Jump to content

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sbharris (talk | contribs) at 06:54, 28 August 2006 (→Casket was swapped?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconUnited States: Texas Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

The missing bullet

If the bullet that went through Kennedy´s back and throat went into Connally, then where is the bullet/fragments that went through his head?

Probably another, "We didn´t look for it, sir... we didn´t think it was needed..." andreasegde 07:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you personally haven't read about it, doesn't mean the whole world is so stupid as not to have noticed it or looked for it. In fact, both the nose section and tail section of the head-shot bullet were found in front seats of JFK's car. It fragmented, obviously, either during or after passage through his head. The middle section is broken up and scattered in many places, including some in the interior of the head, where fragments can be seen on X-ray.Steve 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Then, if I may ask, why didn´t the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally break up? It was shot from the same gun at the same time. It went through two people, and through two chests, one leg, and one wrist, that contained bone. It ended up (almost intact) on a stretcher. This is puzzling, is it not?
Plus; if I haven´t read about it, it´s because nobody left a citation about it. I would really like one. Can you provide one? I would be grateful. It seems that "the whole world" knows about it, but I don´t. andreasegde 12:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion page and article are starting to shape up

This article is starting to become a good product. Here are a few things to keep in mind:


  • All significant viewpoints need to be included.
  • Each view point should have a citation to a reliable secondary source or primary evidence.
  • If the viewpoint does have a proper citation it can be edited but not deleted except in extraordinary situations.
  • This is the hardest rule for a few people to understand--no censorship is allowed.
  • If the rule were otherwise, each controversial article would be filled with blank pages.
  • In these Kennedy assassination articles don't lose perspective. Unless you do public relations work for someone who is affected by public criticism of the Warren Report (say Arlen Specter, or Gerald Ford) or some agency (say CIA or FBI) , don't get upset over the new evidence that is becoming declassified under federal law. The assassination happened over 40 years.
  • In any event, keeping the information out of Wikipedia isn't going to keep it quiet in any event. It will just make this resource seem dated and unreliable.

RPJ 07:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


RPJ, I have to say this: If you read through the article, there are so many "off the wall" comments that have no citations at all. "Many people have said" - "It is argued that", etc... The Frank Sinatra conspiracy comes to mind...

Should we not all go through it with "a fine tooth-comb" and clean it up a bit? My mother killed "Jack", after all.... (laugh...) andreasegde 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. The article should be cleaned up. I'll help work on it.

RPJ 10:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through it and have cleaned up some silly things, like biased comments with no citations. "Russian hard-liners killed Kennedy", for example, when KGB reports state that they thought LBJ ordered it. We need more stuff from both sides, though. andreasegde 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Citations needed

I have put a lot of [citation needed] on the page, because there are too many unsupported claims. andreasegde 15:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There is quite a bit of uncited material. As I understand the web site rules, when the subject matter is controversial, the editors should make sure that the viewpoints expressed are cited since it is the sources being cited that back up the viewpoints being presnted, not the opinion of the editors. That is a basic rule of the web site.

Thank you for your efforts.

RPJ 06:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following from Response:

It has been contested that if the recording was one minute after the assassination, then who fired the later shots?

Who is contesting this, moreover it has not been established these were actual shots being heard. - RoyBoy 800 01:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Posner for one, (who is defintely for Oswald as the lone nut) who says that "the shots on tape were after the President had been shot". My point was that if he accepted that there were recorded "shots", then where did they come from? He said, it not me.... andreasegde 13:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


HSCA and New Orleans

Almost all of the HSCA section discusses Oswald in New Orleans and almost all of that discussion is about the supposed Oswald-Ferrie links mostly based on two witnesses, drunken criminal Jack Martin and crazy ranting secretary Delphine Roberts. But the HSCA didn't even believe these two! On Martin: "credence should not be placed in Martin's statements to the committee". And on Roberts: "the reliability of her statements could not be determined". Also note the lack of mention of six other Banister associates who testified that they never saw Oswald. If you want to start a section called "Garrison" or "New Orleans" and discuss these two, fine, but it is fundamentally dishonest to claim that two witnesses discredited by the HSCA make up a central part of the HSCA's case for conspiracy. I've removed this material to the talk page. Gamaliel 13:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, Gamaliel, but I think that saying, "drunken criminal Jack Martin and crazy ranting secretary Delphine Roberts", is going a bit "over the top". If you can find a citation to that effect, I will believe it.
Maybe they were not credible witnesses, but that is no reason to use the words you wrote. It´s a personal attack (and I don´t know if they are both still alive, and I´m not conversant with the Law) but the word Libel comes to mind. D´you know what I mean? andreasegde 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The necessary citations are in the article. Jack Martin died in the 1960s. He had an arrest record that stretched over decades, impersonated doctors and FBI agents, and was institutionalized. Roberts was still alive as of a decade ago, as Posner interviewed her for his book. If she wants to sue me, she is welcome to, but if you want to rant about blacks using racial slurs and claim you are the last person alive to have seen the sacred scrolls in the Ark of the Covenant, then being called nuts comes with that territory. These people are fucking crazy and I don't see any reason not to call them such. Gamaliel 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Warner Brothers´ "Looney Tunes" has a lot to answer for.... Now; what about some claims like Daffy Duck did it (joke) or others, that have NO citations at all? Snippy, snip snip?... andreasegde 16:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin/Roberts material

Within days after Kennedy´s murder, Jack Martin, a former private investigator who sometimes worked with Guy Bannister informed the FBI and the CIA were about Ferrie's alleged links to Oswald, but they ignored it. [1] Martin had a criminal record stretching over several decades and had been institutionalized in a psychiatric hospital. The FBI concluded Martin was mentally ill. [2]

Martin later told the House Select Committee on Assassinations he saw Oswald at 544 Camp Street with Banister. [3] Bannister, along with Dave Ferrie, worked in connection with New Orleans underworld figures and anti-Castro groups. Bannister frequented the restaurant downstairs from his office; eyewitnesses spotted him there several times with Ferrie. Oswald worked nearby and stamped the address of same building as Bannister's office on his Fair Play for Cuba Committee pamphlets [4], though Bannister's office had a different street address than the one Oswald used. There is no credible evidence Oswald had an office in the building or had even been inside.

The HSCA also noted that on several occasions [5], secretary Delphine Roberts claimed she saw and spoke to Oswald in the office of Guy Bannister. [6] The credibility of the secretary has been called into question as her claims have changed significantly over the years and because of her penchant for racist and conspiratorial outbursts and outlandish claims such as her assertion that she was the last person to see the "sacred scrolls" in The Ark of the Covenant. [7] [8]

Onassis has gone

I took it out because it was one line and had no citation at all. It was a POV. andreasegde 16:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasons have gone

Also taken out because the citation led to a page of imaginary ramblings, and had to be read to be (not) believed. andreasegde 08:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Jimmy Hoffa and Frank Sinatra conspiracy" looks very shaky and is not cited. andreasegde 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of Martin's disclosure linking Oswald to Ferrie doesn't rest on his word, but on the fact that the House Select Committee on Assassinations has publicly reported the direct link between Oswald and Ferrie.[9]

The Committee also found, at the time of the Kennedy assassination, Ferrie worked for a New Orleans organized crime leader who was fighting deportation to Guatamala. Ferrie also worked with Guy Bannister who was a right wing fanatic both politically and racially and with the most violent anti-Castro Cuban exiles.

So why bother with the overkill on Martin and others. Martin's tip was right about Oswald and Ferrie.

RPJ 23:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin made up the imaginary Oswald-Ferrie connection, and that weblink you provided does not provide any "direct link" between the two. Gamaliel 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't possible that Martin could have imagined the Oswald-Ferry link. Martin wouldn't have known that Ferrie and Oswald both belonged to the the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol eight years earlier unless Ferrie told him. It is as simple as that.
The report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' citation does provide the direct Oswald-Ferrie link corroborating Martin's information that Ferrie told him about knowing Oswald. I went ahead and cited the exact page. RPJ 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Martin told the FBI that he made up the story after hearing a radio report about Oswald being in the CAP and already knew that Ferrie had been in the CAP. Gamaliel 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A witness remembers Oswald and Ferry together in CAP and supplies a photograph. [10] RPJ 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"But when FRONTLINE showed [Ferrie's close friend Layton] Martens the photograph, he identified Ferrie. "It does indicate the possibity of an associaton," said Martens, "but if and to what extent is another question. Of course we've all been photographed with people, and we could be presented with photographs later and asked, 'Well, do you know this person? Obviously, you must because you've been photographed with them.' Well no, it's just a photograph, and I don't know that person. It's just someone who happened to be in the picture."" Gamaliel 05:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the picture, and when it was taken, does it not? A private party/meeting is different to a photo in a shopping mall. andreasegde 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • John B. Ciravolo, Jr., of New Orleans supplied the photograph of Oswald and Ferrie together at a Civil Air Patrol and was also a C.A.P. member in 1955, and says he was in the same unit with Oswald and was standing right in front of him in the photo. Ciravolo also identified David Ferrie.[11]
  • Tony Atzenhoffer, a former C.A.P. cadet , also of New Orleans, identified Oswald and Ferrie in the photograph.[12]
  • Colin Hammer, who says he served with both men in the C.A.P., also identified both in the photograph.[13]
  • Chuck Frances, says he took the picture for the C.A.P and that Oswald and Ferrie knew each other.[14]
  • Reeves Morgan, a member of the Louisiana State Legislature, and five other people including a deputy sheriff and a registrar of voters, who saw Oswald in Clinton La. three months before the assassination sometimes in the company of Ferrie.[15]
  • HSCA believed the witnesses and said this was substantial and "credible evidence" of Ferrie and Oswald being linked together. [16]
  • The pamphlets handed out by Oswald had the address on it as the same small building where Ferrie and Bannister worked.[17]
  • Delphnie Roberts testified she saw Oswald in Bannister's office several times.[18]
  • Adrian Alba saw Oswald frequently in the same restaurant in the building that was listed on the pamhlets handed out by Oswald and where Ferrie and Bannister ate since they worked in the same building. [19]

