Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Rewrite of lede

The article lede could use a bit of work. I’d like to be cautious when making changes to the overview section of a controversial article, so please give feedback as appropriate. Here are the issues that I’m attempting to fix with this reworking of the lede:

The last word of the investigation is the HSCA’s “probable conspiracy.” As noted in a previous discussion about the lede in archive 11: yes, it’s true that the HSCA determined the existence of a conspiracy, but that isn’t the current government opinion, so it shouldn’t be how we end the lede of this article. Even if that means digging into the weeds a little bit with bringing up the acoustic evidence, I believe that it is important to end with the current position of the US government instead of a 36-year old opinion based on discredited audio evidence.

The 2nd paragraph is redundant. First sentence on general opinion trends after Warren commission is fine, but I'm consolidating the other three most current polls.

The 4th paragraph is wordy. Yes, it is factually true that the HSCA wasn’t able to identify groups or individuals responsible for their conspiracy, but that doesn’t mean we have list them all here.


So how does this look?


John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, was assassinated at 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time (18:30 UTC) on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas.[1][2] Kennedy was fatally shot by a sniper while traveling with his wife Jacqueline, Texas Governor John Connally, and Connally's wife Nellie, in a presidential motorcade. A ten-month investigation from November 1963 to September 1964 by the Warren Commission concluded that Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, and that Jack Ruby also acted alone when he killed Oswald before he could stand trial.[3] Although the Commission's conclusions were initially supported by a majority of the American public,[4] polls conducted between 1966 and 2003 found that as many as 80 percent of Americans have suspected that there was a plot or cover-up.[5][6]

In contrast to the conclusions of the Warren Commission, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded in 1979 that Kennedy was “probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.”[7] The HSCA agreed with the Warren Commission in that Kennedy and Connally’s injuries were caused by Oswald’s three rifle shots, but they also determined the existence of additional gunshots based on analysis of an audio recording and therefore "...a high probability that two gunmen fired at [the] President."[12][13] The Committee was not able to identify any individuals or groups involved with the conspiracy. In addition, the HSCA found that the original federal investigations were “seriously flawed” in respects to information sharing and the possibility of conspiracy.

As recommended by the HSCA, the acoustic evidence indicating conspiracy was subsequently reexamined. In light of investigative reports determining that "reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman", the Justice Department concluded active investigations, stating “that no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy in … the assassination of President Kennedy”. However, Kennedy's assassination is still the subject of widespread debate and has spawned numerous conspiracy theories and alternative scenarios. Polling in 2013 shows that between 59-61% of Americans believe that a group of conspirators were responsible for the assassination. Koijmonop (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The current lede and this version are too heavy on discussing "conspiracy". For example, the first paragraph essentially states: "The Warren Commission found the LHO killed Kennedy but the public doesn't believe it." It give virtually no clue to the extent of the WC investigation (e.g. the manpower and number of experts involved in the investigation, the number of witness interviewed, etc.) nor does it mention the biggest ramification of the assassination: that LBJ was thrust into office. - Location (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Reasonable points. How about replacing the fourth sentence "Although the commission's conclusions..." with something like "Kennedy's death marked the fourth successful assassination of an American President, and elevated Lyndon B. Johnson into the White House." Koijmonop (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Crenshaw

I am reverting the edit that states "Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman drew his firearm on Rose..." and is attributed to Charles Crenshaw. Crenshaw's book is not a reliable source for this claim. Per The New York Times:

Dr. Crenshaw said that he relied on his co-authors, Jens Hansen and J. Gary Shaw, who are long-time conspiracy theorists, for the facts of the assassination and that they took "poetic license" in describing his role in the attempt to save Kennedy's life.

The book has various claims that fail WP:REDFLAG and it stands to reason that if they took "poetic license" there that they took it elsewhere, too. - Location (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be OK with paraphrasing the following...
Other accounts suggest varying degrees of anger and aggression, including whether or not Secret Service agents brandished weapons to intimidate the medical examiner.
...from http://www.iowalum.com/magazine/oct13/afterDallas.cfm?page=all. - Location (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, sure. Appreciate that you have a thorough knowledge of the relevant sources. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"Flight From Dallas"

FYI

This is a facet of the "two Oswalds" theory that could be developed as a part of John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, but not here. - Location (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Harold Weisberg

My own FYI, seems worth at least a brief mention, New York Times thought it was worth an obituary of significant length:

  • Harold Weisberg, 88, Critic Of Inquiry in Kennedy Death [1]

Harelx (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

He already has a mention on the conspiracy page (though he wasn't a conspiracy theorist per se) and there is a stub page for him. That obituary, btw, was from 2002. Canada Jack (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


NBC mistake

NBC desk reporters (on a few ocassions) erroneously stated that LBJ would be completing the (JFK's elected) term of office in January 1964. The term of office-in-question, actually ends in January 1965. GoodDay (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

punctuation before references

I removed a comma that is grammatically incorrect in the sentence in which it appears. This comma was restored on the grounds that a reference immediately follows it, necessitating the comma depsite the grammar of the sentence. If that is true, can someone point me to the part of the MOS that spells this rule out? MOS:COMMA says nothing about this. Thank you. 2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Baseball Watcher: ping. - Location (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be a misreading of MOS:PUNCTFOOT:
"Any punctuation [...] must precede the ref tags."
which seems to have been taken as "if no punctuation exists before a reference, put any punctuation you like in". I agree that no comma should exist in this case. Remove it. Wellset (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Ruby about to shoot Oswald

Several times text with the photo of Ruby about to shoot Oswald was added: Note that Ruby is the only person in the photograph who is aware of what is about to happen.

This has been reverted several times on the basis that Leavelle, one of the cops with Oswald, in fact had seen Ruby in the crowd. I suggest there is a more basic reason - the addition to the cutline is irrelevant. Even if true, why does this warrant mention? Why not add similar irrelevant notes to the photos of the limousine before the shooting along the lines: "Note that none of the occupants seem aware of the pending assassination attempt." Canada Jack (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


If Jim Leavelle had seen Ruby in the crowd with a gun, the transportation of Oswald from the city jail to the county jail should have been stopped immediately, and Ruby should have been arrested for criminal possession of a weapon. When you say that Leavelle had knowledge about Ruby, I say, "Objection, hearsay!" Ironically, Jim Leavelle is still living to this day at age 94; he's the only person who knows the whole truth of the matter.

If Leavelle did in fact see Ruby with a gun, he should have been suspended for not taking immediate action against Ruby.

We learn from our mistakes. A criminal defendant never wore a bullet proof vest in this country before Oswald was killed. Metal detectors were not in use in 1963. It's ironic that Oswald was killed in the one place were he should have been safe: police custody.

Note that Ruby is the only person in the photograph who is aware of what is about to happen. Is this statement irrelevant? I think not. No matter who you are of where you go, it always pays to be aware of your surroundings. Pedestrians cross the street without paying attention and are killed by cars. Motorists multitask behind the wheel and cause serious accidents. In the case involving Oswald, the Dallas police department should have been more aware of what was going on in Oswald's immediate vicinity. In a single instant, Lee Harvey Oswald became the most hated person in the United States and was targeted for death. The police made a tremendous procedural error with lax security in allowing Jack Ruby to enter the jail corridor with a concealed weapon. Human error can be mitigated but never eliminated.

Anthony22 (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, Anthony. It might be relevant if the photo was illustrating the part of the Warren Report which discussed the incompetence of the Dallas Police in allowing their suspect to be shot and killed. But that is not what the photo is doing. As it stands, the cutline is POV and interpretative. Canada Jack (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
While these are good reasons for leaving it out, my main one would be how do you verify this? In what way would we ever know? Mind reading? Britmax (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Overwhelming Consensus that the JFK Assassination was a Coup d'Etat

Long discussion on "academic consensus" of conspiracy theorists. WP:FOC, please.

