Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 5

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 1

←

Archive 3

→

Removed text re the First Lady's crawling over the trunk of the car

I removed the following text, as it isn't contained in the cited reference, nor in any other source material I can locate: "it had been rumored that the first lady was attempting to retrieve a piece of the president's skull or to get to safety, but this was later found not to be true." The idea that Mrs. Kennedy was trying to retrieve a portion of her husband's skull strikes me as incredible, considering the other events going on around her at the same time, especially in the absence of cited references.--Ssbohio 09:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Since she was on the trunk of the car what strikes you as the reason for her being there if it was not to retrieve her husband's skull? RPJ 03:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a question that Wikipedia should even engage in asking. The point of an encyclopedia article is to gather facts, not to speculate. Please see WP:OR. -Harmil 05:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of the point you make about gathering facts. It helps in looking for facts to gather to determine first what one is not likely to find and what one is likely to find being discussed by reputable sources. RPJ 07:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because she saw the SS guy was struggling to get on the car and thought she'd need his help. Really, it's wild rumor and doesn't belong.

Given that it has been repeated worldwide for forty years as an explanation of her actions, it does belong and has to be in. Who knows why she was back there. She herself afterwards couldn't explain it. One explanation was simply that she reacted emotionally to seeing a piece of her husband's skull fly off by trying to get it as if somehow it would be needed to save his life. That was the media reportage at the time. Alternatively she could have been trying to get away, or trying to help an agent get into the car. No-one knows. But as the story about getting a piece of the skull was repeated extensively immediately after the assassination, it can't be ignored. It is part of the story, even if only the mythology, of that awful day. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 23:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)}

I had heard that she was reaching for a piece of JFK's skull, but that this was not unusual under the circumstances. If you see the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan, then you will see a soldier walking upright on the beach carrying an arm that had been torn from him. It was a normal human response, but probably not essential detail for the first page. Kennedy's own back brace held him upright which permitted the fatal shot to be fired too, but that's not necessary to mention first either.

— To me, since Jackie clearly reacts in horror upon seeing her husband's head explode and instantly recoil and climb out the back, she likely was just panicking and trying to escape the terrible sight she had just witnessed. I'm not sure she would have been thinking "oh, there goes a piece of skull, better get it," her reaction was too fast. --Johnny Canuck 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of JFK II

The film, JFK II: The Bush Connection is a thin collection of secondary sources, edited together with popular television clips (such as The Simpsons and South Park), and most of the film simply reviews secondary sources such as the film, JFK. It is highly biased in its language, portrayal of people and events, and in its conclusions. There may or may not be evidence to support the thesis of the film (that a declassified document from the 1970s suggests George Bush Sr.'s involvement), but this film certainly does not explore that evidence to the depth that would be required to support citation in an encyclopedia or other research context. If we want to cite that memo, I suggest that we find a primary source (such as the memo itself, or the FOIA case relating to it). -Harmil 05:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ford's edit

From RPJ's source:

The staff of the commission had written: A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine.
Ford suggested changing that to read: A bullet had entered the back of his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine.
The final report said: A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.

None of this Thoracic 3 --JimWae 01:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of "confirm" is POV. This article is not to confirm anything, nor to prove anything, but to report. It's called WP:NPOV - something sadly missing for way too long --JimWae 01:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC) There are photos showing JFK's shirt & jacket collar bunched up high --JimWae 01:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the Citations authentic re back of the head blasted out?

Yes, very authentic. The doctors testified that the back of Kennedy's head had a huge hole in it. One doctor approved this drawing. [1]

This huge gaping wound at the back of Kennedy's head was seen by several eyewitnesses who were very close to the president and had a good view. They saw the back of the president’s head blasted out that is consistent with being shot from the front. These reputable witnesses include:

a. Clint Hill the secret service agent who was sheltering the President with his body on the way to the hospital. Mr. Hill described the "President's head on the right rear side was missing" and "leaving one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head"; [2] [3]

b. Roy Kellerman, the President’s bodyguard who saw a 5 inch diameter hole in the back right hand side of the president’s head. [4]

c. Dr. McClelland, a treating physician in the emergency room who looked right at the head wound. Dr. McClelland said:

"You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." [5]

The part of the brain called the cerebellum is at the very bottom of the skull as the link to a medical model of the brain shows. The doctor who was treating President Kennedy made this drawing of how the back of president's head in the emergency room. [6]

d. Dr. Kemp, Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery, who was also in the emergency room treating Kennedy also described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (Warren Commission --CE#392)[7]

The occipital lobe of the brain is just above the cerebellum part of the brain.
3-- These descriptions of the head wound in the back of the skull are all consistent with the the kill shot to the head coming from the front, blasting out the back of the president's head and knocking him violently backwards in his seat.
RPJ

Keep in mind that "rear" could be used by people for anything below & behind the top --JimWae 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the whole right side of JFK's skull was gone, above his ear. You see that in the Z film (the very back of the head is mostly intact), and that's what Z himself saw (the side of the head open up). Close that with the big flaps of tissue hanging down from side, as Mrs. Kennedy did on the way to the hospital, and all you see is the "rear entrance" to that big tunnel (which, by the way, has a bevelled bullet hole at the rear of it, showing the bullet made it going in from the BACK). And it does look like a right rear wound, until you unroof it. There's an autopy photo [8] where you can see looking from the back for the skull, forward all the way down this channel, since the scalp has been reflected back on the side. Put the scalp back and it would look like a right posterior wound only. It's a little disorienting, but it matches reasonably well with some drawings of the Dallas people, particularly one in Livingstone's High Treason 2 (IIRC). It's there set side by side with the autopsy photo. Livingstone doesn't interpret it correctly, but that's his problem. Sbharris 03:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You state: "[I]t does look like a right rear wound . . . ." Then, "Put the scalp back [on the right side of the head]and it would look like a right posterior wound only. " Then, "It's a little disorienting, but it matches reasonably well with some drawings of the Dallas people . . . ." etc.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that if the wound to the right side of the head is repaired (so to speak) by putting the bone and scalp back in place, the wound would look as if it was present only in the back of the president's head and not in the back and on the side of his head.
Close. It was repaired by putting up the big flap that hangs down in the Z film; that is all. Nobody attempted to put back the skull underneith it. That stuff came out in big chunks, 3 of which were delivered to Bethesda and are included in the autopsy report.Sbharris 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point. How did it come to pass that the president had any large hole in the back of his head if he got shot in the head from the back rather than the front?

RPJ 08:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. He didn't. The bullet hit him in cowlick area, just to the right of the midline, and traveling in a path to exit just above his ear. Everything from the entry to his temple got blasted out, as you see in the autopsy photo looking from the rear with the scalp reflected (too bad there's not an autopsy side view published which corresponds). This entire wound however is seen in the Z film, and described by Z. The "exit" part closest to the eye, which includes much of the side of the head above the ear, was hidden when the scalp flap was replaced over the forward part of the wound.Sbharris 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You can see that from the autopsy photo looking into the skull, if you look carefully [9]. The skull fractured at the point of bullet entry, but the fractures were mostly lateral because that's where the internal pressure was. So the skull is blown out from the very point of bullet impact, and you see only HALF of the bullet entry hole in the occipital bone (the other half being gone in the lateral part of the bone that got blown sideways to the right, and out and away). But the part that does survive shows a (half) bevelled hole, and the bevelling is inward, which is to say it forms a little cone which gets wider as you go through the skull going inward. Just like the neighbor kid's BB make when it goes through your house window (hole is bigger INSIDE your house). Which means this is rear occipital (half) hole in JFK's skull is a bullet ENTRY wound.

It caused confusion, because people aren't used to seeing entry wounds that are large, right from the beginning. And if you cover up the exit with scalp (as was done here), it's even more confusing. But you can see the whole wound in the Z film, and it's gigantic-- the entire right parietal region and some of the frontal and occiputal as well. The "exit" is MUCH larger than the entry, even in this case where the "entry" started skull-shatter and lateral blowout from the get-go. On the scalp it's a little clearer: entry is a small neat hole in the cowlick, and exit is missing entirely-- it's just a bunch of flaps where the bullet frags and skull frags went out. But the part of the scalp which contains the bullet entry hole, got blown out sideways by the force of the exiting matter, and it must to be pulled into place over the missing skull cavity, to even esimate its original place on the head. In one autopsy photo you even see that being done, with a Humes holding a flap of scalp UP over the hole with thumb and forefinger [10]. Of course, conspiracy theorists just use that to argue that the photo has been doctored (literally). The problem is that the Z film shows much the same. Most of the rear of JFK's head looks okay if the scalp isn't pulled back to show that gapping loss of the entire upper right side of his skull. Apparently some of that happened in the Dallas OR. But nobody there pulled ALL the scalp back to see the whole thing. Sbharris 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your explanation of why the president would have a huge hole in the back of the head if he was shot in the back of the head as you claim. If you want someone to understand your explanation, try to be concise and don't keep digressing. RPJ 07:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it may be that the subject's just too complicated. The right side of the head was gone. The front of that wound was hidden by replacing the dangling large scalp flap you see hanging down over the ear, in the Z film. I don't know how much simpler to be Sbharris 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

A lot of hue and cry here over what, in the end, is rather straight-forward, and Sbharris points out.

What is left out by many who claim a shot from the grassy knoll accounts for JFK's movement to the left is how the wound on the facing side of Kennedy's head is in any way consistent with a gunshot from the same direction, indeed how a wound at the "back" of the head was possible as well. --Johnny Canuck 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Block quote in intro

I removed this block quote from the intro, it just restates the previous paragraph:
Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings.[2]
I left the weblink to the reference. Mytwocents 17:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't restate the previous paragraph. It will have to be put back in the article where it belongs. (removed off topic comment)

RPJ 04:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hill quote

I removed this quote from agent Hill. This has been discussed on the talk page months before. The Zapruder Film and the official autopsy prove his memory false. It may find a home on the JFK conspiracy theory page.
As the car moved at high speed to the hospital, Hill maintained his position shielding the couple with his body. He later testified "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed."

If you have information that disagrees with information in an article then put the second viewpoint in, not remove the original material.(removed off topic comment)

RPJ 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agent Hill did make the comment, where to put his statement is the issue. Maybe the controversy of 'who saw what and where',(re. the headwound) can be addressed in a seperate section? Instead of interjecting testimony, piecemeal, that contradicts the WC, throughout the article? Mytwocents 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Some evidence indicates Kennedy was shot from the front

The big hole in the back of Kennedy's head shows he was shot from the front. [11]

Once again, the big hole in the back JFK's head does NOT indicate he was shot from the front, as it's merely the rear entrance to a much bigger hole which blew out the upper right quarter of his skull back of the eye, the front of which wound was later hidden by putting back up that big flap you see hanging down, in the Z. film. The Z. film is actually the single best look at the whole wound we have, which has come to light for the general viewer. Have a look. And please read the testimony and video of Z, who corroborates it was a massive wound to the whole side of the head. Yes, the back of it was a 5 inch wound in the right rear. The rest of it was forward of that, and even larger.Sbharris 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy's personal bodyguard said the hole was 5 inches in diameter. [12]

It doesn't restate the previous paragraph. It will have to be put back in the article where it belongs. In an encyclopedia one doesn't cut out information that interfers with your own belief system. If we all did that the pages would be blank.

