This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Long discussion on our showing LHO as the perpetrator. We do. Enough said.
|
---|
The field "Weapons" in the infobox contains 6.5×52mm Italian Carcano M91/38 Bolt-action rifle and the field "Perpetrator" contains Lee Harvey Oswald. Both fields violate the policy of neutral point of view. This policy states "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.". It shouldn't be necessary to say that the conclusions of the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations have been contested. If these fields have not been modified or deleted by one month from now, I will insert alleged before both "Weapons" and "Perpetrator," unless someone gives me a convincing reason for not doing so. I am using alleged in the broad sense. Robert O'Rourke ( talk) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There are numerous references within the page to the fact that a majority of people believe there was a conspiracy in the assassination, though, interestingly, often the poll question is along the lines of "do you believe Oswald acted alone or with others," while most conspiracy theories see Oswald as not being involved, at least not in the role of a sniper. And, as I have noted frequently in the past when the "bias" of the page is identified by others, any conclusions are described as being those of the particular investigation, not as the absolute truth as to what happened. Canada Jack ( talk) 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is about giving due weight to diverse views - not finding some "neutral" position. Our article complies with NPOV because it follows the weight of evidence. There just isn't the same weight of evidence linking any other person, group, weapon or narrative. Just the occasional doubt and inconsistent witness statement. And a vast weight of fanciful supposition based on little but imagination. We might acknowledge such castles in the air, especially where they are widely believed, but we do not state them as fact. We've been through all this before with climate change, the Holocaust, evolution and all the rest. Look, it's been fifty years. We've seen the most closely guarded secrets of WW2 exposed and discussed and made into documentaries, despite the people involved swearing the most awful oaths not to tell. How come none of those involved in what surely must have been a vast conspiracy have done the same? All it takes is one thread to unravel the thing, and not one of those thousands of government officials, police, military and media folk have come up with anything that undoes the conspiracy. Just maybes and whatifs. We show LHO as the lone assassin, using a Carcano rifle, because that's the best evidence we have. And not just the best evidence out of many competing narratives, but evidence that has been examined in excruciating detail. As opposed to someone writing a book with a few grainy photographs. -- Pete ( talk) 22:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't agree with the conclusion of the HSCA that there was a conspiracy, which was based solely on the disputed dictabelt evidence (the "conspiracy" conclusion only came after the last-minute dictabelt presentation as can be found in the dissent.) As for Ferrie, we have the air cadets, and we have the Cuban shenanigans. But no other credible reports - except for Clinton. But you are a bit behind the times on the Clinton sighting, Joe. This is a fascinating claim, and in 1978 was the main "smoking gun" cited by the HSCA as unresolved - seemingly credible witnesses who reported seeing David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald and Clay Shaw together in Clinton LA on a voter drive several months before the assassination. But it has been subsequently revealed that these claims were in fact manufactured by Garrison's team in 1969 for the Shaw trial. It's a complicated tale, and the truth of what happened - yet another example of manufactured "evidence" by Garrison - did not emerge for some 30 years. In short, nothing the witnesses originally said described men who we'd recognize as the three. But in the hands of the Garrison team, memories "improved." On McAdams website: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinton1.htm It's a long read, but well worth it. Canada Jack ( talk) 15:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine on the HSCA clarification. I will say that while those people believed that there was involvement by the mafia, CIA etc., the actual evidence gathered by the HSCA - and I would say subsequently gathered - does not rise to the level where one can definitively or at least confidently assert involvement by those agents. As for the Holocaust Deniers, let me more specific. I don't for a second want to suggest that if you believe "conspiracy" that you are like a ignorant racist who denies the reality of 6 million Jews being systematically exterminated, etc. And I also want to narrow the comparison to largely the events of Dealy Plaza and the evidence there. In terms of claiming there was a CIA link or pro-/anti-Cuban links etc there is no "Holocaust denier" equivalent. That's because Oswald's associations are more in the realm of historical debate in terms of a) what associations Oswald had and b) how important were those associations - like Ferry. Oswald probably met him, but I'd say the relationship was inconsequential and limited to the Air Cadets, while others believe evidence points to something more substantial. And the level of involvement by others, not necessarily connected to Oswald is open for debate, but it has to be in context of the evidence we have there - which points irresistibly to Oswald's involvement. When it comes to the evidence at Dealy Plaza, I'd say the comparison is more apt. I might write something here that, for me, underlines the "denial" comparison in terms of the evidence pointing to Oswald etc, but I will afterwards not make the comparison. Canada Jack ( talk) 22:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This thread is (or ought to be) about whether to add "alleged" to the infobox. I have read the entire discussion and am in complete agreement with Canada Jack, Pete and Location that adding that word is inappropriate. The conclusions of the two official investigations confirm that Oswald was the killer and his Carcano the murder weapon. There is no plausible, widely accepted alternative killer or weapon, but only a mass of contradictory speculations. Enough said. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/489064859095810048 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I am curious why the JFK entry does not have any reference to Gerald Ford's deathbed revelations. I'm not going to spend any effort though on editing, because historically my edits get killed by moderators. If you believe it is appropriate for inclusion into the JFK article, mods, then please take the time to do so. Here is a link to get you started.
http://www.crimemagazine.com/former-president-ford-admits-cia-compromised-warren-commissions-probe-jfk-assassination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.160.170 ( talk) 18:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Re revert of revert on "Neither X nor Y" was/were" where Y is singular. With or and nor, the verb agrees in number with the last noun or noun phrase (Y). See, e.g., http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp and https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/599/1/ "2. When two or more singular nouns or pronouns are connected by or or nor, use a singular verb." Kdammers ( talk) 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't seem to be the only editor who thinks that Mortal Error, the idea that a Secret Service agent accidentally discharged the third shot, is both clearly notable in itself, and of ample weight to get a mention in this article. Others seem to disagree, though on no obviously-supportable grounds.
Apart from the notability of this specific idea, some mention of the non-conspiracy, but non-standard theories seems to be required. Whatever we may think of them, they are, at least collectively, notable.
Does anyone have any comments before I put in a brief mention? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 23:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Lucky. Trajectory analysis by the HSCA and by others on the fatal head wound produce a cone which encompasses the top floors of the Depository building. Therefore, for this Mortal Error theory to be correct it would REQUIRE a conspiracy by those consultants who did the trajectory analysis and the HSCA to cover up the true facts of the assassination. Recall, as I have underlined before, there are TWO separate conspiracies most are talking about - the plot to kill the president; the plot to cover up the facts of who actually killed the president. While "Mortal" supposes JFK dies as a result of a screw-up and not a conspiracy, the second conspiracy (a cover-up) is still pre-supposed by the authors.
Besides, RB, didn't you point out before that one of the films - the Bronson one, I think - shows the fatal bullet strike and ALSO shows the agent in question in the wrong position in the follow-up car to have discharged his weapon towards Kennedy? Canada Jack ( talk) 03:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Ensure it has very good sourcing. As in books published by University presses. There has been so much speculation, and everyone has their own pet theory and so many people have published books. We can't list them all and much of it is low quality or speculation. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 15:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This needs to included in the article. It is not okay to censor reliable information. The sources I added were also originally sourced in the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations article. 184.97.234.40 ( talk) 22:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Given the fact that this page gives a mainly cursory look at the main issues in regards to the assassination, I'd say we need only note what Binkekster says above. ie the conclusion of 1978, dismissed in 1980 and 1982, with further back and forth.
