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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
A silouette that appears to be a person with a rifle can be seen from frames 420 to 485 of the Zapruder film. The silouette moves similarly to the way the human body moves; at one point it appears to hunch its shoulders. The silouette is in a portion of the frame the does not move with the background. This suggests that it is a reflection. Possibly from light entering through the eye piece and onto the film. This happens on Aaton 16mm cameras if you leave the eye peice oncovered (i.e. take your eye away from it). I don't know weather anyone has looked into this before, but I think it should be concidered for entry into the wiki article on JFK.
Every frame of the film can be found here - http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe485.html. Ethoen 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Original Research is forbidden by Wikipedia. Find a reliable secondary source and we can discuss it further. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I presumed there would be something like that, which is why I didn't include it in the artical without a reliable source. I can't find anything that mensions the siloutte. Infact most clips of the Zapruder film do not include the last 65 frames that show the silouette. Ethoen
(Personal attack removed by Ramsquire 23:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)).
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Gamaliel 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that "criticize" means to find fault with or to judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate.
(Personal attack removed by Ramsquire 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC))
RPJ 05:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, editor Ramsquire is wrong again. Ramsquire wants to delete from the article information that the FBI not only got caught destroying evidence (a letter from Oswald to an FBI agent two days before Kennedy was murdered), but also that a Congressional Committee that was empowered to investigate the Kennedy murder, concluded that the FBI failed in its duty to investigate a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. Congressional Committee said about the FBI. Read it--its history.
RPJ 05:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to make a point, which is; if someone scrutinises something (meaning investigating it) they must then absolve someone of wrong-doing, or criticize them/sentence them, for doing something wrong. -- andreasegde 16:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
[2]<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[6]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I added the above information from the peer review information for those of you interested in improving the article. Ramsquire 16:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The video tape needs to be authenticated. about three or four months ago another unauthenticated tape was put on the site and the editors complained and it was taken off. This version is terrible.
Hasn't anyone checked it out?
RPJ 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the article and compared it to last spring and its gotten terrible. There is almost nothing about the assassination itself anymore. Almost all the description of what occurred, during the assassination and immediately afterward has been deleted. Why bother having an article on the assassination if it the actual events, that are very well documented, are deleted and replaced by a bunch of argument about Oswald. Isn't there an Oswald article?
63.164.145.198 18:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Recently we have had two editors adding the rifle misidentifcation issue to the article. I agree with the administrator on this issue: leave it out. Yes, it's true that NBC and WBAP radio identified it as a British Enfield .303, and the officers who found it initially identified it as a Mauser. However, if the editors feel that this information belongs on Wikipedia, there is already a better page for it, John F. Kennedy assassination:Rifle. Joegoodfriend 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
08:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
RPJ 08:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
<Deleted PA>
The alleged assassination weapon was the subject of many photographs. An hour or so after President Kennedy was shot and killed on November 22, 1963, the Dallas police found a rifle in the Texas School Book Depository. (69) The police photographed the rifle where it was found. During the search of the building, a 16-millimeter motion picture was taken by Thomas Alyea of television station WFAA. This motion picture film depicts the rifle at the time that it was discovered by the police. (70) A police officer carried the rifle from the building and, as he walked east on Elm Street and across Houston Street, reporter Allen, of the Dallas Times Herald, took a series of about seven pictures in rapid succession. (71) As the rifle was carried through the halls of the police station, it was held overhead for reporters to see. Numerous photographs were taken at that time.
These photos all show a Carcano. I would think that would be the end of the disussion. S B H arris 22:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
These questions need answering on this point:
The rifle was never properly verified under oath as being the weapon found, nor was a proper chain of custody ever kept on the weapon from the time it was found. That would seem pretty important since Oswald claimed he didn't own a rifle and was being framed.
But, you argue it doesn't matter, because the rifle in evidence is the one that was found. Why, because you argue that we can tell from the pictures taken of the rifle at the time it was found. Yet you point out that the rifle can easily be mistaken for an entirely different rifle, and that the police repeatedly did misdientify the type of rifle found. That's fine. Sometime weapons look similar.
But then how can the rifle be so definitely identified from that picture you cited us to look at? Is that what the Commission relied upon?
RPJ 09:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
outdent
I'm not sure a perfect chain of custody is even relevant here. The rifle found in the TSBD was identified by as WWII Carcano on the basis of footage of it in the act of being found in the TSBD, by photographic experts in the HSCA, not the Warren commission. This is a unique and odd weapon. A Carcano with serial number C2766 was sold by Klein's in Chicago to A. Hidell (Oswald's alias), and sent by them to Oswald's PO box in Dallas. Where it was picked up either by Oswald, his wife, or by A. Hidell, the only people authorized to get stuff from the post office under that number (no, I don't think the rifle fit in the PO Box hole-- somebody had to physically ask the postal employee for it, and show ID.) That rifle and no other is now in the national archives. How do YOU propose it got there? Carcano C2766 was mailed to Oswald's PO in Dallas. A WWII Carcano was filmed being found at Oswald's place of work 100 yards from where JFK was shot. That Carcano went to the police where it went back and forth from Dallas to DC a number of times, but at the end of all this, Carcano C2766, the one that went to Oswald's PO box, is now in the Archives. If THAT Carcano is not THE Carcano found at the TSBD, we have two old surplus Italian Carcanos. Is that what you're arguing? Don't be shy. S B H arris 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Issue: Oswald claimed he was being framed. But, according to the Warren Commission, key evidence against Oswald was a rifle called a Carcano. The Commission believed it was owned by Oswald and found where Oswald worked—right near the “sniper’s nest.”
Problem: The rifle found was first identified by the police as a Mauser—not a Carcano.
Warren Commission Reply: It was mere “rumor or speculation” that a Mauser was found. Instead, the Warren Commission claimed that the Carcano that was marked as an exhibit was Oswald’s Carcano and was found near the sniper's nest—not a Mauser.
