Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

References

I see no reason why the "disputed", or "not referenced" tags should be there. The page has been cleaned. Maybe there should be a tag saying "Please do not add any comments without proper references". That would discourage any random theories. Any comments? --andreasegde 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the original research tag. I think we should keep the factual dispute tag. Since it is a conspiracy section, and it serves as a disclaimer that Wiki isn't endorsing any of the theories listed. Ramsquire 17:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Files confession

The statement by alleged assassin Files was deleted with a comment "unreliable sources about a living person."

Could the person that deleted the statement identify the "living person" the particular offending statement and the "unreliable sources?"

RPJ 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Files made the comments himself, and on film, so how can it be unreliable? It's amazing that when Oswald said that he was a "patsy", it was considered unreliable (and he was lying) but when Files admitted that he was there, it is also considered unreliable. Wonders will never cease....--andreasegde 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My statement was regarding the source of the information. It is the webpage which I consider unreliable for a report of this magnitude regarding a living person, as per the rules at WP:BLP. Gamaliel 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is the living person to which you refer? RPJ 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the James Files article, James Files is still alive. Gamaliel 20:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But, James Files is the one making the statements to the researcher about the dead Mafia figures. If the Mafia figures were still alive then you possibly might have something to consider.

Please revert your deletion.

Thank you RPJ 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the dead Mafia dons. I'm talking about Files' supposed confession. For us to say that this man confessed to killing JFK requires a better source for his confession than some Belgian conspiracy website. Gamaliel 21:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Files write a book confessing for this? Or am I mistaken him for someone else? Ramsquire 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If he did, let's cite the book and then the material can be restored to the article. Gamaliel 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

After some cursory research, the confession is part of a documentary called "The Murder of JFK: Confession of an Assassin". Amazon.com has it on VHS, but there is no book. I figure if we give it the same treatment we gave the ABC documentary on the JFK assassination page, then it can be re-inserted into the article. (Note to other editors-- the best way to get info into the article is to get reliable sources and cite them accurately. Not to question the motives of other editors or cry foul. This issue could have been solved two days ago with a little research.) Ramsquire 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well put. All that had to be done to put an end to this matter would be to say "He put out a video" instead of attacking me. Gamaliel 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Try these:[1],[2],[3],[4]. Some are for, against, and neutral. The piece about Files should go back in. --andreasegde 20:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

One is a bio of Daankbar and is irrelevant to proper sourcing re: James Files. Two and three probably don't meet the standards of WP:RS, and four is a link to purchase the documentary and shouldn't be used in any Wiki article. Ramsquire 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Daankbar interviewed Files. Since when was Spartacus [5] irrelevant? I have seen it cited lots of times. What about this? [6] --andreasegde 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote, I made no judgments about spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk's bio of Daankbar. However, said bio of Daankbar is not relevant to Files. Ramsquire 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Daankbar piece mentions Files in the article. --andreasegde 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See below. Ramsquire 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the Files info. JFKmurdersolved.com should be viewed with skepticism since it appears to be a promotional page for Daankbar's investigation, books, and videos. Look for corroboration from other sites if you are using information found here. That comcast.net link is not a reliable source for anything at Wiki. It is a collection of emails between two people. Ramsquire 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that they should be taken as gospel (the truth) - they were only links. I (personally) don't believe Files, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't go in. The problem is that theories today are more often on the Internet, or DVDs, rather than in books. Sad, but true. --andreasegde 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how you want it taken, you still have to use WP:RS as a guide as to what to put in the article. The policy explicitly states that just because something is on the Internet does not mean it can be used in Wiki articles. The policy requests that editors do more research to see if it is corroborated by other more reliable sources. For example, if you found a Guardian or NY Times article summarizing the Files situation, that would be fine. However, jfkmurdersolved.com is not reliable for the reasons listed above. Also, part of WP:RS says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (or sourcing), not to mention WP:BLP... basically what I'm saying is that you'd really need a top knotch source for said information if there was no VHS tape. Ramsquire 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"a promotional page for Daankbar's investigation, books, and videos." Sorry, but Wikipedia (with in-line references from books, etc.) promotes books, and videos --andreasegde 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes and References section

This article does not comply with the standards required by Wikipedia. --andreasegde 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they technically do not. And I think I mentioned that when I first got here. Ramsquire 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More Than One Shooter

What is the source for the statement that the ASHTRAY was damaged? This is news to me. The FBI's Robert Frazier examined the entire limo and reported no such damage.Saskcitation 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Here is the section of Frazier's testimony:

Mr. Specter: Mr. Frazier, have you now described all of your findings on the windshield of the Presidential limousine?

Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; that is concerning the glass itself and not the molding around the windshield.

Mr. Specter. Will you then move to the molding around the windshield and state what, if anything, you found there?

Mr. Frazier. On the strip of chrome which goes across the top of the windshield and again on the passenger side of the windshield or the inside surface, I found a dent in the chrome which had been caused by some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface. . . .

Mr. Specter. Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?

Mr. Frazier. No, sir.

— Walloon 05:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

James Files

This article has been redirected here after AFD. If anything can be merged from the original article [7] please use it. Yomangani ^talk 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack M Oliphant Theory

Jack was the CIA operative responsible for Lee Harvey Oswald and possibly Jack Ruby as well. While he was living he told many his story with great details corroborated by surveillance reports with his signature on them in the CIA archives.

Who is Michael O'Dell?

The article cites to Michael O'Dell who has opinions on scientific accoustic matters. Someone put in his opinions to refute scientists who believe that accoustic evidence supports dozens of witness' testimony that there were two shooters.

RPJ 06:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What was the "bogus POV" that was deleted?

Revision as of 23:46, 17 October 2006 (edit)by Ramsquire "took out bogus POV info."

Could Ramsquire quote the words that he believes are "bogus POV" that was among the many things he deleted?

Could Ramsquire explain what he means by "bogus POV" that gives him the right to delete inofrmation from an article?

RPJ 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure,, but for the record, I did a general cleanup, wikilinked to another article, and took out bogus POV info. I'm sorry I couldn't be more specific but there is limited space in the edit summary. The bogus POV info was:

“

The American government still refuses to release the medical evidence that would solve many of the questions on whether there was a conspiracy

”

I reverted it because a) it was unsourced (I should have put it on the talk page. I apologize for not doing so) b) it is the editor's opinion (POV) that the government still refuses to release, instead of simply haven't released the info c) since no one knows what these records would say, it is Original research and also POV to say it would solve many of the questions on whether there was a conspiracy.Ramsquire 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Harry Weatherford

The following has been reverted by me:

“

In 1963, Jim Bowles was a D.P.D. sergeant. He was later promoted to Dallas Sheriff (Chief of Police). He was asked if he knew about Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford waiting on the roof of a building near the assassination site with a rifle.