This article still follows the "old logic" of the Kennedy assassination, based on the information that the US government, at the time, gave to the American public relating to the assassination. Today, however, the consensus has changed, and it is now general knowledge by the academic community that the JFK assassination was, in fact, America's first coup d'etat. If we know that a right-wing branch of the CIA colluded with the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover, and with Lyndon B. Johnson, and if we have a list of 10 accomplices or abettors to the crime, although there may have been a total of 20 accomplices, this does not mean that our initial findings were wrong. Rather, it means that we have yet to discover more related facts about the same incident. I think that it is high-time to include in this article the modern-day consensus, and to mention some of the more conclusive and unambiguous findings as published by Harold Weisberg, Jim Garrison, Jesse Edward Curry (Chief of Dallas Police in 1963), Mark Lane, Jim Marrs, among others.Davidbena (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please cite specific sources that show such a conspiracy and such a broad consensus, rather than naming individual authors. It's news here that a consensus exists that the CIA overthrew the government. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Pretty ineffective coup d'etat, since the second-in-command took charge according to the existing laws of succession and kept on several of Kennedy's cabinet members, including his brother. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The research in this field speaks for itself. The sources are available to all (no need to repeat them here), as what they espouse is now wide-knowledge, with convincing evidence of a cover-up. This is without question. As for the second-in-command taking charge, he was complicit in the coup d'etat and knew, in advance, about its planning, but did not wish the American public to suspect him of ill-doing, therefore, he kept Robert Kennedy as the US Attorney-General, although now he had far-less powers. Everyone knows that LBJ was not slated to be on Kennedy's running ticket as Vice-President during the next Presidential election, and he had, besides this, legal troubles of his own.Davidbena (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the "consensus" was, in the 1970s, that the Mafia did it. Before that, there was the "consensus" from Garrison and crew that this was the work of anti-Castro Cubans. Later, the CIA did it. And... now? Well, it's rather comical to claim that "a total of 20 accomplices" were involved. And no one screwed up? Maybe in comic books and the minds of conspiracy authors, sure. To me, the most ridiculous claim is the FBI was behind it. Anyone who suggest with a straight face that Hoover wanted Kennedy out - especially given that Johnson would become president - has not the slightest clue as to who these people were. Why would Hoover want to get rid of a president he ran circles around in favour of perhaps one of the most ruthless politicians in American history? I'm still waiting to hear a plausible response to that question.
Anyway, as has oft been noted, the page largely describes the conclusions of the two major investigations which both concluded Oswald shot the president, with one concluding there was a conspiracy. So, "based on the information that the US government.... gave to the American people" there was a conspiracy, according the the HSCA. So, David, it is obvious you didn't read the page. As for conspiracy, there is a page outlining a good number of those conspiracy theories. A glance at that page will reveal that there is NO "consensus" arrived upon by conspiracy theorists, unless you are seriously suggesting the highly implausible (even amongst this gullible crowd) of ALL these people being in cahoots! Canada Jack (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Canada Jack, I read the page, but the main approach of the article still takes the "old line," and ignores the consensus of today's academia, viz. that the President of the United-States was gunned-down by a coup d'etat. As for what you mentioned, the involvement of the Mafia and/or anti-Castro Cubans, it is well-known that the hit-men in the assassination, or else those being manipulated by the CIA to do the "dirty work," or to become the "fall-guy" in the operation, were in fact men who had connections with either the Mafia or with anti-Castro Cubans. Here, however, their precise designation is irrelevant, since all that we're concerned about here is recognizing them as "abettors" to the crime, as shown conclusively by the research conducted on the JFK assassination.Davidbena (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
What "consensus" are you talking about? It's complete news to me - and to others here. What is "well known" is that there are perhaps 100 different scenarios which have been put out there - with little or no evidence linking these scenarios to the evidence of the assassination itself, or connections to the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.
But, since you seem to think there is a "consensus" in regards to the assassination at odds with the official conclusions, then what is the consensus on who the killers were? Who pulled the trigger, and what is the evidence linking them to the crime? Next, identify the "consensus" on the evidence which links those snipers who you identify to the various agencies who put them up to it? The evidence, for example, linking the CIA to the snipers you named. While you are at it, please identify the evidence that the mountain of evidence linking Oswald to the crime was planted and/or faked.
The key here is EVIDENCE. We need EVIDENCE linking snipers besides Oswald to the actual crime, we need EVIDENCE linking organizations and/or groups and/or agents to those other snipers, we need EVIDENCE that all those fingerprints, witnesses, forensics linking Oswald to the crime was faked/forged, we need EVIDENCE that Kennedy's autopsy photos, x-rays etc were faked and/or forged.
And lastly, we must remember that describing motives that, say, might have given the CIA a reason to kill Kennedy, is not good enough, we need EVIDENCE that the CIA, for example, actually ACTED on their desires to kill Kennedy. Canada Jack (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
All along, I have been referring here to the academic consensus, based on the amount of academic research conducted by investigative journalists and others, and whose works have been published since JFK's assassination. The evidence that they present in their writings is very conclusive that there was a cover-up, hence: a coup. While the sessions of the Warren Investigative Commission were not secret sessions insofar that witnesses could be called-upon to testify without inhibition, Harold Weisberg has concluded that some of the staff on the Warren Commission itself could not examine certain evidence related to the case, but was reserved strictly for the so-called "executive sessions," which he also termed secret sessions. He then asked, "Now why, if JFK had been assassinated and the country and the world turned around by just three shots fired by Oswald alone, did this Commission have to practice such secrecy? The obvious answer is that it knew its work could not survive any critical examination." (see: Harold Weisberg, Whitewash: the Report of the Warren report, Hyattstown, Md. 1965 - 1966, p. 8 of 224). Since then, there have been countless other testimonies which all lead to the same conclusion. Evidence cannot be more conclusive than what has been presented so far in their findings and published in their books, unless you want to add to their words the testimony of Madeleine Duncan Brown (see: Aynesworth, Hugh (November 17, 2012). "‘One-man truth squad’ still debunking JFK conspiracy theories". The Dallas Morning News, Dallas), or the son of the Dallas police-officer, Roscoe Anthony White, who testified about a diary he found belonging to his father who had admitted his involvement in the President's assassination. It is without question that most of Madeleine Brown's testimony about the men present at Clint Murchinson's house on the night before the assassination is true, although when she spoke about Sid Richardson she, undoubtedly, had a lapse of memory, and had perhaps seen him at other big parties with the oil tycoons, since she had been in their circles since 1948, well-before the passing of Sid Richardson in 1959. Ms. Brown was a Call-Girl and she was often invited to these parties. What I find most-disturbing by the "old line" approach of reporting JFK's assassination is that the "old line" approach ignores the fact that a shot was, indeed, fired from the Grassy Knoll, a place that was, in relation to the Presidential motorcade, to the front right of the vehicle, based on the testimonies of many eye-witnesses, and based on the violent reaction of the President's head as shown in the Zapruder film, as also the testimony of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas who saw an entrance wound in the President's throat, and also an exit wound on the President's back parietal bone of his skull.Davidbena (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is disingenuous of you to ask for hard-core evidence of a CIA confession in the plot to kill the President, just as there is no hard-core evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed the President, and, yet, it is the traditional view taken by the writers of this article, although it is by far from being conclusive evidence. Here, it is better to "move with the times," and to accept the new findings.IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"New findings?" As noted above there are hundreds of theories on Kennedy's assassination, none of which have found consensus. I haven't noticed an above-the-fold story in the Washington Post about how it's been proven that the CIA/FBI/Earl Warren did it. That's what we call "hard-core evidence" on Wikipedia, not a broad-brush assertion that times have changed. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
How about evidence of this alleged "Overwhelming Consensus" in the "academic community"? Gamaliel (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Acroterion, your statement is incorrect insofar that the vast majority of data submitted in published works, printed after JFK's assassination, point in one direction: a coup d'états. That, my friend, is the overwhelming consensus.Davidbena (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, to correct you, User:Acroterion, Earl Warren had absolutely nothing to do with the assassination, other than being asked by LBJ to head the commission that was to provide him (i.e. the President) with a semblance of order and dignity after what had transpired.Davidbena (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm well aware of Warren's role in the investigation: I must not have used my <shift-sarcasm> key. However, many conspiracy enthusiasts, some of whom may be part of your "overwhelming consensus" in favor of revisionism, think he was an accessory-after-the-fact shill for conspirators. Any such consensus would be front-page news in the papers (KENNEDY ASSASSINATED BY CIA across the top of the New York Times), not something to be hashed out with vague assertions on this talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily, User:Acroterion, since the New York Times would not be interested in defaming the CIA and/or the US government. Besides, some National Security matters are actually censored. My view is that we, as editors, should approach the subject diplomatically and say what can be said without harming America's institutions.Davidbena (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:REDFLAG applies here. For Wikipedia to state in Wikipedia's voice that a coup d'etat took place (to install Johnson??) we need exactly that kind of coverage, not a conglomeration of theories proposed by conspiracy theorists. Your circular reasoning on why that's never taken place is a classic conspiratist trope, that it's just being suppressed. The Washington Post took down a president in 1972, I very much doubt they'd shrink from publishing revelations about people who are all dead today. Pulitzers all around. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The difference being is that there is no President to take down anymore. LBJ is dead. Besides, User:Acroterion, no major newspaper in the USA will publicly engage in a war against the CIA. The newspaper would lose. Moreover, even if a newspaper carried the claim that there was a coup d'etat in the United-States in November of 1963, its revelation would still be open to scrutiny, and, in the final analysis, it could do no more than what has already been done by the authors mentioned by me, whose conclusions are sound, namely, that there was a carefully orchestrated coup, and a follow-up "cover-up," in a mass-effort to conceal from the American public the true nature of JFK's assassination. These are not "circular arguments," my friend, but a real complex issue that happened in American society, of which, now, the truth has come out. The question is, how should we deal with this truth on Wikipedia without harming America's institutions?Davidbena (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The argument above confirms that you're trying to insert speculation in Wikipedia's voice. We expect widely reported mainstream consensus of exactly what we say in Wikipedia, not beating-around-the-bush conjecture. The idea that newspapers won't confront the CIA is not credible: the CIA, the Pentagon and the White House have been confronted many times before, and a confrontation on this topic would carry no penalty for the newspaper, quite the opposite - it's the story of the century. I don't give a crap for "protecting institutions," that's not what Wikipedia is about. It is about proper sourcing and scrupulous reporting of mainstream views, with due weight to other views. A coup d'etat isn't even close to a mainstream view, and there's nothing more to be said here until such a view is clearly and explicitly adopted be major journalism outlets, as opposed to the widespread cottage industry in Kennedy theorizing.. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, User talk:Acroterion, the issue at hand here is not whether or not a major newspaper should have carried the story of the 1963 coup, since the revelation was actually slow in coming, and most had initially believed the Warren Report. Now, however, with the disclosure of more information about the events of November 1963, it is now a widely reported mainstream consensus that there was, indeed, a "cover-up" in the JFK assassination, and that there were also cases where evidence was actually altered, as if to expunge the fact that there had been a coup (and not willing to startle the American public). Even the majority of Americans, when questioned recently about the JFK assassination, believed that there was a coup. That, my friend, is a mainstream view, while the documented evidence of the coup has been published by the reliable and verifiable authors mentioned earlier by me on this thread.Davidbena (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Wiki[pedia reports on the consensus of reliable sources. If those sources are inadequate for whatever reason, such as CIA pressure, it is not Wikipedia's role to be a corrective or to right great wrongs. The record must be corrected elsewhere, then Wikipedia will report that. Gamaliel (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on the consensus of academic sources, not merely all published sources regardless of origin. Gamaliel (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, User:Gamaliel. That is why I mentioned the intelligent conclusion of men of high-standing, such as Harold Weisberg, who served as a U.S. State Department intelligence analyst, Jim Garrison, a New Orleans lawyer and District Attorney, Jesse Edward Curry (Chief of Dallas Police in 1963), Mark Lane and Jim Marrs, an investigative journalist.Davidbena (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid these authors and theorists of the past do not represent evidence of a current academic consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Who would you say, then, represents evidence of a current academic consensus? By the way, I could have continued a long list of authors whose conclusions corroborate those of the aforementioned authors. They are considered academics. The only un-academic findings are those of the majority of the American public, who, being polled to give an "opinion," believed that there was, indeed, a conspiracy to kill the President. Of course, I would not use public sentiment as a valid criterion for testing the validity of these claims of a conspiracy, but I would rely upon the evidence produced in the research conducted by the aforementioned authors.Davidbena (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Evidence of a current academic consensus would be found in the writings of actual current academics, not authors of decades-old conspiracy books. Gamaliel (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
But the current article purports to rely on material written decades-ago. I, personally, would not like to embarrass the CIA (since some working for the CIA obviously had nothing to do with this), so, perhaps, we can just mention in a neutral manner that the conclusions of the Warren Commission are not, per se, final, and that there is a growing tendency among scholars to believe that JFK's assassination was, in fact, America's first coup d'etat. Would this help mitigate the harsh reality? Moreover, this will be in keeping with Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV.Davidbena (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The bottom-line is that the evidence presented in those so-called "conspiracy books" is just as valid as the Warren Commission report.Davidbena (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Warren Commission questioned eyewitnesses, performed studies on physical evidence and delivered a report. The House Select Committee into Assassinations did much the same thing. Both came to the same conclusion, though the HSCA's flawed analysis of audio evidence counted more shots than could have been fired by LHO, hence two shooters, hence a conspiracy. That evidence has since been discredited.
