Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 3

message: trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amature over here)--Matt D 00:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proper place for conspiracies to run free 

message: Sometimes the Warren Commission has had to take the criticism that should be leveled at the FBI, Secret Service, and the Dallas Police.
The perjury by agent Hosty of the FBI who destroyed the letter given to him by Oswald shortly before the President's murder, and now the evidence that Captain Fritz who along with Hosty interviewed Oswald and then concealed his interrogation notes and along with Hosty also perjured himself are clear examples. These criminal activities by the law enforcement officers  deserve a clear full presentation --not some sanitized treatment.        
The behavior of the law enforcement official is clearly criminal in nature and go to the core of the case against Oswald.
One should noted that it appears the concealment and destruction of the evidence took place right after Oswald was silence by being murdered in police custody.
RPJ 21:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The perjury of Captain Fritz that concealed his notes and Oswald's alibi 

message: One must read almost to the bottom of the article to read how many shots were fired - according to different investigations - yet there is lots of "evidence" supposedly exonerating Oswald. There is extensive criticism of the Warren Commission before the Warren Commission's conclusions are even presented. This article is upside-down--JimWae 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much detail - too little overview 

message: A careful review of the article does not support Jimwae's comment that there is lots of "evidence" "exonerating Oswald" and "too little overview" that concludes Oswald participated in the assassination. The follwing quotes were excerpted from the article that clearly conclude that Oswald did it alone or with others:
:1. An official investigation by the Warren Commission was conducted over a 10-month period, and its report was published in September 1964, concluding that the assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald, an employee of the Texas School Book Depository in Dealey Plaza 
:2. A later official investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was conducted from 1976 to 1979, and concluded that Oswald probably acted with at least one other person. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested eighty minutes after the assassination for killing Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit. 
:3. He was charged with murders of Tippit and Kennedy 
:4. The 486 frames of this film have been used in many studies, but the film has not been able to settle disputes concerning whether or not Oswald was the sole assassin. 
:5. After arresting Oswald and collecting physical evidence at the crime scenes, the Dallas Police held Oswald at the police headquarters for interrogation 
:6. On November 24, 1963, just hours after Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered, FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, said that he wanted "something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." [1 
:7. The FBI report was consistent with the later Warren Commission Report stating that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all three shots. 
:8. The Commission reported that it could not find any persuasive evidence of a domestic or foreign conspiracy involving any other person(s), group(s), or country(ies), and that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. 
:9. The commission also concluded that only three shots were fired during the assassination, and that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all three of these shots The commission's finding that Oswald was the lone gunman, 
:10. 1) most people do not agree with the Warren Commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, 
:11. The Committee criticized the performance of both the Warren Commission and the FBI for failing to investigate whether other people conspired with Oswald to article murder President Kennedy whether Oswald acted in concert with or on behalf of unidentified co-conspirators the Commission's performance, in the view of the committee, was in fact flawed. 
:12. The Committee believed another primary cause of the Warren Commission's failure to adequately probe and analyze whether or not Oswald acted alone 
:13. it remains unclear why President Johnson and the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, wanted to establish Oswald as the Lone Gunman. 
:14. The HSCA concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first, second, and fourth bullets and slightly less than half 48% believed gunfire came from the Book Depository (in back of the President), and where Lee Harvey Oswald worked. [22] 
:15. poll showed that only 32% (plus or minus 3 %) of Americans who expressed a view believe that Oswald acted alone in the Kennedy assassination poll revealed that only 21% believe Oswald acted alone. Discoveries on-line poll gave a figure of 17%. [33].
:The article overwhelmingly notes that Oswald was involved either alone or with others and gives the authorities for the opinions or actionstaken or evidence of his participation. The matters that were very recently included about the concealment of Oswald's specific alibi, from this veiwpoint must in good conscience be included, and included without a strong spin against it. He denied participating in the murder, clearly indicated he was being framed and gave a very specific alibi for his whereabouts. 
:Whether it was him or Lovelady in the picture is a subjective determination, as was noted in one of the lonegunman sources, but even if it were Lovelady, that doesn't preculude Oswald not being there and the fact that he knew Shellely was there (which has been estblished independently) certainly gives some support to his alibi.
:Because Fritz concealed his notes the Warren Commission was at a big disadvantage in exploring it in detail and if it wasn't true exploding it. It seems that not too many people will give a specific alibi if it is open to being easily disproved.
In any event, hopefully the search of the article with the extracts, helps address the concerns by contributor Jimwae.
RPJ 00:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a great deal of overview that Oswald was guilty 

