Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 1

message: I'm seeing some wierd formatting near the picture of the motorcade route.  I took a look, but I'm not sure what the problem is.  Maybe somebody wants to look at that, then delete this? --Barry 12:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
:It's true. The page looks fine at 1280 screen-width resolution and higher, but anything lower and the formatting suffers. Mr. Brownstone 23:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: When I last edited this article significantly, I was trying to build on a general idea with the 'timeline' section...a skim through now reveals that there are about three distinct but unconnected sections in this article with timelines.
Originally, I was trying to build one single 'timeline', that started at Love Field and ended at Air Force One, though easily could have gone through Kennedy's burial at Arlington Cemetary. Is it not prudent to have one single timeline of undisputed or largely undisputed facts that a casual reader of this article can browse and parse without being overwhelmed with details?
The timeline section doesn't have to be a place, for example, where Oswald's innocence or guilt, or a proof of why he couldn't have acted alone exists..does it? He left the Depository a few minutes after 12:30, for example, and that fact isn't really disputed, whether or not his guilt or innocence is.
Skybunny 03:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A timeline sounds like a good organizational idea to me, and I generally like your approach! :-)  Do you think you can put together a timeline like the one you envision from at least part of JFKtruth's material (the "agents", etc.)?  In addition to other info you may have, of course. Jwrosenzweig 15:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on singular timeline 

message: Is this picture a little too blurry to really be illustrative in the context of this article? I've removed it for now, as it is so large and clearly not cropped, but I do wonder if there might not be a better close up photograph of the President on Elm Street, even if in black and white. I'm definately open to re-including this if it seems a reasonable image.(?) Skybunny 00:12, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think leaving it out is wise -- the fact that it was (supposedly - I have no way of knowing) taken right before his death does not adequately make up for the fact that it is almost impossible to distinguish what you're looking at.  Fundamentally, it doesn't illustrate anything the article doesn't make plan, or add to a reader's understanding, which I think are the best criteria for deciding "should this picture stay?" Jwrosenzweig 22:23, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I think a Zapruder frame is appropriate, placed next to the Abraham Zapruder bullet point in "List of Witnesses".  It's the most important piece of documentary evidence and it's valuable to see its character.  The frame also belongs on the Abraham Zapruder article, of course.  Tempshill 20:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Believe the following picture is poor (reasonable to remove?) 

message: After several emails from single assassin theorists and conspiracy theorists bringing the article back to my attention I can say that the article is very accurate as of 6-18-04 documenting known and previously un-released investigated facts with regards to the case. Congradulations and kudos to contributors the most recent 2+ months. Emotionalism and a lack of knowledge (and of course deliberate disinfo and deception) in this case are negative towards anyone understanding the case. (as in Life, imho)
I have a logical suggestion. The main "John F. Kennedy assassination" article could at some point within the main article be linked to 2 separate sub-articles; one sub-article with an overview of the conspiracy oriented facts and theories, and one sub-article discussing the single assassin oriented facts and theories. It looks to me that the logical place to present these 2 sub-article links could be after the "A Nation Mourns" section. Almost all the information after the "A Nation Mourns" discussion can be easily removed from the main article and placed in either the conspiratorial sub-article or in the single assassin sub-article. (some of the info can be placed in each sub-article)
By dividing the case into two sub-articles it will save space in the main article, but much more importantly, it provides for all readers the freedom of choice to view which side, or both, sides of the considerations that they want to view (there is much physical evidence that can be defined both ways, just as there are some witnesses observations whose total observations can be interpreted both ways, and there is much evidence and observations, etc. that can be defined only one way) Seems logical to me. What do you think? :) JFKtruth 16:21, 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an unwelcome proposal, JFKtruth.  WP is not intended to bifurcate article topics into disparate point of view articles on the same topic.  That format was considered awhile back and was rejected. A rival online encylopedia was even started using that format.  That format is fundamentally inconsistent with NPOV policy because it asserts that only a certain POV is to be presented for a particular article at the exclusion of other POVs. However, under NPOV policy no article is to advocate nor oppose any particular POV.  To comply with WP's NPOV policy, a topic will be considered in one article with various POVs presented (in NPOV fashion, of course) on that one article. —B|Talk 19:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: BoNoMoJo believes JFKtruth's suggestion is "an unwelcome proposal," but in the tangible, real world of ever-more-intelligent persons reading, thinking, studying, researching, and concluding for themselves what has been documented and what information is most up-to-date that is exactly what has happened with the conclusions about the assassination. No amount of fascists editing out, ignoring recent information, or spinning facts will ever change it. A Good suggestion JFKtruth. Why would the lone nut apologists not want to have their own section to detail lone nut documented considerations? :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A Logical Proposal For Freedom of Thought

message: I inserted "allegedly" in the following two "Known Witnesses" lines:
:(William Harper) Just before the assassination a witness testified that he observed a second rifle-armed assassin through a west window.
:One witness stated that they saw a second rifle-armed assassin in a depository sixth-floor west window just minutes before the assassination.
If these statements are true, the witness needs to be named and inserted as a bullet point in this list, or moved to the "unknown witnesses" list and referenced as such.  Tempshill 20:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arnold Rowland (not William Harper) and several other witnesses stated they saw more than one person on the depository 6th floor -in different 6th floor windows- in the minutes before the assassination. :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: some "allegedly"s

