Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 4

message: Page is now protected due to edit wars. Please work it out using dispute resolution. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: 1.   Remove the verbatim quotes throughout the article.  I suggest summarizing them and providing a link to the source.
2.  Show deference to the Warren Commission and the HSCA, as the "official" investigations into the assassination of JFK, when setting a framework for the assassination.  Feel free however, to add verified information where the Warren Commission clearly got it wrong.  I understand this is going to be controversial, and I know that many disagree with the conclusions of the Warren Report.  The best way to handle that is a step by step approach where we list the Warren Commission's findings and then show how that finding has been controverted by later research.  The current article has so many researchers and theories in it that the the fact of two "official" investigations and their importance is sort of lost. 
3.  Take out the reference to John Birch Society reference in the background to Texas trip section, or better yet simply state that Dallas was hostile political territory for JFK, and state why.  Since JBS has no known connection to the assassination, and there were many political enemies of JFK in Dallas at that time, it'll probably be best not to highlight one to the exclusion of others.
4.  Removing the list of person's present at the autopsy from the main article, and creating either a disambiguation page to these persons or another page called "List of Persons At JFK Autopsy".  
5.  To be NPOV, if the article is going to mention Hosty's destruction of Oswald's note, Hosty's explanation of his actions in his book, "Assignment:Oswald" should also be referenced.
6.  Public response to the Warren Commission probably should be in the article on the Warren Commission with only a link to it here.
7. (On a side note, "what modern guns emit smoke?")  At the end of the HSCA section there is mention of some witnesses seeing gunpowder smoke from the knoll, but no source for that bit of information or what witnesses.  Should probably verify who saw the smoke.
8.  List of people present in the Presidential Motorcade, should recieve the same treatment as the persons present at the autopsy.  Disambiguation page or new page listing them, with a link to that page on this site.
9.  Delete Assassination Theories as the title and the body are discussing different issues and we can just do an internal link to the site discussing Kennedy Assassination theories.
10.  Delete similarities section and just place a link to the article on Tecumseh's curse.
Ramsquire 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Ramsquire on the 10 points he has raised. I think these changes would make for a better article.  His suggestions are in line with what I was trying to do with the  00:40, February 12, 2006  version.   I will raise the issue of the use of the Kennedy autopsy photos seperately. Mytwocents 01:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I also concur.  There should also be a section on the Rifle that OSwald used to kill Kennedy.  It ties him to the Depostory building and the murder.  It is overwhelming evidence that is glaringly missing.  --Tbeatty 03:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a section, based on the rifle article we have, but it was the subject of a fierce edit war with RPJ, who thinks The Conspiracy switched a Mauser with the Carcano.  Apparently the section ended up getting deleted altogether in the fray.  If you're up for it, add it back. Gamaliel 03:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added sentences on the rifle with source.  --Tbeatty 05:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Couple of Suggestions When the Page Is Unprotected. 

message: It looks like the lock-down of the article came about because of a fundamental disagreement over the basic nature of the article:
:1--The article devotes itself exclusively to the murder of John Kennedy: The "Crime of the Century."  The secret evidence of the crime has, in part, has been opened for public viewing:  The secret testimony; the secret documents; the secret photographs; and the amazing behind-the-scenes revelations are now being made public by an act of Congress passed in 1992. Most of the readers want to look at the evidence, read the evidence and find out what really happened.
:2—On the other hand, 
::Some readers claim the testimony of the eyewitnesses is "too gory." 
::Some claim the pictures are too disturbing. 
::Some are worried that one or two federal agencies might look bad if the truth comes out. 
::A few others find comfort believing in the faded assurances given 42 years ago, that  the government has told the public the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the murder.  
These people can believe what they want, but the other readers don't need some anonymous reader, using made up internet name, attempting to censor the evidence for him or her. 
Until this controversy gets resolved, it is hard to see how the article can be unlocked.  Tomorrow, some of evidence that has been censored out of the article will be posted to show how serious the censorship problem has become.  Remember now, this isn’t China.
66.91.203.81 06:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Because this is an article about a murder case; criminal conduct should be at the forefront

