There are at least three theories on how the bullet got there. These are listed in no particular order of plausibility:

• The bullet was planted there as part of the alleged Oswald “frame up.”

• The bullet came out of Governor Connally who was also shot and in the hospital

• The bullet came out of President Kennedy

Who is right? That is the controversy. Under the Wikipedia neutrality policy, the editors of Wikipedia do not pick which viewpoint is “true” but include all significant viewpoints in the article on the issue and allow the reader to choose.

Nevertheless, editor Ramsquire wants to include only the viewpoint that the bullet came out of Connally. He specifically wants to delete the mention of the FBI’s viewpoint on this key evidentiary issue.

Here are some of Ramsquire’s reasons for excluding the information given by J. Edgar Hoover to President Johnson that the bullet came from Kennedy and not Johnson:

• “Hoover's viewpoint that the bullet came out of Kennedy is equal in significance and popularity to the viewpoint that Sun revolves around the Earth.” (Ramsquire)

• “Factual, [what Hoover said] but irrelevant since there is no showing that Hoover did the same kind of research the Commission did to come to his conclusion.” (Ramsquire)

• “[I]t was probably a mistaken assumption [by Hoover] made early in an investigation, as is known to happen frequently, and should not be given undue weight by having it as a counterbalance to the WC finding.” (Ramsquire).

However, the readers can decide these issues. Wikipedia does not allow deletions of information because an editor believes he knows which information is "right" and therefore "knows" other viewpoints are wrong. Wikipedia clearly prohibits:

"Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:

Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.

Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds)." [15]

The Kennedy assassination article needs to include all viewpoints. This is not a chat site devoted to one viewpoint or another. It is an encyclopedia. RPJ 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I give up RPJ. Please start the RfC process. It appears that no matter how many times I explain myself you will not approach my point. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I imagine other editors will have the same reaction to this as we have had, and they likely would have much less patience for your behavior than we have had. First you need a reliable source. Spartacus is insufficient. Next you need a source to demonstrate that this phone call represents Hoover's constant view on the subject and not just a mistatement on the phone. This is, after all, a phone call, not an FBI report. That source should ideally also explain why Hoover's view was different from all other official government conclusions on the matter. NPOV does say that significant points of view should be represented, and you like to repeat that over and over again, but you ignore all other components of the NPOV policy. You have to demonstrate that this viewpoint is significant and not a misstatement or a passing fancy of Hoover's. You can't drop random quotes in the middle of the article attempting to seed it with conspiratorial skepticism. That violates NPOV. Gamaliel 00:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is there are so many conspiracy sites devoted to the JFK-A, that the NPOV dam has to be high and strong to hold back the flood of anecdotes, rumors, speculation, theories and outright nuttyness that makes up the bulk of such websites. I've said it before... Authors have fed their families and put their kids through college on the proceeds from JFK-A conspiracy books, for the past four decades. It's a living..... But we need to insure that this article is based on the facts. It needs to be kept in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. "..seed(ing) it with conspiratorial skepticism" goes against NPOV and makes this article disjointed and smarmy. We can mention the phenomenon of the plethora of conspiracy theories that exist, but in a neutral, specific portion of the article. We need to avoid giving undue weight to the conspiracy theory world as a whole, and any specific CT's in particular. Mytwocents 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what Gamalial said. Snippets of whatever daily updates on the JFK assassination which Hoover chose to feed LBJ early in the course of an investigation which various branches of the government wouldn't close for many more weeks or months, is just silly. Wikipedia isn't big enough for this kind of nonsense. It's not big enough even for the Warren Report summary, which is a natural stopping point, and far better written, complete, authoritative, and indexed than any Wiki you'll ever read on this subject.

We are forced to pick natural stopping places for Wiki summaries, therefore. Summaries of summaries of conclusions of existing completed official major investigations would seem obvious places to do this. I wouldn't be adverse to including a short (very short) synopsis of the FBI's final Jan 13, 1964 report to the Warren Commission, since that represents a natural stopping point, and a point at which obviously a certain lot of information had been collected, collated, passed by all involved, and a summary made so that you don't get the kinds of mistakes and bad viewpoints that always come from looking at invididual threads of investigations, while they are still ongoing and nobody yet has seen everybody else's results (a great example of this is the infamous FBI version of the autopsy, writen by a couple of FBI agents who saw the autopsy, but weren't medical people and didn't fully understand what they were seeing. And were also factually describing confusion of doctors who themselves were not at that moment in full possession of all facts and didn't therefore understand what THEY were seeing EITHER, even though they understood more than the FBI people). But Hoover's daily smoke-blow for LBJ isn't this, or anything close to even this.

And why a shorter summary in Wikipedia for the FBI report? Because the FBI's 7-week sub-investigation was a much shorter investigation than the "Warren" (President's Commission) 8-month one, and was in many ways subservient and incorporated into it (though not entirely-- there are disagrements which are preserved in history, such as the two autopsy "reports"). Wikipedia must also maintain space to summarize the other later two major investigations of JFK assassination by the government (the only people with access to the critical evidence)

If you follow the news reports in the days following the JFK assassination, a lot of "important" people had a lot of "significant" opinions. Most notably, several Dallas law enforcement people had so many daily opinons on the guilt of Oswald and reasons for it (all of them quite damning, incidentally), that at one point the feds had to call up a bunch of them and tell them to shut up, because they were prejudicing whatever case might eventually be made. The 26 volume Warren Report actually details some of this. But it's way, WAY too much detail for Wikipedia. It isn't a matter of whether or not Wikipedia SHOULD include this level of detail. We already know it cannot, and maintain its character. If you want to read the Warren Report, go to the National Archive website and do so. That's not what Wikipedia is here to do. SBHarris 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation over Carcano rifle section seems best

After reading the comments above, it appears Mediation should be attempted with a full effort to make it successful. I will initiate the process unless someone has a better suggestion.

