Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

Oswald impersonator in Mexico

Someone deleted my following contribution in the Mexico section:

US government documents released in 1999 establish that CIA intercepts recorded telephone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate in Mexico in which someone was impersonating Oswald. The Oswald impersonator or impostor mentioned Valery Kostikov, a person known by the CIA to be to be a KGB assassin.

The deleter's reason was that this is just one person's opinion, that of Dr. Newman, the author of the PBS piece. (1) Footnote 23 of the PBS source is a govt record of a conversation between Pres. Johnson and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover establishing that Oswald was impersonated by someone who did not look or sound like him in Mexico City. More generally, the PBS source is unambiguous in stating as a fact, not as an opinion, that the CIA recordings establish that an Oswald impostor made an appearance in Mexico. (2) Even if this were just Dr. Newman's opinion, this would be notable and could not just be deleted from the article. This info. should be included--NYCJosh (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The PBS may indeed state this as a "fact", but it is in fact an opinion. If memory serves, no recording was ever found of intercepted phone calls as the surveillance unit recycled the tapes every few weeks. Secondly, the surveillance camera was new and frequently broke down. The person often identified as being "Oswald" in the surveillance photo was simply a mis-identified person who had nothing to do with Oswald. We know this because Oswald was positively identified by numerous Cuban and Soviet personnel, while the person in the photo bears zero resemblance to Oswald.

Is this notable? Just about every step Oswald took from the day he was born is open to dispute. What makes this opinion "notable?" Canada Jack (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this all makes sense. Duplicate-Oswald (the one with the evil beard) goes to Mexico and then comes back to Dallas with the duplicate Carcano. They set up in the TSBD and the grassy knoll in order to deliver near-simultaneous duplicate shots to JFK's head, from front and back. Then the duplicate bullet is planted on the stretcher where it becomes the magic bullet, and the dead JFK is loaded aboard Air Force One. Somewhere along the way on that flight (probably in a closet while Jackie is visiting the little girl's room and O'Donnell and Dr. Burkley and so on have all passed out in back from too much Scotch), JFK's body is switched to a duplicate casket. This one goes for a ride in a helicopter in Washington for a secret autopsy and alteration to his head, while the fake empty ambulence (a duplicate) takes Jackie and Burkley wandering off toward Bethesda. Just as they arrive, the president's body arrives in back and the coffins are switched again, in time for the autopsy. Question: are photo alternations even needed beyond that point? Probably. The ones the HSCA reviewed are clearly altered. ;) SBHarris 19:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because this is a biographic article on Oswald, not a retelling of every mystery, nor about the life of any "doubles"--JimWae (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone else has about covered it, but I'll add my bit and try to be concise. Billions of words have been spilled on Oswald, so to summarize him in this small space (as well as Wikipedia rules) requires that we limit ourselves to the indisputable and widely agreed upon facts of his life. This is not one of those facts. It is the conjecture of one man based on a fragment of a primary document, sourced to one footnote in one article in an extensive website that supplements a documentary in which this claim did not appear. To use PBS as a source for this claim and to use PBS' reputation for quality and accuracy to buttress this fringe claim is to try to sneak in this outlandish theory in through the back door, essentially. Gamaliel (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

David Atlee Phillips was one of the most highly placed CIA agents in the Western Hemisphere in 1963. He has been accused by respected researchers of a relationship with Oswald. In September of 1977, he made this statement, "I am not in a position today to talk to you about the inner workings of the CIA station in Mexico City. But I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. We will find out that Lee Harvey Oswald never visited, let me put it, that is a categorical statement, there, there, we will find out there is no evidence, first of all no proof of that. Second there is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet embassy."

Further, there is the matter of the tape recording of "Oswald" speaking to personnel at the Soviet embassy. The FBI agents who interviewed Oswald agreed that his voice was not on the recording.

There is room in the article for a short, well-cited reference to the considerable evidence that the official record re Oswald's alleged visits to the embassies in Mexico City was not correct. Or, at the very least, a link to the JFK assassination conspiracies page where the controversy might also be discussed. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So the CIA, whose operatives in Mexico never met or talked to Oswald, is a better source than all those people who saw him there? Makes little sense to me, Joe. The fact is, Soviet and Cuban employees WHO ACTUALLY MET OSWALD positively identified him; multiple witnesses on the buses Oswald took, and employees at the hotel he stayed at positively identified him; OSWALD HIMSELF confirmed he went to Mexico City. In the end, even the HSCA which wanted to establish a conspiracy here concluded that it was "likely" Oswald indeed was there.