message: :It looks like we have "You Know Who" to blame for this whole Hosty controversy.  It was none other than "The Man" himself!  The late J. Edgar Hoover!  Thanks to the Mcadams Website for this info.
:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm
:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context3.htm
Clueless J. Edgar Hoover?
Imposter At Soviet Embassy in Mexico City?
:Conspiracists have long believed that someone impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald at the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City in late September, 1963. One piece of "evidence" they use is a memorandum written by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. The following is from the Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. 
:The question of an Oswald imposter was also raised in an FBI letterhead memorandum to the Secret Service dated November 23, 1963. It was based in part upon information received by CIA headquarters on October 9, 1963, that on October 1, 1963, Oswald had contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. 
:The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Tex., have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald. 
:In response to a committee inquiry, the FBI reported that no tape recording of Oswald's voice was in fact ever received. The Bureau explained that its Dallas office only received the report of a conversation to which Oswald had been a party. This explanation was independently confirmed by the committee. A review of relevant FBI cable traffic established that at 7:23 p.m. (CST) on November 23, 1963, Dallas Special Agent-in-Charge Shanklin advised Director Hoover that only a report of this conversation was available, not an actual tape recording. On November 25, the Dallas office again apprised the Director that "[t]here appears to be some confusion in that no tapes were taken to Dallas * * * [O]nly typewritten [reports were] supplied * * *." 
:Shanklin stated in a committee interview that no recording was ever received by FBI officials in Dallas. Moreover, former FBI Special Agents James Hosty, John W. Fain, Burnett Tom Carter, and Arnold J. Brown, each of whom had conversed with Oswald at one time, informed the committee they had never listened to a recording of Oswald's voice. 
:Finally, on the basis of an extensive file review and detailed testimony by present and former CIA officials and employees, the committee determined that CIA headquarters never received a recording of Oswald's voice. The committee concluded, therefore, that the information in the November 23, 1963, letterhead memorandum was mistaken and did not provide a basis for concluding that there had been an Oswald imposter. 
:House Select Committee on Assassinations, Report, pp. 249-250.
:Mytwocents 05:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the Presses! 

message: We are making progress but must resolve a significant difference of opinion on the over all approach to the article.
One opinion is to let the compelling and tightly edited facts,  describe the assassination of the president. Other articles talk about Kennedy the man, his politics and so and a bunch of theories. This article talks about Kennedy's assassination. It’s the murder case of the century.
The readers are entitled to the primary source information which, everything else being equal, is often the best. The article does not need some literary talent try to describe what the witness' said. Let the people who were there tell what happened.
Another opinion is to craft an article around the opinions of "official" commissions. However, the "official" Commissions are all over 25 years out of date. They were conducted in secret. Neither are particularly well thought of.
Since the the "Seventies", the motion picture "JFK" was filmed and helped create the public pressure that resulted in the JFK Records Act of 1992 which, through the end of the 1990's, gathered the secret documents  and transcripts.  Some have already been released. 
These new documents must be included or it makes the article far below acceptable level. People expect their encyclopedia to be up to date.
RPJ 01:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are making progress 

message: Now that the page is unlocked, I hope everyone will start with good faith and edit the page for NPOV..... Mytwocents 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: November 23, 1963 An FBI memorandum sent to the Secret Service about the Oswald imposter being at the Soviet Embassy says:
“Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Tex., have observed photographs of the individual referred to above [at the Russian Embassy calling himself Oswald] and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald.”
This quote must be put in to have an NPOV.
66.135.233.230 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that the page is unlocked...