After all, do we see ANY detail on how the Warren Commission came to its conclusion that Oswald did it and did it alone? I'd say that that would be a bigger issue than the acoustic issue. Canada Jack ( talk) 19:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been working on improving the HSCA main page, and would submit that instead of having the final word being the "back and forth" of acoustic scientists, we have something along the lines of the HSCA article's coda: In light of investigative reports from the FBI’s Technical Services Division and the National Academy of Science Committee determining that "reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman", the Justice Department concluded “that no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy in … the assassination of President Kennedy”. I'm planning on trimming down some of the HSCA section of this page (including the details of the dictabelt), and will probably include something to that effect. Both quotes from a ~1984 Justice Dept. memo. Koijmonop ( talk) 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is the Criticism of Secret Service subsection in the section entitled Official investigations? This should be in a subsection of material about the HSCA's findings. - Location ( talk) 01:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems strange to me that the youtube videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-LA0ypFXig
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1qSGk8oMQ
are not cited at all. Are these new? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimacq ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
jfk was a good man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.145.132 ( talk) 18:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Several attempts to add POV material have been made the past few days and have been reverted - not by me, but I agree with keeping this material out of the article.
The material in question cherry-picks several witness statements to cast doubt on a circa frame Z160 occurrence of the first shot, which the HSCA concluded missed everyone (the Warren Commission made no conclusion of which of the three shots missed). The page in fact relates the sequence of events as per the conclusions of the WC and the HSCA. As has often been stated, there is no agreed-upon sequence of shots from the conspiracy community, who have multiple scenarios about the sequence of shots - dozens of scenarios in fact. (One, two, three or more snipers, four to eight shots, etc.) The Z160 initial shot is more or less the standard starting point of the main scenario for the single gunman conclusion. While other single gunman conclusions put the missed bullet after the Z224 shot or even after the fatal shot, these are minority opinions (though the Warren Report did spell both these possibilities out).
So, to include some evidence which suggests another scenario - without spelling out what the scenario is - is beyond the scope of the page as this is focused on the conclusions of the main investigations. There is simply no way to include the numerous conspiracy claims here as the entire page would have to be given over to the numerous claims and counter-claims as there is no agreed-upon sequence of events from within the conspiracy community (even given that the HSCA concluded "conspiracy" yet confirmed the Single Bullet Theory upon which the circa Z160 initial shot partly rests). So, while citing evidence which seems to contradict the official conclusion may impress those who are not too familiar with the evidence, NO scenario I've seen lacks seemingly contradictory evidence.
Simply plonking down POV material which suggest another scenario without a connection to another specific scenario or to those who claim the evidence suggests a different specific scenario is not how wikipedia operates. As it stood, some editor personally believed this evidence contradicts the official conclusion, and therefore inserted it. With specific citations (what does this suggest; who says this is what it suggests, etc.), this issue can be explored on the conspiracy page where many of these claims reside.
Besides, both Mary Woodward and Connally's statements are directly contradicted by the Zapruder film which clearly show a sudden turn to the right by the limo occupants circa Z160 and no subsequent reaction to a gunshot report before JFK is hit in the back. Sure, that's my opinion, but it also happens to match what the HSCA concluded. Canada Jack ( talk) 19:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Governor Connally did say he turned to his right upon hearing the first shot. However, he also claimed the time between the first shot and the one which hit him were fired very close together. Governor Connally informed both the FBI and the Warren commission that the time between the first shot and the one which hit him was very brief. In fact according to Connally, it was so brief that he initially believed somebody was shooting with an automatic rifle! He also claimed the Limousine travelled between 150 and 200 feet (further down Elm Street than the position at frame 160). His recollections are therefore more in line with a shot fired between frames 178 and 190 (as per the witnesses who observed Kennedy waving). Of course, there is every reason to believe his memory could’ve been badly affected by his injuries. However, couldn’t the same be said of his recollection of turning to the right following the first shot? Of course it could.
In fact, during an interview with life magazine in 1966, Connally was shown frames of the Zapruder film, where he was asked to give his opinion of when he was hit. Connally had ultimately decided on frame 234. However, the most telling part of the interview was when he made the statement he turned to his right when the limousine was behind the sign. From Pat Speer’s website: "You can see my leftward movement clearly...I had turned to the right when the limousine was behind the sign. Now I'm turning back again. I know that I made that turn to the left before I was hit. You can see the grimace in the President's face. You cannot see it in mine. There is no question about it. I haven't been hit yet."
So there you have it folks. Despite the claims by lone gunman theorists, Connally himself claimed to turn to his right when the limousine was behind the sign. Clearly, the limousine was not behind the sign at frame 160. We can see the limousine disappear completely behind the sign at circa frame 200, and we see Governor Connally emerge at circa frame 223. Let me just state for the record, that unlike many conspiracy theorists, I do believe Connally was struck by a bullet at frame 224! However, I don’t believe in the single bullet theory (I will discuss my beliefs on these matters in a future post). Let’s bear in mind that Connally’s claim of turning to his right as the limousine was behind the sign, is perfectly consistent with his earlier claims of the time span between the shots being very brief. It is also consistent with his claim that the limousine could have travelled between 150 to 200 feet along Elm Street, before the first shot was fired. I'm sorry.
Goodbye.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.147.178 ( talk) 14:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.159.6 ( talk)
I think an explanation for Connally’s head snap (circa frame 165) is answered in the article by reporter Mary Woodward.
“We had been waiting about half an hour when the first motorcycle escorts came by, followed shortly by the President’s car. The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us…After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right.”
So there it is. Woodward claimed that both Kennedy and his wife, turned towards them as they started to clap and cheer. Now wouldn’t Governor Connally, who was also watching crowds throughout the motorcade, turn his head quickly from looking to his left (just prior to frame 165) upon hearing the clapping and cheering? Of course he would. After all, isn’t that precisely the sort of reaction we would expect from anybody hearing cheering? I sure believe that to be the case.
Now, Woodward herself never claimed that Connally had turned towards her. This is understandable however, considering she was paying attention to the President and his wife, and not Connally. Supporting Woodward’s observation, many other witnesses made it clear that both the President and the first lady turned to their right before the first shot, not after. I honestly don’t know how much clearer it could be. When we also take into account the witnesses who observed Kennedy waving as the first shot was fired, along with Connally’s claim of turning to his right as the limousine was behind the sign, it’s obvious the first shot was fired between Zapruder frames 178 and 190. It makes little or no sense that President Kennedy would hear a loud noise such as a gunshot, and continue to smile and wave.
And like I said, I don't believe in the SBT; refer to my blog for this matter: The Single Bullet Fantasy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.159.6 ( talk) 17:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The unidentified user posting under IP 84.13.159.6 has made a false claim. I am acquainted with the actual author of the blog and cited article, The Single Bullet Fantasy. The actual author protests this impersonation, [4] Ruidoso ( talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Now, and for the last time. Somebody keeps modifying the section about the statements of Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams, and James Earl Jarman, who were viewing the motorcade from the 5th floor of the TSBD. The user(s), is deliberately cancelling Bonnie Ray Williams’ story that he informed both the Dallas Sheriff’s office and the FBI, that he heard two shots fired above his head, and that Harold Norman did not make the claim of claiming to hear the bolt of the rifle being worked and hearing three shell casings hit the floor above him in his first interview with the FBI - which could mean that Norman is possibly not a credible witness (notice: I say possibly, while these people just put forward in his claim in which he always maintained he heard what he heard). Excuse me for being so rude but this is a real source and it is kind of important isn’t it?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.50.151 ( talk) 19:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Me: "something like TEN witnesses either saw a man actually shooting from the window, the barrel of the gun firing from the window or, as the witnesses below reported, shots from directly above."
Seems my memory was correct (though you might quibble about #7, still 9 is "something like 10"). Those ten are: 1) Howard Brennan, who saw a man firing the last shot after taking "positive aim"; 2) Amos Lee Euins saw a man shooting from the same window; 3) Jame Worrell Jr. saw the barrel and forestock of a rifle sticking out the window after the first shot and saw it fire; 4) Robert Jackson saw the barrel of a rifle being pulled back into the window; 5) Malcolm Couch also saw the rifle in the window; 6) Mrs Earle Cabell saw a "rather long looking" "projection" from the window after the first shot; 7) James Crawford saw movement in the window after the third shot which he described as a person moving back from the window; 8), 9), 10), James Jarman Jr., Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman were all in the 5th floor window directly below the sniper's nest and reported that shots seem to come from above them, loosening debris which fell into Williams' hair, that they could hear bullet shells falling above them and the action of the bolt of the rifle.