I'm intrigued by this FBI claim. How did they get access to tapes which by all accounts did not exist once they were recycled several weeks later? If they DID hear the tapes, why don't we have them now?

In the end, there is no "considerable evidence" Oswald was there, there is a ton of evidence he WAS there, with some voicing doubts second and third-hand. Which is why it has no place here. Canada Jack (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) If we are going to stick to facts that are undisputed about Oswald, this article will be a very short and uninteresting article. For example, many researchers who dispute the lone gunman theory are of the view that Oswald fired no shots at JFK--is the article going to omit that Oswald shot at JFK? Another example of controversy is found in the artice: the very intro sets out the conspiracy/lone gunman debate, so we cannot have an article that sticks to uncontroverted facts abput Oswald if this is going to be serious, meaningful article. I say, the generally-applicable WP rules should apply for this article as well: if the material is relevant, not undue weight and the source is RS, etc. then it should be included.

(2) If there is a factual dispute as to whether Oswald was in Mexico or it was an impostor, then assuming both versions are supported by RS, notable opinion, etc. (i.e. the usual WP rules for dealing with factually controversial issues) they should both be included. I have presented one side that had been missing (the version that Oswald was in Mexico is already present).--NYCJosh (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Oswald visited Mexico City. There is considerable evidence that an Oswald imposter was there at the same time.

On 9/27/63, and again a week later a man identifying himself as Oswald visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. Consular Azcue would later testify that the real Oswald "in no way resembled" the "Oswald" to whom he spoke at length. Employee Sylvia Duran said that the real Oswald she eventually saw on film, "is not like the man I saw here in Mexico City." "Oswald" also introduced himself to Cuban emigre Oscar Contreras, who also described the man he met as shorter and older than the real Oswald.

On 10/1/63, the CIA issued a teletype for the FBI, State Dept. and Navy re Oswald's visits to Mexico City. This was accompanied by a photo of a man identified as Oswald who in fact looked nothing like him.

Also on 10/1, the CIA recorded two tapped telephone calls to the Soviet embassy by a man identified as Oswald. The CIA transcriber noted that "Oswald" spoke in very poor Russian. The real Oswald was quite fluent in Russian.

11/23/63: J. Edgar Hoover's preliminary analysis of the assassination includes the following: "The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identifying himself as Lee Oswald contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring at to any messages. Special agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, 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 referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."

That same day, Hoover has this conversation with President Johnson:

JOHNSON: "Have you established any more about the [Oswald] visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?"

HOOVER: "No, there's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there was a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy."

You trust J. Edgar Hoover, don't you? BTW, the CIA claims that the tapes were destroyed as a matter of "routine" in October, 1963. Although this too is (sigh) contradicted by other CIA contacts. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Joe, thanks, if you have additional RS for the info you present here, let's see it.

In answer to your last paragraph, here on WP it's not up to us to "trust" or not to trust Hoover, the CIA or anybody else. We provide info that meets WP rules. If RS support contradictory versions of the facts than we provide the contradictory versions. Stated differently, our job is not to "solve" the JFK assassination puzzles or to reconcile various view of the facts. We just present info to the reader based on WP rules.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You can find many "researchers" who will dispute any set of facts on any subject - evolution, global warming, even Pearl Harbor. But Wikipedia doesn't give currency to everyone with a soapbox. We have a conspiracy article where all these disputes can be discussed in detail, but this article must deal with solid facts from reputable sources. Maybe this stuff is considered reputable at CTKA or Spartacus or wherever, but not here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The HSCA fully covered this issue and concluded that Oswald indeed likely was the person who visited the consulates. For example, while Azcue and Duran at times stated that the man didn't look like Oswald, the fact remains that LHO signed papers in their presence and that signature was confirmed to be LHO's. Further, Azcue requested LHO obtain photographs of himself for the application, which he did. It strains credulity to say the least that when Oswald handed over the photos - which depict the Oswald we know - Azcue or anyone else there did not notice that the man in the photos was NOT the man who handed them over.