message: As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.
When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating
Losing sight of the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy. The ideal is to make articles acceptable to everyone. Every revert (rather than change) of a biased edit is a NPOV defeat, no matter how outrageous the edit was. Consider figuring out why the other person felt the article was biased. Then, if possible, try to integrate their point, but in terms you consider neutral. If each side practices this they will eventually meet at NPOV — or a rough semblance of it.
Quotations 
In most cases, quotations that span multiple paragraphs should be block-quoted, and thus do not require quotation marks. Quotation marks are used for multiple-paragraph quotations in some cases, especially in narratives. The convention in English is to give the first and each subsequent paragraph opening quotes, using closing quotes only for the final paragraph of the quotation. The Spanish convention, though similar, uses closing quotes at the beginning of all subsequent paragraphs beyond the first.
NPOV
A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics.
Therefore, saying: don't include something because it is "conspiracy nonsense" or vaguely saying somebody has "debunked" something is clearly out of line with Wikipedia policy. 
Wikipedia does not allow Point Of View forks
A point of view fork is putting facts or ideas you don't agree with somewhere else in the Wikipdeia hoping people won't take the effort to see them. Advocates for their causes often resort to this tactic. Its improper under the rules. 
Main article: Content forking.
"A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article."
Please, every reader follow the policies.
RPJ 21:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here are some Wikipedia rules

message: ::::::"Some editors can't seem to write a sentence in this article w/o slipping in a graphic description or quote about the effect of a high powered bullet on the presidents skull."
This is "Mytwocents" blowing hot air again. 
:::::Does "Mytwocents" ever give any examples for what he says? Is he some kid who wants to irritate older people? Is he a PR flack for one of the government agencies? Probably. But who knows for sure. He is anonymous, follows no rules or procedures and believes he and two other people run the article because they seem to work on it all the time. Almost as if it were a job. 
:::::They even write in a similar fashion as the Mcadams person who is a full time CIA mouth piece on the web. 
66.91.203.81 08:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something one might hear in a bar after midnight

message: Since many users feel that my suggestion to link this article to other articles that already exists in Wiki that discuss the assassination is an attempt to artificially fork the article, I have another suggesstion.  This view that my earlier suggestion is a violation of Wiki is summed up by the user who posted this:
:"The generally accepted policy [of Wikipedia] is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article." 
66.135.233.230 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Suggestion... #11 

message: The policy of this website is that a Neutral Point of View must be followed. This rule prohibits censorship. The rule requires all significant view points must be included and let the readers make up their own mind	
A couple of readers do not like this policy and believe they can violate it by removing information that they disagree with.
In the sub-part on the assassination itself, a couple of readers have a fixed view of the assassination and do not want the eyewitness testimony quoted because it contradicts what they want the other readers to believe. Therefore, they simply go through the article and censor out any information they find offensive to their theory.
This goes directly against website rules of including all significant theories and evidence. This rule is very basic to the Wikipedia website.
No one or two readers "own" the page, and no one or two readers can censor out items they don't like. It is simple as that.
These readers do not care what the rules are. Their overall plan appears to be to leave out any evidence that questions the Warren Report, which is probably the most widely criticized Commission in U.S. history.
Since these peple are anonymous their motivation is unknown and really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that they follow the website rules.
Since they censor and revert information day and night on this site they believe they can violate the rules with impunity.
RPJ 23:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "readers"?, What does "readers" mean? What censorship? How is NPOV being violated by condensing block quotes to a descriptive phrase or editing out POV conspiracy statements, unsupported by evidence or verifiable sources? What overall plan? How does a request to "please verify the credibility of this source" violate Wikipolicy? Why was it removed? Maybe you could decribe what changes you want to make on the talk page, and give other editors a chance to weigh in on them, before you edit the main page? Mytwocents 02:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of changes indicates user "Mytwocents" has simply gone through the article and removed parts of the article that he disagreed with. "editing out a "conspiracy statement" is not allowed merely because  "mytwocents" doesn't agree with said statements and it appears what was taken out by "Mytwocents" was verified and had been in the article.
The person who is "Mytwocents" needs to review the webpage rules which require all points of views presented not just the views which he agrees. 67.52.74.194 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point Of View is being violated in the Assassination sub-part 