RPJ 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing different things together:

  • The Civil Air Patrol: Oswald and Ferrie may have been acquainted in the CAP when Oswald was a teen, but the stories conflict regarding how well or if at all. And this certainly isn't "evidence" they knew each other years later when Oswald was an adult.
  • Delphine Roberts was a crazy woman who thinks she's seen the "sacred scrolls" in the Ark of the Covenant and rants about the UN and blacks.
  • The Clinton witneses were coached and pressured by Garrison.
  • The address Oswald used was not the same as Bannister, but an address around the corner. Yes, they were in the same physical shell, but not connected internally. It appeared on some but not all of the pamphlets. The use of this address is easily explained by its proximity to Oswald's job or by the fact that the building used to contain an office of an anti-Castro group Oswald clumsily tried to infiltrate.

This is a flimsy house of cards. Gamaliel 14:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, I don´t think it is "flimsy" at all. What RPJ has found out sounds pretty strong to me. He has also included lots of citations, which, I´m sorry to say, you (Gamaliel) did not.
Why is there an attitude of "Yes it is - No it´s not", in the air? Can we not put both pieces of information in? Being blinkered (on any side) is not healthy. None of us know the real truth - so why not present both sides of the coin? andreasegde 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a typical conspiracy tactic - to cloud the issue up with irrelevant and misleading "evidence" and then just say "let's present both sides and let people decide". The evidence is quite clear and the Oswald-Ferrie "connection", which was imagined up by a drunk with a grudge against Ferrie and spun into mythology by the conspiracy press, is nonesistent. I don't see anything remotely "strong" about this "evidence". And no, I did not include citations because we're just discussing on the talk page, though I can provide citations for whatever you'd like. Gamaliel 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel is merely arguing the evidence. He presents evidence that he claims goes to the bias, prejudice and/or competency of the witnesses. He also argues the relevancy of documentary evidence. He then goes on to argue that his evidence and arguments require the exclusion from the article of the evidence with which he disagrees. But, Gamaliel's approach is flatly against the web site rule:

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". See Neutral point of view NPOV which is a basic rule of this web site.

  • Gamaliel needs to read and understand this rule before he does any more editing of the JFK related articles. Gamaliel's attitude is that his viewpoint of what has taken place relating to the Kennedy assassination is correct, and therefore any viewpoints by actual witnesses or opinions from reliable sources are "wrong" and therefore don't represent a neutral point of view.
  • How Gamaliel can remain oblivious to what a "neutral point of view" means for such a long period of time is unclear. While it is a basic rule of the website that all significant viewpoints be included Gamaliel substitutes his rule that Gamaliel decides what is true and what is "nonsense" which is his favorite pejorative.
  • Wikipedia rejects Gamaliel's rule (that he decides for the reader) and instead adopts the bluntly stated rationale "Why should the readers and editors believe Gamaliel or trust his judgment, knowledge and experience?" RPJ 20:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see that once again you've taken a simple talk page discussion about facts and turned it into a lenthy denunciation of me personally. Can't you just stick to the facts without losing your cool? I'm going to go back to ignoring you unless you are willing to act with civility and discuss things rationally. Gamaliel 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your presumption that I am a typical conspiracy theorist, Gamaliel. That hurts, especially as I have often written that I am not on any side. I do not want to "cloud the issue", or give "misleading information" either. If you have the all the facts, then you are a crowd of one who knows more than anybody. I salute you.
Anyway; I think you have denounced "me personally", as you say that RPJ has done to you, and it would be nice of you to apologise, if you should wish to. andreasegde 05:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time that you've mistaken my discussion of the general characteristics of the conspiracy press as referring to you personally. Most likely, poor writing on my part is to blame. I apologize for being unclear and in the future I will try to avoid such mistaken attributions. Gamaliel 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, and I thank you very much, sir. A very nice gesture. andreasegde 16:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George de Mohrenschildt

I put in two new parts. one is on De Morhenschildt, who supplied the crucial photograph and tesimony on Oswald's motive. This is a key witness for the Warren Commission.

Wrong. You missed the link, since the man's last name was George de Mohrenschildt with small de. Also, he had packed up this photo in unopened mail for a move in May, 1963 and didn't even know he had a copy when testifying for the Warren Commission in 1964. He didn't discover his own copy till 1967, and supplied no photographs to anybody (his widow gave his copy of CE-133A to the HSCA in 1977). You should actually read the HSCA photo analysis. It's very detailed and has a lot of history which you're getting wrong.SBHarris 00:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then put in is the evidence that links Ferrie to Oswald. I forgot to sign in. RPJ 23:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The George de Mohrenschildt bit should only be a line and a link to the WC, in the One-shooter section. If it stays in, then we have to put ALL the WC stuff in (could anyone conceive that? I hope not.) At the moment it looks like a very large POV/vandalism. C´mon guys, let´s be reasonable here... andreasegde 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, RPJ only stuck it all in because he thought maybe George de M provided the fake backyard photo to the Warren Commission, then suicided/was killed to prevent him talking to the HSCA people. The real truth is so much less interesting (those photos were all over the place), and they all (including the Walker house photos with Oswald's camera) and isotope ratios from lead in Walker's window matching Book Depository ammo, implicate Oswald badly. Wups. Backfired, RPJ. Feel free to do what you like with it, or put some of it in the Oswald bio, which is really where it belongs (there's already a section there on de Mohrenschildt).SBHarris 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thinks that George "suicided" himself is kinda new to me. How´do ya do that? andreasegde 00:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important viewpoints for inclusion into the article

  • Does anyone reject the link between de Mohrenschildt and Oswald?
  • Does anyone believe that de Morenschildt was not an important witness for the Warren Commission?
  • Does anyone reject the link between de Morehnschildt and Clint Murchenson?
  • Does anyone reject putting in the article the information that Lyndon Johnson met with Clint Murchison the day before Kennedy was assassinated and told Madeleine Brown afterwards that:

"After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again - that's no threat - that's a promise"? [20]

  • Shouldn't the article have a specific section devoted to the proposition that Kennedy was assassinated by a right-wing plot of which Oswald was part?

RPJ 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"that's a promise". Yes, put it in.
"Kennedy was assassinated by a right-wing plot" No, because it´s a "proposition", and it´s not specific enough yet. andreasegde 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Neutral Point of View means

A neutral point of view is called "NPOV." Some editors are still confused over what Wikipedia means that an article must provide a neutral point of view. This policy means that when there is a controversy relating to different viewpoints over what is correct information to put in an article abiut what occurred in the past, or what is the best medicine for a desease, etc, Wikipedia does not decide which of the viewpoints is correct. Instead Wikipedia provides all significant viewpoints and allows the reader to decide. It is that simple.

Here is the policy verbatim:

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view [NPOV], 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".

The above rule of a neutral point of view by presenting all significant viewpoints has come up again. This time regating to information being deleted from the article about the relationship between Oswald and David Ferrie. Ferrie was a bizarre right-wing fanatic who worked for an organized crime leader at the time of Kennedy's assassination. Immediately after the assassination, an informant both identified David Ferrie as possibly being involved some how in the assassination and of knowing the accused murderer, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Er, what informant was that?? Here's a pretty good article about who Jack Martin was. From a pretty bad website, but ignore that: it's just where I happened to find it first [21]. Here's another article you badly need to read:[22] My favorite part is where Russo can't remember anything about anybody until they drug him with truth serum and hypnotize him, following which he comes up with names like "Clay Bertrand" which hadn't even been invented yet, at the time he claimed to see Shaw using it. LOL.SBHarris 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in dispute is how well Oswald knew Ferrie (or whether Oswald knew Ferrie at all).

  • The Warren Commission view is that Oswald did not know Ferrie.
  • The House Select Committee on Assassinations view is that Oswald did know Ferrie.
No, that misrepresents their view. Try again.SBHarris 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the policy of a neutral point of view, Wikipedia needs to provide the opinions of both the Commission and then the HSCA.

The policy of a neutral point of view also applies to the even handed presentation of the underlying information that supports one or the other of the two viewpoints. The information in question is evidenced by eyewitnesses and documentary evidence (photographs etc).

A common mistake by some editors about applying the neutral point of view policy will be discussed below.

