This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I removed the following text, as it isn't contained in the cited reference, nor in any other source material I can locate: "it had been rumored that the first lady was attempting to retrieve a piece of the president's skull or to get to safety, but this was later found not to be true." The idea that Mrs. Kennedy was trying to retrieve a portion of her husband's skull strikes me as incredible, considering the other events going on around her at the same time, especially in the absence of cited references.-- Ssbohio 09:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
— To me, since Jackie clearly reacts in horror upon seeing her husband's head explode and instantly recoil and climb out the back, she likely was just panicking and trying to escape the terrible sight she had just witnessed. I'm not sure she would have been thinking "oh, there goes a piece of skull, better get it," her reaction was too fast. --
Johnny Canuck
18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The film, JFK II: The Bush Connection is a thin collection of secondary sources, edited together with popular television clips (such as The Simpsons and South Park), and most of the film simply reviews secondary sources such as the film, JFK. It is highly biased in its language, portrayal of people and events, and in its conclusions. There may or may not be evidence to support the thesis of the film (that a declassified document from the 1970s suggests George Bush Sr.'s involvement), but this film certainly does not explore that evidence to the depth that would be required to support citation in an encyclopedia or other research context. If we want to cite that memo, I suggest that we find a primary source (such as the memo itself, or the FOIA case relating to it). - Harmil 05:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
From RPJ's source:
None of this Thoracic 3 -- JimWae 01:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Use of "confirm" is POV. This article is not to confirm anything, nor to prove anything, but to report. It's called WP:NPOV - something sadly missing for way too long -- JimWae 01:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC) There are photos showing JFK's shirt & jacket collar bunched up high -- JimWae 01:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, very authentic. The doctors testified that the back of Kennedy's head had a huge hole in it. One doctor approved this drawing. [1]
This huge gaping wound at the back of Kennedy's head was seen by several eyewitnesses who were very close to the president and had a good view. They saw the back of the president’s head blasted out that is consistent with being shot from the front. These reputable witnesses include:
"You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." [5]
The occipital lobe of the brain is just above the cerebellum part of the brain.
3-- These descriptions of the head wound in the back of the skull are all consistent with the the kill shot to the head coming from the front, blasting out the back of the president's head and knocking him violently backwards in his seat.
- Keep in mind that "rear" could be used by people for anything below & behind the top -- JimWae 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also keep in mind that the whole right side of JFK's skull was gone, above his ear. You see that in the Z film (the very back of the head is mostly intact), and that's what Z himself saw (the side of the head open up). Close that with the big flaps of tissue hanging down from side, as Mrs. Kennedy did on the way to the hospital, and all you see is the "rear entrance" to that big tunnel (which, by the way, has a bevelled bullet hole at the rear of it, showing the bullet made it going in from the BACK). And it does look like a right rear wound, until you unroof it. There's an autopy photo [8] where you can see looking from the back for the skull, forward all the way down this channel, since the scalp has been reflected back on the side. Put the scalp back and it would look like a right posterior wound only. It's a little disorienting, but it matches reasonably well with some drawings of the Dallas people, particularly one in Livingstone's High Treason 2 (IIRC). It's there set side by side with the autopsy photo. Livingstone doesn't interpret it correctly, but that's his problem. Sbharris 03:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- You state: "[I]t does look like a right rear wound . . . ." Then, "Put the scalp back [on the right side of the head]and it would look like a right posterior wound only. " Then, "It's a little disorienting, but it matches reasonably well with some drawings of the Dallas people . . . ." etc.
- If I understand you correctly, you believe that if the wound to the right side of the head is repaired (so to speak) by putting the bone and scalp back in place, the wound would look as if it was present only in the back of the president's head and not in the back and on the side of his head.
- Close. It was repaired by putting up the big flap that hangs down in the Z film; that is all. Nobody attempted to put back the skull underneith it. That stuff came out in big chunks, 3 of which were delivered to Bethesda and are included in the autopsy report. Sbharris 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your point. How did it come to pass that the president had any large hole in the back of his head if he got shot in the head from the back rather than the front?
RPJ 08:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sigh. He didn't. The bullet hit him in cowlick area, just to the right of the midline, and traveling in a path to exit just above his ear. Everything from the entry to his temple got blasted out, as you see in the autopsy photo looking from the rear with the scalp reflected (too bad there's not an autopsy side view published which corresponds). This entire wound however is seen in the Z film, and described by Z. The "exit" part closest to the eye, which includes much of the side of the head above the ear, was hidden when the scalp flap was replaced over the forward part of the wound. Sbharris 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- You can see that from the autopsy photo looking into the skull, if you look carefully [9]. The skull fractured at the point of bullet entry, but the fractures were mostly lateral because that's where the internal pressure was. So the skull is blown out from the very point of bullet impact, and you see only HALF of the bullet entry hole in the occipital bone (the other half being gone in the lateral part of the bone that got blown sideways to the right, and out and away). But the part that does survive shows a (half) bevelled hole, and the bevelling is inward, which is to say it forms a little cone which gets wider as you go through the skull going inward. Just like the neighbor kid's BB make when it goes through your house window (hole is bigger INSIDE your house). Which means this is rear occipital (half) hole in JFK's skull is a bullet ENTRY wound.
- It caused confusion, because people aren't used to seeing entry wounds that are large, right from the beginning. And if you cover up the exit with scalp (as was done here), it's even more confusing. But you can see the whole wound in the Z film, and it's gigantic-- the entire right parietal region and some of the frontal and occiputal as well. The "exit" is MUCH larger than the entry, even in this case where the "entry" started skull-shatter and lateral blowout from the get-go. On the scalp it's a little clearer: entry is a small neat hole in the cowlick, and exit is missing entirely-- it's just a bunch of flaps where the bullet frags and skull frags went out. But the part of the scalp which contains the bullet entry hole, got blown out sideways by the force of the exiting matter, and it must to be pulled into place over the missing skull cavity, to even esimate its original place on the head. In one autopsy photo you even see that being done, with a Humes holding a flap of scalp UP over the hole with thumb and forefinger [10]. Of course, conspiracy theorists just use that to argue that the photo has been doctored (literally). The problem is that the Z film shows much the same. Most of the rear of JFK's head looks okay if the scalp isn't pulled back to show that gapping loss of the entire upper right side of his skull. Apparently some of that happened in the Dallas OR. But nobody there pulled ALL the scalp back to see the whole thing. Sbharris 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your explanation of why the president would have a huge hole in the back of the head if he was shot in the back of the head as you claim. If you want someone to understand your explanation, try to be concise and don't keep digressing. RPJ 07:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it may be that the subject's just too complicated. The right side of the head was gone. The front of that wound was hidden by replacing the dangling large scalp flap you see hanging down over the ear, in the Z film. I don't know how much simpler to be Sbharris 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC).
- A lot of hue and cry here over what, in the end, is rather straight-forward, and Sbharris points out.
What is left out by many who claim a shot from the grassy knoll accounts for JFK's movement to the left is how the wound on the facing side of Kennedy's head is in any way consistent with a gunshot from the same direction, indeed how a wound at the "back" of the head was possible as well. -- Johnny Canuck 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Block quote in intro
I removed this block quote from the intro, it just restates the previous paragraph:
Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings.[2]
I left the weblink to the reference. Mytwocents 17:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't restate the previous paragraph. It will have to be put back in the article where it belongs. (removed off topic comment)
RPJ 04:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hill quote
I removed this quote from agent Hill. This has been discussed on the talk page months before. The Zapruder Film and the official autopsy prove his memory false. It may find a home on the JFK conspiracy theory page.
As the car moved at high speed to the hospital, Hill maintained his position shielding the couple with his body. He later testified "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed."
- If you have information that disagrees with information in an article then put the second viewpoint in, not remove the original material.(removed off topic comment)
RPJ 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agent Hill did make the comment, where to put his statement is the issue. Maybe the controversy of 'who saw what and where',(re. the headwound) can be addressed in a seperate section? Instead of interjecting testimony, piecemeal, that contradicts the WC, throughout the article? Mytwocents 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Some evidence indicates Kennedy was shot from the front
The big hole in the back of Kennedy's head shows he was shot from the front. [11]
- Once again, the big hole in the back JFK's head does NOT indicate he was shot from the front, as it's merely the rear entrance to a much bigger hole which blew out the upper right quarter of his skull back of the eye, the front of which wound was later hidden by putting back up that big flap you see hanging down, in the Z. film. The Z. film is actually the single best look at the whole wound we have, which has come to light for the general viewer. Have a look. And please read the testimony and video of Z, who corroborates it was a massive wound to the whole side of the head. Yes, the back of it was a 5 inch wound in the right rear. The rest of it was forward of that, and even larger. Sbharris 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Kennedy's personal bodyguard said the hole was 5 inches in diameter. [12]
- It doesn't restate the previous paragraph. It will have to be put back in the article where it belongs. In an encyclopedia one doesn't cut out information that interfers with your own belief system. If we all did that the pages would be blank.
RPJ 04:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
RPJ 04:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but eyewitness testimony by people who just got a glimpse under really stressful circumstances in which they had to be thinking about many other things first (as in Hill's case), needs to be appropriately downgraded. You can class it with Zapruder, who saw the right side of the head (not the back) of JFK's head open up--- he just got a glimpse and was under horrible emotional shock too (though he didn't have another job to do at the same time, which he was supposed to be paying attention to, as Hill did).