There is NO evidence of any second or third etc. shooter. There is no evidence that anybody other than LHO knew about the assassination beforehand. In the fifty years since, nobody in any presumed conspiracy has come forward, made a deathbed confession, presented a big box of evidence. Instead, all we get are guesses and "maybes" from the pro-conspiracy crowd, who, I notice, are happily putting out books and videos and selling them to a gullible public. There's a lonely fact from the conspiracy folk. --Pete (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Pete, there is evidence of more than one shooter. This evidence comes out in the books written by the aforementioned authors, who, just like the Warren Commission, interrogated eye-witnesses.Davidbena (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
So it's not evidence, but supposition. If there were actual evidence it would be front page news in every American newspaper. Oh yeah, they are part of the conspiracy too. They don't want to sell papers. They'd rather go bankrupt. Fiddle de dee.
Thanks for your interest. See the messages at the top of the page and follow them. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Pete, No, it's not supposition, anymore than the Warren Report was supposition. A witness is a witness. Besides, the facts of the "cover-up" are plain to anyone who has ever investigated this subject. Still, I will not press my opinion upon anyone here. Be well, gentlemen.Davidbena (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not treat them as equally valid. Again, Wikipedia relies on academic consensus. You have repeatedly made claims of an "Overwhelming Consensus" and "growing tendency among scholars". Please substantiate these claims with reference to current, academic sources, as per Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy, to the best of my knowledge, calls out for citing reliable sources in any contentious or disputed matter, and of our maintaining neutrality. Let our editors here be the judge if the aforementioned authors and their unambiguous conclusions are considered reliable. I will not press my opinion here. Good day, gentlemen.Davidbena (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The only overwhelming consensus will be from non-reliable sources. I'm sure there are numerous fringe theories regarding who was behind the assassination, but until those theories are viewed as fact by the majority of mainstream reliable sources, they remain within the realm of tin foil hats. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
David, as I said before, have you actually read the page? You said you have, but I'm not sure that your call for including this "academic consensus" makes much sense given what is on the page. First, as others have noted, you have failed to make the case that there is an "academic consensus," the authors you cite being chiefly conspiracy authors (as opposed to, say, mainstream historians or professional academics who additionally wrote on the assassination concluding there was a conspiracy). Mark Lane, Jim Garrison are (or were), to be blunt, frauds. Lane has been caught numerous times lying about evidence he gathered, putting words into the mouth of Helen Markham, for example, suppressing key testimony from Lee Bowers, who was behind the picket fence in the railyard tower with a clear view of where a knoll assassin would have been and told Lane specifically that there was "no one" behind the fence at the time of the assassination, testimony Lane hid for 30 years. And Garrison manufactured evidence, for example the Clinton LA testimony which purported to have Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw seen together.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say there was an academic consensus. So then, how would this page be rewritten? We'd still lead with what the investigations concluded, as they are the only times that most of the actual evidence was examined (the actual bullets, the actual autopsy photos (the HSCA), the actual fingerprints, etc.) and most witnesses were put under oath and interviewed. Then, we'd mention the "consensus" from academics. Wait - what does it say currently? However, Kennedy's assassination is still the subject of widespread debate and has spawned numerous conspiracy theories and alternative scenarios. Polling in 2013 showed that 60% of Americans believe that a group of conspirators was responsible for the assassination. "Conspiracy" is already in the lede, with a revision along the lines of... "...alternative scenarios. Academic consensus [cite sources] is that there was a conspiracy. Polling in 2013..."
The rest of the article would stand, until we get to the "Conspiracy theories" section, to which we could simply add... "Academic consensus is that there was a conspiracy. But no consensus exists as to who was behind the conspiracy." Canada Jack (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
My friend, whether you call them "conspiracy theorists," or "frauds," or whatever, the fact remains that these men have convincingly made their case, and have proven most-consummately that there was more than one shooter, hence: a planned operation to change leadership by way of a coup d'etat. This conclusion is sustained and supported by all that transpired in the week that followed the President's assassination. It is now widely accepted as fact, meaning, there is a public consensus about the matter.Davidbena (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Two of the people you mentioned are indeed "frauds" as they hid and changed evidence to buttress their cases. This is not simply me disagreeing with their conclusions. Therefore, it is rather amazing that these proven frauds in your mind "have proven most-consummately that there was more than one shooter," despite the fact that one of those two I mentioned - Mark Lane - deliberately hid the testimony of Lee Bowers, the only person in a position to see a knoll assassin if there was one, who told him no one was behind the fence at the time of the assassination!
But, your use of the word "proven," tells me you are on shaky ground as that is a word that no reputable historian or academic - the same goes for the Warren Commission and House Committee - would ever use. All historical "verities" are contingent on the possibility of new evidence suggesting an alternate scenario. While this is certainly true in this case, you've done nothing but state multiple snipers are "proven" and go from there. If you want to have an academic sheen here, you are off to a very non-credible start with that claim. Canada Jack (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether or not we individually accept the conclusion of these men. What matters is whether or not their conclusions are indeed "widely accepted as fact" by the general academic community, which is what is required by Wikipedia. I've asked you numerous times to back up that claim. Unless you are willing to attempt to substantiate that claim, there is no point in having this discussion and I recommend we close it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Nit-picking, I admit, but it should be "coup d'etat." Singular "etat", and the "e" is not generally capped in English usage. Canada Jack (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction in spelling, Canada Jack. I'm poor at French. User:Gamaliel, as for the reliability of these claims, there are more than 900 articles in academic journals on JSTOR which deal specifically on the JFK assassination. A great number of these would, I suppose (and I haven't checked them all yet), agree that there was more than one shooter involved in JFK's assassination. There are more than 600 books published on the JFK assassination, with ranging views. Bear in mind, however, that in the last 30 years or so, an evolution in our thought-process has occurred due to the findings of those who spent much of their lives investigating this crime. I think that it's time that we acknowledge this change. If I can show a reasonable number of academics who agree with what I've said here, will you agree that we rewrite the sentence in the opening paragraph to read as follows: "Initially, the public was led to think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the shooting death of President John F. Kennedy, but in recent years, forensic evidence suggests that there was more than one shooter." [Sources: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I J, K]. ??? Would this be too strong of a statement to make on this page, or something of this effect, of course, without pointing a finger at anybody?Davidbena (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Listing a number of academics who have opinion X does not demonstrate a consensus. Others could list a number of academics who have opinion Y. Gamaliel (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay. So when, may I ask, do modern-day findings supersede earlier, or outdated findings, Gamaliel? If I can show that the majority view in modern-day research holds that there was more than one gunman, will this be sufficient to warrant change in the article's leading paragraph?Davidbena (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The notion that discredited fringe conspiracy theorists like Lane, Garrison and Marrs are high quality academic sources is utterly bizarre to me, and I will fight that interpretation vigorously. When a respected generalist academic historian writing about post World War II U.S. history from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, U of Michigan, U of Chicago, Cal Berkeley, Stanford, USC or UCLA or comparable universities publish an overview saying that November 22, 1963 was a "coup d'etat", and that book is favorably reviewed by other prominent American historians, then we will talk. Until then, your claims of "consensus" are hogwash that neutral editors will safely ignore. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
We can go in circles for days, but there's nothing to discuss until you produce these alleged sources substantiating this alleged consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The Assassination of John F. Kennedy article presents the event from a historical perspective without stating or implying any specific fact in dispute. It does mention that there are conspiracy theories but it does so without presenting them as though they were established fact. There is another article that does take a sympathetic look at conspiracy theories: John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. In my opinion, that is the appropriate place for the conspiracy information being discussed here.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, gentlemen. I can see that there is mounting resistance to my ideas. Perhaps I'll bring-up the sources at a later date and under a new Talk-Page sub-heading. Meanwhile, in this current article, is there any place to mention a "break-down" in security measures taken on that fateful day of the 22nd of November 1963, as mentioned by Dallas chief of police, Jesse Curry? After all, he is not numbered among the "Conspiracy Theorists." He wrote that 13 railroad men and 2 policemen were, allegedly, on the over pass (Triple Underpass), against rules of protocol, and immediately upon seeing them, he shouted over the police radio to get someone on the Triple Underpass where he had seen these men huddled together. His words sounded an alarm that something was dreadfully wrong.Davidbena (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Just out of interest, but what were the statements of the two cops on the bridge with the twelve gangers? And what did he mean by "get someone on the bridge", if not the cops already there? Don't tell me, they all swore blind that nobody had fired a rifle anywhere near them, so they must be lying because the one certainty in your life is that there was a conspiracy. --Pete (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Pete, your questions will have to be answered by somebody else. What I do know, however, is that the Triple Underpass was directly in front of the President's limousine, and the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, when examining the President's dead body, saw an entrance wound of a bullet in the President's throat --- meaning, the bullet had come from in front, in the approximate direction of the Triple Underpass.Davidbena (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
As fun and tempting as it may be, we're not here to debate the minutiae of assassination lore. Do you have a proposed edit with sources to back it up? Gamaliel (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Davidbena is coming up empty on all cylinders. There's nothing but the vaguest proposals for "improving" the article. Time to hat this and move on? --Pete (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, User:Gamaliel. I would like to suggest that we start a new sub-title, and WITHOUT any intent of libel, we can just make mention that there was a "break-down" in security measures along the Presidential route in Dallas, Texas. The title of the section can be: "Break-down in security." My suggestion would then be to add in that section the following: "Dallas Chief of Police, Jesse Curry, who rode in the lead car of the Presidential motorcade with sheriff, Bill Decker, when they had turned west off Houston Street onto Elm Street and looked straight ahead, noticed "a few unauthorized people on the overpass and wondered how they got there." These men were later described as being thirteen railroad men and two policemen stationed on the over pass (Triple Underpass), against rules of protocol. After the Presidential motorcade had preceded a few yards more, upon hearing the first gunshot, Curry immediately shouted over the police radio: "Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there!"(Citation: Jesse Curry, Retired Dallas Police Chief, Jesse Curry Reveals His Personal JFK Assassination File, 1969; The Dallas Morning News, pp. 58-59).
Later, Curry was reported as saying: "I think there’s a possibility that one [shot] could have come from in front [of the limousine]," saying again later: "We’ve never, we've never been able to prove that, but just in my mind and by the direction of his blood and brain from the president from one of the shots, it would just seem that it would have to [have] been fired from the front rather than behind. I can't say that I could swear that I believe that it was one man and one man alone. I think there's a possibility there could have been another man." (Citation: "The Assassination of President Kennedy: What Do We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then?" British Broadcasting Corporation. Aired on U.S. TV in 1978).Davidbena (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your proposed edits. I oppose including these because it relies on the opinions of one person without context and appears to be an example of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. The first is an example of a selection of eyewitness testimony. There are thousands of such examples of eyewitness testimony from that day, and we cannot include all of them, so we must limit ourselves to the significant ones. Which historians or academic sources have highlighted Curry's observations as important? The second is an observation about medical evidence, which he is unqualified to deliver and is in contradiction to the testimony and conclusions of qualified doctors and medical and forensics experts. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
That's your problem right there, Davidbena. No evidence, just supposition. The whole conspiracy theory business in a nutshell. We can't talk about an important historical event in terms of "Well, maybe…"; we have to stick to the facts, and well-sourced facts at that. --Pete (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, evidence there is, Pete, but it has been rejected by Wikipedia editors of high rank. I wouldn't call a respected opinion such as that of the Dallas Chief of Police "cherry-picking," my friend, Gamaliel. This suggestion only came-up in the form of a compromise, as a result of an earlier rejection of my proposals. No hard feelings. In the final analysis, there must also be a consensus amongst WP editors on what content goes in or what content should be taken out. I can appreciate that. I tried and I failed here, so far, and I think that it has mostly to do with Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. At least I can rest assured that events that transpired in Dallas in November of 1963 are becoming more common-knowledge to the American public. I was in Texas when JFK was killed. We were let out of school, and when I got home, I saw my mother crying beside the television set. Sad event in American history. I wish everyone the best here. Good-bye and good-night.Davidbena (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Since Lee Harvey Oswald was killed before he stood trial, it was never proven that he killed John F. Kennedy. Therefore it can not not be accurately stated that Lee Harvey Oswald killing Kennedy is a fact. Innocent until proven guilty. The article should be changed to reflect that LHO was accused of killing Kennedy. The article should be changed so it does not state LHO killing Kennedy as a fact. The article should also reflect that LHO was killed in prison before the trial. Currently this article is misleading because of the LHO as the definite killer bias. Jacob81 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is video of LHO being shot before trial, as proof that he was never found guilty. Note that the newscaster says "accused assassin" Lee Harvey Oswald Assassination. Jacob81 (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 I am not a conspiracy theorist.  I do believe that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy and that he acted alone.  Given all the evidence showing that and the lack of credible evidence to the contrary, I find it difficult to understand how anyone could believe in such conspiracy theories.  But people do.  And (unfortunately in my opinion) the statement that Oswald killed the president and that he acted alone is disputed.  So Jacob81 is probably making a valid point.  I believe this point could be easily resolved by changing:
to
I believe that this (or a similar) change would preserve all the facts while removing any material even remotely considered disputable.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b Stokes 1979, pp. 21.
  2. ^ "Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Chapter 1: Summary and Conclusions".
  3. ^ "Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Chapter 1: Summary and Conclusions".


footnotes section

I'm not sure why there is a footnote on this talk page, but here is a section heading to keep it separate. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Zaprudered

I have removed the following from the "Conspiracy theories" section:

"One question that emerged about the assassination was the timing of the first shot. One notable theory posits that the first shot occurred before Zapruder began filming; if correct, then this would affect numerous aspects of the traditional version of the chain of events. [1]"

There's no conspiracy about this theory. It simply puts forward the eminently plausible notion that LHO fired his first shot before Zapruder began filming, and this shot missed due to being deflected by a piece of overhead street furniture. --Pete (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted this as well. Even if we follow the suggestion that we rename the section to allow these "questions," there are so many questions raised that it would be wholly impractical to include them here. Two basic problems are determining which issues are paramount, and whether they should be answered. So, one issue raised is why so many personnel at Parkland said there was an exit wound at the back of the president's head, most of whom were experienced doctors and nurses, but the official reports say the exit wound was at the right side of the head. There is a response to this, but to address this issue would require a section onto itself. Same with the question as to why there were so many witness reports of shots fired from the area of the knoll.
But, more basically, it should be noted that the evidence mentioned on the page is slight. There is little discussion of how the Warren Commission came to the conclusion there was a single gunman and that that gunman was Oswald. SO we'd be discussing issues brought up by others without even mentioning the basic evidence in the first place! Canada Jack (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thanks. I have replied to this question by creating a new section below, and I hope it is okay for me to offer a response by replying in this manner. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
hm on second thought, okay, let me try to respond here. if that is the case, then WHERE could material regarding legitimate questions as well as evidence be offered? can we have a section to do so? if not, do we need a separate article? --Sm8900 (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know that this is a question so much as some useful extra information. Time put forward the story that the Zapruder film covered the entire shooting. This has led many to try to fit three shots into the 6-7 seconds available. But the evidence looks to be that LHO fired once before Zapruder's sequence, and that he didn't fire again until he had a clear shot: i.e. after the limousine passed the oak tree. If the bullet struck the light fitting and was deflected, this tallies with several other pieces of evidence. --Pete (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Skyring, we don't even delve into the evidence which established to the satisfaction of the WC why there was only one assassin and why they concluded that person was Oswald. So why are these "questions" more pertinent than that more basic information? Why is information on when, exactly, shot number one was fired more important than the evidence linking Oswald to the crime, for example? I contend this material you are proposing has no place on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm the one who removed it. I'm not intending to reinsert it without consensus. --Pete (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Pete, my bad. I didn't mean you, I meant SM8900. Canada Jack (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
hm, ok. well if it wouldn't go on this page, then where would it go? seriously asking this as a question. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Why not suggest a list of these questions - and go from there. There are many questions for which some answers suggest conspiracy which might be best addressed on the conspiracy page (for example, the two questions I mentioned above on the head wound and on the direction of shots). Other questions - like the one you mentioned in regards to the timing of the first shot which don't suggest conspiracy per se - might warrant a new page, or being added to the page on the Zapruder film. However, I don't see this as a particularly viable subject for a stand-alone page. More crucial IMHO would be a page detailing the conclusions of the WC and how they came to the lone gunman and Oswald determinations. But that's just my opinion. If you build enough of a case for this "questions" page, you may convince other editors of its utility (maybe even me!). Canada Jack (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The possible incompleteness of the film is mentioned here. I think the high probability that the first shot was fired during the break in the Zapruder film, and that it may have struck the traffic mast arm, is fairly significant. Zapruder and Oswald were working independently, after all, and Oswald didn't wait until Zapruder began making a record of the assassination. He took his first shot at the first opportunity. --Pete (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate all of your replies and input on this. by the way, I hope you all read the last reply from another editor to me in the section below. is this the kind of reasoning that you are all trying to promote? really? --Sm8900 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
As has been mentioned before, often these issues more properly should be on the attendant subject pages, such as the Zapruder page - where your issue, incidentally, is mentioned (as stated below, as you point out). An editor about a year ago, for example, tried to insert text over a residue test which, at least in his view, suggested Oswald never fired a rifle that day. I pointed out that the section he proposed would have been longer than the section we had on the Warren Report itself, and was a relatively arcane corner of the assassination. It would have given unusual focus on the issue - much as your insertion would have - despite the relatively brief coverage of other, arguably, bigger issues. Further, I said it most properly resided on the rifle page. In the end, your material is too specific to an issue to reside on this page, but would be pertinent on the Zapruder page... where the issue is indeed discussed! Canada Jack (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
As for the merits of the issue, the pre-Z133 shot one theory has been effectively debunked. (It still can be discussed and included on the attendant page as the theory was extensively reported in 2007 and later and is therefore notable.) See Dale Myers on this.[2] For one, they place the limo in a position based on the 1964 FBI recreation which was at the wrong location. For another, the majority of witnesses report the first shot was further down the road, but Holland pretends otherwise - and disingenuously manipulates witness testimony to make the first shot be when the limo passed a cluster of signs on a signpost in front of the TSBD when the witnesses were clearly - and often explicitly - referring the the Stemmons sign we see in the Zap film. Still further, Oswald would have had to have stood and be more visible to have made the shot, at a steep angle - the gun rest would have made the shot extremely difficult. Many assume this would have been an "easy" shot to make, but the opposite was true - the limo was also moving left to right, adding to the difficulty, as opposed to down Elm Street where the limo moved along the line of sight more or less. Still further, the limo witnesses describe turns they made upon hearing the first shot and we see that movement from Z160 or so. Canada Jack (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
hm, ok. fair enough, thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

RE: deleted "looking much as they did in 1963"

@Anthony22:
  I don't understand why the deleted information would be considered unnecessary.  While it's true that the photo is only six years later and the road and buildings have not been modified, the reader of the article would have no way of knowing that.  Is there room here for some negotiation?  I really believe that photo caption needs at least something to let the reader know that the photo depicts the scene essentially as it was in 1963.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

An Egyptian pyramid that was built thousands years ago looks essentially the same today as it did then. It's silly and a waste of time to mention the fact that it looks the same today. I deleted the information in the Kennedy assassination caption because most roads and buildings don't change much in the course of only six years.

Anthony22 (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

surely that would be the default position. A picture in an encyclopedia of an historic location would be misleading if it was not "in most respects as it was" at the time. If there had been significant rebuilding/demolition then it would warrant a caption to the effect that eg the glass building to the right has since been built, or whatever. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
We annot be sure in any modern cityscape that the appearance remains unchanged over a six year span. It os useful information to the reader to know that the scene shown is pretty much as it was in 1963. In particular, the modern scene differs in a few respects, such as the sign on the roof of the TSBD having been removed. This was a (small) part of the story on that day. --Pete (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oswald's "last words"

UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP long-term abuse
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is still no reference in the article to the fact that Oswald still maintained his innocence even after he was shot. In affidavits and his testimony, Detective Combest said that he asked Oswald (after he was shot) if he had anything to say; Oswald shook his head as if saying "no" and lasped into unconciousness shortly afterwards. It doesn't seem to be an important addition, but it could certainly make a proposal for appropriate wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.196 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.16.90 (talk)

I find it absolutely sickening that lone gunman zealots continue to defend Nick McDonald, and other demonstrable liars in the DPD, as being honest and honourable men, while simultaneously calling former Dallas deputy Sheriff Roger Craig a liar for various reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.16.90 (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

coverage of questions

I have attempted to rename the section on conspiracy theories in order to encompass and include significant valid questions raised about various details of the chain of events. this can include legitimate, conventional questions, not only those classified as conspiracy theories. that is why I feel this section needs to be renamed.

for example, one researcher published an article in Newsweek claiming the shots started before the official timeline. that is not a conspiracy theory, merely one legitimate hypothesis and question on the chain of events. here is a link to this edit to rename that section. also here is a link to the edit offering the questions about when the shots started. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The renaming of the section is problematic and confusing, as most conspiracy theories (who killed jfk? where did the shots come from? etc.) are framed as questions already. If there is some disagreement in reliable sources about a detail, such as the exact time when the shots started, that can be briefly noted in the appropriate section of the article body. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. the whole point is that conspiracy theories are not phrased as questions. rather, it is the questions asked by various researchers, commentators and the public which provide an opening for various conspiracy theories to get attention. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories phrased in the form of questions intended to make them appear more "legitimate" or "conventional" and used to create an "opening" for conspiracy theories to "get attention" are are still conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
well, yes, but I am trying to introduce a conspiracy theory which says that maybe the first moment that Oswald fired a shot was not related to when Zapruder started filming. are you saying there is something wrong with that conspiracy theory? --Sm8900 (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
well, I managed to work it into another article. I'm trying to subtly introduce the conspiracy theory that maybe the moment that Zapruder began filming is unrelated to when Oswald began firing. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
If WP:RS cover the conspiracy theory, then it can be included at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. But that's not a reason to add the word "questions" to the Conspiracy Theory section header in this main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
hm, ok. one question though, what if the hypothesis that I am adding is not a conspiracy theory? --Sm8900 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
If you're referring to material you added to Zapruder film#Dispute_over_completeness, then Zapruder film is the right place for it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Lucky Louie: There's nothing illegitimate about conspiracy theories, despite that The scientific studies of multiple shots from multiple angles will continue to be debated for years to come. But there's also a simple logical philosophy to it all. Dealey Plaza has hundreds of potential sniper spots where a sniper can set up. There was panic and chaos when the shots were fired. So Top floor of the School Book depository? Lee Harvey Oswald? Its too convenient how quickly they had a suspect, and an alleged site of origin of the gunfire. MS 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not "convenient" at all, 206, especially given the one guy who made himself scarce after the assassination decided to kill a cop who presumably wanted to question him. Killing a cop tends to draw a crowd... of cops. And given about 10 saw him kill Officer Tippit or flee the scene, he wasn't going to be hard to find.
As for the "alleged site of origin" of the shots, we have multiple witnesses - something like ten - who SAW a sniper firing, saw the rifle in the window or heard the shots overhead and the bullet casings fall on the floor above. There is NO doubt someone fired shots from there. For decades, the CT crowd has liked to poke holes in the testimony of Howard Brennan who positively identified Oswald (eventually) as the sniper, forgetting there are about 10 others who saw a sniper or rifle in that window, so even if we put aside who that sniper was, there is no question SOMEONE fired from that window.
And, while the CT crowd pointlessly debates how many heard shots from the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll, they have NEVER been able to answer the simple common sense question: How come 95% of witnesses said the shots were fired from a single direction? To argue there was a knoll sniper REQUIRES a substantial number of witnesses hearing shots from multiple directions. But that is simply not the case. We know there was a TSBD sniper - surely those who said all shots came from the Knoll were hearing the SAME SHOTS but confused about the direction! (And, btw, many of those so-called "knoll" witnesses gave a source far from the small section of fence often cited as where a sniper may have been, from the pergola to near the overpass, yet are lumped in as "knoll" witnesses.) In a similar vein, a similar percentage of earwitnesses - some ~95% - report a maximum of three shots, when most CT claim at least 4 were fired.
Given that evidence, logically, there was a single sniper, and that sniper fired from the TSBD. Canada Jack (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Eliminating theoretical suspects

Would not 'Soviets/Cubans/North Vietnamese did it' be an effective act of war (once it became known)?

'Organised crime did it' - likely to lead to 'slightly unpleasant consequeces to all and sundry groups with any theoretical connection to the matter.'

Can any others be eliminated on this logic (though the 'Will nobody get rid of this annoying priest' scenario might have occurred) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Warren Commission discussed this in their report pointing out that the Soviets and Cubans, while enemies, were also rational players and unlikely to risk a ruinous conflict with an assassination. The HSCA likewise noted the groups for which it felt were not responsible though it could not rule out individual elements, much like your reference to the knights either acting on their own or "inspired" by Curtmantle's words. In terms of this article, since we don't delve into issues of conspiracy outside of a general description of the movement and some of the alleged key players, I don't really see a place for it - speculating on speculations. Canada Jack (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Best not discussed without evidence. Once we start putting, "Well, maybe…" into articles in general and this one in particular, every boy with a barrow will turn up. --Pete (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably the most that can be said is that 'dislike of the negative and personal consequences' probably eliminates many putative initiators - especially given that 'you annoy us too much and we will spoil your re-election campaign' or some other infodump of embarrassing material would have much less comeback. There will always be loose cannons and others and elimination of inconveniences.

Part of the problem is that we cannot imagine ourselves back into the viewpoints of that point in the Cold War, and look back across those who promote violent propaganda of the deed - and what impact the sequence of deaths Ngô Đình Diệm-JFK-LHO might have had at the time (whatever the actual if any connection).

If only LHO had left some explanation why... 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Two/Three shots reported by 5th floor witnesses at TSBD

I am assuming good faith here, but there is no need to add a second witness from the three on the 5th floor of the TSBD who said they heard shots from directly above. Which is why I reverted the edit. If, on the other hand, this was intended to sow doubt on how many shots were indeed fired from the TSBD, the problem is the witness heard 2 and only 2 shots. Which means he did NOT hear another shot from the knoll. This is the glaring problem with the conspiracy theories - the VAST majority of witnesses heard a maximum of three shots - 95% of witnesses - but those three shots, whether a witness said it came from the TSBD or the knoll or whereever, all came from ONE direction. The witnesses cited establish beyond reasonable dount shots were fired from the TSBD. Whether a witness heard 2 or 3 shots is beside the point - witnesses, even if confused about the source of the shots, almost to a person said the shots originated from one direction. Some 95%. Those who claim shots came from the knoll have for 50 years avoided the simple "emperor has no clothes" question - if there were shots from the knoll, (we KNOW shots were fired from the TSBD) why did nearly everyone say ALL the shots came from one direction? They haven't answered that basic, simple question, because they CAN'T. Canada Jack (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Could 'echoes and other unexpected (eg a car misfiring) sounds' have created 'aural and acoustic illusions' that comprise 'the third shot'?

'Two parallel universes overlapping on the same incident' (with LHO on the grassy knoll and the sounds slightly out of sync in the other) is theoretically possible but in fact unprovable. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

jfk is dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.81.87.247 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

So is Queen Anne. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There are problems with footnotes 9 and 10. Footnote 10 is a dead link, so the sentence citing it should be deleted. Footnote 9 does not justify the use of the word "rejected." "Disputed" would be more appropriate. 5198blk (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as footnote 10, if we can find another copy of the letter mentioned in the link, then the link can be changed to the new source. As far as footnote 9, I haven't read the entire document, which is 117 pages, so I'd have to withhold judgment until then on whether or not "rejected" or "disputed" is the more accurate term.Almostfm (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Footnote 10 has not been renewed - it is still a dead link. I propose removing the existing sentence: "In light of the investigative reports determining that 'reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman,' the Justice Department has concluded active investigations, stating 'that no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy in ... the assassination of President Kennedy.'"[10] There is no support for this conclusion. 5198blk (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi 5198. "Rejected" is appropriate - the study demolished the theory, and therefore the basis for the conclusion of conspiracy as this was the sole evidence the HSCA used to come to that conclusion, underlined by the Justice department's conclusion that no further investigation was warranted. If it was merely "disputed," then there'd presumably be avenues for further investigation. As for the missing citation for 10, Here is the link. [3] Canada Jack (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Your statement "...this was the sole evidence..." is inaccurate. The HSCA said at p. 91: "The committee, therefore, concluded that the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 supported the finding of the acoustical analysis that there was a high probability that a shot was fired at the President from the grassy knoll." So it wasn't only acoustical analysis, it was eyewitness testimony. Because of your "sole evidence" stance, I am proposing that this direct quote from the HSCA report be inserted into the article. Let me know if I need to turn this into an RfC. 5198blk (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, 5198, you are incorrect. For the HSCA, the sole piece of evidence for their conclusion of conspiracy was the dictabelt evidence. What you are citing is evidence which tended to support the acoustic evidence, but in fact the HSCA was going to conclude there was no convincing evidence of conspiracy until the last-minute presentation of the dictabelt analysis. If your premise was correct, the last-minute dictabelt evidence would have merely corroborated their conclusion of "conspiracy."
From Robert Edgar's dissent to the final HSCA report:
Was there a conspiracy? I agree with the December 13, 1978, first draft of our final report which states on page 64
"The committee finds that the available scientific evidence is insufficient to find that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy."
Up to that moment in the life of the committee, we were prepared to go to the American people with this conclusion. Only after the report of Mark R. Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy [i.e. the dictabelt evidence], in the 11th hour of our investigation, was the majority persuaded to vote for two gunmen and a conspiracy. I respectfully dissented.
What's funny about the use of the ear-witness testimony to "corroborate" the invalid acoustic evidence is the fact that a) the dictabelt supposedly recorded at least FOUR shots, but some ~95% of witnesses heard a maximum of THREE shots; b) since some 10 witnesses SAW someone firing from the TSBD, we know at least some of the shots came from there. But, again, those pesky ear witnesses destroy the "conspiracy" claim! Why? Because even though some thought the shots came from the knoll, some ~95% reported the shots came from a SINGLE direction, while the conspiracy theory involving the knoll requires MULTIPLE directions. The only logical conclusion is people were confused about the direction of shots, and the "knoll" conclusion is invalid given the multiple TSBD eye-witnesses. Canada Jack (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Your Edgar quote refers to the "available scientific evidence," but your opening argument says the HSCA was going to release an overall conclusion against conspiracy. Not the same thing. Without the dictabelt, the committee still may have concluded there was a conspiracy. We'll never know, because it didn't happen that way. But you can't reasonably conclude that the dictabelt was the "sole evidence."
Your witness numbers are skewed. There were 40+ witnesses who said there were shots from the knoll, and they weren't only "ear-witnesses." And what was the crowd density near the TSBD versus further down the road? Are you going amateur scientific on us? 5198blk (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Your Edgar quote refers to the 'available scientific evidence,' but your opening argument says the HSCA was going to release an overall conclusion against conspiracy." Yes, which is precisely what the HSCA was going to do. Reread the rest of what Edgar says: "Only after the report of Mark R. Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy [i.e. the dictabelt evidence], in the 11th hour of our investigation, was the majority persuaded to vote for two gunmen and a conspiracy."

