Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 6

message: Hey everybody, Well... there has been a lot of interjecting quotes and statements into this article over the past two months, stating the exit wound was at the back of Kennedy's head. I thought we put this issue to bed? Every official investigation has concluded back entry wound, frontal exit wound.  Warren Commission, Ramsey Clark panel, and the HSCA all concluded a rear shooter for the head shot. And a clear viewing of the Z film shows where the exit wound was (the upper right front of the head).  Anecdotal statements, and recollections 3 decades after the fact may have there place, but not sprinkled throughout the article. If they support a frontal entry wound, they are all provably false. Like I said before, these people may be sincere, but they are sincerely wrong.  So these statements should be given very little, if any, mention
Here is a link that explains my position:
:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/
The JFK Autopsy: Critics say it was corrupted because it didn't show there was a fourth bullet or that the fatal shot entered the president's head from the front, not the back.
In the chaos and confusion of that day, many mistakes were made in the autopsy on Kennedy's body. But the medical photos and X-rays confirm that there were only two shots that struck the president and both came from the rear. Four separate government investigations have so concluded. The last one, the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978-79, had the largest forensics panel reexamining all the evidence.
As for the president's backwards head movement, the second and fatal shot -- as seen in the enhanced Zapruder film -- makes it appear that the shot came from the front. But experts explain that two things are happening in that split second. As the fatal bullet destroys the president's brain, he goes into a neuromuscular seizure and his body starts to stiffen up. At the same time that the bullet wound explodes out the right front side of his head, and as that blood and brain tissue moves out, it forces him in the opposite direction, the jet effect, back and to the left, violently.
:Mytwocents 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you know that I support your reasoning. Ramsquire 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I, for reasons you've given. Greer, driving the limo, says that JFK's head looked like a "hard boiled egg with the top chopped off"  and that's more or less what the Z film shows. Even Dr. Burkely (he whom 2-shooter theorists take to be gospel when it comes to the back wound) said the head wound was a simple matter of a bullet through the head and mentioned the right temple. There are two pictures which are nearly identical (which I should line up one day) of the White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his right temple for the press corps at Parkland Hosp, and of Abraham Zapruder pointing to HIS right temple for the benefit of the TV host, just an hour or two after the assassination. The doctors at Parkland mention the back of the head but that can mean many things, including everything rear of the ear.  Kemp Clark at the Parkland news conference says "Principally on his right side, towards the right side."  Now, having said all of that, it should be noted that if the right side of the head is closed over the ear, it still leaves a big hole in the upper right occiput, and we have sketches of that from several of the doctors.  But there's one additional scalp and skull wound which I almost hesitate to mention (because it complicates all this), and that's the only bit of scalp that the mortician and his tech found they had to replace with a rather small piece of rubber, after they got through replacing all the bone and cementing the remaining flaps of scalp over it. That piece, and that remaining bit of wound, is rather low-- so low it's in the dark area of the back of the head photo on autopsy, just above the rear hairline at the nape of the neck. AND it really is close to the occiputal protuberance, which the autopsy docs originally put as the entrance wound, then later the HCSA moved up 4 inches to the cowlick area. And I think it's what the Bethesda team were originally talking about, as an entrance wound.  This rather small lower wound under the hair near the nape of the neck can be seen in the back of the head photo if you use your imagination (how's THAT for weasel-like) but I'm trying to be honest. And it looks a little funny-- which is why conspiracy theorists point to it and say the photo has been doctored here. It hasn't-- what you're seeing is a dark patch under the hair which is a second hole. . The mortician Robinson put it here:  and said scalp was available for everywhere else once they put it back in place, but this area was neatly hidden because the head rested right here on the pillow, so they just put rubber over it, combed hair over it, and that was that. It's relatively small, as noted. It corresponds quite well to the missing piece of occipital bone found by the medical student, called the "Harper fragment"  which didnt go to Bethesda and therefore Robinson the mortician didn't have it to reconstruct this small patch.  One more thing is explained by this bit: in that area it would also be quite possible to have some cerebellum coming out of the head, which at least one Dallas doctor thought he saw. I personally think it's a second small blow-out area which is too small to see in the Z film, and which simply got missed in the hoopla attending the MAJOR head wound, which is the "top of the boiled egg" thing that takes everything on the right-top of the head above the right ear off, and what we see in the Z film. No, I don't think this is a separate bullet wound-- just a bit of skull which got blown out lower down, took some scalp with it, and allowed cerebellum to protrude to confuse the Dallas docs.  You see, I suspect that EVERYBODY who saw JFK's head was right. It's just that the wounds are so massive and so amenable to getting covered and revealed in various procedures, that nobody really saw the whole thing.  However, you can see pretty much the whole thing in the front skull X-ray . My only problem is it gets misinterpreted to say that the face is damaged! It's not, of course. But all that missing bone behind the face (including the back of the head on the right) makes it look like it is. Anyway, that's my "original research" thought. Take for what it's worth. I can't exactly push this as a POV in the article. SBHarris 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this boy put as much elbow grease in the article as he do on this here page, we ol´timers would heff to pack up our stuff and hit the lonesome road, by golly. This boy sure can talk, I´ll give him that. Ol´ Muddy 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head Wound 