These accounts are corroborated by other witnesses who said they were told, immediately, of seeing a gunman/rifle: Brennan immediately told police what he saw; Euins told Sgt D. V. Harkness of the Dallas police what he saw immediately as well, and told reporter James Underwood as well; Jackson's account corroborates the account of the 5th-story employees as he also said he saw two of them straining to look above them, and Jackson followed their gaze to see the rifle. James Underwood confirmed that Jackson immediately said he saw a rifle and James Dillard took photos of the window in response. Couch also corroborated Jackson and, as mentioned, looked up to see the rifle. He also said he saw one of the 5th-floor employees leaning out of the window to see above. Mary Ann Mitchell corroborated Crawford's account by saying after the third shot he said the shots came from the building in question, but she didn't see the particular window he referred to.
I probably won't have time to address the other points you make for a few days, but a quick remark about the autopsy points: 1) Perry relied only on visual inspection of the throat wound, therefore his claim it was an entrance wound was an opinion, not a fact, as tests determined the back wound and rear head wounds both to be wounds of entrance. Further, a bullet passing through a body cleanly as this bullet was said to have done would be expected to leave an exit wound indistinguishable by the naked eye as to being entry or exit. Still further, the bullet passed though JFK's tie and the threads passed outward as expected if it was exiting, not inward. 2) Sibert and O'Neill didn't do the autopsy, so why are their notes more persuasive than the actual pathologists'? The precise measurements were described by the pathologists, we don't know if Sibert and O'Neill got the measurements from the clothes. 3) "Downward at a 45-60 degree angle." The wound was reported to actually travel upward as per the anatomical position, but this is one of those cases where common sense dictates that Sibert and O'Neill HAD to be wrong. Think of that angle - it implies that the sniper had to be 45 degrees up - even higher if JFK was leaning forward - the sniper would have had to be standing on the trunk for that angle to make sense, or from a helicopter well above the rooftops of downtown Dallas! 5) You didn't make the claim, but the "short distance" by the finger probe was not a surprise as this was done nearly 12 hours after the death of the president, and rigor mortis was setting in. Unless JFK was in the precise position he was in when shot, the wound could not be probed. As for the autopsy, this sentence is highly misleading: "It became known several years later that the pathologists had been forbidden, presumably by one or more of their military superiors, to dissect the back and throat wounds." There indeed WAS pressure - from Robert and Jackie Kennedy - to speed up the autopsy, this we know now. And, there was no perceived need to do the throat and neck dissection as the presumption was during the autopsy that the back bullet had fallen out. They were not aware until they were done that there had been a neck wound. If they HAD known that, they would have performed the dissection. It wasn't seen as necessary before then, and there were fears from the Kennedy family that it might be revealed that JFK had Addison's disease if a complete autopsy had been done, hence the pressure to wrap up only what was necessary.
6) Bullet fragments: We have the fragments of the shattered full metal jacket bullet, therefore the presence of numerous bullet particles is consistent with a single bullet to the head; the back bullet's relatively pristine state is matched by the relative lack of bullet particles found only in Connally and THOSE fragments are consistent with lead from a backwards tumbling bullet, again entirely consistent with the SBT. 7) Nellie's testimony is not consistent with the SBT, however John's is. He HEARD the first shot, turned and was hit by the second shot, he only PRESUMED JFK had been hit by the first shot but only turned to see JFK after he himself had been hit. Reading his testimony and watching the Z-film matches what the HSCA in particular concluded - first shot c Z160 missed; second shot hit both. While he always supported Nellie's story, his account in fact differs from her's. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Time to underline the b.s. behind some of the common conspiracy arguments repeated ad infinitim by that crowd, as cited again by Joe: one of the photos of the many people, including numerous police officers, who ran straight to the Grassy Knoll because they heard a shot and/or saw smoke there. This is where a shot from the front could have originated from, consistent with many interpretations of the Zapruder film, the bullet fragments (some of which are inconsistent with Oswald's ammunition), the debris from the headshot spread some distance behind the limousine rather than in front
Crowds run to the Grassy Knoll because they heard a shot from there. One of the oldest b.s. tropes from the conspiracy crowd. The truth is somewhat different. What happened? Well for a minute or so NO ONE rushed the knoll, then policeman Clyde Haygood, who was well back in the motorcade and had no first-hand knowledge of where the shots came from, stopped his motorcycle by the knoll, past the fallen Newman family, and dashed up the knoll to confer with a policeman he saw by the overpass. It was only then that crowds massed up the knoll, following Haygood in the apparent belief that he was chasing a suspect. Even then, the much-photographed "rush" was even later. Bottom line? People rushed there WELL AFTER the assassination and did so because a COP went there - but he went there to confer with another cop - NOT because they, as you claimed, "heard a shot/saw smoke there." Yet the conspiracy crowd has been peddling this dishonest claim for decades, a patently false claim.
Saw smoke/smelt gunpowder Again, the truth is far different from the claims put forward by the conspiracy crowd. First off, we would have clearly been able to see smoke from one of the several films made from across Elm Street, or when Zapruder had panned to his right, if the claim that gunshot smoke was visible by the stockade fence. Yet there is nothing there. If the smoke was too faint to be seen by the cameras, then humans would not have been able to see it either.
However, witnesses did say they saw smoke - but conspiracy authors dishonestly claim they saw it by the fence when in fact they described another location. Sam Holland was on the overpass and said he saw a puff of smoke from "behind the arcade" through the trees (via his vantage point), and only after the FIRST shot, not the later shots. His description sounds like he saw the smoke from the pergola, NOT the fence. Austin Miller, standing near Holland also described smoke - from the pergola, NOT the fence. "I turned and looked toward the — there is a little plaza sitting on the hill. I looked over to see if anything was there, who threw the firecracker or whatever it was." James Simmons, also on the overpass, said "near the embankment in front of the TSBD." He saw through the trees to the same area - by the pergola, NOT the fence.
Earle Brown claimed he smelled gunsmoke - yet he was positioned at the RAILWAY overpass - over the Stemmons Highway! 100 yards from Elm Street. Other witnesses were close to the assassination and can't credibly have been able to smell smoke which would have had to have travelled some 50 yards to their position in a matter of several seconds, such as Billy Martin, a motorcycle cop on the LEFT side, just behind the limo, or Senator Yarborough, in the second car behind the limo. Tom Dillard, in the press car, said he smelt gunpowder as the car he was in turned the corner at Elm and Houston - below the TSBD - yet he is cited as evidence of a knoll assassin! In the end, what we likely have here are the smells of cars and motorcycles gunning their engines, not blunderbusses expunging clouds of smoke and the smell of gunpowder at the speed of sound!
the bullet fragments (some of which are inconsistent with Oswald's ammunition) ??? Where does this come from? Please cite which fragment(s) is(are) not consistent with Oswald's ammo. Though some fragments could not be ballistically matched to the rifle as they were too shattered and deformed to have identifiable groove patterns, the composition of the fragments were consistent the whole bullet and the identifiable fragments.
the debris from the headshot spread some distance behind the limousine rather than in front This is not true. Fragments were blown upwards and forward, and fell back as the limo moved forward through the cloud of debris. Canada Jack ( talk) 03:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
"the bullet fragments (some of which are inconsistent with Oswald's ammunition)" A number of researchers, such as G. Paul Chambers[12] have concluded that fragments that appear on the x-rays of JFK's skull could not have come from the kind of ammunition supposedly used by Oswald, and instead came from a high-velocity, frangible missile, such as the ammunition used by an AR-15. The head bullet shattered, we have the fragments which were recovered establishing that that head bullet likely shattered, so finding bullet fragments in the skull is entirely consistent with the ammunition used, the fragments of which were fired by Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other rifles on the planet. Further, the x-rays show a dispersion pattern entirely consistent with a rear-entry shot, and entirely inconsistent with a side-entry shot. Further, lacking the actual fragments we can't declare that the fragments didn't come from the same bullet the recovered fragments came from, so Mr Chambers et la have no basis to make definitive statements. Still further, if one is to accept those x-rays as real, one also has to admit that thye show wounds inconsistent with a side entry, yet Chambers et la try to claim otherwise. Such as Oswald's rifle shot frangible bullet(s).
But there is another pattern of debris, greater in magnitude, that distributed itself over the left rear of the car and over the two motorcyclists riding behind and to the left. Joe, this is rather elementary, but yet another example of the conspiracy crowd making silly, non-nonsensical arguments. If we are to buy the premise that debris went BEHIND the limo, we need to be clear: If debris went behind where the limo was AT THE TIME OF THE FATAL SHOT, then there'd perhaps be a case to be made. But we SEE the forward spray, particularly in the enhanced Z313 image! [15] There is no "backwards spray" of significance though a small portion of the material indeed DID spray out backwards (don't believe me? look at the enhanced image) but material, since the motorcade was going that same direction, drove into that spray and the debris! This is common sense, except for the extremely silly conspiracy crowd, desperate to make a case when they have none. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
WC CD 5: "As (Weitzman) came to the top of the fence at the top of the grassy slope, some bystander mentioned that the firecracker or shot had come from the other side of the fence." etc.
Joe, will you re-read what YOU said and my response to it? AGAIN: "one of the photos of the many people, including numerous police officers, who ran straight to the Grassy Knoll because they heard a shot and/or saw smoke there."
And I will repeat: I am not disputing that witnesses claimed shots claim from the general area of the Grassy Knoll! What I AM disputing is that, immediately after the assassination there was a stampede of people running up there because, and I quote you again, ""... they heard a shot and/or saw smoke there." And YOU supplied the corroborating evidence to what I have said all along! Weitzman HIMSELF said that HE went there because SOMEONE ELSE said they heard a shot from there! THEN, once Haygood made his dash up the hill - and he did not hear where the shot came from - the crowds followed, which is corroborated by the footage later and by Bowers! The images you have posted don't show this "stampede" which is dozens of people!
The underlying point is that, contrary to what the conspiracy people claim, there was NOT an immediate stampede to the Grassy Knoll, as there was shock and general confusion as to where the shots came from. Some of the cops encountered witnesses who said the area of the Knoll. Others said the Depository. Still others said the underpass. Hell, if Baker had thought the shots came from the Knoll, we did he make a b-line to the Depository?
As for this: "Dodd, Simmons and Holland believing a shot had come from there, rushed to the parking area behind the fence, the corner of which is only a couple of feet from the pergola or 'arcade'" Did they or did they not (Holland and Simmons) in fact testify that the smoke came from the arcade? If yes, well, that is a good 20 or 30 yards away from the fence where the conspiracy theories typically place the alleged sniper. This is no small point. You even quote one of the consistent false claims on this very issue: "Bill Newman standing on the sidewalk in front of the fence, felt that the shots had come from directly behind him. This includes a list of more than three dozen witnesses who described shots from the general direction of the knoll." He in fact indicated the PERGOLA, which is 20 or 30 yards away. I've seen him consistently indicate the pergola AND have conspiracy authors claim this is the picket fence. It most certainly is NOT. Check out this Jesse Ventura interview with Newman which actually shows Newman POINTING to the pergola, only for the editor to dishonestly insert the picket fence, at 1:03! [20]
What I really don't understand is why you think the timing of the photographs, or whether smoke was behind the fence or instead a few feet away is somehow of key significance. Because YOU claimed that people rushed over there BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THEY HEARD THE SHOTS COME FROM! yet you've supplied testimony which corroborates what I said! Many if not most of the people who ran over there did so because they saw OTHERS do so and assumed they were onto a suspect! OF COURSE some who went over did so because that is where they thought the shots came from. But you can't pretend that this why most of the people rushed over there, and I spelled out for you the basis of that - most people rushed over there on the basis of seeing others - in particular cops - going over there. If this was not so, why did the "stampede" not occur until about 1 to 2 minutes after the fact? Because they followed cops - Haygood in particular - who DID NOT KNOW WHERE THE SHOTS CAME FROM. I will repeat again: Do you still believe that most of the people who went there did so because they thought the shots came from there? Because if you do, you don;t have the evidence to support that claim! In fact, you've supplied evidence which corroborates my position! As the pergola, it isn't just a few feet we are talking about. The pergola was 40 to 80 feet from the fence area, depending on the position claimed, a significant distance. (A straight line from Holland through the trees to the pergola is the far side of it, some 80 feet away, for example.)
You're in denial or haven't read the evidence. (re the splatter) Frankly, Joe, I don't understand how I can make this more clear to you. The spray was FORWARD initially, but the motion of the limo and everyone else was ALSO forward - which means they drove into a spray of all the material! The material EXPLODED out - in 1/18th of a second, as you can see in frame Z313, matter was ejected from Kennedy's head on the order of some 5 or 6 feet, easily initially faster than the movement of the motorcade. What do you not understand here? There was debris on the trunk because the limo moved INTO the spray for the most part, though a small proportion flew out that way initially, as seen in the image. Did you look at Z313? Unless you believe your eyes are part of the conspiracy, you can plainly see that the spray of material is FORWARD. Here is a better look at it: [21] Again, recall that we are seeing much of that material going vertical and towards the left of the limo because JFK was toppling over at about a 45 degree angle when he was struck. And here is the Muchmore film, showing the alternate angle - and where the debris flew off - you can actually SEE it blast forward, mostly towards the left. [22] Canada Jack ( talk) 05:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
If you look at a schematic of the Plaza, you see that the near edge of the pergola is 10 yards from the area of the fence most often identified as being where the knoll sniper would have been (as you can see in the photo you supplied), the far edge something like 30 yards. And if you draw a line from where Holland stood through the trees to the pergola, that part of the pergola is some 30 yards from the knoll sniper position.
As for this: What is the deal with, "This includes a list of more than three dozen witnesses who described shots from the general direction of the knoll." He in fact indicated the PERGOLA, which is 20 or 30 yards away.""? That was in specific reference to Josiah Thompson's line about Bill Newman's testimony (you omitted Newman from the top of the quote), the rest showing how conspiracy authors dishonestly claim he was among those who said the fence (they all too often lump everyone who heard a shot from Elm somewhere as a "Knoll" witness). In HIS case (we can quibble about where, precisely, Holland etc meant), he quite clearly and consistently pointed to the part of the pergola some 20 to 30 yards from the knoll sniper position. Check out the video I linked to. BTW, this is not the source for me identifying where he thought the shots came from, he on numerous occasions was quite specific that it came from the pergola, the mid-to-east part of it, i.e., closer to the TSBD than the knoll sniper location. Yet many conspiracy authors cite him as a "knoll" witness. Canada Jack ( talk) 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
In regards to edit 03:17, 14 March 2015 Sunrise . (→Conspiracy theories: there are NPOV and UNDUE issues with having this much content here. Replace with the lead of the main article, as is standard under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE)
I have a couple issues with this edit.
Yes, the conspiracy section of this article was long, but we aren't running out of space here. If the large volume of newly-written material about the JFK assassination is any indication, there is significant modern interest in conspiracy theories. As such, it is fair to accord a larger amount of space to the history and main points of the conspiracy movement.
The JFK assassination conspiracy theory article is enormous! It has several more subpages on specific conspiracy theories. And unfortunately, the format of categorizing and detailing each theory doesn't really lend itself to the kind of chronological overview that was written on this page in the conspiracy section. So we lost the only humanly-readable overview of the movement. Perhaps it could be added to the conspiracy article, but it hasn't happened yet.
The copied material from the lede of the conspiracy article that was pasted over the previous work isn't very useful now. About half of it is repeating other parts of this article.
Sunrise's new version doesn't include the proper tag to redirect to the main conspiracy article.
Does anyone else want to revert this? Perhaps work on trimming down the conspiracy section if there is any consensus that it is too unwieldy for this overview article. Koijmonop ( talk) 03:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Long discussion on our showing LHO as the perpetrator. We do. Enough said.
|
---|
The field "Weapons" in the infobox contains 6.5×52mm Italian Carcano M91/38 Bolt-action rifle and the field "Perpetrator" contains Lee Harvey Oswald. Both fields violate the policy of neutral point of view. This policy states "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.". It shouldn't be necessary to say that the conclusions of the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations have been contested. If these fields have not been modified or deleted by one month from now, I will insert alleged before both "Weapons" and "Perpetrator," unless someone gives me a convincing reason for not doing so. I am using alleged in the broad sense. Robert O'Rourke ( talk) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There are numerous references within the page to the fact that a majority of people believe there was a conspiracy in the assassination, though, interestingly, often the poll question is along the lines of "do you believe Oswald acted alone or with others," while most conspiracy theories see Oswald as not being involved, at least not in the role of a sniper. And, as I have noted frequently in the past when the "bias" of the page is identified by others, any conclusions are described as being those of the particular investigation, not as the absolute truth as to what happened. Canada Jack ( talk) 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is about giving due weight to diverse views - not finding some "neutral" position. Our article complies with NPOV because it follows the weight of evidence. There just isn't the same weight of evidence linking any other person, group, weapon or narrative. Just the occasional doubt and inconsistent witness statement. And a vast weight of fanciful supposition based on little but imagination. We might acknowledge such castles in the air, especially where they are widely believed, but we do not state them as fact. We've been through all this before with climate change, the Holocaust, evolution and all the rest. Look, it's been fifty years. We've seen the most closely guarded secrets of WW2 exposed and discussed and made into documentaries, despite the people involved swearing the most awful oaths not to tell. How come none of those involved in what surely must have been a vast conspiracy have done the same? All it takes is one thread to unravel the thing, and not one of those thousands of government officials, police, military and media folk have come up with anything that undoes the conspiracy. Just maybes and whatifs. We show LHO as the lone assassin, using a Carcano rifle, because that's the best evidence we have. And not just the best evidence out of many competing narratives, but evidence that has been examined in excruciating detail. As opposed to someone writing a book with a few grainy photographs. -- Pete ( talk) 22:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't agree with the conclusion of the HSCA that there was a conspiracy, which was based solely on the disputed dictabelt evidence (the "conspiracy" conclusion only came after the last-minute dictabelt presentation as can be found in the dissent.) As for Ferrie, we have the air cadets, and we have the Cuban shenanigans. But no other credible reports - except for Clinton. But you are a bit behind the times on the Clinton sighting, Joe. This is a fascinating claim, and in 1978 was the main "smoking gun" cited by the HSCA as unresolved - seemingly credible witnesses who reported seeing David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald and Clay Shaw together in Clinton LA on a voter drive several months before the assassination. But it has been subsequently revealed that these claims were in fact manufactured by Garrison's team in 1969 for the Shaw trial. It's a complicated tale, and the truth of what happened - yet another example of manufactured "evidence" by Garrison - did not emerge for some 30 years. In short, nothing the witnesses originally said described men who we'd recognize as the three. But in the hands of the Garrison team, memories "improved." On McAdams website: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinton1.htm It's a long read, but well worth it. Canada Jack ( talk) 15:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine on the HSCA clarification. I will say that while those people believed that there was involvement by the mafia, CIA etc., the actual evidence gathered by the HSCA - and I would say subsequently gathered - does not rise to the level where one can definitively or at least confidently assert involvement by those agents. As for the Holocaust Deniers, let me more specific. I don't for a second want to suggest that if you believe "conspiracy" that you are like a ignorant racist who denies the reality of 6 million Jews being systematically exterminated, etc. And I also want to narrow the comparison to largely the events of Dealy Plaza and the evidence there. In terms of claiming there was a CIA link or pro-/anti-Cuban links etc there is no "Holocaust denier" equivalent. That's because Oswald's associations are more in the realm of historical debate in terms of a) what associations Oswald had and b) how important were those associations - like Ferry. Oswald probably met him, but I'd say the relationship was inconsequential and limited to the Air Cadets, while others believe evidence points to something more substantial. And the level of involvement by others, not necessarily connected to Oswald is open for debate, but it has to be in context of the evidence we have there - which points irresistibly to Oswald's involvement. When it comes to the evidence at Dealy Plaza, I'd say the comparison is more apt. I might write something here that, for me, underlines the "denial" comparison in terms of the evidence pointing to Oswald etc, but I will afterwards not make the comparison. Canada Jack ( talk) 22:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This thread is (or ought to be) about whether to add "alleged" to the infobox. I have read the entire discussion and am in complete agreement with Canada Jack, Pete and Location that adding that word is inappropriate. The conclusions of the two official investigations confirm that Oswald was the killer and his Carcano the murder weapon. There is no plausible, widely accepted alternative killer or weapon, but only a mass of contradictory speculations. Enough said. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/489064859095810048 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I am curious why the JFK entry does not have any reference to Gerald Ford's deathbed revelations. I'm not going to spend any effort though on editing, because historically my edits get killed by moderators. If you believe it is appropriate for inclusion into the JFK article, mods, then please take the time to do so. Here is a link to get you started.
http://www.crimemagazine.com/former-president-ford-admits-cia-compromised-warren-commissions-probe-jfk-assassination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.160.170 ( talk) 18:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Re revert of revert on "Neither X nor Y" was/were" where Y is singular. With or and nor, the verb agrees in number with the last noun or noun phrase (Y). See, e.g., http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp and https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/599/1/ "2. When two or more singular nouns or pronouns are connected by or or nor, use a singular verb." Kdammers ( talk) 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't seem to be the only editor who thinks that Mortal Error, the idea that a Secret Service agent accidentally discharged the third shot, is both clearly notable in itself, and of ample weight to get a mention in this article. Others seem to disagree, though on no obviously-supportable grounds.
Apart from the notability of this specific idea, some mention of the non-conspiracy, but non-standard theories seems to be required. Whatever we may think of them, they are, at least collectively, notable.
Does anyone have any comments before I put in a brief mention? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 23:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Lucky. Trajectory analysis by the HSCA and by others on the fatal head wound produce a cone which encompasses the top floors of the Depository building. Therefore, for this Mortal Error theory to be correct it would REQUIRE a conspiracy by those consultants who did the trajectory analysis and the HSCA to cover up the true facts of the assassination. Recall, as I have underlined before, there are TWO separate conspiracies most are talking about - the plot to kill the president; the plot to cover up the facts of who actually killed the president. While "Mortal" supposes JFK dies as a result of a screw-up and not a conspiracy, the second conspiracy (a cover-up) is still pre-supposed by the authors.
Besides, RB, didn't you point out before that one of the films - the Bronson one, I think - shows the fatal bullet strike and ALSO shows the agent in question in the wrong position in the follow-up car to have discharged his weapon towards Kennedy? Canada Jack ( talk) 03:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Ensure it has very good sourcing. As in books published by University presses. There has been so much speculation, and everyone has their own pet theory and so many people have published books. We can't list them all and much of it is low quality or speculation. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 15:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This needs to included in the article. It is not okay to censor reliable information. The sources I added were also originally sourced in the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations article. 184.97.234.40 ( talk) 22:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Given the fact that this page gives a mainly cursory look at the main issues in regards to the assassination, I'd say we need only note what Binkekster says above. ie the conclusion of 1978, dismissed in 1980 and 1982, with further back and forth.
After all, do we see ANY detail on how the Warren Commission came to its conclusion that Oswald did it and did it alone? I'd say that that would be a bigger issue than the acoustic issue. Canada Jack ( talk) 19:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been working on improving the HSCA main page, and would submit that instead of having the final word being the "back and forth" of acoustic scientists, we have something along the lines of the HSCA article's coda: In light of investigative reports from the FBI’s Technical Services Division and the National Academy of Science Committee determining that "reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman", the Justice Department concluded “that no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy in … the assassination of President Kennedy”. I'm planning on trimming down some of the HSCA section of this page (including the details of the dictabelt), and will probably include something to that effect. Both quotes from a ~1984 Justice Dept. memo. Koijmonop ( talk) 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is the Criticism of Secret Service subsection in the section entitled Official investigations? This should be in a subsection of material about the HSCA's findings. - Location ( talk) 01:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems strange to me that the youtube videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-LA0ypFXig
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1qSGk8oMQ
are not cited at all. Are these new? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimacq ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
jfk was a good man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.145.132 ( talk) 18:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Several attempts to add POV material have been made the past few days and have been reverted - not by me, but I agree with keeping this material out of the article.
The material in question cherry-picks several witness statements to cast doubt on a circa frame Z160 occurrence of the first shot, which the HSCA concluded missed everyone (the Warren Commission made no conclusion of which of the three shots missed). The page in fact relates the sequence of events as per the conclusions of the WC and the HSCA. As has often been stated, there is no agreed-upon sequence of shots from the conspiracy community, who have multiple scenarios about the sequence of shots - dozens of scenarios in fact. (One, two, three or more snipers, four to eight shots, etc.) The Z160 initial shot is more or less the standard starting point of the main scenario for the single gunman conclusion. While other single gunman conclusions put the missed bullet after the Z224 shot or even after the fatal shot, these are minority opinions (though the Warren Report did spell both these possibilities out).
So, to include some evidence which suggests another scenario - without spelling out what the scenario is - is beyond the scope of the page as this is focused on the conclusions of the main investigations. There is simply no way to include the numerous conspiracy claims here as the entire page would have to be given over to the numerous claims and counter-claims as there is no agreed-upon sequence of events from within the conspiracy community (even given that the HSCA concluded "conspiracy" yet confirmed the Single Bullet Theory upon which the circa Z160 initial shot partly rests). So, while citing evidence which seems to contradict the official conclusion may impress those who are not too familiar with the evidence, NO scenario I've seen lacks seemingly contradictory evidence.
Simply plonking down POV material which suggest another scenario without a connection to another specific scenario or to those who claim the evidence suggests a different specific scenario is not how wikipedia operates. As it stood, some editor personally believed this evidence contradicts the official conclusion, and therefore inserted it. With specific citations (what does this suggest; who says this is what it suggests, etc.), this issue can be explored on the conspiracy page where many of these claims reside.
Besides, both Mary Woodward and Connally's statements are directly contradicted by the Zapruder film which clearly show a sudden turn to the right by the limo occupants circa Z160 and no subsequent reaction to a gunshot report before JFK is hit in the back. Sure, that's my opinion, but it also happens to match what the HSCA concluded. Canada Jack ( talk) 19:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Governor Connally did say he turned to his right upon hearing the first shot. However, he also claimed the time between the first shot and the one which hit him were fired very close together. Governor Connally informed both the FBI and the Warren commission that the time between the first shot and the one which hit him was very brief. In fact according to Connally, it was so brief that he initially believed somebody was shooting with an automatic rifle! He also claimed the Limousine travelled between 150 and 200 feet (further down Elm Street than the position at frame 160). His recollections are therefore more in line with a shot fired between frames 178 and 190 (as per the witnesses who observed Kennedy waving). Of course, there is every reason to believe his memory could’ve been badly affected by his injuries. However, couldn’t the same be said of his recollection of turning to the right following the first shot? Of course it could.
In fact, during an interview with life magazine in 1966, Connally was shown frames of the Zapruder film, where he was asked to give his opinion of when he was hit. Connally had ultimately decided on frame 234. However, the most telling part of the interview was when he made the statement he turned to his right when the limousine was behind the sign. From Pat Speer’s website: "You can see my leftward movement clearly...I had turned to the right when the limousine was behind the sign. Now I'm turning back again. I know that I made that turn to the left before I was hit. You can see the grimace in the President's face. You cannot see it in mine. There is no question about it. I haven't been hit yet."
So there you have it folks. Despite the claims by lone gunman theorists, Connally himself claimed to turn to his right when the limousine was behind the sign. Clearly, the limousine was not behind the sign at frame 160. We can see the limousine disappear completely behind the sign at circa frame 200, and we see Governor Connally emerge at circa frame 223. Let me just state for the record, that unlike many conspiracy theorists, I do believe Connally was struck by a bullet at frame 224! However, I don’t believe in the single bullet theory (I will discuss my beliefs on these matters in a future post). Let’s bear in mind that Connally’s claim of turning to his right as the limousine was behind the sign, is perfectly consistent with his earlier claims of the time span between the shots being very brief. It is also consistent with his claim that the limousine could have travelled between 150 to 200 feet along Elm Street, before the first shot was fired. I'm sorry.
Goodbye.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.147.178 ( talk) 14:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.159.6 ( talk)
I think an explanation for Connally’s head snap (circa frame 165) is answered in the article by reporter Mary Woodward.
“We had been waiting about half an hour when the first motorcycle escorts came by, followed shortly by the President’s car. The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us…After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right.”
So there it is. Woodward claimed that both Kennedy and his wife, turned towards them as they started to clap and cheer. Now wouldn’t Governor Connally, who was also watching crowds throughout the motorcade, turn his head quickly from looking to his left (just prior to frame 165) upon hearing the clapping and cheering? Of course he would. After all, isn’t that precisely the sort of reaction we would expect from anybody hearing cheering? I sure believe that to be the case.
Now, Woodward herself never claimed that Connally had turned towards her. This is understandable however, considering she was paying attention to the President and his wife, and not Connally. Supporting Woodward’s observation, many other witnesses made it clear that both the President and the first lady turned to their right before the first shot, not after. I honestly don’t know how much clearer it could be. When we also take into account the witnesses who observed Kennedy waving as the first shot was fired, along with Connally’s claim of turning to his right as the limousine was behind the sign, it’s obvious the first shot was fired between Zapruder frames 178 and 190. It makes little or no sense that President Kennedy would hear a loud noise such as a gunshot, and continue to smile and wave.
And like I said, I don't believe in the SBT; refer to my blog for this matter: The Single Bullet Fantasy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.159.6 ( talk) 17:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The unidentified user posting under IP 84.13.159.6 has made a false claim. I am acquainted with the actual author of the blog and cited article, The Single Bullet Fantasy. The actual author protests this impersonation, [4] Ruidoso ( talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Now, and for the last time. Somebody keeps modifying the section about the statements of Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams, and James Earl Jarman, who were viewing the motorcade from the 5th floor of the TSBD. The user(s), is deliberately cancelling Bonnie Ray Williams’ story that he informed both the Dallas Sheriff’s office and the FBI, that he heard two shots fired above his head, and that Harold Norman did not make the claim of claiming to hear the bolt of the rifle being worked and hearing three shell casings hit the floor above him in his first interview with the FBI - which could mean that Norman is possibly not a credible witness (notice: I say possibly, while these people just put forward in his claim in which he always maintained he heard what he heard). Excuse me for being so rude but this is a real source and it is kind of important isn’t it?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.50.151 ( talk) 19:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Me: "something like TEN witnesses either saw a man actually shooting from the window, the barrel of the gun firing from the window or, as the witnesses below reported, shots from directly above."
Seems my memory was correct (though you might quibble about #7, still 9 is "something like 10"). Those ten are: 1) Howard Brennan, who saw a man firing the last shot after taking "positive aim"; 2) Amos Lee Euins saw a man shooting from the same window; 3) Jame Worrell Jr. saw the barrel and forestock of a rifle sticking out the window after the first shot and saw it fire; 4) Robert Jackson saw the barrel of a rifle being pulled back into the window; 5) Malcolm Couch also saw the rifle in the window; 6) Mrs Earle Cabell saw a "rather long looking" "projection" from the window after the first shot; 7) James Crawford saw movement in the window after the third shot which he described as a person moving back from the window; 8), 9), 10), James Jarman Jr., Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman were all in the 5th floor window directly below the sniper's nest and reported that shots seem to come from above them, loosening debris which fell into Williams' hair, that they could hear bullet shells falling above them and the action of the bolt of the rifle.
