Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy

top section

I've heard that there was a KGB disinformation plot: to spread the rumor that JFK was assassinated by the CIA, in which they influenced an american author who published an early book on the assassination... Lawsonsj 07:00, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Moved from "Talk:JOHN-F.-Kennedy-assassination":

who shot John F. Kennedy? What was the Warren Commission's conclusion? Explain one conspiracy theory about President Kennedy's assassination.

---

This is a morass, and probably always will be: all significant witnesses are dead by now. All I've done, for the moment, is clarify that the basic facts in the intro--when Kennedy was shot, who was in the car with him, that Oswald was arrested, denied the killing, and then murdered himself--are not in dispute, but what they imply is. But by the end of the current article, it wanders off the deep end--alien greys? "powerful foreign interests that control" the federal reserve? Vicki Rosenzweig 20:47, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was about to add "LBJ did it"[1] but they're all gone now, for no good reason, really. Even the greys idea is one that's supposed to be popular in Japan, so even though "out there", it's out there. (eg Kennedy evidently issued an ultimatum to MJ-12, and they decided that Kennedy should be subject to an expediency -- killed...September 23, 1989, a two-hour documentary is screened on Japanese television. Viewers are treated to the full spectrum of recent investigations, including underground labs, MJ-12, genetic facilities, the Kennedy murder...[2] Now, that whole file could've been the proposal for X-Files and it'd take forever to separate the fact and the fiction in it -- but that's not the point.) As for the "powerful foreign interests" leave that to the Fed page - which is wrong on that point - and check into [Executive Order 11110] about the backing of the money.

• I apologize. I was, as it were, 'being bold in my editing'. What I tried to accomplish here is to make this particular article feel less, as user two above pointed out, as it went off the deep end, and make it more readable by separating fact (or at least fact set through the Warren Commission and other investigations) out from pure speculation - which I felt was very badly intermingled in the version of a few days ago. It was not my intent to discount that there's lots of consipiracy theories out there, and in fact they probably definately belong here...but if I might propose it...they probably belong exclusively in the suspicious circumstances section, or perhaps even its own page, with each theory stated in concise terms (given the sheer number of conspiracies that exist). I spent several hours trying to rearrange what was there, to give the article a different setup and tone...but of course, feel free to revert or re-add what you don't like. It's the Wiki and all. :)

not for me, i've quit. (not over this - fluoridation, and having to explain why i mistrust those who flagrantly and repeatedly abuse trust.) -- exKwantus

I actually spent a great deal of time trying to evaluate what I was doing, for what that's worth.

• The original article just...felt more like it was dealing exclusively with conspiracy, and didn't touch on what was going on that day chronologically, or that, in fact, the president had died and that it had been a national tragedy.

• Some of the comments here seemed to be somewhat unhappy with the article as it was. Just did my best to see what I could do with it.

• This article will probably get a lot of read soon, anyway, given the 40th anniversary coming up in less than two months. I suppose I was trying to shoot for something that best respected the magnitude of the tragedy. But I don't mean to say that a section devoted to conspiracy doesn't belong.

Skybunny 22:17, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

This page was edited and someone took out almost all the links, the paragraph headings, etc. Was that vandalism? --Raul654 04:59, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it was but I've reverted it. Angela 05:01, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm not too keen on reverting other people's edits until someone else agrees that it's vandalism --Raul654 05:03, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I just reworded a few paragraphs in trying to keep the assassination description section more close to what's undisputed fact and found that

this is a difficult task, mainly because nearly everything is more or less controversial.

Since most of the factual information seems to be kept secret, it is not easy to find reliable sources or even to find out how reliable a particular source actually is. It is very time consuming to compare statements from different sources and judge their credibility.

In trying to reword the article to what seemed to me more close to the "undisputed facts" i noticed that several statements of the form "<statement>" needed to be reworded to "The Warren Commission believed that <statement>" which led me to think that there was a slight pro Warren Commission report tendency in the article.

I want to emphasize that i'm neither a strict Oswald-did-it-alone nor a strict It-was-a-conspiracy advocate. In fact, i wasn't even very much interested in the topic several weeks ago. During a recent vacation trip i visited Dealey Plaza and the 6th Floor Museum in the former Texas School Book Depository building and became more interested in finding out what actually happened. Meanwhile i've bought two books ("Case Closed" by Gerald Posner for one side, "Say Goodbye to America" by Matthew Smith for the other) but didn't yet read much of them (i have other interests as well). I also watched the JFK movie by Oliver Stone and looked up a few issues in the Warren Commission's report that is available via Internet.

From what i read and saw so far (which is not too much, i have to admit), i believe that the Warren Commission's report is at least as much a "theory" as any other (though not a "conspiracy" theory, of course) because it is to a surprising extent based on dubious "facts", and i don't consider it appropriate to present conclusions of the Warren Commission as undisputed facts, just because the Warren Commission's report was the first official report and there are not many undisputed facts available.

I'm not too happy with the article in its current state. My feeling is that if we want the article to represent what's "currently known" we should move conclusions of the Warren Commission to a separate "JFK assassination theories" article and stick to really undisputed facts in the "JFK assassination" article.

As i'm not very deep into the topic at the moment i don't want to do a major rewrite or restructuring.

Any other opinions on that?