message: Investigates the use of lead fingerprinting.  To me the title is misleading as it doesn't really challenge the lone gunman theory but tries to challenge the lead batches that were analyzed.  I thought this was interesting in that the lead batch angle isn't in the Wikipedia article.  Lead fragments left in Connelly and Kennedy had identical compositions of impurities (i.e. the magic bullet is real).  This story attempts to repudiate it from a legal admissibilty point-of-view but I think it's still very strong evidence that their was only one shooter.  Someone with more experience with this article might want to add this in.  --Tbeatty 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Los Alamos

message: I reverted all of your (andreasegde´s) edits on this article today, because I feel you may have cut too deep.  When making that many non-minor changes, you may want to explain yourself on the talk page to provide other editors with the opportunity to reach a consensus on your work.  Also, please remember to not delete information you believe to be true or general knowledge simply because it is not sourced. Lastly, if you delete paragraphs, be nice enough to put it on the talk page so that we can try to reach consensus as well. Thanks. 
:"It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. However, some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source, particularly when the material is not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful. Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the [citation needed] template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding the not verified template or the unsourced template at the top of the page."
:"Do not, however, remove statements that you believe to be both true and common knowledge, simply because they aren't sourced. Don't, for instance, remove a reference to "earth's elliptical orbit" simply because the writer has not supported the assertion that planetary orbits are elliptical."
:"If you do honestly disbelieve a statement, do remove it and request a source on the talk page. If you do honestly think it isn't common knowledge, do tag it as requiring a reference or query it on the talk page."
Sorry about adding all that Wiki policy language.  I hated doing it but I figured it be easier for everyone to see what I'm talking about instead of simply citing to WP:RS.
Ramsquire 17:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely fine by me, Ramsquire. It´s called working together, which I heartily approve of. (I agree that I went too far on some things, BTW...) andreasegde 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: I don´t think the Oswald photo should be there. It´s next to the funeral section. Doesn´t anyone think it´s in bad taste? It´s also too large for the section it is in. andreasegde 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's in poor taste but I have no problem if you want to remove it.  Although, someone may want a photo of the accused assassin somewhere in this article. Ramsquire 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think of it as bad taste because it's historical. Maybe if you were talking about JFK's page, but I think people expect to see information about Oswald, and even his picture, on the JFK assassination page. --Hobbes747 18:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in a section that clearly links to Oswald´s own page. My point is that it is too big for the section, and that being next to the funeral it is in extremely bad taste. Are there not enough photos of Oswald´s mug shot elswhere? I will delete it, and wait for the flak... andreasegde 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the time-line and moved the Oswald piece and the rifle away from the funeral. Maybe the photo could go in there now. OK, OK... I will put it in. andreasegde 21:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oswald photo

