Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

rm Rant - Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Rifle

What is the source for "the rate of fire and accuracy he is purported to have attained has never been matched in latter day testing by known marksmen" ? Might this need to be made more specific; meaning for the particular type of rifle Oswald possessed? What type of rife was that? -- Infrogmation

The source for that is any number of conspiracy books that endlessly quote each other's misinformation. It is quite false - as in deliberate dishonesty, that is. For example there is one famous author who, in describing the FBI tests, simply omitted all the succesful tests - and many since have quoted him. The truth is that the assassin's performance has been not merely matched but greatly exceeded, many times (because it just isn't all that remarkable), but conspiracy theorists always find some excuse for not counting these results. -- Roger 11:30 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As I recall, A Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action, poorly maintained, with misaligned scope. The make is considered significant in that it was the cheap (both inexpensive and not very good) weapon Castro was giving out.

The Mannlicher-Carcano was cheap at the time simply because the Italian Army (who used it) were on the losing side in WW2. Tests actually showed that it was in fact as inherently accurate as the best other standard infantry rifles of WW2. See for example: http://www.jmasland.com/testimony/ballistics/simmons.htm While this one in particular is often described as poorly maintained, it is not at all clear that it was so at the time of the assassination; it just seems to have been a matter of it not being cleaned properly for months afterwards - not surprising seeing as it was evidence! --Roger 11:30 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dissenting analyses of the present LHO photo (the gravity-defying backyard snap with newspaper and rifle) claim the rifle is not tha MC, pointing to certain modifications that don't match the official weapon. Furthermore estimates of the figure's height from the known length of the pictured rifle don't match Oswald. (I've also wondered how it's known to be a "leftist" paper in the photo -- I've never seen a print in which the print was legible.)

If it's vital, i'll hunt up sources. -- Kwantus 06:06, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

These claims (that the "backyard photo" was a fake) were examined extensively by the HSCA, and completely debunked. --Roger 11:30 29 Oct 2003 (UTC) Not completely debunked. The House Committee looked into the matter again, concluded the photos were genuine but their photographic consultant Robert Groden vehemently disagreed and wrote a dissent stating “in my opinion, no matter what the panel members concluded, the backyard photos are unquestionably fakes.” Hengistmcstone 18:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)hengistmcstone

On the quality of the rifle: ‘Was it possible that Oswald, a mediocre to downright-poor marksman, according to various sources, could fire that rifle with such speed and precision at a moving target, partly obscured by trees, creating such havoc and mayhem with a weapon the Italian army called the “humanitarian rifle” because it never killed anybody when

That was US propaganda, not the Italians. Tests have clearly shown that in the hands of a good shot it is capable of shooting to better than 1 MOA of accuracy, which is not sniper rifle standards but is a heck of a lot better than the standard of shooting displayed in Dealey Plaza. --Roger 11:30 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

deliberately aimed? A twenty-five dollar, WWI-vintage rifle [the MC was designed in 1891] with a single-bolt action

Although the design dated back to before WWI, so do the designs of a lot of other excellent rifles, some of which (e.g. Springfield .30-06) are still winning competitions. And what does "single-bolt action" mean? The action on the Carcano was the Mannlicher action, which is still today the world's most popular rifle action for both sporting rifles and target shooting. --Roger 11:30 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

and a misaligned telescopic sight? [not merely out of alignment, but impossible to align w/o shims, which weren't found;

More lies and exaggerations from the conspiracy authors; see http://www.jmasland.com/testimony/ballistics/simmons.htm for the facts. It was not impossible to align without shims, they just found it to be the most convenient method to do so because of the damage to the scope. And there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that this damage occurred before the assassin dropped the rifle. --Roger 11:30 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just to clarify that for those not familiar with rifle scopes. Modern ones are fairly robust, and can take quite a few knocks - so much so that increasing numbers of armies are equipping ordinairy infantrymen with optical sights of various kinds. But in the early sixties, scopes could be knocked out of alignment but quite a modest knock, or even permanently wrecked by being dropped on a hard surface. Given that the assassin had apparently tossed it behind a crate, you would expect the scope to be in much worse condition when found, than when it had been used -- Securiger 23:34, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

plus its chirality was wrong] Could he have hit a moving target in the given time frame, 270' away, a feat expert FBI and Army marksmen were unable to emulate on stationary targets?...