- JFK's ER docs were trying to save his life, not look to see how and where his head was damaged. If it had been anybody but JKF any ER doc would have looked at that much brain out of that much open skull and just put the sheet over the face. As it was, nobody pulled back scalp and took a ruler to the man. His wife and the priest were standing around. This is all 2nd class evidence. Better than what the people on Elm street saw in a split second, but still not up there with the relative time and slowness and primary objective goal-oriented behavior of Bethesda. See the point? You just can't mix all this crap in, willy nilly. Photos are best evidence. Careful autopsy measurements under controlled and slow circumstances go next. Quick observations of doctors in an ER (as they went about doing something else) would go next. Lay people like Hill and Zapruder getting a glimpse on a street in a car at the hectic moment of the event, somewhat after THAT. Sbharris 04:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. And let's not forget the lists of deficencies with the autopsy listed by the House committee etc. Typically, this is used to buttress the case of incompetence or worse in terms of getting to the truth of the assassination, but a more prosaic view is that with the president of the United States laying dead on the table in front of even these professionals, they were likely not doing things in the way they normally would have, procedures were not followed to the letter.
But we DO have several photos of the autopsy and the Zapruder film both of which corroborate the views that sbharris has and as he points out, we don't dismiss THAT evidence before we embrace eyewitness testimony. If there is a conflict, we go with the closest we have to physical evidence, not the other way around. -- Johnny Canuck 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't delete information in the article because it is "weak"
We now have another situation where an editor wants to rank information from reliable sources (and even primary sources) because the editor doesn't believe it is strong enough or that other contrary information is stronger. But, that is not how this web page works.
If it did, any article on a controversial subject would be filled with blank pages.
Here is the reason why: Everyone tends to think that their own pet theories are correct and the evidence supporting it is very strong and contrary evidence very weak. That is human nature.
One editor now wants to eliminate eyewitness testimony of Clint Hill who was Mrs. Kennedy's bodyguard, because the editor doesn't believe the witness' testimony is reliable. The editor believes that the bodyguards for President Kennedy and his wife are wrong when they saw a big hole blasted in the back of President's. eyAlso, the emergency room doctors are purportedly wrong; and even the mortician was wrong etc. when th saw the same big hole in the back of Kennedy's head.
These witnesses allegedly only "glimpsed" the wound, and had other duties etc. On the other hand the editor believes the witnesses that support his contention are highly reliable; are not biased; and had a good look. That is not a reason to delete information.
Here is the answer in these situations: If an editor has a information that reflects a witness did not have a good view of the head wound, or would be biased in his statements regarding the location of the wound, then put it in the article with the citation to the source, and let the reader decide.
Anonymous editors are not allowed by the web site rules to weigh the evidence and decide to eliminate some information because they think other evidence is stronger. The editors of an encyclopedia are for technical editing only. They are not judges of the facts.
On this web site, the readers are given all view points and they make up their own minds.
This a very basic rule.
204.14.241.188 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not an an anonymous editor, bub. Speak for yourself.
- Of course editors are allowed to weigh evidence. That's why we don't give equal space to the theory that the Twin Towers collapsed 9/11 due to being hit by highjacked jets and then suffering structural failure due to hot weakened metal, and theories that they collapsed because they'd been wired by bombs all fixed up to go off later. Nor the same space to the idea that men went to the moon, and the evidence that the whole thing was faked.
- I haven't argued that eyewitness Dallas testimony be removed. But group reports of witnesses of similar quality together, and give it appropriate amount of space. I see no reason to give Hill, who saw the president's head for 5 seconds while he was trying to save the Kennedys and thinking about his complete failure to prevent what he was hired to prevent, should be given the same weight as several hours of careful measuring, describing, disecting, X-raying, and photographing by three medical doctors at an autopsy in Bethesda. I think it would be madness to do so.
- Wiki editors are not expected to give up WP:SENSE. And we all have to weigh WP:RS. Comes with the territory. Sbharris 11:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- There has been extensive criticism of the autopsy done at Bethesda. At the time of the assassination there was a great push to immediately convince the public that only one person shot the President in the head and killed him. Some claimed such a conclusion was necessary to avoid the public assuming it was a communist conspiracy and then pushing the politicians into starting World War III. Whatever, the reason, the autopsy appeared compromised. The "careful measuring, dissecting" etc. you allege, isn't really supportable anymore. You need to do a good deal of homework in the area and stick to the rules of the web page. Even if you were an expert in this area of research, which I don't believe you claim to be, you should not be chopping into articles based on your self confidence that you know what is true and what is not true. Just stick to the rules and you will enjoy working on this article.
RPJ 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Now, now. Common sense is a relative thing. I've done many an autopsy, peeled back many a scalp, and looked at many a head X-ray. Though I'm not a pathologist or radiologist by trade, I've had some real hands-on training in these things, and have a feeling for head wounds that you may be lacking. I bow to neurosurgeons, of course. But are you any of these things?
- "Homework" in this area too often consists of reading the blatherings of conspiracy theorists (yes, I have a bookshelf of JFK assassination books too) who obviously haven't dissected a head in their lives, and really haven't a clue as to how tough the scalp is, and how brittle the skull can be. So what do I make of their assertions that here and there a bit of hair is a later "photo paste"? I tend to believe the doctors who were on the spot. They were rushed, no doubt about it. They did an imperfect job, no doubt about it. But we have nothing better. So let's start with the best evidence we have, which is from the Bethesda autopsy, and work backwards from there. Its conclusions do feel "right" to me. They may not to you. But I'm not really putting personal expertise or my OR up here as a POV. I'm simply putting up the results of the various formal commissions and the original autopsy, which are the recognized best evidence. I'm not asking you to take MY word for it. I'm simply explaining why I take other people's word for it, and think you should, too. When doctors find something in an autopsy that feels right to me as a doctor myself, I tend to accept it. I've seen stuff like this. When you peel the lungs out of the thoracic cavity, they leave an inner pleural posterior surface which is slippery smooth and perfect, with a light color and no bruising. You don't put a bullet hole through that without noticing it. That's part of MY "common sense" experience. I can't communicate it to you. All I can do, is just ask you to quit telling me I'm meddling with stuff in which I'm a novice. I'm not.
- And I haven't deleted anything, really. I've just rearranged evidence in order of reliability. Autopsy and photos first-- those docs had the most time, and produced the most hard quantitative (measurement) data. And so on. Steve 03:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's see. What a Secret Service agent saw in the most traumatic moment of his life is being used to discount trained medical personnel. Sure, he had "a very close up view of the wound for four minutes", the four minutes he was holding on for dear life on the trunk of a speeding automobile. This section isn't anything close to neutral, it dwells in ridiculous detail on the spun testimony of one witness and it is clearly presented in an obvious effort to discount the conclusions of the autopsy. Gamaliel 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- This reader who calls himself Gamaliel still does not understand what a "neutral" encyclopedia article means. It means that all significant points of view on a subject are presented to the reader who then decides.
- It does not mean that Mr. Gamaliel can decide not to include a very significant witness' viewpoint of what happened at the assassination because Gamaliel believes observations were no good since he was "holding on for dear life." It is so odd that Gamaliel can not understand this point. Nobody cares about Mr. Gamaliel's pet theories. He obviously has not kept up with modern history since he announces on his user page that he is going "insane" editing "conspiracy nonsense." Apparantly Gamaliel doesn't know that the last official investigation by the federal government concluded that there probably was a conspiracy involved in the murder of Kennedy. This finding of a probable conspiracy came out in 1979. Wake up Gamaliel and stop deleting things you seem to know nothing about.
The autopsy doctors did not produce "hard quatitative data" as can be seen by the high degree of criticism leveled at the autopsy by the later Congressional investigation in 1979, that among other things pointed out the autopsy was a mess and most people now believe it was a mess on purpose to hide the fact of a second shooter to "avoid World War III."
RPJ 09:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop removing viewpoints with which you don't agree
This web site has a strict policy of including all viewpoints and letting the reader decide on with which to believe. Yet, in controversial articles, some editors just can't seem to hold themselves back from deleting viewpoints with which they disagree.
Now, again, important viewpoints are being deleted from this article regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. Even though almost everyone accepts the fact that the rear right hand side of President Kennedy's head was blown out as if shot from the front, this widespread belief is again under attack. A member or two from that small group of believers in the Warren Report are snipping out historical data that conflicts with the much criticized Warren Commission. Deleted from the article, again, is the eyewitness account by the First Lady's personal bodyguard by the name of Clint Hill. Mr. Hill was present when the President suffered the fatal head shot and shielded the President's body on the ride to the hospital. Mr. Hill observed a huge gaping wound in the right rear of the President's head. Mr. Hill immediately filed a report stating what he saw. He later testified under oath on what he saw, and described the "President's head on the right rear side was missing" and "leaving one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head"; [13] [14]
Mr. Hill's testimony is supported by the other eyewitnesses. Roy Kellerman, the President’s bodyguard, saw a 5 inch diameter hole in the back right hand side of the president’s head. [15] One of the doctors who attended to the President's wounds in the emergency room approved this drawing of the head wound. [16] The physician who approved the drawing, Dr. McClelland, looked right at the head wound. Dr. McClelland said:
"You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." [17]
The part of the brain called the cerebellum is at the very bottom of the skull as the link to a medical model of the brain shows.
Dr. Kemp, Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery, saw big hole at the back of the skull while in the emergency room. He described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (Warren Commission --CE#392) [18]
The
occipital lobe of the brain is just above the
cerebellum part of the brain.These descriptions of the head wound in the back of the skull are all consistent with the kill shot to the head coming from the front, blasting out the back of the president's head and knocking him violently backwards in his seat. But, someone wants to delete these descriptions because they conflict with their viewpoints.
These deletions are wrong. The policy of this web site is to let the readers decide for themselves. Please restrain yourself.