RPJ 04:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
RPJ 04:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but eyewitness testimony by people who just got a glimpse under really stressful circumstances in which they had to be thinking about many other things first (as in Hill's case), needs to be appropriately downgraded. You can class it with Zapruder, who saw the right side of the head (not the back) of JFK's head open up--- he just got a glimpse and was under horrible emotional shock too (though he didn't have another job to do at the same time, which he was supposed to be paying attention to, as Hill did).

JFK's ER docs were trying to save his life, not look to see how and where his head was damaged. If it had been anybody but JKF any ER doc would have looked at that much brain out of that much open skull and just put the sheet over the face. As it was, nobody pulled back scalp and took a ruler to the man. His wife and the priest were standing around. This is all 2nd class evidence. Better than what the people on Elm street saw in a split second, but still not up there with the relative time and slowness and primary objective goal-oriented behavior of Bethesda. See the point? You just can't mix all this crap in, willy nilly. Photos are best evidence. Careful autopsy measurements under controlled and slow circumstances go next. Quick observations of doctors in an ER (as they went about doing something else) would go next. Lay people like Hill and Zapruder getting a glimpse on a street in a car at the hectic moment of the event, somewhat after THAT. Sbharris 04:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And let's not forget the lists of deficencies with the autopsy listed by the House committee etc. Typically, this is used to buttress the case of incompetence or worse in terms of getting to the truth of the assassination, but a more prosaic view is that with the president of the United States laying dead on the table in front of even these professionals, they were likely not doing things in the way they normally would have, procedures were not followed to the letter.
But we DO have several photos of the autopsy and the Zapruder film both of which corroborate the views that sbharris has and as he points out, we don't dismiss THAT evidence before we embrace eyewitness testimony. If there is a conflict, we go with the closest we have to physical evidence, not the other way around. --Johnny Canuck 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete information in the article because it is "weak"

We now have another situation where an editor wants to rank information from reliable sources (and even primary sources) because the editor doesn't believe it is strong enough or that other contrary information is stronger. But, that is not how this web page works.
If it did, any article on a controversial subject would be filled with blank pages.
Here is the reason why: Everyone tends to think that their own pet theories are correct and the evidence supporting it is very strong and contrary evidence very weak. That is human nature.
One editor now wants to eliminate eyewitness testimony of Clint Hill who was Mrs. Kennedy's bodyguard, because the editor doesn't believe the witness' testimony is reliable. The editor believes that the bodyguards for President Kennedy and his wife are wrong when they saw a big hole blasted in the back of President's. eyAlso, the emergency room doctors are purportedly wrong; and even the mortician was wrong etc. when th saw the same big hole in the back of Kennedy's head.
These witnesses allegedly only "glimpsed" the wound, and had other duties etc. On the other hand the editor believes the witnesses that support his contention are highly reliable; are not biased; and had a good look. That is not a reason to delete information.
Here is the answer in these situations: If an editor has a information that reflects a witness did not have a good view of the head wound, or would be biased in his statements regarding the location of the wound, then put it in the article with the citation to the source, and let the reader decide.
Anonymous editors are not allowed by the web site rules to weigh the evidence and decide to eliminate some information because they think other evidence is stronger. The editors of an encyclopedia are for technical editing only. They are not judges of the facts.
On this web site, the readers are given all view points and they make up their own minds.
This a very basic rule.

204.14.241.188 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not an an anonymous editor, bub. Speak for yourself.

Of course editors are allowed to weigh evidence. That's why we don't give equal space to the theory that the Twin Towers collapsed 9/11 due to being hit by highjacked jets and then suffering structural failure due to hot weakened metal, and theories that they collapsed because they'd been wired by bombs all fixed up to go off later. Nor the same space to the idea that men went to the moon, and the evidence that the whole thing was faked.

I haven't argued that eyewitness Dallas testimony be removed. But group reports of witnesses of similar quality together, and give it appropriate amount of space. I see no reason to give Hill, who saw the president's head for 5 seconds while he was trying to save the Kennedys and thinking about his complete failure to prevent what he was hired to prevent, should be given the same weight as several hours of careful measuring, describing, disecting, X-raying, and photographing by three medical doctors at an autopsy in Bethesda. I think it would be madness to do so.

Wiki editors are not expected to give up WP:SENSE. And we all have to weigh WP:RS. Comes with the territory. Sbharris 11:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been extensive criticism of the autopsy done at Bethesda. At the time of the assassination there was a great push to immediately convince the public that only one person shot the President in the head and killed him. Some claimed such a conclusion was necessary to avoid the public assuming it was a communist conspiracy and then pushing the politicians into starting World War III. Whatever, the reason, the autopsy appeared compromised. The "careful measuring, dissecting" etc. you allege, isn't really supportable anymore. You need to do a good deal of homework in the area and stick to the rules of the web page. Even if you were an expert in this area of research, which I don't believe you claim to be, you should not be chopping into articles based on your self confidence that you know what is true and what is not true. Just stick to the rules and you will enjoy working on this article.

RPJ 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. Common sense is a relative thing. I've done many an autopsy, peeled back many a scalp, and looked at many a head X-ray. Though I'm not a pathologist or radiologist by trade, I've had some real hands-on training in these things, and have a feeling for head wounds that you may be lacking. I bow to neurosurgeons, of course. But are you any of these things?

"Homework" in this area too often consists of reading the blatherings of conspiracy theorists (yes, I have a bookshelf of JFK assassination books too) who obviously haven't dissected a head in their lives, and really haven't a clue as to how tough the scalp is, and how brittle the skull can be. So what do I make of their assertions that here and there a bit of hair is a later "photo paste"? I tend to believe the doctors who were on the spot. They were rushed, no doubt about it. They did an imperfect job, no doubt about it. But we have nothing better. So let's start with the best evidence we have, which is from the Bethesda autopsy, and work backwards from there. Its conclusions do feel "right" to me. They may not to you. But I'm not really putting personal expertise or my OR up here as a POV. I'm simply putting up the results of the various formal commissions and the original autopsy, which are the recognized best evidence. I'm not asking you to take MY word for it. I'm simply explaining why I take other people's word for it, and think you should, too. When doctors find something in an autopsy that feels right to me as a doctor myself, I tend to accept it. I've seen stuff like this. When you peel the lungs out of the thoracic cavity, they leave an inner pleural posterior surface which is slippery smooth and perfect, with a light color and no bruising. You don't put a bullet hole through that without noticing it. That's part of MY "common sense" experience. I can't communicate it to you. All I can do, is just ask you to quit telling me I'm meddling with stuff in which I'm a novice. I'm not.

And I haven't deleted anything, really. I've just rearranged evidence in order of reliability. Autopsy and photos first-- those docs had the most time, and produced the most hard quantitative (measurement) data. And so on.Steve 03:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. What a Secret Service agent saw in the most traumatic moment of his life is being used to discount trained medical personnel. Sure, he had "a very close up view of the wound for four minutes", the four minutes he was holding on for dear life on the trunk of a speeding automobile. This section isn't anything close to neutral, it dwells in ridiculous detail on the spun testimony of one witness and it is clearly presented in an obvious effort to discount the conclusions of the autopsy. Gamaliel 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This reader who calls himself Gamaliel still does not understand what a "neutral" encyclopedia article means. It means that all significant points of view on a subject are presented to the reader who then decides.

It does not mean that Mr. Gamaliel can decide not to include a very significant witness' viewpoint of what happened at the assassination because Gamaliel believes observations were no good since he was "holding on for dear life." It is so odd that Gamaliel can not understand this point. Nobody cares about Mr. Gamaliel's pet theories. He obviously has not kept up with modern history since he announces on his user page that he is going "insane" editing "conspiracy nonsense." Apparantly Gamaliel doesn't know that the last official investigation by the federal government concluded that there probably was a conspiracy involved in the murder of Kennedy. This finding of a probable conspiracy came out in 1979. Wake up Gamaliel and stop deleting things you seem to know nothing about.

The autopsy doctors did not produce "hard quatitative data" as can be seen by the high degree of criticism leveled at the autopsy by the later Congressional investigation in 1979, that among other things pointed out the autopsy was a mess and most people now believe it was a mess on purpose to hide the fact of a second shooter to "avoid World War III."
RPJ 09:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing viewpoints with which you don't agree

This web site has a strict policy of including all viewpoints and letting the reader decide on with which to believe. Yet, in controversial articles, some editors just can't seem to hold themselves back from deleting viewpoints with which they disagree.
Now, again, important viewpoints are being deleted from this article regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. Even though almost everyone accepts the fact that the rear right hand side of President Kennedy's head was blown out as if shot from the front, this widespread belief is again under attack. A member or two from that small group of believers in the Warren Report are snipping out historical data that conflicts with the much criticized Warren Commission. Deleted from the article, again, is the eyewitness account by the First Lady's personal bodyguard by the name of Clint Hill. Mr. Hill was present when the President suffered the fatal head shot and shielded the President's body on the ride to the hospital. Mr. Hill observed a huge gaping wound in the right rear of the President's head. Mr. Hill immediately filed a report stating what he saw. He later testified under oath on what he saw, and described the "President's head on the right rear side was missing" and "leaving one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head"; [13] [14]
Mr. Hill's testimony is supported by the other eyewitnesses. Roy Kellerman, the President’s bodyguard, saw a 5 inch diameter hole in the back right hand side of the president’s head. [15] One of the doctors who attended to the President's wounds in the emergency room approved this drawing of the head wound. [16] The physician who approved the drawing, Dr. McClelland, looked right at the head wound. Dr. McClelland said:

"You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." [17]

The part of the brain called the cerebellum is at the very bottom of the skull as the link to a medical model of the brain shows.

Dr. Kemp, Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery, saw big hole at the back of the skull while in the emergency room. He described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (Warren Commission --CE#392)[18]

The occipital lobe of the brain is just above the cerebellum part of the brain.These descriptions of the head wound in the back of the skull are all consistent with the kill shot to the head coming from the front, blasting out the back of the president's head and knocking him violently backwards in his seat. But, someone wants to delete these descriptions because they conflict with their viewpoints.

These deletions are wrong. The policy of this web site is to let the readers decide for themselves. Please restrain yourself.