RPJ 19:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure to give everyone notice once it is initiated. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Who, in your opinion, is "everyone" who needs notice? RPJ 23:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Spare me. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

New Polling Data

(Will be posted on related articles talk pages as well) I imagine with the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination approaching, there will be some newer scientific polling data available. If anyone comes across said polls, can they update the sections which rely on the 2003 poll? Thanks. I'll have my eyes peeled as well. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, LBJ automatically became president at the moment of JFK's death

That's the whole point of electing a vice president, don't you know. The question has come up many times about whether or not he needs to take the oath of office before he becomes president, and most scholars say no. The constitution only says that the new president "shall take" the oath, it certainly doesn't say that he's not president until he does (the vice president, BTW, takes the civil service oath, which includes all the same language and more). The 25th ammendement says “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.” It doesn't say "shall become just as soon as he take the oath of office." It says "shall become." End. You can read the arguments in United States presidential line of succession. Johnson was obligated to take the presidential oath, indeed, but not obligated to do it post haste. But the point is made well enough by the case of Zachary Taylor who refused to take the oath of office on a Sunday, when the previous president's term had expired. That would have made David Rice Atchison a US president for 24 hours. See the Atchison article. But this is silly, and nobody recognizes it. Therefore, your argument is incorrect. SBHarris 04:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try to lecture me about the Presidential line of succession. My edit summary is an attempt to be brief, and in doing so, may be a bit misleading. The attempted history lesson in your post is unnecessary and uncalled for. When Kennedy was murdered, the 25th Amendment was still two years away from being formally proposed, so the issue of when LBJ took is up for debate. Granted it is an esoteric debate at this point. In 1963, at the moment of the oath, there is no more debate over whether Johnson is "acting President" or "actual President". Therefore it is much more NPOV to simply state "became" rather than "automatically became". The 25th Amendment hadn't finally settled the issue yet. BTW-- B.A. in Political Science here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No mention of David Morales???!!!

How on earth can there be an article on the Kennedy assassination without mention of Morales? The guy confessed to several highly reliable witnesses that he took part in JFK's murder AND Bobby Kennedy's. He died of a 'heart attack' two weeks before he was due to be dragged before the HSAC hearings.Iamlondon 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the Kennedy assassination theories article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

He's not there, so there is no point in asking someone to check it out. --andreasegde 22:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please go bother someone else. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost everything about this article is wrong or off. For example, you use quote marks in identifying the name used to purchase the M-C rifle, "Alek James Hidell." Yet your explicit source(#9), shows the name as "A. Hidell";and the purchase order shows the same. You don't meet the basic standards of referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk • contribs) .

A very minor point as if you read down the source, you see that "A. Hidell", "A.J. Hidell", and "Alek James Hidell" are all the same person. However, I will edit the article to state A. Hidell. If there is something else that bother's you, please state it explicitly so we can make necessary improvements to the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oswald went by "Alik" during his USSR years. Another example, you're article says that cospiracy theories have been the topic for many films including Mark Lane's 1966 "Rush to Judgement." This is a book, not a film. A film by the name "Plot to Kill:Rush to Judgement" is listed by Amazon as being released in 1994. But I'm sure you think that is close enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk • contribs)

Fair enough. Why don't you assume good faith with other editors and simply clear up the inaccuracies you find? and while you're at it, why don't you come out of the shadows and sign your posts?

Another example, you say that "Kennedy had chosen to visit Dallas on November 20..." Kennedy arrived in Dallas that day, November 22. The choice of Dallas was made many months earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk • contribs)

First, I didn't write the article, so "I" didn't say anything. Second, oh come on. Read the entire sentence. It's totally accurate. Kennedy chose to visit Dallas for the reasons listed. No one with any sense would assume that the decision was made on November 20.

Now since "everything is off" I assume you have more complaints?

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The "southerly direction" photo(#7) is about half way from peristyle to pergola. A line through the "X" on the street would intersect the TSBD at about its western side. This is surely not the "head" shot that you claim it is, but maybe the "magic bullet" shot. Do you think a scholarly organisation made this mark?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk • contribs)

Listen, I don't know if you're just trolling the article, or are interested in making good faith corrections to the article. But the "X" in the photo is the spot of the head shot according to the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. Finally, this "you" stuff is tiresome and stupid. Clearly the article has many editors, and has been vandalised on countless occassions. So some of the innaccuracies may be unnoticed vandalism, or typos, or whatever. Your attributing them to some bad faith motive is unnecessary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

MORE ERRORS

The article says the event took place"at 12:30 pm, CST(18:30 UTC)." Wikipedia's link at"CST" shows that UTC for CST should include the designation UTC-5(savings) or UTC-6(standard). You recognise the "Warren Commission" is the unofficial name of the federal panel, yet the official name is never presented. You sneered at the observation that Kennedy did not visit Dallas on November 20;Kennedy flew from Washington D.C. to San Antonio on Nov.21, then on to Fort Worth and Dallas on the 22nd. You recognise the Dallas Police and FBI investigations that begin immediately yet claim that "the first official investigation" is the Warren Commission.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk • contribs)

Since you know so much more than everyone else who has contributed to the article, why don't you just make the corrections as you see fit in the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The measurements and distances presented here are often arbitrary even fanciful: the article says the limo was "only 65 feet(20 m) away" from the Depository. What part of the limo? What part of the building? What is the source? Also, it says that Tague was "standing 270 feet(82 meters)in front of where Kennedy was shot." Which shot? Source?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk • contribs)