-- Gerd Badur 19:11, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm the one who did the rewrite. I had a specific rationale for the rewrite as it was done, and I should probably explain where I'm coming from here. When I came to this article, it was in this state: [3]

The problems I saw were, among other things, a huge inherent mistrust of the Warren Commission, pure speculation interspersed with fact, and a fairly disorganized read. For all intents and purposes, if you say on a scale of 0 to 100 that believing every detail of the Warren Commission is 0 and believing none of it, 100, the article before I touched it was sitting somewhere around 80-90. As it's written, it probably sits more around the 40 mark...lightly biased, but not badly so.

• I never state outright that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy - and for good reason - if you don't believe the Warren Commission, you don't believe that - or at least, you don't believe he acted alone. I was very careful to track his movements and what the Warren Commission believed he fired - but I didn't lay blame. Most conspiracy theories themselves tend not to say Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination - they typically say he didn't act alone.
• I put theory without evidence into 'conspiracy theories', because that's what they are - and as they were before, they were just strewn all over the place.
• There are separate pages for Warren Commission and could be one (if someone writes it) for House Select Committee on Assassinations. More in-depth analysis of theories could well go here - not a bad idea.
• One thing I am doing is weighting actual documented investigations inherently more strongly than conspiracy theories. The only investigation I was able to read in depth (I read about 60 pages and skimmed another 200) was the Warren Commission - see its link for a link to what's available from the National Archives. Its complaints about the Secret Service and huge security holes are generally not disputed - although some theorists use the fact that these holes existed to say why instead of gross negligence, this was instead an opportunity for conspiracy. True, but not proven. (I even said this in the 'conspiracy theory' section).

If more people read actual investigations backed with fact and can narrow down that fact 'A' or point 'B' are in pure conflict in investigations, they might be moved elsewhere than from the opening 'timeline/assassination' section. But I don't think conspiracy theory should be given equal billing here. By definition, they are untested theories. The House Select Committee suspected a conspiracy, but one CAN read why, and prove or disprove their evidence. Anyone can say the CIA did it, and provide a motive - or say that anyone did it, and provide any motive. The lack of facts is a convenient opportunity to do so. One of the links in the 'conspiracy theory' section is a straw man argument; because Posner didn't know every single thing known to man about the rifle Oswald used, or what coupons he clipped, that he lacked credibility to speak about the assassination. As facts are evaluated and put here, they will probably have to be very carefully analyzed.

I said that in the analysis of conspiracy theories as well. Despite a slight leaning toward the Warren Commission, I do hope that this explained:

Disproving (to absolute certainty) any given conspiracy theory about the Kennedy assassination (or, conversely, proving that the Warren Commission's findings were 100% correct) may never be possible. Doing either would require 'evidence' that hasn't emerged in 40 years and is somehow so compelling that all sides can agree to agree upon it. Given the realistic likelihood of this, the real motive behind Kennedy's death (and to a lesser extent, how the murder was accomplished) may never be agreed upon.

That is, I myself am granting the Warren Commission was not perfect - but if we aren't to believe anything, this page will be blank save for 'Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. Heck if we know anything else.'

I don't believe this page needs a major restructuring. It may need one or two details moved into 'suspicious circumstances', but I think the core is there.

(I don't believe Oswald in the Texas Theatre isn't actually really disputed. Several people got photograps of him being apprehended there.) Other than that, your insertion of 'The Warren Commission said...' is pretty well placed.

This may be one of the most difficult Wikipedia articles there is to write, even moreso than controversial topics like war or abortion. Many facts are in dispute, but there are just enough to try to reconstruct things and get 80% there to certainty. The other 20% will, in my opinion, never be known with certainty. Honestly, even if the Warren Commission today released every document it had, secret or otherwise, conspiracy theorists would still use this as reason to discredit it: 'Why did it take so long to release them?' 'They're not genuine anyway.' 'It doesn't even consider a conspiracy, so it's invalid.'

'

Phew. Well, I tried. I just hope we don't end up with a page with two sentences of fact, and the rest rubbish. Kennedy was killed this day. The nation was absolutely floored by it. It changed American history. Who killed him, in the end, is honestly kinda secondary to the effects.

My $.02, with interest...

Skybunny 22:36, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've read the article revision that was the

base for your rewrite. (I should add: At the time i did some rewording

and asked for comments i wasn't aware you did a major rewrite before. I

just noticed that some statements - not necessarily your's - just too

plainly expressed controversial issues as pure fact, which i felt was

inappropriate. My request for comments therefore wasn't indended to be

criticism of your rewrite in general.)

I have to admit that prior to your rewrite there was a lot of

speculation in the article, and i support separating fact from

speculation. However, from all information i've collected so far, it

appears to me that the Warren Report is also a lot of speculation, and i

consider it somewhat "unfair" to move the conspiracy theories into a

"conspiracy theories" article while keeping Warren Report conclusions in

the main assassination article, just as if the Warren Report wasn't also

a theory. (It is one of the issues that annoy me: What has to do with

conspiracy always is a "theory" while non-conspiracy report

"conclusions" appear to be fact although - according to what information

is publicly available - they aren't. They are simply conclusions.)

I don't have too much interest in describing each and every conspiracy

theory in detail. I'm more interested in finding out how credible the

evidence actually is that led the Warren Commission to conclude that

Oswald was the sole assassin. That's my personal hobby, of course, but

when i find statements like "Oswald shot officer Tippit" within

Wikipedia i'm tempted to adjust them to "what's actually and

undisputedly known".

