Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 7

message: A silouette that appears to be a person with a rifle can be seen from frames 420 to 485 of the Zapruder film. The silouette moves similarly to the way the human body moves; at one point it appears to hunch its shoulders. The silouette is in a portion of the frame the does not move with the background. This suggests that it is a reflection. Possibly from light entering through the eye piece and onto the film. This happens on Aaton 16mm cameras if you leave the eye peice oncovered (i.e. take your eye away from it). I don't know weather anyone has looked into this before, but I think it should be concidered for entry into the wiki article on JFK.
Every frame of the film can be found here - http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe485.html. Ethoen 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zapruder film

message: :criticism- 1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely.  2. A critical comment or judgment. 
Keep in mind that "criticize" means to find fault with or to judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate.
:scrutiny- 1. A close, careful examination or study. 2. Close observation; surveillance. 
:Therefore, what exactly is the beef with my change of words?  Scrutiny is just as accurate as criticism here.  I used scrutiny because there has been no official condemnation or blaming of the FBI, that I am aware of.  It has come mainnly from pro-conspiracy authors.  Scrutiny encompasses all views on the Hosty subject. Ramsquire 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of my cosmetic change

message: (Personal attack removed by Ramsquire 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... you're the one who seems to have a problem with emotions here with your page long responses and all.  Anywhoo, back to the topic, nice strawman argument.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  The changes I made were in relation to Hosty.  You're talking about investigation of conspiracy.  The FBI has not been criticized because of the Hosty situation.  However, Hosty's actions, as an FBI agent has been scrutinized.  Ramsquire 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The editor above must learn that his editing is subject criticism

message: ::Note: In order for readers to draw their own conclusion they need to review the citation which is to the English educational encyclopedia called Spartacus. Here it is:
*Soon after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, [FBI agent]Hosty was called into the office of his superior, Gordon Shanklin. Hosty was asked about what he knew about Oswald. 
*When Oswald was shot dead by Jack Ruby two days later, Shanklin ordered Hosty to destroy Oswald's letter.
*The Federal Bureau of Investigation discovered that Hosty's name and phone number appeared in Oswald's address book. J. Edgar Hoover was worried that this indicated that Oswald had been working closely with the FBI. That he might have been an FBI informant on the activities of left-wing groups such as the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Instead of passing Oswald's address book to the Warren Commission, the FBI provided a typewritten transcription of the document in which the Hosty entry was omitted. 
*When it was discovered that Hosty had misled the Warren Commission he was suspended from duty. Later he was transferred to the FBI office in Kansas City. [Apparently the authorities never caught who deleted the FBI agent's name from Oswald's address book]
*It became public knowledge when someone in the FBI tipped off a journalist about the existence of Oswald's letter. Oswald's relationship with Hosty was explored by the Select Committee on Intelligence Activities and the Select Committee on Assassinations. 
*Hosty admitted that he had misled the Warren Commission by not telling them about the existence of the letter from Oswald. Gordon Shanklin denied knowing about the letter but this evidence was contradicted by the testimony of Hosty and William Sullivan, the Assistant Director of the FBI.</blockquote>
RPJ 05:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The above post left out the necessary citation to the English encyclopedia

message: Unfortunately, editor Ramsquire is wrong again. Ramsquire wants to delete from the article information that the FBI not only got caught destroying evidence (a letter from Oswald to an FBI agent two days before Kennedy was murdered), but also that a Congressional Committee that was empowered to investigate the Kennedy murder, concluded that the FBI failed in its duty to investigate a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. 
Congressional Committee said about the FBI. Read it--its history.
RPJ 05:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramsquire is wrong again

message: I have to make a point, which is; if someone scrutinises something (meaning investigating it) they must then absolve someone of wrong-doing, or criticize them/sentence them, for doing something wrong. --andreasegde 16:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow your point.  Do you think I fundamentally changed the paragraph?  If so, please explain. Ramsquire 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A minor point