"Your witness numbers are skewed. There were 40+ witnesses who said there were shots from the knoll, and they weren't only "ear-witnesses." And what was the crowd density near the TSBD versus further down the road? Are you going amateur scientific on us?" You miss the point. ~95%, depending on tally (i.e., within several percentage points), say a maximum of three shots, where most "knoll" scenarios - and the dictabelt "evidence" - suggest four or even more; secondly, a similar percentage report shots coming from a single direction, which is also at odds with most of the scenarios which have gunmen firing from several locations. IOW, if we have a witness who says he heard three shots coming from a single direction, which he felt was the knoll, but the only sniper actually seen was firing from the TSBD, it is logical to assume he was mistaken about the source of the shots. Especially given that multiple witnesses report they felt the shots came from the TSBD without actually having seen the sniper. Or were many witnesses collectively deaf when it came to shots from one location? Since we know there was a sniper at the TSBD, logic dictates that if someone was also firing from the knoll that we'd expect a good number of witnesses to report hearing shots fired from two directions. But that is not the case. Canada Jack (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Edgar. I'm sorry you can't see the differences between our perceptions of the words set forth. You still can't support the "sole evidence" claim, but nothing I can say will change that. Furthermore, why are you so willing to adopt Edgar as the end-all? What did the many other commission members say about this issue?
You're dead set on discounting 40 witnesses. Your "95%" and "directional shooting" meanderings are, at best, dubious and unsupported. I hope your math is good enough to realize that, if your 95% figure is to be taken seriously, there were 800 witnesses who weighed in. I'll cite my sources on the 40. Can you cite yours on the 800? 5198blk (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
5198, perhaps you have not read the HSCA report. On the other matters which may have drawn a conclusion of "conspiracy," such as Oswald's association with Ferry, with the Cuban groups in New Orleans, with the CIA, Mexico City, etc., the HSCA did not find a basis to draw that conclusion. The same can be said for the scientific evidence at Dealy Plaza until the dictabelt evidence was presented. And he quite plainly states that. To pretend otherwise is simply being intellectually dishonest. If this is not otherwise, then tell me what other matters they investigated - say with his associations in the USSR, or whatever - also made them conclude "conspiracy." No need to waste your time - the dictabelt evidence is it. This is not controversial and I amazed you are arguing otherwise.
Furthermore, why are you so willing to adopt Edgar as the end-all? What did the many other commission members say about this issue? YOU challenged me to back up my statement that the conclusion of "conspiracy" was based solely on the dictabelt evidence. Which I did, with the dissent from one of the members of the actual committee who explicitly states that very thing. And this isn't good enough for you? The onus is on you, not me, to prove me wrong.
You're dead set on discounting 40 witnesses. Your "95%" and "directional shooting" meanderings are, at best, dubious and unsupported. You're dead set on avoiding addressing the point: If the vast majority of witnesses reported hearing ALL the shots from ONE direction, and only one sniper was seen firing (from the TSBD), then the notion that someone was shooting as well from the knoll is wrong. Tell me this. How could those 40 witnesses NOT have heard the shots fired from the TSBD? Or are you denying anyone shot from there?
I hope your math is good enough to realize that, if your 95% figure is to be taken seriously, there were 800 witnesses who weighed in. I'll cite my sources on the 40. Can you cite yours on the 800?
I don't think 800 witnesses weighed in on the number and direction of shots, far fewer than that, but I'll wait so see your source on that. But in terms of my ~95% figure, I have in the past cited four tabulations: John McAdams' compilation says 97% one direction; Josiah Thompson says 94% one direction; the HSCA 96% one direction; Stewart Galanor 96% one direction. The average of those four compilations (3 of 4, incidentally, from pro-conspiracy sources), we get... ~95%. Canada Jack (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
You still revert to SCIENTIFIC evidence pre-dictabelt. The observations of 40 eyewitnesses about shots from the knoll, which you continue to sidestep, is another matter altogether.
You're also deflecting by injecting Ferry, Cubans, CIA, et al. Our debate is about your "sole evidence" claim. Again, the 40 eyewitnesses held sway with the committee; they said so. If the relative strength of two pieces of evidence is 70/30, any claim of "sole evidence" is wrong. I didn't claim 800 witnesses weighed in. That's an extrapolation of the 40 "knoll witnesses" and your 95% figure, and I did the calculation to highlight the absurdity of these mid-90% one-directional figures. We all know any such finding is based on the unjustified dismissal of many of those 40.
But I can't say it any better than this:
Very extensive set of quotes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
About 40 witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy claimed either to have heard gunshots from the infamous grassy knoll in the northwest corner of Dealey Plaza, or to have seen smoke or smelled gunpowder in that area.
Interviewing the Dealey Plaza Witnesses
Several of these witnesses were interviewed by newspaper, radio and television reporters immediately after the assassination. The interviews were influential in generating doubt about the lone–gunman theory. Many other interviews have been carried out in the years since the assassination, almost all of them by private researchers.
Examination of photographs and home movies suggests that there were perhaps as many as 600 people in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. Official interviews or statements exist for around 200 of these witnesses. Because the Warren Commission did no investigation of its own, almost all of the witnesses who testified before the Commission were chosen from those who had already made official statements. The other 400 or so, including many of the spectators nearest to the president, were never interviewed officially at all. Few of these missing witnesses were identified, even when the authorities had been informed of their existence (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.15, pp.525f).
In many cases, the witnesses appear not to have been asked about the origin of the shots. Of those who were asked, probably a small majority claimed that the shots came from the general direction of the Texas School Book Depository. A handful of people claimed to have heard shots from both directions. Many had no opinion.
Here is a list, in alphabetical order by surname, and no doubt incomplete, of those witnesses to President Kennedy’s assassination who claimed that one or more shots came from the general direction of the grassy knoll:
Victoria Adams
Danny Garcia Arce
Virgie Baker (née Rackley)
Jane Berry
Charles Brehm
Ochus Campbell
Faye Chism
John Chism
Harold Elkins
Ronald Fischer
Buell Wesley Frazier
Dorothy Garner
Jean Hill
S. M. Holland
Ed Johnson
Dolores Kounas
Paul Landis
Billy Lovelady
Austin Miller
A.J. Millican
Luke Mooney
Thomas Murphy
Jean Newman
William Newman
Kenneth O’Donnell and David Powers
Roberta Parker
Frank Reilly
Arnold Rowland
Edgar Smith
Joe Marshall Smith
Forrest Sorrels
James Tague
Roy Truly
Harry Weatherford
Seymour Weitzman
Otis Williams
Mary Woodward
Abraham Zapruder
Several other witnesses gave statements that may be interpreted as evidence of shots from the grassy knoll.
Four witnesses of varying degrees of credibility, Gordon Arnold, Cheryl McKinnon, Lee Bowers, and Ed Hoffman, also claimed to have experienced shots or other sinister activity on the grassy knoll."
The individuals:
Victoria Adams was watching the motorcade from a window on the fourth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. She believed the sound came from toward the right of the building, rather than from the left and above as it must have been according to subsequent information disseminated by the news services.(Warren Commission Document 5, p.39, 24 November 1963) It seemed as if it came from the right below rather than from the left above.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.388, 7 April 1964)
Danny Arce, a colleague of Lee Oswald, was on the north side of Elm Street, near the TSBD.
To the best of my knowledge there were three shots and they came from the direction of the railroad tracks near the parking lot at the west end of the Depository Building.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.634, 18 March 1964)Mr Ball :Where did you make out the direction of the sound? Mr Arce :Yeah, I thought they came from the railroad tracks to the west of the Texas School Book Depository.…Mr Ball: Now, it sounded to you that the shots came from what direction? Mr Arce: From the tracks on the west deal.…Mr Ball: Did you look back at the building? Mr Arce: No, I didn’t think they came from there. I just looked directly to the railroad tracks and all the people started running up there and I just ran along with them.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, pp.365f, 7 April 1964)
Virginia Rackley, who got married shortly after the assassination, was standing on the north side of Elm Street close to the main entrance to the TSBD.
It sounded as though these sounds were coming from the direction of the Triple Underpass, and looking in that direction after the first shot she saw something bounce from the roadway in front of the Presidential automobile and now presumes it was a bullet bouncing off the pavement. Rackley stated that she did not look up at the Texas School Book Depository building since she did not think that the sounds were coming from that building.(Warren Commission Document 5, pp.66f, 24 November 1963)
Mr Liebeler: Did you have any idea where they [the shots] were coming from? Mrs Baker: Well, the way it sounded — it sounded like it was coming from — there was a railroad track that runs behind the building — there directly behind the building and around, so I guess it would be by the underpass, the triple underpass, and there is a railroad track that runs back out there. Mr Liebeler: And you say there are some railroad tracks back in there; is that right? Mrs Baker: Yes. Mr Liebeler: Immediately behind Dealey Plaza away from Elm Street? Mrs Baker: Yes. Mr Liebeler: And is that where you thought the shots came from? Mrs Baker: Yes. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.510, 22 March 1964)
Jane Berry was standing on the north side of Elm Street a few yards west of the TSBD. Everyone was very excited and no one seemed to know where the shot had come from. It sounded as if it had been fired from a position west of where she was standing.(Warren Commission Document 5, p.42, 24 November 1964)
Charles Brehm was standing with his wife and young son on the south side of Elm Street, just a few yards from President Kennedy at the moment of the fatal shot. The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. “The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back.” Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President’s location at the time of the shooting. (Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.1)
Ochus Campbell, the vice–president of the Texas School Book Depository Company, was standing with Roy Truly on the north side of Elm Street, about 30 feet from the front entrance to the TSBD. Campbell says he ran toward a grassy knoll to the west of the building, where he thought the sniper had hidden. (Dallas Morning News, 23 November 1963) Mr. CAMPBELL advised he had viewed the Presidential Motorcade and subsequently heard the shots being fired from a point which he thought was near the railroad tracks located over the viaduct on Elm Street. (Warren Commission Document 5, p.336, 26 November 1963) I heard shots being fired from a point which I thought was near the railroad tracks located over the viaduct on Elm street. I … had no occasion to look back at the Texas School Book Depository building as I thought the shots had come from the west. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.638, 19 March 1964)
Faye and John Chism were standing close to the Stemmons Freeway sign on the north side of Elm Street. "It came from what I thought was behind us." (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.472, 22 November 1963)
John Chism
I looked behind me, to see whether it was a fireworks display or something. And then I saw a lot of people running for cover, behind the embankment there back up on the grass. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.471, 22 November 1963) On hearing the second shot he definitely knew the first was not a firecracker and was of the opinion the shots came from behind him. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.24, p.525, 18 December 1963)
Harold Elkins was standing close to the crossroads at Main Street and Houston Street. "I immediately ran to the area from which it sounded like the shots had been fired. This is an area between the railroads and the Texas School Book Depository which is east of the railroads." (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.540, 26 November 1964)
Ronald Fischer was standing on the southwest corner of the crossroads at Houston Street and Elm Street, just opposite the TSBD. Mr Belin:Where did the shots appear to be coming from? Mr Fischer: They appeared to be coming from just west of the School Book Depository Building. There were some railroad tracks and there were some railroad cars back in there. Mr Belin: And they appeared to be coming from those railroad cars? Mr Fischer: Well, that area somewhere. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.195, 1 April 1964)
Buell Wesley Frazier, who had driven Oswald to work that morning, was standing on the front steps of the TSBD. Mr Ball: Now, then, did you have any impression at that time as to the direction from which the sound came? Mr Frazier: Well to be frank with you I thought it come from down there, you know, where that underpass is. There is a series, quite a few number of them railroad tracks running together and from where I was standing it sounded like it was coming from down the railroad tracks there. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, p.234, 11 March 1964)
Dorothy Garner was watching the motorcade from a fourth–floor window of the TSBD. "I thought at the time the shots or reports came from a point to the west of the building." (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.648, 20 March 1964)
Jean Hill was standing on the south side of Elm Street, just a few yards from President Kennedy as he was shot in the head. Mrs. Hill stated she heard from four to six shots in all and believes they came from a spot just west of the Texas School Book Depository Building. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.25, p.854, 13 March 1964) Mrs Hill: I didn’t realize that the shots were coming from the building. I frankly thought they were coming from the knoll. Mr Specter: Why did you think they were coming from the knoll? Mrs Hill: That was just my idea where they were coming from. Mr Specter: Would you draw the knoll on the picture, where you mean by the knoll? Mrs Hill: This area in front of the Book Depository — it’s right here. Mr Specter: Just draw me a circle as to where you had a general impression the shots were coming from. Mrs Hill: This is a hill and it was like they were coming from right in there. Mr Specter: Now, did you have a conscious impression of the source of the first shot that you heard, that is, where it came from? Mrs Hill: Well, evidently I didn’t because the only conscious recollection I have of that … I had always thought that they came from the knoll. … As I said, I thought they were coming from the general direction of that knoll. Mr Specter: You just had the general impression that shots were coming from the knoll? Mrs Hill: Yes. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, pp.212f, 24 March 1964)
Sam Holland was standing on the railway bridge known as the triple underpass, at the west end of Dealey Plaza. "When they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked over toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw. … But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.480, 22 November 1963) HOLLAND stated that he looked toward the fence to his left to observe anyone that he might see running from this fence but saw no one. The only unusual thing that HOLLAND could recall was an approximate one and one–half to two foot diameter of what he believed was gray smoke which appeared to him to be coming from the trees which would have been on the right of the Presidential car but observed no one there or in the vicinity. (Warren Commission Document 5, p.49, 24 November 1963) Mr Holland: "I counted four shots and about the same time all this was happening, and in this group of trees — [indicating]. Mr Stern: Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of Elm Street? Mr Holland: These trees right along here [indicating]. Mr Stern: Let’s mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around the trees you are referring to. Mr Holland: Right in there. [Indicating.] … And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a fire–cracker or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. … There were definitely four reports. Mr Stern: You have no doubt about that? Mr Holland: I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, pp.243f, 8 April 1964)
Ed Johnson, a reporter for the Fort Worth Star–Telegram, was in the press bus, a few car–lengths back in the motorcade, and described his experiences in the next day’s paper: "The shots snapped out in the brisk, clear noon air. Some reporter said, 'My God, what’s that? It must be shots.' The caravan kept wheeling on, picking up speed. Some of the White House reporters yelled for the bus driver to stop. He kept on going, heading toward the Stemmons Expressway. Some of us saw little puffs of white smoke that seemed to hit the grassy area in the esplanade that divides Dallas’ main downtown streets." (Fort Worth Star–Telegram, 23 November 1963, p.2)
Dolores Kounas was standing on the south side of Elm Street, opposite the TSBD. "It sounded as though these shots were coming from the Triple Underpass." … She stated it did not sound like the shots were coming from that [TSBD] direction but rather from the Triple Underpass. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.846, 24 November 1963) "Although I was across the street from the Depository building and was looking in the direction of the building as the motorcade passed and following the shots, I did not look up at the building as I had thought the shots came from a westerly direction in the vicinity of the viaduct. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.659, 23 March 1964)
Paul Landis was a Secret Service agent in the car immediately behind President Kennedy’s car. "My reaction at this time was that the [fatal] shot came from somewhere towards the front. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.18, p.759, 17 November 1963)
Bill Lovelady was standing on the front steps of the TSBD. "I heard several loud reports which I first thought to be firecrackers and which appeared to me to be in the direction of Elm Street viaduct just ahead of the Motorcade. I did not at any time believe the shots had come from the Texas School Book Depository." (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.662, 19 March 1964) Mr Ball: Where was the direction of the sound? Mr Lovelady: Right there around that concrete little deal on that knoll. Mr Ball: That’s where it sounded to you? Mr Lovelady: Yes, sir; to my right. …Mr Ball: From the underpass area? Mr Lovelady: Between the underpass and the building right on that knoll. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.338, 7 April 1964)
Austin Miller was standing with other railway employees on the Triple Underpass. "I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the Railroad tracks. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.485, 22 November 1963) Mr Belin: Where did the shots sound like they came from? Mr Miller: Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say from right there in the car. Would be to my left, the way I was looking at him over toward that incline. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.225, 8 April 1964)
A.J. Millican "I was standing on the North side of Elm Street, about half way between Houston and the Underpass. … I heard three shots come from up toward Houston and Elm right by the Book Depository Building, and then immediately I heard two more shots come from the Arcade between the Book Store and the Underpass, and then three more shots came from the same direction only sounded further back. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.486, no date, but filed with a group of similar statements given on 22 November 1963)
Luke Mooney, a deputy sheriff, was standing on Main Street, on the edge of Dealey Plaza. He was one of the officers who found the rifle hidden under boxes on the sixth floor. Mr Ball: Why did you go over to the railroad yard? Mr Mooney: Well, that was — from the echo of the shots, we thought they came from that direction. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.283, 25 March 1964)
Thomas Murphy was standing on the Triple Underpass. MURPHY said in his opinion these shots came from a spot just west of the Texas School Book Depository Building. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.835, 17 March 1964)