- Bowles replied: “Yes, Harry Weatherford was on the roof with a second deputy, and he had a rifle. They were assigned there for security. My first recollection of the suggestion that Weatherford might have been implicated was from the imagination of Penn Jones who, so far as I know, never worried about the other deputy. It would seem strange that a hit man would be stationed with a living witness. It does not fit reason.” [8] - - A reporter asked Weatherford shortly after the assassination if he had shot the President. Weatherford replied, "You son of a bitch, I kill lots of people". - - Harry Weatherford told a different story: " I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office watching the Presidential Motorcade. The President's car had passed my location a couple of minutes when I heard a loud report which I thought was a railroad torpedo, as it sounded as if it came from the railroad yard." - - "I heard a 2nd report which had more of an echo report and thought to myself, that this was a rifle and I started toward 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. I got with Deputy Allan Sweatt and was searching the tracks and cars, etc, then someone said the shots came from above." [9]

”

I reverted it firstly because of WP:BLP concerns. I am not sure that all the persons mentioned in this blurb are dead. If they are not, then we would need sources of the highest order to allow this stuff in. Secondly, if they are dead, we would still need sources, especially for the quotes, from a reliable publisher. If both concerns are met, I'll have no problem putting it back into the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A definite improvement!

Last time I checked the articles regarding the assassination of JFK things were leaning a lot towards the official version as given in the statement of the Warren commission. This was also included in the article John F. Kennedy assassination It is no more. And it's good it isn't. There is nothing but theories around Kennedy's assassination. One of them is the conclusion of the Warren commission, others include a second gunman in that park at the other side. I think the solution found here is the very best. Thank you very much! This is IT! ;) --Maxl 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some idea that there's a cabal out there to suppress "truth" or "alternate points of view" on the JFK assassination. Far from it. This wiki was created as a way to satisfy those who want to summarize other ideas than those from the 3 mainstream commissions. So why are editors sticky,in the JFK assassination article itself, about summarizing mainly just the findings from the 3 main government commissions? Or in Lee Harvey Oswald's bio, or in the JFK autopsy? Because these government reports are were massive efforts, covering 50 volumes and at least hundreds of thousands of man-hours, on the basis of massive evidence available first hand to law enforcement and nowhere else. Other theories rely on what somebody's conspiracy book said somebody said, and they don't agree with each other (whereas the government reports basically do, with some mistakes corrected later on). It's just not the same quality in the both types of evidence, so one side needs to be mainly presented. *I* personally don't give a damn if two people shot JFK at the same time. If all three major commissions had concluded THAT, I'd be insisting THAT be the summarized view in the main assassination article. But that's not how it turned out. S B H arris 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the editor's point. I'm glad the article on Earth doesn't even mention the theory that the planet is only 6000 years old, though undoubtedly there are those who believe the idea should get "equal" coverage.

On the other hand, I had to snicker at the wording of the justification, "these government reports were massive efforts... at least hundreds of thousands of man-hours, on the basis of massive evidence available first hand to law enforcement and nowhere else."

Buddy, you just described exactly the way the Bush administration framed its supposed slam-dunk evidence for WMD. Joegoodfriend 16:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah. They may have tried to frame it that way, but unfortunately they didn't have 50 volumes of sworn tesitmony by real, named persons, along with multiple physical science analyses (financial, handwriting, fingerprinting, balistics matching, neutron analysis, photo analysis, computer trajectory analysis, autospy data) with hard and still-extant physical evidence to back them up, and literally a hundred or so previously-recognized experts in their fields going on-record to stand by these conclusions. Let me know when they do. Colin Powell, who did go on record, doesn't count as an expert on anything regarding WMD. See Iraq disarmament crisis. He's since left. I also see a CIA director fired over using stuff like what he used (there's nobody to fire Bush but the US public-- we failed). To back the Bush claim, I see things like uranium yellowcake allegations based on little more than rumor mills, including stuff in the London Times. I see the biological factory evidence coming from a SINGLE still-unnamed source called Curveball (informant) who even his handlers didn't trust.

And let me see--- since the anonymous photo analysts aren't around to defend their (now known to be wrong interpretations of photos), and as against the thousand page indicies of the various JFK commissions, I see ONE real piece of physical evidence in the Iraq argument. An alumimum tube that everybody was told couldn't have been used for rocket research and had only one use: uranium enrichment. Somebody said they thought so. No expert anaysis or testimony to back this up, alas. Had the Bush administration ever shown the dang thing to even ONE guy at Los Alamos who actually knew anything about gas enrichment (as was later done after we were at war with Iraq), they'd have been put straight (yeah, it was a rocket tube). But they didn't bother. Would have taken them HOURS, maybe DAYS to find the government experts on this matter, who were already on the payroll. But no. So there's really no comparison of the levels of evidence here, or the investigation levels of competence, no matter what Bush or his flunkies said. By contrast, the JFK assassination, overall and not withstanding its many initial errors, is the most carefully and authoritatively and thoroughly investigated single-homicide in history. Before 1964 or since. After 4 decades it stands up well. The Bush evidence has already made him a well, target for humor. The magic bullet is no longer humorous as the rocket tubes. That's how you know. S B H arris 11:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

But you know perfectly well that the WC's conclusions were not based on the witness testimony it heard and the expert analysis it received. It conclusions were in spite of this testimony and analysis. The WC heard from an entire battery of doctors who said the single bullet theory was not possible, but chose to go with it anyway. Ditto the ballistics tests, which produced mashed bullets, not pristine ones like CE399. Numerous witnesses spoke of seeing Oswald on the lower-floors of SBD between 12:00-12:30, they were ignored. Corroborated testimony that Oswald had anti-Castro associates was heard and ignored. Numerous corroborated Oswald imposter sightings were heard and ignored. So were the people who saw Oswald come to work on 11/22 and who said his paper bag was too small to hold the rifle, and he didn't bring it into the SBD anyway. The record clearly demonstrated that the Tippit shooting took place at 1:10 or earlier (thus Oswald couldn’t have made it jogging from his place at 1:04), this was ignored.