Wrong, they equalled or exceeded it repeatedly. Authors of certain books just don't like to tell it that way. See below for more --Roger 11:30 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why use a bolt-action rifle, when he could have used an automatic weapon such as a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) or even an M1 carbine that would have allowed a lot more shots and a lot faster?’[1] However, others have said this model is actually quite good, in the top five of Tim Mullin's trials[2] Take yer pick =)

As to matching Oswald's feat: ‘The US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory conducted further tests using three Army sharpshooters, who all held Master Rifle ratings from the National Rifle Association...These guys did not mess around. They set three targets at three different distances -- 175, 240 and 365 feet and shooting from a tower 30 feet high with the same rifle, that funny Italian job...a stationary target...The first two marksmen not only missed the time frame, they missed the target. The third guy, a man called Miller, was the only one ever to match Oswald's shooting speed, but his shots were so wild, his third shot not only missed the target, it missed the board it was mounted on...

A complete distortion which has been endlessly repeated by conspiracy authors quoting each other. See http://www.jmasland.com/testimony/ballistics/simmons.htm for the facts. The first two (actually civilian) shooters did fall (slightly) outside the time limit, but shot far more accurately than Kennedy's assassin. The third (military) shooter shot just slightly more accurately than the assassin (two hits out of three shots on each of three test sequences, but with the hits much more closely grouped than the assassins'), but this tester shot considerably faster; even his slowest test was slightly faster, and his best test was 1.2 seconds faster. --Roger 11:30 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[they] had also corrected the inaccurate telescopic sight...’[3] bibliography at the very end - doesn't give specific sources for these paragraphs

Another quirk: early reports named a different kind of rifle. Charles Mentesana filmed "the rifle" being taken from the TSBD, and apparently it's not the MC

Deputy Seymour Weitzman initially described the rifle as a Mauser; this was a simple error. Mausers and Carcanos are very similar in appearance, and Mausers are much more common. And Mentesana's film shows quite clearly - if you rub the scales from your mind - not a rifle at all, but one of the police officers' issue Remington 870 shotguns. --Roger 11:30 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Some people are missing the point of military rifles. Just because you leave the rifle unattended in a garage for a few months, doesn't mean it will magically become a rusted hunk of scrap metal that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. In the battlefield- conditions were worse. The Model 38 Carcano worked on a modified mauser design- one of the strongest and most reliable actions ever. In fact the only difference between the Mauser design and the Carcano is the magazine. The Carcano is fed by a Mannlicher-type magazine system. Calling the Carcano an anemic rifle is just silly; the 6.5mm Carcano is very similar to the 6.5 Mannlicher-Schoenauer. (6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer has been successfully used on almost every animal including elephant by professional game hunters such as "Karamojo" Bell and "Captain" Stigand) Surplus rifle has a very interesting page dedicated to the Carcano. [4] Be sure to check out the range report here, [5]. In this article the author shoots what appears to be a 3 inch group at some 300 feet with old ammunition, a small bull's-eye iron sights, and an "unkept dirty" rifle on his first try. The speed of the shots, as already mentioned, have been duplicated but some say that Lee Harvey was left handed, which allowed him to shoot the bolt action in a different manner. It involves grabbing the bolt with your right hand, while shooting with your left. Since your hand is ALWAYS on the bolt, the moment the rifle fires your right hand instinctively works the bolt, chambering the next round, allowing your left hand to once again pull the trigger. This trick is hard (and virtually useless) for righties since the gain in speed wouldn't make up for an awkward firing stance. --JMiller 18:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see the above mentioned left-handed bolt-action technique, just watch 'Saving Private Ryan'. In the belltower scene, the left-handed sniper is very adept at cycling the bolt quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytwocents (talk • contribs)

The Bob Jackson photograph

Can we get a photo credit? Vicki Rosenzweig

• I know this famous 1963 image by photographer Bob Jackson has appeared elsewhere with a copyright notice. Is it now public domain, or has the right for Wikipedia to use it been secured? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 20:19 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

Since I've still gotten no responce about this, I suggest this photo be deleted unless we're presented with evidence that we have permission to use it or it has been placed into the public domain. -- Infrogmation 02:21 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Deleted.

---

Again, a version of Bob Jackson's famous photograph, said in various souces to still be under copyright, was added to the article. Hfastedge, please clarify if you have gotten permission or if the copyright issue has been similarly resolved, or this will again need to be deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:24 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I believe the "innocent until proven guilty" practice should be applied here. So why dont you provide solid proof that it is not for public domain. (User:Hfastedge)

Um, you could try google. this here or here

By and large works copyrighted so recently as 1963 should not be assumed to be public domain; perhaps you're thinking of 1923.