Jean Newman was standing on the north side of Elm Street, between the TSBD and the knoll. "The first impression I had was that the shots came from my right." (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.489, 22 November 1963) She stated that when she realized the reports were shots she immediately turned and looked up the hill to the North toward the parking lot but did not see anything. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.843, 24 November 1963)
William Newman (no relation to Jean Newman) was also standing on the north side of Elm Street, a little further along toward the knoll.
"I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vacinity [sic] of the garden. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.490, 22 November 1963)
Kenneth O’Donnell and David Powers
Two members of the White House staff, Kenneth O’Donnell and David Powers, were travelling in the Secret Service car immediately behind President Kennedy’s car. O’Donnell testified that the shots came from the rear (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.448). Powers agreed, but added that “I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass” (ibid., p.473).
Roberta Parker was standing directly opposite the main entrance to the TSBD. The shot sounded to her as though it had come from a cement memorial building to the north of the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street. She looked in that direction but saw nothing that she could relate to the shot. During this time, she heard two additional shots and in looking around, glanced at the Texas School Book Depository building which was directly across Elm from her. (Warren Commission Document 205, p.504, 16 December 1963)
Frank Reilly was standing with other railway workers on the railway bridge at the west end of Dealey Plaza. He saw two cars turn on Elm toward the underpass and at this time heard three shots which he thought came from the trees west of the Texas School Book Depository. (Warren Commission Document 205, p.29, 18 December 1963) Mr Ball: What did you hear? Mr Reilly: Three shots. Mr Ball: Where did they seem to come from; what direction? Mr Reilly: It seemed to me like they come out of the trees. Mr Ball: What trees? Mr Reilly: On the north side of Elm Street at the corner up there. Mr Ball: On the north side of Elm — on what corner? Mr Reilly: Well, where all those trees are — you’ve never been down there? Mr Ball: Yes: I’ve been there, but you tell me — I want you to tell me because it has to go on the record here and it has to be in writing. Mr Reilly: Well, it’s at that park where all the shrubs is up there — it’s to the north of Elm Street — up the slope. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.230, 8 April 1964)
Arnold Rowland was standing on the east side of Houston Street, facing the TSBD. Mr Specter: Did you have any impression or reaction as to the point of origin when you heard the first noise? Mr Rowland: Well, I began looking, I didn’t look at the building mainly, and as practically any of the police officers there will tell you, the echo effect was such that it sounded like it came from the railroad yards. That is where I looked, that is where all the policemen, everyone, converged on the railroads.…Mr Specter: Now, as to the second shot, did you have any impression as to the point of origin or source? Mr Rowland: The same point or very close to it. Mr Specter: And how about the third shot? Mr Rowland: Very close to the same position.…Mr Specter: After the shots occurred, did you ever look back at the Texas School Book Depository Building? Mr Rowland: No; I did not. In fact, I went over toward the scene of the railroad yards myself. Mr Specter: Why did you not look back at the Texas School Book Depository Building in view of the fact that you had seen a man with a rifle up there earlier in the day? Mr Rowland: I don’t remember. It was mostly due to the confusion, and then the fact that it sounded like it came from this area “C”, and that all the officers, enforcement officers, were converging on that area, and I just didn’t pay any attention to it at that time. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.180f, 10 March 1964)
Edgar Smith, a police officer, was standing on Houston Street, near the junction with Elm Street. Mr Smith: I thought when it came to my mind that there were shots, and I was pretty sure there were when I saw his car because they were leaving in such a hurry, I thought they were coming from this area here, and I ran over there and back of it and, of course, there wasn’t anything there. Mr Liebeler: You thought the shot came from this little concrete structure up behind No. 7? Mr Smith: Yes, sir. Mr Liebeler: On Commission Exhibit 354? Mr Smith: Yes. Mr Liebeler: Toward the railroad tracks there? Mr Smith: That’s true. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.568, 24 July 1964)
Joe Marshall Smith. Like his fellow police officer, Edgar Smith, Joe Marshall Smith (no relation) was at the corner of Elm Street and Houston Street. "[T]he reporter calling stated he had interviewed Patrolman J. M. Smith who advised that he definitely distinguished the aroma of gunpowder near the underpass. … He stated he did smell what he thought was gunpowder but stated this smell was in the parking lot by the TSBD Building and not by the underpass. He advised he never at any time went to the underpass and could not advise if there was the smell of gunpowder in the underpass. (Warren Commission Document 205, p.39, 9 December 1963) I heard the shots and thought they were coming from bushes of the overpass. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.600, 16 July 1964) Mr Liebeler: Did you have any basis for believing where the shots came from, or where to look for somebody, other than what the lady told you? Mr Smith: No, sir; except that maybe it was a power of suggestion. But it sounded to me like they may have came from this vicinity here. Mr Liebeler: Down around the — let’s put a No. 5 there [on Commission Exhibit 354] at the corner here behind this concrete structure where the bushes were down toward the railroad tracks from the Texas School Book Depository Building? Mr Smith: Yes. Mr Liebeler: Now you say that you had the idea that the shots may have come from up in that area? Mr Smith: Yes, sir; that is just what, well, like I say, the sound of it. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, pp.535f, 23 July 1964)
Forrest Sorrels, a Secret Service agent, was in the car immediately following the presidential car. "I looked towards the top of the terrace to my right as the sound of the shots seemed to come from that direction." (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.21, p.548, 28 November 1963)
James Tague, the third man wounded in Dealey Plaza, was standing close to the point where Commerce Street meets Main Street, by the triple underpass.
Mr Liebeler: Did you have any idea where these shots came from when you heard them ringing out? Mr Tague: Yes; I thought they were coming from my left. Mr Liebeler: Immediately to your left, or toward the back? Of course, now we have other evidence that would indicate that the shots did come from the Texas School Book Depository, but see if we can disregard that and determine just what you heard when the shots were fired in the first place. Mr Tague: To recall everything is almost impossible. Just an impression is all I recall, is the fact that my first impression was that up by the, whatever you call the monument, or whatever it was —…Mr Liebeler: Your impression of where the shots came from was much the result of the activity near No. 7 [on Commission Exhibit 354]? Mr Tague: Not when I heard the shots. Mr Liebeler: You thought they had come from the area between Nos. 7 and 5? Mr Tague: I believe they came from up in here. Mr Liebeler: Back in the area “C”? Mr Tague: Right. Mr Liebeler: Behind the concrete monument here between Nos. 7 and 5, toward the general area of “C”? Mr Tague: Yes. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, pp.556f, 23 March 1964)
Roy Truly, a director and the superintendant of the Texas School Book Depository. Mr Belin: Where did you think the shots came from? Mr Truly: I thought the shots came from the vicinity of the railroad or the WPA project [the concrete structure], behind the WPA project west of the building. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.227, 24 March 1964)
Harry Weatherford, a deputy sheriff, was standing outside the Criminal Court building on Main Street. "I heard a loud report which I thought was a railroad torpedo, as it sounded as if it came from the railroad yard. Thinking, this was a heck of a time for one to go off, then I heard a 2nd report which had more of an echo report and thought to myself, that this was a rifle and I started towards the corner when I heard the 3rd report. By this time I was running towards the railroad yards where the sound seemed to come from." (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.502, 23 November 1963)
Seymour Weitzman was one of the police officers who discovered the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD. At the time of the shooting, he was on the corner of Main Street and Houston Street. "I ran in a northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots came from." (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.24, p.228, 23 November 1963)
Otis Williams was standing on the front steps of the TSBD. "Just after the Presidential car passed the building and went out of sight over the Elm Street embankment I heard three loud blasts. I thought these blasts or shots came from the direction of the viaduct which crosses Elm Street." (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.683, 19 March 1964)
Mary Woodward, a journalist on the Dallas Morning News, was standing on the north side of Elm Street, about halfway between the TSBD and the grassy knoll. She wrote about her experience in the following day’s paper. "Suddenly there was a horrible, ear–shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right.(‘Witness From the News Describes Assassination’, Dallas Morning News, 23 November 1963, p.3) United States Attorney H. BAREFOOT SANDERS, Dallas, Texas, telephonically advised ASAC KYLE G. CLARK on December 5, 1963, that a reporter for the Dallas “Morning News”, name unrecalled, had advised him that four of the women working in the Society Section of the Dallas “Morning News” were reportedly standing next to Mr. ZAPRUDA [sic] when the assassination shots were fired. According to this reporter, these women, names unknown, stated that the shots according to their opinion came from a direction other than from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building. (Warren Commission Document 205, p.39, 5 December 1963) She stated that her first reaction was that the shots had been fired from above her head and from possibly behind her. Her next reaction was that the shots might have come from the overpass which was to her right. She stated, however, because of the loud echo, she could not say where the shots had come from, other that they had come from above her head. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.24, p.520, 6 December 1963)
Abraham Zapruder famously filmed the assassination from the top of a concrete pedestal on Elm Street close to the grassy knoll.
According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder. (Warren Commission Document 87, page unknown, 22 November 1963) Mr Zapruder: I remember the police were running behind me. There were police running right behind me. Of course, they didn’t realize yet, I guess, where the shot came from — that it came from that height. Mr Liebeler: As you were standing on this abutment facing Elm street, you say the police ran over behind the concrete structure behind you and down the railroad track behind that, is that right? Mr Zapruder: After the shots? Mr Liebeler: Yes. Mr Zapruder: Yes — after the shots — yes, some of them were motorcycle cops – I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me. Mr Liebeler: Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came? Mr Zapruder: No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can’t tell when something is in line — it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head — I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could come from there. Mr Liebeler: All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you? Mr Zapruder: Well, yes. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, pp.571f, 22 July 1964)
Sole evidence? 5198blk (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Please keep quotes from supporting documentation short, you don't need to post the entire investigation. I've hatted the quote for the sake of navigation. Acroterion (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Dictabelt evidence and HSCA conclusion of conspiracy: You still revert to SCIENTIFIC evidence pre-dictabelt. The observations of 40 eyewitnesses about shots from the knoll, which you continue to sidestep, is another matter altogether. Clearly, you are not well-versed in many aspects of the Kennedy assassination. Despite what you say, the notion that the dictabelt evidence - alone - changed the HSCA conclusion from that of "no evidence of conspiracy" to a conclusion of conspiracy is a fact and not controversial.
Here is some more from the HSCA report (from the Samuel Devine, Robert Edgar dissent): "The testimony of acoustical experts was given such weight that most committee members were persuaded that a fourth shot was fired at Kennedy." and "Based on this evidence and testimony [the acoustic evidence], a majority of the select committee concluded there was a 'high probability of a conspiracy.'" And, from Edgar's separate dissent, an even more explicit link to the evidence and the "conspiracy" conclusion: "We found no evidence to suggest a conspiracy. We found no gunmen or evidence of a gunman. We found no gun, no shells, no impact of shots from the grassy knoll. We found no entry wounds from the front into any person, including President John Kennedy and Gov. John Connally. We found no bullets or fragments of bullets that did not belong to the Oswald weapon. And we found little, if any, evidence of partnership with Lee Harvey Oswald. Few credible ear-witness accounts back up the marginal findings of our acoustics experts." Further, in asking questions about the acoustic evidence, he says this: "Do we know enough to make our judgment on conspiracy accurate? To the last question, I say no." This again underlines the fact that the acoustic evidence drove the conclusion. And... "Did we rush to a conspiratorial conclusion? I believe that exhibit "A" will clearly demonstrate a rush to conspiratorial conclusions." For Exhibit "A," see below.
Edgar in his dissent reproduced in several columns the changes in conclusions from the initial Dec 13 1978 draft.
DRAFT REPORT: "There is insufficient evidence to find that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy."
FINAL REPORT: "Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that 2 gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of 2 gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations."
The only evidence which they had been presented between the Dec 13 draft and the Dec 29 final report were the conclusions regarding the dictabelt evidence. The witness testimony was only cited as it generally corroborated that revised conclusion - it didn't suffice on its own to warrant that conclusion as is clear from the draft report.
The 40 witnesses list: It seems clear to me that you don't understand the point I was making - the premise of your "800 witnesses" demand underlines this basic misunderstanding. But I am not surprised - most in the conspiracy community gloss over or avoid this fundamental question: If there were two snipers firing at Kennedy, why do the vast majority - some 95% - say the shots came from one direction?
Let me be very specific here. ~95% refers to the witnesses - whether they said the shots came from the TSBD, from the knoll, from wherever - who said "one direction." Not, as you seem to think based on my ~95% claim, your 40 represents 5% of witnesses who reported shots from a location, that being the knoll, so where are the 800 - representing 95% - who said TSBD? The simple question is, since we know someone was firing from the TSBD, how could those who reported shots from the knoll (and, as your own post says only "A handful of people claimed to have heard shots from both directions.") NOT have heard shots AS WELL from the TSBD? I think the answer is obvious - people were confused about the direction of the shots, which is my so many gave no opinion as to where the shots came from. Canada Jack (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
"Clearly, you are not well-versed in many aspects of the Kennedy assassination." and "It seems clear to me that you don't understand the point I was making." You frequently insert comments like these, and they're offensive. I am very well-versed in the JFK assassination, but you and I see things differently. You should refrain from belittling those with whom you're debating. I understand you're a veteran Wikipedia lone-gunman partisan, but that doesn't confer any measure of superiority to your views or the extent of your knowledge.
I don't have time to address your Edgar-based views and inaccurate 95% claim tonight. I'll respond soon. 5198blk (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
"I am very well-versed in the JFK assassination, but you and I see things differently." Well, 5198, you repeatedly denied what any student of the assassination knows as a fact - the HSCA was going to conclude "insufficient evidence of conspiracy" until the acoustic evidence was presented. To me that means you are not as well-versed on the subject as you like to think. And it's not a matter of "seeing things differently." Indeed, you denied it yet again by suggesting those "Edgar-based" views would be addressed even though I included the original draft conclusion of the full (i.e. not just Edgar) committee- which said there was insufficient evidence of conspiracy!
"It seems clear to me that you don't understand the point I was making." "You should refrain from belittling those with whom you're debating." It's not "belittling" to point out that your retort to my claim had NOTHING to do with addressing it! You addressed my ~95% point with a totally irrelevant listing of some 40 witness accounts which said knoll! When did I ever deny that many witnesses said "knoll"? Further, it is more than a little patronizing to list ALL 40 accounts - as if this was some sort of news flash, as if I had to be informed about a rather basic aspect of the assassination investigation. As if I ever denied many witnesses said that is where the shots came from. And, more to the point, even though that is completely irrelevant to what I was saying in terms of my 95% claim (which you have YET to address).
"I don't have time to address your Edgar-based views and inaccurate 95% claim tonight." Odd how you feel free to insult me on my "interpretations" on what are both easily confirmed facts of the case - how the dictabelt evidence changed the HSCA conclusions on "conspiracy," and how multiple tabulations say that some 95% of witnesses reported only a single direction for the shots. Indeed, even WHAT YOU POSTED said essentially that - many said one direction, many said another, but only "a handful" said TWO. YOU posted that!
So, I hope, this time you will finally address my question on the 95% fact - if we are to believe there were at least two snipers, and that is based in large part on the witness statements (many of which you cited), then given we know for sure there was a sniper in the TSBD, why did those knoll witnesses NOT hear any shots coming from there? Canada Jack (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
So many inaccuracies - where do I begin? <<what any student of the assassination knows as a fact - the HSCA was going to conclude "insufficient evidence of conspiracy" until the acoustic evidence was presented.>> There are many "students of the assassination" who dispute this. So it's not "fact" - it's your position. I've been involved in litigation for 35+ years, and a sentence in a draft is just that - a draft. It has no real weight in the end, and, in this case, certainly not the weight you want to give it. Various factions introduce various drafts for consideration. That doesn't mean there was a consensus. You have latched onto Edgar because his partisan view supports yours. But our current debate started when I challenged your claim that the dictabelt analysis was the "sole evidence," a claim that is clearly dubious in light of the commission's concern with all the eyewitness accounts.
<<It's not "belittling" to point out that your retort to my claim had NOTHING to do with addressing it! You addressed my ~95% point with a totally irrelevant listing of some 40 witness accounts which said knoll!>> My retort had everything to do with addressing your claim. You simply refuse to see it. There weren't 800 witness accounts, which, considering there were 40 accounts citing the knoll, renders this 95% figure ridiculous. That's been my point since the beginning. It doesn't matter to most of us how many witnesses heard shots coming from two locations. If you were close to the knoll, you likely believed that's where the shots were fired. If you were close to the TSBD, you likely believed that's where the shots were fired. The 40 witnesses are only irrelevant in your world. 5198blk (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
One thing I'd be curious about is exactly how many witness accounts there were. And also, how are those broken down? For example, if someone said "three or four", are those in the "four" group, the "three" group, or are they separate? My hunch (and it's really only a hunch) is that there's some duplication in the two camps. Almostfm (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