The WC worked just like the WMD framing: Start with the conclusion and make it stick any way you can. Joegoodfriend 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely true. They were prepared to find that two bullets injured Connally and Kennedy, until they discovered the Tague wounding. So there was some flexibility in the how if not the who. But yes, they never really considered a conspiracy as seriously as perhaps they should have done. Once they WC found out about the Tague shooting, they could have more thoroughly investigated the possibility of a second shooter, instead they went to a single bullet theory. Another issue I have with the WC, if true, is how were they able to make any concrete findings if they never had the photos of the autopsy until after their report was made?Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

New Polling Data

(Will be posted on related articles talk pages as well) I imagine with the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination approaching, there will be some newer scientific polling data available. If anyone comes across said polls, can they update the sections which rely on the 2003 poll? Thanks. I'll have my eyes peeled as well. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cui bono

The point is, who would gain from JFK's death when setting off a smear campaign would be more effective and have less comeback. Jackiespeel 17:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Connally

His wife's - and very definite - statement about her experience has been deleted. This is to be expected, I suppose. --andreasegde 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now it's in. Joegoodfriend 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Joe. --andreasegde 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced article tag

Anyone have any objections to removing the unsourced article tag from this article? Everything in it is sourced. Joegoodfriend 19:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it. I was wondering why it was there. The source problem have been handled for a while now. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Any opinion on the NPOV/accuracy dispute tag? Why is it there? Joegoodfriend 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I added that tag when the page didn't have any sources. Since the sources have been added, I like keeping it there as some sort of "Wikipedia disclaimer" letting readers know that these are just hypotheses, and that the factual accuracy of all of these theories are in dispute. However, if others feel it unnecessary, I have no problem removing it as long as the hypothetical nature of each of these theories is apparant. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

LBJ - Fingerprint

The way it's written in the section about LBJ makes you think that it was LBJs fingerprint, which is absolutely ludacris to any reasonably intelligent person, and if you read the source, you know that the fingerprint is that of Malcolm E. Wallace, who is connected to LBJ through his lawyers if I remember correctly. I'm kind of new to wikipedia, do you think anyone could help me properly phrase this?

Thanks Arthur5005 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the info because as currently written, it is impossible to tell what it is talking about. Feel free to correct the information and put it back in the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember this one vaguely because I looked up some of the info disputing the fingerprint match. This used to be complete, but I guess it got lost in some edit war. Doesn't matter much either way because it isn't a particularly popular/important theory, I believe. Gamaliel 22:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If not being very important or not being very popular were criteria for scrubbing bits out of wikipedia, wikipedia would be a very much smaller project (wikipamphlet?). I've put back the LBJ information, in very abridged form, with dangling links for any completist who wants to flesh out biographies and timelines. The LBJ theory, which had been dormant since the early 1960s, has recently taken on surprising new life and seems to be a major development. It would be a dereliction to omit information about it. Garrick92 13:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

The biggest complaint of many editors, and admins - when grading an article - is that there are not enough in-line citations in articles. Also (when books are cited) they must cite the exact page numbers for a reference. This article needs more. --andreasegde 00:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Rifle

I have removed this paragraph:

The Rifle: It is impossible for Oswald's rifle, the Mannlicher-Carcano (Hurt), to be fired more than once in less than 2.3 seconds (Thompson). According to the Zapruder film, for the first two shots to be fired by Oswald, they would have to be fired in rapid succession (Thompson). Top rifle experts of the FBI were incapable of making the rifle fire two shots in the 2.3-second timeframe (Hurt). ^{[citation needed]}

The second sentence does not specify the length of time between the two shots that hit President Kennedy. By nearly universal agreement, President Kennedy was reacting by Zapruder frame #224 to the first shot that hit him, and the fatal head shot was at frame #313. With a camera that ran at 18.3 frames per second, that is a 4.9 second time period between the two shots that hit the president. Thus, a shooter had to fire two shots within 4.9 seconds, not 2.3 seconds. — Walloon 01:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the originator of that quote meant that if the first shot missed, then the second one was 2.3 seconds later. Those are the two shots. Of course, if the first one missed (and the likelihood seems to be that it did) how does one know when it was fired with any certainty? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What the authors are referring to when they say "according to the Zapruder film" is that Governor Connally appears to react to being shot 1.7 seconds after JFK. They are writing, of course, under the belief that the single bullet theory is false. There are certain POV elements in these one shooter and two shooter references. The paragraph might be edited for clarity but is should be restored. Joegoodfriend 17:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess that makes more sense. FTR-- my sentence should have read "less than 2.3 seconds". But I thought it was referring to a different time frame. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Governor Connally

I have removed this sentence for inaccurate rendition of Governor Connally's testimony:

Governor Connally also maintained that he was not hit by the first shot (that hit JFK in the back).^[1]

The addition "(that hit JFK in the back)" was not part of John Connally's testimony for the Warren Commission in 1964 or the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. Connally in fact said that after hearing the first shot, he started turning to his right to look at the President, but never caught a glimpse of him before being shot himself. "I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that I was hit with the first bullet. I don't believe that. I heard the first shot. I reacted to the first shot and I was not hit with that bullet. Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet. That might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet . . ." — Walloon 01:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call. It should be common knowledge by now the first shot missed everyone. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't concede at all that the first shot must have been the one that missed. Nellie Connally was looking directly at the President speaking to him when the shooting started and she always maintained that he was hit by the first shot. This occurred while the car was behind the sign. If she was correct, and the single bullet theory is false, then the missed shot could have occurred at any time after the first shot. Joegoodfriend 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

John Connally's testimony was agnostic on that question. Whether the first shot hit the president and missed Connally, or hit neither of them — both are all viable under his statement. But he does not come down in favor of either of those two scenarios, as the addition "(that hit JFK in the back)" made it seem. That is why I removed it. — Walloon 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said, I agree on this point. Joegoodfriend 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising given she was speaking to the President of the United States and was focusing intensely on him, not her surroundings. She simply missed the first shot. Her husband heard the first shot and started to turn, before and behind the sign, then was shot as he turned. The little girl running behind the car hears the first shot, stops and turns to look back at the depository; again before the sign. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Roy Kellerman testimony

I have removed this misleading phrase from the section on the testimony of Roy Kellerman:

and he believed the President was wounded four times and Connally three times.