As long as i haven't collected more information (i consider credible) i

won't attempt a major restructuring. However, i'm curious about what

others think of the idea to write an article about "assassination

theories" to which also the "Warren Report Theory" belongs, rather than

a sole "Conspiracy Theories" article.

-- Gerd Badur 20:12, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

One closing thing here...again, please bear in mind that I'm actually not

making my prime concern 'who shot JFK', but 'what happened', and that isn't

necessarily the same thing. I believe the former would require indepth

description of each, any, and all theories about the assasination.

The latter really only requires the common ground...and the Warren Commission

had a lot of what happened that was never in dispute, even if its

conclusion (that Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone) is. That's why

I tried to make that distinguishment between 'investigation' and 'theory'.

Several eyewitnesses, after Oswald's death (and even while he was alive and

put into a police lineup) identified Oswald as Tippett's killer. While that's

not a legal conviction, we can never do better, since he isn't alive to

have a court case brought against him.

Skybunny 21:42, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What about, under Consipracy theories:

the book "Appointments in Dallas" + (J. Edgar Hoover being a racist + having heavy survelience on the white house and internal operations + kennedy's effective policies on integration) + steel corporations (kennedy sicing the FBI on the steel corporations for damaging the economy)

It's all viable and the pieces fit. The motive, the means, the connections, and the money. There is no premeditated assasination without a fall guy. It's the first rule of assasination. -Kevin Baas

---

I know WP's not into sorting out the theories, but there's on about the Castro theory that needs noting. I think this came from the ABC 40th-anniversay WC whitewash, but: An HSCA delegation asked Castro whether he ordered up the assassination. Naturally, he said no, but elaborated that the US gov't was itching for an excuse to invade Cuba - cf Operation Northwoods - and to hand them a gold-plated copper-bottomed iron-clad excuse would be the mother of all insanity.

Oh; besides, before he died Kennedy was making normalise-Cuban-relations noises. For Castro to kill him then would make no more sense than, say, al Qaeda bombing London during the antiShrub protests. The only question is whether Castro knew of Kennedy's change.

---

I know WP's not into sorting out the theories...

I think that's the watchword here. As the article says, There are as many conspiracy theories about how and why Kennedy was killed as there are groups or individuals with the motive to do so,...and there were a lot of them. We could make a list of a million of these conspiracy theories...really. It's probably best to keep this to a few of the most plausible or most recognized, and leave it at that. There are already a dozen in the article, after all. Skybunny 03:58, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) --- The how about at least, at the botton, a list of books on the topic of conspiracy theories, as well as, perhaps the warren report. -Kevin Baas

---

I removed the mention of the book Case Closed, as it is only one book out of hundreds, each with its own theory. Now the "Investigations" section only mentions the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations. If a new section of "Other theories on the assassination" is created, that would be the place for Case Closed.

I reworded a little more carefully the statements that lax security or a deficiency in planning was responsible for the ease of the assassination. The notes about the Space Shuttle were especially incongruous.

I also removed the addition about the "BBC Correspondent" programme that was aired yesterday. It, too, is one opinion of hundreds, and is not especially more authoritative than any of the other sources over the last 40 years. The animator who did the job does not have any particular expertise or source of information that sets him apart, and the recent airing of the show doesn't justify its inclusion. I'll paste it below. Tempshill 00:25, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

==BBC 'Correspondent' programme in 2003==

A BBC Correspondent programme, broadcast on 23 November 2003, using exact computer generated images based on the Zapruder film, and using exact placings of Kennedy and Connally in the car at the moment when both were hit, suggested that the wound suffered by Connally matched exactly the entry point that would have occurred had a bullet passed through Kennedy, exited the President's neck and hit Connally. The trajectory led directly to the location from which it was claimed Oswald had fired. Based on the exact line shown, the speed of the bullet fired by Oswald's gun, the movements of both men when hit, the timescale within which they reacted (and movements on Connally's jacket immediately prior to Connally's reaction, which indicate something had hit him a fraction of a second earlier) the programme concluded that it was 100% certain that the gunman was located where Oswald had been, that the magic bullet could only have been fired from there and that both men had with absolute certainty been hit by the same bullet. In addition it was physically impossible for Connally to have have been shot at that spot in his body except through the President.

In addition on the programme, the computer animator, Dale Myers, using all known film of the assassination, demonstated that the "open microphone" which supposedly recorded four shots, could not have been at the location it had to be to have recorded an accurate reflection of the number of shots, free from distortion. The motorcycle cop who supposedly recorded the shots on an accidentially open microphone was in fact 170 yards from the only location where an accurate recording of the number of shots could have been made at the moment when the shooting took place. The programme concluded that "there is no doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy. There is every doubt that he had accomplices."