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.See footnote
* article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. 
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.  See footnote 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
See footnote
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion on Improving article

message: The video tape needs to be authenticated. about three or four months ago another unauthenticated tape was put on the site and the editors complained and it was taken off. This version is terrible.
Hasn't anyone checked it out?  
RPJ 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The video link to the assassaination needs to be authenticated  

message: I've looked at the article and compared it to last spring and its gotten terrible. There is almost nothing about the assassination itself anymore. Almost all the description of what occurred, during the assassination and immediately afterward  has been deleted. Why bother having an article on the assassination if it the actual events, that are very well documented, are deleted and replaced by a bunch of argument about Oswald. Isn't there an Oswald article?
63.164.145.198 18:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be bold.  Make any improvements you feel need to be made. Ramsquire 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has changed for the worse over the last 6-8 months 

message: Issue:  Oswald claimed he was being framed.  But, according to the Warren Commission, key evidence against Oswald  was a rifle called a Carcano. The Commission believed it was owned by Oswald and found where Oswald worked—right near the “sniper’s nest.”
Problem: The rifle found was first identified by the police as a Mauser—not a Carcano. 
Warren Commission Reply: It was mere “rumor or speculation” that a Mauser was found. Instead, the Warren Commission claimed that the Carcano that was marked as an exhibit was Oswald’s Carcano and was found near the sniper's nest—not a Mauser.   
Flaw:  No evidence was submitted that it was a Carcano rifle found in the building.  The men who found the rifle were put under oath; but the Carcano rifle  was never handed to the witnesses nor were they questioned about it being the one they found.  This is a stunning error by the Commission especially because:
*The Commission knew Oswald had claimed he had been framed
*The Commission knew that several policemen had identified the rifle as a Mauser
*Yet, the Commission didn’t take steps to authenticate under oath that the rifle marked as the exhibit was, in fact, the one found in the building.
*Remember, this was the rifle the Commission believed was used to murder the president. 
The Wikipedia article, as written, wants to tell the reader that the rifle found in the building was a Carcano and not a Mauser.  In fact, the article now states:
This[film] footage [of the rifle’s retrieval]shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, and it was later verified by photographic analysis commissioned by the HSCA that the rifle filmed was the exact same one identified as the assassination weapon. (emphasis added)
The HSCA report doesn't say this. Therefore, there isn't a citation for this statement in the article. RPJ 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, let’s cut to the heart of this issue

message: Without a word someone deleted  from the article the statement by the Dallas Police Chief,Jesse Curry, about Oswald and the rifle. Chief Curry was there during the assassination and later said there was never any proof "that Oswald fired the rifle." 
Someone, for no reason,  deleted the statement from the article, despite the fact that it is undeniably a significant point of view on the subject.  Unless there is a very good reason not to do so, I am going to put it back in:
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry later said "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand.". http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcurryJ.htm
RPJ 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dallas Police Chief's opinion saying  no "proof" 

message: Someone keeps deleting information by paragraph claiming simply "point of view" pushing.
Could he explain what that means and give and example. After he gives an example explain why he doesn't edit rather than revert wholesale?
RPJ 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is point of view pushing? 

message: Obviously there will be many readers coming to this article on or around November 22 and this group of related article are not in good shape. 
I tried to lay out the three points of view. The Oswald did it and no Conspiracy view. The Oswald did it, and  in a conspiracy, and Oswald didn't do it and a conspiracy. 
That is why the police chief statement was put at top so that all significant view points are included. Thati how an article is kept neutral.
RPJ 02:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get page presentable for 11/22/2006 

message: My position is “Yes” a formal dispute panel is necessary.
Nature of disagreement:
A bullet was found that had ballistic characteristics that matched the rifle the Warren Commission believed was found near the scene of the crime. The bullet in question wasn’t fragmented like the other pieces of bullets found but was almost an entire bullet and only slightly deformed. It later became known as the "magic" bullet.
The question arose: Where did the bullet come from?  Is this important to the case? Yes. In the public’s mind, there are a couple of pieces of evidence that convict Oswald of participating in the crime and this bullet is a key piece of the evidence.
Of course, everyone knew Darrell C. Tomlinson claimed  he found the bullet on a stretcher in the hospital after the assassination. But what wasn’t known was how the bullet got on the stretcher. There are at least three theories on how the bullet got there.  These are listed in no particular order of plausibility:
* The bullet was planted there as part of the alleged Oswald “frame up.”  
 
*The bullet came out of Governor Connally who was also shot and in the hospital
*The bullet came out of President Kennedy 
Who is right?   That is the controversy.  Under the Wikipedia neutrality policy, the editors of Wikipedia do not pick which viewpoint is “true” but include all significant viewpoints in the article on the issue and allow the reader to choose. 
Nevertheless, editor Ramsquire wants to include only the viewpoint that the bullet came out of Connally. He specifically wants to delete the mention of the FBI’s viewpoint on this key evidentiary issue.  
Here are some of Ramsquire’s reasons for excluding the information given by J. Edgar  Hoover to President Johnson that the bullet came from Kennedy and not Johnson:
*“Hoover's viewpoint that the bullet came out of Kennedy is equal in significance and popularity to the viewpoint that Sun revolves around the Earth.”  (Ramsquire)
*“Factual, [what Hoover said] but irrelevant since there is no showing that Hoover did the same kind of research the Commission did to come to his conclusion.” (Ramsquire)
*“[I]t was probably a mistaken assumption [by Hoover] made early in an investigation, as is known to happen frequently, and should not be given undue weight by having it as a counterbalance to the WC finding.” (Ramsquire).
However, the readers can decide these issues. Wikipedia does not allow deletions of information because an editor believes he knows which information is "right" and therefore "knows" other viewpoints are wrong. Wikipedia clearly prohibits: 
"Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance: 
Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds)." 
The Kennedy assassination article needs to include all viewpoints. This is not a chat site devoted to one viewpoint or another. It is an encyclopedia. RPJ 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up RPJ.  Please start the RfC process.  It appears that no matter how many times I explain myself you will not approach my point. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I imagine other editors will have the same reaction to this as we have had, and they likely would have much less patience for your behavior than we have had. First you need a reliable source. Spartacus is insufficient. Next you need a source to demonstrate that this phone call represents Hoover's constant view on the subject and not just a mistatement on the phone. This is, after all, a phone call, not an FBI report. That source should ideally also explain why Hoover's view was different from all other official government conclusions on the matter. NPOV does say that significant points of view should be represented, and you like to repeat that over and over again, but you ignore all other components of the NPOV policy. You have to demonstrate that this viewpoint is significant and not a misstatement or a passing fancy of Hoover's. You can't drop random quotes in the middle of the article attempting to seed it with conspiratorial skepticism. That violates NPOV. Gamaliel 00:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is there are so many conspiracy sites devoted to the JFK-A, that the NPOV dam has to be high and strong to hold back the flood of anecdotes, rumors, speculation, theories and outright nuttyness that makes up the bulk of such websites.  I've said it before... Authors have fed their families and put their kids through college on the proceeds from JFK-A conspiracy books, for the past four decades. It's a living.....  But we need to insure that this article is based on the facts. It needs to be kept in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. "..seed(ing) it with conspiratorial skepticism"  goes against NPOV and makes this article disjointed and smarmy.  We can mention the phenomenon of the plethora of conspiracy theories that exist, but in a neutral, specific portion of the article.  We need to avoid giving undue weight to the conspiracy theory world as a whole, and any specific CT's in particular.  Mytwocents 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, what Gamalial said. Snippets of whatever daily updates on the JFK assassination which Hoover chose to feed LBJ early in the course of an investigation which various branches of the government wouldn't close for many more weeks or months, is just silly. Wikipedia isn't big enough for this kind of nonsense. It's not big enough even for the Warren Report summary, which is a natural stopping point, and far better written, complete, authoritative, and indexed than any Wiki you'll ever read on this subject.  We are forced to pick natural stopping places for Wiki summaries, therefore. Summaries of summaries of conclusions of existing completed official major investigations would seem obvious places to do this. I wouldn't be adverse to including a short (very short) synopsis of the FBI's final Jan 13, 1964 report to the Warren Commission, since that represents a natural stopping point, and a point at which obviously a certain lot of information had been collected, collated, passed by all involved, and a summary made so that you don't get the kinds of mistakes and bad viewpoints that always come from looking at invididual threads of investigations, while they are still ongoing and nobody yet has seen everybody else's results (a great example of this is the infamous FBI version of the autopsy, writen by a couple of FBI agents who saw the autopsy, but weren't medical people and didn't fully understand what they were seeing. And were also factually describing confusion of doctors who themselves were not at that moment in full possession of all facts and didn't therefore understand what THEY were seeing EITHER, even though they understood more than the FBI people). But Hoover's daily smoke-blow for LBJ isn't this, or anything close to even this.  And why a shorter summary in Wikipedia for the FBI report?  Because the FBI's 7-week sub-investigation  was a much shorter investigation than the "Warren" (President's Commission) 8-month one, and was in many ways subservient and incorporated into it (though not entirely-- there are disagrements which are preserved in history, such as the two autopsy "reports"). Wikipedia must also maintain space to summarize the other later two major investigations of JFK assassination by the government (the only people with access to the critical evidence)  If you follow the news reports in the days following the JFK assassination, a lot of "important" people had a lot of "significant" opinions. Most notably, several Dallas law enforcement people had so many daily opinons on the guilt of Oswald and reasons for it (all of them quite damning, incidentally), that at one point the feds had to call up a bunch of them and tell them to shut up, because they were prejudicing whatever case might eventually be made. The 26 volume Warren Report actually details some of this. But it's way, WAY too much detail for Wikipedia. It isn't a matter of whether or not Wikipedia SHOULD include this level of detail. We already know it cannot, and maintain its character. If you want to read the Warren Report, go to the National Archive website and do so. That's not what Wikipedia is here to do. SBHarris 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is formal dispute panel for the J. Edgar Hoover disagreement necessary? 

message: After reading the comments above, it appears Mediation should be attempted with a full effort to make it successful. I will initiate the process unless someone has a better suggestion. 
RPJ 19:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make sure to give everyone notice once it is initiated. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, in your opinion, is "everyone" who needs notice? RPJ 23:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spare me. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation over  Carcano rifle section seems best

message: (Will be posted on related articles talk pages as well) I imagine with the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination approaching, there will be some newer scientific polling data available.  If anyone comes across said polls, can they update the sections which rely on the 2003 poll?  Thanks.  I'll have my eyes peeled as well. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Polling Data

message: That's the whole point of electing a vice president, don't you know. The question has come up many times about whether or not he needs to take the oath of office before he becomes president, and most scholars say no. The constitution only says that the new president "shall take" the oath, it certainly doesn't say that he's not president until he does (the vice president, BTW, takes the civil service oath, which includes all the same language and more). The 25th ammendement says “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.” It doesn't say "shall become just as soon as he take the oath of office." It says "shall become." End. You can read the arguments in United States presidential line of succession. Johnson was obligated to take the presidential oath, indeed, but not obligated to do it post haste. But the point is made well enough by the case of Zachary Taylor who refused to take the oath of office on a Sunday, when the previous president's term had expired. That would have made David Rice Atchison a US president for 24 hours. See the Atchison article. But this is silly, and nobody recognizes it. Therefore, your argument is incorrect. SBHarris 04:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't try to lecture me about the Presidential line of succession.  My edit summary is an attempt to be brief, and in doing so, may be a bit misleading.  The attempted history lesson in your post is unnecessary and uncalled for.  When Kennedy was murdered, the 25th Amendment was still two years away from being formally proposed, so the issue of when LBJ took is up for debate.  Granted it is an esoteric debate at this point.   In 1963, at the moment of the oath, there is no more debate over whether Johnson is "acting President" or "actual President".  Therefore it is much more NPOV to simply state "became" rather than "automatically became".  The 25th Amendment hadn't finally settled the issue yet.  BTW-- B.A. in Political Science here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, LBJ automatically became president at the moment of JFK's death

message: The article says the event took place"at 12:30 pm, CST(18:30 UTC)." Wikipedia's link at"CST" shows that UTC for CST should include the designation UTC-5(savings) or UTC-6(standard).
You recognise the "Warren Commission" is the unofficial name of the federal panel, yet the official name is never presented.
You sneered at the observation that Kennedy did not visit Dallas on November 20;Kennedy flew from Washington D.C. to San Antonio on Nov.21, then on to Fort Worth and Dallas on the 22nd.
You recognise the Dallas Police and FBI investigations that begin immediately yet claim that "the first official investigation" is the Warren Commission.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk • contribs) 
::Since you know so much more than everyone else who has contributed to the article, why don't you just make the corrections as you see fit in the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MORE ERRORS