Kellerman, a Secret Service agent who was in the front seat of the Presidential limousine, actually testified that "from all reports" the President was wounded four times and Connally three times, not that he himself witnessed that many wounds. When pressed about how many shots he himself heard, Kellerman testified twice that he heard only three shots. — Walloon 02:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

This page badly needs more references/notes. Everything that does not have a reference/note (and book notes must have page numbers included) should be deleted. This is the new Wikipedia standard for FA articles. No more POV... --andreasegde 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. All information in the article is cited to a source. The only POV in the article is the various theories presented in the article, and each is presented in a neutral way as required by WP:NPOV. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "Many doubts still remain in the minds of the public regarding the official government conclusions" needs a reference? That's common knowledge. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Arnold

I have removed this part of a sentence in the two-shooters evidence:

there were witnesses in Dealey Plaza who did not appear before the Commission but who have stated the belief that one or more shots were fired from the grassy knoll, ^[2]

for three reasons. (1) The link no longer works. (2) The Spartacus pages are no longer considered authoritative sources for Wikipedia. (3) It has never been established that Gordon Arnold was a witness to the assassination. He did not make his claim until 1978, and he does not appear where he claimed to be standing in any of the photographs taken before, during, or immediately after the assassination. More here:

Two eyewitnesses, Abraham Zapruder and his secretary, Marilyn Sitzman, had an elevated view of the area behind the wall where Gordon Arnold claimed to have been, only a few yards away. Prior to the shooting, Zapruder had mounted a four-foot-high pedestal overlooking the knoll area in order to gain a suitable vantage point from which to capture the motorcade with his home movie camera. As he suffered from vertigo, he asked Sitzman to stand behind him on the pedestal and help steady him while he filmed.

Neither Zapruder nor Sitzman ever described anyone resembling Arnold in any of their statements, although Sitzman did recall two other people in that area. As she described to investigator Josiah Thompson, “there was a colored couple. I figure they were between 18 and 21, a boy and a girl, sitting on a bench, just almost, oh, parallel with me, on my right side, close to the fence.” The bench was located almost precisely where Arnold would later describe himself as having stood. “And they were eating their lunch, ‘cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking Coke. The main reason I remember ‘em is, after the last shot . . . I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their Coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back.”

“Now,” Thompson asked her, “to get to this area between the stockade fence and the cement abutment, or small mall: Did you turn after the shot to look in this general area?” “Yes,” she said. “And did you see anyone in this area?” “No,” she replied, “just the two colored people running back.”

— Walloon 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor's reasons for the deletion are not valid. It has never been disproven that Arnold was present, and his story has been considered plausible by any number of serious researchers including Summers, Hurt, Walt Brown and others. Your point of view that Arnold, or any other purported witness, is not telling the truth is not by itself reason enough to delete that witnesses's statement from this article. As for the link and the cite, the link does work, and if you don't like the spartacus site I can cite any number of other sources with the same information.

We seem to be very close to an edit war here, so I'm going to leave this alone. Joegoodfriend 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Put the information back into the article, with an appropriate cite, of course. The opposing information can go into the Gordon Arnold article if one exists, or perhaps I can create one. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, I don't think Tip O'Neil's book is a reliable source for the statement that witnesses were pressured to change their opinion during the WC hearings. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Your point of view that Arnold, or any other purported witness, is not telling the truth is not by itself reason enough to delete that witnesses's statement from this article." But the problem is that there is no evidence that Arnold was a witness. It is presumptive to call Arnold a witness when the mass of evidence contradicts his even being there. I could also claim to have been a witness in Dealey Plaza. Should my statements about what I saw be part of the Wikipedia article too? That authors like Summers accepts Arnold's testimony without establishing first that he was even there is a reflection on Summers as a researcher. — Walloon 20:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

But in this article, the truth bar (so to speak) is a bit lower. All that is needed is some secondary reliable source stating Gordon's belief he was in Dealey Plaza. We don't need to find that out factually, here. Take a look at all of the other theories on this page. They all can't be right, but on this article, all we need to show is that the theory exist. That is why Gordon's story is appropriate here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Testimony of David Powers and Kenneth O'Donnell

Presidential aide David Powers testified in 1964 that the shots came from either the direction of the Triple Underpass or the Texas School Book Depository. If he instead believed that two of the shots came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll, as Tip O'Neill later reported in his memoir, it would not change the tabulation given of the earwitnesses, because Powers would still be listed as one of the eight who said the shots came from two directions. The change in presidential aide Kenneth O'Donnell's account would remove him from the TSBD column and add him to the "two directions" column.

However, another issue involved is that O'Neill's account would be legally called "hearsay". Neither Powers nor O'Donnell themselves ever publicly made any such claims about shots from the grassy knoll. — Walloon 08:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And they both vehemently denied O'Neills recollection of the supposed conversation. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think O'Donnell was able to deny it. He died in 1977, ten years before Tip O'Neill's book was published. — Walloon

Unclear writing on my part. They bothd denied it, but at different times. O'donnell called the assertion a flat out lie in 1975. Powers at the time the book was written.

"The story is an absolute lie...whoever gave that story is lying. It's an absolute, outright lie." - Kenneth O'Donnell, qtd. in Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1975

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

RPJ case and the Spartacus site

Here's an update on the Spartacus situation:

“

A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

”

Added by Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is "Helms"?

"Helms had reason to be hostile to Kennedy since when first elected Kennedy supported invading Cuba and then only later changed his mind about how to approach the matter. Thus, Helms was immediately put under pressure from President Kennedy and his brother Robert (the attorney general) to increase American efforts to get rid of the Castro regime. Operation Mongoose had nearly 4,000 operators involved in attacks on Cuban economic targets."

But who is Helms?! Pennywisepeter 16:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard Helms, CIA Director, 1966-1973. He was director of the CIA's Office of Special Operations at the time of the Kennedy assassination. — Walloon 10:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Postal Service

The way you have the Postal Service song quoted it appears to support the official theory but if you actually look at the song it's about how naive people are. Read the lyrics yourself. The amazon.co.uk review says, " "Sleeping In" is a joyously sunny daydream; a naïve vision of how good the world could be." http://www.lyricsdomain.com/20/the_postal_service/sleeping_in.html

William Greer

The Zapruder film seems to point to Greer, at leat in my opinion. This site http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov shows Greer pointing something at Kennedy. The timing of Greer's head, hand and the slowing of the car indicate he did the fatal head shot. There was much discussion about why Greer slowed (film showed the car didn't stop) but it would make sense that Greer was concentrating on the shot and not concentrating on driving. It appears that Greer was a backup assassin in case the first shot from elsewhere didn't do the job. Connally and his wife were too distracted from the first shot to notice Greer as the Zap film show. Keep close eye on the driver, Greer, at his chest level area.

Rulers of Evil 68.10.101.227 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A look at this chest area shows his right hand on the steering wheel through the glass, and it appears to be replaced by his left hand after the fatal head shot, but it's hard to tell. In any case, although the Connallys might have missed Greer shooting JFK over the top of them, it seems unlikely that agent Kellerman, sitting next to Greer, did so as well. Come on. S B H arris 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Kellerman was in the game too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.160.5 (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

One Shooter, Two Shooters: Counterpoints?