RPJ 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finds it weird that a picture a´ Oswald and that Ferrie guy mekkin´ breakfast, (or sump-in´) with a whole bunch a guys to be mighty intrestin´. You saying that Oswald did not know the name a´one a´his commanding bosses? Sure strange to me... andreasegde 00:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A common mistake which leads to wrongful deletions

Now this is important: Evidence can't be deleted simply because it supports one view point or another view. Supporting a relevant viewpoint is the reason the evidence is put in an article--and certainly it is not a reason to delete information out out of an article. The policy is all significant viewpoints are included --The policy is not that significant viewpoints are excluded.

Nevertheless, an editor now wants to take out of the evidence establishing that Oswald did know David Ferrie and supports the HSCA viewpoint. This can't be done under the policy.

The evidence of "known access" of Oswald to Ferrie prior to Kennedy's murder comes from a number of sources:

  • Oswald worked within blocks of where Ferry would at times work and both were known to go to the same restaurant downstairs from where Ferrie would work. When they were younger both belonged to the Civil Air Patrol in New Orleans, and a number of cadets knew both of them.
  • In addition, one witness remembers that Oswald and Ferrie knew one another, and another had a picture of Ferry, an instructor, with Oswald and a small group of other instructors and cadets.
  • Three months before the assassination eyewitnesses place Ferrie and Oswald together in Clinton, Mississippi and other eyewitnesses place Oswald up in the office where Ferrie worked with Guy Bannister, a notorious right-wing fanatic.
  • Finally, a substantial number of posters Oswald printed up said that Oswald's headquarters were in the same small building where Ferrie and Bannister worked.


The evidence establishing that Oswald did not know Ferrie consists of:

  • David Ferrie's denial that he and Oswald knew one another.
  • A friends' recollection that prior to Kennedy's death Ferrie never mentioned that he knew Oswald, and said in his opinion that Ferrie would not be involved in a plot to murder Kennedy.

It is the policy of Wikipedia that evidence supporting both viewpoints should be represented.

RPJ 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting a long list of bullet points representing only one POV is not appropriate. It does not represent "both viewpoints", is not NPOV, and is against the policy of this website. Gamaliel 03:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down and have a cup of tea

I have no idea why RPJ is being attacked so much. He seems to be an intelligent and concerned editor that is not given to swearing and attacking people (until that can be proven, and not just POVed). His "attacks" seem to be misconstrued. I have read through his well-written comments (NO, I am not a conspiracy theorist) and I see no problem. He only wants to present both sides, and he is constantly thwarted. I see no reason for this, and it reads like a lot of POVs. C´mon guys, let´s be nice. andreasegde 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He insults every other editor (except you, but just wait), does not engage in substantive discussion but denounces other editors in long talk page harangues, accuses people of being employed by a federal agency to plant disinformation or having some psychological weakness preventing them from realizing the "truth" of the assassination, inserts pet conspiracy theories into articles as facts, inserts long rants into articles attacking sources and even editors, and vandalizes user and talk pages. Shall I go on? Gamaliel 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He insults every other editor (except you, but just wait). I will, but he hasn´t yet. andreasegde 17:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to work with one of the editors on the web site rules

One of the editors to this page does not understand that the policy of this web site is that:

  • All significant view points be represented, and
  • There are no personal opinions by editors allowed.

This is becoming a problem. For whatever reason, this one editor holds the belief that David Ferrie and Oswald did not know one another, and disbelieves all the cumulative evidence from a number of sources to the contrary. That is ok, he is entitled to make up his own mind.

But he wants to go further. Based on his own personal belief on this issue, this editor wants to take out of the article the evidence the Congressional Committee cites for believing there is a link between Oswald and Ferrie. He then wants to substitute in place of the evidence, the editor's own personal opinion that none of the evidence is credible.

This particular editor has been told over and over again that he is not allowed to delete material that he doesn't personally approve and he has also been told time and again, that his personal view points cannot be included in the articles. He ignores these rules. At his point --he won't even say why he defies the policy of the web site. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to communicate with this misguided editor.RPJ 00:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how the problem editor has responded

The particular problem editor discussed above has responded by, again, deleting all the evidence that the House Select Committee on Assassinations collected establishing the link between Oswald and Ferrie. In his comment on doing so he says:

"03:53, 21 July 2006 Gamaliel (No matter how many long rants you post denouncing me on the talk page your pro conspiracy POV bullet points aren't going in the article.)"

The editor that calls himself Gamaliel should take a little vacation from the Kennedy pages. He is losing sight of the purpose of this web page which is to provide information to the reader, not hide information. RPJ 07:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take a little vacation from attacking me. Find a new hobby. Gamaliel 13:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Here we go... RPJ is not attacking you personally, Gamaliel, because we have very little (if any) personal information about other editors. He is criticising the things you DO on this page. If you want to disgree with HSCA, then I suggest you send an e-mail to the members who presided. RPJ is only reporting their viewpoints, and not his own.

Constantly saying that RPJ is attacking you is beginning to sound like "The boy who cried ´Wolf´". I think of the question, "You don´t like me, do you?" which puts the accused on the defensive, as he/she then has to explain why they do like you (if they do at all.) Good trick, though. Let´s stop playing courtroom tactics and start being reasonable. It´s only a web page, after all (or is it a crusade? Hmmm...)

P.S. An editor (no names, no pack drill) put forward the idea that RPJ was my "hero". That is the most stupid thing I have ever read, and the editor in question should wash his/her mouth out with soap. andreasegde 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. He has attacked me plenty of times and is attacking me now. Familiarize yourself with the talk page archives and you will find plenty of instances where he's alleged I have some sort of psychological maladay and accused me of being a government plant. Gamaliel 16:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The JFK assassination theories article needs to be expanded in terms of main articles

There are so many theories here that many of them need their own subarticles, and one of these (JFK killed by anti-cuban militants) could get you space where you could list bullet points in favor of Ferrie being involved. So why not create a main:topic article on the idea? Then you can go wild, so long as you give the opposite side some space for rebuttal. The big problem here, as I see it, is not the data, but the space it takes up, even in this fairly generous venue.

I myself think the HSCA's reasons for thinking there might be link between Oswald and Ferrie make for great entertainment. Yeah, Oswald the young hetersexual socialist/commie atheist who has a bad case of Castro hero worship and keeps getting into fights with anti-Castro Cubans. David Ferrie, the anticommunist Bay of Pigs helper who is gay and Catholic. Natural allies, if ever there were any. I'm sure they just had to meet in Banister's offices all the time, since Banister, as a Commie-bashing friend of Ferrie's, should have loved young Oswald like a son, yessireebob.

So create the page and spin it out. SBHarris 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A point of view fork is "highly undesireable"

The basic policy of Wikipedia is to include all significant viewpoints on an issue. The web page prohibits splitting one issue into two articles in order to present one point of view on the issue in one article and a different point of view in another article. By splitting up the opposing viewpoints into two articles the reference work makes it more difficult for the reader to obtain all significant viewpoints on an issue and is regarded as "highly undesirable." Splitting the opposing points of view into two articles is called a "point of view fork".

Please note: It doesn't matter why an editor wants a point of view fork, because it is the result that is "highly undesirable" and it is the result that is prohibited.

The test for a point of view fork is simple to apply. Is there a significant view point on an issue that is put in an seperate article? If so, the readers will have to go to two separate articles, to read all the viewpoints and they shouldn't have to do so. A good reference work has all significant viewpoints grouped together for the reader. A reference work is designed to help the reader and not to please the editors.