RPJ 03:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RPJ, stop inserting junk

You put in: "A top secret session at the Warren Commission reviewed a different conclusion made by the Bethesda autopsy. It placed the bullet in the back below the shoulder blade rather than above it; and the bullet didn't penetrate more than a finger-length deep. [19]"

This is simply deliberation thinking at the Warren Commission. All of these were secret, since courts and committees don't publish the results of their arguments and silly comments. Here, Rankin screwed up and said the autopsy produced a "picture" showing bullet entry under the shoulder blade. Obviously they didn't. No photos were available to the WC. The report does have a drawing (perhaps this "picture" Rankin refers to) vaguely showing entry a little below the shoulder, but that would put it right in the middle of the scapula. Below the scapula is about T6 or T7 and certainly contradicts Burkely, you favorite witnesss, and also the bullet holes in both coat and shirt. This is not some secret Bethesda conclusion being reviewed-- it's just one guy (Rankin) who can't read an anatomical drawing. Which wasn't intended to be perfect anyway, which is why the measurements were made. 5.5 inches under the ear is not below the shoulder blade. So give us a break. Screwups like this in deliberations by less than informed deliberators are why deliberations aren't included in final reports. People in deliberations say ignorant things because they're not completely informed yet, and these are corrected in later drafts and final conclusions. Anybody can look at the section I deleted (see above) and the ref (see above), and check all this.Steve

The secret transcript shows the autopsy doctors later changed their story when it didn't fit the final conclusion wanted by the politicians on the Warren Commission. Here is proof that a photograph of the back wound was shown to the Commission containing evidence the Commission wanted to later conceal when the Commission found out it rebutted its "single bullet" theory. Do you think the members of the Commission were hallucinating about seeing a picture of the back wound? Why wouldn't the Commission see pictures of the wounds if the members were investigating the assassination? RPJ 01:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A "picture" need not be a photograph. The figure of 5.5 in (actually 14 cm) from the bone behind the ear, is in the original autopsy drawings. You cannot measure 5.5 inches down from the bone behind your right ear and get to the middle of your back, unless you're a half-size person. Sorry.

Lets not be too gullible. We know the politicians claimed they wanted to "avoid World War III" and conclude there was no Communist conspiracy by finding only one shooter. Why is it so hard for some to believe that the Commission later just picked and chose evidence that supported that theory and the military doctors just changed their findings to accomodate the process.RPJ 01:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no picking and choosing here, unless it's YOU picking a lawyer's inference of where the scapula is, probably from a drawing which doesn't show it, and in any case from a document you don't have, over the words and measurements of the three physicians responsible for quantitating this fact finding during the autopsy. Come on.Steve 15:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The wrongful deletion of information from the article

Some of the editors continue to wrongfully delete information from this article on the assassination based on their fervent belief in the Warren Report. This time the editor deletes information he calls "junk." This editor believes in the Warren Report conclusions, but doesn't realize that he is in a distinct minority of the public in his beliefs, and even if his view was the majority viewpoint he is violating web site rules by deleting different viewpoints with which he disagrees. This is basic web site policy. The true believers need to go to a web site dedicated to the belief in the Warren Report so that they can read only information that agrees with the Warren Report. There are such web sites, and their belief system won't be challenged. Now what have been deleted are transcripts from the secret sessions of the Warren Commission where they discuss the evidence with their attorney, Mr. Rankin. According to the editor who wants this information deleted from this page, these historic transcripts are deemed "junk." Here is what the information pertains to:

Over a month after the murder Kennedy, the Warren Commissioners and their attorney Mr. Rankin, discussed the autopsy findings and discuss, in particular, a picture of the back wound of Kennedy that they have seen with the entrance in the back below the hole in Kennedy's throat where the Warren Report claims the bullet exited. This picture they reviewed supports the information that critics of the Warren Report have pointed to for some time that the "magic" bullet, later posited by the Commission, hit Kennedy low in the back and then, and then would have had to travel upward to exit the throat and then downward again to hit Governor Connally sitting in front of Kennedy in the car.

The transcripts also confirm the information from the autopsy report that the bullet wound to the back was reportedly only finger-length deep, and didn't exit Kennedy's body. The FBI director told Johnson the day after the murder that the bullet fell out of the back during the massage of Kennedy's heart in the emergency room.[[20]] Ultimately, the FBI never did support the "magic" bullet theory.

The Warren Report believers, such as editor Harris, who wants to delete this information, frantically try keep out information that creates skepticism about the Warren Report. It has become a religion for some of them. But this web site includes all view points and let the reader decide.

Please stop interfering with the readers from reviewing these very interesting historic documents. [[21]] RPJ 21:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We know the Warren Commission never saw the autopsy photos. The Commissioners later said so. If they saw a "picture," it was a drawing, and it was either the bad freehand drawing in the autopsy report (which has measurements to correct it), or else some other drawing. In neither of these cases does this info come up the standards in quality of the measurements the autopsy doctors reported. Moreover we HAVE a photo of the back wound from the autopsy, which leaked during the 1979 hearings. YOU don't want to believe it, because it totally corroborates the Bethesda findings. Too bad. There's no more reason to think the photo's been altered than there is to believe that the Rankin notes of the deliberations of the commission have been altered. One is no better record of history than the other. On the other hand, some of the Bethesda docs are still alive and they still stand by their autopsy conclusions.

Finally, let me note once again that direction of fibers in JFK's clothes show a bullet EXIT at this throat-- that bullet exited his throat, moving forward. Where did it come from? Perhaps this bullet magically appeared *inside* his throat from another universe, and has no entrance wound. However, I like this idea that it got into him by hitting the base of his neck in back, much better. It violates fewer laws of physics (conservation of bullets, etc). And it goes along with the photo and the measurements and the X-rays. It doesn't go along with the clothing holes if you ASSUME that a jacket and shirt don't ride up in a man in a suit with his arm raised. Which would then cause a problem, since this bullet would have had to enter JFK from the car behind, maybe. Maybe Menninger is right, but had the wrong bullet! However, it's so much more simple to assume the coat and shirt ride up. And if you put on a shirt and coat, you can check it on yourself. Steve 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting citations to historical documents

Editor Steve Harris can't seem to understand the rule. A citation to an important historical document such as the secret transcripts of the Warren Commission deliberations can't be deleted as "junk." Let the readers review the information for them selves. Your attempt to justify the deletion of the historical record is amusing but has no bearing on the issue. It doesn't matter what you believe, or what you wish to argue about the meaning of the material. Just leave the material alone and let the reader decide.

No one has appointed you as an expert on the subject. You haven't to my knowledge published any information on the subject. If you know of a published source of information from a reliable source that comments about the transcripts, then include it in the article that contains the historical record. But, don't delete the historical record.

RPJ 23:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The WC final report itself is 26 volumes. The fact that all of it is "historical record" does not merit inclusion in WP of whatever part of those thousands of pages you seem to take a fancy to, at the moment, on the basis that they are "historical record." This is not the historical record here, this is Wikipedia. See WP:NOT. As for notes on Warren Committee deliberations which didn't even make it into the final conclusions and report, what I said above goes double. For encyclopedic purposes, it's junk. No, we do not put in extreme minority viewpoints (including minority viewpoints and muddling around within the Warren deliberations themselves) and "let the reader decide." Not with the final report itself so long, and this history of official and unofficial investigations of this so long.

I've given my rationale for what I consider primary evidence as to the state of JFK's body. The photos, films, and autopsy report and drawings must come first. Professional analysis of same comes second, but most of that doesn't support your viewpoint, so you're not going to be happy with it. What witnesses saw in a few seconds of panic is of lesser value, particularly as witnesses with limited viewing time and other problems, saw everything you can imagine (including JFK reaching around to his own back after being hit, which Hill, I think "saw"), and most of it does not merit inclusion here. It's simply historical junk. It cannot be compared with the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, X-rays, and a team of doctors carefully measuring wounds with rulers for several hours.

As for who is an expert on this subject with published material, your comments go right back at you. Feel free to reference your own published research. (Not that I wish to imply the quality of published "research" in the JFK assassination is very high.) Steve 19:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why keep the evidence secret?

The editor above, writes in support of deleting evidence that contradicts the Warren Report conclusions. In this case, evidence was deleted that the Commissioners had seen a picture of the bullet wound to Kennedy's back that is said to be much lower than possible for the Commission’s theory about a “magic bullet” to work. In fact, the evidence refutes the ultimate conclusion of the Commission that a "magic bullet" theory hit Kennedy up near the neck. Not only does the picture referred to in the formerly secret transcript show the bullet too low, but the transcripts also includes evidence from the autopsy that the bullet wound to the back was only finger-length deep into the back. This would entirely eliminate the “magic bullet” theory which is the foundation of the Report’s conclusion. Therefore, the editor states: The secret transcripts are "junk."

The editor can't comprehend that the Commissioners, who were primarily politicians, may have compromised the accuracy of their findings in favor of achieving a conclusion desired by President Johnson, the CIA, and Director Hoover of the FBI. Because the editor cannot comprehend such a result, he doesn't recognize that to achieve such a predetermined result may have required the Commissioners to ignore evidence given to them that didn't fit the predetermined result. Finally, the editor can’t comprehend the Commissioners may later have hid the inconsistent evidence under a cloak of secrecy. Now that such secrecy has been lifted, the editor has decided that he now wants to start keeping the evidence secret from the readers. RPJ 07:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The editor cannot comprehend a conspiracy which supposedly extends to altering things like the Zapruder film, which the FBI wasn't even very interested in, at first. Nor does the editor believe that some vast conspiracy extends to the testimony of physicians who said the same thing about what they'd found, long after retirement. In any case, the editor is tired of your sniping. Tell us where you think JFK was hit, and how. S B H arris 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And why would it do that? Just what in the rules of the universe makes you think that in every case, or even in most cases, of a wound produced by a small-caliber bullet through muscle, you're entitled to stick you finger (or anything else) into the body along the bullet path, as far as you like? Hmmm? Steve 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that this editor infinitely favors Sbharris' approach over RPJ's. Sbharris wants to state facts simply, letting the reader piece things together. RPJ wants to put a pro-conspiracy spin onto every single statement in the article, because he/she is sure this conspiracy is the wellspring and keystone of the whole event. Sbharris wants to quote principals and witnesses while RPJ wants to quote and characterize them. RPJ's efforts belong in the Assasination Theories article. As long as there's a link from here to there, RPJ should be content to let this article be what it should be: a tight explanation of events and issues without even a slight editorial air. JDG 18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas how to fix this sentence

Many not only dispute the conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin (claiming that there was a conspiracy), but also claim that Oswald was not involved at all.

The above sentence violates WP:AWW and WP:WEASEL. We should put a names to the sentence instead of simply saying many. I cannot think of any researchers, outside of Jim Garrison, who believes that Oswald was totally innocent in the assassination. I was thinking of Mark Lane, and James Blakey as prominent proponents of a conspiracy. But I am not aware of the roles they claim Oswald had in the assassination, if he had any at all. Please update the sentence if you have pertinent information. Ramsquire 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Real Finding of the HSCA...

I have just done a survey of the more popular JFK assassination articles, and in almost every article the findings of the HSCA is innacurately stated.