The One Shooter and Two Shooters sections of the article have long been for mutually exclusive information. That is, One Shooter is for bullet points that support the idea that Oswald acted alone, while two Shooters supports multiple assassins. Recently, there have been edits which have attempted to balance the points made in Two Shooters with contradictory counterpoints. I have removed a couple of them, but I don’t mean to delete the work of other editors without an attempt to achieve consensus. So what do you all think? The two sections contain a total of 27 bullet points. If each one if followed by a sentence that begins, “However, other witnesses/historians/government officials have said,” then this is going to be one long article. Joegoodfriend 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Corsican Connection

I saw a special on the assassination that implicated Corsican gangsters as the ones hired to do the hit. Surprised to see it missing as it was on a T.V. special that I thought others would have seen. If anybody knows anything about it, it would be a good addition.

The Corsican theory was made famous by documentary film maker Nigel Turner, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy. While there is much of interest for conspiracy theorists in the series, much of Turner's work, including his Corsican theory, has been debunked. Even well-known researchers who believe that there was a conspiracy, such as Harold Weisberg[10], have turned there backs on Turner. Details here:[11] ...Joegoodfriend 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

POV paragraph?

This paragraph: If behind JFK's assasination was not just Oswald but a planned action, then the more of the information smoke-screen there is, the better for those planners. Including CIA into the list of the suspected organizations can be considered as a part of that smoke-screen. Even though this encyclopedia must not be based on opinions, the JFK assasination information should be treated differently, due to the dramatic shortage of hard facts. In this way, anyone who knows America will dismiss the idea that a US Government agency could kill a US President. Killing an enemy President, maybe that was not out of question, but not a US President. This is NOT how the bureaucracy works. American bureaucracy does a lot of bad things, but those people's goals and concern are their personal careers, and the idea of such an assasination would be a pure nonsense, if it was not for what it seems to really be: a useful smoke-screen.

seems pretty badly inappropriate. Anyone else think it should be heavily reworded or removed? In fact, the entire section below the first paragraph on "organised crime" is way out of character for this rest of this article. Famous Mortimer 15:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Who wrote this anyway? A 7th grader? — 67.151.111.54 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

JFK is still alive?

Many conspiracy theories say Oswald was not the perpertrator. However, are there any teories which deny JFK was the victim? I mean it could have been a body double (doppelganger) who was shot. Many politicians, especially dictators use look-alikes to prevent or escape assasinations. Hitler and romanian dictator Ceaucescu had several doubles, for example.

If JFK was not the one who was killed, where did he live ever after? Is he possibly still alive? Did any researcher investigate this venue? 82.131.210.162 08:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. His wife identified the body; and no known doubles were used by JFK. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible mis-write

One part of the page says Connoly reacts 1.7 seconds after Kennedy, but another part says that it was simaltaneous. Which was it? I would change it myself, but I am not sure. — 209.169.119.19 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When Governor Connally begins to react to being shot is a disputed point, open to visual interpretation. Because this article contains both single-shooter and multiple-shooter theories, there are two different claims about when Connally first appears to react to being shot. Most single-shooter advocates believe Connally reacts nearly simultaneously with Kennedy, because both were hit with the same bullet. Most multiple-shooter advocates believe there is a delay between Kennedy's reaction and Connally's reaction, and that this is evidence of two different bullets. — Walloon 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush

Someone attempted to write an entire sections with Bush's connection to the assassination. I deleted it because it violated WP:BLP as many of the assertions were unsourced, simple innuendo, and related to a living person. If anyone is wishing to redo the section, please remember that sources of the highest order is needed for information about a living person. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I sourced it. The documents discussed are fair use and images of them are on the page. There is no need to delete this section now. ChildOfTheMoon83 00:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these are theories, not hard facts. I wouldn't dream of putting this stuff in the George H. W. Bush article.

A search of "george+bush+kennedy+assassination" yields over a million Google hits - this is a widely discussed theory. By contrast, "fidel+castro+kennedy+assassination" yields only about 200,000, and "lyndon+johnson+kennedy+assassination" only gets a half million hits.

Given the data available it seems a lot more likely that Bush was involved than Israelis or Irish assassins. ChildOfTheMoon83 00:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional citations, and keeping a level head about my objections. We do have to be more careful about what we write about living persons as compared to unnamed Israelis and Irish assassins. :). I do still think there is original research problems, but that doesn't require mass deletion to fix.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The photos trying to associate George H.W. Bush with a man standing outside the Texas School Book Depository minutes after the assassination are rather pointless. Bush's whereabouts at the time of the assassination are a matter of record. Bush was in the middle of a speech at a Kiwanis Club luncheon in Tyler, Texas, when he was informed of the assassination. Kitty Kelly quotes a firsthand account of the luncheon from the club's vice president. Accordingly, I have removed the photos as a matter of common sense. By the way, it's much more likely that the man referenced in the photo was NBC newsman Robert MacNeil, who was at that very location after the assassination. He wrote about it in his book Looking for My Country: Finding Myself in America. — Walloon 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Untimely Death Section

This entire section is unverifiable because who can state that someone's death is untimely or suspicious, and the connections of these people to the assassination is tenuous at best. It needs serious fixing as currently the section violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fiction section

How come there is a Fiction section to this article that does not mention either Don DeLillo's Libra or James Ellroy's American Tabloid? S.Camus 15:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because none of the contributors here have heard of them. However, you can just add the info if you feel it is relevant. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Earwitness

From Merriam-Webster:

ear·wit·ness
Pronunciation: 'ir-'wit-n&s
Function: noun
one who overhears something; especially : one who gives a report on what has been heard
— Walloon 05:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nixon and the Warren Commission

I have removed what is clearly a bogus interpretation, started by the BBC, about Richard Nixon calling the Warren Commission "the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated." Nowhere in the conversation does Nixon mention the Warren Commission. Read in context, the always partisan Nixon is crediting left-wingers with a successful "hoax" in blaming the right-wing for the Kennedy assassination. — Walloon 00:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Alleged George Bush connections

Someone keeps putting "citation needed" next to sections that are properly cited and changing "many" to "most" as to who thinks the Bush in question was the former president. On that point they provided no citations to show this was the case.

This person has provided no explanation for doing so and continues to change the article. The IP address is 71.164.161.38. I ask that this user please refrain from an edit war, and explain yourself if you feel the article is inaccurate and needs to be changed.

