Jump to content

Talk:Single-bullet theory/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

JFK's hands to neck

Before an edit war starts, 84, please read the text in question. It describes what Nellie Connally described - NOT what many have concluded JFK did with his hands. Besides, her testimony can be interpreted as saying JFK's hands didn't necessarily touch his neck. Canada Jack (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


Let's experiment here; raise you own hands to your throat. Now look at your elbows. Why don't they raise like President Kennedy's did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.19.45 (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the text. It says: "Nellie Connally said she heard the first shot and saw President Kennedy with his hands at his neck reacting to what she later realized was his neck wound." Then, check the source, which is the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume IV, pg 147: Nellie Connally: "I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck."
The effect of your edit was to ignore the source and insert something which Nellie didn't actually say. She didn't say JFK's hands and elbows were as you said (even though they in fact were in that position). Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Why is there an entire article on this one obscure theory about the death of some American politician? Surely there are more important issues to cover in Wikipedia!122.59.140.215 (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The notability of this article is unquestionable. Furthermore it's a fallacy of relative privation: not having this article will not make editors contribute their time to more pressing issues. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Magic Bullet Theory?

Shouldn't this page be called the "Magic Bullet Theory"? That is how it is most commonly known. The only reason to call it the SBT is to avoid the perjorative nickname. But no one contends that only one bullet was fired, so it is inherently misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I could live with "magic bullet theory" if I had to, for reasons of accessability to the public for this article. Fortunately, a Google search on that term already turns up this article on top (can you find otherwise with other search engines) so it's not necessary. Anybody interested will not be in danger of not seeing this article by searching on the other name. "Magic bullet theory" , BTW, is now a dab page. SBHarris 05:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
But no one contends that only one bullet was fired, so it is inherently misleading. Are you kidding? Have you read the article? Canada Jack (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Have you read the article??? Well, apparently you have, and you are aware that the Warren Commission said that three shots were fired. What's your point??? As for the argument that anyone searching for the "Magic Bullet Theory" will find this article, that is true whatever this article is called.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: It's called the "single-bullet theory" because it explains that one bullet was responsible for Kennedy's upper back/lower neck and throat wounds as well as all of the wounds to Connally. - Location (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, obviously.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, then what is "inherently misleading" about the name "single-bullet theory"? - Location (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I have been interested in the assassination for some 40+ years and this is the first time I've ever heard anyone confuse, or even suggest the potential for confusion, over whether the SBT refers to the WC theory or the total number of shots fired. As I said, "have you read the article?" as by the end of the first sentence it is abundantly clear what the "single bullet" is referring to. "Magic" bullet is highly misleading and non-neutral, suggesting there was something impossible about the trajectory and/or condition of the bullet, when in fact this is not so. Hasn't stopped conspiracy authors who for half a century have been lying to the public about, for example, the position of the victims and the placement of the wounds, let alone how a laterally flattened bullet could be considered "pristine" or how a bullet could have been flattened like that. Canada Jack (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, there is confusion. See the discussion above under Corrections, which you participated in!!! The enquirer seems to believe (naturally) that the single bullet killed Kennedy.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
So you are confused about a bullet which caused non-fatal wounds to someone who was killed in an assassination? Seems to me most people would logically conclude that there was another bullet(s) involved which caused the fatal wounds. And in case they are still unsure, they can read the article. Not really sure what your point here is. Canada Jack (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's obviously no consensus to change the title, but I think the introduction should place the theory in context. We haven't all spent over 40 years arguing about the assassination. To understand the introduction you have to know about the sequence of the shooting, about the Zapruder film, etc. You shouldn't have to read the whole article, or other articles to find out basic information. That's the point of an introduction.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Fringe theory that Ford "moved the wound"

Similar to what was discussed in Talk:John F. Kennedy autopsy#The gunshot wound in the back, I removed a large chunk of material with this edit. John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories exists for this type of thing. - Location (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Single-bullet theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Single-bullet theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

description error ... schoolbook depository building

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Regarding: "... sixth floor window in the north-east corner of the Texas Book Depository ...", upon un-excelled, first-hand authority, there is no window at that location (at the rear) of the building. Correction edit needs to be made to change in the north-east corner to on the south-facing facade of the southeast corner 172.58.35.29 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[1]

References

  1. ^ This editor, a born and long time Dallas resident who had personally viewed all aspects of the building exterior and of Dealy Plaza on uncounted dozens of occasions, both on the grounds on foot and passing by in vehicles on Elm, Main, and Commerce Streets. Moreover, published, NE-ward-aimed aerial views of Dealy Plaza--of which a a copy can be provided on request--will also substantiate the error and need of correction.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Single-bullet_theory/Archive_5&oldid=1214154784"