Talk:Kennedy assassination theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 16, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3

---

Contents 1 References 2 Deletion of Files confession 3 Notes and References section 4 James Files 5 Who is Michael O'Dell? 6 What was the "bogus POV" that was deleted? 7 Harry Weatherford 8 A definite improvement! 9 New Polling Data

[edit] References

I see no reason why the "disputed", or "not referenced" tags should be there. The page has been cleaned. Maybe there should be a tag saying "Please do not add any comments without proper references". That would discourage any random theories. Any comments? --andreasegde 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the original research tag. I think we should keep the factual dispute tag. Since it is a conspiracy section, and it serves as a disclaimer that Wiki isn't endorsing any of the theories listed. Ramsquire 17:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Files confession

The statement by alleged assassin Files was deleted with a comment "unreliable sources about a living person."

Could the person that deleted the statement identify the "living person" the particular offending statement and the "unreliable sources?"

RPJ 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Files made the comments himself, and on film, so how can it be unreliable? It's amazing that when Oswald said that he was a "patsy", it was considered unreliable (and he was lying) but when Files admitted that he was there, it is also considered unreliable. Wonders will never cease....--andreasegde 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My statement was regarding the source of the information. It is the webpage which I consider unreliable for a report of this magnitude regarding a living person, as per the rules at WP:BLP. Gamaliel 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is the living person to which you refer? RPJ 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the James Files article, James Files is still alive. Gamaliel 20:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But, James Files is the one making the statements to the researcher about the dead Mafia figures. If the Mafia figures were still alive then you possibly might have something to consider.

Please revert your deletion.

Thank you RPJ 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the dead Mafia dons. I'm talking about Files' supposed confession. For us to say that this man confessed to killing JFK requires a better source for his confession than some Belgian conspiracy website. Gamaliel 21:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Files write a book confessing for this? Or am I mistaken him for someone else? Ramsquire 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If he did, let's cite the book and then the material can be restored to the article. Gamaliel 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

After some cursory research, the confession is part of a documentary called "The Murder of JFK: Confession of an Assassin". Amazon.com has it on VHS, but there is no book. I figure if we give it the same treatment we gave the ABC documentary on the JFK assassination page, then it can be re-inserted into the article. (Note to other editors-- the best way to get info into the article is to get reliable sources and cite them accurately. Not to question the motives of other editors or cry foul. This issue could have been solved two days ago with a little research.) Ramsquire 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well put. All that had to be done to put an end to this matter would be to say "He put out a video" instead of attacking me. Gamaliel 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Try these:[1],[2],[3],[4]. Some are for, against, and neutral. The piece about Files should go back in. --andreasegde 20:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

One is a bio of Daankbar and is irrelevant to proper sourcing re: James Files. Two and three probably don't meet the standards of WP:RS, and four is a link to purchase the documentary and shouldn't be used in any Wiki article. Ramsquire 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Daankbar interviewed Files. Since when was Spartacus [5] irrelevant? I have seen it cited lots of times. What about this? [6] --andreasegde 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote, I made no judgments about spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk's bio of Daankbar. However, said bio of Daankbar is not relevant to Files. Ramsquire 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Daankbar piece mentions Files in the article. --andreasegde 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See below. Ramsquire 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the Files info. JFKmurdersolved.com should be viewed with skepticism since it appears to be a promotional page for Daankbar's investigation, books, and videos. Look for corroboration from other sites if you are using information found here. That comcast.net link is not a reliable source for anything at Wiki. It is a collection of emails between two people. Ramsquire 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that they should be taken as gospel (the truth) - they were only links. I (personally) don't believe Files, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't go in. The problem is that theories today are more often on the Internet, or DVDs, rather than in books. Sad, but true. --andreasegde 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how you want it taken, you still have to use WP:RS as a guide as to what to put in the article. The policy explicitly states that just because something is on the Internet does not mean it can be used in Wiki articles. The policy requests that editors do more research to see if it is corroborated by other more reliable sources. For example, if you found a Guardian or NY Times article summarizing the Files situation, that would be fine. However, jfkmurdersolved.com is not reliable for the reasons listed above. Also, part of WP:RS says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (or sourcing), not to mention WP:BLP... basically what I'm saying is that you'd really need a top knotch source for said information if there was no VHS tape. Ramsquire 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"a promotional page for Daankbar's investigation, books, and videos." Sorry, but Wikipedia (with in-line references from books, etc.) promotes books, and videos --andreasegde 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and References section

This article does not comply with the standards required by Wikipedia. --andreasegde 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they technically do not. And I think I mentioned that when I first got here. Ramsquire 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Files

This article has been redirected here after AFD. If anything can be merged from the original article [7] please use it. Yomangani^talk 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Michael O'Dell?