Flaw: No evidence was submitted that it was a Carcano rifle found in the building. The men who found the rifle were put under oath; but the Carcano rifle was never handed to the witnesses nor were they questioned about it being the one they found. This is a stunning error by the Commission especially because:
The Wikipedia article, as written, wants to tell the reader that the rifle found in the building was a Carcano and not a Mauser. In fact, the article now states:
This[film] footage [of the rifle’s retrieval]shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, and it was later verified by photographic analysis commissioned by the HSCA that the rifle filmed was the exact same one identified as the assassination weapon. (emphasis added)
The HSCA report doesn't say this. Therefore, there isn't a citation for this statement in the article. RPJ 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the relative lengths of component parts of the alleged assassination rifle at the National Archives were compared to component parts of the rifle that appeared in various 1963 photographs, including the backyard photographs.(104) They were found to be entirely consistent, component part for component part, with each other.12 Upon completion of its analysis, the photographic evidence panel concluded that the rifle depicted in the backyard photographs is the one that was found in the book depository after the assassination and that was stored at the National Archives. (105)
Of equal significance, a detailed scientific photographic analysis was conducted by the panel to determine whether the rifle held by Oswald in the backyard photographs was, in fact, the rifle stored at the National Archives. The panel found a unique identifying mark present on the weapon in the Archives that correlated with a mark visible on the rifle in the Oswald backyard photographs, as well as on the alleged assassination rifle as it appeared in photographs taken after the assassination in 1963.(103) Because this mark was considered to be a unique random pattern (ie., caused by wear and tear through use), it was considered sufficient to warrant the making of a positive identification.
S B H arris 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
We have to face facts: the frame up defense looks good. If you don’t have a citation don't put the statement in the article. Isn’t that a common sense and simple rule? RPJ 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Without a word someone deleted from the article the statement by the Dallas Police Chief,Jesse Curry, about Oswald and the rifle. Chief Curry was there during the assassination and later said there was never any proof "that Oswald fired the rifle."
Someone, for no reason, deleted the statement from the article, despite the fact that it is undeniably a significant point of view on the subject. Unless there is a very good reason not to do so, I am going to put it back in:
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry later said "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand.". http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcurryJ.htm
RPJ 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It was shown to the television audience repeatedly as some enforcement official carried it high in the air, with his bare hands on the rifle. After hours of examination Wade said without hesitation that “the murder weapon was a German Mauser.”National Guardian [7]
RPJ 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This conclusion, first carried in the Fort Worth press, was later leaked to reporters by the FBI in off-the-record briefing sessions. The FBI at that time took the position that “we don’t have to worry about prints in this case.” The FBI indicated anger with [District Attorney] Wade for stating that a palm print was present when in fact it was not. [8] National Guardian
RPJ 06:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The "magic" bullet was used to plug up many holes in the Warren Commission theory. This is the bullet that is used by the Warren Commission to build a circumstantial case that Oswald was the at least one of the shooters.
However, the evidence was slim, and he said he was framed. Oswald denied shooting anyone and then was murdered. After that, anyone could say anything they wanted about Oswald, and blame him for everything.
However, tne one piece of evidence was the "magic" bullet that it tied to a rifle that Oswald purports to hold in a picture. Where the rifle appeared from and put into evidence is still a mystery, but where the bullet came from is a bigger mystery.
The Warren Commission claims that it came from Governor Connally. On the other hand, the FBI said that the bullet came from Kennedy's body.
Telephone conversation between Lyndon B. Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover (29th November, 1963)
J. Edgar Hoover: All three [bullets were shot] at the President and we have them. Two of the shots fired at the President were splintered but they had characteristics on them so that our ballistics expert was able to prove that they were fired by this gun... The President - he was hit by the first and third. The second shot hit the Governor. The third shot is a complete bullet and that rolled out of the President's head. It tore a large part of the President's head off and, in trying to massage his heart at the hospital, on the way to the hospital, they apparently loosened that and it fell off onto the stretcher. And we recovered that... And we have the gun here also.
RPJ 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
A bullet found on Connally's hospital stretcher, was ballisticly matched to the rifle in evidence but that bullet also fell into controversy since it was almost a whole bullet and it is known that the bullet that hit Connally fragmented and left pieces in Connally. [10] Moreover, a week after the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover told President Johnson that the "matching" bullet came out of Kennedy--not Connally-- when Kennedy was given heart massage. [11] The Warren Commission believed that the previous March, the rifle had been bought by Lee Harvey Oswald under the name "Alek James Hidell." [12] A partial palm print of Oswald was purportedly found on the barrel of the gun, but not until much later when someone said they forgot to tell everyone about a palm print was purportedly found much earlier. [13]
I think somebody is also guilty of confusing J. Edgar Hoover with God Almighty. But here are some helpful ways to tell the difference: J. Edgar Hoover, as a fallable human being, has the right to still be confused about some of the facts of the JFK assassination, especially early in the investigation of it. Also, God Almighty would have no need to wiretap Martin Luther King having sex with prostitutes, because God could no doubt hear that directly. S B H arris 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
From WP:POVFORK:
“ | Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.
Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. However, it is possible for editors to act in bad faith and make article spinouts as POV forks. For instance: Editor A tries three times to insert a statement of his POV in an article section called "Criticism of XYZ"; each time the change is reverted by other editors. So he announces that he is spinning off a new article called Criticism of XYZ, and for the initial text of this article, he uses the "Criticism of XYZ" section of the main XYZ article -- with the disputed statement that he could not get accepted by consensus. This is a POV fork; Editor A is trying to get around the fact that his changes have not met consensus by inserting them in a different location. |
” |
Since this is not one of the bad faith examples given, it is entirely appropriate to keep the rifle section here brief and concise while having the discussion regarding misidentifications, and speculation about the bullet take place in the rifle article. Otherwise, what is the point of having the rifle article in the first place.
Ramsquire 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
RPJ 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".
A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.
Someone keeps deleting information by paragraph claiming simply "point of view" pushing.
Could he explain what that means and give and example. After he gives an example explain why he doesn't edit rather than revert wholesale?
RPJ 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
One editor is under the mistaken impression that when one mentions what the Warren Commission said happened should be written as fact and complains that someone would qualify the article by stating:
"The Warren Commission believed." This is the proper form of what should written especially with when the subject is controversial.
RPJ 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In the Kennedy article, it said a Carcano rifle was found near the scene of the murder. The particular make of the rifle is important to the guilt or innocence of Lee Oswald.
Oswald claimed, prior to being murdered, that a man had a Mauser rifle in the building two days before the president was assassinated.