Here's a nice article about Jackson & the photo: http://alt.tnt.tv/specials/moi/photo_oswald.html (Note it credits "photo: Robert H. Jackson; courtesy of Robert H. Jackson".) You could try writing to him asking permission to use it. It might be nice to give him credit for it if so. -- Infrogmation 18:54 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia's license works perfectly well with copyrighted works: namely, Fair_use. You have not provided solid evidence that this picture is not for public domain. user_talk:hfastedge

Once upon a time (it was 1976, for anyone who cares), I was told by a journalism professor that copyright on newspaper articles required that the original newspaper be acknowledged if copied or reprinted. That was before Congress rewrote copyright law in 1978, but I think that minimum standard needs to be met -- & I'm sorry to see that this wasn't done when it was re-incorporated back on 22 May. After all, this was probably the high-point in Robert Jackson's career, & using it without crediting him is wrong ethically, IMNSHO.

Why can't someone who wants this picture in the article take the time to ask Jackson if it can be included under the usual Wikipedia terms? -- llywrch 19:08 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Try contacting Gary Mack, the curator of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. Mack could give more details on Jackson or on the copyright of the photo. Contact info can be found at http://www.jfk.org/Media/Zapruder_Press_Conference.htm.

-- Hoshie

Copies of the copyrighted image have sat here over a year. (Has anyone who wanted it included yet cared about it enough to write to Mr.Jackson?) Let's resolve this. I've listed the images on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Infrogmation 17:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Jackson can be reached c/o The Gazette, 30 S. Prospect St., Colorado Springs, CO 80903 -- RGH37 30 Aug 2005

Alias

Lee Harvey Oswald used the ailas "Alek J. Hidell" during his lifetime. I am torn on creating a new article, a redirect from the Hidell ailas to the Oswald article, or talking about it in the Oswald article. Which is best?

- --Hoshie

Write about it in the article. To also create the redirect is not a bad idea, but I don't think it is in any way necessary either - it's not like someone is likely to ever create the Alek J. Hidell link (except for my creation here and now). Andre Engels 23:46 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

If this is accurate, it certainly should be included: [sharpshooter] sounds somewhat impressive, however, this was the lowest rating of the three available to service personnel (sharpshooter, marksman, expert) and Lee Harvey Oswald even had difficulty in qualifying for that.[6] any Marines out there? -- Kwantus 06:24, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It seems to be wrong. My Googling comes up with sharp as the middle grade, with this page perhaps the best evidence. (On the other hand, there, the grades are Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert, Master, and High Master - SS is still pretty low. I doubt they'd reorder the grade in past 40 years) -- Kwantus 18:15, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This link [7], which is included on the main page, makes it much clearer. Sharpshooter is not low, it 'indicates a fairly good "shot"'. Not brilliant, but definitely above average. (Forget about Master and High Master; less than 5% of shooters qualify for those. To get High Master, at 600 yards you have to be mainly hitting bullseyes).

On the other hand, his score two and a half years later was a bare pass. What's to be made of that? I was at one time a recruit small arms coach, and there are a lot of reasons why a good shot can get an occasional bad score, but only one way to get a good one. On the basis of the admittedly scanty evidence, the most reasonable conclusion is that Oswald was an above average but not brilliant shooter, who had at least one bad day - maybe caused by the slack attitude he was displaying by 1959. Attempts to paint him as a lousy shot seem to be agenda driven and just do not fit with the available evidence. -- Roger 14:16 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

A total irrelevancy: LHO's father was Robert Edward Lee Oswald[8] ... he planted his President in his father's namesake's onetime front yard!

irrelevant Ruth Forbes Paine Young info

I removed the following paragraph because 1) there is no direct relevance to Oswald and 2) The reasons given for why Ruth Young started the IPA are misleading. older≠wiser 21:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Because of her son's involvement in the assassination, her Forbes family's involvement with drug dealing in China during the Opium War, and her husband's involvement with the military and defense industry, Mrs. Ruth Forbes Paine Young started the International Peace Academy, which have fed rumors about her family's politics.

The Kerry info

Obviously, the info on the Paines being related to presidential candidate John Kerry is not relevant to this encyclopedia entry. Therefore, I ask that it be removed. I will not do it myself, as I have worked too hard to have to stoop to it.

New Evidence

Can we have a citation for this new evidence, the letter and the "Al Hidell"? Gamaliel 20:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've deleted the section on "new evidence". The Judyth A. Vary Baker stuff is true in that she does claim to have been Oswald's lover and confidant, but this is hardly "new" in that it is at least 3 years old. She also claims that Bertrand Russell was involved and that Oswald was involved in CIA bioweapons research. A good run-down is here. We can restore mention of her if others disagree with my definition of "new" or believe she deserves inclusion, but I don't see what makes her claims particularly encyclopedic above any number of other people who claim to have been involved with Oswald or some conspiracy.

I can't find any information about a new Oswald letter or a photo of "Al Hidell" despite a couple of whacks at it with google. Frankly, it all sounds entirely made up to me. Let's see that letter and photo, please. Gamaliel 09:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Famous!

This article was featured in a Chicago Sun-Times article about Wikipedia - see http://www.suntimes.com/output/worktech/cst-fin-andy20.html for more. Pcb21| Pete 13:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sweet. I've never been so happy about being called "rational and orderly" before. Gamaliel 20:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NAA source?

What is your specific source(s) for your following Walker bullet claim? '"...though neutron activation tests later proved that the bullet was from the same manufacturer as the one that killed Kennedy."' 64.12.116.130 17:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I got it from one of the half dozen or so books I was reading at the time, but here's a quick web link to the same info: [9] Gamaliel 17:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• ("tag" 6412116130) If the following claim by Warren Commission apologist Edward Epstein from your reference is what you based your claim upon, then there is a wide disconnect between an Oswald-supposedly-purchased bullet (for which there is no record of his purchase, no actual cartridges box that when sold contained 100 bullets, and not one of the supposedly 95 other empty bullet cartridges were ever found that matched the rifle found balanced on its bottom edge in the depository despite post-assassination retrieving every single empty bullet cartridge at ever single rifle ranges in the Dallas and Ft. Worth areas), and linking the Walker bullet to Oswald is extremely problematical from much more recent, and documented, research. (see below)

• Here's Epstein's claim you referenced, "Third, the previously-discussed Neutron Activation Analysis done in 1977 exactly matched the metallic elements found in the bullet that was recovered in Walker's home to the batch of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition used in Oswald's rifle in the assassination of Kennedy."

• The 1977 test that apologist Epstein refers to is from the Dr. Lattimer tests that Lattimer did for the HSCA official investigaton that concluded a second assassin did fire at the President. Dr. Lattimer used ammunition from "Western Case Cartridge Company" ammunition (supposedly the same used in Dealey Plaza) from "WCC" manufactured lot #'s 6000, 6001, 6002, 6003. Lattimer claimed that these rounds were of the same manufacture lots as the ammunition supposedly used by Oswald, and that they were manufactured in the year 1954. The "Western Case Cartridge Company" ammunition lot #'s 6000, 6001, 6002, 6003 are now documented to have been manufactured thusly:

Lot 6000 - Completed - 03/29/54, Shipped 04/01/54, Amount - 1,000,000

Lot 6001 - Completed - 04/15/54, Shipped 04/21/54, Amount - 1,000,000

Lot 6002 - Completed - 05/06/54, Shipped 05/11/54, Amount - 1,000,000

Lot 6003 - Completed - 05/27/54, Shipped 05/28/54, Amount - 998,000

Lot 6003 - Completed - N/A, Shipped 09/02/54, Amount - 2,000

• In other words, there were exactly 3,999,999 other rounds of the very same bullets that were, all, chemically identical to each other AND the Walker bullet (and the Parkland-Hospital-found nearly-pristine bullet, and fragments found in Kennedy, Connally, and the limousine)

• Further, if this ammunition was manufactured in the year 1954, it could not possibly be part of the 1952-53 HSCA traced ammunition shipment to Greece "alleged to" be connected to the actual source of the ammunition used in the Walker attempt and the killing of President Kennedy.

• (the rustiest of nails) It is also documented now that lot #'s 6000, 6001, 6002, 6003 were ordered by the United States Marine Corps, as a front for the actual, final receivership of these ammunition lots bullets, which was the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

• Epstein, and other Warren Commission apologists, with regard to the Walker bullet (its rifling grooves have never been linked to the rifle found balanced upright in the depository) and the Dealey Plaza found (and not found) bullets and bullet fragments have not researched far enough back, and/or, have not followed the most recent documented findings since Lattimer's study in 1977, some 27 years ago.

• (another extremely rusty nail) Finally, with regard to even the using of NAA as a forensic tool, you may or may not be aware of it, but since November 2003 the entire validity of NAA being utilized with specific regards to bullets compositional comparison has been called into highly critical question scientifically by the FBI, itself, and other professional forensic groups and professional forensics experts. Final conclusions are forthcoming. 205.188.116.130 08:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nothing I personally added to the article comes from the writings of Mr. Epstein, whomever he is. I simply provided a link to the first page google gave me about the when/where/who/etc of the tests in question. Gamaliel 09:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A couple of points-

Oswald received a small, routine "hardship" loan from the US Embassy in Moscow to finance his return to the States with Marina. He made payments, and had paid it off by the time he shot Kennedy.

He did offer the Russians "everything he knew" about US radar operations in Japan. Unfortunately for Lee, this wasn't anything the Russians didn't already know. In effect, he even botched being a traitor, and resorted to slitting his wrists to avoid being repatriated to the States.

He requested a "hardship" discharge from the Marines, left before it was approved (it would have been), but this was definitely changed to "dishonorable" when it became apparent that he made the application as a pretext to defect to the USSR. When he got back to the States with Marina, he was appalled to learn about his discharge status and (ironically) wrote a letter to Gov John Conally about it. He also witheld the information from most of his employers. Wyss 83.115.144.128 05:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Editing and Reverting

This is a controvercial subject that Wikipedia editors have mostly managed to improve the article on in a polite manner. The recent reverts back and forth are endangering this-- if it continues, it will become appropriate to put a temporary protection on the article due to edit/revert war, and the page will not be freely editable. I hope this will not be necessary. Please discuss changes on the talk page. Especially for points which have been changed back and forth more than once, please explain here why you think one version is superior to another, and do not change it back until others have had a chance to express their opinions and give feedback as well. Thank you. -- Infrogmation 20:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Points of dispute

What are the points of dispute with the article? I'll start with one I (Infrogmation) have noticed:

Point one: What is happening with the handgun in the photo?

As far as I can see, Image:Lho-133A.jpg shows Oswald with the rifle in one hand and the newspaper in the other, with the handgun at his side, not being held. If I am mistaken, please explain. The point as to if Oswald is holding, wearing, or wielding the handgun has been edited and reverted back and forth multiple times. From this, I assume that some Wikipedia editors either dispute over this point, or that they are not paying attention to some of the changes they make to the article. -- Infrogmation 22:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggested change: In line with the above, I suggest changing the portion of the image caption which currently reads "This photo, showing Oswald wielding a rifle, a handgun, and the Belgrade daily newspaper Politika," to read "This photo, showing Oswald wielding a rifle, wearing a handgun, and holding the Belgrade daily newspaper Politika,". Objections, comments? -- Infrogmation 22:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I too was mystified to see the back and forth on that one, here's a vote for Infrogmation's change. -Wyss 83.115.7.232 01:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Did anyone have a problem with that edit in particular? It was just a casualty of the reverting. I'm fine with either version. Gamaliel 01:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Point two: That the daily newspaper is Politika is probably misinformation

See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/interviews/blakey.html

"The photograph itself does several things. One: it self-identifies Oswald as associated with the Marxist literature. He's holding in his hand the Daily Worker and the Socialist Worker Party literature."

I have February 1964 copy of LIFE mag which first printed this photo and it says the paper is "The Militant" , which obviously contradicts the sources wikipedia is relying on . But no print on the newspaper is legible at all anyhow. Speculation as to the newspaper title is pointless and demonstrates a loss of focus for what the real questions and answers should be Hengistmcstone 21:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)hengistmcstone

I don't know what the source is for the idea that it's Politika. According to Posner, p.106, the newspapers are The Worker and The Militant. Apparently due to photo enhancement the exact issues are known. I'm changing the caption accordingly. Gamaliel 21:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

205.188.116.11 substitution

The following text by User:205.188.116.11 overwrote the ==Early life and Marine Corps service== section. If somebody wants to merge it in the article, please follow the Wikipedia style and conventions:

Lee Harvey Oswald was setup to take the fall for the killing of President John F. Kennedy. The Warren Commision was sanctioned to find Oswald as Kennedy's killer from the onset. Even though pictures show Oswald watching the President outside the Texas Book Depository. Within 90 seconds of the shooting a police officer finds Oswald on the second floor with a partially consumed bottle of pop. He wasn't even out of breath, stated the police officer. The bullet that struck Kennedy was from an Italian WWII rifle that used a 6.5, full metal jacket(military ammo). Now consider that the military didn't have any U.S. made weapon that used 6.5 ammo, but yet an East Alton IL. ammuntion manufacturing plant, made and supplied millions of rounds of 6.5 ammo to supply to the military. Why did the military need millions of rounds of ammo that they couldn't use? Or could they. After WWII the Italian Government unloaded it's rifles, almost 250,000 to a broker in the U.S. Thet were going to sell them for hunting. So the 'front story'goes. More than likely, those rifles were used in covert government operations. The story also goes Oswald ordered the rifle using a bogus name A.J. Hidell, but they couldn't even make up a story as to where Oswald got ammuntion. Oswald was indeed set up by the same organization he was connected to, probably the C.I.A.

History is written by the victors. And don't believe for a moment that it wasn't victory for some factions of our government when Kennedy was gunned down in Dallas.

There's nothing here worth preserving, it's all speculation and POV. The only actually relevant "fact" is false - that's not Oswald in those photos of the Depository. That man has been identified by Depository employees again and again as an employee named Billy Lovelady. [10] Gamaliel 18:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

marina oswald

why does the marina oswald link redirect to the lee harvey oswald page?

Never-ending conspiracy theories

Some years ago, a somewhat-satirical book came out that summarized all the different (and contradictory, of course) theories on the JFK assassination. It is hard for the writers of this article to avoid point-of-view, but they are taking a conspiracy as a "given" and forgetting a few fundamentals:

• Oswald was not a "poor" shot, he was a "good" shot, though not a "great" shot.
• The first time he faced the press, Oswald didn't talk about being set up. He was initially being held for the killing of the policeman, and a reporter blurted out, "Did you kill the President?" His answer sounded rehearsed: "I have not been accused of that; in fact, I didn't even know about it until you asked me that question."
• The famous "6 seconds" (reckoned by some to be more like 8) was the total time starting with the first shot. The elapsed time between shots was at least three seconds, possibly four; not two as is often stated erroneously.
• The most obvious "conspiracy" was the desire to ensure that it was the work of one guy so as not have to go to war with Russia, because it was immediately assumed by everyone in America that the Russians did it. Those who think otherwise are probably too young to know or remember what the "Cold War" was like, how much paranoia there was about the threat of Soviet Russia.
• The Kennedys themselves contributed significantly to the suspicions, by keeping such a tight lid on information. The facts have slowly come out, exposing much of the Kennedys' dirty laundry.
• There's no question that the Warren Commission left itself open to second guessing. But there is no real evidence, after all this time, that anyone other than Oswald was the guy... and I admit I was suspicious for a long time, but I've come around to the one-man theory.
• Our government is notoriously poor at keeping secrets. If you want to look for a conspiracy, look at the Mafia of that time, not at any government.
• Has anyone actually heard the supposed 4 shots on that audio recording? It would take Superman to tell the shots from the static. Sorry, I don't buy it. And I'm not the only one.

I must step in and say that people do not simply listen to the recordings of the shots, they use sophisticated equipment that can show when sound levels change and also can help point out where these noises originated from, please see readers digest March issue which explains the accoustical information. -John Geraghty

• Part of the continuing interest in the JFK assassination is that people are unwilling to accept the notion that one guy acting alone could change the course of history so starkly. But it happens.
• And in case you're wondering, I'm a Liberal and a JFK fan. But facts are facts. Wahkeenah 21:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Oswalds fight with sergeant

Just want to point out that Oswald was not sent to the brig for fighting with a sergeant, he was sent there for using Harsh language towards an officer and was cleared of pouring a drink over him.

Got a reference for that we can check? I'm sure we can all agree on changing a simple factual error if this is one. By the way, please sign your talk page posts, which you can do with four tildes (~). Gamaliel 00:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

My source is Anthony Summers, Conspiracy , pg 146 (John geraghty 16:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC))

Apologies for deleting of facts

I want to apologize for replacing of facts and information, from now on I shall talk about it on chat and not simply replace it. I am currently in the process of providing sources for all of my facts and addressing the facts I feel need to be rewritten or altered. All the best and sorry once again (John geraghty 16:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC))

Confused about the 1956 test

The Wikipedia article says that Oswald was a good shot, how he scored 48/50 and 49/50 on tests on December 1956. I'm debating the topic with a conspiarcy theorists, so I've been Googling up facts. The only 1956 test I can find is when Oswald achieved a score of 212. I have not found a document that lists a markmanship test scoring 48/50. Can somebody confirm the 48/50 test or delete the info? Hbdragon88 21:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence

This sentence needs to be rewritten by someone who knows the facts:

• Initially, his effort was by the Soviets, though as he was of little value to the Soviet Union, his application for Soviet citizenship was instead rejected.

Assassination of Oswald

How is it "not clear Oswald was assassinated", as someone stated in edit summary when removing category of "assassinated people"?

Oswald assassinated JFK. Ruby murdered Oswald. Assasinations are considered to be murders of leaders or other important people. Oswald does not clearly belong to any group of "important people" --JimWae 02:59, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

My dictionary gives the definition of assassination as to "kill by treacherous violence" Ruby could be said to be treacherous of a sort when he shot Oswald . It is not true that only leaders or famous people can be assassinated ! Hengistmcstone 21:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)hengistmcstone

Mine says To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. [11] and following that, LHO wasn't quite assassinated: He was newly famous but not "prominent", not demonstrably murdered for "political" (i.e. "partisan") reasons. Wyss 18:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

first broadcast of shoot out on TV

copied from wikipedia:reference desk/Humanities Jay 06:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Lee_Harvey_Oswald#Oswald.27s_death, Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald (in 1963) was the first time in TV history that a homicide was captured and shown publicly live. But General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon (in 1968) says the broadcast of the execution gained notoriety as the first broadcast of a death on television. Is there any truth in the latter statement or the anon user just made that up [12] ? Jay 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oswald didn't die instantly; his shooting was televised, but not his death. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • I was under the impression that he died instantly. Any idea what time he died ? Article gives the time of the attack as 11.21 AM. Jay 16:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• I would also question whether the TV footage of General_Nguyen_Ngoc_Loan was broadcast live. DJ Clayworth 17:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• The user that inserted that stuff seems a genuine chap, I've been looking at his contributions. That's not to say he can't just be plain wrong though ;o) --bodnotbod 21:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

So Oswald is presumed guilty then ?

Oswald was not convicted of the attempted assassination of General Walker and therefore the article should not read as if he was. Why has my edit which removes the presumption of Oswald's guilt from the Walker section been undone ? Neilmc 02:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Point of View =

We dont know much about Lee Harvey Oswald for sure. We know where and when he was born and where when and how he died but what happened in between is a matter of which account you care to read. This Wikipedia entry is strongly slanted towards the orthodox view with no room for alternative narrative or other accounts or anecdotes that paint a different picture of who or what Lee Harvey Oswald was. Whatever he was, Oswalds place in history was only assured in the last few days of his life, and only written after his death. The neutrality of any account can be called in to question therefore if the writer is vague about the timing of the information relied upon. This entrys account of the attempted assassination of General Walker therefore can never be said to be neutral. The information relates to months before the death of the subject (Oswald) and was either suppressed until it was made public or fabricated. Wikipedia guidelines state its not neutral to say “of course shes probably lying” yet this entry goes much further “and in any case Oswald's letters, applications, etc. were constantly filled with lies”. Neutral ? Come on. Of course that might be true if those applications were not written by Oswald, who knows? The many documented references to an impersonation of Oswald going on before his death seem to have slipped past this Wikipedia entry.

But its clear from the context that this Wikipedia entry is slanted towards character assassination rather than education. Most of this entry is conjecture and supposition; whilst the judgments made such as “There is also no credible evidence that Oswald knew Banister” are clearly subjective. Or (on the relationship between Oswald and David Ferrie) it says “there is no credible evidence that they knew each other then or in 1963” yet clearly they are in the same posed unit photo. Thats knowing each other. And who defines “credible evidence” anyhow? Its being used rather a lot.

I find this Wikipedia entry not just biased and slanted but edited in such a way as to suppress inquiry into this hugely interesting and enigmatic subject. The first point of reference on any account of Lee Harvey Oswalds should be that we know remarkably little about him and what we do know can usually be contradicted by an alternative anecdote or account. It comes down to where you choose to draw your history from. Of course I could be wrong there is a chance no matter how small that this account is right on the button. But I doubt it, and who could prove it anyhow? And until then the Wikipedia editors are wrong for not crediting that there are alternative accounts of Oswalds adventures, that this part of our history remains hotly disputed. Its for the above reasons and others too numerous to mention that Im filing an NPOV dispute on this entry.Hengistmcstone 19:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)hengistmcstone

We know plenty about Oswald. He wasn't an enigmatic mystery, he was just some guy who had a few issues. When the entry says something like "Oswald's applications were filled with lies" it means that applications Oswald filled out in his own handwriting were completed with deliberate falsifications. To claim that there's an alternative view that these applications were planted by some shadowy conspiracy or a Oswald double or whoever requires evidence, not just merely conjecture. Wikipedia is not obligated to record the conjecture of ever conspiracy theorist in the name of NPOV.