70.162.5.92 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole section on George H.W. Bush never seems to get to the point of any connection between him and the assassination of JFK. Instead, it dwells on possible early connections between Bush and the CIA, and Bush and the Bay of Pigs operation. Assume, for the sake of argument, that both are true — how does that connect him with the assassination? — Walloon 08:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the first line of the section - "Bush is sometimes mentioned in one or more of the above theories". Some of the theories mentioned above the Bush section involve the CIA and anti-Castro exiles - the section on Bush simply connects him to these very same people accused of killing Kennedy. That's why I called it "George Bush connections" and not simply "George Bush" - he's not accused of pulling the trigger or anything.

Seems pretty obvious to me, and it's properly cited. The point is that Bush knew a lot of these accused people mentioned in the article, made a phone call to the FBI shortly after the assassination and was probably CIA back in the day - nothing more.

70.162.5.92

Oh, and Bush has demonstrated he's willing to lie about his connections, too. I guess that's another point of the article.

70.162.5.92

Bullet fragments

However, the weight of the bullet fragments taken from Connally and those remaining in his body weighed more than that of a bullet found on Connally's stretcher, known as the "pristine bullet".

Not true. The weight of the whole bullet prior to firing was approximately 160-161 grains and that of the recovered bullet was 158.6 grains. An X-ray of the Governor's wrist showed very minute metallic fragments, and two or three of these fragments were removed from his wrist. All these fragments were sufficiently small and light so that the nearly whole bullet found on the stretcher could have deposited those pieces of metal as it tumbled through his wrist. Josiah Thompson, author of the pro-conspiracy book Six Seconds in Dallas, wrote,

Of the two fragments recovered from the Governor's wrist, the larger was found to weigh 0.5 grain (5H72). The smaller one plus the flakes of metal remaining in his wrist might account for a like weight. This gives us a total of about one grain for the wrist. What about the chest and thigh fragments? Dr. Shires, who noticed the chest fragment on X-ray, never estimated its weight, but he spoke of it as being the same general size as the fragment embedded in the femur. The weight of this fragment was estimated as "a fraction of a grain, maybe, a tenth of a grain" (6H106, 111). If we add to these two fragments the flake observed just under the skin in the thigh wound, we have a total weight of perhaps 0.5 grain in the thigh and chest. Adding this to the wrist fragments yields a total weight for all observed fragments of 1.5 grains. Clearly then, Dr. Shaw was mistaken when he testified that "there seems to be more than three grains of metal missing...in the wrist" (4H113). The upshot of all this medical testimony with respect to weight loss is inconclusive. About 1.5 grains of metal were found in Governor Connally's wounds.

— Walloon 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tague injury

I have removed this parenthetical claim from the first paragraph of the multiple-shooter section: "(a passersby received a facial scratch from this bullet)", referring to the bullet that missed the limousine. The Warren Commission stated that it was unable to determine whether James Tague was wounded by the bullet that missed the limousine or by a fragment of the bullet that shattered in President Kennedy's head. Likewise, Tague himself was unaware of his slight injury until after the shootings, when someone else pointed out the wound to him; and thus Tague was unable to say which shot injured him, either. — Walloon 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy's spine

I have removed this statement from the first paragraph of the multiple-shooter section: "the trajectory of the bullet, which hit Kennedy in the spine and passed through his neck (according to the autopsy)". The autopsy says no such thing. To the contrary, the relevant section of the autopsy says:

The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body.

(Emphasis added.) — Walloon 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this was indeed the conclusion of the autopsists. However, reanalysis of autopsy data later by the HCSA concluded that the spine had been (minimally) damaged by the bullet, on the basis of a right tranverse process fracture at spinal C-6, in the bullet path, and in association with some tiny metal fragments along the bullet track through the lower neck. All visible on autopsy X-rays and noted by expert radiologists in 1977; just not noticed by the initial autopsy doctors in 1963. S B H arris 03:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shortening Alleged connections of George H. W. Bush

This section has ballooned to more than 2,000 words, most of which seem to have nothing to do with theories on the assassination of President Kennedy. How do other editors feel about seriously cutting down the length of this section? Joegoodfriend 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Most of this section has left me scratching my head and asking, "What does this have to do with the Kennedy assassination?" Even if Bush had been involved with anti-Castro Cuban exiles, that doesn't make Bush or the Cuban exiles responsible for Kennedy's assassination. There's a big leap of logic there. As for shortening the article, I would recommend taking out the whole de Morenschildt section, beginning "Further connections are made between George de Mohrenschildt" and ending six paragraphs later with Bush's letter to de Mohrenschildt. Unless one is asserting that de Mohrenschildt conspired in Kennedy's assassination, which this section fails to assert, then the section becomes one more dead end. Jackie Kennedy's family also knew de Mohrenschildt — conspiracy? Likewise the four paragraphs on opposition to Bush's appointment as CIA director come to no point in regard to the Kennedy assassination. — Walloon 01:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. And I'm going to remove the same crap from de Mohrenschildt's bio. So what if he knew George Bush? They were both in the Texas oil business, and de Mohrenschildt also knew one of Bush's former roomates. This guy was gregarious and knew everybody. It's somebody claiming that Bush murdered JFK? Even if Bush lost a fortune in the Castro revolution (which I see no reason to believe), so what? That's better evidence that Bush might have tried to assassinate Castro, not JFK! S B H arris 06:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's an outline of how I propose to tighten this thing up. Somebody went to a lot of trouble to write this, so I want to give them adequate chance to defend it before I start hacking at it. Paragraphs 1-2: tying Bush, Zapata, and the Bay of Pigs, just tighten this up a bit. Paragraghs 3-4: details on the Bay of Pigs, eliminate these paragraghs. Paragraph 5: the FBI memo, cut this down to about one sentence. Paragraph 6: Bush and the phone call, tighten this up a lot. Paragraphs 7-8: The ARRB, cut this down to about one sentence. Paragraph 9: Immaculate Deception, one sentence ought to do it. Paragraph 10: History of Zapata, eliminate this. Paragraph 11: DeMohrenschildt, 2 sentences ought to do it. Paragraph 12: Ford eulogy, one short sentence. Joegoodfriend 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, do it! — Walloon 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and cut the section from 2000+ words to 500. Honestly, I still think there's barely enough of interest here to warrant inclusion in the article at all. Joegoodfriend 03:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a growing consensus that this section does not belong in the article. Besides the WP:BLP concerns, it is vaguely connected to the topic, and a simple connection of factoids. I too support the deletion of this section. We've given it time to develop into something encyclopedic, and it simply hasnt. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bush v. Martin

Re the reproduction of the front page of a civil suit between George H.W. Bush and others against Governor John Connally and others, several things need to be said. First, it was not filed "two weeks before the Kennedy assassination". It was filed on April 23, 1963, tried in September, and a panel of three federal judges had already reached a verdict and published their opinion on October 19, 1963, more than a month before the assassination. Second, the district court's decision was for Bush and the other plaintiffs, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court (by a 7-2 vote, with Chief Justice Earl Warren in the majority) on March 2, 1964. Third, the suit was not against Connally personally. The plaintiffs were suing upon the constitutionality of Texas statutes apportioning congressional districts among the counties and citizens of the State. Anyone with the power to enforce that statute, from the governor on down, was named as a defendant. As the district court decision said,

The Defendants comprise three major categories. The first, and principal, group are high executive officers of the State, the Secretary of State, the Governor, and the Attorney General. The second group comprises the duly elected qualified and acting Chairman of the Executive Committees of the Democratic and Republican Parties, respectively. The third group is made up of the County Judge and the County Clerk of Harris County (comprising Congressional Districts 8 and 22), each of whom is sued individually and, it is claimed, as a representative of all other County Judges and County Clerks in the State of Texas similarly situated under F.R.Civ.P. [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 23.