At the time the rifle was discovered, the police were all heard to say or believed that the rifle found near the scene of the murder was a Mauser.
Therefore, I inserted at the beginning of the sentence that it was the Warren Commission who reached the conclusion that the rifle found was a Carcano—rather than a Mauser. Here is the sentence with my changes in bold type:
The Warren Commission came to the conclusion that a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano]M91/38 bolt-action rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone soon after the assassination of President Kennedy.
The language I inserted about Warren Commission concluding the rifle was a Carcano was, surprisingly, deleted. One of the editors defends the deletion, and argues:
[T]o say "the WC believed" at the beginning of a sentence, then give a misleading summary of the finding in the middle [of the sentence], and then add unsourced contrary information at the end of the sentence is unencyclopedic and violates WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS.
May I respectfully respond to the critique of my sentence?
[personal attack removed] hasn't taken out what he considers is the "misleading summary in the middle" of the sentence nor corrected any of the other alleged "violations" of web site policy.
The only thing deleted was my proper insertion that identified who concluded the Carcano rifle was found.
RPJ 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
RPJ 03:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
“ | Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. | ” |
RPJ 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Day: "I respect the FBI. I know I told him [FBI Agent Vince Drain about the print]. Now, I don't know if he heard me or paid any attention to me or what. I know what happened. People who claim there was a planted print don't know anything about fingerprinting. You can't even place a print on something from a card, and that's all we had on the first night, when I lifted that print. After lifting the palm print, I could still see traces on the stock with my reflective light. I can't guarantee it was still there when it got to the FBI office. They either overlooked it or it wasn't good enough to see by the time that gun arrived there. We found that print doing solid police work, and nothing anybody says can change that fact." Gamaliel 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously there will be many readers coming to this article on or around November 22 and this group of related article are not in good shape.
I tried to lay out the three points of view. The Oswald did it and no Conspiracy view. The Oswald did it, and in a conspiracy, and Oswald didn't do it and a conspiracy.
That is why the police chief statement was put at top so that all significant view points are included. Thati how an article is kept neutral.
RPJ 02:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to go through all the websites I've gone through trying to find a source for the discussion held above. However, there do seem to be a recurring theme in all of them. Publicly Hoover supported the findings of the WC. However, it is unclear if this support was just for the findings of a lone assassina or support for all of the other conclusions, including where CE-399 came from. Privately, Hoover had some doubts about the WC, but was never specific either. With that scenario, I stand by my earlier points. If consensus is against me, so be it. Ramsquire 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that somebody recognizes that Hoover is to some extent blowing smoke for LBJ as the investigation progresses. He's not about to say he has no idea what's going on, and obviously some of the early conclusions are going to be wrong. One of them is where CE399 came from. Unless you completely and utterly discount Tomlinson's testimony before the Warren Commission, it come from one of two stretchers. One had held a boy unconnected with the JFK murder (I don't think anybody thinks Oswald shot this kid), and the other of which had been used to carry Connally to the O.R. table (where he was most certainly missing any bullets). Nor could CE399 credibly have come from JFK's back, since JFK's stretcher stayed with him until he died, at which point its linens were removed and it was put into trauma room #2. CE399 was found on a stretcher on the ground floor where it has gone after being used to put Connally on the OR table on the second hospital floor and (as the WC notes) was nowhere near trauma room #2. The Warren Commission puts it this way:
Although Tomlinson was not certain whether the bullet came from the Connally stretcher or the adjacent one, the Commission has concluded that the bullet came from the Governor's stretcher. That conclusion is buttressed by evidence which eliminated President Kennedy's stretcher as a source of the bullet. President Kennedy remained on the stretcher on which he was carried into the hospital while the doctors tried to save his life.123 He was never removed from the stretcher from the time he was taken into the emergency room until his body was placed in a casket in that same room.124 After the President's body was removed from that stretcher, the linen was taken off and placed in a hamper and the stretcher was pushed into trauma room No. 2, a completely different location from the site where the nearly whole bullet was found.125 [14]
Now, once we get around to the fact that a bullet certainly went through JFK's neck from back to front (as the fibers in and out, and the X-ray fragments and air bubbles, and the bruising along the wound track show one did), then we're left with the question of where that bullet went to. It didn't hit anywhere inside the limo, but should have, from the angle. We only have a few scratches to show for the stop of this high-velocity projectile (and the bruise shock at the lung tip shows that it must have been a high velocity bullet). That leaves the occupants of the limo. Now, who's available? Well, John Connally is right in front of JFK and in just the right position to absorb that bullet. When a bullet from Oswald's Carcano rifle is found on one of two stretchers in Parkland, one of which held Connally, and certainly neither of which ever held JFK, then the conclusion is obvious. The FBI missed it. The Warren Commission, with more time to think things out, got it right. Hoover certainly didn't publicize the FBI's flub on this small point. The FBI needs no defending: they did solid work in the case, most noticably in tracing the Carcano to Oswald by the next morning (they had men going through sales slips at Klein's in Chicago in the middle of the night, by hand, until they found one for a Carcano shipped to Dallas).
[And no, BTW, they surely weren't looking for a Mauser. The only guy who ever saw a Mauser in the TSBD was a man who didn't examine the weapon closely, and can be forgiven for his mistake, as the actions are very similar.] S B H arris 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My position is “Yes” a formal dispute panel is necessary.
Nature of disagreement:
A bullet was found that had ballistic characteristics that matched the rifle the Warren Commission believed was found near the scene of the crime. The bullet in question wasn’t fragmented like the other pieces of bullets found but was almost an entire bullet and only slightly deformed. It later became known as the "magic" bullet.
The question arose: Where did the bullet come from? Is this important to the case? Yes. In the public’s mind, there are a couple of pieces of evidence that convict Oswald of participating in the crime and this bullet is a key piece of the evidence.
Of course, everyone knew Darrell C. Tomlinson claimed he found the bullet on a stretcher in the hospital after the assassination. But what wasn’t known was how the bullet got on the stretcher. There are at least three theories on how the bullet got there. These are listed in no particular order of plausibility:
Who is right? That is the controversy. Under the Wikipedia neutrality policy, the editors of Wikipedia do not pick which viewpoint is “true” but include all significant viewpoints in the article on the issue and allow the reader to choose.