message: Jimwae has no details in his complaint. No one can discuss the absence of support. 
Jimwae must do his homework the same way as all other contributors.
Jimwae appears to be gettng frustrated but perhaps his position is not well taken. 
List all the "exonerating evidence." Please so it can be discussed.
RPJ 01:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimwae must supply details. Its 15 details against him v.0 for him 

message: In the section on Dallas police there is reference to picture of Oswald or Lovelady in doorway. It ends saying:
"Billy Lovelady has testified that those were the clothes he wore that day. Oswald went home and changed his clothes after he left work."
Both statements may be accurate but can't put finger on the reference. Could someone supply it?
Thanks
RPJ 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clothes both Oswald and Lovelady wore in picture 

message: In 1997, the Assassination Records Review Board ("ARRB") made a stunning discovery: The Captain of the Homicide Department for the Dallas Police Department had concealed his notes taken of his interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald. How did the Board find out? Someone gave the federal board the late Captain's notes.
Did Captain Fritz play an important role in the Kennedy assassination? Yes. As the ARRB points out,  these were the interrogation notes of:
 "[T]he late Dallas Police Captain who was in charge of questioning the alleged presidential assassin." Ibid.
Not only did Captain Fritz conceal his notes made while interrogating Lee Oswald, he lied to the Warren Commission about taking and keeping such notes. 
RPJ 21:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal from this article of Concealment of evidence and perjury by Captain Fritz 

message: In any event, one of the things Dallas Police Captain Fritz concealed, but his notes seem to indicate, is that Oswald gave a very specific alibi: Oswald said he was down in front of the building with Bill Shelly and not on the 6th floor.  If this is true Oswald wasn't a shooter; and may not even be guilty of participation. Fritz concealed his notes and said he couldn't remember.
What makes Oswald's alibi so strong is that Bill Shelley was, in fact, down in front of the building when Kennedy drove by just as Oswald told Captain Fritz and FBI agent Hosty.  According to Fritz, who thought the case was "cinched" right from the beginning, Oswald should have been on the 6th floor instead of out front where he could see Shelley. How would Oswald know where Shelley was at the time when Kenndy drove by?
Captain Fritz solved this whole alibi problem by concealing his notes and lying about taking any notes. He never told the Warren Commission about Oswald's alibi. Neither did agent Hosty.
:One or two contributors to Wikipedia have a very strong commitment to upholding Oswald as the murderer. In fact, they have such strong feelings about this, that they don't want the reader to know about Captain Fritz's obstruction of justice and perjury about his notes or about Oswald's long concealed alibi.
These misguided contributors simply revert the information out of the article, when the information gets put in. 
The reasons given, over the last two days for hiding the information of Fritz's concealement and perjury from the reader are cryptic:
:Warren Commission supporter #1 says:  "This is not an examination of the Dallas police investigation but an attempt to exonerate Oswald using a conspiracy theory debunked in the 1970s"
:Warren Commission supporter #2 says:  "I removed flagrant POV in this addition yesterday _ I am just reverting it from here on in."
Warren Commission supporter #1 isn't even in touch with what he is reverting out of the article. Oswald's alibi wasn't even discovered until 1997. How could it have been "debunked" in the 1970's? Moreover, this contributor doesn't seem to be aware of the meaning of the words he is using. If, in fact, Oswald had an alibi and really wasn't a shooter from the 6th floor does not mean there was a conspiracy (which means an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime--such as shoot the president) but only would mean that Oswald didn't do it. Whether it was done by one person or more than one person is an independent issue.
Unfortunately, Warren Commission supporter #1 claims to be a Wikipedia system administrator. Information he doesn't agree with is usually deemed "nonsense." 
Warren Commission supporter # 2 also seems at a lost to explain his actions. To this person, any information he doesn't agree with is termed a "flagrant PoV."  His information he believes is neutral because it is "true." On the other hand, information he disagrees with is deemed an impermissible "Point of View" apparently because he believes it to be "untrue."
So noted. 
RPJ 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FBI Agent and Captain Fritz lied to The Warren Commission about their criminal investigation