The Final Report of the HSCA finds that:

Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.

Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. . . .

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. . . .

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

I have changed the findings to accurately state this when I have come across it. Please be more careful in relaying the committees findings.

Ramsquire 18:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you reporting the corrections being made at other web sites; or at this web site? Who are you cautioning? If you are cautioning people on other web sites aren't those the web sites to place your cautionary language?

RPJ 06:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Where the bullets hit Kennedy

One of the editors asks about evidence of “Where President Kennedy was hit by bullets and how?” Good question. Here is some of the evidence regarding two bullet wounds:One that hit the back and one that hit the right temple.

Bullet Number One:

The following evidence establishes a bullet hit the President in the back at about the third thoracic vertebra:

President Kennedy’s death certificate states that Kennedy had a bullet wound at about the third thoracic vertebra. The Death Certificate was signed by his personal physician who was both at Parkland Hospital when Kennedy died and at the Bethesda autopsy. The physician was also a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy. [22]

President Kennedy’s suit coat has a bullet hole in the back of it at about the third thoracic vertebra.[23]

The shirt the President wore underneath his jacket also had a bullet hole at about the third thoracic vertebra.[24]

The diagram on the autopsy sheet has a bullet hole identified at about the third thoracic vertebra. [25]

Bullet Number Two

The following evidence, is sampling of evidence Kennedy was struck by a bullet entering at his right temple and going in the direction of the back of the head where it exited at the rear right-hand side:

Tom Robinson: The mortician who reassembled the President's skull after the autopsy. He has stated that he saw a small hole in one of the temples, and that he believes it was in the right temple. He filled the hole in the temple with wax. He provided the information to the ARRB and drew where the hole was. [26]
Patrolman Hurchel Jacks: Saw Kennedy's body at Parkland Hospital before the body was taken inside. He wrote in his report: "[I]t appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple."
White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff described where the bullet entered:

Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter . . . of a bullet right through the head. . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple. [27]

Kilduff illustrates his information by pointing to his own right temple. Veteran reporter Seth Kantor attended and the press conference and wrote that the bullet had "entered right temple."
Soon after Kilduff's press conference, UPI transmitted the following bulletin:

President Kennedy was shot in the right temple. "It was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head," said Dr. George Burkley, White House Medical Officer.[28]

]

The SEATTLE POST INTELLIGENCER reported that "President Kennedy was shot in the right temple." The WASHINGTON POST said the President "was shot at 12:30 CST . . . by an assassin, who sent a rifle bullet crashing into his right temple."[29]
When interviewed on ABC's "20/20," Dr. Charles Crenshaw, one of the Parkland doctors who treated the President, stated that the bullet entered in the area of the right temple and exited the right rear part of the head. [30]
Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that he believed the entry wound was on the side of the head, that the bullet "would have come from the side." The back of the head was missing. [31]
James Curtis Jenkins: A Navy medical technician who assisted with the autopsy, formed the impression that a bullet had entered the right temple and had exited the right rear part of the skull. He reports that he saw what appeared to be metal smears in the right temple, and that the large wound in the back of the head looked like an exit wound:

And the opening and the way the bone was damaged behind the head would have definitely been a type of exit wound. The reason I have said this is that I saw this before in other wounds and it was very striking. [32]

The evidence of what the exit to the right rear portion of the head looked like is established by the following evidence:

Robert Nelson McClelland, who treated President Kennedy in the emergency room in Dallas. Dr. McClelland testified before both the Warren Commission, and then many years later, to the Assassination Records Review Board. He approved of a sketch of the head wound, cited here; [33]. This drawing portrays a large wound, at the back of Kennedy's head and is supported by his testimony[34]
Dr. Charles J. Carrico was also present. His description of the fatal head wound is similar to Dr. McClelland's.[35]
Clint Hill, Mrs Kennedy’s body guard shielded the Presidents body with his own all the way to the hospital and had a good at the head wound. Agent Hill later testified:

The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. [36]

Newsman Roy Stamps was at Parkland Hospital and saw Kennedy's body before it was taken inside and said,
I rushed up and saw Kennedy lying in the car on his side. His foot was hanging over the side of the car. The back of his head was gone. [37]
Roy Kellerman, President Kennedy’s body guard testified that the President had a five inch diameter hole in the right rear portion of his head.[38]
General Godfrey McHugh, attended the autopsy. He got a very good look at the President's head wounds. McHugh said that there was a large defect in the back of the head, when asked to define what he meant by "back of the head," McHugh replied:
The portion that is in the back of the head, when you're lying down in the bathtub, you hit the back of the head. [39]
Nurse Doris Nelson: Emergency Room.. She assisted in treating the President, and helped prepare his body for placement in the coffin. When asked about one of the autopsy photos which show the back of the head intact, she replied:
It's not true. . . . There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out. [40]
Tom Robinson: The mortician who reassembled the President's skull after the autopsy saw a big hole in the back of the head. He drew where the large hole at the back of the head was. [41]
Motorcycle Patrolman Willie Price: He was at Parkland hospital.
The president was laying forward. I got a good look at him [and] put that coat around his head, Mrs. Kennedy walked between me and his head and she put her hands on the back of his head...I started to push her hands away, but I got to thinking, those guys might be a little gun-happy, so therefore, I better let them do it. I knew the back of his head was blown out, and...I felt like she shouldn't be getting her hands under there because there wouldn't be nothing but blood... [42]

Dr. Clark (Parkland doctor): A large wound in the back of the head [43] Dr. Jones (Parkland doctor): A large defect in the back of the head. [44] James Sibert (FBI agent: Drew a circle on the back of the skull where he saw Kennedy’s large wound. [45] RPJ 08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reason for deletion

Shock was followed by renewed speculation and the public began listening more to researchers who insisted that the backward and leftward movement of the President's head observed in this section of the Zapruder film meant, by the simple application of Newton's Second Law of Motion, that he must have been hit by a bullet fired from his right front, forcing the existence of at least one more gunman not in back of the President as Oswald was.[46]. The 1991 major motion picture JFK made a mantra out of what is seen in frame 313 by having a crusading attorney repeat the phrase "back and to the left", hoping to drill this simple physical truth, and its strong implication of conspiracy, into the jurors' (and filmgoers') minds. Yet the cause and nature of this movement turned out to be more complex than the simple transfer of directional momentum and has been a topic for much debate and analysis, particularly by physicists and others who propound a "jet effect" [47] from a rearward shot whereby matter expelled at high pressure from the exit wound at the top right front of the skull impels the whole body back and to the left. Such effects on model heads moving backward when shot from behind have been duplicated in tests. Further analysis of the president's head motion shows that it does begin between frames 312 and 313 (the frames just before and after the bullet strike) as a rapid forward motion-- an effect first noticed by physicist Richard Feynman at instigation of author David S. Lifton in 1966 ^[1]. Only in later frames does it move backward. The 486 frames of this film have been used in many studies, but the film has not been able to settle all disputes concerning whether or not Oswald was the sole assassin.

I deleted the above paragraph because although the discussion is ostensibly accurate and interesting, it is not appropriate for the section it is in. What I mean by that is that the section is for recordings of the assassination. It simply lists person and entities with various recordings of the assassination and then the above paragraph appears. This lengthy paragraph is more about analysis of the Zapruder film and Kennedy's head movement after the fatal shot and would be more appropriate in the Zapruder film article. Ramsquire 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning here, but I won't make a fight of it. This paragraph (along with the bit you left in) simply traces the major happenings through time concerning the Z film, or at least from the assassination through 1991. That it does so in a somewhat detailed way should not disqualify it from this article as it (the Z film) is a central topic and other topics (for instance, the deployment of Dallas police on Nov. 22, 1963), of arguably far less overall importance, are delved into at the same level of detail in this article. I'll wait a while to see if anyone cares to back up my view of this (dear passers-by: please leave comments). If we get no feedback, I'll content myself with working it into the Z film sub-article (yes it should be there, but in greater detail, including donation of original by the Z family to the Sixth Floor Museum in `05) JDG 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it appears that I have a beef with the length, info or detail of the article. I don't. I think maybe we could try to incorporate it into other sections of the article. Otherwise the paragraph seems like the opening salvo in what could become an argument about the Zapruder film. However, if there is a consensus to allow it in, I won't fight it. Ramsquire 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence summarizing your paragraph. Ramsquire 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

McAdams Sites

Why are the McAdams sites both listed at the top? These should be in alpha order or better yet broken up into lone assassin v. conspiracy categories. I find it interesting that someone keeps putting John McAdams's sites at the top of this list. We need to at least put them in alpha order so as not to promote any sites unfairly. -- Dubc0724 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So your solution is to stick it at the bottom and slap "Lone Assassin Site" on it? Alphabetical order isn't a solution because most of the sites are listed under J or K. Gamaliel 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think labeling the sites more clearly can be a bad idea. His sites exist to promote the Lone Assassin theory. How can being forthright and clear about the contents of external links be a bad thing for Wikipedia? McAdams gives his sites plain-jane names to attract people there for his version of things. Wikipedia shouldn't help him do that, or promote his sites over other research sites.

And just because there's a lot of Js and Ks doesn't mean we can't alphabetize them.

Alpha or by category. I'm fine with either. I just find it suspect that McAdams keeps rising to the top. -- Dubc0724 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I keep returning it to the top because people, usual drive-by anon editors, delete it or stick it on the bottom. Which site should be on the top? Your objections about promoting a particular site would hold for whatever we place at the top, and after all, something has to be first.

Generally, I object to attaching labels to sites. I'm sorry you don't like his website's generic title, but I doubt it arises from such sinister motives, and even so, we shouldn't be in the business of deciding whether or not the title a person chooses for their website is appropriate. And a silly POV label like "Another Lone Assassin Site" is not appropriate in any case. Gamaliel 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that no special placement should be provided for Mcadam's sites. They have almost a cartoon book quality about them, and often use usigned work. Macad's sites just don't have the look, feel and depth of serious research. RPJ 18:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Which site should be on the top? Your objections about promoting a particular site would hold for whatever we place at the top, and after all, something has to be first. They could be alphabetized, like many other lists in Wikipedia. Dubc0724 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

McAdams has some of the best material available anywhere. Its detractors are being led by their own agendas. Personally, I'd like to see an External Link section called Leading JFK Assassination Sites (or something equiivalent) containing at most 6 sites, each parenthetically designated as either Pro Lone Assassin, Pro-Conspiracy or Neutral. McAdams would easily be mong them... I'm curious, Dubc-- which would you say is the best Pro-Conspiracy site? JDG 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Its (McAdams') detractors are being led by their own agendas. And McAdams isn't led by his? Dubc0724 16:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, McAdams is prolific, and he has a lot of spin to meet his objectives. It's hardly a "research" site. Its sole purpose is to push the Lone Nut Theory and discredit anyone who doesn't buy the government's version of events. This is no secret. Read McAdams' posts on the JFK assassination newsgroup. Look at how McAdams has manipulated his website to get the most search engine hits (nothing illegal in that, but it's telling). Now, I'm not going as far as to agree with those who claim McAdams is/was in the CIA, but he's definitely got an axe to grind. As do those who want to keep his links at the top of the list here, obviously. And I'm far from an expert on who has the best "pro-conspiracy" site. Dubc0724 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Order of External links

Its true that if the external links are put in alphabetical order the reader will be alerted that the editors aren't giving an opinion as to which external link is more important.