Nevertheless, editor Ramsquire wants to include only the viewpoint that the bullet came out of Connally. He specifically wants to delete the mention of the FBI’s viewpoint on this key evidentiary issue.
Here are some of Ramsquire’s reasons for excluding the information given by J. Edgar Hoover to President Johnson that the bullet came from Kennedy and not Johnson:
However, the readers can decide these issues. Wikipedia does not allow deletions of information because an editor believes he knows which information is "right" and therefore "knows" other viewpoints are wrong. Wikipedia clearly prohibits:
"Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds)." [15]
The Kennedy assassination article needs to include all viewpoints. This is not a chat site devoted to one viewpoint or another. It is an encyclopedia. RPJ 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
We are forced to pick natural stopping places for Wiki summaries, therefore. Summaries of summaries of conclusions of existing completed official major investigations would seem obvious places to do this. I wouldn't be adverse to including a short (very short) synopsis of the FBI's final Jan 13, 1964 report to the Warren Commission, since that represents a natural stopping point, and a point at which obviously a certain lot of information had been collected, collated, passed by all involved, and a summary made so that you don't get the kinds of mistakes and bad viewpoints that always come from looking at invididual threads of investigations, while they are still ongoing and nobody yet has seen everybody else's results (a great example of this is the infamous FBI version of the autopsy, writen by a couple of FBI agents who saw the autopsy, but weren't medical people and didn't fully understand what they were seeing. And were also factually describing confusion of doctors who themselves were not at that moment in full possession of all facts and didn't therefore understand what THEY were seeing EITHER, even though they understood more than the FBI people). But Hoover's daily smoke-blow for LBJ isn't this, or anything close to even this.
And why a shorter summary in Wikipedia for the FBI report? Because the FBI's 7-week sub-investigation was a much shorter investigation than the "Warren" (President's Commission) 8-month one, and was in many ways subservient and incorporated into it (though not entirely-- there are disagrements which are preserved in history, such as the two autopsy "reports"). Wikipedia must also maintain space to summarize the other later two major investigations of JFK assassination by the government (the only people with access to the critical evidence)
If you follow the news reports in the days following the JFK assassination, a lot of "important" people had a lot of "significant" opinions. Most notably, several Dallas law enforcement people had so many daily opinons on the guilt of Oswald and reasons for it (all of them quite damning, incidentally), that at one point the feds had to call up a bunch of them and tell them to shut up, because they were prejudicing whatever case might eventually be made. The 26 volume Warren Report actually details some of this. But it's way, WAY too much detail for Wikipedia. It isn't a matter of whether or not Wikipedia SHOULD include this level of detail. We already know it cannot, and maintain its character. If you want to read the Warren Report, go to the National Archive website and do so. That's not what Wikipedia is here to do. S B H arris 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
After reading the comments above, it appears Mediation should be attempted with a full effort to make it successful. I will initiate the process unless someone has a better suggestion.
RPJ 19:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
(Will be posted on related articles talk pages as well) I imagine with the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination approaching, there will be some newer scientific polling data available. If anyone comes across said polls, can they update the sections which rely on the 2003 poll? Thanks. I'll have my eyes peeled as well. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the whole point of electing a vice president, don't you know. The question has come up many times about whether or not he needs to take the oath of office before he becomes president, and most scholars say no. The constitution only says that the new president "shall take" the oath, it certainly doesn't say that he's not president until he does (the vice president, BTW, takes the civil service oath, which includes all the same language and more). The 25th ammendement says “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.” It doesn't say "shall become just as soon as he take the oath of office." It says "shall become." End. You can read the arguments in United States presidential line of succession. Johnson was obligated to take the presidential oath, indeed, but not obligated to do it post haste. But the point is made well enough by the case of Zachary Taylor who refused to take the oath of office on a Sunday, when the previous president's term had expired. That would have made David Rice Atchison a US president for 24 hours. See the Atchison article. But this is silly, and nobody recognizes it. Therefore, your argument is incorrect. S B H arris 04:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
How on earth can there be an article on the Kennedy assassination without mention of Morales? The guy confessed to several highly reliable witnesses that he took part in JFK's murder AND Bobby Kennedy's. He died of a 'heart attack' two weeks before he was due to be dragged before the HSAC hearings. Iamlondon 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Almost everything about this article is wrong or off. For example, you use quote marks in identifying the name used to purchase the M-C rifle, "Alek James Hidell." Yet your explicit source(#9), shows the name as "A. Hidell";and the purchase order shows the same. You don't meet the basic standards of referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs) .
Oswald went by "Alik" during his USSR years. Another example, you're article says that cospiracy theories have been the topic for many films including Mark Lane's 1966 "Rush to Judgement." This is a book, not a film. A film by the name "Plot to Kill:Rush to Judgement" is listed by Amazon as being released in 1994. But I'm sure you think that is close enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs)
Another example, you say that "Kennedy had chosen to visit Dallas on November 20..." Kennedy arrived in Dallas that day, November 22. The choice of Dallas was made many months earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs)
The "southerly direction" photo(#7) is about half way from peristyle to pergola. A line through the "X" on the street would intersect the TSBD at about its western side. This is surely not the "head" shot that you claim it is, but maybe the "magic bullet" shot. Do you think a scholarly organisation made this mark?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs)
The article says the event took place"at 12:30 pm, CST(18:30 UTC)." Wikipedia's link at"CST" shows that UTC for CST should include the designation UTC-5(savings) or UTC-6(standard). You recognise the "Warren Commission" is the unofficial name of the federal panel, yet the official name is never presented. You sneered at the observation that Kennedy did not visit Dallas on November 20;Kennedy flew from Washington D.C. to San Antonio on Nov.21, then on to Fort Worth and Dallas on the 22nd. You recognise the Dallas Police and FBI investigations that begin immediately yet claim that "the first official investigation" is the Warren Commission.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs)
The measurements and distances presented here are often arbitrary even fanciful: the article says the limo was "only 65 feet(20 m) away" from the Depository. What part of the limo? What part of the building? What is the source? Also, it says that Tague was "standing 270 feet(82 meters)in front of where Kennedy was shot." Which shot? Source?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs)
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
A silouette that appears to be a person with a rifle can be seen from frames 420 to 485 of the Zapruder film. The silouette moves similarly to the way the human body moves; at one point it appears to hunch its shoulders. The silouette is in a portion of the frame the does not move with the background. This suggests that it is a reflection. Possibly from light entering through the eye piece and onto the film. This happens on Aaton 16mm cameras if you leave the eye peice oncovered (i.e. take your eye away from it). I don't know weather anyone has looked into this before, but I think it should be concidered for entry into the wiki article on JFK.