The three-judge federal district court found that the population disparity among Texas Congressional Districts — ranging from 216,371 to 951,527 — was "indeed spectacular" and noted that marked under-representation was "not surprisingly" found in metropolitan districts.

Given that the caption to the illustration mistates when it was filed (and thereby implies causation to the assassination), misstates the subject of the suit, and omits that it had already been decided for the plaintiffs in October, I suggest the illustration be removed for something between dishonesty and irrelevancy. — Walloon 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Being impatient, I have done a major revision and correction to the full caption of that illustration. The previous caption still can be read in the History portion of that web page. (The lawsuit referred to the political "machines" at the state and county levels, not literal voting machines, as the former caption misstated.) — Walloon 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a Bush section here?

It's a hodgpodge of allegations, mostly tied to various books authors have written and none of it actually ties to JFK's assasination. Besides the wikipedia policies on information about living people. 148.78.243.122 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fringe Theories

I must remind editors here that although this article delves into the many theories surrounding Kennedy's assassination it is still an encyclopedia article and must comply with the relevant guidelines, especially the one above. Right now there may be several sections of this article that should be deleted because they violate this content guideline. Off the top of the head, I think the "More than one JFK", the "Bush section" and the "Federal Reserve" section should be deleted until more sourcing is provided to bring it into compliance. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Federal Reserve theory qualifies as a "fringe theory." I may have added it today, but it is very common. Just search the Internet, or visit libertarian or paleoconservative Web sites. People always discuss it at places like Free Market News, where I often go for news and stock quotes.

I did provide a link to a critic of the theory, who has a published book on the Federal Reserve. So it is a valid, sourced theory.

UPDATE: Just added additional sources, including print source, relating to this theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBlade7 (talk • contribs)

I think you are missing the point. The title of the Wikipedia guideline that deals with non-mainstream theories is called "Wikipedia:Fringe Theories". I am not calling any particular theory a fringe theory, just saying that the sections that I mention do not comply with the guideline. More sources are needed for the sections mentioned, otherwise they should be deleted. Please note, when I call the Federal Reserve theory non-mainstream, I am comparing it to other theories like the CIA/Cuban link, which has been the subject of books, movies, and government investigations. I am not questioning the validity of any particular theory. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fiction on JFK

I noticed Ramsquire removed a whole paragraph I had contributed to the article "Kennedy assassination theories" (6. Fiction section.) This whole Fiction section, by the way, was later on removed in whole, and part of its contents relocated to article "John F. Kennedy assassination in popular culture". What I'd like to know is on what grounds Ramsquire claims "rv French film as it is not directly related to Kennedy Assassination". "Not directly linked??" you got to be kidding; no other movie is devoted in such a way, and so directly, to JFK's assassination. If you don't believe me, please do watch the movie; check this IMDB link http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0079322/usercomments. I wanted to share that knowledge with Wiki readers interested in JFK, most of them would really enjoy the movie; it saddens me that my contribution was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calastheon (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note, I am moving this to the talk page of the article. The French film is set in a fictionalized universe. It does not reference JFK, Oswald Ruby, or any of the actual alleged conspirators. The other links all contain a direct link to actual persons connected to the assassination. Further the entire section is trivia, and IMO, should be deleted as it cannot be merged into any section of the article. I stand by my reversion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the article "JFK assassination in popular culture" is kept, I think the reference to Verneuil's film fits perfectly there: 1. the film is indeed "culture" 2. it is based largely on the assassination & aftermath 3. true the names Kennedy, etc. aren't mentioned, but a "JFK assassination in popular culture" article cannot be confined to precise and actual references to real names (mind you, not characters, since the fictional JFK in Red Dwarf, for instance, IS NOT REAL!), on the contrary it should contain any "cultural work" inspired by it; even more so if it actually suggests a possible thread of events which could have led to alternate outcomes. By the way, are you the sole decider or super-editor on what goes in and what goes out? Unlike you, I'm no expert, but I thought Wikipedia policy didn't particularly encourage reverting or deleting others' contributions except under very precise circumstances (absent here.) Calastheon 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Comment on content not the contributor. This is a wiki, so although anyone can edit, anyone can also revert. The fact that there was no clamor to re-insert the popular culture section or your particular edit is implied evidence of consensus that this information is not needed in this article.

2. If the popular culture article is kept, then you can add your film there. Please see WP:TRIV, which discourages popular culture sections as they are not encyclopedic. Finally, although I support the deletion of all the references including the Red Dwarf one, the difference with that one is that although the theory is far fetched, and impossible it still references the real JFK, even though it is in an alternate universe.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

References

I see no reason why the "disputed", or "not referenced" tags should be there. The page has been cleaned. Maybe there should be a tag saying "Please do not add any comments without proper references". That would discourage any random theories. Any comments? --andreasegde 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the original research tag. I think we should keep the factual dispute tag. Since it is a conspiracy section, and it serves as a disclaimer that Wiki isn't endorsing any of the theories listed. Ramsquire 17:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Files confession

The statement by alleged assassin Files was deleted with a comment "unreliable sources about a living person."

Could the person that deleted the statement identify the "living person" the particular offending statement and the "unreliable sources?"

RPJ 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Files made the comments himself, and on film, so how can it be unreliable? It's amazing that when Oswald said that he was a "patsy", it was considered unreliable (and he was lying) but when Files admitted that he was there, it is also considered unreliable. Wonders will never cease....--andreasegde 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My statement was regarding the source of the information. It is the webpage which I consider unreliable for a report of this magnitude regarding a living person, as per the rules at WP:BLP. Gamaliel 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is the living person to which you refer? RPJ 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the James Files article, James Files is still alive. Gamaliel 20:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But, James Files is the one making the statements to the researcher about the dead Mafia figures. If the Mafia figures were still alive then you possibly might have something to consider.