The obsession with "BBC's correspondent programme" makes me laugh. BBC DID NOT DO THE RESEARCH, DALE MYERS DID. Myers is a professional modeler who has researched the JFK assassination for decades and his work was shown on ABC as well as BBC. Another professional modeler came up independently with the same results as Myers and his work was aired on Court TV. Their evidence is relatively new but persuasive and strong and should dispel most doubts about the single bullet theory after the conspiracy theorists have some time to consider it. However, even acceptance of the single bullet theory does not rule out a conspiracy and many will still believe that the shot that hit Kennedy in the head came from the grassy knoll or somewhere other than the TX SBD. B 09:20, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Autopsy picture of Kennedy

I think that this picture

File:JFKAUTOSPY.jpg
A front view of the slain President's body.

is simply too graphic for use in this article. Many people will come to this page who remember the assassination, and I think it could be extremely shocking for them to stumble across an image of the slain President with a gaping would in his neck. BCorr¤Брайен 23:49, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Simple solution - link to it without displaying it, and disclaim it by saying it's graphic. Only people who want to see it (implicitely indicated by clicking on the link) will see it. →Raul654 00:00, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

I 'emphatically' agree. This is just too much. Jdavidb 18:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wording

Is it really necessary to say "every nation on earth"? First of all, Earth should be capitalized. Second of all, it's not like there's non-Earth nations that would send representatives to JFK's assassination. Also, "Communist China" should be capitalized, instead of "communist China", right? ugen64 20:37, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Inappropriate content

Hi there,

Does anyone else agree that the wording "The President's head...exploded" is a very strange way of saying "the President's head was struck by a bullet"? This wording appears ten times in the article, all of which were added AFTER March 14 by anonymous IPs (see this version).

Would anyone else agree that this does not belong in an encyclopaedia? It's strangely reminiscent of the Simpson's episode quote, "Hi, I'm Troy McClure, star of such films as P is for Psycho and The President's Neck is Missing", which, while potentially funny, does not belong in Wikipedia.

Acegikmo1 21:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• There are several prominent theories and documented evidence (and previously documented evidence that we still have copies of for which the original has gone missing) supporting that President Kennedy's head was struck nearly simultaneously with 2 shots. *That* is why it is important to make the distinction for when the president was *first* struck in the head. JFKtruth 16:21, 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My disputes

The recent presence of User:JFKtruth on this article has been very detrimental, in my opinion. This article no longer carefully and neutrally discusses a controversial historical event, but is acting as one of the thousands of pages on the Internet advocating conspiracy theories and casting aspersion on "official" accounts of events. The ridicule of the Warren Commission, etc., is unencyclopedic and frankly embarrassing to me -- if someone saw this article, I believe they would have the right to doubt our ability to serve as a neutrally informative encyclopedia. I would revert the changes, but it's a massive job, and JFKtruth seems to be bulling along with so many dozens of edits that I worry I would end up in an edit war that would get us banned. Are there others committed to sorting through this and restoring a good version of this article? Jwrosenzweig 20:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• I just came across the article for the first time, and must agree wholeheartedly. The whole 'pedia can fairly be judged by the quality of the hot-button articles and this article as it currently stands damages the credibility of everything else. I don't have the knowledge or time to plunge into this particular abyss, but if I were King of the Wiki I think I'd revert the whole thing to the pre-JFKtruth status, lock it up, and try to negotiate some specific changes with him/her in a sandbox version. Jgm 19:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I haven't gone through User:JFKtruth's edits one-by-one, but they seem to be well documented and inoffensive for the most part. The only change that raises questions in my mind is the removal of two paragraphs about the nation's reaction, specificlly the music played on the radio and Walter Cronkite's 72 hours on the air.

Acegikmo1 03:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tricky Dick is linked via several paths of varying directness - the Texans, the mob, and the Bay of Pigs[4]

---

29+ Years Experience Investigating & Researching This Case

Anyone who would, entirely for free, and objectively like to have supplied for themself ANY specific reference you need for any detail, or, anyone who has never read the entire reports, never read the followup evidentiary and testimonies volumes, or never read for yourself the back round investigative files and individual documents performed by the following partial list of investigative agencies/departments/bodies, please, feel free, to contact me privately, anytime, with your specific reference request or constructive, detailed, referenced comments:

Parkland Hospital Doctors Reports, U.S. Navy Bethesda Hospital Autopsists Reports, Dallas Police Department Reports, Dallas County Surveyors Report, U.S. Defense Investigative Service Reports, U.S. Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Reports, U.S. Navy Investigative Service Reports, U.S. Marine Corps Investigative Reports, U.S. State Department Reports, U.S. F.B.I. Report, U.S. Secret Service Report, U.S. National Security Agency Report, Texas Attorney General Report, Texas Rangers Investigative Reports, U.S. Warren Commission Report, U.S. Warren Commission Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Ramsey Panel Report, U.S. Ramsey Panel Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Hart-Schweiker Intelligence Activities Committee Report, U.S. Hart-Schweiker Intelligence Activities Committee Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Church Committee on U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Assassinations Report U.S. Church Committee on U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Assassinations Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Report, U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Committee on Ballistic Acoustics Report, U.S. Assassination Records and Review Board Report, U.S. Assassination Records and Review Board Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies.

As of 2004, I have also spoken directly with Dealey Plaza witnesses and before-and-after assassination-related-events witnesses, still living or now dead, detailed in a personal database of over 4200+ persons.

The vast majority of persons (including historians, and, supposed, historians) who make too-broad, too-generalized comments may not have actually read these entire complete reports, nor actually read the entire supporting volumes, nor actually read publicly available investigative backround files and individual documents (1000's of pages of which are still classified against public availability), nor actually have spoken directly with assassination witnesses nor events observed witnesses. I have 29+ years experience of direct involvement as an investigator for, and research into, the micro-details of the assassination of President Kennedy for anyone who wants to, objectively, understand, and decide for him or herself the details, and truth, of what transpired on November 22, 1963.

When my free time allows, I will be updating with specific primary references of important, often overlooked details, from my 29+ year database.