message: There is a dwindling group of believers that insist Lee Oswald killed Kennedy all by himself. The repected polling institutions on this matter show this shrinking group of has dropped from 32% to 25% and then, in the dicovery channel poll, down to 17% of the population. A very few of these believers have found their way to Wikipedia on an apparent mission to cleanse the pages of Wikipedia of any information contrary to their belief that Lee Oswald Killed Kennedy by himself.
However,the Wikipedia rules require reverts to be accompanied by reasoned discussion. The believers have abandoned discussion and debate. They simply revert; sometimes with a cryptic phrase.
This isn't appropriate. Just now I had to put back in several paragraphs of Abraham Zapruder's testimony where he gives a first hand account of Kennedy being shot right in front of him. This is gripping testimony. Some self proclaimed censor wanted it out. Claims its too gory. 
The internet doesn't need an anonymous censor. It is unclear whether this person has ever written anything, but there is second censor and whatever he puts on the talk page seems emotional to the point of being frantic that the testimony is too chilling, or gruesome, too one-sided, or that someone might get the wrong idea that the government made a mistake or did something wrong. 
So one or two people want to just censor things based on their own whim. The goal of the censors is apparently to satisfy some long fixed belief system, and is accomplished by eliminating any facts or evidence that they perceive their beliefs.  
I'm sure we all encourage them  not to do that; but, instead adopt the reasoned discussion approach. 
RPJ 02:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few readers now simply revert any text they don't personally like 

message: Important evidence should not be excluded because it doesn't support the guilt of the accused. Therefore, whether evidence "exonerates"  the accused is not the proper criteria for excluding evidence. 
Yet, the chief interrogator and the FBI agent at the Oswald interrogation concealed from the Warren Commission that Oswald gave them an alibi for when the President was shot. 
Oswald also gave a confirming fact that in itself helped verify the alibi. Yet this alibi was hidden. 
Yes, this alibi might exonerate Lee Oswald of murder. But, if the alibi should hold up, shouldn't he be exonerated if he didn't do it. That seems how the process should work.  But, some think not.
Some contributors seem to have the process backwards. They form a belief and if evidence does not conform to that belief it is deemed "nonsense" and reverted out of the article.  
Every bit of evidence can't be submitted at trial. And certainly every bit of evidence can't be included in an article about a murder-- even the  murder of an important person.
How to choose what evidence to leave out? That's easy: The minor surrounding evidence can be left out even if it may be slightly relevant, it's  dispensable.
RPJ 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the purpose of the article? To convince the reader that only one person was involved by referring to authoritative pronouncements by "government" agencies? Or, in contrast, to show that more than one person was involved in shooting? To show that Oswald was framed? To show that he wasn't framed? re any of these reasons important? RPJ 05:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with JimWae.  That being said however, I don't think evidence exonerating Oswald is per se inappropriate.  However, it must be presented in context.  The problem is the physical evidence that hasn't been controverted, by other evidence, incriminates Oswald.  So any mention of possible Oswald alibi's or things pointing to his innocence, has to consider the things pointing to his guilt.  For example, RPJ claims that there Oswald gave testimony that supports his alibi.  If you place it in the article you then have to state why his fingerprints were found on a weapon that is linked to the examination, if in fact he is innocent.  Otherwise the evidence of his innocence is POV, not to mention that your explanation is likely speculation and original research-- both inappropriate for Wiki.  The other problem is cosmetic, in that it creates an unnecessarily long article (such as this one) which Wiki discourages.  FTR-- I haven't made any changes to the text of the article in about a week because I just think it is a disjointed mess, and I wouldn't know where to begin. Also, without some agreement on how to incorporate all the information out there, any edit would be a waste of time.Ramsquire 18:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What evidence should be put in the article and what left out? 

message: *Two rules regarding the content are: 
1)The encyclopedia presents the existing basic facts as known and published by others; as opposed to original research by the encyclopedia that uncovers and presents new facts.
2) The encyclopedia presents arguments made by others about what the known facts mean; as opposed to the encyclopedia providing its own opinion on what the known facts mean.
These seem to be the Wikipedia Rules. 
RPJ 23:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The rules on the content of an encyclopedia

message: Contention: One Shooter in front by the grassy knoll and triple underpass; and a second shooter in the Texas Book Depository.
Evidence for the Two Shooter position:
1—	Over 40 witnesses who were present at the shooting perceived shots were fired from in front of the President from the area of the grassy knoll and triple underpass; and approximately the same number of witnesses perceived shots were fired  from behind the president  (from the book depository), and a small number of witnesses perceived shots from both the front and the back of the president. 
2—	Several eyewitnesses who were very close to the president and had a good view, saw the back of the president’s head blasted out that is consistent with being shot from the front. These include:
:a.	  Clint Hill the secret service agent who was sheltering the President with his body on the way to the hospital and described the "President's head on the right rear side was missing" and "leaving  one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head";   
:b.	Roy Kellerman, the President’s bodyguard who saw a 5 inch diameter hole in the back right hand side of the president’s head. 
:c.	Dr. McClelland, a treating physician in the emergency room who looked right at the head wound. 	Dr. McClelland said:
<BLOCKQUOTE> "You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out."  </blockquote> 
:The part of the brain called the cerebellum is at the very bottom of the skull as the link to a medical model of the brain shows. The doctor who was treating President Kennedy made this drawing of how the back of president's head in the emergency room. 
:d.      Dr. Kemp, Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery, who was also in the emergency room treating Kennedy also described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (Warren Commission --CE#392) 
The occipital lobe of the brain is just above the cerebellum part of the brain.
3--   These descriptions of the head wound in the back of the skull are all consistent with the the kill shot to the head coming from the front, blasting out the back of the president's head and knocking him violently backwards in his seat as shown in the Zapruder film.
The Warren Commission's evidence that there was only one shooter consists of the following:
Please put in your best three types of evidence. 
RPJ 03:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Shooter Evidence

message: The investigative congressional committee  concluded almost thirty years ago there were two shooters that attacked President Kennedy. The public concluded long ago there were two shooters. The evidence establishes two shooters. Over forty witnesses testified to hearing shots coming from in front of the President, where the second shooter would be located. The back of the president's head is blasted out.
Most people  accept the fact that President Kennedy was ambushed by more than one person. And, that means accepting that one or more persons have gotten away with murder. The only question now is who did it? With all the new documents found by the Assassination Records Review Board now being studied  and other being unsealed, the answers will probably come out. Certainly the list of suspects reviewed in the past by the HSCA will have to be taken out and given a fresh look in light of new evidence. 
There is no statute of limitations on murder.    
RPJ 07:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two shooters has become generally accepted by the public 

message: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm
seen no mention of this in the article or discussion archive, tho i was lame and only searched the text for "model". 
i have on vhs a copy of the bbc documentary from a couple of years back that explores this and oswald's background (the latter is very skewed towards "oswald was a commie", however, not particularly nuetral) but one thing that is interesting is that a fairly old guy cocks and clicks a similar rifle in less than the time needed by the "lone gunman" theory and this is seen as "proof" that oswald, being an "expert marksman" could "easily" have delivered all the shots.
note my judicous use of quotes
cycloid 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3d model study that "proves" oswald was killer? 

message: A Warren Report believer is now concerned that readers might find out the much criticized autopsy of the president was  compromised far worse than originally thought by the Congressional investigators who looked into the Kennedy autopsy a number of years ago and were shocked. The Assassination Records Review Board calls the autopsy a "tragedy." 
Whatever the military, CIA, and FBI were hiding from the Warren Commission and general public must have been explosive (like some of their people being involved in the Kennedy murder) in order to get these military doctors to obstruct justice with perjured testimony in order to convince the nation that only one person (Oswald)was involved in the murder. 
On August 2, 1998, the Associated Press reported an important new ARRB finding that raises questions about the entire truthfulness of original autopsy record:
“Under oath [before the Assassination Records Review Board], Dr. Humes, finally acknowledged under persistent questioning – in testimony that differs from what he told the Warren Commission – that he had destroyed both his notes taken at the autopsy and the first draft of the autopsy report.”
The Review Board had extracted Humes’ sworn admission that he had burned both a preliminary draft of the autopsy report, which he had told the Warren Commission about, but, in addition, he had also destroyed original autopsy notes taken on the night of the autopsy, something Humes had concealed from the Warren Commission. 
This information about the perjured testimony and destroyed autopsy notes was placed in the article  But, a staunch Warren Report believer quickly reverted this out of the article. 
But, why? Well, the Warren Report believer says: "innuendo - there's nothing sinister here [perjury, obstruction of justice, lack of professional ethics] if you look at why he did it, and if he was trying to conceal something, why take notes about it at all?"
::Why take notes? The military doctor probably took notes because that was the professional thing to do at an autopsy; and he probably wasn't told until later that night what facts he had to lie about. Does someone have another theory on why he would commit perjury, and conceal evidence?
RPJ 05:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More argumentative reversions by a Warren Believer