Further, there are allegations that Duran had an affair with Oswald. And that they attended a "twist" party together, Oswald perhaps accompanied by several other "beatnik" men.

In the end, there is definitely strong evidence that Oswald indeed visited the consulates, as confirmed by the HSCA. However, there are still questions about the possibility that someone claiming to be Oswald ADDITIONALLY made contacts with the consulates. Further, that he may have been in the company of others while in Mexico after arriving, and that he made contact with Cubans there aside from the consulate staff. HOWEVER, since this page is about Oswald and there is no serious doubt that he in fact visited the consulates (there is an open question as to another also was doing so claiming to be Oswald) it seems a question of opening a can of worms on a subject where the core - Oswald visited the consulates - is not open to serious dispute. Canada Jack (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, duplicate-Oswald, aka Daddy-O, with the evil black beatnik beard would be perfect as a Mexican operative. Imagine him attending subversive twist-parties, nailing Latinas, and teaching fellow socialistico hepcats the hand-jive.

Sigh. Can't anybody admit that it's more likely somebody just made a mistake and connected somebody else at the embassies with Oswald, who was there also? The real Oswald (a square if ever there was one) actually didn't stand out very much. Oswald surely went to Mexico City, and he left his photos and signature and he admitted going down there, later. He was angry at the Soviet embassy for not expediting his visa. Clearly, he was on the way to see the last true socialist paradise, the one he'd been trying to impress for months with his pro-Cuba activities. Then, out of the blue, comes the news that JFK (that most anti-Castro of presidents) is going to be riding right under his work-window. With visa in hand, Oswald probably thought there was a reasonable chance he might even make it to Cuba after the shooting. But whether he did or not, it must have seemed like destiny. Finally, he'd get the attention he never got, and felt he always deserved. He had initially been attracted to communism by reading a pamphlet about the "martyrdom" of the Rosenbergs, and if he went out in the Texas chair in much the same way they did ("they say it only takes a minute to burn"), it would be a socialist crucifiction to end them all. Almost as good as presenting himself to Castro with the world's best credentials. SBHarris 18:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to admit that it's most likely that Oswald really did visit the Cuban embassy, and the CIA just goofed on the phone calls and photo. The visa application had genuine photos of Oswald. It stretches credulity that the embassy personnel wouldn't notice a mismatch between the applicant and his photos. Some day I'll hash out all this Oswald-double stuff on the conspiracies page. The Oswald doubles in Dallas are even more fun to argue about than the Mexico City double. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a subject worth exploring, but not here. As I said, it's pretty well a given Oswald was there, so THAT part is non-controversial. Even Oswald himself said so and others who knew him knew he went. There is, however, enough doubt there about precisely what else he did in Mexico City, who he may have associated with, and whether someone pretending to be him ALSO contacted the consulates he himself had contacted. But that's neither here nor there on this page, I submit. Canada Jack (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) I think some of us misunderstand our roles here as WP editors. We are not some commission of enquiry charged with reconciling pieces of evidence and with writing a version of reality that we deem most plausible. If you want to do that go try writing a book on Oswald. All we can do here is present info based on RS pursuant to WP rules.

(2) Therefore, it's not for us to venture a conclusion about whether Oswald was accompanied to Mexico City by doubles or he went alone or never even stepped foot there. If we have relevant info that meets WP rules, then we provide it in the article.

(3) On the relevancy of impostors to an article about Oswald: Are you joking? Serious US govt sources state that the man who is thought to have committed this most important assassination had others impersonating him in connection with establishing him as a defection attempter and can anyone say with a straight face that this is not relevant to an article about the man? If I told you that some famous celebrity was impersonated by someone else at the moment he had been thought to do something famous and consequential for his reputation, would you think this is irrelevant to an encyclopia article about the celebrity?--NYCJosh (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It is most certainly our role to prevent the article from presenting a false picture of historical consensus, and those Wikipedia rules you cite also prevent editors from dropping in random bits of "evidence" to skew the article. If this "evidence" was so powerful and so relevant, we would have to rewrite the article from scratch to reflect this. And for that we'd need multiple sources to hold the whole thing together. What history textbooks do we have that we can cite? What encyclopedia articles? What papers from peer reviewed history journals? We don't have those things. All we have is one footnote from one article from one website. Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If I told you that some famous celebrity was impersonated by someone else at the moment he had been thought to do something famous and consequential for his reputation, would you think this is irrelevant to an encyclopia article about the celebrity?