These accounts are corroborated by other witnesses who said they were told, immediately, of seeing a gunman/rifle: Brennan immediately told police what he saw; Euins told Sgt D. V. Harkness of the Dallas police what he saw immediately as well, and told reporter James Underwood as well; Jackson's account corroborates the account of the 5th-story employees as he also said he saw two of them straining to look above them, and Jackson followed their gaze to see the rifle. James Underwood confirmed that Jackson immediately said he saw a rifle and James Dillard took photos of the window in response. Couch also corroborated Jackson and, as mentioned, looked up to see the rifle. He also said he saw one of the 5th-floor employees leaning out of the window to see above. Mary Ann Mitchell corroborated Crawford's account by saying after the third shot he said the shots came from the building in question, but she didn't see the particular window he referred to.
I probably won't have time to address the other points you make for a few days, but a quick remark about the autopsy points: 1) Perry relied only on visual inspection of the throat wound, therefore his claim it was an entrance wound was an opinion, not a fact, as tests determined the back wound and rear head wounds both to be wounds of entrance. Further, a bullet passing through a body cleanly as this bullet was said to have done would be expected to leave an exit wound indistinguishable by the naked eye as to being entry or exit. Still further, the bullet passed though JFK's tie and the threads passed outward as expected if it was exiting, not inward. 2) Sibert and O'Neill didn't do the autopsy, so why are their notes more persuasive than the actual pathologists'? The precise measurements were described by the pathologists, we don't know if Sibert and O'Neill got the measurements from the clothes. 3) "Downward at a 45-60 degree angle." The wound was reported to actually travel upward as per the anatomical position, but this is one of those cases where common sense dictates that Sibert and O'Neill HAD to be wrong. Think of that angle - it implies that the sniper had to be 45 degrees up - even higher if JFK was leaning forward - the sniper would have had to be standing on the trunk for that angle to make sense, or from a helicopter well above the rooftops of downtown Dallas! 5) You didn't make the claim, but the "short distance" by the finger probe was not a surprise as this was done nearly 12 hours after the death of the president, and rigor mortis was setting in. Unless JFK was in the precise position he was in when shot, the wound could not be probed. As for the autopsy, this sentence is highly misleading: "It became known several years later that the pathologists had been forbidden, presumably by one or more of their military superiors, to dissect the back and throat wounds." There indeed WAS pressure - from Robert and Jackie Kennedy - to speed up the autopsy, this we know now. And, there was no perceived need to do the throat and neck dissection as the presumption was during the autopsy that the back bullet had fallen out. They were not aware until they were done that there had been a neck wound. If they HAD known that, they would have performed the dissection. It wasn't seen as necessary before then, and there were fears from the Kennedy family that it might be revealed that JFK had Addison's disease if a complete autopsy had been done, hence the pressure to wrap up only what was necessary.
6) Bullet fragments: We have the fragments of the shattered full metal jacket bullet, therefore the presence of numerous bullet particles is consistent with a single bullet to the head; the back bullet's relatively pristine state is matched by the relative lack of bullet particles found only in Connally and THOSE fragments are consistent with lead from a backwards tumbling bullet, again entirely consistent with the SBT. 7) Nellie's testimony is not consistent with the SBT, however John's is. He HEARD the first shot, turned and was hit by the second shot, he only PRESUMED JFK had been hit by the first shot but only turned to see JFK after he himself had been hit. Reading his testimony and watching the Z-film matches what the HSCA in particular concluded - first shot c Z160 missed; second shot hit both. While he always supported Nellie's story, his account in fact differs from her's. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Time to underline the b.s. behind some of the common conspiracy arguments repeated ad infinitim by that crowd, as cited again by Joe: one of the photos of the many people, including numerous police officers, who ran straight to the Grassy Knoll because they heard a shot and/or saw smoke there. This is where a shot from the front could have originated from, consistent with many interpretations of the Zapruder film, the bullet fragments (some of which are inconsistent with Oswald's ammunition), the debris from the headshot spread some distance behind the limousine rather than in front
Crowds run to the Grassy Knoll because they heard a shot from there. One of the oldest b.s. tropes from the conspiracy crowd. The truth is somewhat different. What happened? Well for a minute or so NO ONE rushed the knoll, then policeman Clyde Haygood, who was well back in the motorcade and had no first-hand knowledge of where the shots came from, stopped his motorcycle by the knoll, past the fallen Newman family, and dashed up the knoll to confer with a policeman he saw by the overpass. It was only then that crowds massed up the knoll, following Haygood in the apparent belief that he was chasing a suspect. Even then, the much-photographed "rush" was even later. Bottom line? People rushed there WELL AFTER the assassination and did so because a COP went there - but he went there to confer with another cop - NOT because they, as you claimed, "heard a shot/saw smoke there." Yet the conspiracy crowd has been peddling this dishonest claim for decades, a patently false claim.
Saw smoke/smelt gunpowder Again, the truth is far different from the claims put forward by the conspiracy crowd. First off, we would have clearly been able to see smoke from one of the several films made from across Elm Street, or when Zapruder had panned to his right, if the claim that gunshot smoke was visible by the stockade fence. Yet there is nothing there. If the smoke was too faint to be seen by the cameras, then humans would not have been able to see it either.
However, witnesses did say they saw smoke - but conspiracy authors dishonestly claim they saw it by the fence when in fact they described another location. Sam Holland was on the overpass and said he saw a puff of smoke from "behind the arcade" through the trees (via his vantage point), and only after the FIRST shot, not the later shots. His description sounds like he saw the smoke from the pergola, NOT the fence. Austin Miller, standing near Holland also described smoke - from the pergola, NOT the fence. "I turned and looked toward the — there is a little plaza sitting on the hill. I looked over to see if anything was there, who threw the firecracker or whatever it was." James Simmons, also on the overpass, said "near the embankment in front of the TSBD." He saw through the trees to the same area - by the pergola, NOT the fence.
Earle Brown claimed he smelled gunsmoke - yet he was positioned at the RAILWAY overpass - over the Stemmons Highway! 100 yards from Elm Street. Other witnesses were close to the assassination and can't credibly have been able to smell smoke which would have had to have travelled some 50 yards to their position in a matter of several seconds, such as Billy Martin, a motorcycle cop on the LEFT side, just behind the limo, or Senator Yarborough, in the second car behind the limo. Tom Dillard, in the press car, said he smelt gunpowder as the car he was in turned the corner at Elm and Houston - below the TSBD - yet he is cited as evidence of a knoll assassin! In the end, what we likely have here are the smells of cars and motorcycles gunning their engines, not blunderbusses expunging clouds of smoke and the smell of gunpowder at the speed of sound!
the bullet fragments (some of which are inconsistent with Oswald's ammunition) ??? Where does this come from? Please cite which fragment(s) is(are) not consistent with Oswald's ammo. Though some fragments could not be ballistically matched to the rifle as they were too shattered and deformed to have identifiable groove patterns, the composition of the fragments were consistent the whole bullet and the identifiable fragments.
the debris from the headshot spread some distance behind the limousine rather than in front This is not true. Fragments were blown upwards and forward, and fell back as the limo moved forward through the cloud of debris. Canada Jack ( talk) 03:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
"the bullet fragments (some of which are inconsistent with Oswald's ammunition)" A number of researchers, such as G. Paul Chambers[12] have concluded that fragments that appear on the x-rays of JFK's skull could not have come from the kind of ammunition supposedly used by Oswald, and instead came from a high-velocity, frangible missile, such as the ammunition used by an AR-15. The head bullet shattered, we have the fragments which were recovered establishing that that head bullet likely shattered, so finding bullet fragments in the skull is entirely consistent with the ammunition used, the fragments of which were fired by Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other rifles on the planet. Further, the x-rays show a dispersion pattern entirely consistent with a rear-entry shot, and entirely inconsistent with a side-entry shot. Further, lacking the actual fragments we can't declare that the fragments didn't come from the same bullet the recovered fragments came from, so Mr Chambers et la have no basis to make definitive statements. Still further, if one is to accept those x-rays as real, one also has to admit that thye show wounds inconsistent with a side entry, yet Chambers et la try to claim otherwise. Such as Oswald's rifle shot frangible bullet(s).