Every frame of the film can be found here - http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe485.html. Ethoen 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Original Research is forbidden by Wikipedia. Find a reliable secondary source and we can discuss it further. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I presumed there would be something like that, which is why I didn't include it in the artical without a reliable source. I can't find anything that mensions the siloutte. Infact most clips of the Zapruder film do not include the last 65 frames that show the silouette. Ethoen
(Personal attack removed by Ramsquire 23:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)).
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Gamaliel 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that "criticize" means to find fault with or to judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate.
(Personal attack removed by Ramsquire 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC))
RPJ 05:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, editor Ramsquire is wrong again. Ramsquire wants to delete from the article information that the FBI not only got caught destroying evidence (a letter from Oswald to an FBI agent two days before Kennedy was murdered), but also that a Congressional Committee that was empowered to investigate the Kennedy murder, concluded that the FBI failed in its duty to investigate a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. Congressional Committee said about the FBI. Read it--its history.
RPJ 05:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to make a point, which is; if someone scrutinises something (meaning investigating it) they must then absolve someone of wrong-doing, or criticize them/sentence them, for doing something wrong. -- andreasegde 16:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
[2]<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[6]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I added the above information from the peer review information for those of you interested in improving the article. Ramsquire 16:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The video tape needs to be authenticated. about three or four months ago another unauthenticated tape was put on the site and the editors complained and it was taken off. This version is terrible.
Hasn't anyone checked it out?
RPJ 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the article and compared it to last spring and its gotten terrible. There is almost nothing about the assassination itself anymore. Almost all the description of what occurred, during the assassination and immediately afterward has been deleted. Why bother having an article on the assassination if it the actual events, that are very well documented, are deleted and replaced by a bunch of argument about Oswald. Isn't there an Oswald article?
63.164.145.198 18:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Recently we have had two editors adding the rifle misidentifcation issue to the article. I agree with the administrator on this issue: leave it out. Yes, it's true that NBC and WBAP radio identified it as a British Enfield .303, and the officers who found it initially identified it as a Mauser. However, if the editors feel that this information belongs on Wikipedia, there is already a better page for it, John F. Kennedy assassination:Rifle. Joegoodfriend 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
08:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
RPJ 08:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
<Deleted PA>
The alleged assassination weapon was the subject of many photographs. An hour or so after President Kennedy was shot and killed on November 22, 1963, the Dallas police found a rifle in the Texas School Book Depository. (69) The police photographed the rifle where it was found. During the search of the building, a 16-millimeter motion picture was taken by Thomas Alyea of television station WFAA. This motion picture film depicts the rifle at the time that it was discovered by the police. (70) A police officer carried the rifle from the building and, as he walked east on Elm Street and across Houston Street, reporter Allen, of the Dallas Times Herald, took a series of about seven pictures in rapid succession. (71) As the rifle was carried through the halls of the police station, it was held overhead for reporters to see. Numerous photographs were taken at that time.
These photos all show a Carcano. I would think that would be the end of the disussion. S B H arris 22:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
These questions need answering on this point:
The rifle was never properly verified under oath as being the weapon found, nor was a proper chain of custody ever kept on the weapon from the time it was found. That would seem pretty important since Oswald claimed he didn't own a rifle and was being framed.
But, you argue it doesn't matter, because the rifle in evidence is the one that was found. Why, because you argue that we can tell from the pictures taken of the rifle at the time it was found. Yet you point out that the rifle can easily be mistaken for an entirely different rifle, and that the police repeatedly did misdientify the type of rifle found. That's fine. Sometime weapons look similar.
But then how can the rifle be so definitely identified from that picture you cited us to look at? Is that what the Commission relied upon?
RPJ 09:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
outdent
I'm not sure a perfect chain of custody is even relevant here. The rifle found in the TSBD was identified by as WWII Carcano on the basis of footage of it in the act of being found in the TSBD, by photographic experts in the HSCA, not the Warren commission. This is a unique and odd weapon. A Carcano with serial number C2766 was sold by Klein's in Chicago to A. Hidell (Oswald's alias), and sent by them to Oswald's PO box in Dallas. Where it was picked up either by Oswald, his wife, or by A. Hidell, the only people authorized to get stuff from the post office under that number (no, I don't think the rifle fit in the PO Box hole-- somebody had to physically ask the postal employee for it, and show ID.) That rifle and no other is now in the national archives. How do YOU propose it got there? Carcano C2766 was mailed to Oswald's PO in Dallas. A WWII Carcano was filmed being found at Oswald's place of work 100 yards from where JFK was shot. That Carcano went to the police where it went back and forth from Dallas to DC a number of times, but at the end of all this, Carcano C2766, the one that went to Oswald's PO box, is now in the Archives. If THAT Carcano is not THE Carcano found at the TSBD, we have two old surplus Italian Carcanos. Is that what you're arguing? Don't be shy. S B H arris 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Issue: Oswald claimed he was being framed. But, according to the Warren Commission, key evidence against Oswald was a rifle called a Carcano. The Commission believed it was owned by Oswald and found where Oswald worked—right near the “sniper’s nest.”
Problem: The rifle found was first identified by the police as a Mauser—not a Carcano.
Warren Commission Reply: It was mere “rumor or speculation” that a Mauser was found. Instead, the Warren Commission claimed that the Carcano that was marked as an exhibit was Oswald’s Carcano and was found near the sniper's nest—not a Mauser.