Therefore, suggesting that an editor can start his or her own article where the editor "can go wild" isn't remotely within the policy of this web site. Instead, an editor should simply provide the information and not give his or her personal opinion about the information. These are basic editing priniples. If you can't follow these rules--don't edit. RPJ 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. I meant go wild on LENGTH. You're still going to have to spend approximately equal time for each point of view. Right now, you'll notice that the JKF assassination page is very conspiracy-heavy, and the part defending the conventional view of Oswald-the-lone-gunman, which really is the most common opinion of serious historians of this issue, gets short-shrift. That's not a balanced presentation of the best historical evidence. The ONLY time (1 in 4) a major invesigative body has departed from Oswald-lone-gunman (OLG) is when the HSCA was totally misled by the dictabelt stuff, and had to start looking at something to bolster the conspiracy that they now had discovered (2-shooters, even if one misses, requires a conspiracy) and that they now felt they had to explain, or at least make some headway on. But (rats!) the dictabelt proved a COMPLETE mistake and blind alley. Turned out there wasn't ANYTHING to explain. So all the work the HSCA did to try to flesh out old conspiracy theories was in service of evidence that was bad to begin with, kind of like Bush and Iraq's WMD. Unfortunately, when the 4-shot evidence was later found to be crap, that didn't cause the HSCA to do what it SHOULD honestly have done, which is to say: "Oh. Well, if there were only 3 shots, then NEVERMIND all that other stuff we hypothesized. We were wrong." (For that matter, it didn't cause Bush to do anything like that, either).
The HSCA committee did NOT come to a formal conclusion on a relationship between Oswald and Ferrie-- you're wrong about that (feel free to quote me something different). They didn't even conclude the two had a relationship where one wore leather and the other a French maid's costume, as I presume as the sort of relationship Ferrie might have had with Shaw if he'd had one. Let alone one in which the killing of JFK was the central topic. What the HCSA *said* was that some kind of Ferrie/Oswald relationship or set of contacts, was plausable and couldn't be ruled out. Well, if so, so what? This kind of thing (particularly with no great evidence that Ferrie wanted JFK dead either) is not worth taking up large sections of an article on something as historically important as the JFK assassination. Jack Martin recanted, Perry Russo turned out to be a recovered-memory creation, the Garrison witnesses turned out to be coerced or flat-out crazy people (as was Garrison), and there's just no case here (as the jury found). To find a government body like the HSCA completely spinning stuff up out of this, is very sad. You can sort of understand why they tried to do it it when they thought they HAD solid conspiracy evidence (acoustics); but take the accustics away, and the whole thing is a tree that DIDN'T fall in the forest, because there wasn't any noise to hear.
Yes, Oswald got under the skin of Anti-Casto people in the Big Easy. He had fights with them, he had radio debates with them, he was generally as irritating as he could be, being Oswald, and being in need of attention, as Oswald-the-fatherless-boy always was. And we find he spent some time physically near their offices-- golly, surprise. Where else would you expect Oswald to go, if he was trying to be politically irritating to the anti-Castro Right--- the bayou? But to say (as the HSCA essentially did) that while (yes, indeed) Oswald and Ferrie were completely different sorts of people, with completely different political goals, THAT YET this doesn't necessarily mean they weren't conspirators--- bosom buddies in the sort of plot you ONLY want to make with somebody you trust your life to---is NUTS. Of course it argues (at least) heavily in the other direction! And in the absense of really good evidence otherwise (which we have not got) a reasonable person would say the whole idea was not worth spending any time on. But give Oliver Stone one stupid movie with Kevin Costner, and here we all are, going over it on Wikipedia 15 years later---such is the power of the silver screen. Sheesh.SBHarris 21:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Sbharris, don´t say "stupid movie". It´s pure POV. I don´t think it was a very accurate either (so I half-agree with you) but someone will defintely reply to your comment in the positive. This could go on, and on. Do we want that? andreasegde 16:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages do not have to maintain NPOV. And some things in life ARE stupid. And in any case, to maintain that no work of art is stupid or silly, and thus cannot be correctly labeled as such, is a POV.SBHarris 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Sbharris--please focus

Sbharris needs to read this. He suggested two days ago breaking the article in two by putting some viewpoints on the issue of existence of a conspiracy on the main page and have a second page devoted to other view points on the existence of a conspiracy. The web page policy considers breaking a page in two in that way is "highly undesirable." Breaking it up such as that is called a point of view "fork" and is a clear sign of a amateur editing in a reference work.

I don't think Sbharris understood because he responded by saying that those presenting the other view points on a second main page could go on at length.


Therefore, I know he is missing the point which is all view points go on the main page, and then any elaborations on them can be on another page which is ok. This a very important distinction and if you don't understand it please let me know.RPJ 02:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POVs which are minority may not be worthy of mention at all. That is why many JFK theories (ie.e., the limo driver did it with his pocket pistol) have been relegated to another crank page, devoted to JFK assassion theories (including crazy ones). What is it about this process you don't understand? Not all points of view are equal. WP never pretended they were. I'm not going to discuss this further with you. SBHarris 06:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you still don't understand

You suggested a second article be started that provides the viewpoint reported by the House Select Committee on Assassinations on the possible conspiratorial relationship between accused Presidential murderer Lee Oswald and the violent right-wing fanatic, David Ferrie. However, under web site policy a second main article on a conspiracy between Oswald and Ferrie is "highly undesirable." The reader must be able to go to one main article for the conspiracy theories. Other articles may elaborate on the theories presented in the main article, but not be a substitute for placement of the theory in the main article. Don’t chop up the alternative viewpoints: Doing so makes it more difficult for the reader to assimilate.

The reason this issue has come up again is that one editor insists on deleting evidence cited by the Congressional Committee in 1979 about the Oswald-Ferrie link and instead substituting the editor's personal opinion that there is no credible evidence of a significant relationship between accused Presidential murderer Lee Oswald and David Ferrie.

I will say this as diplomatically as possible: The web site requires all significant viewpoints on an issue be presented in one article, and therefore, the deletion was wrong. Moreover, the editor's personal opinion that none of the Congressional Committee's evidence is either credible or significant is clearly an improper addition to the article. Opinions by the editors are not allowed since the web site assumes that the readers and other editors either don't care, don't believe, or don't want to read what some anonymous editor personally believes about this issue or any other issue. RPJ 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this as diplomatically as possible. The HSCA's conclusions say nothing about David Ferrie. If we stick to just the conclusions, then we shouldn't, either. If we want to expand to the entire thinking of commissions, then we have 26 volumes of Warren Commission and 500+ pages of HSCA report, and all that doesn't belong here. SBHarris 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please focus and understand that point view forks are a sign of amateur editing. Responding by talking about something else simply confuses the other readers. If you don't understand--simply say so. RPJ 02:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have what you call a "POV fork": It created Kennedy assassination theories so we wouldn't have to deal with this mess in JFK assassination. But it wasn't actually a POV fork so much as creation of a separate subarticle or main article, to deal with a subtopic. The same may well have to be done with the various JFK assassination theories, since there simply is too much material. But that's fine. It's how Wikipedia grows. We now have not only a full article on every Apollo flight, but a full and complete subarticle on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. Which is referenced with sub-hoax articles, and referenced in the Apollo 11 article as a "folklore" heading, which is just where it should go. Right along with the idea that David Ferrie was preparing to fly Oswald out of Dallas, and Jack Ruby was sent by the mob to take Oswald out.SBHarris 03:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget, Steve, you're arguing with a person who feels that this article needs a list of bullet points with the names of people who have identified Ferrie and Oswald in the 1955 photo. Does this mean I should edit the Ronald Reagan page with a list of people who can identify Ron and Nancy in the photo of the 1981 inauguration? Here's an idea for a POV fork: now that so many people, including you and me[23], have received an entire subsection of talk from RPJ attacking us personally, maybe we should put them all in one article for improved clarity. Joegoodfriend 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should create a userbox for all the people who have been the subject of a personalized RPJ rant. Gamaliel 22:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. But seriously, what are we going to do about the issue of selectivity? For example, RPJ has a fit when Agent Kellerman's description of JFK's head isn't included as an eyewitness account, but you won't see him him fighting to keep in the bit where Kellerman and Finck are probing JFK's shoulder wound at the autopsy, and Finck is telling Kellerman "there's no route through this man's shoulder." Yeah, SHOULDER, not back. We can't have accounts from every single person who saw JFK's body-- there are probably 50 of them. And Dr. Burkley! What do we do with this rear admiral who was also a horse's rear end? This is the guy who didn't even know JFK HAD a throat wound, and who spent the autopsy yelling at the staff from the gallery (literally) about the family's wishes, so they screwed up the autopsy in just the ways that the HSCA noted (and which, by the way, I would include). He ranked everybody but wasn't in the chain of command; however nobody was sure of that. So his impact on history and truth was entirely negative. About the nicest thing anybody has to say about the man was that he drank too much. But, yet, according to RPJ I'm supposed to accept his death certificate description as somehow "authoritative." LOL. Sorry, that's asking too much.SBHarris 23:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An ambiguous/contradictory phrase

In the "Response" section, at the end of the first paragraph, there is a sentence that says "Later tests allegedly showed them to be genuine, and fake". This phrase seems self-contradictory to me, but I don't know enough about the subject to know whether it should say genuine or fake. If I missed something, and the sentence actually makes sense in the context of the text, it would be nice to have it clarified. The text was added by User:Andreasegde in this edit, and it seems to me that "and fake" should be removed, though I'd rather someone who knows about the subject corrects it. --Aramգուտանգ 07:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh... You got me thinking there! What should actually be in is this: "Oswald said - in police custody - that they were fakes, and that he could prove it. Later tests allegedly showed them to be genuine."

I have just looked at the page again, and I have no idea why I wrote "genuine, and fake." This is very disturbing, because I wouldn´t have done that, but I must have.... Hmmm... (BTW, I have just taken the "fake" out.)

My abject apologies and heartfelt thanks go to Aramgutang for spotting it. I will now get the hair shirt out of the closet and force myself to wear it for a week... (laugh...)

andreasegde 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autopsy

I have taken a whole load of stuff out of "Response" and have created an "Autopsy" section. I´m surprised it wasn´t done before... andreasegde 04:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now think (after creating the Autopsy section) that it should not be there at all, as it is well covered in other pages. There is even a Kennedy autopsy page. If no-one disagrees, I´m going to chop it out. This page should only be about theories. Hit me where it hurts if I´m wrong... andreasegde 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to do that then take out all the Warren Commission discussion since it now dominating the page.

RPJ 23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning and merging

Yes, there is an extensive Warren commision page with links to the full report. This is doubling-up of information. As I said above, my POV is that this page should only contain theories that are not reported anywhere else (be they true or not....)

The response section should cleaned and merged with "One shooter". It looks like a messy debate at the moment. Lots of stuff in it is available on the Oswald pages.