JFKtruth 16:16, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. Please tell us a little about yourself on your user page. Are you in Dallas? Regardless of your personal POV on this matter (objectivity is a myth), so long as you follow wikipedia's NPOV policy, your contributions will be appreciated. B 16:12, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Specific Issues

I'm still having issues with this article. I know JFKtruth has some defenders, and he's right that this article needs to cover the theories in addition to the "single gunman theory", but honestly JFK's username, use of italics and bold, phrasing, and selective inclusion of information have skewed this article to become very POV. Here's one section as an example.

The rifle was stored by Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of family friends, the Paines, cousins of John Forbes Kerry, at whose home Maria Oswald was living at the time. Michael R. Paine was the son of Ruth Forbes Paine, who remarried Arthur Young, the inventor of the Bell helicopter used in Korea and Vietnam. Michael R. Paine and Ruth Forbes Paine Young were Forbes family Link titleheirs and as is Sen. Kerry, a coincidence since both he and the assassinated President bear the initials JFK. See Warren Commission report describing testimony of Michael R. Paine and his wife, Ruth Paine. 1 Because of her son's involvement in the assasination, her Forbes family's involvement with drug dealing in China during the Opium War, and her husband's involvement with the military and defense industry, Mrs. Ruth Forbes Paine Young started the International Peace Academy, which have fed rumors about her family's politics.

Why is this section necessary? Doesn't it simply use innuendo to attempt to besmirch the character of a few politically active Americans who happen to have known Oswald? Can we substantiate that Oswald "stored" his gun there? Why did he do so? Do we suspect these people of involvement? This sort of thing really flies in the face of NPOV. JFKtruth, can I ask if you are committed to the principles of Wikipedia:NPOV? You need to be -- I have no problems with explaining the issues surrounding the assassination that many find troubling, but we have to approach this from a neutral perspective, and sections like the one above look more like a witchhunt for someone to latch a conspiracy theory onto. Maybe that's not what you intend to do, though -- I hope not! So how can we work together to balance this article? Jwrosenzweig 23:35, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

JFKtruth did not add (nor edit) the section regarding the rifle-in-evidence, the Paine's, and the Paine's familial/business/C.I.A./"Bell Helicopter" relationships to the Forbe's. JFKtruth 23:48, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, my mistake. Well, I'm going to cut it, then. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:54, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No worries. Please, provide some of your more specific examples that you think are of investigated information that is, in your words, "selective inclusion," and I will be happy to address them. JFKtruth 24:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the article as it was before you started editing it, and as it is now, a few things should be evident. What we had was as clear an account as possible of what is known, and what the theories are. It did need some expansion, I admit. But you have added every single witness account you can find describing "agents", gunmen, falsified records, etc. None of it adds up to a coherent alternative to the single gunman theory -- it just generally fills the article to massive size (the article is now twice as large as we generally want articles to be) with a lot of shadowy figures who are presented as being as factual as the bullet that hit Kennedy. The ridicule of the "magic bullet" is raised again and again -- the article reads more like an essay designed to bash the Warren Commission than an account of the assassination. We do need to note the major details that cause people to doubt the official position on the events of 11/22/63. But we shouldn't belabor them in an attempt to convince others that the Oswald account is wrong. We need to present what is known about that day first (that is, what we all agree to -- where the motorcade drove, who was in the car, who was hit and when, where the President was taken, etc.), then the major conjectures (and the rationales for and against them), and then link to a few important sites. We need to do this without bolding and italicizing passage after passage in an attempt to highlight what some of us feel are particularly questionable pieces of information, or facts that indicate the possibility of a conspiracy. We just need to present the facts, and I feel as though you are trying to present only facts that attack the official account and promote a general sense of conspiracy, without offering any criticisms of those facts (you never seem to doubt the witness's assertions). That's my concern. Jwrosenzweig 00:14, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think Jason has hit the nail on the head. JFKtruth - I have basically two concerns about the article, as it now exists.

1. Coherence - right now, the article is pretty badly organized. Too much stuff is thrown in there without any overall sense of organization.
2. Neutral tone and point of view- When you write an article for wikipedia (or any encyclopedia, for that matter) - the reader shouldn't be able to tell what your opinion of the topic is. In this case, it's fairly obvious what your opinion is. This is not a good thing, and it's the primary cause of the angst other editors are feeling.

In short, your contributions are appreciated, but they need to be organized better with more emphasis on neutrality of tone. →Raul654 00:31, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

This article has changed greatly since I last looked at it. The first task at hand I did was to move a lot of information about the 'Magic bullet' and 'Zapruder film' to the 'talk' pages of the respective articles. Much of the information in both are repeated there anyway, and an editorial pass on both articles for NPOV and general content is likely warranted.Skybunny 03:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question on singular timeline

When I last edited this article significantly, I was trying to build on a general idea with the 'timeline' section...a skim through now reveals that there are about three distinct but unconnected sections in this article with timelines.

Originally, I was trying to build one single 'timeline', that started at Love Field and ended at Air Force One, though easily could have gone through Kennedy's burial at Arlington Cemetary. Is it not prudent to have one single timeline of undisputed or largely undisputed facts that a casual reader of this article can browse and parse without being overwhelmed with details?