Not if that celebrity CONFIRMED he did this famous and consequential thing and there is no plausible reason for that person to be lying. Which is what we have with Oswald. While I could see a possible case for why someone might want to suggest Oswald tried to go to Cuba, I don't see what possible reason HE'D have to lie about this. Canada Jack (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Gamaliel, "a false picture" assumes that you have an accurate picture based on what you call "historical consensus." I am surprised that anyone can claim there is consensus on the facts surrounding Oswald and the JFK assassination. There are shelves full of books on each of these topics presenting a range of views based on official sources and credible evidence, and the least one can say is that there is two-way divergence between those historians and researchers subscribing to the lone gunman theory (e.g. Warren Commission) and those subscribing to some form of conspiracy theory (e.g House Select Committee).

Jack, whether or not you see a reason for his lying is irrelevant to whether the issue of impostors is relevant to the article. (Unless you establish yourself as a notable authority on this subject.) I can speculate or recite things I've read about a possible motive for why Oswald (or others) would wish to create a record of Oswald (or someone posing as him) trying to defect (and make a scene doing so) to establish his communist, anti-American, bona fides, but this would seem to be tangential. Let's just agree that for an article about person A, it is relevant whether an important act that would tend to signigicantly diminish his reputation in the public mind is committed by person A or a person posing as person A, and if there are facts that support both versions than those facts are relevant.

Finally, the fact that Oswald or his double knew the identify of a secret KGB assassin is noteworthy because an ordinary unemployed file clerk would not usually know of such things, and therefore this fact too is relevant because it helps establish a fuller picture of the man.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that Wikipedia accepts a much smaller shelf from which we can draw sources to document historical fact. Not every researcher with a tome on the assassination automatically gets on that shelf. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Fringe theories for starters. Gamaliel (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said otherwise. But I hope you are not excluding the House Select Committee, the Garrison investigation and all conspiracy theories--that would exclude you from being a fair editor for this article.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's just agree that for an article about person A, it is relevant whether an important act that would tend to signigicantly diminish his reputation in the public mind is committed by person A or a person posing as person A, and if there are facts that support both versions than those facts are relevant.

Person A said he committed the act. The act was attempting to go to Cuba. What is the section describing? His attempt to go to Cuba. There is NO doubt, from what Oswald himself said, from those who knew him and the documentary evidence, that he in fact intended to go to Cuba.

A SECONDARY issue is whether someone was impersonating him even as he himself went to the consulates. But what does this say about Oswald's attempts to go to Cuba? NOTHING because Oswald's intention was to go to Cuba! Which is all the section is about!

These are two entirely separate issues as it has been firmly established that Oswald indeed intended to go to Cuba, which is all the section describes. It's the same as if we argued over how he got to Helsinki. There are those who suspect he was taken there by operatives. But did he or did he not go to Helsinki? For the purposes of THIS article all we need to know is he made his way to the USSR. On the CONSPIRACY page, the contention that he was aided by agents in his travels properly can be spelled out.

I hope you're OK with me stepping in here after your first point to facilitate discussion. Wanting to go to Cuba is not the same thing as defecting to the Soviet Union or Cuba. Taking steps to defect a couple of months before the assassination has significance for who Oswald is and even perhaps why he would want to kill JFK. Also, Oswald claiming to go to Cuba is not the same thing as having evidence of someone else helping him/doubling for him. It raises issues like why would someone else do this for him? Perhaps Oswald was not the lone floater that he sometimes seemed to have been. Perhaps the doubles made other appearances in his life if, after all, they were willing to break the law posing in a foreign govt office as someone they were not. Oswald doesn't usually come across as the kind of person to have bosom buddies like that. Did Oswald even know he was being impersonated? If he didn't, wouldn't that be perhaps just as relevant for Oswald?--a lowly file clerk in transition being impersonated!--NYCJosh (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Finally, the fact that Oswald or his double knew the identify of a secret KGB assassin is noteworthy because an ordinary unemployed file clerk would not usually know of such things, and therefore this fact too is relevant because it helps establish a fuller picture of the man.

You don't seem to understand how wikipedia works. There is significance to Oswald knowing the identity of the KGB agent? Says who? You? No, it doesn't work like that. You have to a) state its relevance and b) state who says this is relevant. So, over on the CONSPIRACY page, when discussing doubles, we can also say that author x notes that OSwald's/double's possession of this information is an indication of... whatever. Canada Jack (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Its relevant because it helps the reader know Oswald better: unemployed file clerks don't usually have such info. The fact that Oswald appeared to shows that he was privy to some sort of inside baseball, perhaps connections to some people that most working stiffs don't have access to. This informs the reader about who Oswald is and perhaps even goes to why he did what he did or why others did what they did. These points obviously depend on lots of other facts but that's why this is important--it can tend to connect up with lots of other points of info. The PBS author I linked to obviously thinks it's relevant --he mentions it in a short article as attaches important to it from the wealth of docs released in the 1990s, and he is notable per WP. That's more than enough to establish relevance.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wanting to go to Cuba is not the same thing as defecting to the Soviet Union or Cuba. Taking steps to defect a couple of months before the assassination has significance for who Oswald is and even perhaps why he would want to kill JFK. Also, Oswald claiming to go to Cuba is not the same thing as having evidence of someone else helping him/doubling for him. It raises issues like why would someone else do this for him?

True, wanting to go to Cuba is not the same as defecting, but the section doesn't say he intended to defect! And, he having help may raise other issues, but THAT claim is contentious and would open a can of worms over the veracity of the claims etc. As it stands, he intended to go to Cuba and there is little serious doubt he in fact made the attempt. AGAIN, having someone assisting him is a SEPARATE issue.

Its relevant because it helps the reader know Oswald better: unemployed file clerks don't usually have such info. The fact that Oswald appeared to shows that he was privy to some sort of inside baseball, perhaps connections to some people that most working stiffs don't have access to. This informs the reader about who Oswald is and perhaps even goes to why he did what he did or why others did what they did.

IN YOUR OPINION this is important. And that is because YOU derive certain conclusions, which are POV. I can just as easily - and plausibly say - If the allegations about Oswald's affair with Duran are true (and they can't easily be dismissed), this may simply have been information he got from his Cuban consulate lover, so there potentially is no particular mystery here. The point I was making above is that once we get into the SEPARATE issue on the other OSwalds etc., then these ALLEGATIONS are relevant. And, again, this OPINION of the importance of Oswald knowing this must come from an author making such a claim. Canada Jack (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Earlier Canada Jack says: The person often identified as being "Oswald" in the surveillance photo was simply a mis-identified person who had nothing to do with Oswald. We know this because Oswald was positively identified by numerous Cuban and Soviet personnel, while the person in the photo bears zero resemblance to Oswald. "We know this?" Really, Jack? Which Cuban and Soviet personel positively identified Oswald? BrandonTR (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oleg M. Nechiporenko was the consular official and KGB agent who spent a lot of time with Oswald at the Soviet Embassy. He had the unique opportunity to ask Oswald WHY he was doing all the crazy things he was doing. Unfortunately Oswald (who was positively unhinged during the interviews) didn't give him much to go on. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! You found a guy, Oleg Nechiporenko, who wrote a book in 1993 (30 years after the event) who purports to have been at the Soviet embassy at the time of Oswald's supposed visit. As to why we should trust Nechiporenko's belated account, when we are told that you can not trust Soviets or Cubans who, like the CIA, are masters of disinformation, is never explained. Meanwhile, we have the Cuban consul in Mexico City, Senor Eusebio Azcue testifying to the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassination in 1978 that the Oswald arrested in Dallas "in no way resembled" the man who visited him at the Cuban consulate. Cuban consul assistant, Silvia Duran told author Anthony Summers that "...the man [arrested in Dallas] is not like the man I saw here in Mexico City." Once again the Warren Commission apologists at this site, most notably Canada Jack, are violating Wikipedia policy which states: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." BrandonTR (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Did Oswald or did Oswald not visit the consulates in an attempt to go to Cuba? Even the HSCA concluded YES, which is all the section is describing.

Since Oswald HIMSELF confirmed he attempted to go to Cuba via Mexico, there is no issue on this aspect of his biography - that he attempted and failed to go to Cuba in the several months before the assassination. And that, again, is all the section is describing.

However, while the HSCA agreed that Oswald most probably did visit the consulates in person it could not rule out the possibility that another person pretending to be Oswald ALSO showed up or more likely called. And it could not rule out the possibility of an affair with the Cuban official. And it could not rule out the possibility that he attended a party with them.

THAT contention belongs on a conspiracy page as some authors suggest this indicates involvement by various security apparatus, etc. But it is not part of Oswald's biography per se as someone pretending to be LHO is, by definition, NOT LHO.

Two major investigations, two near-identical conclusions. Therefore, the one agreed-upon event is that Oswald in fact visited the consulates. What we can add on the conspiracy side - or on the "Oswald and the assassination" page I am creating - is a section detailing these allegations. Simply inserting "or someone else" begs the question "why would anyone else pretend to be Oswald," which would require a listing of the various allegations from the various authors. We have a page for such allegations. Canada Jack (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that I misclassified Canada Jack in my last post. Previously, I narrowly referred to him as a Warren Commission apologist. But, from his last comment, we see that Jack is also an apologist for the HSCA, but only when something that the HSCA said happens to agree with something that the Warren Commission said. One can also see, from Jack's last comment, that if Jack decides that Oswald was telling the truth on a particular matter, then Oswald's "truthfulness" will be the accepted viewpoint of the article. In previous instances, when Jack deemed Oswald untruthful, then Oswald's "untruthfulness" became the accepted viewpoint. In other words, viewpoints allowed in the article will only be viewpoints that Jack decides to allow, based on whatever evidence Jack decides to accept. BrandonTR (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice on soapboxing and debate

I came to this topic in dealing with a prolific serial IP sockpuppet who chose this subject, among others, as a target for his particular brand of random soapboxing and shaky opinions. I've found a great deal of theorizing and sniping, little of it germane to the Wikipedia article. I'm noting as an uninvolved administrator that this must stop; I know it's fun and all, but it's not helping the encyclopedia article. Please resist the urge to debate here, it will be treated as disruptive editing. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:CE2595.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CE2595.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:CE2892.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CE2892.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:LHO14.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:LHO14.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Original Research and LHO Wiki

I took a look at the sources for this article; My! What a lot of Warren Commission Report citations! Are the editors engaging in bit of the old "original research"? Wikipedia:No original research

I was surprised that two of the standbys on LHO research were not in the sources - of course, they're not required to be there, yet...

One is Edward J. Epstein's Legend: The Secret Life of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978); the other is Philip H. Melanson's Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and U.S. Intelligence (1990).

Are any of the numerous Diss page participants familiar with these works? And why so many WC Report cits, rather than secondary sources? Unless a secondary source has cited them, they have no business being here. 36hourblock (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying here. The Warren Report has a chapter on LHO - if the article is largely based on that, how is it OR? You seem a bit confused on what constitutes "OR." If the article was, say, based on editors here pulling documentation which the WC collected (but didn't base their conclusions on), that'd be OR. If editors simply largely replicated what the WC itself wrote in terms of what its evidence suggested, that is secondary material and therefore not OR.

As for your other works, as stated above, there will soon be a page which explains the case the WC made for Oswald's guilt, the major problems raised by critics and some of the later addressing of same by the HSCA. One of these aspects are the allegations that Oswald was far more involved with various intelligence players than acknowledged by the WC and HSCA, where, presumably, some of this material would be appropriate. Canada Jack (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Canada Jack - Thanks for clarifying this matter; I may, indeed, have been confused. I realize that the Warren Report is an interpretation of the 26 volumes of "Findings". The editors have not interpreted the testimony or physical evidence themselves. Got it. I would, nonetheless, encourage the use of published interpretations of the findings as secondary sources in addition to the WR.

The lede for the Warren Commission wiki article includes this: "The Commission's findings have since proven controversial and been both challenged and supported by later studies" - without citations.

The section "criticisms" from the same article includes this: "In the years following the release of its report and 26 investigatory evidence volumes in 1964, the Warren Commission has been frequently criticized for some of its methods, important omissions, and conclusions" - also without citations.