But, because external links at the top of the list are probably opened more than external links on the bottom of the list, this alphabetical order of the external links might encourage odd names for web sites that contain a number of letters "A" for the first word of the web site name. This would make the External Link section look like the Yellow pages

"AAAssassination Site.com"

It might be better to simply rotate the links each month. Take the bottom link of the list and place it at the top. Start any new link in the middle.

RPJ 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted you because 1) this is an encyclopedia not the produce section, and we don't rotate the stock 2) you've removed the date from an article for no good reason 3) you're just using it as an excuse to sneak in the Newman link again. Gamaliel 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't we even agree about the order of links? I don't see why this has become contentious today. I didn't think anyone would put any importance to how the links are ordered. In any case may I suggest putting the government links on top (they remain the official version-- for now anyway), followed by the serious research sites in alphabetical site (with no descriptions) like McAdams, JFK assassination.net, and the Mary Ferrell link, removing the frontline link as it seems to fit better in the Oswald article, as well as some duplicative links, e.g. The Unofficial JFK Assassination FAQ #19 is actually a subset of McAdams site, History Matters is just a page with links to other pages.

If there is a conspiracy site as comprehensive as McAdams it should be added as well.Ramsquire 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your comments in general, but I have two minor things I disagree with.

The exclusion of the Locke JFK FAQ. While it is one of many items on McAdams site, it originated elsewhere, is by a different author, and is one of the most useful and comprehensive short documents about the subject I've ever read.
The exclusion of the Frontline website, which is a very comprehensive one. Gamaliel 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion that the order of the external links be rotated so no one site is given preference is not acceptable to Gamaliel. Why? Because Gamaliel perceives that this web site "is not a produce section." A flash of genius from Gamaliel? Gamaliel's Rule One: Nothing but "produce" can be rotated. Well, I never knew this. In other words, troops can't be rotated, and tires can't be rotated, thereore Gamaliel logic dictates that a position on a list of links can't be rotated. Could Gamaliel explain himself and origin of his new rule of life? Also, what method does Gamaliel suggest for the order of the external links? That Gamaliel choose? RPJ 07:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "rotating" them. It just seems like a lot of work and wouldn't really be worth it. I still don't see what would be wrong with alphabetizing them. I just don't want McAdams' websites getting any special treatment. Yes, his sites are "comprehensive" but that doesn't make them correct or any more deserving of the novice readers' attention. I find it interesting that his work is being so heavily defended here. -- Dubc0724 13:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's "interesting", is it? Yes, ominous hints. How about you play some Bach and cue up the sinister laughter. Geesh. It's not "heavily defended", we're just pointing out the usefulness of a comprehensive website that you want to either mislabel or stick on the bottom of a long list. Gamaliel 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I'm a nutjob for stating the facts. They don't have to be "stuck at the bottom of a long list." I said I wanted them to be presented in a more neutral manner. And the list is not that long. As for mislabeling: How is calling his site "John McAdams' Lone Assassin Site" anything other than 100% accurate? It's his site, and it exists to debunk any and all conspiracy theories. A quote from his site This web site is dedicated to debunking the mass of misinformation and disinformation surrounding the murder of JFK. Many people say his site contains a fair amount of propaganda and misinformation as well. That may be, but that's not appropriate for this conversation. My point is and has been that his site should be given no more weight than any other "research" site, pro OR anti-lone gunman. -- Dubc0724 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not accurate because it's not the name of the website. Gamaliel 16:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Two proposals have been presented:

1- Alphabetize the the list;

2- rotate the external link from the bottom of the list to the top of the list each month.

Does Gamaliel have a proposal for making the External List neutral? If not we should do the easiest which is alphabetize.RPJ 18:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gamaliel's comment. I wasn't putting the name of the website. I was putting a description. Dubc0724 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be writing descriptions in that manner, especially when you are singling out the few anti-conspiracy links. Gamaliel 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the lone nut links are the ones with the most misleading "names". A description seemed like a good clarifier. Dubc0724 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How's McAdams' "The Kennedy Assassination" any more "misleading" than, say, Ralph Schuster's pro-conspiracy "The John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage"? Gamaliel 16:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Missed that one I guess. Dubc0724 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Watch Reverts Carefully

Watch out for reverts disguised as other (less controversial ones.) See History regarding External Links July 13 - July 14, 2006. Next time only revert what you SAY you're reverting, Gamaliel. -------Dubc0724 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, and thanks for the accusation by the way. I'd think that the identification of the murder weapon would be a more controversial edit than the order of some links, but I guess not!

Since we're on the subject now, I'm going to object to this alphabetical order silliness. I'm not crusading to get McAdams on the top, but I do think that the list of links should have some order to them that makes them useful to the reader. Alpha order essentially randomizes them, which a fantastic compromise in an edit war between encyclopedia editors, but not so great for the readers of the encyclopedia. My take on it is that larger, more comprehensive sites, like the McAdams site you hate so much, Frontline, and some of the larger conspiracy nut sites, should be on the top, and sites that essentially provide a single piece of information, like the google map, should be towards the bottom. So I'm going to take a stab at something like that now. I'm also going to restore information like the citation for the Skeptical Inquiry article that RPJ keeps stripping from the links. I'm sure s/he has some reason for doing this that involves me being a CIA plant or a tool of the Illuminati, but I'm not particularly interested in learning what that is. Gamaliel 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I checked all the links, properly labeled the ones which were not, and removed one link which struck me as nothing more than an ad for some guy's book. I placed the National Archives link first, followed by links from reputable media organizations, then the comprehensive one-man sites next in alphabetical order by author. Miscellaneous is at the end in somewhat random order with the more useful stuff at the top. Now are we done with this? Gamaliel 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure it was an "accusation". I simply commented on what occurred.

As for the alpha thing...I originally suggested categorizing them by topic/viewpoint, whatever, but that didn't seem to get any traction. Alphabetizing them seemed to "randomize" them a bit. I agree with you there, though, the reader is left to hunt and peck through sites of varying levels of content. I'm not crazy about the alphabetizing setup either. Your current configuration looks as good as anything else... but I'd still like the external links broken up by topic (Lone Gunman, Conspiracy, Neutral Facts, etc).

My take on it is that larger, more comprehensive sites, like the McAdams site you hate so much, Frontline, and some of the larger conspiracy nut sites, should be on the top, and sites that essentially provide a single piece of information, like the google map, should be towards the bottom. Where do I start? First, I don't hate the McAdams site; he's got an agenda and he's working 24/7 to spread his spin. That's his right. What I have a problem with are his methods and I won't tolerate Wikipedia being used to advance his agenda at the expense of other researchers, either pro or anti conspiracy. And I love the "conspiracy nut" dig you threw in! As if Lone Nutters are somehow more sane. Anyone that can watch the Zapruder film and not come away questioning the official story is either delusional or willfully ignorant. Dubc0724 15:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dunno what version you're watching, but my favorite is the full screen one which is second in the Zapruder film article. It is here: [48]. I've probably seen it hundreds of times, and the more I see it, the more convinced I am that the lone gunman is exactly correct. Something certainly nails Connally in a major way at exactly the momment JFK is shot, as they both JFK emerges from the sign. On normal-rate motion Connally starts, throws arms up startled, opens his mouth, and starts to turn around while holding his right arm pinned to his ribs in the actions of somebody hit on the right side. No, the PAIN doesn't hit Connally until he's turned his head completely to look at JFK, and then back at the camera (this is just about the moment of the Altgens photo). But pain travels slowly. The one-second delay is just about right, and I have no doubt that it took the hit that long to actually register on Connally's consciousness, which is why he believed to the end of his life that he hadn't been hit until after JFK was. If you've ever taken a bad hit from anything unexpectedly (except in the head) you know what I'm telling you is true. As for continuing to hold a hat after a bullet has passed through a wrist and broken the bone, that's not at all impossible. All those muscles for gripping are in your forearm, and the tendons weren't cut. A bone broken by a bullet does NOT mean you lose your grip. S B H arris 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy it. Dubc0724 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Connally and his wife were both adamant that he was NOT hit by the same bullet. What does that tell you, Mr. Occam's razor? And I guess we're not looking at the same film. What I see is the Governor sitting upright, without any evidence of injury. By the way, are you a doctor? Perhaps we should ask one: Dr. Cyril Wecht: "In F-245, which is a blowup of Zapruder frame 230, we are told under the single bullet theory that Gov. John Connally, for a period of approximately one and a half seconds, has already been shot through the right chest with the right lung pierced and collapsed, through the right wrist, with the distal end of the radius comminuted and the radial nerve partially severed. There was nerve damage, yes, to the radial nerve. And the thumb which holds this large Texas white Stetson that is required for it to be in apposition with the index or index and middle fingers to hold that hat is innervated by the radial nerve. Note in F-245 that the hat is still being held and Governor Connally is not reacting. This is again a very alert individual, under a very special circumstance, and I do not believe or accept for one moment the story that we must accept under the single bullet theory that this gentlemen, at this point, one and a half seconds previously, has already been shot through his chest, through his wrist, and into his left thigh." JoeGoodfriend 19:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't look at the film on the link, did you? Connally sitting there in the still Z-230 apparently calmly holding the hat, in real time is bringing that hat up from a lower position in a swatting motion which amounts to either a very big cringe, or an actual hit. Mr Occum, what say YOU to which it was? You're still looking at a still photo. And yeah, I am a doctor. And I can't say I think much of Dr. Wecht's opinion here. But he is a pathologist and doesn't do a lot of grip testing, one supposes :). That's a smiley.

FYI, Connally got hit in a superficial radial branch not doing much but supplying feeling to the back of his hand. I would think you can hold a hat without that. Most of the hand intrinsics at the wrist are going through median and ulnar nerves. Even if you block or sever the radial up very high where it is enervating forearm muscles (much higher in the arm than Connally was hit), you lose SOME grip (30 to 70% depending-- see for example PMID 3722764), but always retain enough strength to hold a HAT. A normal man of Connally's age has a 100 lb grip in the dominant hand. How much does a Stetson weigh, hey? This whole argument line is out to lunch and I'm surprised some of Dr. Wecht's colleages didn't call him on it.S B H arris 00:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's Texas. A man sized Stetson weighs at least 150 lbs. Gamaliel 05:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You’re a doctor! Then I’m sure you’ll appreciate the words of your, um, colleagues before the WC. Humes, Boswell and Finck were the USN doctors, Shaw was Connally’s Dallas surgeon. Dr. Olivier was in charge of the test bullet fired through a cadaver. CE 399, (the single bullet) weighed 2.4 grains less than the heaviest known unused bullet of that kind.