Now, as I sit here waiting for the faeces to hit the fan, does anybody think the WC stuff should be in, or put as a link in "See also", on its real, and very informative, page? (Sound of fingers tapping on desk...  :) andreasegde 12:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK, the autopsy section has gone to here: John F. Kennedy autopsy andreasegde 15:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No changed conspiracy route

“It made it clear that you have to turn on Houston and then Elm to get from Dallas' Main Street to the Stemmons Freeway. If you try driving down Main, you can get to the Stemmons only by driving over a concrete divider strip. That would be illegal, absurdly undignified for the presidential limo, and impossible for the press busses that were a part of the motorcade.” [24] and this: [25]

Look at a map after the railway bridge. It wasn´t a conspiracy to change the route. But by not changing the route, it points the finger at Oswald, as well as any other shooters, because they would have known which way Kennedy would come. Back to the beginning again... andreasegde 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except there's just no way to put Oswald in place before the exact route has been chosen. And the final choice of route to put JFK under Oswald, has plenty of reason to defend it (although it could have been done differently-- it also has reasonable reasons for it). So in my mind, none of this works either way. It's neutral. Garrison sees a conspiracy in it. But Garrison was nuts, so what do you expect?SBHarris 06:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it´s neutral; it just cuts out another theory that has been around for ages, thank goodness. Your "But Garrison was nuts", was not neutral - and I´m sure you know it´s a POV. It´s not worthy of a good editor. The man is dead, after all. andreasegde 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But he's still nuts. Gamaliel 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting phenomenon: A man can still be "nuts", when he is dead and buried. Mocking the dead is abhorrent, and puerile. Good editors refrain from using such vilifications, do they not? andreasegde 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, certainly. In real life, why? Do you think there should be some correlation between editorial skill and sainthood? I don't see any reason not to call them like I see them, and I think the reluctance of people in general to accurately label certain theories and people who advocate those theories as "insane" has assisted in the widespread propagation of those nutty theories. Garrison (and now I'm being as nice as I can be) was most likely mentally ill and his megalomania and his persecution complex pushed him to ruin the lives and hasten the deaths of a number of people. What noble cause is served by not vilifying this man? And where is the reluctance in the conspiracy press to refrain from vilifying the memories of, say, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie? Gamaliel 22:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
“the widespread propagation of those nutty theories.”
“Garrison - - was most likely mentally ill and his megalomania and his persecution complex pushed him to ruin the lives and hasten the deaths of a number of people.”
“What noble cause is served by not vilifying this man?”
I am sorry that I can not answer these comments. They make me feel ill. andreasegde 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Crazy

andreasegde, if you are going to read this page, you are going to have to get used to hearing everyone even tangentially involved with the JFK assassination called crazy.

If you mention the Garrison case in any context, it will be pointed out that to you that Garrison, all the witnesses, everyone remotely associated with Guy Banister, etc., were all loony, delusional, or at least had a hard time telling the truth. And there’s nothing wrong with that, because it’s true. These were people who made a living by obscuring the truth.

Conversely, when I point out that ALL the medical professionals involved with the autopsies who testified before the WC stated that the single bullet theory, in light of the medical evidence, was impossible, I’m told that they were all incompetent, thus the WC’s conclusions were perfectly reasonable. When I point out that Oswald’s carpool buddies both testified in EXACTING detail that the package Oswald carried to work wasn’t long enough to hold the rifle, I’m told that they were delusional as well.

Is there anyone we can all agree was not crazy, had an accurate memory, and told the truth? Jackie Kennedy, maybe. Joegoodfriend 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I carpool with someone to work, I always bring a tape measure so I can accurately record the size of any packages they may have with them. ;) Gamaliel 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A classic case of one-up-manship, Gamaliel. It´s very good. andreasegde 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No neutrality?

Of course there is no real neutrality here on WP. If there was perfect neutrality and not judgement, you couldn't tell vandalism from good editing, or from ran*^%$#dom typing. As to matters of fact, Jimbo has decreed that WP should be rather like the world free of objective reality, the one in which Bertrand Russell remarked that the only thing you could say about a lunatic who believed he was a poached egg, was that he didn't hold the majority opinion. Or (since we can't assume democracy), that he didn't agree with the government. Which in WP's case would be the collection of administrators and Jimbo. Joegoodfriend 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good sense versus evidence

Leaving all that aside, all that's more theory which is honored more with lipservice than actually in the breach. Nothing really gets done in these articles without application of good sense.

Arguing about whether or not Oswald's package was really 2 feet or 3 feet long is losing perspective when the real question is why is the man bringing this odd long package to work on Friday, Assassination Day, in the first place? He didn't leave the building with it. He left with a coke (great prop, there, Lee--- the shear chutzpah of this man reaches across history).

Oswald, we know from Frazier, just had to go home to Marina and the children in Irving on Thursday Nov 21, a day earlier than the weekend-- the only time he'd done that in 5 weeks that he's worked at the Depository, to get "curtain rods" for his boarding room in Dallas. So no weekend at home with the family in Irving for this man--- now he's stuck in Dallas for a 3 day weekend with nothing but... curtain rods. Gunna have a window treatment paaaahrty, yeah!

He not only got the "curtain rods" for his boarding room from the Paine's house, but he took them straight to work, of course, the next morning, as he was riding with Frazier. Had no choice, but to baby the curtain rods at work, before he can get them back to his room and do all the things he always want to do, to them. And the curtain rod sack is found in the sniper's nest, but strangely, no curtain rods. Now where did those curtain rods go? Oswald's room turns out to have both curtains and curtain rods, and is not lacking for either. There are spare curtain rods at the Paines, but they remain at the Paines (Ruth Paine gives some of hers to the Warren Commission, which puzzles over them).

When the police ask Oswald about curtain rods, he says "What curtain rods? That was my lunch." A really LOOONG hoagy. Though Frazier says Oswald told him he was going to buy lunch that day, which puzzled Frazier because Oswald always took his lunch when he drove with Frazier. But Oswald has his story, and he's not about to tell Frazier that he's going to eat the curtain rods. There's a sort of low comedy here. Come on, Andreas, you're missing it. And you're the one who said you knew I wanted to smile. Well, here we are. :)))) SBHarris 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I´m not missing anything, dear sir. If you look at the archives you will see that I brought the subject up. Being neutral means looking at little points like rods, and having two explanations. If the curtain rods had been found at the TSBD, Oswald would have been innocent. The fact that they were found, but the police can´t remember where, says something else. Police incompetence, perhaps? andreasegde 10:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So now we’re going to have an argument on the minutiae of the curtain rods. Fine.
1. The story that Oswald’s room already had curtain rods is propagated by McAdams, Posner, and other WC defenders. Here’s another:
“On Saturday morning, November 23, professional photographer Gene Daniels who was following events went to Oswald's rooming house. Daniels: “I went to the rooming house the following morning and requested permission to make the photograph from the landlady. We went into the room and she told me she preferred not to have me take any pictures until she put "the curtains back up." I agreed and stood in the room as she and her husband stood on the bed and hammered the curtain rods back into position. While she did this, I photographed them or possibly just her I forget right now, up on the bed with the curtain rods”. I’ve seen Daniels’ photos but I can’t find them online.
2. Curtains rods were found in Paine’s garage, and Mrs. Paine stated that she couldn’t remember how many there had been. So we’ve established that Oswald may have needed curtain rods to keep out the hot Texas sun, and a supply was available to him.
3. You left out some stuff damning against Oswald. That last night, he left his wedding ring and all his money in the house for Marina to find. Clearly, he knew something was going down. After the assassination, he clearly knew he was in trouble. This establishes his culpability at some level, but not that he shot anyone. Oswald reflexively lied about everything during his interrogation, rods included. And if they really were curtain rods, where did they go? I don’t know, you got me on that one. ;) Joegoodfriend 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

ANSWER:The McAdams site has a link to the Daniels photo [26]. You left out a line in your quote: I went to the rooming house the following morning and requested permission to make the photograph from the landlady. I'm not sure of her name but I don't think she was the owner.

We went into the room and she told me she preferred not to have me take any pictures until she put "the curtains back up." She said that newsmen the evening before had disturbed the room and she didn't want anyone to see it messed up. I agreed and stood in the room as she and her husband stood on the bed and hammered the curtain rods back into position. While she did this, I photographed them or possibly just her I forget right now, up on the bed with the curtain rods etc.

That hardly sounds like the curtains and rods hadn't been there the day before. It sounds like newsmen (or cops who had also searched the room) knocked them down. Which is my own experience with curtain rods-- when they fall down they don't go into a 5th dimension (sic) as Oswald's packaged rods seem to have: you generally find them where they fell :). And indeed the landlady testified to the Warren Commission that Oswald's room had curtains and rods. Why would she lie?

As to the "hot Texas sun" here again this is why Texas juries are made of humans with local experience, not robots or Martians or even Europeans. I've lived in Texas and there is no "hot Texas sun" in November. Though in Dallas you may have rain or humidity, as a matter of fact, on Nov. 21-22, 1963 the weather in Dallas was as close to being perfect as the weather there ever gets. So don't be spinning any stories about how Oswald just had to go home a day early, couldn't take one more day in his room in that horrible heat (70 F. at noon) and ravening sun, and just had to have those curtain rods, or die. Cause it's just not plausable. Sorry.