message: I changed Ramsay Clark to Ramsey to reflect his biography at this official government site:
http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/ls/agbiographies.htm#clark2  skywriter 07:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of former Attorney General's first name

message: "Mytwocents" knocked out very dramatic and unique testimony of a president being murdered. Not only any witness's testimony, but, instead, Abraham Zapruder, a witness that made one of the most astounding home movies ever taken.  The reason for removing it? The testimony doesn't fit into "Mytwocent's" theory on how the president was killed. 
Thanks, "Mytwocents." 
Who is "Mytwocent?" He contributed to one other article  on religion and now is in a big fight over that article.
He adores the editor who calls himself "Gamaliel" who has a nasty pen and flip attitude of a spoiled high school student. For example, Mytwocents writes of his hero:
:::I hearby (sic) award Gamaliel this Editor's Barnstar for tireless editing and rv'ing, in the ongoing NPOV saga called the John F. Kennedy assassination article!  Mytwocents  17 February 2006 
Isn't that sweet? 
"Gamaliel" roams around this website deleting any information he doesn't  like. Usually, simply calling what he chops out "nonsense." 
He is such a wise person and a "tireless" worker.
These two have, as a team, chopped out a great deal of information from the article since 1) anyone can be an editor, and 2) it is far easier to censor information by deleting it then to write anything. 
"Gamaliel" did, for a while, profess to be a linguist, citing his fluency in "Pig Latin" on his "User Page." He has recently taken that off his page, after someone brought it to his attention that it is not a recognized language. 
RPJ 23:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another sarcastic, sardonic, untruthful, attempt at character assassination by RPJ!   How long is this going to be permitted to go on? Mytwocents 04:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point to any specific language you believe is  untruthful, sarcastic, and/or comprises chraracter assassination.  Please be very specific.
RPJ 00:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone can be an editor-but some should decline

message: This is the only mention of the ARRB in the article.  I think we should place this text after the HSCA sub-section and add more info on the ARRB.
The Assassination Records Review Board looked over the autopsy records and took testimony of the participants and determined that the autopsy of the murdered president was handled in such an unprofessional manner that it  termed it a "tragedy." 
The autopsy photographs of the President’s brain are apparently missing; in 1998, what appear to be photographs of another person's brain were given to the ARRB.   This panel was created under federal law to gather and preserve the documents relating to the assassination. 
Mytwocents 06:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The ARRB

message: This was added by anon 83.181.65.253.  Moved to talk page. Maybe it can go on the conspiracy theories page?
:One of the major theories alleges CIA involvement, especially since the infamous defamation lawsuit of Howard E. Hunt against The Spotlight, which the court ruled in Spotlights favor, effectively declaring Spotlights story true.
Mytwocents 21:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hunt v The Spotlight

message: The Hunt case should go with HSCA part of this article:
Former CIA agent E. Howard Hunt brought a defamation lawsuit against Liberty Lobby for this article that implicated Hunt as being involved in the assassination of JFK. Mark Lane defended Liberty Lobby in the case and won a landmark victory for those who support the conclusion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations that the Kennedy murder was the "result of a conspiracy."
RPJ 17:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jury verdict for Conspiracy

message: ::The Assassination Records Review Board pointed out that four out of the seven Warren Commission members became skeptical of the Warren Commission's conclusions that Oswald did it alone. 
Does that mean we remove any mention of the Warren Report? 
It should go back in unless a very good argument can be made.
RPJ 03:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: That's no reason for excluding it