Asked if the bullet could have inflicted Connally’s wrist wounds, Humes: “I think that it is most unlikely. Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels thoughout the wound. (The bullet was) basically intact, and I do understand how it could possibly have left fragments.” Could it have caused the thigh wound? “I think that extremely unlikely. (The x-rays showed) metal fragments in the bone.” Boswell agreed that Humes' words were the “culmination of our examination.” Asked if the bullet could have caused the wrist wounds, Finck: “No. For the reason that there are too many fragments. Asked if the bullet caused Connally’s chest and wrist wounds, Shaw said, “fragments of metal make it difficult to believe…there seems to be more than three grains of metal missing…in the wrist." Dr. Olivier on the test bullet: “The nose of the bullet is quite flattened. It is not like (CE 399) at all. This one is severely flattened on the end.”

Mrs. Connally’s testimony: “I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck…and he just sort of slumped down. Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John.” The Gov. himself: “It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet.” Can't wait to see how you're going to spin this. PS-Yes, Wecht's colleagues disagreed with him. Read his wiki entry. A talented man, but...weird. JoeGoodfriend 01:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you watch the Z film, you'll see that Mrs. Connally pulls her husband back when JFK gets hit in the head. If he got hit sometime between the throat shot AND the head shot, it's rather difficult to figure out why she didn't react sooner. And who did the shooting, since he was rotated even more toward JFK the whole time after the throat hit, and for all of it his right side is toward back of the limo and his wrist is in the wrong place. So now you have a second shooter in the back and opposite the grassy knoll on the other side of Elm to get Connally in the right armpit exiting his chest (where's THAT guy-- maybe Babushka Lady with camera-gun, in drag?). AND a third to get Connally in the wrist, too, so you get your lead and have third good angle. And one on the grassy knoll for 5 total to give JFK a front shot? Getting complicated. Connally was exactly the right angle to get all his wounds from one bullet at just one time-- the time of the throat shot. It's much easier for me to believe neither Connallys registered his hit immediately, as I've said. There are very many similar cases; counterintuitive but true. There was an earlier (non-hitting) shot at about Z-160 (you see the film jump a few frames later, as Z jumps at every sound-- this happens 3 times total), and it's possible the Connallys registered THIS sound and connected it with the throat wound. Connally said HE looked over his LEFT shoulder, but although his head turns that way, he never does. Of course his testimony can't be entirely trusted (and why should it?). He looks over his right shoulder at JFK holding his throat, already having been hit, and by that time is entirely in the wrong position for anybody but the Babuska lady to shoot him through the chest in the way that he WAS hit. As for Mrs. C, we can't expect her to have known exactly when the governor was hit, for all the same reasons, plus others.

Z jumps at each shot, but it take him a few frames to react, of course. Take a look at frames. There's a frame-by-frame at the third ref in the Wiki Z film list. At the moment before the throat shot at Z-223, Connally is crystal clear. Yet, at Z-224 (when JFK gets the throat hit) C's very suddenly a blur, yet the CAR is still clear. What's THAT? That's way too fast for him or Zapruder to be reacting to noise: 1/18th second. So just WHAT HAPPENED to Connally at that moment, between Z-223 and Z-224? Which is also the moment JFK begins to reach up toward this throat, and many frames before Z. jumps at the sound? Reason it out. No, not ESP. Connally's coat lapel actually flips up at Z-224-5, as something passes through it (you can't see this on the low res stuff on the net, but it's been noted by others).

As for lead, it doesn't take much to show as total opacity on a standard X-ray, however thin. A few grains will do it, flaked thinly (as from the rear of a squeezed FMJ leaking lead). Since the lead in C's wounds was never weighed, we just don't know. Again the intuitive feeling for how much lead it takes to show up on X-ray, is just wrong. And you can't expect even a surgeon to have a feeling for it. I've seen #9 doveshot on X-ray and it doesn't come close to being transparent. I don't think any section of lead you could flake from the rear of a bullet by natural processes would be thin enough not to show up like Christmas in full areal projection. Making flakes look "solid", fooling you into thinking you're seeing volumes of that dimension, not areas.S B H arris 07:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we reached another argumentative stopping point. Seriously, when you start telling me that the Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology is not competent read an x-ray, what can I say? So far, you’ve accused both the Connallys, all the autopsy doctors, and Oswald’s car pool buddies of being either delusional or incompetent. Who’s next? The irony of the z-film is that once upon a time it was the tool of conspiracy theorists to demonstrate that the WC was wrong, today it’s used by WC defenders to trot out a lot of pure conjecture (lapel flap?) to attempt to explain away all the rock solid evidence that the WC was totally wrong. JoeGoodfriend 15:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that if you choose witness statements over the photographic evidence, even when the former contradicts the latter, then you have a pre-ordained conclusion in mind here, namely that Connally was struck by a different bullet than Kennedy. Harris' detailed examination of the Z film quite congently underlines why some of Connally's testimony not only was in error, it HAD to be in error. Surely you are not suggesting we, when choosing who is the better "witness," that we have to discount the Z film itself in favour of Connally? because that is what we'd need to do following your line of reasoning.

None of this requires any of those you list to be "delusional" or "incompetent." It merely requires that their judgement to have been wrong. Since others have testified in a manner more consistent with a single bullet theory, we are left with a quandry: Who to believe? Since we have the Z film, we can largely answer those questions.

And, excuse me but how does "(label flap?)" become an attempt to explain away what you describe as "rock solid evidence"? I'd say that the label flap becomes very hard to explain outside of the single bullet theory.

--Johnny Canuck 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Part 1: Short answer to your question: Yes. Long answer: I find Governor Connally’s and Nellie Connally’s statements more convincing than the film. Nellie was sitting within inches of the Gov. and Kennedy and looking right at them both. I don’t agree in the least with the above interpretation of the Z film, although I respect the opinions of the editor, otherwise I wouldn’t bother arguing with him. When I watch the Z film, I can clearly see that the Gov. was not injured for some time after Kennedy was, and I don’t buy this stuff about timing the shots to the split-second by Z’s ‘jumps.’

Part 2: I am told that the reason why Frazier and his sister described a package much too short to contain the rifle is because they must have had bad memories (talk about preconceived notions!). That is a suggestion, without reason, that both persons were mentally impaired, not lacking in judgement. I am told that a physician who is outstanding in his field cannot interpret simple fragments in an x-ray. That is a suggestion that he is incompetent.

Part 3: “how does "(label flap?)" become an attempt to explain away what you describe as "rock solid evidence"?” I have pointed out that all the medical experts demonstrated that the single bullet theory is not possible in light of the evidence. The ONLY counterpoints I am given to my argument is “look at the Z film” and “maybe the doctors were all wrong.” I’ve ridden in an open car for years, and I’d say the wind and motion are capable of moving my lapel flaps at any time. Joegoodfriend 19:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No physician gets training in looking at a flat X-ray and estimating the number of micrograms of lead flakes in a wound. It's not a part of pathology knowledge. How could it be? Think: how would a learning system ever calibrate such wild-ass judgement? Were some doctor (credentials or not) to claim on a witness stand to be able to perform such a feat, he'd be setting himself up for a most embarrassing cross examination: "And how did you learn how many micrograms of lead flakes were actually in your last 20 wounds of this type, doctor?" "Oh. Then how can you know your judgement in such matters is correct, doctor?" This is not a matter of "interpreting simple fragments on an X-ray". This is a matter of being able to perform a computer integration of relative Hounsfeild numbers in your head like a CT machine and spit out a numeric value-- one which you can be sure of, by having tested it numerous times with previous gold standard measurments of microscopic amounts of metal by other means (I'm thinking neutron activation of cadaver arms. Maybe compete acid breakdown of the tissue of dissected wounds, followed by chemical titration for lead...). But I can't prove a negative. Onus is on your to go to the literature to prove somebody actually HAS such amazing abilities, rather than on me to prove nobody does. It's like ESP.

As for Connally's lapel flap-up at Z-224 (you can actually SEE this at the frame by frame link, as the lapel hides his white shirt collar on the right for ONE frame) at the moment the bullet hits JFK, and the angle is right for JFK's bullet to BE the same one which will pass through Connally's lapel, let's just say that I like simplicity. Maybe the wind came up and blew up Connally's lapel just BEFORE a bullet went through it. It could happen. Maybe Oswald really DID have a tearing need for curtain rods that Thursday--one which couldn't wait. One so bad it hurt. So that he just happened to go home early, to get a strange long package to the Book Deposity, that fateful Friday. "This just in from the Ironic Fickle Finger of Fate: It's looks like curtains for Oswald. And Connally's lapel leads by half a second. Stay tuned." S B H arris 04:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are characterizing the objections to your interpretation of Frazier and his sister's testimony fairly. They inaccurately described the precise measurements of a package they only glanced at and admit they did not pay attention to. How is this accusing them of being "mentally impaired"? They are far from mentally impaired, they are just normal human beings. I doubt any of us could accurately measure a package precisely just by glancing at it, unless we've had some sort of observational training. Gamaliel 15:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And I don't think you understand the significance of the testimony or the argument being made here. First of all, whether or not the two witnessess only glanced at the package or examined it with a magnifying glass is not relevant, nor are there guesses at to its length in inches. What is relevant is that their testimony as to how Oswald carried the package indicated that the package was substantially too short to contain the rifle. Second of all, I have been told by another editor here that the two must have "bad memories" since according to the editor the package must have been at least 35 inches long. So please direct your question where it belongs. Joegoodfriend 22:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the original "bad memories" comment so I can't respond to that, but without commenting on the original statement, I will say that to characterize them as having "bad memories" is unfair. They just have the same normal, flawed, imperfect memories that everyone else has. I also don't think that "bad memories" is the equivalent of "mentally imparied".