You put in: "A top secret session at the Warren Commission reviewed a different conclusion made by the Bethesda autopsy. It placed the bullet in the back below the shoulder blade rather than above it; and the bullet didn't penetrate more than a finger-length deep. [19]"
This is simply deliberation thinking at the Warren Commission. All of these were secret, since courts and committees don't publish the results of their arguments and silly comments. Here, Rankin screwed up and said the autopsy produced a "picture" showing bullet entry under the shoulder blade. Obviously they didn't. No photos were available to the WC. The report does have a drawing (perhaps this "picture" Rankin refers to) vaguely showing entry a little below the shoulder, but that would put it right in the middle of the scapula. Below the scapula is about T6 or T7 and certainly contradicts Burkely, you favorite witnesss, and also the bullet holes in both coat and shirt. This is not some secret Bethesda conclusion being reviewed-- it's just one guy (Rankin) who can't read an anatomical drawing. Which wasn't intended to be perfect anyway, which is why the measurements were made. 5.5 inches under the ear is not below the shoulder blade. So give us a break. Screwups like this in deliberations by less than informed deliberators are why deliberations aren't included in final reports. People in deliberations say ignorant things because they're not completely informed yet, and these are corrected in later drafts and final conclusions. Anybody can look at the section I deleted (see above) and the ref (see above), and check all this. Steve
Some of the editors continue to wrongfully delete information from this article on the assassination based on their fervent belief in the Warren Report. This time the editor deletes information he calls "junk." This editor believes in the Warren Report conclusions, but doesn't realize that he is in a distinct minority of the public in his beliefs, and even if his view was the majority viewpoint he is violating web site rules by deleting different viewpoints with which he disagrees. This is basic web site policy. The true believers need to go to a web site dedicated to the belief in the Warren Report so that they can read only information that agrees with the Warren Report. There are such web sites, and their belief system won't be challenged. Now what have been deleted are transcripts from the secret sessions of the Warren Commission where they discuss the evidence with their attorney, Mr. Rankin. According to the editor who wants this information deleted from this page, these historic transcripts are deemed "junk." Here is what the information pertains to:
Please stop interfering with the readers from reviewing these very interesting historic documents. [ [21]] RPJ 21:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Editor Steve Harris can't seem to understand the rule. A citation to an important historical document such as the secret transcripts of the Warren Commission deliberations can't be deleted as "junk." Let the readers review the information for them selves. Your attempt to justify the deletion of the historical record is amusing but has no bearing on the issue. It doesn't matter what you believe, or what you wish to argue about the meaning of the material. Just leave the material alone and let the reader decide.
No one has appointed you as an expert on the subject. You haven't to my knowledge published any information on the subject. If you know of a published source of information from a reliable source that comments about the transcripts, then include it in the article that contains the historical record. But, don't delete the historical record.
The editor above, writes in support of deleting evidence that contradicts the Warren Report conclusions. In this case, evidence was deleted that the Commissioners had seen a picture of the bullet wound to Kennedy's back that is said to be much lower than possible for the Commission’s theory about a “magic bullet” to work. In fact, the evidence refutes the ultimate conclusion of the Commission that a "magic bullet" theory hit Kennedy up near the neck. Not only does the picture referred to in the formerly secret transcript show the bullet too low, but the transcripts also includes evidence from the autopsy that the bullet wound to the back was only finger-length deep into the back. This would entirely eliminate the “magic bullet” theory which is the foundation of the Report’s conclusion. Therefore, the editor states: The secret transcripts are "junk."
The editor can't comprehend that the Commissioners, who were primarily politicians, may have compromised the accuracy of their findings in favor of achieving a conclusion desired by President Johnson, the CIA, and Director Hoover of the FBI. Because the editor cannot comprehend such a result, he doesn't recognize that to achieve such a predetermined result may have required the Commissioners to ignore evidence given to them that didn't fit the predetermined result. Finally, the editor can’t comprehend the Commissioners may later have hid the inconsistent evidence under a cloak of secrecy. Now that such secrecy has been lifted, the editor has decided that he now wants to start keeping the evidence secret from the readers. RPJ 07:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to say that this editor infinitely favors Sbharris' approach over RPJ's. Sbharris wants to state facts simply, letting the reader piece things together. RPJ wants to put a pro-conspiracy spin onto every single statement in the article, because he/she is sure this conspiracy is the wellspring and keystone of the whole event. Sbharris wants to quote principals and witnesses while RPJ wants to quote and characterize them. RPJ's efforts belong in the Assasination Theories article. As long as there's a link from here to there, RPJ should be content to let this article be what it should be: a tight explanation of events and issues without even a slight editorial air.
JDG
18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Many not only dispute the conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin (claiming that there was a conspiracy), but also claim that Oswald was not involved at all.
The above sentence violates WP:AWW and WP:WEASEL. We should put a names to the sentence instead of simply saying many. I cannot think of any researchers, outside of Jim Garrison, who believes that Oswald was totally innocent in the assassination. I was thinking of Mark Lane, and James Blakey as prominent proponents of a conspiracy. But I am not aware of the roles they claim Oswald had in the assassination, if he had any at all. Please update the sentence if you have pertinent information. Ramsquire 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have just done a survey of the more popular JFK assassination articles, and in almost every article the findings of the HSCA is innacurately stated.
The Final Report of the HSCA finds that:
Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. . . .
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. . . .
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html
I have changed the findings to accurately state this when I have come across it. Please be more careful in relaying the committees findings.
Ramsquire 18:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the editors asks about evidence of “Where President Kennedy was hit by bullets and how?” Good question. Here is some of the evidence regarding two bullet wounds:One that hit the back and one that hit the right temple.
Bullet Number One:
The following evidence establishes a bullet hit the President in the back at about the third thoracic vertebra:
Bullet Number Two
The following evidence, is sampling of evidence Kennedy was struck by a bullet entering at his right temple and going in the direction of the back of the head where it exited at the rear right-hand side:
Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter . . . of a bullet right through the head. . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple. [27]
President Kennedy was shot in the right temple. "It was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head," said Dr. George Burkley, White House Medical Officer. [28]
]
And the opening and the way the bone was damaged behind the head would have definitely been a type of exit wound. The reason I have said this is that I saw this before in other wounds and it was very striking. [32]
The evidence of what the exit to the right rear portion of the head looked like is established by the following evidence:
The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. [36]
I rushed up and saw Kennedy lying in the car on his side. His foot was hanging over the side of the car. The back of his head was gone. [37]
The portion that is in the back of the head, when you're lying down in the bathtub, you hit the back of the head. [39]
It's not true. . . . There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out. [40]
The president was laying forward. I got a good look at him [and] put that coat around his head, Mrs. Kennedy walked between me and his head and she put her hands on the back of his head...I started to push her hands away, but I got to thinking, those guys might be a little gun-happy, so therefore, I better let them do it. I knew the back of his head was blown out, and...I felt like she shouldn't be getting her hands under there because there wouldn't be nothing but blood... [42]
Dr. Clark (Parkland doctor): A large wound in the back of the head [43] Dr. Jones (Parkland doctor): A large defect in the back of the head. [44] James Sibert (FBI agent: Drew a circle on the back of the skull where he saw Kennedy’s large wound. [45] RPJ 08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Shock was followed by renewed speculation and the public began listening more to researchers who insisted that the backward and leftward movement of the President's head observed in this section of the Zapruder film meant, by the simple application of Newton's Second Law of Motion, that he must have been hit by a bullet fired from his right front, forcing the existence of at least one more gunman not in back of the President as Oswald was. [46]. The 1991 major motion picture JFK made a mantra out of what is seen in frame 313 by having a crusading attorney repeat the phrase "back and to the left", hoping to drill this simple physical truth, and its strong implication of conspiracy, into the jurors' (and filmgoers') minds. Yet the cause and nature of this movement turned out to be more complex than the simple transfer of directional momentum and has been a topic for much debate and analysis, particularly by physicists and others who propound a "jet effect" [47] from a rearward shot whereby matter expelled at high pressure from the exit wound at the top right front of the skull impels the whole body back and to the left. Such effects on model heads moving backward when shot from behind have been duplicated in tests. Further analysis of the president's head motion shows that it does begin between frames 312 and 313 (the frames just before and after the bullet strike) as a rapid forward motion-- an effect first noticed by physicist Richard Feynman at instigation of author David S. Lifton in 1966 [1]. Only in later frames does it move backward. The 486 frames of this film have been used in many studies, but the film has not been able to settle all disputes concerning whether or not Oswald was the sole assassin.
I deleted the above paragraph because although the discussion is ostensibly accurate and interesting, it is not appropriate for the section it is in. What I mean by that is that the section is for recordings of the assassination. It simply lists person and entities with various recordings of the assassination and then the above paragraph appears. This lengthy paragraph is more about analysis of the Zapruder film and Kennedy's head movement after the fatal shot and would be more appropriate in the Zapruder film article. Ramsquire 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are the McAdams sites both listed at the top? These should be in alpha order or better yet broken up into lone assassin v. conspiracy categories. I find it interesting that someone keeps putting John McAdams's sites at the top of this list. We need to at least put them in alpha order so as not to promote any sites unfairly. -- Dubc0724 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
McAdams has some of the best material available anywhere. Its detractors are being led by their own agendas. Personally, I'd like to see an External Link section called Leading JFK Assassination Sites (or something equiivalent) containing at most 6 sites, each parenthetically designated as either Pro Lone Assassin, Pro-Conspiracy or Neutral. McAdams would easily be mong them... I'm curious, Dubc-- which would you say is the best Pro-Conspiracy site? JDG 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Its true that if the external links are put in alphabetical order the reader will be alerted that the editors aren't giving an opinion as to which external link is more important.
But, because external links at the top of the list are probably opened more than external links on the bottom of the list, this alphabetical order of the external links might encourage odd names for web sites that contain a number of letters "A" for the first word of the web site name. This would make the External Link section look like the Yellow pages
It might be better to simply rotate the links each month. Take the bottom link of the list and place it at the top. Start any new link in the middle.