The article cites to Michael O'Dell who has opinions on scientific accoustic matters. Someone put in his opinions to refute scientists who believe that accoustic evidence supports dozens of witness' testimony that there were two shooters.

Who is Michael O'Dell and why should he be cited for such opinions?

RPJ 06:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What was the "bogus POV" that was deleted?

Revision as of 23:46, 17 October 2006 (edit)by Ramsquire "took out bogus POV info."

• Could Ramsquire quote the words that he believes are "bogus POV" that was among the many things he deleted?

• Could Ramsquire explain what he means by "bogus POV" that gives him the right to delete inofrmation from an article?

RPJ 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure,, but for the record, I did a general cleanup, wikilinked to another article, and took out bogus POV info. I'm sorry I couldn't be more specific but there is limited space in the edit summary. The bogus POV info was:

The American government still refuses to release the medical evidence that would solve many of the questions on whether there was a conspiracy

I reverted it because a) it was unsourced (I should have put it on the talk page. I apologize for not doing so) b) it is the editor's opinion (POV) that the government still refuses to release, instead of simply haven't released the info c) since no one knows what these records would say, it is Original research and also POV to say it would solve many of the questions on whether there was a conspiracy.Ramsquire 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Weatherford

The following has been reverted by me:

In 1963, Jim Bowles was a D.P.D. sergeant. He was later promoted to Dallas Sheriff (Chief of Police). He was asked if he knew about Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford waiting on the roof of a building near the assassination site with a rifle. - Bowles replied: “Yes, Harry Weatherford was on the roof with a second deputy, and he had a rifle. They were assigned there for security. My first recollection of the suggestion that Weatherford might have been implicated was from the imagination of Penn Jones who, so far as I know, never worried about the other deputy. It would seem strange that a hit man would be stationed with a living witness. It does not fit reason.” [8] - - A reporter asked Weatherford shortly after the assassination if he had shot the President. Weatherford replied, "You son of a bitch, I kill lots of people". - - Harry Weatherford told a different story: " I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office watching the Presidential Motorcade. The President's car had passed my location a couple of minutes when I heard a loud report which I thought was a railroad torpedo, as it sounded as if it came from the railroad yard." - - "I heard a 2nd report which had more of an echo report and thought to myself, that this was a rifle and I started toward the corner when I heard the 3rd report. By this time I was running towards the railroad yards where the sound seemed to come from. I got with Deputy Allan Sweatt and was searching the tracks and cars, etc, then someone said the shots came from above." [9]

I reverted it firstly because of WP:BLP concerns. I am not sure that all the persons mentioned in this blurb are dead. If they are not, then we would need sources of the highest order to allow this stuff in. Secondly, if they are dead, we would still need sources, especially for the quotes, from a reliable publisher. If both concerns are met, I'll have no problem putting it back into the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A definite improvement!

Last time I checked the articles regarding the assassination of JFK things were leaning a lot towards the official version as given in the statement of the Warren commission. This was also included in the article John F. Kennedy assassination It is no more. And it's good it isn't. There is nothing but theories around Kennedy's assassination. One of them is the conclusion of the Warren commission, others include a second gunman in that park at the other side. I think the solution found here is the very best. Thank you very much! This is IT! ;) --Maxl 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some idea that there's a cabal out there to suppress "truth" or "alternate points of view" on the JFK assassination. Far from it. This wiki was created as a way to satisfy those who want to summarize other ideas than those from the 3 mainstream commissions. So why are editors sticky,in the JFK assassination article itself, about summarizing mainly just the findings from the 3 main government commissions? Or in Lee Harvey Oswald's bio, or in the JFK autopsy? Because these government reports are were massive efforts, covering 50 volumes and at least hundreds of thousands of man-hours, on the basis of massive evidence available first hand to law enforcement and nowhere else. Other theories rely on what somebody's conspiracy book said somebody said, and they don't agree with each other (whereas the government reports basically do, with some mistakes corrected later on). It's just not the same quality in the both types of evidence, so one side needs to be mainly presented. *I* personally don't give a damn if two people shot JFK at the same time. If all three major commissions had concluded THAT, I'd be insisting THAT be the summarized view in the main assassination article. But that's not how it turned out. SBHarris 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the editor's point. I'm glad the article on Earth doesn't even mention the theory that the planet is only 6000 years old, though undoubtedly there are those who believe the idea should get "equal" coverage.

On the other hand, I had to snicker at the wording of the justification, "these government reports were massive efforts... at least hundreds of thousands of man-hours, on the basis of massive evidence available first hand to law enforcement and nowhere else."

Buddy, you just described exactly the way the Bush administration framed its supposed slam-dunk evidence for WMD. Joegoodfriend 16:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Polling Data

(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)} 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)