According to this, "the longest part of the rifle when disassembled is 34.8 inches". So I measured and I could easily fit a package of this length under my armpit with plenty of room to spare - the other end was about a foot off the ground. I'm not particularly tall so unless Oswald was a midget, he could have easily carried a package of this length in the manner described. Or am I misremembering the testimony about how he was carrying the package? Gamaliel 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, Frazier stated that Oswald carried the package with one end in his cupped hand and the other in his armpit. His sister stated that when he held one end of the bag, it didn't quite touch the ground. We're either talking a 20 inch bag here, or their testimony was faulty. Perhaps now the curtain (rod) can come down on this argument. Joegoodfriend 20:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. But then Frazier's testimony contradicts his sister's. If Oswald carried the bag as Frazier described, as you say it could have only been a 20 inch bag. But then it could not have "almost touched the ground" as Frazier's sister described, because if one end was in Oswald's cupped hand, it would be nowhere near the ground. Gamaliel 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are asking. The two were describing Oswald carrying the bag at two different times. Frazier, when Oswald carried it between his palm and armpit, and his sister when holding the end of bag with the bag hanging down at his side. Here's her actual testimony:

Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. Joegoodfriend 16:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Question it? Sure! But there's a world of difference between questioning official government conclusions and wholesale acceptance of, for example, conspiracy theories about homosexual thrill kill cults dreamt up by drunks and crazy people. It's "interesting" that you appear to reserve your anger for the supposed agenda and spin of McAdams while ignoring the abundance of such in the lunatic conspiracy press. Gamaliel 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Try not to presume to know what I believe. I presume by homosexual thrill kill cults you are making some reference to Shaw/Ferrie and all that Garrison crap? Or maybe that's a reference to an even more obscure theory I haven't even heard yet! Why don't you pick an even crazier one, like that JFK was terminally ill and arranged for his murder in order to seal his legacy! If you want to paint me as a lunatic, why not go big?

Your reference to "official government conclusions" is a nice thought. However, I believe it takes someone more gullible than me to automatically believe what my government tells me. I'm with George Carlin on that topic.

Finally, I'm not ignoring the spin on the part of lunatic conspiracy theorists. As mentioned above, there's plenty of crap out there. I have the same amount of disdain for their "work" that I do for that of McAdams, if not more so. At least McAdams is coherent! I think the bottom line is, you should wait to find out what I believe before trying to make me out to be a wacko. :-) Dubc0724 16:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't attributing those beliefs to you, I was discussing your lack of angry condemnation of those beliefs on this page. Gamaliel 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, there's not enough hours in the day for me to condemn everything I find offensively incorrect on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Give me some time though. And I try not to "angrily" condemn anything, but I guess, never say never, right? Dubc0724 16:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Help Please...

Under the dictabelt section of the article there is a citation needed for the 2003 ABCnews investigations of Kennedy's Assassination. The results of that investigation appeared on a program called, "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination-Beyond Conspiracy" [49]. I am going to add that as the cite but I wonder if anyone knows if ABC has an Internet site with the results of their investigation. I'm afraid if I link it to Amazon.com or some other site selling movies, it will appear as though Wiki is trying to hawk products or has a POV on the subject.

Please let me know if it is OK to do so. Ramsquire 16:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears there used to be such a site but ABC probably took it down. There's still at least one piece of material remaining, this poll article. No link is preferable as a link to Amazon doesn't tell us anything except "yep, it exists, and it's 19.95". Gamaliel 17:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some type of citation that can be checked. Preferably the citation should be susceptable to checking by internet but paper document is ok if generally available. It is also a bad sign when a reference is retracted. RPJ 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The film should of course be cited. Whether or not we include an internet link is the question. Gamaliel 05:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe here --JimWae 07:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't go in if it can't be verified

As I understand it, ABC had a news show but then retracted the material from the public domain. Now an editor wants to include his recollections of what the show said. There are two related reasons that prohibit this. The citations to sources are included so that the "edits may be verified by readers and other editors." Click on "verifiable" below to review the rules. As the fundamental Wikipedia rule states, in blunt, terms:

The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?

That is right. Why should we believe Ramsquire? The rule is premised on these facts: "The readers don't know who you [Ramsquire and Gamliel] are." Moreover, even if the readers and other editors could get in touch with you for you to verify that the information that you put in are your recollections of the show, and that your recollections are accurate, "Why should they [the readers and editors} believe you."

That is not my rule, that is the Wikipedia rule. Why don't you go to a reputable website, such as "Spartacus," that has the program reproduced in whole or part? That is acceptable, if it is a reputable web site. RPJ 07:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The rules on verifiability do not prohibit citing something, such as a book or a documentary, simply because it does not appear on the internet. The rules merely state that it must be a published source. You or someone else can verify it by watching the documentary yourself. It is available on DVD and in many libraries. Gamaliel 13:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

(I am NOT responding to Gamaliel. This is a general response.) Whatever happened to WP:FAITH? I was asking for help from anyone who knew of a site with a summary of the results of the investigation. And JimWae was graciouis enough to find a few. No, people do not know us and that is why I wanted some other link of the investigation beside a link to purchase the DVD. However, ABC's research into the assassination is just as valid as PBS's, Wecht, Lane's and others even though it comes to a different conclusion. To speculate as to why ABC took down the website is silly. In addition, taking down a website does not equal taking something out of the public domain--especially when the DVD remains for sale to the public. Finally, I was very uncomfortable putting the link I had into the article, that's why I asked for help from other editors. Isn't that what I am supposed to do? Geeze. Ramsquire 16:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ramsquire who is says he was very uncomfortable linking to a web site that sells the information being cited. The three cites by Jimwae do not attempt to report on the claims that were made by ABC news.May be some one has looked at them closer and can end this question by finding a reliable description of what the ABC news show concluded and why. Or, someone can find another site that does so. Its a bad precedent and one in which a great deal of energy could be wasted.

As I understand it the show says something to the effect that it's possble the single-bullet theory could work, and the dictaphone evidence is flawed. Phrasing means a lot in these shows. Supporting reasons are very important. Finally, reading the spin on what was said is usually far inferior to directly reading or hearing what was said.

RPJ 05:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Web site to purchase information

Sending the reader to a commercial web site to buy the information seems to cross over the border to commercialism though I don't know for sure. Here is what the rule identifies as one of the types of links to be avoided:

Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content. See External link spamming.[50]

I haven't seen this done on Wikipedia before. It seems to go against the spirit of the rules. Have public libraries sought out the dvd in question in the normal course of their operations? Or will the Wikipedia article citing the information create an artificial demand for the libraries to purchase.

There must be some internet site such as Spartacus that summarizes, in a reliable way,what the ABC newscast said. May be ABC pulled the information off the internet because it wasn't comfortable with what was said on the show. RPJ 03:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Verification of information

The verification of the ABC news story needs to be set forth with better particularity than what has been done so far. Jim Wae presented three web sites that possibly might represent what ABC said during its broadcast about the Kennedy assassination. We need the particular web site address where the information can be quickly and easily reviewed. How does the reader get there and what is it going to see? Jim Wae doesn't know for sure but thinks the web sites might be helpful.

I'd find out if they are and then tell why. RPJ 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dictabelt section...

Hey RPJ, I am concerned about your edits to the dictabelt section because I think you added information that although accurate is not relevant to the subheading its under. I only thought the ABC investigation relevant because it was the last known (at least to me) research regarding the dictabelt evidence. I am not sure the ABC's findings on the single bullet theory, or the location of the wounds in general, fits into that particular section. Would you want to put your edits into another section of the article? Ramsquire 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

unreadable / over-compartmentalized

Okay, so when I added a consensus description of the assassination, I kind of figured it would be immediately removed because there's very little that can be agreed upon about what happened to JFK. But, in the interest of readability, there needs to be some description about what apparently happened, chronologically, without going into all the detail that gets broken down later. It's absolutely ridiculous to go from "shots were fired at Kennedy for an estimated timespan of 6 to 24 seconds" to "the limousine is calculated to have slowed down" by four miles per hour, with nothing in between. The casual reader wouldn't care at all about the speed of the limousine, so that detail shouldn't be placed there. There needs to be some elaboration on the shots being fired, for an estimated timespan of 6 to 24 seconds, even if it has to be a little vague. It's obvious that the right side of Kennedy's head came off, and his blood misted in the air, his wife put her arm around him, and so on. It's possible to have a narrative description of what takes place in the Zapruder film without favoring the Warren commission or anybody else. That's what people are interested in reading first when they get to this article, and then if they wish they can go on to ballistics analysis or whatever else.
I agree, though, that it was right to remove the part about Jackie going after the skull piece, and that my attempt to provide what I'm describing here wasn't the optimal solution. Aratuk 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to have a description of the head wound on the Z film. The PROBLEM is that the Z film shows a wound in the whole right upper side of the head above the ear, extending nearly as far as the midline in back. By the time JFK got to Parkland, only the rear half of that wound was visible to the doctors there, and none of them pulled back the scalp you see hanging down in the Z film to see the whole gory thing. The Bethesda doctors did, but any photos they took of that from the side, haven't been published. There is a photo of the back of JFK's skull with scalp reflected which shows the entire upper right quarter of his skull gone, from midline forward to the ear. That's enough to explain in the rear what the Parkland doctors saw. And you can see a slice of brain to the right at the midline over the ear in the published autopsy photo taken looking at JFK from the top of his head, down. So the wound certainly went way forward, as you see it in the Z film. Additionally, it's clear from Betheda photos that a lot of lateral head wound over the ear (what you see in the Z film) had been at some point cosmetically patched by simply putting his scalp, hanging down in the film, back up. Probably by Mrs. Kennedy. If the Parkand doctors didn't see it, it's because it wasn't their job to rip open the right side of the man's head again, as they were trying to save his life.

Now, some conspiracy theorists won't accept either the Nix or the Zapruder film, or for that matter the Moorman photo, all of which show most of the rear of JFK's scalp intact (which is what the autopsy photos show, for that matter). It's the skull underneath that has been blown out. They play this as a conspiracy, as if the many photos and autopsy results were all faked or altered, and are somehow "contradicted" by Dallas witnesses who only saw a small extent to the head damage that was there. So what do you do with people who have to have that big a plot? S B H arris 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No one wants your interpretations of photos and film

I don't understand your first sentence that states you "added a consensus description of the assassination" but thought it would be removed because someone wouldn't agree with the "consensus" description.

You are right that the assassination part of the article is very short. This is because some of the editors believe the witness testimony is wrong, or too gory, or doesn't conform to a pet theory.

I'm sorry to inform you that none of the editors, to my knowledge, are interested your narrative description of what occured. It is probably against web site rules.

RPJ 22:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image clip needs verification

Would somebody like to vouch for wiki File:Jfk assassination(zapruder).ogg? Unless it's certified virus free, I don't think it should be referenced in this article.S B H arris 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good composite of the back of JFK's head

Somebody has finally made a composite of the photos of the back of JFK's head and the skull wound underneath: [51]. It's fairly easy to see here how different people saw different things, depending on how the scalp was placed. In any case, since the films of the assasination and the autopsy all show the scalp intact in this area, and since they are better evidence than Dallas testimony by people who didn't do a good exam (since it wasn't their job), that's what the best evidence argues. Anybody who wants to argue that scalp retraction might have shown something else underneath is free to do so, but please don't do it at the cost of giant conspiracy. That's hearing hoofbeats and thinking zebras. or Unicorns.S B H arris 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well. What so you have to say about the background of your big "find?" You are the same editor that misread the death certificate and deleted a significant amount of material. Have you been more careful this time? RPJ 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the source of the documents?

The first thing to do with documents is to authenticate them. Are the pictures what they purport to be?