Please revert your deletion.

Thank you RPJ 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the dead Mafia dons. I'm talking about Files' supposed confession. For us to say that this man confessed to killing JFK requires a better source for his confession than some Belgian conspiracy website. Gamaliel 21:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Files write a book confessing for this? Or am I mistaken him for someone else? Ramsquire 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If he did, let's cite the book and then the material can be restored to the article. Gamaliel 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

After some cursory research, the confession is part of a documentary called "The Murder of JFK: Confession of an Assassin". Amazon.com has it on VHS, but there is no book. I figure if we give it the same treatment we gave the ABC documentary on the JFK assassination page, then it can be re-inserted into the article. (Note to other editors-- the best way to get info into the article is to get reliable sources and cite them accurately. Not to question the motives of other editors or cry foul. This issue could have been solved two days ago with a little research.) Ramsquire 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well put. All that had to be done to put an end to this matter would be to say "He put out a video" instead of attacking me. Gamaliel 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Try these:[12],[13],[14],[15]. Some are for, against, and neutral. The piece about Files should go back in. --andreasegde 20:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

One is a bio of Daankbar and is irrelevant to proper sourcing re: James Files. Two and three probably don't meet the standards of WP:RS, and four is a link to purchase the documentary and shouldn't be used in any Wiki article. Ramsquire 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Daankbar interviewed Files. Since when was Spartacus [16] irrelevant? I have seen it cited lots of times. What about this? [17] --andreasegde 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote, I made no judgments about spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk's bio of Daankbar. However, said bio of Daankbar is not relevant to Files. Ramsquire 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Daankbar piece mentions Files in the article. --andreasegde 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See below. Ramsquire 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the Files info. JFKmurdersolved.com should be viewed with skepticism since it appears to be a promotional page for Daankbar's investigation, books, and videos. Look for corroboration from other sites if you are using information found here. That comcast.net link is not a reliable source for anything at Wiki. It is a collection of emails between two people. Ramsquire 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that they should be taken as gospel (the truth) - they were only links. I (personally) don't believe Files, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't go in. The problem is that theories today are more often on the Internet, or DVDs, rather than in books. Sad, but true. --andreasegde 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how you want it taken, you still have to use WP:RS as a guide as to what to put in the article. The policy explicitly states that just because something is on the Internet does not mean it can be used in Wiki articles. The policy requests that editors do more research to see if it is corroborated by other more reliable sources. For example, if you found a Guardian or NY Times article summarizing the Files situation, that would be fine. However, jfkmurdersolved.com is not reliable for the reasons listed above. Also, part of WP:RS says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (or sourcing), not to mention WP:BLP... basically what I'm saying is that you'd really need a top knotch source for said information if there was no VHS tape. Ramsquire 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"a promotional page for Daankbar's investigation, books, and videos." Sorry, but Wikipedia (with in-line references from books, etc.) promotes books, and videos --andreasegde 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes and References section

This article does not comply with the standards required by Wikipedia. --andreasegde 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they technically do not. And I think I mentioned that when I first got here. Ramsquire 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More Than One Shooter

What is the source for the statement that the ASHTRAY was damaged? This is news to me. The FBI's Robert Frazier examined the entire limo and reported no such damage.Saskcitation 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Here is the section of Frazier's testimony:

Mr. Specter: Mr. Frazier, have you now described all of your findings on the windshield of the Presidential limousine?

Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; that is concerning the glass itself and not the molding around the windshield.

Mr. Specter. Will you then move to the molding around the windshield and state what, if anything, you found there?

Mr. Frazier. On the strip of chrome which goes across the top of the windshield and again on the passenger side of the windshield or the inside surface, I found a dent in the chrome which had been caused by some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface. . . .

Mr. Specter. Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?

Mr. Frazier. No, sir.

— Walloon 05:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

James Files

This article has been redirected here after AFD. If anything can be merged from the original article [18] please use it. Yomangani ^talk 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack M Oliphant Theory

Jack was the CIA operative responsible for Lee Harvey Oswald and possibly Jack Ruby as well. While he was living he told many his story with great details corroborated by surveillance reports with his signature on them in the CIA archives.

Who is Michael O'Dell?

The article cites to Michael O'Dell who has opinions on scientific accoustic matters. Someone put in his opinions to refute scientists who believe that accoustic evidence supports dozens of witness' testimony that there were two shooters.

RPJ 06:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What was the "bogus POV" that was deleted?

Revision as of 23:46, 17 October 2006 (edit)by Ramsquire "took out bogus POV info."

Could Ramsquire quote the words that he believes are "bogus POV" that was among the many things he deleted?

Could Ramsquire explain what he means by "bogus POV" that gives him the right to delete inofrmation from an article?

RPJ 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure,, but for the record, I did a general cleanup, wikilinked to another article, and took out bogus POV info. I'm sorry I couldn't be more specific but there is limited space in the edit summary. The bogus POV info was:

“

The American government still refuses to release the medical evidence that would solve many of the questions on whether there was a conspiracy

”

I reverted it because a) it was unsourced (I should have put it on the talk page. I apologize for not doing so) b) it is the editor's opinion (POV) that the government still refuses to release, instead of simply haven't released the info c) since no one knows what these records would say, it is Original research and also POV to say it would solve many of the questions on whether there was a conspiracy.Ramsquire 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Harry Weatherford

The following has been reverted by me:

“

In 1963, Jim Bowles was a D.P.D. sergeant. He was later promoted to Dallas Sheriff (Chief of Police). He was asked if he knew about Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford waiting on the roof of a building near the assassination site with a rifle.

- Bowles replied: “Yes, Harry Weatherford was on the roof with a second deputy, and he had a rifle. They were assigned there for security. My first recollection of the suggestion that Weatherford might have been implicated was from the imagination of Penn Jones who, so far as I know, never worried about the other deputy. It would seem strange that a hit man would be stationed with a living witness. It does not fit reason.” [19] - - A reporter asked Weatherford shortly after the assassination if he had shot the President. Weatherford replied, "You son of a bitch, I kill lots of people". - - Harry Weatherford told a different story: " I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office watching the Presidential Motorcade. The President's car had passed my location a couple of minutes when I heard a loud report which I thought was a railroad torpedo, as it sounded as if it came from the railroad yard." - - "I heard a 2nd report which had more of an echo report and thought to myself, that this was a rifle and I started toward 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. I got with Deputy Allan Sweatt and was searching the tracks and cars, etc, then someone said the shots came from above." [20]