And of course I know about the ring and so on. Oswald loved drama. He did a similar thing when he went to shoot Walker, leaving Marina a dramatic note ("sell my clothes, keep my personal effects, here are directions to the Dallas jail....").

Oswald was a champion knob-twister because he needed attention. He was a Communist in the McCarthy era, reading Russian magazines in front of coworkers, defecting to the USSR and re-defecting, handing out pro-Castro pamphlet in New Orleans practically in front of former Cuban exile org (and using their previous address, LOL), and so on. "Police brutality! I just tried to shoot a cop with my pistol and he hit me with his fist! No FAIR!" That little smile you see on Oswald for the two days he was in custody after the JFK murder, and which people wanted to sock him for, is the secret smile of the chronically underappreciated chain-jerker who's now the center of attention, having just pulled the greatest knob-twister/performance-art piece of the century. One worth dying for. But again, you need some life experience to read between the lines, here. A robot, or Martian, will never get it.SBHarris 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right. I should have said the COLD Texas sun, which I experienced while my parents were living in south suburban Dallas. So Oswald's landlady is believable, but the people who saw him with the bag are not? No fair. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m busy trying to stuff a 35 inch rifle into a 20 inch bag. Joegoodfriend 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was a 38 inch bag found in sniper's nest. So the rifle would have fit in that. And that bag even Frazier said looked like THE bag (and admitted he never really paid much attention to the thing), but too long. So yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that the witnesses made a mistake in size. Otherwise, how are you going to explain this? The 38 inch bag had fibers in it linked to Oswald. Oswald's Carcano rifle was found, and it fit in the bag. Are we going to believe that Oswald made a special trip home to carry disappearing curtain rods he didn't need, to Dallas in a bag on the day of the assassination, while somebody ELSE at the SAME TIME managed to smuggle Oswald's rifle in a BIGGER but similar bag, up to the 6th floor? :))). Oswald must've been the unluckiest person on Earth to have decided he just HAD to have those curtains THAT day. And what a lucky break for the nefarious sorts trying to get Oswald's rifle to the Depository, too. Golly. 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Very odd that Oswald decided to bring curtain rods that day. And where did the rods go? Even if The Conspiracy disposed of them, how did they know he would bring them? If The Conspiracy didn't know about the curtain rods ahead of time, how did they dispose of them after the assassination undetected, with dozens of cops and reporters poking around and filming? Gamaliel 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try disassembling it, like they teach Marines to do. ;) Gamaliel 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35" is disassembled. Not much you can do with the length of the single stockpiece.SBHarris 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are really far off on the facts, and you are dismissing eyewitnesses testimony without reason.
1. “Frazier said (it) looked like THE bag.” Frazier was shown the bag on 11/22. From the FBI memo: "Lt Day recalls that on evening of 11/22/63, about 11.30p.m. one of Captain FRITZ' officers requested that he show this thick brown sack to a man named FRAZIER. Lt. DAY said that FRAZIER was unable to identify this sack and told him that a sack he observed in the possession of OSWALD early that morning was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like one purchased in a dime store."
2. “it was a 38 inch bag found in sniper's nest.” You’re thinking of the REPLICA bag made by the FBI and shown to witnesses exclusively at the WC hearing. Yeah, the rifle fit in that all right. Funny they didn’t do that demo with the real bag.
3. “fibers in it linked to Oswald.” I can’t find any evidence of this. What is your cite? Are you thinking of the fibers on the rifle that linked it to Oswald?
4. The bag found in the SBD was taped up with “wet” tape, which the WC noted was just like the tape available in the SBD. Except the WC didn’t bother to explain how Oswald could have taped up the rifle in the bag given that the tape would have been useless if he took it home. Further, although the rifle was “well-oiled” there was no oil on the bag. Also, "The inside surface of specimen Q10 (the bag) did not disclose markings identifiable with the rifle, K1." Also, Jack Dougherty testified that Oswald wasn’t carrying any bag when he came to work.
5. Frazier said Oswald carried the bag under his arm with one end in his hand and the other in his armpit. His sister said that when he held the end of the bag in his hand with his arm at his side, the bag did not touch the ground. 20 inches is being generous. You have no reason to dismiss these statements.
6. I don’t know if the bag had curtain rods in it, but I do know that a supply was available to him right next to his stuff in the garage. Maybe he like the color better than the ones in his room. Maybe he thought he could use ‘em to poke General Walker’s eyes out. I’m going to stab my own brain with a curtain rod if I think about this much longer. Joegoodfriend 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frazier's estimation of the bag as about two feet long (not 20 inches) is continually treated as some sort of scientific constant when Frazier himself says it was only a guess: "Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm." [27]
When you oil a gun, you don't dip it in crisco and coat the outside. In fact, the document that conspiracy theorists point to to say the gun was "well-oiled" only refers to internal parts: "the firing pin and spring of this weapon are well oiled". [28]
If the bag contained curtain rods, where did the curtain rods go? Gamaliel 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at my piece in the archive. They found them, but couldn´t remember if it was at the Paine´s home, or the TSBD. andreasegde 10:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you misunderstand. Curtains rods were found in the Paine's garage, and they couldn't remember how many there had been. It is theoretically possible that Oswald could have taken some of them. What we are discussing is, if Oswald's bag was not the same bag found in the SBD, where did it go? I wish I knew. In ref. to the other comments above, (1) obviously the oily "internal parts" of the rifle would have been exposed when it was disassembled. (2) WC defenders like to pretend that there was something ambiguous or contradictory regarding what Frazier and his sister said that they saw, but there wasn't. Your only choice is to believe that either the bag they saw did not contain the rifle, or that Frazier and his sister were both delusional. Joegoodfriend 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false choice. You don't have to be "delusional" to make a simple mistake in estimating the exact length of a package you only glanced at. Gamaliel 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree completely. Again. Frazier said Oswald carried the bag under his arm with one end in his hand and the other in his armpit. His sister said that when he held the end of the bag in his hand with his arm at his side, the bag did not touch the ground. That has nothing whatsoever to do with estimating the length of a package. This argument is redundant, can we agree to disagree? Speaking of estimates, it looks like I don't know how to calculate UTC time correctly. Joegoodfriend 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but she did say "it almost touched the ground" [29] and intially estimated its length to be over three feet long [30]. If you don't want to discuss this any longer, fine, but I'm afraid there isn't any room for honest disagreement on this issue. It either contained curtain rods which Oswald didn't need and promptly vanished off the face of the earth, or it contained a rifle that was in the Paines' garage and was found in the TSBD. A discrepancy of six inches in the statements of witnesses who only glanced at a package is not enough to overcome the impossibility the curtain rod theory. Gamaliel 20:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you sign with four tildes (~) it automatically adds your name and the date and time, so you shouldn't have to do any calculations. You can change the time zone under "my preferences". Gamaliel 20:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something, or did you just call me dishonest? Joegoodfriend 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Honest disagreement" is just a phrase, the equivalent of "agree to disagree". I wasn't using it to imply that you were dishonest. I'd just say "I think you're being dishonest here" if I was. Gamaliel 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dead

We are not mocking the dead. There is nothing more relevant to this discussion than the fact that many people involved in the investigations may have lied pathologically or were delusional, thus their testimony is highly questionable. Garrison’s whole case was originally predicated on the testimony of Dean Andrews, who told lies like other people breathe. Conversely, the WC’s star witness, Howard Brennan, who supposedly identified Oswald, admittedly lied and changed his story repeatedly. (Also, in my opinion, he couldn’t possibly have seen what he claimed to have seen.) Joegoodfriend 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Good grief, I had no idea that "curtain rods" could create so many replies. As I brought up the subject of curtain rods I think I should say something (Ouch!). I have tried to read through all of the replies (paragraphs would make it a lot easier) and I will reply later. I have noticed quite a few POVs and some sarcasm in there, which will make it difficult to reply. I don´t like writing long answers, because it hurts my eyes, and it gets too complicated. Simplicity, and brevity, is the key. Let´s work together. andreasegde 19:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have edited some comments (paragraphs) so as to make them easier to read.
We should concentrate on the facts as we know them, report them in a clear way, and be concise. This is not a forum; it is an encyclopedia. It can be boring, but that is what it is. andreasegde 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Can we be neutral? Can we say that we do not know? Why not? Certain things can be proven (like the change of route - see above) but to be on one side or the other is (sorry) one-sided. Let´s look at the evidence, and be neutral. It´s a dirty job, etc..... andreasegde 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can put in what primary source information, and we can put in secondary source material. Both have to be "verifiable" preferably on internet. Readers can click on "verifiable" below for more information on that subject. If no one knows then I suppose that that can be said and when a source is known or becomes available it can be added. RPJ 03:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Zapruder

Abraham Zapruder has gone because it was a copy of his own page, complete with photo... andreasegde 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm the one who PUT that photo of Zapruder showing JFK's wound in both pages (Zapruder and JFK assassination) because I think it naturally belongs in both places, I'm not very pleased. Do you have some idea that no material can be duplicated in Wikipedia? You're going to be a busy boy then indeed, but can't you start someplace else? SBHarris 23:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how you feel, because I did it once and an avalanche of editors wasted no time at all in kicking my posterior all over the yard (for want of a better phrase) for doing it. If I hadn´t spotted it, somebody else would have, in time.