The timeline section doesn't have to be a place, for example, where Oswald's innocence or guilt, or a proof of why he couldn't have acted alone exists..does it? He left the Depository a few minutes after 12:30, for example, and that fact isn't really disputed, whether or not his guilt or innocence is. Skybunny 03:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A timeline sounds like a good organizational idea to me, and I generally like your approach! :-) Do you think you can put together a timeline like the one you envision from at least part of JFKtruth's material (the "agents", etc.)? In addition to other info you may have, of course. Jwrosenzweig 15:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: Recent edit comment by JFKTruth

In the interest of not starting an edit war, I would like to defend my cutting out a substantial discussion of the 'magic bullet theory' in this article by responding to JFKTruth's edit comment of that piece here. I'll then discuss some of my general rationale while writing this article in the hope that its intent is well received.

The, supposed, "magic bullet theory" is the basis for the entire Warren Commission report and, therefore, far to important to The Truth to be pushed to merely a secondary, linked page

The, supposed, "magic bullet theory"...

The 'Magic bullet theory' is not a supposed theory. It is a theory, and, in fact, one that can be researched. IMHO, the word 'supposed' is grossly overused in this article to imply that a fact is disputed. 'This fact is disputed' is a neutral statement, particularly when accompanied by both interpretations of the facts. 'Supposed' is an implication that the single referred to idea is wrong, which I do not believe really follows the idea of NPOV writing Wikipedia encourages. I would particularly refer to NPOV: Fairness and sympathetic tone.

...is the basis for the entire Warren Commission report

No, it isn't. The Warren Commission report talks about a lot more than simply who shot President John F. Kennedy, including but not limited to what made it easy to kill him, and what improvements could be made to prevent it in the future. Neither of those parts are particularly concerned with who killed him, but why it was possible to kill him. The Warren Commission provides one valid interpretation of the facts, just as other intepretations are valid when the basic facts are in dispute. This article's purpose does not have to be (and should not be, in my opinion), to determine who killed John F. Kennedy. I believe that if any one person had that answer, I would not be writing this comment. In any event, gross details about the Warren Commission report, I believe, belong in the Warren Commission report article. Continuing...

...and, therefore, far to important to The Truth to be pushed to merely a secondary, linked page

I do not believe this article's point should be to determine 'The truth' (which I presume, again, to mean, 'Who shot J.F.K.?'), because there have been hundreds of books written to try to do that, and as we all know, noone has come up with the single right answer. Attempting to do so is only going to start a massive edit war over who is right. All I believe that library of writing has established is that we do not know with 100% certainty who shot him.

Noone can authoritatively answer that question, and I believe that saying 'This theory is disputed. See its companion page for details' is sufficient. Drowning a casual reader in evidence or opinion will not assist them in drawing their own conclusions, or even, honestly, forming a basic idea of what the assasination was about. Most modern encyclopedias cross reference, and I do not understand why it is not acceptable to do so here.

---

Whatever a reader's opinion of the Warren Commission (to give only one example of the numerous major pieces in this article), it was the first official report printed about the assasination. Whether or not it is correct is not relevant to the fact that it was written, and the Warren Commission is a point of fact in the sense that it was written, can be referred to, and large parts of it are a matter of public record. The same can be said of the House Select Committee of Assassinations, which came to the opposite conclusion, to give two examples.

I do not believe that this article needs to convince a reader one way or the other whether Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy, nor should it. I do believe that a well written version of it will make the ambiguity of this issue self evident, and does not have to do so under a deluge of conflicting testimony, motives, and theories that will only confuse a reader as the article is organized.

Apparently my rationale for cutting a significant volume of text, making a reference to it, and moving it to a companion page was not reasonable, and in the interest of not starting an editing war, I will not do so again. But I would ask, then, how the general complaint that this article is far too long to be encyclopediac will be answered.

I am also, honestly, a bit wary at this point of making other significant edits that will draw this article to the general idea that noone knows for certain who killed J.F.K., even though Lee Harvey Oswald will go down as the primary suspect. (This is a fact. I know of noone who has produced another single person(s) who overshadows Oswald as the single most compelling assassin or assasins of Kennedy, that has been accepted on a societal level. No Wikipedia article will change this.)

I don't believe it's Wikipedia's place to take it upon itself to discredit or affirm Oswald's guilt or innocence, but to report on what the understood, brief, relevant facts are. The re-inclusion of huge block of text (particularly, the lenthy block examining the magic bullet's trail dupliated in Magic bullet theory) I believe does not follow the NPOV: Fairness and sympathetic tone idea. I believe this generally unsympathetic attitude permeates throughout this article. If I cannot make changes to these blocks of text without incurring an edit war pushing things back the other way, I'm basically left with nowhere to go. Skybunny 06:22, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Skybunny, I agree with you completely, and I think this is worth doing. I've reverted back to your version. We have to do a good job on this article, I think, and allowing JFKtruth to add grammatical and spelling errors, confusing details without context, rumors and speculations, and the massive duplicated content from magic bullet theory would be the wrong thing to do. Thanks for your comments: I hope you'll help me stay the course with this article -- I think additions are welcome, but they have to fit NPOV goals and leave the article in readable shape. Jwrosenzweig 16:58, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seconded or thirded. For NPOV reasons, the Magic bullet theory ought also to be redirected to the single bullet theory as well, not vice versa as it is now. B 17:29, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Okay...I spent about two hours working on the 'timeline' section, and an anonymous contributor reverted almost every change I made back to that of a few days ago with no discussion about why, and no answer to the points I made above, in this section. (Anyone not in general agreement with my points above never answered them here in the month since they were made, either.) Particularly, the Warren Commission is still being inserted in many places in apparent attempt to discredit the entire report; even the implication that Oswald committed a crime is being removed or ambiguated, and whoever is doing these reversions seems to have an end goal of convincing the reader why a conspiracy must have occurred, or at the very least, of Oswald's de facto innocence. I'm not interested in getting involved in an edit war. I'm particularly frustrated with the revert done in the opening paragraphs (beginning 'Analysis of the facts...' about the status of Lee Harvey Oswald, as whatever his place in history, he sure seems to be talked about a lot for not having been a prime suspect, the Warren Commission's findings in particular notwithstanding. Another example: how does how many bulletproof cars J. Edgar Hoover has have anything to do with how many the president has? Unless there is a causative, provable conspiracy in history (and I see no agreement), it is an irrelevant relationship that only bloats the article. I need help on the main page, please, or I can't justify spending the time on this article just to see it reverted in bulk.Skybunny 13:43, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I want to thank Skybunny and others for recent good work here. That said, the paragraph about "rock and roll drummer" is repeated and makes no sense either time. I can't tell if it's a facetious comment or based in fact (in which case it needs to be further explained). Jgm 21:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• The rock and roll drummer mentioned previously with regard to the Dallas police radio tapes was Steve Barber. Steve's discovery was first written about in a July, 1979 magazine. Barber is still alive, and the story about his discovery is widely known by official investigators and researchers familiar with the case facts. His discovery has been written about extensively, and Barber will still openly and freely discuss his discovery with anyone. JFKtruth 16:21, 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Believe the following picture is poor (reasonable to remove?)