message: Whew, I go away for a week and come back to this?  When I left the article needed some minor tweaking, now it's just a mess.  It probably should be locked.  Well, I broke my own rule and decided to make edits.
Anyway I made the following changes that I think just needed to be made. Outside of some grammatical errors, and minor aesthetic changes, I deleted the Carcano rifle section as it appeared to be vandalized.  The section I deleted read: "A 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle with a six-round magazine serial number C2766 was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Sheriff Weitzman and Officer Boone, soon after the assassination of president Kennedy. but every one and they mama know what he did thats probally why they shot him. or it could have been a conspiricy by the damn government."  I guess I could have just deleted the last section, but why put a band aid on a gunshot wound.
In addition, I took out the requests for verifications and the disputed information blocks from the article.  That's something to be done on the talk page, and not in the article.  
Finally I removed the list of person at the autopsy and the President's motorcade because a) it is totally irrelevant and b) I created pages for them and provided internal links in the article.
Ramsquire 18:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes Made 

message: The dicta belt sect was completely unreference and has been for a long time. if it can't be referenced it has to go. That is a basic  website rule.
RPJ 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be ample references in the main article.  If there is any specific piece of information you feel needs a reference, add  after it, which will add the notation "citation needed". Gamaliel 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no references. Find the references and then put it in.
RPJ 00:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictabelt subsection 

message: 1.  It may be time to archive this talk page as it is getting a bit long.
2.  In addition to substantive debates about what to put into the article it now seems that we have to deal with vandals, inserting nonsense throughout the article.
3.  I suggest protecting the page so that any changes to the article must be put on the talk page first.
Ramsquire 00:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Couple New Problems... 

message: Ramsquire was so overwrought last week he left with a dramatic Edward R Murrow sign off. Now, he is back already asking the page be protected again. What is this going to be: A flurry of changes by Ramsquire and then freeze the page. Another flurry by Ransquire then freeze the page?
Ramsquire according to previous posts is an attorney. Is this the  procedural game theory that paid advocates and paid PR personnel do for a living?  
The web site has a few basic rules. Every significant viewpoint be represented. The assertions in the article be supported by references.
I have seen one approach where grafitti is put in an article and when  the true believers in the Warren Report revert,  it is with a notation of "vandalism" and a number of wrongful deletions are also made. Is this going to happen again?
RPJ 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do you think that?

message: I submitted my edit tonight.  I still have a few minor changes to make, but this version should serve as a good springboard to reaching a consensus on what this article should be.  It includes the Carcano Rifle section and mention of agent Hosty's destruction of evidence. Mytwocents 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV cleanup 

message: I'll be checking this article periodically to make sure that unnecessary edits are not made. I hope that the users do NOT make unnecessary edits, so that I can make recommendations as to whether the article should be protected or not. -- SNIyer12, 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making recommendation for protection 