If there is a conspiracy site as comprehensive as McAdams it should be added as well. Ramsquire 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Watch out for reverts disguised as other (less controversial ones.) See History regarding External Links July 13 - July 14, 2006. Next time only revert what you SAY you're reverting, Gamaliel. ------- Dubc0724 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that if you choose witness statements over the photographic evidence, even when the former contradicts the latter, then you have a pre-ordained conclusion in mind here, namely that Connally was struck by a different bullet than Kennedy. Harris' detailed examination of the Z film quite congently underlines why some of Connally's testimony not only was in error, it HAD to be in error. Surely you are not suggesting we, when choosing who is the better "witness," that we have to discount the Z film itself in favour of Connally? because that is what we'd need to do following your line of reasoning.
None of this requires any of those you list to be "delusional" or "incompetent." It merely requires that their judgement to have been wrong. Since others have testified in a manner more consistent with a single bullet theory, we are left with a quandry: Who to believe? Since we have the Z film, we can largely answer those questions.
And, excuse me but how does "(label flap?)" become an attempt to explain away what you describe as "rock solid evidence"? I'd say that the label flap becomes very hard to explain outside of the single bullet theory.
-- Johnny Canuck 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Part 1: Short answer to your question: Yes. Long answer: I find Governor Connally’s and Nellie Connally’s statements more convincing than the film. Nellie was sitting within inches of the Gov. and Kennedy and looking right at them both. I don’t agree in the least with the above interpretation of the Z film, although I respect the opinions of the editor, otherwise I wouldn’t bother arguing with him. When I watch the Z film, I can clearly see that the Gov. was not injured for some time after Kennedy was, and I don’t buy this stuff about timing the shots to the split-second by Z’s ‘jumps.’
Part 2: I am told that the reason why Frazier and his sister described a package much too short to contain the rifle is because they must have had bad memories (talk about preconceived notions!). That is a suggestion, without reason, that both persons were mentally impaired, not lacking in judgement. I am told that a physician who is outstanding in his field cannot interpret simple fragments in an x-ray. That is a suggestion that he is incompetent.
Part 3: “how does "(label flap?)" become an attempt to explain away what you describe as "rock solid evidence"?” I have pointed out that all the medical experts demonstrated that the single bullet theory is not possible in light of the evidence. The ONLY counterpoints I am given to my argument is “look at the Z film” and “maybe the doctors were all wrong.” I’ve ridden in an open car for years, and I’d say the wind and motion are capable of moving my lapel flaps at any time. Joegoodfriend 19:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Question it? Sure! But there's a world of difference between questioning official government conclusions and wholesale acceptance of, for example, conspiracy theories about homosexual thrill kill cults dreamt up by drunks and crazy people. It's "interesting" that you appear to reserve your anger for the supposed agenda and spin of McAdams while ignoring the abundance of such in the lunatic conspiracy press. Gamaliel 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Under the dictabelt section of the article there is a citation needed for the 2003 ABCnews investigations of Kennedy's Assassination. The results of that investigation appeared on a program called, "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination-Beyond Conspiracy" [49]. I am going to add that as the cite but I wonder if anyone knows if ABC has an Internet site with the results of their investigation. I'm afraid if I link it to Amazon.com or some other site selling movies, it will appear as though Wiki is trying to hawk products or has a POV on the subject.
Please let me know if it is OK to do so. Ramsquire 16:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe here -- JimWae 07:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, ABC had a news show but then retracted the material from the public domain. Now an editor wants to include his recollections of what the show said. There are two related reasons that prohibit this. The citations to sources are included so that the "edits may be verified by readers and other editors." Click on "verifiable" below to review the rules. As the fundamental Wikipedia rule states, in blunt, terms:
The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?
That is right. Why should we believe Ramsquire? The rule is premised on these facts: "The readers don't know who you [Ramsquire and Gamliel] are." Moreover, even if the readers and other editors could get in touch with you for you to verify that the information that you put in are your recollections of the show, and that your recollections are accurate, "Why should they [the readers and editors} believe you."
That is not my rule, that is the Wikipedia rule. Why don't you go to a reputable website, such as "Spartacus," that has the program reproduced in whole or part? That is acceptable, if it is a reputable web site. RPJ 07:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sending the reader to a commercial web site to buy the information seems to cross over the border to commercialism though I don't know for sure. Here is what the rule identifies as one of the types of links to be avoided:
Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content. See External link spamming. [50]
I haven't seen this done on Wikipedia before. It seems to go against the spirit of the rules. Have public libraries sought out the dvd in question in the normal course of their operations? Or will the Wikipedia article citing the information create an artificial demand for the libraries to purchase.
The verification of the ABC news story needs to be set forth with better particularity than what has been done so far. Jim Wae presented three web sites that possibly might represent what ABC said during its broadcast about the Kennedy assassination. We need the particular web site address where the information can be quickly and easily reviewed. How does the reader get there and what is it going to see? Jim Wae doesn't know for sure but thinks the web sites might be helpful.
I'd find out if they are and then tell why. RPJ 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey RPJ, I am concerned about your edits to the dictabelt section because I think you added information that although accurate is not relevant to the subheading its under. I only thought the ABC investigation relevant because it was the last known (at least to me) research regarding the dictabelt evidence. I am not sure the ABC's findings on the single bullet theory, or the location of the wounds in general, fits into that particular section. Would you want to put your edits into another section of the article? Ramsquire 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so when I added a consensus description of the assassination, I kind of figured it would be immediately removed because there's very little that can be agreed upon about what happened to JFK. But, in the interest of readability, there needs to be some description about what apparently happened, chronologically, without going into all the detail that gets broken down later. It's absolutely ridiculous to go from "shots were fired at Kennedy for an estimated timespan of 6 to 24 seconds" to "the limousine is calculated to have slowed down" by four miles per hour, with nothing in between. The casual reader wouldn't care at all about the speed of the limousine, so that detail shouldn't be placed there. There needs to be some elaboration on the shots being fired, for an estimated timespan of 6 to 24 seconds, even if it has to be a little vague. It's obvious that the right side of Kennedy's head came off, and his blood misted in the air, his wife put her arm around him, and so on. It's possible to have a narrative description of what takes place in the Zapruder film without favoring the Warren commission or anybody else. That's what people are interested in reading first when they get to this article, and then if they wish they can go on to ballistics analysis or whatever else.
I agree, though, that it was right to remove the part about Jackie going after the skull piece, and that my attempt to provide what I'm describing here wasn't the optimal solution.
Aratuk
19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your first sentence that states you "added a consensus description of the assassination" but thought it would be removed because someone wouldn't agree with the "consensus" description.
You are right that the assassination part of the article is very short. This is because some of the editors believe the witness testimony is wrong, or too gory, or doesn't conform to a pet theory.
I'm sorry to inform you that none of the editors, to my knowledge, are interested your narrative description of what occured. It is probably against web site rules.
Would somebody like to vouch for wiki File:Jfk assassination(zapruder).ogg? Unless it's certified virus free, I don't think it should be referenced in this article. S B H arris 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Somebody has finally made a composite of the photos of the back of JFK's head and the skull wound underneath: [51]. It's fairly easy to see here how different people saw different things, depending on how the scalp was placed. In any case, since the films of the assasination and the autopsy all show the scalp intact in this area, and since they are better evidence than Dallas testimony by people who didn't do a good exam (since it wasn't their job), that's what the best evidence argues. Anybody who wants to argue that scalp retraction might have shown something else underneath is free to do so, but please don't do it at the cost of giant conspiracy. That's hearing hoofbeats and thinking zebras. or Unicorns. S B H arris 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The first thing to do with documents is to authenticate them. Are the pictures what they purport to be?
This is easy to do. Tell us about the origin and authenticity of the photographs you have identified. One should take those steps before making cute remarks. RPJ 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this language:
"The Commission's Report that Oswald was the lone gunman has not gained widespread acceptance from the American public. Most polls show that most people do not agree with the Warren Commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, but no single alternative suspect or theory is accepted either."