Flaw: No evidence was submitted that it was a Carcano rifle found in the building. The men who found the rifle were put under oath; but the Carcano rifle was never handed to the witnesses nor were they questioned about it being the one they found. This is a stunning error by the Commission especially because:
The Wikipedia article, as written, wants to tell the reader that the rifle found in the building was a Carcano and not a Mauser. In fact, the article now states:
This[film] footage [of the rifle’s retrieval]shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, and it was later verified by photographic analysis commissioned by the HSCA that the rifle filmed was the exact same one identified as the assassination weapon. (emphasis added)
The HSCA report doesn't say this. Therefore, there isn't a citation for this statement in the article. RPJ 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the relative lengths of component parts of the alleged assassination rifle at the National Archives were compared to component parts of the rifle that appeared in various 1963 photographs, including the backyard photographs.(104) They were found to be entirely consistent, component part for component part, with each other.12 Upon completion of its analysis, the photographic evidence panel concluded that the rifle depicted in the backyard photographs is the one that was found in the book depository after the assassination and that was stored at the National Archives. (105)
Of equal significance, a detailed scientific photographic analysis was conducted by the panel to determine whether the rifle held by Oswald in the backyard photographs was, in fact, the rifle stored at the National Archives. The panel found a unique identifying mark present on the weapon in the Archives that correlated with a mark visible on the rifle in the Oswald backyard photographs, as well as on the alleged assassination rifle as it appeared in photographs taken after the assassination in 1963.(103) Because this mark was considered to be a unique random pattern (ie., caused by wear and tear through use), it was considered sufficient to warrant the making of a positive identification.
S B H arris 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
We have to face facts: the frame up defense looks good. If you don’t have a citation don't put the statement in the article. Isn’t that a common sense and simple rule? RPJ 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Without a word someone deleted from the article the statement by the Dallas Police Chief,Jesse Curry, about Oswald and the rifle. Chief Curry was there during the assassination and later said there was never any proof "that Oswald fired the rifle."
Someone, for no reason, deleted the statement from the article, despite the fact that it is undeniably a significant point of view on the subject. Unless there is a very good reason not to do so, I am going to put it back in:
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry later said "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand.". http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcurryJ.htm
RPJ 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It was shown to the television audience repeatedly as some enforcement official carried it high in the air, with his bare hands on the rifle. After hours of examination Wade said without hesitation that “the murder weapon was a German Mauser.”National Guardian [7]
RPJ 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This conclusion, first carried in the Fort Worth press, was later leaked to reporters by the FBI in off-the-record briefing sessions. The FBI at that time took the position that “we don’t have to worry about prints in this case.” The FBI indicated anger with [District Attorney] Wade for stating that a palm print was present when in fact it was not. [8] National Guardian
RPJ 06:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The "magic" bullet was used to plug up many holes in the Warren Commission theory. This is the bullet that is used by the Warren Commission to build a circumstantial case that Oswald was the at least one of the shooters.
However, the evidence was slim, and he said he was framed. Oswald denied shooting anyone and then was murdered. After that, anyone could say anything they wanted about Oswald, and blame him for everything.
However, tne one piece of evidence was the "magic" bullet that it tied to a rifle that Oswald purports to hold in a picture. Where the rifle appeared from and put into evidence is still a mystery, but where the bullet came from is a bigger mystery.
The Warren Commission claims that it came from Governor Connally. On the other hand, the FBI said that the bullet came from Kennedy's body.
Telephone conversation between Lyndon B. Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover (29th November, 1963)
J. Edgar Hoover: All three [bullets were shot] at the President and we have them. Two of the shots fired at the President were splintered but they had characteristics on them so that our ballistics expert was able to prove that they were fired by this gun... The President - he was hit by the first and third. The second shot hit the Governor. The third shot is a complete bullet and that rolled out of the President's head. It tore a large part of the President's head off and, in trying to massage his heart at the hospital, on the way to the hospital, they apparently loosened that and it fell off onto the stretcher. And we recovered that... And we have the gun here also.
RPJ 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
A bullet found on Connally's hospital stretcher, was ballisticly matched to the rifle in evidence but that bullet also fell into controversy since it was almost a whole bullet and it is known that the bullet that hit Connally fragmented and left pieces in Connally. [10] Moreover, a week after the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover told President Johnson that the "matching" bullet came out of Kennedy--not Connally-- when Kennedy was given heart massage. [11] The Warren Commission believed that the previous March, the rifle had been bought by Lee Harvey Oswald under the name "Alek James Hidell." [12] A partial palm print of Oswald was purportedly found on the barrel of the gun, but not until much later when someone said they forgot to tell everyone about a palm print was purportedly found much earlier. [13]
I think somebody is also guilty of confusing J. Edgar Hoover with God Almighty. But here are some helpful ways to tell the difference: J. Edgar Hoover, as a fallable human being, has the right to still be confused about some of the facts of the JFK assassination, especially early in the investigation of it. Also, God Almighty would have no need to wiretap Martin Luther King having sex with prostitutes, because God could no doubt hear that directly. S B H arris 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
From WP:POVFORK:
“ | Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.
Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. However, it is possible for editors to act in bad faith and make article spinouts as POV forks. For instance: Editor A tries three times to insert a statement of his POV in an article section called "Criticism of XYZ"; each time the change is reverted by other editors. So he announces that he is spinning off a new article called Criticism of XYZ, and for the initial text of this article, he uses the "Criticism of XYZ" section of the main XYZ article -- with the disputed statement that he could not get accepted by consensus. This is a POV fork; Editor A is trying to get around the fact that his changes have not met consensus by inserting them in a different location. |
” |
Since this is not one of the bad faith examples given, it is entirely appropriate to keep the rifle section here brief and concise while having the discussion regarding misidentifications, and speculation about the bullet take place in the rifle article. Otherwise, what is the point of having the rifle article in the first place.
Ramsquire 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
RPJ 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".
A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.
Someone keeps deleting information by paragraph claiming simply "point of view" pushing.
Could he explain what that means and give and example. After he gives an example explain why he doesn't edit rather than revert wholesale?
RPJ 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
One editor is under the mistaken impression that when one mentions what the Warren Commission said happened should be written as fact and complains that someone would qualify the article by stating:
"The Warren Commission believed." This is the proper form of what should written especially with when the subject is controversial.
RPJ 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In the Kennedy article, it said a Carcano rifle was found near the scene of the murder. The particular make of the rifle is important to the guilt or innocence of Lee Oswald.
Oswald claimed, prior to being murdered, that a man had a Mauser rifle in the building two days before the president was assassinated.
At the time the rifle was discovered, the police were all heard to say or believed that the rifle found near the scene of the murder was a Mauser.
Therefore, I inserted at the beginning of the sentence that it was the Warren Commission who reached the conclusion that the rifle found was a Carcano—rather than a Mauser. Here is the sentence with my changes in bold type:
The Warren Commission came to the conclusion that a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano]M91/38 bolt-action rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone soon after the assassination of President Kennedy.
The language I inserted about Warren Commission concluding the rifle was a Carcano was, surprisingly, deleted. One of the editors defends the deletion, and argues:
[T]o say "the WC believed" at the beginning of a sentence, then give a misleading summary of the finding in the middle [of the sentence], and then add unsourced contrary information at the end of the sentence is unencyclopedic and violates WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS.
May I respectfully respond to the critique of my sentence?
[personal attack removed] hasn't taken out what he considers is the "misleading summary in the middle" of the sentence nor corrected any of the other alleged "violations" of web site policy.
The only thing deleted was my proper insertion that identified who concluded the Carcano rifle was found.
RPJ 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
RPJ 03:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
“ | Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. | ” |
RPJ 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Day: "I respect the FBI. I know I told him [FBI Agent Vince Drain about the print]. Now, I don't know if he heard me or paid any attention to me or what. I know what happened. People who claim there was a planted print don't know anything about fingerprinting. You can't even place a print on something from a card, and that's all we had on the first night, when I lifted that print. After lifting the palm print, I could still see traces on the stock with my reflective light. I can't guarantee it was still there when it got to the FBI office. They either overlooked it or it wasn't good enough to see by the time that gun arrived there. We found that print doing solid police work, and nothing anybody says can change that fact." Gamaliel 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously there will be many readers coming to this article on or around November 22 and this group of related article are not in good shape.
I tried to lay out the three points of view. The Oswald did it and no Conspiracy view. The Oswald did it, and in a conspiracy, and Oswald didn't do it and a conspiracy.
That is why the police chief statement was put at top so that all significant view points are included. Thati how an article is kept neutral.
RPJ 02:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to go through all the websites I've gone through trying to find a source for the discussion held above. However, there do seem to be a recurring theme in all of them. Publicly Hoover supported the findings of the WC. However, it is unclear if this support was just for the findings of a lone assassina or support for all of the other conclusions, including where CE-399 came from. Privately, Hoover had some doubts about the WC, but was never specific either. With that scenario, I stand by my earlier points. If consensus is against me, so be it. Ramsquire 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that somebody recognizes that Hoover is to some extent blowing smoke for LBJ as the investigation progresses. He's not about to say he has no idea what's going on, and obviously some of the early conclusions are going to be wrong. One of them is where CE399 came from. Unless you completely and utterly discount Tomlinson's testimony before the Warren Commission, it come from one of two stretchers. One had held a boy unconnected with the JFK murder (I don't think anybody thinks Oswald shot this kid), and the other of which had been used to carry Connally to the O.R. table (where he was most certainly missing any bullets). Nor could CE399 credibly have come from JFK's back, since JFK's stretcher stayed with him until he died, at which point its linens were removed and it was put into trauma room #2. CE399 was found on a stretcher on the ground floor where it has gone after being used to put Connally on the OR table on the second hospital floor and (as the WC notes) was nowhere near trauma room #2. The Warren Commission puts it this way:
Although Tomlinson was not certain whether the bullet came from the Connally stretcher or the adjacent one, the Commission has concluded that the bullet came from the Governor's stretcher. That conclusion is buttressed by evidence which eliminated President Kennedy's stretcher as a source of the bullet. President Kennedy remained on the stretcher on which he was carried into the hospital while the doctors tried to save his life.123 He was never removed from the stretcher from the time he was taken into the emergency room until his body was placed in a casket in that same room.124 After the President's body was removed from that stretcher, the linen was taken off and placed in a hamper and the stretcher was pushed into trauma room No. 2, a completely different location from the site where the nearly whole bullet was found.125 [14]
Now, once we get around to the fact that a bullet certainly went through JFK's neck from back to front (as the fibers in and out, and the X-ray fragments and air bubbles, and the bruising along the wound track show one did), then we're left with the question of where that bullet went to. It didn't hit anywhere inside the limo, but should have, from the angle. We only have a few scratches to show for the stop of this high-velocity projectile (and the bruise shock at the lung tip shows that it must have been a high velocity bullet). That leaves the occupants of the limo. Now, who's available? Well, John Connally is right in front of JFK and in just the right position to absorb that bullet. When a bullet from Oswald's Carcano rifle is found on one of two stretchers in Parkland, one of which held Connally, and certainly neither of which ever held JFK, then the conclusion is obvious. The FBI missed it. The Warren Commission, with more time to think things out, got it right. Hoover certainly didn't publicize the FBI's flub on this small point. The FBI needs no defending: they did solid work in the case, most noticably in tracing the Carcano to Oswald by the next morning (they had men going through sales slips at Klein's in Chicago in the middle of the night, by hand, until they found one for a Carcano shipped to Dallas).
[And no, BTW, they surely weren't looking for a Mauser. The only guy who ever saw a Mauser in the TSBD was a man who didn't examine the weapon closely, and can be forgiven for his mistake, as the actions are very similar.] S B H arris 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My position is “Yes” a formal dispute panel is necessary.
Nature of disagreement:
A bullet was found that had ballistic characteristics that matched the rifle the Warren Commission believed was found near the scene of the crime. The bullet in question wasn’t fragmented like the other pieces of bullets found but was almost an entire bullet and only slightly deformed. It later became known as the "magic" bullet.
The question arose: Where did the bullet come from? Is this important to the case? Yes. In the public’s mind, there are a couple of pieces of evidence that convict Oswald of participating in the crime and this bullet is a key piece of the evidence.
Of course, everyone knew Darrell C. Tomlinson claimed he found the bullet on a stretcher in the hospital after the assassination. But what wasn’t known was how the bullet got on the stretcher. There are at least three theories on how the bullet got there. These are listed in no particular order of plausibility:
Who is right? That is the controversy. Under the Wikipedia neutrality policy, the editors of Wikipedia do not pick which viewpoint is “true” but include all significant viewpoints in the article on the issue and allow the reader to choose.
Nevertheless, editor Ramsquire wants to include only the viewpoint that the bullet came out of Connally. He specifically wants to delete the mention of the FBI’s viewpoint on this key evidentiary issue.
Here are some of Ramsquire’s reasons for excluding the information given by J. Edgar Hoover to President Johnson that the bullet came from Kennedy and not Johnson:
However, the readers can decide these issues. Wikipedia does not allow deletions of information because an editor believes he knows which information is "right" and therefore "knows" other viewpoints are wrong. Wikipedia clearly prohibits:
"Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds)." [15]
The Kennedy assassination article needs to include all viewpoints. This is not a chat site devoted to one viewpoint or another. It is an encyclopedia. RPJ 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
We are forced to pick natural stopping places for Wiki summaries, therefore. Summaries of summaries of conclusions of existing completed official major investigations would seem obvious places to do this. I wouldn't be adverse to including a short (very short) synopsis of the FBI's final Jan 13, 1964 report to the Warren Commission, since that represents a natural stopping point, and a point at which obviously a certain lot of information had been collected, collated, passed by all involved, and a summary made so that you don't get the kinds of mistakes and bad viewpoints that always come from looking at invididual threads of investigations, while they are still ongoing and nobody yet has seen everybody else's results (a great example of this is the infamous FBI version of the autopsy, writen by a couple of FBI agents who saw the autopsy, but weren't medical people and didn't fully understand what they were seeing. And were also factually describing confusion of doctors who themselves were not at that moment in full possession of all facts and didn't therefore understand what THEY were seeing EITHER, even though they understood more than the FBI people). But Hoover's daily smoke-blow for LBJ isn't this, or anything close to even this.
And why a shorter summary in Wikipedia for the FBI report? Because the FBI's 7-week sub-investigation was a much shorter investigation than the "Warren" (President's Commission) 8-month one, and was in many ways subservient and incorporated into it (though not entirely-- there are disagrements which are preserved in history, such as the two autopsy "reports"). Wikipedia must also maintain space to summarize the other later two major investigations of JFK assassination by the government (the only people with access to the critical evidence)
If you follow the news reports in the days following the JFK assassination, a lot of "important" people had a lot of "significant" opinions. Most notably, several Dallas law enforcement people had so many daily opinons on the guilt of Oswald and reasons for it (all of them quite damning, incidentally), that at one point the feds had to call up a bunch of them and tell them to shut up, because they were prejudicing whatever case might eventually be made. The 26 volume Warren Report actually details some of this. But it's way, WAY too much detail for Wikipedia. It isn't a matter of whether or not Wikipedia SHOULD include this level of detail. We already know it cannot, and maintain its character. If you want to read the Warren Report, go to the National Archive website and do so. That's not what Wikipedia is here to do. S B H arris 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
After reading the comments above, it appears Mediation should be attempted with a full effort to make it successful. I will initiate the process unless someone has a better suggestion.
RPJ 19:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
(Will be posted on related articles talk pages as well) I imagine with the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination approaching, there will be some newer scientific polling data available. If anyone comes across said polls, can they update the sections which rely on the 2003 poll? Thanks. I'll have my eyes peeled as well. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the whole point of electing a vice president, don't you know. The question has come up many times about whether or not he needs to take the oath of office before he becomes president, and most scholars say no. The constitution only says that the new president "shall take" the oath, it certainly doesn't say that he's not president until he does (the vice president, BTW, takes the civil service oath, which includes all the same language and more). The 25th ammendement says “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.” It doesn't say "shall become just as soon as he take the oath of office." It says "shall become." End. You can read the arguments in United States presidential line of succession. Johnson was obligated to take the presidential oath, indeed, but not obligated to do it post haste. But the point is made well enough by the case of Zachary Taylor who refused to take the oath of office on a Sunday, when the previous president's term had expired. That would have made David Rice Atchison a US president for 24 hours. See the Atchison article. But this is silly, and nobody recognizes it. Therefore, your argument is incorrect. S B H arris 04:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
How on earth can there be an article on the Kennedy assassination without mention of Morales? The guy confessed to several highly reliable witnesses that he took part in JFK's murder AND Bobby Kennedy's. He died of a 'heart attack' two weeks before he was due to be dragged before the HSAC hearings. Iamlondon 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Almost everything about this article is wrong or off. For example, you use quote marks in identifying the name used to purchase the M-C rifle, "Alek James Hidell." Yet your explicit source(#9), shows the name as "A. Hidell";and the purchase order shows the same. You don't meet the basic standards of referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs) .
Oswald went by "Alik" during his USSR years. Another example, you're article says that cospiracy theories have been the topic for many films including Mark Lane's 1966 "Rush to Judgement." This is a book, not a film. A film by the name "Plot to Kill:Rush to Judgement" is listed by Amazon as being released in 1994. But I'm sure you think that is close enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs)
Another example, you say that "Kennedy had chosen to visit Dallas on November 20..." Kennedy arrived in Dallas that day, November 22. The choice of Dallas was made many months earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs)
The "southerly direction" photo(#7) is about half way from peristyle to pergola. A line through the "X" on the street would intersect the TSBD at about its western side. This is surely not the "head" shot that you claim it is, but maybe the "magic bullet" shot. Do you think a scholarly organisation made this mark?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs)
The article says the event took place"at 12:30 pm, CST(18:30 UTC)." Wikipedia's link at"CST" shows that UTC for CST should include the designation UTC-5(savings) or UTC-6(standard). You recognise the "Warren Commission" is the unofficial name of the federal panel, yet the official name is never presented. You sneered at the observation that Kennedy did not visit Dallas on November 20;Kennedy flew from Washington D.C. to San Antonio on Nov.21, then on to Fort Worth and Dallas on the 22nd. You recognise the Dallas Police and FBI investigations that begin immediately yet claim that "the first official investigation" is the Warren Commission.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs)
The measurements and distances presented here are often arbitrary even fanciful: the article says the limo was "only 65 feet(20 m) away" from the Depository. What part of the limo? What part of the building? What is the source? Also, it says that Tague was "standing 270 feet(82 meters)in front of where Kennedy was shot." Which shot? Source?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk • contribs)