message: No. The article is losing invaluable information because you delete viewpoints with which you don't agree. You stay her and defend your deletion policies in front of the readers. 
One of Gamaliel's reasons often given for deleting is his opinion that something is "nonsense." That is  improper. The rule of the web site is to put in all significant viewpoints and let the reader pick. The rule is not to put in only those viewpoints that "Gamaliel", whom ever he may be, believes to be correct. You don't have the credentials Gamaliel and even if you did, the web site rule is that all significant viewpoints be presented.
Why in the world would a reader want to accept the judgment of some stranger that goes by the alias "Gamaliel" regarding what evidence to believe and what to disbelieve. Does Gamaliel think he is any better qualified than other readers  to decide which doctors and which witnesses to events surrounding the  assassination to believe? 
::Here is a fact situation: There is very important information relating to President Kennedy's assassination. This article is devoted specifically to the assassination. One of the most hotly debated topics relating to the assassination is whether there were two shooters or one shooter. Important to this determination of the number of shooters is the nature of the wound to Kennedy's head. 
::::If the back of Kennedy's head is blasted out, that is a good indication he was shot from  the front.  If his face was blown out (such as depicted happening to one of the bandits at  the beginning of "A History of Violence") the result looks horrible. However, Kennedy's face looked untouched in death. 
Instead, the back of Kennedy’s head was blown out. A treating doctor looked at the wound in the back of the head and drew a picture. Look at it.  The doctor gave a statement about the wound. Here is what happened:
In the emergency room, the President had been placed on his back. His face was not damaged, but some brain tissue was present near the head indicating brain damage.  When the doctors arrived they quickly cut into the president's throat and inserted a small tube for breathing  (a tracheotomy).  But then, Dr. Jenkins, one of the five treating doctors in the emergency room, lifted Kennedy's upper half of the body, looked at the back of Kennedy's head and announced:
"Boys you better come up here and take a look at this brain before you do anything as heroic as opening the chest and massaging the heart directly."
Dr. Peters did look and observed:
 "There was obviously quite a bit of brain missing."  
Dr. McClellend provided this description:
"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." 
"We never had any hope of saving his life", one doctor said.   
Roy Kellerman, a Secret Service Agent, who was in the car with the president, later testified a gunshot removed a section of the president's skull in the back right-hand side of the head measuring about five inches in diameter.  See drawing by Dr. McClellend 
:::Now, this is deleted. Is it deleted because any of this is untrue?  No. Does some one want any more sources given than what had been collected to and linked to this information in the emergency room section of the article? No. It was deleted for no real reason --except somebody doesn't like it.
:::The policy of this web page is that all significant viewpoints be presented. There is no reason to put in the much criticized autopsy discussion and not put in the treating doctor's views of the wound. As we know the  eyewitness accounts of the treating doctors and the eyewitness accounts of the personal bodyguards for Mr. and Mrs Kennedy (that had a real good look at the wound) all saw a big gaping hole in the back of the head. The testimony of the bodyguards was also deleted from the article. Why? 
:::several editors still believe that Kennedy was shot in the head from the back and they don't want  any evidence in the article showing Kennedy was shot from the front.
:::Therefore, they chop out the viewpoints of the eyewitnesses because what they saw doesn't agree with what several editors believe happened. 
::::The policy of this web page is all significant viewpoints be included in the article. It is a basic rule.
RPJ 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The issue is deletions for impermissible reasons

message: "MYtwocents" deletes viewpoints with which he doesn't agree. On this discussion page, he claims he does so because the sources supporting the nature of Kennedy's head wound aren't "credible." Thus, the description of the wound by the treating doctors in the emergency need to be deleted because, according to "MYtwocents",  the doctors aren't "credible" sources of information. Based on "MYtwocent's" bewildering decision,  both the doctor's statements and doctor's drawing of the head wound are deleted from the article.   
"MYtwocents" also deletes from the article the description of the president's head wound by the bodyguards for Mr. And Mrs. Kennedy.  Not credible sources, according to "MYtwocents." But, then the  opinions of the military doctors at the much critisized autopsy of the president, are touted by "MYtwocents" as  very credible. According to "MYtwocents" the "opinions" are "physical evidence." 
Thanks for clearing that up for us "MYtwocents."
"MYtwocents" just doesn't understand that when there is a controversy, that it is the policy of this web site that all significant viewpoints be put in the article. "Mytwocents" refuses to accept that basic rule and believes he should have the right to delete any information that is contrary to his favorite viewpoint.  He thinks that if he doesn't like the viewpoint it can't be credible and therefore he can delete it.
That is not the rule. At this web site all significant viewpoints are to be included and the reader is allowed to make up his or her own mind on the matter.
[personal attacks removed]
RPJ 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't a 5 inch diameter hole blasted in the back of the head "physical evidence?"