File:180cropJFKsmilingJPG.jpg

President Kennedy waving & smiling to persons on his right less than 3 seconds before he was first shot

Is this picture a little too blurry to really be illustrative in the context of this article? I've removed it for now, as it is so large and clearly not cropped, but I do wonder if there might not be a better close up photograph of the President on Elm Street, even if in black and white. I'm definately open to re-including this if it seems a reasonable image.(?) Skybunny 00:12, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think leaving it out is wise -- the fact that it was (supposedly - I have no way of knowing) taken right before his death does not adequately make up for the fact that it is almost impossible to distinguish what you're looking at. Fundamentally, it doesn't illustrate anything the article doesn't make plan, or add to a reader's understanding, which I think are the best criteria for deciding "should this picture stay?" Jwrosenzweig 22:23, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article keeps falling back into conspiracy

I'm getting pretty hopeless about this article ever being featured quality. Every two weeks or so, it seems someone shows up desperate to prove Oswald didn't do it. I'll fiddle with the article again sometime this week to get the unsubstantiated stuff out again, but this is getting old. How can we avoid this constant maintenance of this page? I don't know enough about the assassination or have enough passion about it to be one of two or three people who do this, but I certainly don't want the article falling apart. Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 19:36, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed completely. As I've said previously, the entire Wikipedia can fairly be judged on our efforts at topics like this, and on this particular front we are failing miserably. The second paragraph of this article -- a mess of non-sequitirs and plain bad writing -- is a case in point. Among many other problems, we haven't even explained who Lee Harvey Oswald is and we're already discussing what "three recent 2003 polls" think about him. The "controversial" and "disputed" boilerplates don't really do the trick here, either (not that they are ever anything but an admission of failure) -- we almost need a statement to the effect that "Wikipedia articles on controversial topics are not advised for use in academic research, resolution of disputes, or any other purpose". Jgm 15:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Epiphany and lack of knowledge

If I may gently remind you, good reader, please, read above and you will see that there are several public admissions made by several persons that he/she does not know enough of the, literally, tens of 1000's of important facts of this case.

If I may simply suggest: the "hopeless" feeling that several persons have tried to express may simply be his/her unconscious thoughts (most hopefully leading to a higher consciousness and realization, either way), and possible imminent on-coming epiphany decision that as he/she positively learns more and more about the actual facts in this case, him/her is feeling his/her position shifting.

That epiphany or approaching epiphany truly IS an uncomfortable feeling (but, only at first) possibly from a multitude of programmed-since-childhood taught beliefs about the assassination.

If I may respectfully suggest, what some persons have tried to express as "failing miserably," may actually be accorded to the reality of Warren Commission apologists failing miserably, more and more, as the years advance and more and more facts come forth making it actually transparent that the Warren Commission also failed us all, miserably.

At a bare minimum, the Warren Commission failed miserably (and other agencies failed the Warren Commission miserably --albeit deliberate, or not) to investigate ALL of the facts. As is now documented, the Warren Commission also utterly failed to publicize --again, albeit deliberate, or not-- all of the facts that it did learn, yet, were soon sealed away from the public by Lyndon Johnson right before the 1964 presidential election.