I took it out because of the above, but also because Zapruder had nothing to do with any conspiracy. Think about this, though: If there was a conspiracy, then why was Zapruder allowed to film the scene, and then be allowed to keep the film and sell it? That´s an interesting one... andreasegde 05:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that the JFK assassination theories page is devoted to conspiracy. It also does (and should) cover the most common and accepted theory, which is the Oswald is the lone gunman. Zapruder and his film and his testimony are essential to establishing the location of JFK's headwound at the instant it happened. Z was in the best position of any person to see it and film it as it happened. Why do you think this is not relevant, except to his bio page??SBHarris 23:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If you look at the bulk of this page, you can see that it deals with assassination theories: believable, interesting, not believable, and off-the-wall. Putting in “Z” - as he hereafter should forever be known – is misleading because he was not involved in any theory (or conspiracy) at all. His evidence was a film: [31] An Abraham Zapruder link is all that is needed.
"the most common and accepted theory, which is that Oswald was the lone gunman", is an oxymoron. A theory is not a fact. BTW, 70% of Americans do not agree with you. This page is not an island unto itself; it is merely a part of the whole category about President Kennedy.
The main purpose of Wikipedia (as I have been often told) is to be concise, [32]; meaning to present subjects as clearly as is possible. If you want to put Z into other pages (apart from his own) then look at this: Category:John F. Kennedy assassination. andreasegde 11:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald in New Orleans

This is very odd. Why is it here? It should be on the Oswald page, and the Oswald/Ferrie link should be on the Ferrie page, with a link to Oswald (or the other way round...) andreasegde 18:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald´s article and Ferrie´s both mention the air patrol, and Oswald´s has a link to the "photograph" of them in the same group. (This is NOT a POV saying they knew each other...) Therefore, "Oswald in New Orleans" has no reason to be in the article. It makes no mention of a conspiracy, and can be found elsewhere. andreasegde 11:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald in New Orleans has gone. It was not a theory, and it is available elsewhere. andreasegde 13:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One shooter/two shooters

I think that this should have a page of its own. It could be merged into lots of other articles, but it is an interesting piece, and deserves something better. andreasegde 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot something. Here it is: [33] andreasegde 10:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Response" section should be merged into "One shooter". If nobody fundamentally objects, it will be done. andreasegde 12:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have waited for two days, and so I have merged it. The bullet-point list under two shooters also looks clumsy, and has no definte relation to a conspiracy; just single statements with no cohesion. It is all probably available elsewhere. I will check... andreasegde 14:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

70 percent of American adults believe that the assassination was part of a larger plot, according to an ABC News poll conducted in November 2003 (Penny Cockerell, "JFK Conspiracy Theories Abound 40 Years after Assassination," Associated Press, November 22, 2003). In 2002 it was 80 percent.

According to a Fox News poll conducted in October 2003, 66 percent of the public think the assassination was part of a larger conspiracy (Dana Blanton, "Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts," Fox News, November 21, 2003). andreasegde 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article necessary?

It seems to me to be a repository of unfounded speculation and original research. Very few of the claims in the article is cited, and thus violates WP:Verify. It appears that this article was born as a result of a fork from the original JFK assassination article. If citations cannot be found for the assertions in this article that need them, I suggest deleting the information or perhaps the article. Ramsquire 19:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can´t believe that you wrote that, Ramsquire. I´m shocked. If it had been some casual passer-by, I would have understood. The whole reason this article was created was to keep theories off the Kennedy page (ask Gamaliel, he knows.) You have contributed heavily (sorry I was wrong, but see below...) to the talk page, which makes me confused. Why the sudden change of mind? Yours, sincerely, andreasegde 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be shocked, it just my thoughts on the matter. Yesterday was the first time I've checked this page. I've never been on this talk page. You can read through my contributions to see that. I was around when there was a discussion about creating this page but was told that it was content forking, which is not allowed. Now I see that a lot of the information here is unverified, as well as some really innaccurate information, and wonder if this page is necessary-- meaning, can this page ever be wikified. Ramsquire 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Yesterday was the first time I've checked this page." Interesting.
Article contributions: 21:42, 17 August 2006 Ramsquire (Talk | contribs) m (→Two shooters) Six times on the August 17, in all
20:42, 10 July 2006 Ramsquire (Talk | contribs) (→The House Select Committee on Assassinations - accurate description of the HSCA findings) The first time? andreasegde 20:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was August 17, 2006 not yesterday? Um, instead of insinuating I am a liar, why don't you read what I wrote? I said that yesterday was the first time I checked this page, meaning read through the whole article. It was. The HSCA fix was something I did when I noticed that someone kept misrepresenting the findings throughout Wiki. So I went to all possible pages where HSCA was listed and fixed it. Forgive me for not remembering that I did a spot check here two months ago. And your statement was that I contributed heavily, which you now admit was wrong. Also, I've been here for two years, and have edits from yesterday and a minor edit two months ago. Doesn't that say something. Ramsquire 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 July 2006. That wasn´t yesterday. You contributed. I will (of course, Ramsquire) accept what you say. My only thoughts are these: Why are you so angry? You´re a good editor, and we have worked together. I don´t understand. andreasegde 21:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not angry. I'm really not. I'm just explaining that I am a "casual passerby" to this page (and I was not impressed the first time I checked it out-- no reflection on you btw, don't take offense). If you call the one sentence change I did in July contributing, then yes I contributed. But honestly, I don't even remember it. I meant seriously reading the article and trying to improve it when I said checked in. I should have been more clear. Ramsquire 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okey-dokey - no problem, Ramsquire :) Anyway; I also believe that some of the theories are too "left-field" (and I cut out one or two out because of their absurdity) but if we delete the whole page then someone is bound to come along in the future and want to create a new one. If 70% of Americans think there was a conspiracy, then there should be somewhere for them to express that, don´t you think? andreasegde 13:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It´s a forking problem

BTW-- How did this page survive the content forking prohibition? Ramsquire 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what content forking prohibition you're talking about. One of the primary ways Wikipedia grows naturally, is by splitting out sub articles as "main articles" whenever primary articles get too large, like hydrogen economy in hydrogen and magnesium in biology in magnesium. To argue that this shouldn't happen is to suggest that there's some other way to write a giant encylopedia, but I submit that the only other way to do it would be to start with an outline of all human knowledge and the title of every single wiki, put them all out there as stubs, and start on every topic, general to specific, at the same time. Maybe that's how they write the Britannica, but the mind boggles at having to do it with a work that has 1.4 million English entries. In any case, that's now how it was done, and that's now how it's ever going to BE done, for Wikipedia. SBHarris 22:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe "prohibition" is a bit strong but the policy discouraging forks is WP:POVFORK. I just find it interesting this article even exists because when I once suggested either creating it or placing some info in an article like this, it was opposed by the more conspiracy oriented editors as a content fork (and attempting to delete significant viewpoints). Ramsquire 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was an RPJ rant. But criticism articles really are required sometimes (here's a great example) and often they create clutter if all the separate objections to an idea are left in place. The general rule is that the minority views can be collected as a subarticle, so long as care is taken to treat them as a subarticle by somehow summarizing them in the main article (this does not have to be exhaustive), and vice versa, which probably we should be careful to do in the main JFK assassination article. And so long as rebuttal on both sides is a part of both articles, which I hope we've accomplished here by having a good section on the one-shooter WC view in the JFK assassination theories article, and mentioning that other views than the WC's exist, in the main article.

In line with Wikipedia's semi-policy of assuming good faith, the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available. And the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.

I know I'm going to get flack for pushing so heavily for the WC view even in light of the fact that supposedly it's not the most popular view among the general public. Unfortunately, the general public's view is not informed, and is warped by the slick Oliver Stone JFK, which no movie producer is going to spend as much money to rebutt with a movie which is true to facts as we know them; plus the HSCA shocker with the dictabelt, which got way more airtime than ITS rebuttal, later. All of this being symptomatic of one of the problems which drives WP:V toward untruthfullness, which is that TRUTH is quite often dull and not very entertaining, and sometimes it's hard to find spokespeople for it. Jimbo Wales thinks that if something is true it should have plenty of citable supporters, but sometimes that's just not the case. If Posner's book had been called LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID IT, which was a fairer title, it wouldn't have sold. SBHarris 00:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that´s a very catchy title. I wonder what they did with the bath tub? "FOR SALE - one slightly used (but clean) bath tub, as used by Mr. O.H.Lee". andreasegde 13:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books Section

Please add the ISBN numbers for said books. They can be found on Amazon.com. Ramsquire 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was secretly hoping that someone else would do that... :) andreasegde 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lolRamsquire 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger (laughter) you got me there... :) Anybody else out there willing to sacrifice a bit of time? andreasegde 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many conclude - believe - have said

"(→Background - oh please - you don't need to cite the obvious)" - Gamaliel.

"The accuracy of the dictabelt analysis (and thus the HSCA's conclusions) have been called into question and many conclude that the recording is not actually of the assassination. [citation needed]". ("Citation needed" was deleted.)