These require secondary sources to establish such assertions: here, the WR will not do. Thank you again, and I look forward to the new page on Oswald's alleged guilt. 36hourblock (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, those points in terms of the lack of citations should be tagged as such or you could add some of the missing citations. It's not hard when it comes to the WR as most of the planet dismisses its findings and has so almost from the moment it was released.

Here, the basic problem is it really does not delve in to LHO's role in the assassination in any detail, a deficiency which will hopefully be addressed by spelling out the evidence the WC used to conclude he was the lone assassin. It seems to me that this needs a new page to spell out the case from the WC, the major objections, and some of the later findings.

As for the specifics of his life, what we have here is more or less the material which is not disputed. When it comes to Walker and JFK, that material is clearly identified as what the WC concluded. SO, when the "case" page is built, we can have, for example, claims of his connections to intelligence communities, etc. Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. I agree with you about "most of the planet...", but the standards of this online encyclopedia must approach this systematically. A mathematical argument does not need to prove that 2+2=4; but the question of the reliability of the WR does. And any old source will not do.

A separate page on the "major objections" may be very useful, as you suggested.

In building a "case" and on the numerous "claims", I suggest that the hypotheses presented by various critics of the WR be covered individually, or grouped, if appropriate.

For example, a presentation of published "conspiracy theories" on the Chappaquiddick incident were posted this year (2011) at that site (Unfortunately, an administrator misrepresented it as "hi-jacking" and suppressed it). As a matter of fact, this may be a means to focus in on the criticisms of the WR, without overwhelming the visitors to the article. That's about all I have to say on this topic - the SESQUICENTENNIAL of the American Civil War calls to me... 36hourblock (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Image of apartment in New Orleans

I question the validity of the image File:4911MagazineNOLA.JPG as the apartment that Oswald rented in New Orleans. The image is of the building at 4911 Magazine St. Other sources I have seen on the internet (not that those sources are necessarily reliable, but I'm talking about multiple sources) identify the address as 4905 Magazine St., and the images of the building associated with that address are completely different. Does anyone have evidence that the address actually is 4911 Magazine St.? 75.177.157.233 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the building. However I can understand your confusion; I made what sounds like the same mistake you're making when I was first trying to figure it out. It might seem reasonable that "4905" would be part of the larger building just to the right (downriver) photo. However it turns out that one is just numbered 4901 & 4903. Odd numbers from 4905 through 4911 are all on this building: Commons:Category:4905-4911 Magazine Street, New Orleans. (Oswald's apartment was on the wing on the right side of the building -- now almost impossible to see from the street, since it is hidden behind a fence and dense foliage (perhaps because of the infamous former resident). Check the relevant Warren Commission pages on Oswald's 1963 Magazine Street apartment; CE 826 p. 3 landlord's statement; Ruth Paine's sketch diagram of the layout (PDF)-- Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. Street numbering in many cities is very confusing. You seem to have sorted this out very well. 75.177.157.233 (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright of Warren Commission images

Are the Warren Commission images free of copyright? Kelly ^hi! 01:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

All such published works by U.S. Federal agencies (including FBI etc) are public domain per US law, so pretty much everything from the Commission would be {{PD-USGov}}. (There may possibly be a few things within the volumes which didn't originate from the Government -- eg photos by commercial photographers reused by the Commission-- that this doesn't apply to.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to double-check - ran across some images on Commons for which the copyright is presumably owned by Marina Oswald Porter even though the Commission published them - just wanted to make sure the images above were made by US government employees while on duty. Kelly ^hi! 01:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I just replied on Commons to the deletion request on the famous back yard photo Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lho-133A.jpg. I think that one can be kept since back in the '60s U.S. copyrights had to be stated and registered on first publication to be valid. (That's why I mentioned "commercial photographers" -- works by news cameramen and other professionals who might have actually been in the habit of registering copyrights -- as the most likely cases to need detailed checking on current copyright status.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand - however, there may be a bit of a gray area where Oswald family photos were seized by the government and published as part of a Congressional report, possibly against the family's will. Those images should definitely have some other license than {{PD-USGov}}, as the government was clearly not the creator of the images. Kelly ^hi! 02:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lho-133A.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lho-133A.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)