But there is another pattern of debris, greater in magnitude, that distributed itself over the left rear of the car and over the two motorcyclists riding behind and to the left. Joe, this is rather elementary, but yet another example of the conspiracy crowd making silly, non-nonsensical arguments. If we are to buy the premise that debris went BEHIND the limo, we need to be clear: If debris went behind where the limo was AT THE TIME OF THE FATAL SHOT, then there'd perhaps be a case to be made. But we SEE the forward spray, particularly in the enhanced Z313 image! [15] There is no "backwards spray" of significance though a small portion of the material indeed DID spray out backwards (don't believe me? look at the enhanced image) but material, since the motorcade was going that same direction, drove into that spray and the debris! This is common sense, except for the extremely silly conspiracy crowd, desperate to make a case when they have none. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
WC CD 5: "As (Weitzman) came to the top of the fence at the top of the grassy slope, some bystander mentioned that the firecracker or shot had come from the other side of the fence." etc.
Joe, will you re-read what YOU said and my response to it? AGAIN: "one of the photos of the many people, including numerous police officers, who ran straight to the Grassy Knoll because they heard a shot and/or saw smoke there."
And I will repeat: I am not disputing that witnesses claimed shots claim from the general area of the Grassy Knoll! What I AM disputing is that, immediately after the assassination there was a stampede of people running up there because, and I quote you again, ""... they heard a shot and/or saw smoke there." And YOU supplied the corroborating evidence to what I have said all along! Weitzman HIMSELF said that HE went there because SOMEONE ELSE said they heard a shot from there! THEN, once Haygood made his dash up the hill - and he did not hear where the shot came from - the crowds followed, which is corroborated by the footage later and by Bowers! The images you have posted don't show this "stampede" which is dozens of people!
The underlying point is that, contrary to what the conspiracy people claim, there was NOT an immediate stampede to the Grassy Knoll, as there was shock and general confusion as to where the shots came from. Some of the cops encountered witnesses who said the area of the Knoll. Others said the Depository. Still others said the underpass. Hell, if Baker had thought the shots came from the Knoll, we did he make a b-line to the Depository?
As for this: "Dodd, Simmons and Holland believing a shot had come from there, rushed to the parking area behind the fence, the corner of which is only a couple of feet from the pergola or 'arcade'" Did they or did they not (Holland and Simmons) in fact testify that the smoke came from the arcade? If yes, well, that is a good 20 or 30 yards away from the fence where the conspiracy theories typically place the alleged sniper. This is no small point. You even quote one of the consistent false claims on this very issue: "Bill Newman standing on the sidewalk in front of the fence, felt that the shots had come from directly behind him. This includes a list of more than three dozen witnesses who described shots from the general direction of the knoll." He in fact indicated the PERGOLA, which is 20 or 30 yards away. I've seen him consistently indicate the pergola AND have conspiracy authors claim this is the picket fence. It most certainly is NOT. Check out this Jesse Ventura interview with Newman which actually shows Newman POINTING to the pergola, only for the editor to dishonestly insert the picket fence, at 1:03! [20]
What I really don't understand is why you think the timing of the photographs, or whether smoke was behind the fence or instead a few feet away is somehow of key significance. Because YOU claimed that people rushed over there BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THEY HEARD THE SHOTS COME FROM! yet you've supplied testimony which corroborates what I said! Many if not most of the people who ran over there did so because they saw OTHERS do so and assumed they were onto a suspect! OF COURSE some who went over did so because that is where they thought the shots came from. But you can't pretend that this why most of the people rushed over there, and I spelled out for you the basis of that - most people rushed over there on the basis of seeing others - in particular cops - going over there. If this was not so, why did the "stampede" not occur until about 1 to 2 minutes after the fact? Because they followed cops - Haygood in particular - who DID NOT KNOW WHERE THE SHOTS CAME FROM. I will repeat again: Do you still believe that most of the people who went there did so because they thought the shots came from there? Because if you do, you don;t have the evidence to support that claim! In fact, you've supplied evidence which corroborates my position! As the pergola, it isn't just a few feet we are talking about. The pergola was 40 to 80 feet from the fence area, depending on the position claimed, a significant distance. (A straight line from Holland through the trees to the pergola is the far side of it, some 80 feet away, for example.)
You're in denial or haven't read the evidence. (re the splatter) Frankly, Joe, I don't understand how I can make this more clear to you. The spray was FORWARD initially, but the motion of the limo and everyone else was ALSO forward - which means they drove into a spray of all the material! The material EXPLODED out - in 1/18th of a second, as you can see in frame Z313, matter was ejected from Kennedy's head on the order of some 5 or 6 feet, easily initially faster than the movement of the motorcade. What do you not understand here? There was debris on the trunk because the limo moved INTO the spray for the most part, though a small proportion flew out that way initially, as seen in the image. Did you look at Z313? Unless you believe your eyes are part of the conspiracy, you can plainly see that the spray of material is FORWARD. Here is a better look at it: [21] Again, recall that we are seeing much of that material going vertical and towards the left of the limo because JFK was toppling over at about a 45 degree angle when he was struck. And here is the Muchmore film, showing the alternate angle - and where the debris flew off - you can actually SEE it blast forward, mostly towards the left. [22] Canada Jack ( talk) 05:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
If you look at a schematic of the Plaza, you see that the near edge of the pergola is 10 yards from the area of the fence most often identified as being where the knoll sniper would have been (as you can see in the photo you supplied), the far edge something like 30 yards. And if you draw a line from where Holland stood through the trees to the pergola, that part of the pergola is some 30 yards from the knoll sniper position.
As for this: What is the deal with, "This includes a list of more than three dozen witnesses who described shots from the general direction of the knoll." He in fact indicated the PERGOLA, which is 20 or 30 yards away.""? That was in specific reference to Josiah Thompson's line about Bill Newman's testimony (you omitted Newman from the top of the quote), the rest showing how conspiracy authors dishonestly claim he was among those who said the fence (they all too often lump everyone who heard a shot from Elm somewhere as a "Knoll" witness). In HIS case (we can quibble about where, precisely, Holland etc meant), he quite clearly and consistently pointed to the part of the pergola some 20 to 30 yards from the knoll sniper position. Check out the video I linked to. BTW, this is not the source for me identifying where he thought the shots came from, he on numerous occasions was quite specific that it came from the pergola, the mid-to-east part of it, i.e., closer to the TSBD than the knoll sniper location. Yet many conspiracy authors cite him as a "knoll" witness. Canada Jack ( talk) 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
In regards to edit 03:17, 14 March 2015 Sunrise . (→Conspiracy theories: there are NPOV and UNDUE issues with having this much content here. Replace with the lead of the main article, as is standard under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE)
I have a couple issues with this edit.
Yes, the conspiracy section of this article was long, but we aren't running out of space here. If the large volume of newly-written material about the JFK assassination is any indication, there is significant modern interest in conspiracy theories. As such, it is fair to accord a larger amount of space to the history and main points of the conspiracy movement.
The JFK assassination conspiracy theory article is enormous! It has several more subpages on specific conspiracy theories. And unfortunately, the format of categorizing and detailing each theory doesn't really lend itself to the kind of chronological overview that was written on this page in the conspiracy section. So we lost the only humanly-readable overview of the movement. Perhaps it could be added to the conspiracy article, but it hasn't happened yet.
The copied material from the lede of the conspiracy article that was pasted over the previous work isn't very useful now. About half of it is repeating other parts of this article.
Sunrise's new version doesn't include the proper tag to redirect to the main conspiracy article.
Does anyone else want to revert this? Perhaps work on trimming down the conspiracy section if there is any consensus that it is too unwieldy for this overview article. Koijmonop ( talk) 03:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)