I see nothing wrong with asking for a citation. Phrases like "many conclude/believe/think", and "it has been said/reported" are definitely in need of a citation. Any comments? andreasegde 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those "general knowledge" debates. Under that policy, a citation is not needed, however, a better objection is that it violates the guidelines of trying not to use weasel words or phrases. Ramsquire 16:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right, Sir Ramsquire.
I put a few "citations needed" on other sentences, and have not seen any being put in - and we have waited for a quite a while... I think the sentences that have not been cited should be deleted, which I will now do. (Ouch!) andreasegde 17:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No citations

I have cut out a lot of comments that needed citations. It is not enough to put "was reported" with no citation. We are here to report verifiable sources, and not to put forward our POVs. I know it´s boring to copy citations in, but it is the rule. Sorry to anyone that disagrees, but your edits would still be there if you had put a citation in. andreasegde 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los Alamos

Investigates the use of lead fingerprinting. To me the title is misleading as it doesn't really challenge the lone gunman theory but tries to challenge the lead batches that were analyzed. I thought this was interesting in that the lead batch angle isn't in the Wikipedia article. Lead fragments left in Connelly and Kennedy had identical compositions of impurities (i.e. the magic bullet is real). This story attempts to repudiate it from a legal admissibilty point-of-view but I think it's still very strong evidence that their was only one shooter. Someone with more experience with this article might want to add this in. I oringinal posted this on JFK assassination talk but probably fits here better. --Tbeatty 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Tbeatty. I have just read it and it looks like an "I say-you say" piece. It should go in, but only if both points are included. I´ll do it if no-one else has time...? andreasegde 12:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casket was swapped?

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

There aren't any photos from Dallas of sufficient quality to show anything like absense of such a wound (a triangular scalp flap which barely extends past the hairline over the eye, and might be the forward-most extent of the very large scalp flap wound seen in the Z. film).

As for a casket switch on a 1.5 hour flight, while Jackie Kennedy is sitting there watching you in the back of the airplane in the president's section, that's a neat trick. Maybe a quick swicheroo when she had to go the little girl's room? But what would the point be? Oh, I know. You're up to your wrists in gore, getting bullets out of the president's head. Hoping Jackie powders her nose long enough. Since otherwise it's hard to explain what you're doing. "Ah, hi, Ms. Kennedy. Just tidying up, here..." But why change caskets while you're up to this? Don't you have enough problems? SBHarris 01:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. O´Connor would not agree with you - no Sir-ee-bob. [34]

andreasegde 14:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor has said various things to various people over the years. I'll have to discuss what he said to Livingstone presently. In any case, who's this Admiral Galloway he talks about? I'll bet he must have really made Admiral Burkely mad, trying to run things <g>. What, you say, maybe O'Connor's memory wasn't too good? Do tell. SBHarris 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting bullets out of ol´ Kennedy´s head would have been real easy, ´cos his fruit bowl didn´t have much gore left in it to fill a couple of coffee cups. Mebbe they put that ol´ "V" on his head as "V fer Vietnam"? But mebbe they put him another casket to fool those gore-seekers with them big flashy cameras who wanted a shot of a dead president. Anyways, little Bobby had that big ol´ casket dumped in the big blue briny ´cos he didn´t want them thrill-seekers to get a hold of it. (Dumped from a helicopter with parachutes an´all...) He said sump´n like, "It´s our casket, and we can do what we like with it." Good on yer, Bob. So mebbe they changed the casket just to show the middle finger to a lot of folks. I kinda agree with that. andreasegde 14:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don´t ferget that Bobby was first with Jackie off the plane, even though he weren´t on it from Dallas. They pushed ol´ Johnson to the back. And Bobby didn´t want his big brother to be showed off like some spectacle in a musee-um. Mebbe that´s why he got rid of the brain. Didn´t want it to be showed in a glass jar fer people to gawp at fer a dollar a time. Makes sense to me. andreasegde 18:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. By the time Bobby and Jackie were accompanying the casket off the back of the plane though the cargo door, everybody else had long exited off the front passenger door and passenger ramp, including Johnson. And that of course was how Bobby got ON the plane.

And yes, they sank in the ocean the casket they hurredly bought in Dallas to put JFK in, which of course it wasn't the one JFK lay in state in, and was buried in, which was some kind of monstrous thing which was far heavier. As for the president's brain, the archives hold 7 B&W photos of it and some colors, and the HSCA got the Bethesda docs there to certify that it was the brain they removed from JFK's head. No, it wasn't buried with JFK. It was autopsied 2 weeks later after being fixed, and after that, given to Bobby's secretary. I suspect Bobby had it put in JFK's grave when it as reopened for some reason or other in 1964 (or was it 1965?). But nobody really knows. I suspect that one day in the future when all this stuff gets dug up, they'll find the jar. The brain, alas, will probably be long gone. SBHarris 21:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby and Jackie exited thru´ the little back cargo door? Them cargo doors don´t have no big steps, ´cos it makes it sure hard to unload them big boxes, and things. I´m sure them fellas with the cameras were sure waiting for them there at the back, when any fool and his Mom knows they would be hanging around the front door for the big shoot. Ever seen a dead president, his ex-spouse and his little brother exit through a cargo door? I personally would like to see that thing, yes I surely would. Ol´ Johnson was most likely making up his speech about how sad a time it was fer him personally, while he hot-footed it down the front stairs, but the poor fool didn´t know that the cameras were at the back waiting for Jackie and little Bobby to come out the itty-bitty cargo door. You ever seen a plane close-up from the bottom-side? andreasegde 23:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if you knew what you were talking about, but in any case, photos of the event exist. Johnson went out the normal front passenger door. Jackie and Bobby Kennedy did go out the rear passenger door (not technically a cargo door because not an entrance into the cargo compartment), because the casket went out that door from the rear of the passenger compartment, where 4 seats had been removed to make room for it during the flight. The steps to the rear door on a 707 are normally narrow, but in this case the casket was removed not down the steps but with a cargo lift, and Bobbie and Jackie did go down with it [35]. After which the casket team, which had handled all this, put it on an ambulance. Into which Jackie and Bobby were placed also.SBHarris 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roscoe White

That entire section is up for deletion as it probably contains original research and the one cite in the section is not considered a reliable source by Wiki. Please delete the section or provide reliable sources, i.e. secondary sources that have been through peer review for mistakes and credibility or a similar process. Ramsquire 22:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, Ramsquire, be bold... :) Either delete it, or look up some verifiable sources yourself. I don´t mind... P.S. I have just added 4 links in the White section; two for, and two against. andreasegde 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiefs and indians

One thing that I have noticed is that there are "more chiefs than indians" on lots of WP pages. I fixed quite a few broken links on this page a short time ago. I was very surprised that nobody had done it before. There were lots of grammar mistakes as well. (I do as much as I have time to do.) The question to all you editors out there is: Are you a chief, or an indian? We need more indians to do some work. andreasegde 10:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there sems to be a distinct lack of interest in answering this question. Ho-hum... andreasegde 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two shooters removal

Removed the following from Two shooters:

  • President Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI were informed within hours after the assassination that someone impersonating Oswald was seen and heard by the CIA and FBI trying to contact a communist hit man in Mexico within two months of the assassination. This news "electrified" Washington insiders and was covered up for almost 40 years. [36]
  • Several of the Bethesda autopsy photos are now missing.

These have nothing to do with establishing two shooters at Dealey Plaza. The news electrified insiders because of a possible communist connection to Oswald, not indicating a hit man participated in shooting the President. - RoyBoy 800 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have left a few for awhile, bacause I didn´t want to be so bold (and lightning to strike me from above...) andreasegde 14:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no problemo. Did some more clipping. I remove the following as well:
  • Connally was definitely sure that the first of the supposed "three shots" did not hit him, so it must have been the second shot - according to the Warren Commission - that did, but experts testified that the first shot is almost always more accurate than later shots. [37]
I did a find on "first shot" in the reference, and its talking about hunting. The idiom the first shot is the best shot is referring to the well known concept if you miss with the first shot your target will start running; and the element of surprise is gone. Kennedy in a far away moving car in a crowded noisy plaza isn't analogous to a deer grazing on grass in a tranquil forest. - RoyBoy 800 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh... I agree with that. Connally did say (on film) that he was positive that the first shot did not hit him. If the first shot didn´t hit, then why should the second and third be more accurate? The car supposedly slowed down, which is the opposite of what Bambi would have done :) What do you think? andreasegde 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. While I'm no expert, I would think the first shot would allow Oswald to adjust and increase his accuracy with each subsequent shot as the car was moving in a predictable and slow path. - RoyBoy 800 00:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I have been reliably informed (as we always are in these cases) that the first shot is always the best. If he only had a few seconds (with an old rifle sighted for a left-handed person) his first shot would always be better. This is one of the strangest things about the whole scenario. Maybe he struck lucky, as they say... andreasegde 23:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the following:

  • The Dealey Plaza area was not sealed off by the Dallas police, and photographs show that vehicles were driving down Elm Street - through the crime scene - within nine minutes of the assassination.

Again this has nothing to do with two shooters, conspiracy maybe... if you're the paranoid type, second shooter no. - RoyBoy 800 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right - it has nothing to do with two shooters. It should be somewhere else though. I´m not quite sure about "if you're the paranoid type" comment. andreasegde 23:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, well every single mistake seems to branch out into a vast conspiracy. - RoyBoy 800 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories&oldid=72341889"