So it's not "fact" - it's your position. I've been involved in litigation for 35+ years, and a sentence in a draft is just that - a draft. It is a fact, 5198, I supplied the text from the committee members' dissents which establish the sequence of events AND the text of the draft compared to the final report which, Edgar explicitly states, was driven by the acoustic evidence. The onus is on you to find a committee member who disputes this - you haven't and you won't be able to. Further, it's not "just a sentence," it's the MAIN CONCLUSION that was changed. And, as Edgar plainly states, it is what the committee agreed upon up to the point of the dictabelt evidence. That was presented, the conclusion was changed and, not incidentally, the conclusion cites the "scientific acoustic evidence" as the reason for the conclusion of conspiracy. If the witness accounts carried the weight you claim, then the draft would have concluded conspiracy - it didn't.

Various factions introduce various drafts for consideration. That doesn't mean there was a consensus. Two points. One - this was the only draft, there were no "factions" coming up with their own conclusion - this was the full committee's draft report. Edgar even discusses the full committee going over the draft! You imply there are other drafts? Let's see the evidence for that. As for the lack of a consensus, well that's obvious - otherwise the report would have been unanimously accepted. But to claim as you do that there were various drafts floating around, hoping to be accepted, is contrary to every thing I've read on how the final report was written. You are grasping at straws here, 5198. Again, prove me wrong, instead of pulling scenarios out of the ether with no basis in reality.

It doesn't matter to most of us how many witnesses heard shots coming from two locations. If you were close to the knoll, you likely believed that's where the shots were fired. If you were close to the TSBD, you likely believed that's where the shots were fired. The 40 witnesses are only irrelevant in your world.

The fact that it "doesn't matter to most of us" how many witnesses heard shots coming from two directions underlines the vacuity of the conspiracy claims from most in that community. It matters FUNDAMENTALLY that shots were heard by the vast majority of witnesses from one and only one direction. Why? Because the claim is snipers fired from TWO (or even more), not ONE, location. It sounds to me like there is a bit of cognitive dissonance going on here with you, 5198. You are almost there - "If you were close to the knoll, you likely believed that's where the shots were fired. If you were close to the TSBD, you likely believed that's where the shots were fired." - what does that mean? You very nearly said it - It means they were hearing the SAME shots. Do you expect us to believe that, for example, for many witnesses who were between the TSBD and the knoll that they could NOT discern shots were coming from different directions? Or that witnesses at the knoll and TSBD were collectively deaf to hearing shots from the other location?

As for this: There weren't 800 witness accounts, which, considering there were 40 accounts citing the knoll, renders this 95% figure ridiculous. That's been my point since the beginning. Again, you demonstrate you completely miss the point of what I was saying. Let me put it another way - those 40 knoll witnesses ARE PART OF THE 95% who claimed one direction. I am NOT saying ~95% heard shots from the TSBD, I am saying ~95% heard shots from ONE direction, an entirely different thing. The conspiracy community fixation on the numbers of witnesses knoll vs TSBD is a classic "Emperor has no clothes" argument - because for there to have been a knoll assassin in the first place would REQUIRE a substantial number of witnesses reporting shots from TWO, not one, direction. THAT is the fundamental point. YOU are fixated on the numbers of knoll vs TSBD witnesses, which is not what I was arguing about. WHERE the witnesses thought they heard the shots were coming from is in the end INCIDENTAL, despite the claims otherwise from the conspiracy crowd, because we KNOW a sniper was firing from the TSBD, and ~95 of witnesses (many who claimed the shots came from the knoll) only heard shots from ONE direction. The ONLY viable explanation is that there were three shots from the TSBD and there was great confusion about where the shots came from.

Oh, and here are the sources for the tabulations. Yes, it's McAdam's site, but the sources he has are three who concluded "conspiracy." [4] John McAdams' compilation says 97% one direction; Josiah Thompson says 94% one direction; the HSCA 96% one direction; Stewart Galanor 96% one direction.

Oh yeah - one final point on the "knoll" assassin - Lee Bowers had a clear, unobstructed view of the back of the stockade fence when the motorcade caravan passed by and out of his view as it descended Elm Street behind the fence and the trees. He said that "no one" was there as the shots rang out. Mark Lane, who filmed the interview, excised that rather fundamental piece of evidence from his film. Canada Jack (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

One thing I'd be curious about is exactly how many witness accounts there were. There are numerous tabulations, the problem being how to classify a witness as, say, a knoll witness. Check the link I posted above from McAdams. I've often seen (though not from 5198, to his credit) Bill Newman cited as a "knoll" witness when he in fact said the shots came from the direction of the pergola behind him. For some, it seems, it suffices that a witness said "somewhere on Elm" and they become a "knoll" witness.
Further, and this wasn't discussed much here, but a similar ~95% of witnesses reported a maximum of three shots, which is problematic for those who want to embrace the dictabelt evidence or the second sniper - most scenarios involve a minimum of four shots, the vast majority reported hearing fewer. Canada Jack (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
<<It is a fact, 5198, I supplied the text from the committee members' dissents>> It's not fact if it's just one committee member's opinion. As I said before, you've latched onto Edgar as your savior, but things don't work that way.
Why are you so obsessed with this "one direction" issue? Seems like desperation to me. You want to negate valuable real-time eyewitness accounts by suggesting they were duped by what - acoustics? Rather than real gunfire? Right. Got it. 5198blk (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not fact if it's just one committee member's opinion. As I said before, you've latched onto Edgar as your savior, but things don't work that way. The two committee members explicitly say what I claim - that the acoustic evidence drove the conclusion of conspiracy. The onus is on you to either show evidence which shows them to be liars, or evidence from other members which say something else. You've done neither.
Why are you so obsessed with this "one direction" issue? Seems like desperation to me. You avoided answering the simple question yet again - who's showing "desperation"? Logic and common sense, two things sadly missing from most in the conspiracy community, suggest that if there were two gunmen, then we'd have a good number of witnesses reporting hearing shots from two directions. But in fact, some 95% say one direction. You see no issue - none - with that? The simple fact that so many in the conspiracy crowd can't even address this glaring hole in their premise there was a knoll gunman shows how much of a religious conviction conspiracy is to them.
You want to negate valuable real-time eyewitness accounts by suggesting they were duped by what - acoustics? Did these "valuable real-time eyewitness accounts" mention anyone SEEING a sniper behind the fence? NO! The closest you have are reports of smoke, but unless the knoll assassin was Yosemite Sam with a blunderbuss, we can dismiss any significance there. Besides, many witnesses said the underpass, or the pergola, or many other locations in the plaza - what about them? Doesn't THAT suggest we are talking confusion with acoustics? Since 95% say "one direction," the common sense answer is YES. Besides, Lee Bowers said that there was no one behind he fence when the motorcade passed, so end of story. Canada Jack (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You have no justification for the conclusion you draw from your (inaccurate) 95% "one direction" position - that it proves shots could have ONLY come from the TSBD. Why is 95% inaccurate? Here is the breakdown of the witnesses (unfortunately limited by the original WC whitewash) and the shots:
"216 Witnesses:
a. 48 (22.2%) thought shots from TSBD
b. 52 (24.1%) thought shots from knoll
c. 5 (2.3%) thought shots from both TSBD and knoll
d. 4 (1.9%) thought shots from elsewhere
e. 37 (17.1%) unable to tell from where shots were fired
f. 70 (32.4%) were not asked about direction"
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm
Only a. and b. can be characterized as "one direction." That's only 46.3% of all witnesses, not 95%. (And it's not even all true witnesses, since the WC failed to call many of them to testify.) If you are dismissing d., e., and f. from the pool, the basis of your 95% figure is silly putty. 5198blk (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit reverted with no reason given.

I had wondered why Canada Jack reverted my edit of the 'Conspiracies section' in which I deleted references to specific conspiracy theories like those involving the CIA and KGB due to weight concerns and added a link to the Conspiracy theory page, as he gave no reason for doing so in the edit summary or on the Talk Page. CodeBadger (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

MY EDIT (reverted by Canada Jack)

Many conspiracy theories posit that the assassination involved people or organizations other than Lee Harvey Oswald.<144>

CURRENT PARAGRAPH

Many conspiracy theories posit that the assassination involved people or organizations other than Lee Harvey Oswald. Most current theories put forth a criminal conspiracy involving parties as varied as the CIA, the Mafia, Vice President Johnson, Cuban President Fidel Castro, the KGB, or some combination of those entities.<144>

Pinging User:Canada Jack Meters (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Pinging"? CodeBadger (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I notified the editor in question (by linking ot his username) that you were asking why he undid you since you didn't ask him on his talk page as you should have, and he might not see this thread. Meters (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I will ask Canada Jack on his Talk page why he reverted this edit and the image box edit. CodeBadger (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Because your edits have been disruptive and you've repeatedly ignored the consensus of editors here, you should discuss any and all changes here before you put them on the main page. In the latest case, you, for no stated reason, removed the main players identified by conspiracy theorists and you inserted an irrelevant photo of the back-up vehicle. Canada Jack (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate you taking the time to give a reason for reverting my edits and apologize for taking an aggressive position in the past in relation to my edits on the JFK assassination page. Cheers. CodeBadger (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits

I would like to change the expression of the retrieval dates to one format (YY-MM-DD) for the sake of consistency as three formats are currently used in the article (e.g., ‘12 February 2015’, ‘June 18, 2016’ and ‘2011-02-06’).

I would also like to add a link to the 'Conspiracy theory' article in the 'Conspiracy theories' section as there is no link to it in this section or anywhere else in the article, as follows:

Thank you for taking the time to consider these edits. CodeBadger (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, please stop copying text from the article onto the talk page. ( I have removed it.) We can see what it says ourselves, or you can link to the section like this Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy#Conspiracy_theories.
What do you mean there is no link to that article? The first line of the "Conspiracy theories" section is a hatnote pointing to the main article on the conspiracy theories.
Yes the sources should all have the same date format. I'll fix it. Meters (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the dates. The hat note has a link to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article, but there is no link to the Conspiracy theory article. So it seemed to me that it would be desirable to link the Conspiracy theory article to the words "conspiracy theories" in the section about conspiracy theories as follows: conspiracy theories. I copied the text from the article in this section to illustrate this, but it appears that you mistook this link to be the same as the one to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article in the hat note as I had failed to adequately explain what I wanted. CodeBadger (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I missed that. Sorry.
I don't see a need to link to the general Conspiracy theory article when we already link to the specific JFK conspiracy theory article, but it's not a big deal to me. I certainly won't argue if others agree that it is useful. Meters (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. CodeBadger (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

Grt

—92.11.198.21 (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates given link to appropriate place on Dealey Plaza. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
erm... OP asked for coordinates to be fixed: coordinates are correct, so I answered "Coordinates correct". problem? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I just didnt understand the conversation, so I asked you. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference newsweek 112814 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy/Archive_17&oldid=1079510123"