There is no citation for any of it. The first sentence is subjective and violates NPOV. The second sentence, if accurate, ought to have at least one credible citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.126.103 ( talk • contribs)
The single magic bullet theory, or that President Kennedy was shot in the back of the head, is seriously the grossest lie imposed on the American People. Any sane person who has ever seen the video of the assassination clearly showing the President being shot from the front knows that. After President Kennedy was shot, his head is forced to the rear and to the left. I am disgusted by gross assumptions saying he was shot in the back of the head. Please copy this link and watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4315024059102108031&q=kennedy+bush —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.188.209 ( talk • contribs)
Seeing the Z film, you can clearly see a shot hitting the President in his right temple area, and his brains fly out in a way rocks fly out of the ground after being hit by a meteor. If that fatal shot was caused by a shot from the back, his brains would not have flown out the way that they did. Almost as magically well-coordinated, and done right the first time as say, the attacks of September 11, which we all know were very real. Obviously these people were very experienced with firearms, even if we assume Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed the killer, in which even that would be a magically coordinated stunt, shooting the President from the 6th story of a building several feet away. And if there were no other shooters, what reason do the witnesses who testified have to risk their lives by saying that they saw shooters from the fence on the Grassy Knoll, or that they heard shots from behind them, to lie? Its very clear to me that the shot that killed JFK came from the front. I think you sir are the sad result of the governments apparently successful attempt to brainwash the American people.--
Ryan_POTUS
02:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
(this is 1) completely untrue 2) far too vague (what investigations? when?) 3) completely unsourced and 4) not at all credible)
Someone added information about a book that was written about the assassination, in the recreations section. It got me thinking that there should probably be a section at the end of the article listing some of the more popular books written about the assassination. I know the article is too long as is, but I think it is missing a vital part without it. We have film and television portrayals, but yet no books. Ramsquire 21:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I removed the following text, as it isn't contained in the cited reference, nor in any other source material I can locate: "it had been rumored that the first lady was attempting to retrieve a piece of the president's skull or to get to safety, but this was later found not to be true." The idea that Mrs. Kennedy was trying to retrieve a portion of her husband's skull strikes me as incredible, considering the other events going on around her at the same time, especially in the absence of cited references.-- Ssbohio 09:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
— To me, since Jackie clearly reacts in horror upon seeing her husband's head explode and instantly recoil and climb out the back, she likely was just panicking and trying to escape the terrible sight she had just witnessed. I'm not sure she would have been thinking "oh, there goes a piece of skull, better get it," her reaction was too fast. --
Johnny Canuck
18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The film, JFK II: The Bush Connection is a thin collection of secondary sources, edited together with popular television clips (such as The Simpsons and South Park), and most of the film simply reviews secondary sources such as the film, JFK. It is highly biased in its language, portrayal of people and events, and in its conclusions. There may or may not be evidence to support the thesis of the film (that a declassified document from the 1970s suggests George Bush Sr.'s involvement), but this film certainly does not explore that evidence to the depth that would be required to support citation in an encyclopedia or other research context. If we want to cite that memo, I suggest that we find a primary source (such as the memo itself, or the FOIA case relating to it). - Harmil 05:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
From RPJ's source:
None of this Thoracic 3 -- JimWae 01:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Use of "confirm" is POV. This article is not to confirm anything, nor to prove anything, but to report. It's called WP:NPOV - something sadly missing for way too long -- JimWae 01:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC) There are photos showing JFK's shirt & jacket collar bunched up high -- JimWae 01:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, very authentic. The doctors testified that the back of Kennedy's head had a huge hole in it. One doctor approved this drawing. [1]
This huge gaping wound at the back of Kennedy's head was seen by several eyewitnesses who were very close to the president and had a good view. They saw the back of the president’s head blasted out that is consistent with being shot from the front. These reputable witnesses include:
"You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." [5]
The occipital lobe of the brain is just above the cerebellum part of the brain.
3-- These descriptions of the head wound in the back of the skull are all consistent with the the kill shot to the head coming from the front, blasting out the back of the president's head and knocking him violently backwards in his seat.
- Keep in mind that "rear" could be used by people for anything below & behind the top -- JimWae 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also keep in mind that the whole right side of JFK's skull was gone, above his ear. You see that in the Z film (the very back of the head is mostly intact), and that's what Z himself saw (the side of the head open up). Close that with the big flaps of tissue hanging down from side, as Mrs. Kennedy did on the way to the hospital, and all you see is the "rear entrance" to that big tunnel (which, by the way, has a bevelled bullet hole at the rear of it, showing the bullet made it going in from the BACK). And it does look like a right rear wound, until you unroof it. There's an autopy photo [8] where you can see looking from the back for the skull, forward all the way down this channel, since the scalp has been reflected back on the side. Put the scalp back and it would look like a right posterior wound only. It's a little disorienting, but it matches reasonably well with some drawings of the Dallas people, particularly one in Livingstone's High Treason 2 (IIRC). It's there set side by side with the autopsy photo. Livingstone doesn't interpret it correctly, but that's his problem. Sbharris 03:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- You state: "[I]t does look like a right rear wound . . . ." Then, "Put the scalp back [on the right side of the head]and it would look like a right posterior wound only. " Then, "It's a little disorienting, but it matches reasonably well with some drawings of the Dallas people . . . ." etc.
- If I understand you correctly, you believe that if the wound to the right side of the head is repaired (so to speak) by putting the bone and scalp back in place, the wound would look as if it was present only in the back of the president's head and not in the back and on the side of his head.
- Close. It was repaired by putting up the big flap that hangs down in the Z film; that is all. Nobody attempted to put back the skull underneith it. That stuff came out in big chunks, 3 of which were delivered to Bethesda and are included in the autopsy report. Sbharris 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your point. How did it come to pass that the president had any large hole in the back of his head if he got shot in the head from the back rather than the front?
RPJ 08:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sigh. He didn't. The bullet hit him in cowlick area, just to the right of the midline, and traveling in a path to exit just above his ear. Everything from the entry to his temple got blasted out, as you see in the autopsy photo looking from the rear with the scalp reflected (too bad there's not an autopsy side view published which corresponds). This entire wound however is seen in the Z film, and described by Z. The "exit" part closest to the eye, which includes much of the side of the head above the ear, was hidden when the scalp flap was replaced over the forward part of the wound. Sbharris 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- You can see that from the autopsy photo looking into the skull, if you look carefully [9]. The skull fractured at the point of bullet entry, but the fractures were mostly lateral because that's where the internal pressure was. So the skull is blown out from the very point of bullet impact, and you see only HALF of the bullet entry hole in the occipital bone (the other half being gone in the lateral part of the bone that got blown sideways to the right, and out and away). But the part that does survive shows a (half) bevelled hole, and the bevelling is inward, which is to say it forms a little cone which gets wider as you go through the skull going inward. Just like the neighbor kid's BB make when it goes through your house window (hole is bigger INSIDE your house). Which means this is rear occipital (half) hole in JFK's skull is a bullet ENTRY wound.
- It caused confusion, because people aren't used to seeing entry wounds that are large, right from the beginning. And if you cover up the exit with scalp (as was done here), it's even more confusing. But you can see the whole wound in the Z film, and it's gigantic-- the entire right parietal region and some of the frontal and occiputal as well. The "exit" is MUCH larger than the entry, even in this case where the "entry" started skull-shatter and lateral blowout from the get-go. On the scalp it's a little clearer: entry is a small neat hole in the cowlick, and exit is missing entirely-- it's just a bunch of flaps where the bullet frags and skull frags went out. But the part of the scalp which contains the bullet entry hole, got blown out sideways by the force of the exiting matter, and it must to be pulled into place over the missing skull cavity, to even esimate its original place on the head. In one autopsy photo you even see that being done, with a Humes holding a flap of scalp UP over the hole with thumb and forefinger [10]. Of course, conspiracy theorists just use that to argue that the photo has been doctored (literally). The problem is that the Z film shows much the same. Most of the rear of JFK's head looks okay if the scalp isn't pulled back to show that gapping loss of the entire upper right side of his skull. Apparently some of that happened in the Dallas OR. But nobody there pulled ALL the scalp back to see the whole thing. Sbharris 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your explanation of why the president would have a huge hole in the back of the head if he was shot in the back of the head as you claim. If you want someone to understand your explanation, try to be concise and don't keep digressing. RPJ 07:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it may be that the subject's just too complicated. The right side of the head was gone. The front of that wound was hidden by replacing the dangling large scalp flap you see hanging down over the ear, in the Z film. I don't know how much simpler to be Sbharris 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC).
- A lot of hue and cry here over what, in the end, is rather straight-forward, and Sbharris points out.
What is left out by many who claim a shot from the grassy knoll accounts for JFK's movement to the left is how the wound on the facing side of Kennedy's head is in any way consistent with a gunshot from the same direction, indeed how a wound at the "back" of the head was possible as well. -- Johnny Canuck 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Block quote in intro
I removed this block quote from the intro, it just restates the previous paragraph:
Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings.[2]
I left the weblink to the reference. Mytwocents 17:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't restate the previous paragraph. It will have to be put back in the article where it belongs. (removed off topic comment)
RPJ 04:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hill quote
I removed this quote from agent Hill. This has been discussed on the talk page months before. The Zapruder Film and the official autopsy prove his memory false. It may find a home on the JFK conspiracy theory page.
As the car moved at high speed to the hospital, Hill maintained his position shielding the couple with his body. He later testified "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed."
- If you have information that disagrees with information in an article then put the second viewpoint in, not remove the original material.(removed off topic comment)
RPJ 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agent Hill did make the comment, where to put his statement is the issue. Maybe the controversy of 'who saw what and where',(re. the headwound) can be addressed in a seperate section? Instead of interjecting testimony, piecemeal, that contradicts the WC, throughout the article? Mytwocents 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Some evidence indicates Kennedy was shot from the front
The big hole in the back of Kennedy's head shows he was shot from the front. [11]
- Once again, the big hole in the back JFK's head does NOT indicate he was shot from the front, as it's merely the rear entrance to a much bigger hole which blew out the upper right quarter of his skull back of the eye, the front of which wound was later hidden by putting back up that big flap you see hanging down, in the Z. film. The Z. film is actually the single best look at the whole wound we have, which has come to light for the general viewer. Have a look. And please read the testimony and video of Z, who corroborates it was a massive wound to the whole side of the head. Yes, the back of it was a 5 inch wound in the right rear. The rest of it was forward of that, and even larger. Sbharris 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Kennedy's personal bodyguard said the hole was 5 inches in diameter. [12]
- It doesn't restate the previous paragraph. It will have to be put back in the article where it belongs. In an encyclopedia one doesn't cut out information that interfers with your own belief system. If we all did that the pages would be blank.
RPJ 04:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
RPJ 04:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but eyewitness testimony by people who just got a glimpse under really stressful circumstances in which they had to be thinking about many other things first (as in Hill's case), needs to be appropriately downgraded. You can class it with Zapruder, who saw the right side of the head (not the back) of JFK's head open up--- he just got a glimpse and was under horrible emotional shock too (though he didn't have another job to do at the same time, which he was supposed to be paying attention to, as Hill did).