This is easy to do. Tell us about the origin and authenticity of the photographs you have identified. One should take those steps before making cute remarks. RPJ 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit of portion with no citation

I removed this language:

"The Commission's Report that Oswald was the lone gunman has not gained widespread acceptance from the American public. Most polls show that most people do not agree with the Warren Commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, but no single alternative suspect or theory is accepted either."

There is no citation for any of it. The first sentence is subjective and violates NPOV. The second sentence, if accurate, ought to have at least one credible citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.126.103 (talk • contribs)

Grossest lie ever forced on the American people

The single magic bullet theory, or that President Kennedy was shot in the back of the head, is seriously the grossest lie imposed on the American People. Any sane person who has ever seen the video of the assassination clearly showing the President being shot from the front knows that. After President Kennedy was shot, his head is forced to the rear and to the left. I am disgusted by gross assumptions saying he was shot in the back of the head. Please copy this link and watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4315024059102108031&q=kennedy+bush —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.188.209 (talk • contribs)

If you put a cherry bomb in a watermellon, it rolls in any direction opposite to that in which the most stuff flies out. People have tried shooting bullets at skull models filled with jello, and some shots DO cause them to fly backwards toward the bullet (provided the liquid interior goes forwards in a blowout). You wouldn't think so, but reality trumps "common sense."

Personally, I'm amazed at people who think JFK was acutally assassinated by two people shooting at two different angles and both hitting him. That would be the most magically well-coordinated stunt ever done, and done right the first time, without practice, under tremendous pressure, and with one shooter getting away clean. Look, if you believe all that, I have some real estate in central Florida you might like to buy from me, rather than on Ebay. S B H arris 21:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the Z film, you can clearly see a shot hitting the President in his right temple area, and his brains fly out in a way rocks fly out of the ground after being hit by a meteor. If that fatal shot was caused by a shot from the back, his brains would not have flown out the way that they did. Almost as magically well-coordinated, and done right the first time as say, the attacks of September 11, which we all know were very real. Obviously these people were very experienced with firearms, even if we assume Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed the killer, in which even that would be a magically coordinated stunt, shooting the President from the 6th story of a building several feet away. And if there were no other shooters, what reason do the witnesses who testified have to risk their lives by saying that they saw shooters from the fence on the Grassy Knoll, or that they heard shots from behind them, to lie? Its very clear to me that the shot that killed JFK came from the front. I think you sir are the sad result of the governments apparently successful attempt to brainwash the American people.--Ryan_POTUS 02:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ryan and Mr. Anonymous, you both need to get serious. As a first step please go to the following link and watch the movies offered there: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#jeteffect Back, and to the Left. Back, and to the Left. Back, and to the Left. Back, and to the Left. Back, and to the Left. Back, and to the Left. JDG 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the angle at which the brain matter, etc flies out of the skull. It's a matter of the movement of JFK's entire head and body. Shot from the back, so he flies backward? Yeah, right. Anyone who buys the WC's explanation of that is being willfully ignorant. Dubc0724 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, you really need to LOOK at the physics tests which look at what happens when you shoot a skull with a rifle: [52]. And as for clearly seeing a bullet hit JFK in the temple on the Z film, you can't have it both ways. We've got people here saying the temple wound clearly shows a shot from the front (grassy knoll). And we have people saying exit wounds OBVIOUSLY have to be larger than entry wounds, and yet the temple wound is the biggest wound on the Z film by far. In fact, it's the only one visible, and giant gory flap that extends from just in front of the ear, back to the rear of the head, allowin the scalp to hang down and the bone undernieth to be blasted away you don't see the smaller occiputal hole at all (I personally think it's there, but just not large enough to show). By the time JFK got to Parland, Jackie had been "holding his hair on" has she said, and replaced the great big flap. The Bethesda doctors describe it however as one long laceration going from the front to the rear, over the ear. No loss of scalp, just bone. The morticians, interestingly identified only one place were JFK was missing both bone and scalp after all the peices were put back in place-- an area his head would be lying on, on a pillow. That corresponds nicely with the wound the Dallas docs saw, and the only rubber bit the morticians had to use to replace bone. Corresponding with the occipital fragment the medical student found in Dallas, and which didn't make it to the autopsy.S B H arris 18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the laws of physics behave in ways that clash with "common sense". You'll note he flew forward first, but yes, the backward movement is odd, but the human body does odd things when shot up with bullets sometimes. That combined with the complete lack of any reasonable evidence for a second shooter convinces me that I'm not at all being, as you charmingly put it, "willfully ignorant". Gamaliel 16:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Message to my fellow amateur historians who believe there was a second shooter: Stop discrediting yourselves. Stop implying that those who disagree with you on interpretation of the facts are brainwashed or willfully ignorant. These kinds of insults do not belong here, and you make yourselves look bad.

I look at the evidence that there was a shooter behind the picket fence, and I wonder how anyone could conclude otherwise. But it’s clear that those who support the WC’s conclusions (at least around here) are very well-informed and not crazy or disingenuous. And that’s good, it makes for really interesting discussions. JoeGoodfriend 17:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that few people actually discuss the evidence linking Oswald to the assassination? We have a bullet that has been matched to Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles. And we have that rifle linked to Oswald, with partial prints, and he was photographed with the rifle by his wife's camera, to the exclusion of all other cameras. In addition, there are witnesses who saw Oswald in the swipers nest of the TSBD. So with that trail of evidence linking Oswald to the assassination, shouldn't the search for co-conspirators start with Oswald himself? Was there anyone who was allied with Oswald with a shaky alibi who was seen in the Plaza at the time of the assassination? Is there any description of the second shooter? Does the description match anyone that was seen with Oswald prior to the assassination?

It is perfectly fine to see the Zapruder film in different ways, but at some level if you dissent from the "official" position you must carry the burden of proving why that version is wrong. If the forensics is wrong, how so? Where did it get screwed up? etc.

And to Ryan_POTUS who compared the impact of the bullet on JFK's skull to a meteor impacting the Earth, your analogy is misplaced. Meteors disintegrate before impacting and do not enter the Earth's crust, hence the blowout effect upon impact. A bullet enters the body and often times exits, leaving entry and exit wounds. Entry wounds are smaller than exit wounds due to the concept of beveling. So it is very likely that the explosion of Kennedy's head in the Z film is an exit wound. If it were an entry wound, there would not have been that much damage to his right side, it would have been on the left side, unless the bullet did not exit his head. Then there would have been a smaller entry wound on the right, not the total explosion. However, some people see a large exit wound to the back of Kennedy's head consistent with a Grassy Knoll shooter. Based on the Zapruder film, I do not. Ramsquire 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add that the best evidence, to me, of a grassy knoll shooter contained in the Zapruder film, is that it appears that both Connolly and Kennedy looked to their right, in the general direction of the knoll, once they apparently heard the first shot. One can easily argue that if the shot was from the TSBD, they should have looked behind them, to the left, where the snipers nest is located. Ramsquire 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If they looked left, wouldn't they be looking away from the TSBD? The TSBD and the knoll are on the same side of the road, so if they looked right, that doesn't tell us anything one way or the other. Gamaliel 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

They are on the same side of the street but the TSBD is on higher ground, the knoll is down a slight slope heading to the triple underpass. Because of the downward slope in the area where Kennedy was shot, if they looked away from Zapruder, they would appear to be looking back at the criminal court building and wading pool on Houston Street. If they turned leftward, entirely around and up, they would be looking directly at the TSBD. But its all speculation. Who knows if Kennedy heard anything, and Connally seems to be beginning the process of turning all the way around before he is shot. But their initial reactions show them turning towards Zapruder which is in the general direction of the knoll (granted at that time, the knoll would still be in front of them). Ramsquire 23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel's Edit Comments

(this is 1) completely untrue 2) far too vague (what investigations? when?) 3) completely unsourced and 4) not at all credible)

Gamaliel:

You are right on 2 & 3... [whoever made the original edit needs to back it up. Should be easy enough to do.]

You're wrong on #1 and if this was cited better, #4 would be out the window as well. But until 2 & 3 are addressed, let's leave it alone. Thanks Dubc0724 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So what are these investigations? I am not aware of any investigations that concluded conspiracy, much less the "vast majority" of them as the edit asserted. A book by Robert Groden is not, to my mind, an "investigation", nor is Robert Groden a credible and reliable source for such a conclusion. Gamaliel 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa...what makes Groden incredible and unreliable, other than your disagreement with his findings? Dubc0724 17:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

His testimony at the OJ Simpson trial is one of many examples of his "findings" which fly in the face of science and reality. Gamaliel 17:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

I fail to see the relevance. I don't recall OJ Simpson being involved in the JFK Assassination. Although I'm sure someone out there has a conspiracy theory that can implicate him! :-) Dubc0724 17:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we could easily find a conspiracy theorist who thinks he was the shooter on the grassy knoll. Gamaliel 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And if the Warren Commission said he did it, I'm sure the Lone Nutters would fall into lockstep. Dubc0724 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Nobody who disagrees with you has looked at the actual evidence. Nope. We just take notes from government commissions. Gamaliel 17:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Whew. I'm glad that's settled! As for the topic at hand, until it's properly cited, I won't help beat this dead horse any further. I was just curious about the Groden comment, and since I have no idea what you're talking about Re: OJ I've got some studying up to do. Thanks. Dubc0724 17:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added info about his OJ testimony to the Groden article. Gamaliel 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, why doesn't that surprise me? But all joking aside, thanks. Dubc0724 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Gamaliel’s revision and reasoning are correct. If you want your edits to stick to this page, they need be factual, accurate, sourced, and devoid of sweeping generalization. There have been suggestions that Gamaliel, due to bias, will reflexively delete any new material that tends to support conspiracy theories. That is false. Check out the assassination theories page. Just today an edit has been added regarding the HSCA investigation’s belief that evidence that David Ferrie was involved in the assassination was “credible,” and Gamaliel has not deleted it (although it does need some cleanup). Joegoodfriend 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been suggestions that Gamaliel, due to bias, will reflexively delete any new material that tends to support conspiracy theories. That is false. I'm not sure I'd characterize it as false. Simply because he let an entry stand on another page does not mean he's not capable of pushing his POV in this article or elsewhere. Both the pro-conspiracy crowd and the lone nutters have been guilty of letting their bias come through from time to time, whether intentionally or not. I don't understand this rush to the defense of Gamaliel's edits. He's explained his position and he was mostly right. The claims need to be cited. Dubc0724 12:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Books Section

Someone added information about a book that was written about the assassination, in the recreations section. It got me thinking that there should probably be a section at the end of the article listing some of the more popular books written about the assassination. I know the article is too long as is, but I think it is missing a vital part without it. We have film and television portrayals, but yet no books. Ramsquire 21:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, start adding books under a category of refs. We need Groden and Livingstone and the whole crowd. S B H arris 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

^ Best Evidence, David Lifton, page 51

[1] Best Evidence, David Lifton, page 51

[1]