message: At 1:15 to 1:16 pm, Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit was shot dead 0.85 miles from Oswald's rooming house. Thirteen people either witnessed Oswald shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene. After the Tippit murder Oswald was witnessed traveling on foot toward the Texas Theatre.
I recall the film JFK cites witnesses who gave a description of Tippit's murderer who doesn't match Oswald. Is there any source for this? Also has anyone ever explained why the police responded so heavily to what was reported as a fare dodger? Timrollpickering 23:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is more info at the Oswald and Tippet articles. 13 people witnessed Oswald either shooting him or fleeing the scene.  The police responed in force to the theater because they thought that fare dodger was Tippit's murderer.  Gamaliel  01:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was only 11, and will check official investigations primary sources on that. Closest witness, Benevidas, did not identify Oswald on 11-22-63. Just like Brennan on 11-22-63 did not i.d. Oswald as the one shooter he saw. Brennan testified he heard a shot while he was looking directly at that shooter but did not see that weapon muzzle blast disrupt the air, Brennan did not see that weapon emit even a small flame, and Brennan did not see that weapon emit even a small amount of bullet cartridge and/or rifle cleaning oil smoke when Brennan heard a muzzle blast. When the WC requested the FBI to test fire the actual weapon in evidence the FBI documented (buried documented within the WC canard's 26 supporting volumes) that the weapon in evidence did emit a flame, did disrupt the air in front of the muzzle, and the weapon in evidence did emit white smoke. :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Murder of Tippit

message: This is just a bare-bones starting point for what I was thinking about for a new JFK assassination article.  It still needs fleshing out as most of it comes directly from the top of my head.  Also any NPOV additions would be really appreciated
Concerns the events surrounding the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy.  President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 at 12:30 PM in Dallas, Texas.  President Kennedy was in Dallas on a fund-raising trip in preparation for the upcoming 1964 elections.  As his motorcade entered Dealey Plaza, after turning from Houston street onto Elm Street, shots rang out.  One shot fatally injured the President.  Governor John Connolly, who was driving in the same limousine as the President was also injured.
President Kennedy’s body was immediately taken to Parkland Hospital before it was transferred to Bethesda Naval Hospital where his autopsy was eventually performed.
Shortly after the fatal events in Dealey Plaza, Dallas police arrested Lee Harvey Oswald, originally as a suspect in the murder of Dallas police officer JD Tippit, in a Dallas theater.  Later that evening he was charged with the murder of President Kennedy.
Oswald himself was murdered 48 hours later by local Dallas bar owner, Jack Ruby, on live national TV.  
Vice President Lyndon Johnson was inauguarated as the 36th President, aboard Air Force One, 98 minutes after the assassination in Dealey Plaza.
The circumstances surrounding the events of the assassination of John F. Kennedy continue to intrigue the nation.  Many Americans still believe Kennedy was assassinated as part of a conspiracy.  See JFK conspiracy.  The issue has been covered in numerous books and media reports and received a new spotlight due to Oliver Stone’s popular film, JFK.  That film surrounded the events of the trial of Claw Shaw brought by New Orleans District Attorney, Jim Garrison.
Ramsquire 19:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed replacement article: Let me know what you think 

message: "Doctors have stated that his wife's pulling him onto her helped cover up his sucking-air front chest wound and saved his life."  
I can't figure out what that means.  Can someone pleas rewrite this?
Done. Wyss 83.115.141.10 15:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to understand 

message: In my humble opinion, this sub article has again descended into self-parody. By removing almost all references to Lee Oswald and his movements that day (forcing the reader to tunnel down even further into the separate Oswald article), Wiki's perspective on the assasination has again returned to pro-conspiracy. The documented record is clear: Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK with two shots fired from the TSBD building, fled to his rooming house to pick up a handgun, murdered a Dallas p.o., ran into a movie theatre without paying, tried to shoot another p.o. when the police confronted him there, and was murdered by a two-bit strip joint owner two days later. Stating the various conspiracy theories is fine, but giving them equal credibility to what the forensic evidence has clearly revealed is... odd, and diminishes Wiki. Thanks for listening. Wyss 83.115.17.152 13:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: The article on the Warren Commission is almost entirely a report on what people think was wrong with it.  That is ludicrous.--JimWae 18:33, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
----
:Stop and consider... Perhaps people now think (after reading previously witheld documented information that was finally released, and, after reading more up-to-date conclusions reached by other official investigations/committees/panels) there are things about the Warren Commission canard that are "wrong with it" is precisely because there HAS been found MANY conclusions that ARE, indeed, "wrong with it" (much of it buried in the 26 "supporting" volumes of the Warren Comm canard, itself; with 3+% of the WC and 20+% of the HSCA and other agencies documentations still being witheld from the People) :) 64.12.116.13 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Warren Commission

message: There's been a lot of changes in the article of late, and somewhere in there all the external links disappeared.  I can't be bothered to sift through the changes and retrieve all the links, but it's for the best because the list of links was far too bloated and thus pretty useless. I strongly feel that we should have some links, and I added the links that I have found most helpful and comprehensive.  Others are free to add whatever links they want from whatever perspective.  I would ask that everyone on all sides of the debate refrain from again using the section as a dumping ground for anything and everything and add only significant pages with a lot of content and not simply every two page geocities rant or picture they find on the net. Also, try to use subpages when possible - to choose a nearby example, those Dr. Thomas links can go on the dictabelt subpage, but don't need to be in the main JFK article.
I'm not sure why the links went away in the first place, but what we don't need is a weird disclaimer and instructions on how to use keyword searches to find JFK information.  Gamaliel 19:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links