- JFK's ER docs were trying to save his life, not look to see how and where his head was damaged. If it had been anybody but JKF any ER doc would have looked at that much brain out of that much open skull and just put the sheet over the face. As it was, nobody pulled back scalp and took a ruler to the man. His wife and the priest were standing around. This is all 2nd class evidence. Better than what the people on Elm street saw in a split second, but still not up there with the relative time and slowness and primary objective goal-oriented behavior of Bethesda. See the point? You just can't mix all this crap in, willy nilly. Photos are best evidence. Careful autopsy measurements under controlled and slow circumstances go next. Quick observations of doctors in an ER (as they went about doing something else) would go next. Lay people like Hill and Zapruder getting a glimpse on a street in a car at the hectic moment of the event, somewhat after THAT. Sbharris 04:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. And let's not forget the lists of deficencies with the autopsy listed by the House committee etc. Typically, this is used to buttress the case of incompetence or worse in terms of getting to the truth of the assassination, but a more prosaic view is that with the president of the United States laying dead on the table in front of even these professionals, they were likely not doing things in the way they normally would have, procedures were not followed to the letter.
But we DO have several photos of the autopsy and the Zapruder film both of which corroborate the views that sbharris has and as he points out, we don't dismiss THAT evidence before we embrace eyewitness testimony. If there is a conflict, we go with the closest we have to physical evidence, not the other way around. -- Johnny Canuck 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't delete information in the article because it is "weak"
We now have another situation where an editor wants to rank information from reliable sources (and even primary sources) because the editor doesn't believe it is strong enough or that other contrary information is stronger. But, that is not how this web page works.
If it did, any article on a controversial subject would be filled with blank pages.
Here is the reason why: Everyone tends to think that their own pet theories are correct and the evidence supporting it is very strong and contrary evidence very weak. That is human nature.
One editor now wants to eliminate eyewitness testimony of Clint Hill who was Mrs. Kennedy's bodyguard, because the editor doesn't believe the witness' testimony is reliable. The editor believes that the bodyguards for President Kennedy and his wife are wrong when they saw a big hole blasted in the back of President's. eyAlso, the emergency room doctors are purportedly wrong; and even the mortician was wrong etc. when th saw the same big hole in the back of Kennedy's head.
These witnesses allegedly only "glimpsed" the wound, and had other duties etc. On the other hand the editor believes the witnesses that support his contention are highly reliable; are not biased; and had a good look. That is not a reason to delete information.
Here is the answer in these situations: If an editor has a information that reflects a witness did not have a good view of the head wound, or would be biased in his statements regarding the location of the wound, then put it in the article with the citation to the source, and let the reader decide.
Anonymous editors are not allowed by the web site rules to weigh the evidence and decide to eliminate some information because they think other evidence is stronger. The editors of an encyclopedia are for technical editing only. They are not judges of the facts.
On this web site, the readers are given all view points and they make up their own minds.
This a very basic rule.
204.14.241.188 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not an an anonymous editor, bub. Speak for yourself.
- Of course editors are allowed to weigh evidence. That's why we don't give equal space to the theory that the Twin Towers collapsed 9/11 due to being hit by highjacked jets and then suffering structural failure due to hot weakened metal, and theories that they collapsed because they'd been wired by bombs all fixed up to go off later. Nor the same space to the idea that men went to the moon, and the evidence that the whole thing was faked.
- I haven't argued that eyewitness Dallas testimony be removed. But group reports of witnesses of similar quality together, and give it appropriate amount of space. I see no reason to give Hill, who saw the president's head for 5 seconds while he was trying to save the Kennedys and thinking about his complete failure to prevent what he was hired to prevent, should be given the same weight as several hours of careful measuring, describing, disecting, X-raying, and photographing by three medical doctors at an autopsy in Bethesda. I think it would be madness to do so.
- Wiki editors are not expected to give up WP:SENSE. And we all have to weigh WP:RS. Comes with the territory. Sbharris 11:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- There has been extensive criticism of the autopsy done at Bethesda. At the time of the assassination there was a great push to immediately convince the public that only one person shot the President in the head and killed him. Some claimed such a conclusion was necessary to avoid the public assuming it was a communist conspiracy and then pushing the politicians into starting World War III. Whatever, the reason, the autopsy appeared compromised. The "careful measuring, dissecting" etc. you allege, isn't really supportable anymore. You need to do a good deal of homework in the area and stick to the rules of the web page. Even if you were an expert in this area of research, which I don't believe you claim to be, you should not be chopping into articles based on your self confidence that you know what is true and what is not true. Just stick to the rules and you will enjoy working on this article.
RPJ 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Now, now. Common sense is a relative thing. I've done many an autopsy, peeled back many a scalp, and looked at many a head X-ray. Though I'm not a pathologist or radiologist by trade, I've had some real hands-on training in these things, and have a feeling for head wounds that you may be lacking. I bow to neurosurgeons, of course. But are you any of these things?
- "Homework" in this area too often consists of reading the blatherings of conspiracy theorists (yes, I have a bookshelf of JFK assassination books too) who obviously haven't dissected a head in their lives, and really haven't a clue as to how tough the scalp is, and how brittle the skull can be. So what do I make of their assertions that here and there a bit of hair is a later "photo paste"? I tend to believe the doctors who were on the spot. They were rushed, no doubt about it. They did an imperfect job, no doubt about it. But we have nothing better. So let's start with the best evidence we have, which is from the Bethesda autopsy, and work backwards from there. Its conclusions do feel "right" to me. They may not to you. But I'm not really putting personal expertise or my OR up here as a POV. I'm simply putting up the results of the various formal commissions and the original autopsy, which are the recognized best evidence. I'm not asking you to take MY word for it. I'm simply explaining why I take other people's word for it, and think you should, too. When doctors find something in an autopsy that feels right to me as a doctor myself, I tend to accept it. I've seen stuff like this. When you peel the lungs out of the thoracic cavity, they leave an inner pleural posterior surface which is slippery smooth and perfect, with a light color and no bruising. You don't put a bullet hole through that without noticing it. That's part of MY "common sense" experience. I can't communicate it to you. All I can do, is just ask you to quit telling me I'm meddling with stuff in which I'm a novice. I'm not.
- And I haven't deleted anything, really. I've just rearranged evidence in order of reliability. Autopsy and photos first-- those docs had the most time, and produced the most hard quantitative (measurement) data. And so on. Steve 03:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's see. What a Secret Service agent saw in the most traumatic moment of his life is being used to discount trained medical personnel. Sure, he had "a very close up view of the wound for four minutes", the four minutes he was holding on for dear life on the trunk of a speeding automobile. This section isn't anything close to neutral, it dwells in ridiculous detail on the spun testimony of one witness and it is clearly presented in an obvious effort to discount the conclusions of the autopsy. Gamaliel 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- This reader who calls himself Gamaliel still does not understand what a "neutral" encyclopedia article means. It means that all significant points of view on a subject are presented to the reader who then decides.
- It does not mean that Mr. Gamaliel can decide not to include a very significant witness' viewpoint of what happened at the assassination because Gamaliel believes observations were no good since he was "holding on for dear life." It is so odd that Gamaliel can not understand this point. Nobody cares about Mr. Gamaliel's pet theories. He obviously has not kept up with modern history since he announces on his user page that he is going "insane" editing "conspiracy nonsense." Apparantly Gamaliel doesn't know that the last official investigation by the federal government concluded that there probably was a conspiracy involved in the murder of Kennedy. This finding of a probable conspiracy came out in 1979. Wake up Gamaliel and stop deleting things you seem to know nothing about.
The autopsy doctors did not produce "hard quatitative data" as can be seen by the high degree of criticism leveled at the autopsy by the later Congressional investigation in 1979, that among other things pointed out the autopsy was a mess and most people now believe it was a mess on purpose to hide the fact of a second shooter to "avoid World War III."
RPJ 09:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop removing viewpoints with which you don't agree
This web site has a strict policy of including all viewpoints and letting the reader decide on with which to believe. Yet, in controversial articles, some editors just can't seem to hold themselves back from deleting viewpoints with which they disagree.
Now, again, important viewpoints are being deleted from this article regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. Even though almost everyone accepts the fact that the rear right hand side of President Kennedy's head was blown out as if shot from the front, this widespread belief is again under attack. A member or two from that small group of believers in the Warren Report are snipping out historical data that conflicts with the much criticized Warren Commission. Deleted from the article, again, is the eyewitness account by the First Lady's personal bodyguard by the name of Clint Hill. Mr. Hill was present when the President suffered the fatal head shot and shielded the President's body on the ride to the hospital. Mr. Hill observed a huge gaping wound in the right rear of the President's head. Mr. Hill immediately filed a report stating what he saw. He later testified under oath on what he saw, and described the "President's head on the right rear side was missing" and "leaving one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head"; [13] [14]
Mr. Hill's testimony is supported by the other eyewitnesses. Roy Kellerman, the President’s bodyguard, saw a 5 inch diameter hole in the back right hand side of the president’s head. [15] One of the doctors who attended to the President's wounds in the emergency room approved this drawing of the head wound. [16] The physician who approved the drawing, Dr. McClelland, looked right at the head wound. Dr. McClelland said:
"You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." [17]
The part of the brain called the cerebellum is at the very bottom of the skull as the link to a medical model of the brain shows.
Dr. Kemp, Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery, saw big hole at the back of the skull while in the emergency room. He described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (Warren Commission --CE#392) [18]
The
occipital lobe of the brain is just above the
cerebellum part of the brain.These descriptions of the head wound in the back of the skull are all consistent with the kill shot to the head coming from the front, blasting out the back of the president's head and knocking him violently backwards in his seat. But, someone wants to delete these descriptions because they conflict with their viewpoints.
These deletions are wrong. The policy of this web site is to let the readers decide for themselves. Please restrain yourself.
You put in: "A top secret session at the Warren Commission reviewed a different conclusion made by the Bethesda autopsy. It placed the bullet in the back below the shoulder blade rather than above it; and the bullet didn't penetrate more than a finger-length deep. [19]"
This is simply deliberation thinking at the Warren Commission. All of these were secret, since courts and committees don't publish the results of their arguments and silly comments. Here, Rankin screwed up and said the autopsy produced a "picture" showing bullet entry under the shoulder blade. Obviously they didn't. No photos were available to the WC. The report does have a drawing (perhaps this "picture" Rankin refers to) vaguely showing entry a little below the shoulder, but that would put it right in the middle of the scapula. Below the scapula is about T6 or T7 and certainly contradicts Burkely, you favorite witnesss, and also the bullet holes in both coat and shirt. This is not some secret Bethesda conclusion being reviewed-- it's just one guy (Rankin) who can't read an anatomical drawing. Which wasn't intended to be perfect anyway, which is why the measurements were made. 5.5 inches under the ear is not below the shoulder blade. So give us a break. Screwups like this in deliberations by less than informed deliberators are why deliberations aren't included in final reports. People in deliberations say ignorant things because they're not completely informed yet, and these are corrected in later drafts and final conclusions. Anybody can look at the section I deleted (see above) and the ref (see above), and check all this. Steve
Some of the editors continue to wrongfully delete information from this article on the assassination based on their fervent belief in the Warren Report. This time the editor deletes information he calls "junk." This editor believes in the Warren Report conclusions, but doesn't realize that he is in a distinct minority of the public in his beliefs, and even if his view was the majority viewpoint he is violating web site rules by deleting different viewpoints with which he disagrees. This is basic web site policy. The true believers need to go to a web site dedicated to the belief in the Warren Report so that they can read only information that agrees with the Warren Report. There are such web sites, and their belief system won't be challenged. Now what have been deleted are transcripts from the secret sessions of the Warren Commission where they discuss the evidence with their attorney, Mr. Rankin. According to the editor who wants this information deleted from this page, these historic transcripts are deemed "junk." Here is what the information pertains to:
Please stop interfering with the readers from reviewing these very interesting historic documents. [ [21]] RPJ 21:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Editor Steve Harris can't seem to understand the rule. A citation to an important historical document such as the secret transcripts of the Warren Commission deliberations can't be deleted as "junk." Let the readers review the information for them selves. Your attempt to justify the deletion of the historical record is amusing but has no bearing on the issue. It doesn't matter what you believe, or what you wish to argue about the meaning of the material. Just leave the material alone and let the reader decide.
No one has appointed you as an expert on the subject. You haven't to my knowledge published any information on the subject. If you know of a published source of information from a reliable source that comments about the transcripts, then include it in the article that contains the historical record. But, don't delete the historical record.
The editor above, writes in support of deleting evidence that contradicts the Warren Report conclusions. In this case, evidence was deleted that the Commissioners had seen a picture of the bullet wound to Kennedy's back that is said to be much lower than possible for the Commission’s theory about a “magic bullet” to work. In fact, the evidence refutes the ultimate conclusion of the Commission that a "magic bullet" theory hit Kennedy up near the neck. Not only does the picture referred to in the formerly secret transcript show the bullet too low, but the transcripts also includes evidence from the autopsy that the bullet wound to the back was only finger-length deep into the back. This would entirely eliminate the “magic bullet” theory which is the foundation of the Report’s conclusion. Therefore, the editor states: The secret transcripts are "junk."
The editor can't comprehend that the Commissioners, who were primarily politicians, may have compromised the accuracy of their findings in favor of achieving a conclusion desired by President Johnson, the CIA, and Director Hoover of the FBI. Because the editor cannot comprehend such a result, he doesn't recognize that to achieve such a predetermined result may have required the Commissioners to ignore evidence given to them that didn't fit the predetermined result. Finally, the editor can’t comprehend the Commissioners may later have hid the inconsistent evidence under a cloak of secrecy. Now that such secrecy has been lifted, the editor has decided that he now wants to start keeping the evidence secret from the readers. RPJ 07:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to say that this editor infinitely favors Sbharris' approach over RPJ's. Sbharris wants to state facts simply, letting the reader piece things together. RPJ wants to put a pro-conspiracy spin onto every single statement in the article, because he/she is sure this conspiracy is the wellspring and keystone of the whole event. Sbharris wants to quote principals and witnesses while RPJ wants to quote and characterize them. RPJ's efforts belong in the Assasination Theories article. As long as there's a link from here to there, RPJ should be content to let this article be what it should be: a tight explanation of events and issues without even a slight editorial air.
JDG
18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Many not only dispute the conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin (claiming that there was a conspiracy), but also claim that Oswald was not involved at all.
The above sentence violates WP:AWW and WP:WEASEL. We should put a names to the sentence instead of simply saying many. I cannot think of any researchers, outside of Jim Garrison, who believes that Oswald was totally innocent in the assassination. I was thinking of Mark Lane, and James Blakey as prominent proponents of a conspiracy. But I am not aware of the roles they claim Oswald had in the assassination, if he had any at all. Please update the sentence if you have pertinent information. Ramsquire 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have just done a survey of the more popular JFK assassination articles, and in almost every article the findings of the HSCA is innacurately stated.
The Final Report of the HSCA finds that:
Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. . . .
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. . . .
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html
I have changed the findings to accurately state this when I have come across it. Please be more careful in relaying the committees findings.
Ramsquire 18:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the editors asks about evidence of “Where President Kennedy was hit by bullets and how?” Good question. Here is some of the evidence regarding two bullet wounds:One that hit the back and one that hit the right temple.
Bullet Number One:
The following evidence establishes a bullet hit the President in the back at about the third thoracic vertebra:
Bullet Number Two
The following evidence, is sampling of evidence Kennedy was struck by a bullet entering at his right temple and going in the direction of the back of the head where it exited at the rear right-hand side:
Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter . . . of a bullet right through the head. . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple. [27]
President Kennedy was shot in the right temple. "It was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head," said Dr. George Burkley, White House Medical Officer. [28]
]
And the opening and the way the bone was damaged behind the head would have definitely been a type of exit wound. The reason I have said this is that I saw this before in other wounds and it was very striking. [32]
The evidence of what the exit to the right rear portion of the head looked like is established by the following evidence:
The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. [36]
I rushed up and saw Kennedy lying in the car on his side. His foot was hanging over the side of the car. The back of his head was gone. [37]
The portion that is in the back of the head, when you're lying down in the bathtub, you hit the back of the head. [39]
It's not true. . . . There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out. [40]
The president was laying forward. I got a good look at him [and] put that coat around his head, Mrs. Kennedy walked between me and his head and she put her hands on the back of his head...I started to push her hands away, but I got to thinking, those guys might be a little gun-happy, so therefore, I better let them do it. I knew the back of his head was blown out, and...I felt like she shouldn't be getting her hands under there because there wouldn't be nothing but blood... [42]
Dr. Clark (Parkland doctor): A large wound in the back of the head [43] Dr. Jones (Parkland doctor): A large defect in the back of the head. [44] James Sibert (FBI agent: Drew a circle on the back of the skull where he saw Kennedy’s large wound. [45] RPJ 08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Shock was followed by renewed speculation and the public began listening more to researchers who insisted that the backward and leftward movement of the President's head observed in this section of the Zapruder film meant, by the simple application of Newton's Second Law of Motion, that he must have been hit by a bullet fired from his right front, forcing the existence of at least one more gunman not in back of the President as Oswald was. [46]. The 1991 major motion picture JFK made a mantra out of what is seen in frame 313 by having a crusading attorney repeat the phrase "back and to the left", hoping to drill this simple physical truth, and its strong implication of conspiracy, into the jurors' (and filmgoers') minds. Yet the cause and nature of this movement turned out to be more complex than the simple transfer of directional momentum and has been a topic for much debate and analysis, particularly by physicists and others who propound a "jet effect" [47] from a rearward shot whereby matter expelled at high pressure from the exit wound at the top right front of the skull impels the whole body back and to the left. Such effects on model heads moving backward when shot from behind have been duplicated in tests. Further analysis of the president's head motion shows that it does begin between frames 312 and 313 (the frames just before and after the bullet strike) as a rapid forward motion-- an effect first noticed by physicist Richard Feynman at instigation of author David S. Lifton in 1966 [1]. Only in later frames does it move backward. The 486 frames of this film have been used in many studies, but the film has not been able to settle all disputes concerning whether or not Oswald was the sole assassin.
I deleted the above paragraph because although the discussion is ostensibly accurate and interesting, it is not appropriate for the section it is in. What I mean by that is that the section is for recordings of the assassination. It simply lists person and entities with various recordings of the assassination and then the above paragraph appears. This lengthy paragraph is more about analysis of the Zapruder film and Kennedy's head movement after the fatal shot and would be more appropriate in the Zapruder film article. Ramsquire 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are the McAdams sites both listed at the top? These should be in alpha order or better yet broken up into lone assassin v. conspiracy categories. I find it interesting that someone keeps putting John McAdams's sites at the top of this list. We need to at least put them in alpha order so as not to promote any sites unfairly. -- Dubc0724 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
McAdams has some of the best material available anywhere. Its detractors are being led by their own agendas. Personally, I'd like to see an External Link section called Leading JFK Assassination Sites (or something equiivalent) containing at most 6 sites, each parenthetically designated as either Pro Lone Assassin, Pro-Conspiracy or Neutral. McAdams would easily be mong them... I'm curious, Dubc-- which would you say is the best Pro-Conspiracy site? JDG 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Its true that if the external links are put in alphabetical order the reader will be alerted that the editors aren't giving an opinion as to which external link is more important.
But, because external links at the top of the list are probably opened more than external links on the bottom of the list, this alphabetical order of the external links might encourage odd names for web sites that contain a number of letters "A" for the first word of the web site name. This would make the External Link section look like the Yellow pages
It might be better to simply rotate the links each month. Take the bottom link of the list and place it at the top. Start any new link in the middle.
If there is a conspiracy site as comprehensive as McAdams it should be added as well. Ramsquire 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Watch out for reverts disguised as other (less controversial ones.) See History regarding External Links July 13 - July 14, 2006. Next time only revert what you SAY you're reverting, Gamaliel. ------- Dubc0724 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that if you choose witness statements over the photographic evidence, even when the former contradicts the latter, then you have a pre-ordained conclusion in mind here, namely that Connally was struck by a different bullet than Kennedy. Harris' detailed examination of the Z film quite congently underlines why some of Connally's testimony not only was in error, it HAD to be in error. Surely you are not suggesting we, when choosing who is the better "witness," that we have to discount the Z film itself in favour of Connally? because that is what we'd need to do following your line of reasoning.
None of this requires any of those you list to be "delusional" or "incompetent." It merely requires that their judgement to have been wrong. Since others have testified in a manner more consistent with a single bullet theory, we are left with a quandry: Who to believe? Since we have the Z film, we can largely answer those questions.
And, excuse me but how does "(label flap?)" become an attempt to explain away what you describe as "rock solid evidence"? I'd say that the label flap becomes very hard to explain outside of the single bullet theory.
-- Johnny Canuck 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Part 1: Short answer to your question: Yes. Long answer: I find Governor Connally’s and Nellie Connally’s statements more convincing than the film. Nellie was sitting within inches of the Gov. and Kennedy and looking right at them both. I don’t agree in the least with the above interpretation of the Z film, although I respect the opinions of the editor, otherwise I wouldn’t bother arguing with him. When I watch the Z film, I can clearly see that the Gov. was not injured for some time after Kennedy was, and I don’t buy this stuff about timing the shots to the split-second by Z’s ‘jumps.’
Part 2: I am told that the reason why Frazier and his sister described a package much too short to contain the rifle is because they must have had bad memories (talk about preconceived notions!). That is a suggestion, without reason, that both persons were mentally impaired, not lacking in judgement. I am told that a physician who is outstanding in his field cannot interpret simple fragments in an x-ray. That is a suggestion that he is incompetent.
Part 3: “how does "(label flap?)" become an attempt to explain away what you describe as "rock solid evidence"?” I have pointed out that all the medical experts demonstrated that the single bullet theory is not possible in light of the evidence. The ONLY counterpoints I am given to my argument is “look at the Z film” and “maybe the doctors were all wrong.” I’ve ridden in an open car for years, and I’d say the wind and motion are capable of moving my lapel flaps at any time. Joegoodfriend 19:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Question it? Sure! But there's a world of difference between questioning official government conclusions and wholesale acceptance of, for example, conspiracy theories about homosexual thrill kill cults dreamt up by drunks and crazy people. It's "interesting" that you appear to reserve your anger for the supposed agenda and spin of McAdams while ignoring the abundance of such in the lunatic conspiracy press. Gamaliel 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Under the dictabelt section of the article there is a citation needed for the 2003 ABCnews investigations of Kennedy's Assassination. The results of that investigation appeared on a program called, "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination-Beyond Conspiracy" [49]. I am going to add that as the cite but I wonder if anyone knows if ABC has an Internet site with the results of their investigation. I'm afraid if I link it to Amazon.com or some other site selling movies, it will appear as though Wiki is trying to hawk products or has a POV on the subject.
Please let me know if it is OK to do so. Ramsquire 16:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe here -- JimWae 07:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, ABC had a news show but then retracted the material from the public domain. Now an editor wants to include his recollections of what the show said. There are two related reasons that prohibit this. The citations to sources are included so that the "edits may be verified by readers and other editors." Click on "verifiable" below to review the rules. As the fundamental Wikipedia rule states, in blunt, terms:
The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?
That is right. Why should we believe Ramsquire? The rule is premised on these facts: "The readers don't know who you [Ramsquire and Gamliel] are." Moreover, even if the readers and other editors could get in touch with you for you to verify that the information that you put in are your recollections of the show, and that your recollections are accurate, "Why should they [the readers and editors} believe you."
That is not my rule, that is the Wikipedia rule. Why don't you go to a reputable website, such as "Spartacus," that has the program reproduced in whole or part? That is acceptable, if it is a reputable web site. RPJ 07:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sending the reader to a commercial web site to buy the information seems to cross over the border to commercialism though I don't know for sure. Here is what the rule identifies as one of the types of links to be avoided:
Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content. See External link spamming. [50]
I haven't seen this done on Wikipedia before. It seems to go against the spirit of the rules. Have public libraries sought out the dvd in question in the normal course of their operations? Or will the Wikipedia article citing the information create an artificial demand for the libraries to purchase.
The verification of the ABC news story needs to be set forth with better particularity than what has been done so far. Jim Wae presented three web sites that possibly might represent what ABC said during its broadcast about the Kennedy assassination. We need the particular web site address where the information can be quickly and easily reviewed. How does the reader get there and what is it going to see? Jim Wae doesn't know for sure but thinks the web sites might be helpful.
I'd find out if they are and then tell why. RPJ 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey RPJ, I am concerned about your edits to the dictabelt section because I think you added information that although accurate is not relevant to the subheading its under. I only thought the ABC investigation relevant because it was the last known (at least to me) research regarding the dictabelt evidence. I am not sure the ABC's findings on the single bullet theory, or the location of the wounds in general, fits into that particular section. Would you want to put your edits into another section of the article? Ramsquire 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so when I added a consensus description of the assassination, I kind of figured it would be immediately removed because there's very little that can be agreed upon about what happened to JFK. But, in the interest of readability, there needs to be some description about what apparently happened, chronologically, without going into all the detail that gets broken down later. It's absolutely ridiculous to go from "shots were fired at Kennedy for an estimated timespan of 6 to 24 seconds" to "the limousine is calculated to have slowed down" by four miles per hour, with nothing in between. The casual reader wouldn't care at all about the speed of the limousine, so that detail shouldn't be placed there. There needs to be some elaboration on the shots being fired, for an estimated timespan of 6 to 24 seconds, even if it has to be a little vague. It's obvious that the right side of Kennedy's head came off, and his blood misted in the air, his wife put her arm around him, and so on. It's possible to have a narrative description of what takes place in the Zapruder film without favoring the Warren commission or anybody else. That's what people are interested in reading first when they get to this article, and then if they wish they can go on to ballistics analysis or whatever else.
I agree, though, that it was right to remove the part about Jackie going after the skull piece, and that my attempt to provide what I'm describing here wasn't the optimal solution.
Aratuk
19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your first sentence that states you "added a consensus description of the assassination" but thought it would be removed because someone wouldn't agree with the "consensus" description.
You are right that the assassination part of the article is very short. This is because some of the editors believe the witness testimony is wrong, or too gory, or doesn't conform to a pet theory.
I'm sorry to inform you that none of the editors, to my knowledge, are interested your narrative description of what occured. It is probably against web site rules.
Would somebody like to vouch for wiki File:Jfk assassination(zapruder).ogg? Unless it's certified virus free, I don't think it should be referenced in this article. S B H arris 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Somebody has finally made a composite of the photos of the back of JFK's head and the skull wound underneath: [51]. It's fairly easy to see here how different people saw different things, depending on how the scalp was placed. In any case, since the films of the assasination and the autopsy all show the scalp intact in this area, and since they are better evidence than Dallas testimony by people who didn't do a good exam (since it wasn't their job), that's what the best evidence argues. Anybody who wants to argue that scalp retraction might have shown something else underneath is free to do so, but please don't do it at the cost of giant conspiracy. That's hearing hoofbeats and thinking zebras. or Unicorns. S B H arris 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The first thing to do with documents is to authenticate them. Are the pictures what they purport to be?
This is easy to do. Tell us about the origin and authenticity of the photographs you have identified. One should take those steps before making cute remarks. RPJ 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this language:
"The Commission's Report that Oswald was the lone gunman has not gained widespread acceptance from the American public. Most polls show that most people do not agree with the Warren Commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, but no single alternative suspect or theory is accepted either."
There is no citation for any of it. The first sentence is subjective and violates NPOV. The second sentence, if accurate, ought to have at least one credible citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.126.103 ( talk • contribs)
The single magic bullet theory, or that President Kennedy was shot in the back of the head, is seriously the grossest lie imposed on the American People. Any sane person who has ever seen the video of the assassination clearly showing the President being shot from the front knows that. After President Kennedy was shot, his head is forced to the rear and to the left. I am disgusted by gross assumptions saying he was shot in the back of the head. Please copy this link and watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4315024059102108031&q=kennedy+bush —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.188.209 ( talk • contribs)
Seeing the Z film, you can clearly see a shot hitting the President in his right temple area, and his brains fly out in a way rocks fly out of the ground after being hit by a meteor. If that fatal shot was caused by a shot from the back, his brains would not have flown out the way that they did. Almost as magically well-coordinated, and done right the first time as say, the attacks of September 11, which we all know were very real. Obviously these people were very experienced with firearms, even if we assume Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed the killer, in which even that would be a magically coordinated stunt, shooting the President from the 6th story of a building several feet away. And if there were no other shooters, what reason do the witnesses who testified have to risk their lives by saying that they saw shooters from the fence on the Grassy Knoll, or that they heard shots from behind them, to lie? Its very clear to me that the shot that killed JFK came from the front. I think you sir are the sad result of the governments apparently successful attempt to brainwash the American people.--
Ryan_POTUS
02:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
(this is 1) completely untrue 2) far too vague (what investigations? when?) 3) completely unsourced and 4) not at all credible)
Someone added information about a book that was written about the assassination, in the recreations section. It got me thinking that there should probably be a section at the end of the article listing some of the more popular books written about the assassination. I know the article is too long as is, but I think it is missing a vital part without it. We have film and television portrayals, but yet no books. Ramsquire 21:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)