Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 17
This is an archive of past discussions about Assassination of John F. Kennedy. 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 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
- Was A Wichita Man Part of the Kennedy Assassination Puzzle? (1993) (Hatteberg's People on KAKE tv) on YouTube
- The above news reporter worked for KAKE tv for 51 years and done over 2000 video stories about Kansans.
- I'm just posting this here for other people to view. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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 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)
References
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Sorry, Pete, my bad. I didn't mean you, I meant SM8900. Canada Jack (talk) 17:09, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113170216/http://tps.cr.nps.gov:80/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2164&ResourceType=District to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2164&ResourceType=District
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. |
|
- 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"
- 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>
- 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... Whats going on here @IdreamofJeanie:? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:38, 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)
- @SuggestBot: lol I got confused between I dream of horses and IdreamofJeanie. That reminds me, you like Barbara Eden, dont you @ClueBot III:? —usernamekiran (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)