message: Some sections repeat a lot of information that can be found on other pages. The links under the headers defintely point to the right place to look. andreasegde 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of the "recordings" and "official investigation" sections, most of the sections in this article are two or three short paragraphs.  I don't find them to be redundant or long.  Maybe the HSCA section could do with some trimming, but all the other stuff seems fine to me.Ramsquire 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean The Carcano rifle, The Warren Commission, and The House Select Committee on Assassinations. It would be nice to have a general summary of what readers can expect, rather than delving into facts: "A 6.5 mm 160 gr. round-nosed fully copper-jacketed military-type bullet, of a type normally used in 6.5 mm military rifles (such as the Mannlicher-Carcano) was found on Connally's stretcher."  P.S. I have just re-read "The Carcano rifle" piece, and there is more deatailed stuff there than on the "John F. Kennedy assassination rifle" page... Merge, maybe? andreasegde 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of agree with the WC and HSCA sections but that length grew out of NPOV concerns and for that reason, I'd be hesitant to touch it.  I guess if you think the rifle section is too detailed, which is different from too long, then I guess we can use more sumarizing languge, e.g. just saying that the bullet found was matched to the rifle, instead of describing the actual bullet.Ramsquire 19:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Will do. andreasegde 14:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done the rifle piece. andreasegde 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don´t understand this: A bullet found on Connally's stretcher, (CE 399, see single bullet theory), was ballistically matched to the rifle found in the book depository building. The previous March, the rifle had been sold by mail-order to an "A. Hidell," was put back in again. It is already on the Rifle page. Why....? andreasegde 11:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without the information you deleted, the section is irrelevant.  That piece of information ties Oswald to the weapon and ties him to the assassination.  It has to stay in this article or simply delete the section.Ramsquire 16:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rifle section is longer than Oswald´s... andreasegde 12:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the correlation.  You can't delete the information which makes the article relevant because it is longer than another section. Ramsquire 17:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it looks as if the rifle is more important than Oswald. andreasegde 12:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.  The substance of the sections clearly denote which is more important, regardless of the size of the section.  But if you feel strongly about it, we can do an RfC on it. Ramsquire 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no RfC, Ramsquire. This is only a very minor point, and it is not a disagreement. It´s only a question of style, and layout. If you really think it should be as it is, then that´s fine by me. (I do think that the two articles should be balanced in terms of content, though...  :) andreasegde 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I didn't want to do an RfC either.  I just suggested it because if it was something that was important to you, I would not have minded hearing a third or fourth opinion.  Ramsquire 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, it was only a minor point. It´s good that we´re discussing style. This is a good thing for an article, is it not? --andreasegde 15:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections that are too long

message: I just deleted a portion of the article attempting to mischaracterize the Warren Commission and containing unverified research.  Please note that the WC did not specify any timeframe for the assassination.  Ramsquire 21:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistating WC findings

message: The news tape shown above about Kennedy's body guard being taken off just before the assassination by Emory Roberts identifies him in a key role.  Emory Roberts also shows up again in another  key role when he soon afterwards stops a secret service agent from going to President Kennedy's aid once the shooting started.
* William Manchester, The Death of a President (1967)
Agent Jack Ready, started to step off the right running board and was ordered back by [Emory]Roberts
  
*House Select Committee on Assassinations (1979) 
Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, November 22, 1963.
"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy...."
HSCA Report points out the same thing about Emory Roberts: “Special Agent Ready, on the right front running board of the Presidential follow-up car, heard noises that sounded like firecrackers and ran toward the President's limousine. But he was immediately called back by Special Agent Emory P. Roberts, in charge of the follow-up car.”167 
"The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate." 
"The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties."
"Secret Service agents in the motorcade were inadequately prepared to protect the President from a sniper."  
Also, Winston G. Lawson (secret service agent in charge of the trip) called off a back-up car of homicide officers who guard visiting dignitaries, as mentioned in the article.
RPJ 03:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the tape is interesting, but look at the "Secret Service" aricle above (and photos) and you will see that Kennedy was sometimes protected, and sometimes not. I have no idea why this happened. As for Emory Roberts... that has to be cleared up, but it is interesting. --andreasegde 19:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: His evidence: "About this time I saw SA Clinton Hill trying to get on left rear step of the President's car. He got aboard and climbed up over the back of the car and placed himself over the President and Mrs. Kennedy. After SA Hill got on rear step of the President's car it appeared that SA John Ready was about to follow and go for the right rear step, however, I told him not to jump, as we had picked up speed, and I was afraid he could not make it." --andreasegde 19:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and none of this is hard to believe. Hill, behind Jackie, was first to jump from the trailing limo. Jackie knew where he was, and her first move after watching JFK's head explode, was to make for Clint Hill. Hill was really Jackie's personal Secret Service agent, in a way. Hill was even her designated tennis partner, most of the time. If there was any agent Jackie was going to go for, in dire danger and emergency, it would be Hill, and vice versa. And that's just what we see on the Zapruder film happen. SBHarris 22:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emory Roberts (alleged co-conspirator) 

message: The film of the motorcade at the airport shows Robert Emory telling a secret service agent not to ride on the back of the platform of the President's car. Clearly if an agent had been riding in the place for him to stand to protect the president, a sniper would have had a very difficult time being able to shoot Kennedy from the back. But, Emory Roberts intervened and told the agent not to ride where he could protect the president. 
Then, the House Select Committee on Assassinations found that a short time later after the shooting started that “Special Agent Ready . . . ran toward the President's limousine. But he was immediately called back by Special Agent Emory P. Roberts, in charge of the follow-up car.” HSCA  167
Emory Roberts denies this and said: [I]t appeared that SA John Ready was about to follow and go for the right rear step, however, I told him not to jump, as we had picked up speed, and I was afraid he could not make it."  
I assume that Roberts meant that he told agent Ready not to "jump" from the follow up car that he and Agent Ready were riding.
Either version shows Emory Roberts may have cost the President his life.  Moreover, if the HSCA version is true then Roberts is also not telling the truth and he is trying to minimize his blame for the president's death. First, when Robetts pulled an agent off the back of Kennedy's car and second when he called back agent Ready who was running to save the President's life.
RPJ 02:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that "was about to follow", is highly suspect, but if he is telling the truth, he must be one of the most incompetent agents in history. --andreasegde 11:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emory Roberts (Conflict of Evidence in Assassination Role) 

message: I edited out a summary of the WC findings re:timing by RPJ.  I did it because if the WC is considered a primary source, then RPJ's summary is synthesis and thus original research.  But if the WC is a secondary source, his section can be re-added.  I am just not sure.  A primary source can be "an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources."  That's my dillemma.  
Ramsquire 16:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind the above post, misread the original edit. Addition is fine. Ramsquire 18:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WC finding about timing of shots

message: Kennedy was shot and killed in the United States. Oswald was living in the United States. The FBI has jurisdiction in the United States.   
In fact, the FBI had been keeping track of Oswald up to the time of the Kennedy murder but Oswald wasn’t under constant surveillance because he wasn’t perceived as an imminent threat. This fact is well covered in the article 
On the other hand, the CIA operates outside the United States. The CIA is specifically prohibited from conducting field operations on U.S. soil. Therefore, Kennedy’s death doesn’t fall within the CIA’s jurisdiction. 
63.164.145.198 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. My father is my father, but I don´t know that for sure. I wasn't present at the time. This user (63.164.145.198) has been warned and blocked quite a few times. --andreasegde 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the CIA cannot be involved in the Kennedy assassination 

message: I  put in this link to an article that collected some of the physician's testimony regarding the large wound to the back of the president's head. 
RPJ 07:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to medical testimony describing the wound to Kennedy's head