Another prime example is the above "Talk" comments with respect to Zapruder frame 180. Anyone who has really studied the Zapruder film in depth --and with an open mind-- already knows that the entire film is somewhat grainy, and, of course, Zapruder himself jerked his camera --with some of the films jerk-caused blurring resulting directly from startled inadvertent hand reflexes to hearing multiple 130 decibel, jet-engine-equivalent loudness, gun shots. The above-pictured Zapruder frame 180 JFK close-up crop is actually decent in the many pieces of important information that frame reveals to us. Anyone who really knows the detailed facts of the case knows precisely the vital importance of the confluence of the many interrelated facts and reasons for why that Z-180 frame (and follow-up interrelated frames) showing our president mere seconds before the Warren Commission's, supposed, "single bullet theory" occurs, is important to the case. Here is just one simple observation you can make yourself: the average adult head is about 6" wide. The wound on President Kennedy's back was nearly 6" below the highest part of his suit coat rear collar. Now look at the above Z-180 photo, specifically at his easily seen horizontal shoulder line. Imagine the collar being slightly higher than his shoulder line (photo-apparent-wise the rear collar high point would appear to be about level with the shoulder line because Zapruder's perspective at Z-180 was slightly down at JFK) Using a 6" width of President Kennedy's head as a gage, place the Warren Commission back wound almost 6" below that rear top collar point. Now visualize connecting that Warren Commission back wound to the point on his front neck just below his "Adam's apple." Compare that Warren Commission theorized back-to-front trajectory to the street-parallel line edge of the limousine clearly seen in that Z-180 frame that President Kennedy is next to. Does that Warren Commission theorized back-to-front trajectory seem to you to be upward, downward, or nearly level? (The president can be seen at Z-180, Z-205, and Z-225 still 'sitting upright', with his back center pressed against the seat backrest). 

I'll ask a simple question here: (simple for someone who, honestly knows the details about this documented fact, that is) Can you detail the importance --the absolute vital importance-- of the realistic high-probabilities of, precisely, what the documented, 6.5 millimeter, nearly round, bullet fragment seen (first seen only in 1968, that is) in the president's x-rays on the thin outer table of President Kennedy's skull, 3" above the Warren Commission theorized bullet entry point, at the rear of President Kennedy's head indicates?

If I may also suggest, it is also important to actually take the time for yourself to read President Kennedy's words and beliefs to learn his views given to each of us by President Kennedy in the years --even the decades-- before he was publicly executed in broad daylight, in front of 100's of witnesses. (in reality there are millions of witnesses, thanks to Mr. Zapruder and other Dealey Plaza close witnesses, photographers and movie-makers) President Kennedy's words, beliefs, and views, decisions and actions, and his actions results are all, intricately, related to the assassination --and its motive-- no matter which side of the picket fence you stand upon.

As it stands at this moment, the article does an excellent job of presenting the most vital and critical of the 1000's of important documented, and inter-related facts that have been determined, and, the article also does an outstanding job with newly-released documented information, much of which has only been learned after the previously hidden Warren Commission, HSCA, and other governmental agencies files have been, only recently, released to The People for our research. The reality is that these facts, both old and new (and yet to come), can all be looked up for yourself ---if one is *truly* open-minded enough to look them up for yourself. The logical blending of old-released with new-released information strongly suggesting a conspiracy is just the result of considering all of the currently known facts.

I would simply suggest that any "hopeless" feeling also encompasses the mixture of sensing the oncoming arrival of future feelings-to-come that DO occur after the epiphany of knowledge is embedded.

Please, do not fear the epiphany of knowledge in this still open case. Be brave. Face it, then embrace the epiphany. It will pass through you and you will be fine, and, of course, you will still be here, and, now, you are prepared with the positive knowledge of what is possible.

If instead one makes the personal choice onto the path of denial -if one makes the decision to not face all of the historical facts of this horrid event that, thankfully, 3 and more of every 4 Americans before 1991's movie "JFK" to this moment had already learned/faced the important facts, then embraced, God forbid, and, God help us all, a horrid history may repeat itself.

I simply suggest, good reader, that --to the less-informed-- the very reason that the "article keeps falling back into conspiracy" is because all of the presently-known facts do indicate that there was a conspiracy (whether it involved Oswald, or others, before, during, and after the assassination are entirely separate issues)

In the reality of today's terrorists-oriented world climate, if that horrid history was to be allowed to repeat itself only because of a lack of knowledge through the hopeless, miserable failure of not learning and not knowing because of past history --or not wanting to learn or not wanting to know-- ---and not knowing, or wanting to know about investigatively determined facts that mendaciously go against an investigations own report and then were attempted to be hidden from The People for 75 years--- a similar event could have dire consequences for you, your Loved Ones, and, together, us all. Therein is just one of the many core reasons that all of the facts of this case continue to enlighten our consciousness no matter which side of the smoke-lingering picket fence you stand on, at this moment. 14:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A Logical Proposal For Freedom of Thought

After several emails from single assassin theorists and conspiracy theorists bringing the article back to my attention I can say that the article is very accurate as of 6-18-04 documenting known and previously un-released investigated facts with regards to the case. Emotionalism and a lack of knowledge (and of course deliberate deception) in this case are negative towards anyone understanding the case. (as in Life)

I have a logical suggestion. The main "John F. Kennedy assassination" article could at some point within the main article be linked to 2 separate sub-articles; one sub-article with an overview of the conspiracy oriented facts and theories, and one sub-article discussing the single assassin oriented facts and theories. It looks to me that the logical place to present these 2 sub-article links could be after the "A Nation Mourns" section. Almost all the information after the "A Nation Mourns" discussion can be easily removed from the main article and placed in either the conspiratorial sub-article or in the single assassin sub-article. (some of the info can be placed in each sub-article)

By dividing the case into two sub-articles it will save space in the main article, but much more importantly, it provides for all readers the freedom of choice to view which side, or both, sides of the considerations that they want to view (there is much physical evidence that can be defined both ways, just as there are some witnesses observations whose total observations can be interpreted both ways, and there is much evidence and observations, etc. that can be defined only one way) Seems logical to me. What do you think? :) As I sometimes say

T ogether E veryone A chieves M ore JFKtruth 16:21, 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)