Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Inconsistent caption?

A caption reads: "Per the Warren Commission's single-bullet theory (top), one bullet caused Kennedy's death and Connally's non-fatal wounds."

This seems at odds with the description given in the adjacent text, i.e. that the bullet that wounded Governor Connally passed through Kennedy's neck without killing him, and the subsequent bullet was the fatal shot. This isn't a subject I know very much about, but a contradiction is apparent. Have I misunderstood?

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Good catch Jean. Fixed. ~ HAL333 01:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Oswald's Route Home

The current article says Oswald took a bus from a location near Dealey Plaza to his home(under the paragraph "Oswald's Flight."

In Reclaiming History,2007 pp. 64-65 Bugliosi states that Oswald got off the bus shortly after getting on it and walked to the cab stand (at the Greyhound bus station) at Jackson and Lamar where he took a cab to Oak Cliff. After passing the house where he was renting a room, Oswald asked the cab driver to stop and Oswald got out off the cab.

The cab was driven by William Whaley who wrote down the fare in his notebook.

When leaving the bus Oswald obtained a paper transfer with a unique punch hole. This was later confirmed by police. 2600:1700:1681:D0:E8E0:9610:9C93:7B4F (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

JFK's age at death.

Article has John F Kennedy's age at the time of his death as 59. He was born as the article says in 1917. That would make him 46 at the time of his death in 1963. 38.87.97.112 (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to the "Date" listing in the infobox, what it actually says is that the assassination took place 59 years ago, not that that was Kennedy's age at the time. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter

The "Shooting" section of the article needs to be updated with the info from here:

• Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter.

There are many articles recently due to the Paramount+ original documentary, "JFK: What the Doctors Saw".

• Youtube: - JFK: What The Doctors Saw | Official Trailer | Paramount+. Posted Oct 30, 2023 at Youtube. See: JFK: What the Doctors Saw. IMDb.

--Timeshifter (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2023

"; polls found that a majority of Americans believed there was a conspiracy."

This statement needs a source, what polls were done? Otherwise it should be removed. I found this poll done by the gallup that confirms this statement.

Article: https://news.gallup.com/poll/514310/decades-later-americans-doubt-lone-gunman-killed-jfk.aspx

pdf: https://news.gallup.com/file/poll/544358/2023_11_13%20JFK.pdf

This seems like a reputable source that should be added to support this statement. Capnhawkbill (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Source is already given in the Conspiracy theories section. However, it's a 10 years old version of the poll you gave and it would be a good idea to update this source. Alpha-LinDroid (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done I added this source and rephrased the sentence to indicate what the Gallup article says, that it's been consistent for decades that Americans think more than one person was involved. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2023

According to the original document, in the Church Committe section, the start "In 1976" would rather be "In 1975". Alpha-LinDroid (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong source my bad. Alpha-LinDroid (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Add source for the Ramsey Clark Panel

To complete the sources of the Ramsey Clark Panel, we could add the original report released by the ARRB Master Set of Medical Exhibits.

The first link is a page-by-page scan and the second the full pdf, I don't know which is more adequate :

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image00.htm https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md59.pdf Alpha-LinDroid (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

URL where broken, here fixed :

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image00.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md59.pdf Alpha-LinDroid (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

But what more does this add? It's a primary source as well. ~ HAL333 15:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Well first, to indicate to interested readers where to get the document. For my case, I spent too much time to understand that the conclusions of this panel was in the Medical Exhibit 59 and that I can't get it on archives.gov, but instead on other hosts.

Second, the location of the original reports of the Rockefeller Commission, the Church Committee, the HSCA and the ARRB are also in the sources, so why not apply the same logic here ? Alpha-LinDroid (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The other respective reports are included because they were cited. This is an encyclopedia article, not a bibliography. ~ HAL333 22:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the reasoning, nothing to add. Alpha-LinDroid (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries, cheers ~ HAL333 23:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It says he assasinated Kennedy. Shouldn't it say that he was suspected of assasinating Kennedy, rather than saying for a fact that he did it? He never stood trial.

i It states that Oswald assassinated Kennedy. Shouldn't it say he was suspected of assassinating Kennedy, rather than stating it as fact. He never stood trial. So, he was never convicted. Are you automatically guilty of a crime now because the Warren Commission says it is a fact. I think he did it but thinking it is true doesn't make it fact. 2600:8804:7208:D100:E570:DB11:3E7B:9C6D (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"Witnesses" [plural] "saw two conspicuous men"?

On November 30 I noticed this sentence in the article: "In March 1963, a bullet narrowly missed General Edwin Walker at his Dallas residence; witnesses observed two conspicuous men." Given that I have long known that only one witness, singular, Walter Kirk Coleman, ever said that he saw two such men on the night the shooting occurred I added citation needed at the end of the sentence, and said that the source needs to specifically give the full name of at least one other witness besides Coleman who made this claim. Since eight days later no such citation had been given, I removed the last four words of the sentence. The following day my edit was undone by someone claiming that the source (the one at the end of the following sentence apparently) does say multiple witnesses saw two suspicious men. But it does not say multiple witnesses saw two conspicuous men on the night of the shooting. Instead it says this: "There were no eyewitnesses, although a 14-year-old boy in a neighboring house claimed that immediately after the shooting he saw two men, in separate cars, drive out of a church parking lot adjacent to Walker's home. A friend of Walker's testified that two nights before the shooting he saw "two men around the house peeking in windows."" But this is on different nights, not both witnesses saying they saw two men on the same night. Also there is no evidence that the men seen two nights before the shooting were the same men that Coleman saw on the night of the shooting. The original wording of the sentence suggests that the witnesses, plural, both saw these men on the same night and that is misleading. At the very least that last part of the sentence should be changed to something like, "one witness saw two conspicuous men two nights before the shooting and another witness saw two such men on the night of the shooting." Caeruleo (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, please keep your talk page comments concise. Secondly, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know how it works. Please follow BRD and do not edit war. But as a compromise, how about changing "witnesses" to the singular "witness". The alternative wording is to clunky imo. ~ HAL333 16:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The singular "witness" is fine with me. Caeruleo (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)