message: In 1979, Congress concluded that Kennedy died as a result of a conspiracy. It would be a mistake for people to push the long outdated theory adopted by the Warren Commission of 1964, that a lone gun man single handedly decided to and did kill the president. The modern view is that Kennedy died as a result of a conspiracy. The hysteria of the time that if the public knows there was a conspiracy that it will cause a civil war in America between right-wing  zealots  and the rest of the country if it was a right wing plot by segregationists  or, on the other hand, cause "World War III" if it was a left wing plot, is no longer a concern. 
There is a need to bring the information into the 21st Century and not cling to the Warren Report as if it were a religous text.
RPJ 21:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The last "official" government theory is a conspiracy killed Kennedy

message: Does it purport to be a quote from the source or is Ramsquire quoting the Kennedy article? 
Who states this? "If, as all the conspiracy sketches have it, Connally and Kennedy had been in the same exact position—back flat and head to the front—and at the same height, yes, this would be the work of a magic bullet.  But Connally was positioned lower than Kennedy and was turned to the right and leaning slightly forward." 
Is someone attempting to state that there is only one position the two men could have been sitting where the bullet would have to been "magic" to inflict the pattern of wounds? Or is whoever wrote it  trying to state that the bullet didn't have to be magic if the bodies were placed in one certain way? The author does not appear to be a professional writer but if he or she represents a significant viewpoint then it should go in the article and be open to rebuttal in  the article because there appear to be different viewpoints on the magic bullet.
RPJ 06:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If it comes from a credible source put it in--but cite the source

message: I did a computer search of the citations given for the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at the sources cited in the article but so far have come up dry. I ran a a few different versions of the name in case the article is misspelling it or the source is misspelling it. But, I still come up dry. 
I asked for the information to be cut and pasted on this talk page. The editor did reword the article but the essential problem remains that the article states that Boone and Weitzman found a rifle on the sixth floor of the TBD building and it is a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle which has been connected to Oswald. 
A citation is needed for this information so when a reader goes to the citation it supports what is stated in the article. The credibility of an article plummets when the citations don't match what is stated in the article.
RPJ 00:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mannlicher-Carcano  Rifle Not found 

message: I deleted these paragraphs from the article.  I think we could tack-on a mention to the statement about what the Dallas ER doctors saw (a exit wound to the back of the head). This would point out that what the doctors and SS agents observed contradict the official autopsy at Bethesda.
:Agent Hill later testified under oath and described  the President's fatal wound:               The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed.                                
:Roy Kellerman, the president's personal bodyguard who was also in the car with the president, later  testified the shot removed a section of the president's skull in the back right-hand side measuring about five inches in diameter. 
:Mytwocents 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hill and Kellerman testimony

message: I don't have time to go through this but this site http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html has good diagrams and pictures.  I don't know about taking any conclusions but the pics look interesting. --Tbeatty 01:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source with lots of pictures, testimony and diagrams

message: I don't see your evidence. You have mentioned the "panels" several times. Lets get to the evidence. 
Don't tell me all the tough talk by some of the editors, such as "mytwocents" isn't going to be backed up by all the evidence that is supposed to exist?  
RPJ 22:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't be afraid to present your evidence

message: There is no "confusion theory".  Weitzmann after glimpsing the weapon identified it as a Mauser.  After the officials did their investigation, they correctly labeled it a Mannlicher.  Both descriptions of the weapon became public which led to the confusion over what the weapon actually was.  The paragraph as it is currently constructed explains it precisely, and is cited to the findings of the Warren Commission and newsreels photographs by Tom Alyea.
Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers, such as the Warren Report,  whether or not we agree with the finding, are usually regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.
Ramsquire 21:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rifle... 

message: "Publications with teams of facts checkers."  Reporters."  "Editors." "Lawyers." "Managers." 
None of these generic "witnesses" help you.
The photographs are put in with a claim it is a Carcano. Who states that those photographs show a Carcano? 
RPJ 00:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So many generic witnesses-but no eyewitnesses

message: The article states "The danger from a concealed sniper on the Dallas trip was also of concern. President Kennedy himself had mentioned it the morning he was assassinated, as had the Secret Service agents when they were fixing the motorcade route."  
Does anyone have a citation for that statement?  I've never heard that before and I'd like to learn more.
Tex 20:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chapter 8 footnote 168 and 168 WCR
RPJ 11:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed