Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I see no discussion of the DB Thomas study from Jun of 2000.

In this study, to be found at, [1] [2] The basis for scientifically proving through acoustic analysis that bullets were fired from 2 separate locations is proven, or rather rated probablistically at about 96%.

The method of investigation was to analyze the echo profile of each shot recorded that day from the police microphones. Echo delays on some shots proved to be coming from the Book Depository shown by the echo delays from the nearby surface of large buildings. One shot was different, and correlated with a 96% chance that it orginated at the so-called grassy knoll.

This is evidence that one would hardly imagine that a conspirator would be thinking about in the 1960's, yet today is relatively easy and exact. There has been so much drama and misinformation, as well as so much valid information, and emotion around this issue that most people have tuned it out long ago, yet I heard this man speak on CSPAN and the evidence change my mind after almost 40 years.

I am new to Wikipedia and am finding it so wonderful and up to date in some things, yet I see no mention of this. How would I find this or add something about if it is not listed?

Thank you, Bruce

See Dictabelt evidence relating to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Gamaliel 02:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The House Select Committee on Assassinations Problem

Wasn't the committee's finding that there were two gunmen later debunked by someone who got a copy of the recording and discovered it was a radio problem? I remember a Nova (I think) episode about it. RPGLand2000 21:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Charles Bronson (amateur photog)

I removed the following mess from the ToP Dab of Charles Bronson at the time of creating Charles Bronson (disambiguation):

• [http://www.fermentmagazine.org/jfk2.html][http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/MS/2-vr.html][http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part10.htm]'' <!-- it IS a different CB - dead by 1998 - despite http://www.charles-bronson.com/charles_bronson_06-30-2004.html-->
• [3][4][5]

IMO it should be preserved, and this talk page is a place where that can happen. Further deponent saith not.
--Jerzy•t 16:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Security Precautions

Chapter 8 footnote 168 and 168 WCR

RPJ 11:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Eastland etc.

The following rant moved from the head of the article to its chronological position. --Jerzy•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 20:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I see no discussion of Senator James O. Eastland and his potential involvement with assassins of JFK:

Seven years before JFK was assassinated, the magnolia state's Sen. James O. Eastland met for the first time with Guy Banister, a controversial CIA operative and retired FBI agent in charge of the Chicago bureau.

Banister -- remember him as the man who "pistol-whipped" David Ferrie in Oliver Stone's film "JFK" -- was later linked to Lee Harvey Oswald and Mississippi's senator through Eastland's Senate Internal Security Subcommittee or SISS (sometimes called "SISSY").

The New Orleans Times-Picayune on March 23, 1956, reported that Robert Morrison, a former chief counsel for Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and Banister traveled to Greenwood, Mississippi, to confer personally with Senator Eastland for more than three hours. Describing the conference as "completely satisfactory," Morrison told the reporter that "Mr. Banister has complete liaison with the committee's staff which was the main object of our trip."

Known as a notorious political extremist who was later described as the impetus for James Garrison’s 1967-1970 Kennedy assassination probe, Banister earlier became a brief focus of Mississippi's secret spy agency, the Sovereignty Commission, when it was suggested Banister should be hired to set up an "even tighter" domestic spying system throughout the state.

A second Eastland operative, private investigator John D. Sullivan of Vicksburg, made this suggestion to the commission just months after the JFK assasination, according to released Sovereignty Commission records.

Former FBI agent Sullivan had worked under Banister (both inside the FBI and privately) and as a private self-employed investigator who often did work for hire for the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission; the private white Citizens Councils, of which he was an active member; and for SISS, as had Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald.

When Sullivan reportedly committed suicide following the assassination, Sovereignty Commission investigators tried to acquire his library and files, but most of his confidential files were either reportedly burned by his widow or they had been lent out, and she "could not remember" who had them, Sovereignty Commission files disclose.

Then some twenty-nine years later, in testimony before the Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board during a Dallas hearing on November 18, 1994, the late Senator Eastland was directly implicated in the president’s assassination by one of the author/theorists invited to testify.

“Lee Harvey Oswald was quite possibly an agent of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and he was doing the bidding of [Sen. Thomas J.] Dodd and Eastland and Morrison,” author John McLaughlin swore.

Documentation that could support or even discredit such assertions could perhaps be present in the Eastland archives at the University of Mississippi, but no objective scholar has been allowed to search these archives since the day they arrived on campus. Instead, Eastland's records were managed for years by a former associate and devoté who followed the papers from Washington, D.C. to Oxford.

Finally in 2005, after an unsuccessful Freedom of Information Act or FOIA request by this author, a historian was hired to organize the archives based in the James O. Eastland School of Law at Ole Miss. But there would still be a waiting period before any of the files could be viewed, according to the school's dean.

The plan was to release first all press releases, according to the historian who also confirmed that"many important files" were probably missing -- that the files looked “cleaned out.”

(The Dean of the law school, when presented a FOIA for access to Eastland archives, asked while laughing if he could “just show the rejection letter written to the last person who asked for this information." Later it came back to this author that “people at Ole Miss were really angry” over the FOIA request.)

---

Notes

[1] “Banister, FBI Chief Since February, to Leave Post Nov. 30,” Chicago Daily Tribune, Nov 19, 1954, Part 2, Page 12. [2] Citation for this newspaper article (“NOTP, March 23, 1956, p. 1”) comes from the online Jerry P. Shinley Archive “Re: Jim Garrison and the SCEF Raids.” [3] William Davy, “Let Justice Be Done,” (Jordan Publication, May 12, 1999), 1. On the weekend of the assassination, Banister pistol-whipped his employee Jack Martin, after Martin accused him of killing Kennedy. Martin eventually spoke to authorities. [4] Sovereignty Commission documents SCR ID # 7-0-8-89-1-1-1 and SCR ID # 2-56-1-20-1-1-1. [5] Sovereignty Commission documents SCR ID # 99-36-0-2-1-1-1 SCR ID # 1-16-1-21-1-1-1, SCR ID # 1-26-0-5-2-1-1, SCR ID # 2-2-0-19-1-1-1, SCR ID # 1-24-0-11-1-1-1 [6] After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, A. J. Weberman, a “Dylanologist,” “garbologist” and Kennedy conspiracist wrote that he received this communication from Sullivan's grandson, Jeremy Sullivan: "I was told that he commited suicide but my dad didn't think so. He told me there was an investigation and the FBI was involved. They deemed it suicide. The story I heard had changed depending on who told it, I believe that they had been out fishing all day and John Daniel had been drinking. After they got home, he was alone in his room and there was a gunshot and he was found dead." Also, Weberman stated that Jim Garrison had an undisclosed case against Sullivan in 1961. Per a “Memo for the Director” by Betsy Palmer on April 19, 1978, regarding the “HSCA.” From A.J. ajweberman and Michael Canfield, “Coup D'Etat in America, The CIA and the Assassination of John Kennedy,” (New York City, The Third Press, 1975) Nodule II. [7] Online minutes of testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board, November 18, 1994. Dallas, Texas. Testimony of John McLaughlin aka John Bevilaqua, Harvard University graduate and systems analyst, also a Kennedy assassination theorist. McLaughlin was testifying why he needed to see documents from HUAC and SISS. He had also requested military records of Wycliff P. Draper, head of the Draper Committees and Pioneer Fund. Mississippi had been the benefactor of Draper money in its fight against the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and in funding of private white academies per Sovereignty Commission reports. [8] Eastland’s name has also been associated with the murder of civil rights leaders Medgar Evers, Dr. Martin Luther King, U. S. Senator Robert Kennedy and with the mass murder at a U. S. Army base located in Mississippi of potentially 1,000 black soldiers during World War II. [9] The former Eastland aid has since retired.

Susan Klopfer Sklopfer 21:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoemaker tests

Some information has been placed in the article about tests by Dr. Eugene Shoemaker. Is this the rather famous Dr. Shoemaker who was prominent in the space program? I have not seen anything written that he was involved in ballistic experiments.

Is there a study by him or someone else that supports the contention when one shoots at an object with a rifle the bullet hitting the object will bring it closer to the shooter? I once saw someone demonstrate that shooting a rifle at a round object near the bottom will give it backward spin causing it to roll slightly back towards the shooter. This is similar to playing pool and hitting the cue ball near the bottom with the cue stick that gives it back spin and it will roll somewhat back toward the the player after striking another ball.

But lets face it, the president's head wasn't a loose ball on a flat surface that rolled backward because of spin. It was attached to his body and when he got struck by the bullet the president went backward and to the left as if struck by a bullet from the front. That is why I am interested in the study that has been placed in the article. RPJ 05:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Shot Sequencing

There is a new entry that should have some form of support. This entry states the following:

"The effect of echos from rifle shots within Dealey Plaza, and the sound produced by the bullet impacts themselves have not been as thoroughly investigated as other aspects of the shooting. Such sounds can often cause inexperienced listeners to misinterpret all the sounds they hear as rifle shots."

The first sentence comparing (1)the thoroughness of the investigation done between the sound of the rifle blast with the sound of the impact of the bullet with (2)the thoroughness of the investigation on other "other aspects of the shooting" does not appear in any published material that I have seen.

One problem with such a comparison is this: How does one compare thoroughness of investigations into different suject matters? By the number of hours spent investigating the alleged phenomena, or the quality of the investigation or both? Moreover, what if one "aspect of the shooting" is both easy to investigate and easy to come to a scientific conclusion, and "another aspect of the shooting" is difficult to investigate and takes long hours. Can one say that the one investigation that is easy, quick and certain to investigate, is not to be as trusted as much as the investigation that is difficult, lengthy but also certain?

Therefore, the sentence really doesn't add anything to the article. This is true even if the "other aspects" to which the author refers are identified, and the amount of investigation quantified in some manner.

The author needs more support and back up for the sentence. Moreover, besides the change in the typo (its "Dealey Plaza" not "Daly Plaza") the sentence needs editing. I changed the typo so it doesn't detract too much from the article.

The second sentence also needs support. On what basis does the author conclude that "Such sounds" (apparently sounds of bullets impacting) often cause inexperienced listeners" to "misinterpret all the sounds they hear as rifle shots." This doesn't make any logical sense on its face: An "inexperienced listener" hears a bullet impact, and starts "misinterpreting all the sounds they hear?" How long does this hearing condition last?

The author is apparently trying conclude that a person who does not hear rifle shots very often (the "inexperienced listener") will "often" mistake the impact of a bullet for the muzzle blast.

The second sentence can be edited to clarify this point but there should be some empirical evidence offered to support such a contention, because it is not self evident, and if this contention is correct it is an important point since the Warren Commission and others reviewed these eyewitness accounts to help determine where the shooter or shooters were located.

The author's contention is possibly quite valuable, the author should put in some supporting reasons for the two sentences. Otherwise it shouldn’t be in a reference work because reflects badly on the body of the work as a whole.

(RPJ 05:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Were Security Precautions Reduced by U.S. but Increased by DPD?

There is a possible contradiction in this article. The main article states:

"Dallas police had prepared the most stringent security precautions in the city's history."

Then, in Kennedy Assassination Theories, the article states:

"The two official government investigations have confirmed that the security around Kennedy's motorcade had been considerably reduced from its customary levels."

Is there any evidence that either, or both are true? This reference work should not have two apparently contradictory statements. They could both be correct if the level of security was raised by the Dallas Police (but to an inadequate level) but security reduced by the U.S. agencies who were assigned to protect the president.

In any event it looks bad; and they both should be supported by evidence. RPJ 19:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Did Dr. Shoemaker experiment on human skulls?

In this article, there is a link to Dr. Shoemaker (a well known scientist)that may or may not be a joke. On November 15, 2005, someone inserted some information about Dr, Shoemaker in the article about him conducting ballistics tests in the mid 1960's on human skulls filled with simulated brain tissue by shooting rifle bullets at the skulls. The purpose of this macabre test was apparently to determine whether a skull "recoils" towards the person shooting when hit by the bullet. Then the link was put in place to Dr. Shoemaker's biography:

The passage reads as follows:

Dr. Shoemaker did not restrict his interests to colliding astronomical objects, and he believed in experimentation to prove his beliefs. During a special CBS News investigative report in the mid-1960s about the assassination of President Kennedy hosted by Walter Cronkite, Eugene demonstrated what he had discovered during tests with his own rifle and human skulls. A bullet fired into the back of the skull with simulated brain material inside would cause it to recoil rearward, towards the shooter. This supported the Warren Commission’s findings, and refuted the ideas of conspiracy theorists, who believed that such recoil can only occur due to a shot from the front.

While the author, of the biographical insert writes in a style of great familiarity with Dr. Shoemaker ("Eugene demonstrated ...."), the information was posted anonymously. Also,it was posted at the same time someone posted Dr. Shoemaker's name as the expert who proved the "skull-recoil" theory on Wikipedia's Kennedy Assassination site. Then the Kennedy site was linked to the site so the reader could see that the information is purportedly true.

This counter-intuitive result (skulls recoiling towards the shooter) may be true, or not, and Dr. Shoemaker may or not have conducted such experiments. However, the Kennedy site has many true believers who are committed to certain theories. In this situation, it may be a highly committed person supporting the "lone gunman" theory (where Lee Harvey Oswald is the alleged lone gunman) and wants to rationalize why President Kennedy went quickly backwards (towards Oswald) after being fatally wounded to the head. The "answer" is that Dr. Shoemaker experimented and proved a human skull recoils towards the shooter when the bullet hits the skull.

Pending external reference, I have deleted the paragraph from this page. We can restore if someone supports the result. -- hike395 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, I have deleted the reference to Dr. Shoemaker's experiments on human skulls until an external reference is cited. RPJ 20:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone has posted a comment below about skull experiments (or in this case melon experiments). Instead of a human skull "recoiling" towards one who shoots it with a rifle, a melon is used--but not by Dr. Shoemaker.

The comment posted here by "Jim Wae" says the following:

• Discussions and videos showing jet-effect and other examples & explanations of shot objects (including a skull) moving backwards after being shot can be seen in links from: (not shoemaker tho')
  • http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#jeteffect
  • http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ2.htm
  • --JimWae 05:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

NOTE WELL:

A new branch of physics has been now discovered called the "jet effect"

At the web site link that "JimWae" provided, it states in the text that the theory of the "jet effect" will be provided, but the theory of the "jet effect" wasn't provided.

The web site did provide a film clip of a man shooting a melon near the bottom and giving the melon back-spin much as a pool ball can be given backward spin when struck with the cue stick at the bottom and it strikes another ball and it rolls back. If one strikes the cue ball fast enough and low enough it won't even need to hit another ball before rolling back.

If that is his theory why does he call it a "jet effect" rather than a "back-spin" effect? Two possible reasons come to mind:

1-- The first reason for not disclosing that the backward movement is caused back spin is probably because the web site also claims that Kennedy was shot at the top of the head not the bottom the head. Being hit at the top head will givea ball, melon or president's head top-spin where the ball/melon/head will move away from where Oswald was supposedly shooting. Since web site wants to argue a top-of-the-head hit (which would cause top spin and move away from where oswald was allegedly shooting) the web site can't disclose the cause of the melon going backward is the back spin given the melon by shooting at the bottom--not the top; Since the web site can't disclose the theory of why the melon rolls backwards, the web site appears to invent out of thin air the mysterious "jet effect."

But one might ask what would happen if the president had been shot from behind at the bottom of the skull, wouldn't that then explain why the Zapruder film shows the president going backwards quite forcefully? Probably not.

2-- The president's head was neither a loose ball nor loose melon but instead was firmly attached to the rest of the body by way of the neck. Any back spin shot at the bottom may start to rotate the head in a back spin motion, but the neck holds it.

The physicist shooting up loose melons may want to check the force of the back spin created if a human head is struck near the bottom with a bullet and whether the force of the back spin would be enough to propel the person's entire body violently backward as shown in the Zapruder film. It probably wouldn’t provide enough force to throw the president towards the shooter. More importantly for the web site, it interferes with the web site’s theory of a top-of-the-head hit.

Who came up with the name “jet effect?” RPJ 08:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps if you canned the sarcasm & did some reading on those pages you'd see jet effect is not "back-spin". For every force, there's and equal and opposite force - as air comes out of a jet it pushes the "jet-module" in the opposite direction - same thing with brain matter exploding out of the front of the skull. There are also at least 2 other explanations for the backward movement given on those pages. Examination of Zapruder film shows no spray from any other direction and there was no exit wound on JFK's left side. You have had your way with these articles for too long & now they need to be repaired for NPOV again. --JimWae 07:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• any Back-spin is very much reduced when an object has no hard surface or the object's surface is pierced --JimWae 07:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• and there is a link to a video of a skull being shot on that page
• And I do not need my entries introduced by any supposed MC --JimWae 07:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

NOTE WELL:

It is not sarcasm. Sarcasm usually gets one nowhere. My question is dead serious. Considerable time was spent reading those web sites, and they do not provide any theory or example of a "jet effect" as your comment said they would and as the web site indicated they would.

The web site says this:

"This "jet effect" phenomenon was first suggested, and experimentally demonstrated by physicist Luis Alvarez."

I couldn't find where the theory enunciated and how was it experimentally demonstrated. I Clicked the "Jet Spray" link and got melon shots as I described. Not by shooting those melons. One might get some back spin, and, when the bullet hits enters and enters a closed container (the skull)it may also cause a backspray of blood as often shown in the movies where some one shoots another and is sprayed with some blood.

Now everyone knows both of these concepts (back spin by shooting low on a round object and back spray by shooting into a closed container) but as far as I know there is no "jet effect" that would cause the president to have violently gone backward towards the supposed shooter.

In the web site you provide there was a Alfred G. Olivier, a veterinarian, interviewed by someone from the Rockefeller Commission. He routinely shot goats. He used the phrase “jet effect” in the sense of back spray caused by shooting a closed container, Again, that is the blood sprayed on a shooter standing close to the victim because the body is a closed container filled with liquid. Shoot it and the pressure created by the bullet going in may cause enough pressure, inside the otherwise closed container (until the bullet passes through the closed container) for some blood to spray back out of the entrance wound.

We all know this common sense fact. Will the jet spray act like a jet engine and move the body around. Absolutely not.

Veternarian Oliver is familiar with this failure of the "jet effect" to move bodies because he is asked that very key question.

Q. Have you ever seen any jet effect? A. Jet effect, moving the body? Q. Yes. A. No

RPJ 08:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Assassination Itself: Can there be a clarification?

The section about the actual assassination is probably the most visited part of the article. Even it weren't, a point that could use clarification is in the following passage:

During the attack Agent Greer had turned very quickly to look behind him and towards the screaming governor and/or President, then turned forward again.

Does the author mean to say that either the governor and/or the president were screaming? Or does the author mean only the governor was screaming and Agent Greer looked towards the governor who was screaming and/or the president?

Irrespective of what the author of that passage meant to say does anyone else have source of information regarding this? Thank you. RPJ 04:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Edited the filming of the assassination

Besides some minor word editing, this part was changed by moving the mention of the record album recording that was simply a recreation of the assassination to the end of the article so as not to break the flow of information of what actually was caught live by film, photograph and recording. RPJ 05:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"Jet Effects" recoiling melons , recoiling skulls, spasms, compressions and other theories

Alfred G. Olivier, DVM to Rockefeller Commission, April 18, 1975. Transcript of testimony taken beginning at page 21. See [6]

This particular area of the Kennedy assaassination is so laced with with theory and grounded on so little fact, that it probably should be removed or at least the reader warned that while the president's body did move backward the reason ofr it remains unclear. RPJ 19:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing the assassination section for the inherent drama that occurred

This entire article is quite good but focuses too much, in each section, on the fierce debate over who shot president rather than the fact that he was shot in a very public and gruesome manner.The findings of the investigatory panels has been moverd to the investigation section, because the introductory paragraph has already alerted the reader to the ongoing controversy over who and exactly how the president was murdered. The continuity of the events should continue until after the president's funeral and world reaction. Then the murder investigation and hot debate over it should be presented.

Who switched the pictures of the president's brain; and where is the president's brain?

The Assassination Records Review Board obtained a great deal of new evidence and is still making many parts of it public. Much of what the Board subpoened is still to be disclosed.

One of the key pieces of evidence for solving this 42 year old murder is the direction of the bullet that killed the president.

There is no doubt that a bullet caused severe damage to his brain. Mrs. Kennedy cried to her bodyguard "My God, they have shot his head off." His massive brain damage was examined minutes later by the treating physicians at Parkland who found the president with over a third of his brains missing from inside his skull. He was near death; in technical terms: "moribund."

Then he died. The massive damage to the brain not only ended the president's life but also discloses the direction of the bullet that killed the president.

But, now the president's brain is missing.

The Article needs to be more informative. The Article now states:

The President’s brain apparently was put in his coffin before burial, and a different human brain may appear in the photographs contained in government files recently subpoenaed by the official Assassination Records Review Board. [4] This panel was recently formed under federal law to gather and preserve the documents relating to the assassination. (emphasis added)

The article can supply more facts. These facts from the Washington Post story in the link are very helpful:

The central contention of the report is that brain photographs in the Kennedy records are not of Kennedy's brain and show much less damage than Kennedy sustained when he was shot in Dallas and brought to Parkland Hospital there on Nov. 22, 1963. The doctors at Parkland told reporters then that they thought Kennedy was shot from the front and not from behind as the Warren Commission later concluded.

"I am 90 to 95 percent certain that the photographs in the Archives are not of President Kennedy's brain," Horne, a former naval officer, said in an interview. “Horne contends that the damage to the second brain reflected a shot from behind. He says the first brain was Kennedy's and reflected a shot from the front.

The report points to, for instance, the testimonies of former FBI agent Francis X. O'Neill Jr., who was present at the Nov. 22, 1963, autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and of former Navy photographer John T. Stringer, who said he took photos at a supplementary brain examination two or three days later, probably on the morning of Nov. 25. O'Neill told the board in a 1997 deposition that at the Nov. 22 autopsy "there was not too much of the brain left" when it was taken out of Kennedy's skull and "put in a white jar." He said "more than half of the brain was missing."

RPJ 11:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hill's actions

Hill's bravery has not received the full public recognition that it deserves. Because the Warren Commission operated in secrecy much of the events have only come to light since the Assassination Records Review Board in the early 1990's was empowered to subpoena and declassify documents relating to the assassination.

The highly intense debate over who was responsible for the shooting has for a long time eclipsed the act of murder itself. RPJ 10:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Witnesses pressured to Change Testimony

Recently, two researchers collected the statements by Kenneth O'Donnel and Dave Powers regarding the pressure put on them to change their testimony "for the good of the country" because what they saw allegedly "could lead to an international incident." Ultimate Sacrifice, Lamar Waldron with Thomas Hatmann, Carroll & Graf (2005) Pages 15, 901-902. The authors interviewed Powers on June 1, 1991 at the JFK Presidential Library. Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill also mentions the same account from Pwers and O'Donnel in his autobiography as mentioned and cited by Waldron.

I don't think we should be singling out the vague testimony of 2 out of 216 witnesses, especially when we aren't mentioning more important witnesses like Howard Brennan, who actually saw Oswald at the window with the rifle. If anyone is curious, here's the excerpt from O'Neill's book. Gamaliel 18:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I was never one of those people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission’s report on the President’s death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O’Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy’s Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination. I was surprised to hear O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence. "That’s not what you told the Warren Commission," I said. "You’re right," he replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family." "I can’t believe it," I said. "I wouldn’t have done that in a million years. I would have told the truth." "Tip, you have to understand. The family—everybody wanted this thing behind them."

Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s.

Debate over Warren Commission Pressure on Witnesses to Change their Testimony

"Gamaliel" has removed information about two eyewitnesses to the Kennedy assassination who later stated they were pressured to change their testimony to conform with what the Warren Commission investigators wanted to hear.

“Gamaliel” defended his action on this discussion page, and the reasoning doesn't appear to stand scrutiny. But, before putting the information back in, "Gamaliel" should have another opportunity to provide more substantial reasons than he gave on this discussion page.

Defending the suppression of information on witness tampering by government investigators, "Gamaliel" argued as follows:

1) The witness tampering testimony is "vague testimony:"

Response:

Here is the testimony by Kenneth O'Donnell. He was a presidential aide who was an eyewitness who was riding in the car immediately behind Kennedy when the president was shot. He told the Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neil, several years after the assassination:

"I told the FBI what I had heard [regarding the shots] but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."

This doesn't seem vague at all. Kenneth O'Donnell was told by the FBI "It couldn't have happened that way." Why is the FBI arguing with witnesses and telling them it couldn't have happened that way? How many other witnesses did the FBI argue with?

Then "O'Donnell admitted "I testified the way they wanted me to." There is nothing vague about the testimony that the FBI had changed from investigators of the crime to advocates of a theory of the crime and wanted a witness to change his testimony--and he did change his testimony.

How many other witnesses did the FBI pressure into changing their testimony?

David Powers experienced the same type of pressure to change his story. He was also a presidential aide and also was an eyewitness who was riding in the car behind Kennedy when the president was shot. Powers then became a director of the JFK Presidential Library, and he told the Speaker of the House the same thing about witness tampering. in 1991, Powers gave a taped interview to a researcher about the efforts to change his testimony.

Powers vividly told the researcher seeing the shot from the grassy knoll, and felt they were "driving into an ambush." Powers further said that when he tried to tell his story to the Warren Commission investigators they kept interrupting him because it didn't conform with what they wanted. Finally, the Warren Commission never even called Powers as a witness to testify, but instead took an affidavit from him that said shot came from behind (as the Commission wanted to hear) and "I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from in front in the area of the triple overpass." See Ultimate Sacrifice, Lamar Waldron, p 15, 901 and 902 (Carroll & Graf 2005).

Again. Why was the Commission involved in pressuring witnesses into a preconceived theory?

Isn't conduct such as this one of the reasons the public rejects the Warren Commission's conclusions? and shouldn't the reader be told this?

2) There are "more important witnesses" who aren't mentioned.

Response:

This second argument by “Gamaliel” on why the reader should not be alerted to the fact that evidence of witness tampering exists, veers away from the issue of witness tampering. “Gamaliel” refers the reader to a witness that testified that he saw Oswald at the window with a rifle.

That is not the point of the discussion. Lets assume that someone testified he saw Oswald at the window with the rifle, that doesn't address the point that others saw and heard another shooter in front of the president and then the FBI and others pressured the witnesses into changing their story. Obviously, “Gamaliel” feels very strongly about the issue of witness tampering and he should. It is a felony to get witnesses to provide false testimony. The basis of our legal system is to obtain truthful testimony, and if the investigators themselves are pressuring witnesses to change their story, the entire proceeding lacks any credibility.

In fact, the witness that so impressed "Gamaliel" by stating he saw Oswald with the rifle at the window may have been pressured into his testimony. Its important to know that on the date of the assassination "Gamaliel's" "important" witness declined to positively identify Oswald as the person he saw with the rifle. See affidavit of Howard Leslie Brennan on May 7, 1964.

Only later, after discussions with the investigators did the Brennan's testimony change to the story that the Warren Commission and FBI wanted to hear.

How many other witnesses beside Brennan, Powers, O'Donnel and Mrs. Hill changed their testimony under pressure by others?

RPJ 11:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I oppose singling out 2 out of 216 witnesses, especially 2 witnesses whose testimony is largely insignificant and your motive appears to be to suggest something sinister is afoot. If you want to write something substantial about all the witnesses, or just the significant witnesses, fine, but don't waste our time trying to sneak in innuendo. Gamaliel 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Unreleased documents

This section appears to have been vandalized; and has been overlooked. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I copied and pasted from this version. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

RoyBoy was correct. The section was chopped up leaving a dangling word. There was a dupicate paragraph from an earlier edit.

To round out the section, quotes from the 1992 Act have now been inserted that explain what Congress found regarding documents being sealed contrary to normal practices.

68.99.248.86 21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What documents the 90% figure for consenus of three shots?

There is a lead-in statement to the number of shots fired stating that there was a clear consensus among witnesses that three or fewer shots were fired by a margin 90%. Does anyone know where this statistic came from? Is this statistic correct?

It comes from the witness statements in the Warren Commission, House Select Committee, and statements made by witness to various news agencies. Here's a summary of this research with a chart. Ramsquire 23:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Stop Sign" by JMLK17 : need your reasoning

A contributor has placed a "stop sign" on this article disputing the facts and neutrality of this article.

"Totally disputed" is all that is said.

Not too much to work with there. JMLK17 has disputed other articles in such a fashion but such an effort seems a waste of time to do so without investing work into explaining why and improving what is there.

RPJ 17:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave Powers

Key witness coerced out of testifying by Warren Commission investigators

Contributor "Gamaliel" wants to move the testimony of David Powers out of the Warren Commission section because Powers is only one witness. But Powers is a strong witness and a representative eyewitness to the witness tampering by the Commission’s investigators. Ken O'Donnell had exactly the same experience of witness tampering by the commission's investigators, as described in the discussion section above relating to Tip O’Neil’s book.

The events witnessed by David Powers devastate the credibility of the Warren Commission as an impartial fact finder. Powers remembers the President's car driving into an ambush with a shooter in front, which is supported some years later by the House Select Committee on Assassination which contends there was a second shooter out front. More importantly, Powers rebuts the contention of the Warren Commission that there was only one shooter.

What does the Warren commission do to this eyewitness?: 1) The Commission investigators try to get Powers to conform to the Commission's one shooter theory and won't listen to anything else; and 2) When this doesn't fully succeed, the Commission doesn't call Powers as a witness; but has him sign a very brief, watered down version of his testimony.

The Commission concludes there is no "persuasive" evidence of more than person involved in the shooting but then doesn't call an eyewitness that can supply persuasive testimony. It looks very bad for the Warren Commission.

Is Powers a credible witness? Yes. He was a presidential aide riding in the car directly behind President Kennedy. Powers was right behind Kennedy when every bullet struck.. Has Powers been misquoted about the witness tampering by the Commission investigators. No. His witness tampering charge is from two different sources given at two different times. The former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neil had a conversation with both Powers and O'Donnell about the witness tampering and writes about it in his autobiography.

This led to the taped interview with powers by a researcher on the subject and is good powerful evidence of the Warren Commission trying to reach a preplanned result that Oswald did it, and he did it alone.

If "Gamaliel" can't give good reasons to the contrary, this is going to have to be put back in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RPJ (talk • contribs) .

"The story is an absolute lie...whoever gave that story is lying. It's an absolute, outright lie." - Kenneth O'Donnell, qtd. in Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1975

I found a citation to this via google, and then looked up a pdf of the original article in ProQuest. All told, it took me about three minutes. Please do research before you insert claims into Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia's reputation depends upon the accuracy of its articles. Gamaliel 08:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "Gamaliel" doesn't perceive the irony of O'Donnell telling the Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neil, about being pressured by the FBI to change his story about how Kennedy was assassinated; and O'Neil relating the story in his autobiography and then O'Donnell telling someone else that he never told O'Neil about the FBI pressure to change his story.

There are simply two conflicting stories told by the same person.

This is why Powers testimony will be put in the article and not O'Donnel's. No additional explanation will be needed.

RPJ 10:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Powers eyewitness account of witness tampering by the Warren Commission remains very solid evidence

Contributor "Gamaliel" claims the statements of Powers regarding witness tampering by the Warren Commission should not be put in the article relating to the Warren Commission, even though it is supported by two sources and Powers is a very credible eyewitness.

"Gamaliel" will not relent in the opposition to this evidence by Powers of witness tampering being put in the article despite the witness being credible, i.e., former presidential aide to President Kennedy, Director of the JFK Library and who was one of the closest eyewitness witnesses to the assassination and had direct dealings with the Warren Commission. And despite the fact that Powers provided this information at different times to different sources, and despite he has not retracted it nor has it ever been denied.

Lets face it: Here is an solid eye witness that sees a shooter in front, and the witness isn't even called to give live testimony.

Why is "Gamaliel" so adamant in his opposition to the Powers' testimony? The reason is surprising.

The reason for "Gamaliel's position is that Ken O'Donnell, told the United States Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neil that he had the very same experience of being pressured to change his story by the Warren Commission and he caved-in to the pressure, and later, O'Donnell then denied that told this to Speaker O'Neil. O’Donnell was probably pressured again.

In any event, "Gamaliel's" reason is not a good reason to keep the Powers' testimony out, and doesn't appear, on its face, a very logical reason.

RPJ 09:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason I want this kept out is that its relevance and reliability is debatable at best and you aren't even doing the most rudimentary research to ensure that your information is complete and accurate. Gamaliel 18:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Final attempt to focus Gamaliel's discussion on Power's evidence

The relevance of the Power's testimony has just been explained, in detail, and there has been no reply. The sources of the Power's testimony seem highly reliable and there has been no repley.

One who opposes the use of the Power's evidence needs to address the Power's evidence that is going to be included in the article and not the O'Donnell evidence which is not going to be put in the article.

Contributer "Gamaliel" must address the issue at hand which is the Power's evidence. Please give it one more try.

RPJ 18:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The story is hearsay from a ghostwritten book and is contradicted by the men themselves, their sworn testimony, and is not mentioned in the book they wrote about Kennedy. Gamaliel 18:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Googled this up, apparently from Aloysius Farrell, TIP O'NEILL AND THE DEMOCRATIC CENTURY (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2001), pp. 680-81. Gamaliel 18:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of the anecdotes [in MAN OF THE HOUSE] . . . were verifiable. Others came under attack. Columnists Evans and Novak denied his [O'Neill's] assertion that they offered to trade him good coverage for leaks. Dave Powers failed to support O'Neill's claim that Powers and Kenny O'Donnell believed there was a second gunman involved in the JFK assassination. "Tip is a great storyteller, as are many politicians," Novak diplomatically told the press. "They tell these stories over and over again. The rough edges get planed off and the story gets a little more dramatic and they get further and further from reality."

Powers' Testimony still looks very solid

The Powers' eyewitness account of the Kennedy assassination with a shooter in front and riding into an ambush still looks exceptionally strong and seriously undercuts the credibility of the Warren Commission for manipulating the evidence against establishing two shooters (one in front and one in back).

Dave Powers was a high government official at the time (being a personal aide to Kennedy) and was riding right behind the president when he was murdered by gunfire.

Two indepedent sources support the Powers' account of the Warren Commission investigators trying to interfere with him simply recounting what he saw and heard because Powers' account didn't reflect what the Warren Commission wanted to hear. One source of the Powers' account was Tip O'Neil and the other Waldron in the new book called Ultimate Sacrifice where a taped interview of Powers was taken by a researcher in 1991.

Contributer "Gamaliel" doesn't want anyone to be aware of this effort by the Warren Commission to suppress evidence contrary to what the Commission wanted to hear.

Gamaliel's latest argument is this:

The story is hearsay from a ghostwritten book and is contradicted by the men themselves, their sworn testimony, and is not mentioned in the book they wrote about Kennedy

Very weak:

1) Its "hearsay." A desperate lawyer-type dodge. "Gamaliel," everything one reads in a book whether first-person style or not is "hearsay" because the writer is not subject to cross-examination. Thus, very weak comment, without redemption.

2) Its a "ghostwritten" book by Tip O'Neil. Assuming this is true, so what? Tip O'Neil either had the dinner with Powers and heard his story or he didn't.

4) Powers' account of witness tampering and evidence suppression is "Contradicted by the men themselves." Not true. Gamaliel has been repeatedly asked to produce a retraction by Powers of what he said happened and "Gamaliel" has continually been unable to do so. "Gamaliel" wants to change the subject from Powers to someone else, and make unsupported claims of retractions by Powers.

3) The information is not in the book "they" wrote. Who is the "they" to whom "Gamaliel" is referring? David Powers? Someone else? What is the name of the book?

No amount of this avoidance of the devastating evidence against the Warren Commission is going to help keep Powers' testimony out of the article. It is too fundamentally important. Powers'testimony, helps establish the Warren Commission's conclusion was pre-ordained to a lone gunman--other evidence was ignored, or tampered with.

If this is all "Gamaliel" has in rebuttal then it clearly isn't enough.

RPJ 22:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Powers and O'Donnell wrote Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye: Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, published in 1972. According to the Tribune:

In that account, both men declare they heard only three shots, two of them close together and a third five seconds later. At the

time-12:30 p.m.-the aides were riding on jump seats in a Secret Service back-up car directly behind the limousine bearing the President, his wife, and Gov. and Mrs. Connally.

BOTH RECALLED they were accurately aware of the exact time of the shooting because Powers checked his watch and determined the caravan was only five minutes behind schedule as it rounded the plaza in front of the Book Depository.

There is no mention of their alleged suspicions that some shots came from somewhere other than the Book Depository. In

fact, there is no speculation on the direction of the firing at all.

The O'Neill story is pretty weak. A short passage in a ghostwritten political bio is not enough to contradict sworn testimony and repeated denials. Nice try though. Gamaliel 01:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Powers testimony is very strong

Lets review the evidence again. one needs to keep out extraneous facts about other witnesses. Deal with one witness at a time--that stops confusion.:

Dave Powers has told two seperate commentators that:

1) shots came from right and overhead and from the front which is body blow to One Shooter theory of Commission; 2) he thought the president was riding into an ambush; 3) The Warren Commission investigators tried to keep interrupting him to change his testimony to what they wanted (one shooter from the rear) but when they couldn't get Powers to abandon completely what he knew happened Therefore, they didn't call Powers as a witness to elaborate on what he saw.

This is pretty strong evidence of witness tampering and bias by the Commission investigators who were trying to gather evidence of only one shooter.

Contributor "Gamaliel" again strays from discussing Powers, the witness at issue, and, again, starts talking about another witness .

Gamaliel claims Powers contradicts his sworn testimony--but again no evidence by "Gamaliel" Here is what Powers' sworn statement describes:

My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead, but I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass. This may have resulted from my feeling, when I looked forward toward the overpass, that we might have ridden into an ambush.

Gamaliel--has run out of time to come up with an argument against the Powers testimony.

Here are Gamaliel's arguments against the use of the Powers' statements relating to witness tampering and failure to call Powers as a witness at the Warrren Commission: 1) Gamaliel says: Don't believe Tip O'Neil's autobiography because it was allegedly written by a ghostwriter. There is no mention by Gamaliel that Powers gave a taped interview to another researcher to the same effect; 2) Gamaliel says: Powers is contradicting a prior sworn statement. But, again, no proof by Gamaliel. Gamaliel is just repeating this charge a second time with no source. This doesn't help. Where is this prior inconsistent statement?; and 3)Gamaliel says: Powers doesn't address the subject in a book about Kennedy.

Apparantly that is it.

RPJ 09:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, let's talk about Powers. In his sworn WC affidavit, he describes an impression and a feeling. This is not evidence of anything. In his own book and in his WC testimony, he does not describe anything remotely like what you claim he says (seeing shots, being pressured) in this new book, Ultimate Sacrifice. Thus, the contradiction. Aside from the debunked Tip O'Neill anecdote, there is nothing supporting your version except for this new book. You have provided a quote from Powers' WC affidavit, so why haven't you quoted the more provocative things he supposedly said in Ulitmate Sacrifice? Gamaliel 10:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

One bullet does certain damage...

One bullet does certain damage.

Kennedy's brain exploded. One bullet can not do that. Kennedy was gunned down by the crowd.

The head and brain does not explode like it does in the film from one bullet.

Only a hail of gunfire from the crowd can do that much damage.

Kennedy was assassinated by the crowd in the opposite direction from where his head exploded.

At least 3 or 4 or more bullets are required to make someone's head explode as shown in the Zabruder film.

Kennedy was gunned down by multiple people who's goal was to kill the President.

TESTIFY!

The Tag on Clean Up

The article could be cleaned up and tightened up a bit. Clean up is used in the sense of word editing.

Presently the article emphasizes the act of murder itself. This approach departs from the intense debate over who committed the crime that dominates much of what is written. Therefore the article focuses on the act of murder from the view point of the victim and the immediate eyewitnesses on the president being struck and killed by at least by one bullet in his upper body and another bullet wound to the head.:

"My God, I'm hit." “I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out” “They have shot his head off”. “The right rear portion of his head was missing measuring about five inches in diameter.” “His brain was exposed”” You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself” “Probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue . . . had been blasted out."

This is a description of a murder.

The heated political discussions, the alleged blundering and finger pointing all come later.

Some information needs to be better documented; but not too much. The trivia questions and coincidences could be moved to a sub article for reasons of taste.RPJ 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Contributors need to do more writing and less reverting.

Some contributors have the tendency to revert things with cryptic comments. It would be a better practice to put something in the discussion page about what is being done so that contributors don't have to guess what the person who reverts has in mind. RPJ 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

anti-semitic rant deletedJeffpw 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Should the Article Contain Speculation.

The following section is speculation as to why certain people heard shots from a certain location. I say it should be deleted:

Considering there is no question that both Kennedy and Connally were both hit from behind during the assassination, it is of note that so few people heard shots in two directions, as a Grassy Knoll shooter could not have inflicted the wounds in Connally and Kennedy, save for the fatal shot Kennedy received. However, reason that could explain why people fall into one group or the other is that the eyewitnesses may have just heard the shots that were fired nearest to them. If the shots originated from the Book Depository the witnesses closest to the Book Depository would have heard those shots rather than those further away. Likewise, those closest to the Grassy Knoll may have simply heard the shots from that location that was near to them.

Ramsquire 00:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea. But to make it work there must be a agreed upon definition of "speculation." Otherwise anything one disagrees with is speculation and everything one agrees with is self-evident truth. RPJ 09:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

For the purposes of this part of the article speculation is being discussed in the legal context and speculation in the legal context generally means “Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence.”

In other parts of the article another common usage of speculation lends itself to inclusion because another meaning of speculation is the “Contemplation of a subject; in a philosophical or religious way or as in meditation” Such contemplation is normal when reading in the article about the arrival of the priests to Kennedy’s side and pulling “back a sheet covering the President's face to administer the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.” The new picture that someone found last month and included in the description of the funeral at Saint Matthews Cathedral is moving and certainly leads to speculate on the greater meanings of life. The subject presently under investigation is the 1st degree murder case; a death penalty case. Evidence of what did happen and what did not happen. There reasoning based on inclusive evidence would seem acceptable.RPJ 07:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The emergency room doctors at Parkland Hospital also noted a bullet wound that entered the front of The President's neck, and at the autopsy later on, an entry wound caused by a bullet was also found in the President's back.

For the above paragraph, since the doctors were not at the scene of the crime, any suggestion of theirs is likewise speculation. I believe a more accurate and NPOV way of stating the conclusion of some of the doctors is to state "some of the doctors believed the neck wound to be an entry wound."

Ramsquire 00:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting statistic was found by a researcher who went through the Warren Commission transcripts and found that 91.3% of the witnesses who identified where the gunshots originated, believed that there were three or less shots fired at the President. One researcher went through the Warren Commission transcripts and found that 91.3% of the witnesses who identified the number of gunshots originated, believed that there were three or less shots fired at the President. [18].

But, this could mean that up to six shots were fired with one group of eyewitnesses hearing three from one direction that was near where they were located and the other group hearing three shot from the area where they were located. Also, multiple assassins could have arranged to shoot simultaneously. Agent Kellerman's testimony of almost a simultaneous flurry of shots would support such a contention.

The first paragraph is confusing. The second paragraph is speculation.

Ramsquire 00:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How does one define speculation for purposes of this article? RPJ 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm defining speculation in this sense of a user here trying to harmonize the different conclusions of the researcher using supposition and information that were not considered by the original researchers.Ramsquire 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses or ear-witnesses?

Calling people eye-witnesses is misleading. Only a few claimed to see the origin of the shots. They were eyewitnesses to the assassination, but almost all were ear-witnesses regarding the source. Since the issue being discussed is about the source & not about whether or not JFK was shot, calling them eye-witnesses in that section is misleading the reader & needs to be clarified in article. --JimWae 18:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence, speculation and logic

Contributor Ramsquire asks whether speculation is contained in various paragraphs in the article. This seems to be divided into two catagories: 1) "Speculation" by other sources and then cited; and "speculation" by a contributor based on evidence that a contributor believes leads to a logical conclusion. Should these two types of "speculation" be evaluated in the same way for inclusion or exclusion from the article?

One area of alleged "speculation" was noted by contributor Ramsquire:

Considering there is no question that both Kennedy and Connally were both hit from behind during the assassination, it is of note that so few people heard shots in two directions, as a Grassy Knoll shooter could not have inflicted the wounds in Connally and Kennedy, save for the fatal shot Kennedy received.

It appears whoever authored that sentence has a logical conclusion that he or she is suggesting, and perhaps this should not be discouraged, but instead discussed. Did Kennedy receive any gunshot wounds from behind? How do we know that?

Did Kennedy receive any gunshot wounds from the front? How do we know that?

Assuming that the evidence is strong that Kennedy received gunshot wounds fired from both the front and back what does that establish regarding who murdered the president? RPJ 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the first kind of speculation is fine as long as it is cited as such. The second kind should be avoided.

As for your question about how do we know Kennedy was hit from behind, he did have an entry wound in his back (I don't think that is disputed like the throat wound is). In any case, the wounds of Governor Connally, could not have realistically come from a grassy knoll shooter, he wouldn't have the angle. But that is something for the talk page, and should not be in the article? Also, the paragraph does nothing but forward the possibility that there had to be at least two shooters in separate areas, i.e. conspiracy, to get all the wounds. Yet most people only heard one shooter or the other.Ramsquire 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

More on evidence , speculation and logic

Another point made by contributor Ramsquire is this:

For the above paragraph, since the doctors were not at the scene of the crime, any suggestion of their's is likewise speculation. I believe a more accurate and NPOV way of stating the conclusion of some of the doctors is to state "some of the doctors believed the neck wound to be an entry wound."

This point appears well taken to some extent. The article is reporting someone else's beliefs. And, this approach would be equally applicable to any doctor's belief that Kenndey received a bullet wound to his back from a shot from the rear. This holds true for a conclusion by a group or even several groups of political appointees that hold the belief that Kennedy received a bullet wound to his back from a shot from the back.

Ramsquire's implicit suggestion that any of the beliefs held by the doctors or politicl appointees is "speculation" may not be well taken in the evidentiary sense. Beliefs by non-eyewitnesses are routinely relied upon by juries to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Forensic science is built around such examination of physical evidence and conclusions are reached that are clearly not viewed as "speculation" by the courts since such evidence is allowed to be considered in reaching a judgment.

The Kennedy murder needs to be evaluated by a uniform application of evidentiary rules. Attaching the label of "speculation" to whatever displeases the reader is not a helpful way of discussing the suject.

RPJ 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well taken and I don't think we disagree on the proper use of speculation. The article is supposed to be NPOV and shouldn't be coming to a conclusion. In a court of law, yes, the statement is fine as is, but here, disputed information should be stated in a way that makes it clear to the reader that there are differing views on the issue (or simply left out).Ramsquire 00:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the significance of two groups who perceived shots from different directions?

One contributer inserted into the article the following: "[I]t is of note that so few people heard shots in two directions, as a Grassy Knoll shooter could not have inflicted the wounds in Connally and Kennedy, save for the fatal shot Kennedy received"

It isn't self-evident what is meant by this. A shooter from the front could have inflicted the wound to the throat and the wound to the head. A shooter from the rear could have inflicted the wound to the back of Kennedy and to the back of Connally as one combination of possibilities.

Does the person who contributed the insert or anyone else agree or disagee? RPJ 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is what the user is implying: if there was a conspiracy, based on the wounds of the victim the gunshots would have to be heard from two different areas. Yet most people only heard gunshots from one area (implying there was one shooter). It's POV, and the kind of speculations that shouldn't be in the article.Ramsquire 00:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Original Content Not Allowed

"But, this could mean that up to six shots were fired with one group of eyewitnesses hearing three from one direction that was near where they were located and the other group hearing three shot from the area where they were located. Also, multiple assassins could have arranged to shoot simultaneously. Agent Kellerman's testimony of almost a simultaneous flurry of shots would support such a contention."

I don't know if the person who wrote this has ever been to Dealey Plaza, but as someone who has, if there were two shots from different directions, they would have been heard by everyone in the Plaza, it's a very small area. Probably less than half a block in size.

More importantly, however, it violate's Wiki's rule against "original" content which prohibits the situation where an argument (made without citing a reputable source for that argument) purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. Here the user is arguing the results of the research with no verifiable sources to back up his opinion. Ramsquire 18:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Some edits well taken; some raise other questions

Several edits were made, some seem good but some raise questions. First. Dropped out was the word "large" to describe the two opposing groups of witnesses that heard shot from different directions. Its not as if a couple of people heard shots from the front and hundreds heard them from the back.

My reason for deleting "large" was mostly cosmetic. "Large" is largely a subjective thing, and I figured a more neutral way of presenting the statement is to say there are two opposing groups without resorting to subjective criteria as the size of each group. I felt this way especially since both groups were described as large. Ramsquire 01:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Then two arguments are made to refute the perceptions of all the people who perceived shots coming from the front. This is done by arguing (on one one person's visit to Dealey plaza) that if shots were fired from the front and back every one would have heard all shots no matter where they were standing. Doesn't this violate Ramsquire's own rule of self experiments? It also explains why one would needs to delete "large" from the group that perceived shot from the front.

I made that argument in the TALK PAGE! Such observations and opinion is proper in the talk page not in the article. Please read and understand the five pillars of Wiki. I have no rules here, it is Wiki's rule. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR. Notice I left in the officer's opinion of shots being bunch together, it was because that was from a verifiable source unlike your theories.Ramsquire 01:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The first thought that comes to mind is how could that many people be wrong?

Then, the argument is made that only three shots were heard being fired by most people, with the explanation left in that perhaps the shooters timed the shots so that both shoot when one shoots. Whether professional assassins do it this way is open to research, but obviously this stratagy might serve to confuse the person being ambushed as to the direction of the bullets and when this is done the target perhaps doesn't move much before an also simultaneous bullet hits after a first bullet hits. These are offhand remarks, though.

I left this is because I thought it was attributed to the officer mentioned in the article, if it is not, it should be taken out as well.Ramsquire 01:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This leads to the second argument that only three shots were fired as heard by a large percentage of people and a least one came from the back that hit Connally.

If two shooters fired simultaneously then the three shots could equal six shots as mentioned above. Plus, the government's position right from the begining was there were only three shots and quite a few witnesses for reasons uncertain never were asked or it wasn't recorded, the number of shots or the direction of shots they heard.

But, the biggest problem of trying to prove one shooter in this fashion is the "large" number of people who perceived shots coming from the front. Plus, one has the dictabelt evidence that supports four shots with one coming from the front.

One realizes that this dictabelt has been attacked with by other evidence with the claim that it has been "debunked." But, evidentiary issues don't work that way. Merely, because someone claims some evidence disputes a point (especially in technical fields) doesn't mean the last evidence given is the correct evidence. This is a common misconception by people who pompously claim they have "debunked" an argument. What usually has happened is that one piece of evidence has been disputed with other evidence, that may or may not be valid. The word pompous is used because to "debunk" something is to show that something is a sham or false.

As an aside, in my non wiki life, I am a lawyer, and although there is a kernel of truth to what you say in that competing evidence doesn't necessarily make either irrelevant, you really should know the dictabelt thing has been objectively debunked. 1) the officer whose vehicle the recording came from testified that he wasn't in the Plaza at the time of the shooting, 2) the dictabelt only measured spikes in sound, not gunshots, and the spikes were not audible to human ears, and 3) ABCNews did their own technical research using the dictabelt, all of the home movies taken, and computer simulations, and placed the officer in the exact location he said he was in at the time of the assassination, i.e. not in Dealey Plaza. That would be pretty conclusive in any courthouse throughout the country that the dictabelt is not reliable evidence. Doesn't prove there was no conspiracy, but it does show that the dictabelt probably is not evidence of one. Ramsquire 01:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Several months ago, on CSPAN there was a scientist that gave a very thorough discussion of the accoustic evidence on the shooting. It sounded as if very recent work has been done on this matter.

The passage did need work and as edited it certainly does look better.

RPJ 21:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

______________________

RPJ, you obviously believe that there was some conspiracy to kill the JFK, and that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion, and you could do a blog or website and fill it with all your arguments and theories. However, if you are contributing to Wiki, you should follow its rules and know what Wiki is and what Wiki is not. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Ramsquire 01:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

There are reasons why you can't put in the dictabelt evidence, without describing why it as having been "debunked" or mention Jeanne Hill without mentioning why many view her as an attention seeking crackpot, or mention one researcher's conclusion without mentioning another. My intent is not to be disrespectful to you in any way, and if I am, I apologize. But you really need to understand how Wiki works. Please read through the above link. We can go back and forth on the talk pages with our theories, and explanation and argue, but not in the articles. Ramsquire 01:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I read through the way that the Wikipedia works and think it is a very interesting project and seems to produce and excellent product in both quality and in the enormous amount of material it presents. It was interesting to read in the newspaper the other day that people in China were complaining about the restrictions the government was placing on the access to Wikipedia.

It is expected that evidence on controversial matters will be challenged, and any deficiencies pointed out. That is how knowledge is expanded. I looked over the list of controversial topics Wikipedia itemized, and found that list very interesting in itself. I never realized people had such strong feelings on such a vast array of topics.

The point being made was this: Those with opposing viewpoints should deal with one another with respect and good faith; and play by the same rules. Denigrating an opposing viewpoint as "nonsense" as is done on this Kennedy issue quite often, is improper. The smart aleck comments of some of the contributers when items are reverted is tacky and annoying. I've noticed that no one side or group has a monopoly on such bad behaviour.

Actually, given the open forum nature of the Wikipedia I've been surprised that it works so well.

Keep in mind, if one were to write an article based on what most Americans believe, there would be no opposing viewpoints in the article, it wwould be written that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and it succeeded. But, as I understand the policy of the Wikipedia, the majority doesn't control content. Minority viewpoints, such as the Warren Report's conclusions, are to be given space also. And it is given plenty of space.

Now, let's look at the issues at hand. Someone wants to attack the dictabelt evidence-that's fine. There is a special article written solely on that point, and so far it seems to be a toss-up some saying 95% probability and some saying a lesser probability and some saying no probability of it being true that it shows a second shooter. See:Dictabelt evidence relating to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

There is an opinion by the chief counsel of the Committee claiming this dictabelt evidence was very important to the Committee, and his opinion may or may not be correct. The link to the source of his quote isn't available so it can't even be checked--though the quote is given great prominence in the article.

So, its a matter of competing evidence that sooner or later through investigation and debate will probably lead to a consensus. And if it doesn't so what? the world isn't going to come to an end if the dictabelt controversy isn't solved.

Some people may believe that Jeanne Hill is an attention seeking crack pot, but probably many more believe that J. Edgar Hoover was a egotistical crack pot with a zest for peeking into everyone's sexual life for blackmail and pleasure. Does that mean you can't believe anything he ever said? No.

The same can be said for Lyndon B. Johnson, the biggest beneficiary of Kennedy's death. Does the fact that many may believe he was a crooked, egotistical bully who would make those he controlled meet with him while he sat on the toilet, prove he was the mastermind behind Kennedy's death? No.

Just remember everything is a two way street. When one wants to add evidence that some sacred cow of the lone gunman theory has flaws, it shouldn't be reverted out with a flip statement that its "conspiracy nonsense." Of course all true junk should be thrown out but it should be done so fairly. RPJ 08:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Over 40 witnesses to a murder is a large number of witnesses

Some of those who believe there was only one gun man, who shot from the rear, don't believe the word "large" should be used to describe the group of 40 witnesses to a murder who gave official statements that some of the shots did not come from the building behind the president where Oswald worked,but instead came from somewhere else.

A group of witnesses of this size to a murder certainly couldn't be described as a "small" group of witnesses to a murder. Or could it? Discussion is welcome.

Remember, these are a good group of witnesses. They are attentive witnesses. All the witnesses gathered at that spot of the murder specifically to either see the murder victim or to protect the murder victim. Kennedy was the focus of every witnesses' attention. And, over 40 of these acutely attentive witnesses identified shots coming from the direction of a second shooter.

These official statements by so many witnesses undoubtedly contribute to the rejection of the lone gunman theory by most Americans by a very large majority. One simply has to look at the reputable polls to establish that fact.

RPJ 08:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Large as opposed to what? I would just say "over 40 witnesses". "Over 40 witnesses" is more accurate and is NPOV, so put it in. Ramsquire 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dictabelt evidence

After reviewing the points made by Ramsquire, it appears best not to insert the dictabelt evidence into the article. For a scientist, the evidence may either clinch the issue that there was a second shooter or be deemed totally worthless; but more importantly, might confuse the general reader into believing that science has solved the issue.

The fact that the dictabelt has its own article allows those with a technical bent or curiosity to look at what seemed important to one group of people who inquired into the matter.

One could argue that people without a technical background in the area listen to scientific and highly technical information every day in court rooms every day and make decisions (sometimes life and death decisions) based on such information. But, court room review is most likely done under carefully controlled guidelines with the focus on clarity, cross examination, witness qualification screening and so on.

leaving the dictabelt with its own article seems best.

RPJ 21:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The dicatablet evidence was the major focus for judgements made by the House Committee investigation. If the dicatablet evidence is left out, leave out the House investigation too. Mention of the House investigation must include what nearly alll their conclusions were based on --JimWae 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

___________________________

Jimwae needs to explain in detail why "Mention of the House investigation must include nearly alll (sic) their (sic) conclusions were based on."

This isn't practice with any other source that is referenced.

Jimwae's seems to believe that "The dictablet (sic) was the major focus (sic) for judgements(sic) made by the House Committee investigation." This leads Jimwae to believe that "Mention of the House investigation must include what nearly alll (sic) their (sic) conclusions were based on." What he says may or may not be true.

But, Jimwae's deductive reasoning lacks the persuasion needed for requiring either an extensive discussion of the dictabelt evidence in this article or the deletion of the mention of the Congressional Committee.

First, this isn't the practice with any other source that is cited.

Second, if Jimwae wishes to write up information about the dictabelt evidence, he is free to do so. But, challenging others to do work he wants done on the dictabelt, under apparent threat of removing something else from the article seems inappropriate.

Third, the related article on the evidence seems to handle the issue well.

RPJ 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Since one of the lead investigators is on the record stating that the reason the House Select Committe came to the conlusion that JFK probably was killed as a result of a conspiracy was due to the dictabelt evidence, it should be in this article in the House Section. However, we should either sum up the issues of relaibility concerning this acoustic evidence or point the reader to the separate dictabelt evidence article. Ramsquire 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The HSCA changed their conclusions at the 11th hour due to the appearance of this dubious evidence. It's irresponsible to mention the HSCA conclusion without noting this fact. Gamaliel 04:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ramsquire 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Though your words are about inserting dictabelt evidence, there is already mention of such evidence included in article - and from past experience I have learned that lack of response in such matters is often interpreted as agreement to remove what has already been inserted. I GAVE reasons against removing such evidence. If that was not what you meant, so much the better. --JimWae 05:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC) So it looks like I do not NEED to do what you so glibly told me I need to do --JimWae 05:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)