Is the statement "there is no credible evidence that Oswald knew Ferrie" a subjective one? Perhaps. It's also true. The Oswald-Ferrie connection only existed in the mind of Jim Garrison and to record it as merely an "alternative viewpoint" does a disservice to truth and history and common sense. Were they in a photo together? Yes. Does this mean they knew each other in any significant way? No. You can find plenty of pictures of me with people I barely knew or didn't know at all in the Boy Scouts 20 years ago. God help me if any of them assassinate the president.

We can together work to tweak the wording on specific passages. Look above at the photo section, I think that there's an example of something where a factual error was corrected with some crude form of teamwork. But I'm not going to participate in watering down historical facts to work in conspiracy theories which have nothing in the way of evidence to back them up. Gamaliel 19:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No one expects you to water down historical facts to support conspiracy theory and neither should we water down historical fact to support the lone gunman theory. A factual account has to stick strictly to known facts that cannot be and are not disputed. Our primary purpose is as amateur historians not conspiracy theorists. There is room for deduction and common sense I hope but no room for opinions, as opinion does not sit with concensus at least not in this field.

I made it clear that questions about the backyard photos started before Oswalds death, then I wrote it into a passage and shortly after you reverted it. The changes that have resulted in that piece are simply about the irrelevant newspaper title which could never be read even if you blew up the picture 1000x because no print is visible. But still according to this article Oswalds objections to the photos never happened. I dont see a factual error being corrected, I see a factual error being replaced with another factual error. By the way, Ive found a claim that there were far more versions of the backyard photos than I previously thought: read http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/russell/Sixteen_questions_Russell.html .

We dont seem to agree even on the meaning of conjecture. Much of whats written in this entry especially about the attempted assassination of Walker is conjecture. What evidence is there that Oswald put Walker under surveillance?

The links between Oswald and Ferrie go much further than that CAP photo. Both are linked to Guy Banisters operation on Camp Street, there's Jack Martins account to back that up as well as the FPFC leaflets. A string of witnesses place Ferrie Shaw and Oswald together in September 63 in Clinton LA. The HSCA acknowledged that one of the possible indicators of a conspiracy was Lee Oswald's apparent association in New Orleans with David Ferrie. Well if its good enough for the House Committee it ought to be good enough for Wikipedia.

That brings me to an important point. What standard of proof should this (or any other ) entry be working to. If its plausibility then Ok, whats written here is just about plausible but it raises huge questions not least about your method. There are numerous other scenarios that are also plausible, but you reject them, is that because you judge this scenario to be superior or because of some notion of “official history” (perhaps as authorized by the Warren Report) that we should follow?

Many of aspects of Oswalds life provide evidence to point us in two directions at once but without a method we could never find concensus. For practically every aspect of Oswald's adult life there is a contradictory anecdote, which one is superior and why is a subjective question. So each plausible account should be given equal treatment in Wikipedia, because the alternative accounts, the ones you dont like cannot be ruled out by the same standard. I am not saying we should record theories because theories are interpretations to explain evidence, weve not got that far, but there are conflicting accounts of Oswald which this entry simply omits. This entry would seem to me to be neither a factual account nor a balanced analysis.Hengistmcstone 18:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)hengistmcstone

We know Oswald put Walker under survelliance because of the testimony of his wife and the survelliance materials Oswald produced, including photos of Walker's house.

Your claim that you can't read any of the print in those photos is contradicted by the examination of the photos which produced the exact publication date of those two newspapers.

I reject alternative theories because I require evidence and common sense, not conjecture. Saying evidence was faked or planted is not an "alternative theory", it's just a half-baked imagining until you come up with something to support such a claim. I view this article much in the way that people on Wiki view the evolution article. We should stick with the historical facts, and their alternate universe theories of how biology works belong in creationism articles and not in the evolution article. Random theories about faked evidence don't belong unless there is some evidence to substantiate them. There's a difference between recording "conflicting accounts" and recording conjecture. I simply don't believe we have an obligation to record faulty theories in this article. Gamaliel 21:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Ive been looking at WC p183 ch4 and Ive found only that Oswald told his wife that he tried to kill Walker, nothing about surveillance. Lines 700 and 701 talk about 2 people involved not one. Am I missing something or is that it?Hengistmcstone 13:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)hengistmcstone

Surveillance photos of Walker's house and the surrounding area taken by Oswald, plans Marina saw Oswald burn, and the letter Oswald left for Marina, which still exists. Gamaliel 16:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Just Remembering

I was with my parents in our living room watching Oswald being brought in and saw him shot. I will never forget the look on his face. I was 10 years old. No kid should ever have seen something like that. Maybe I'm intruding but just had to tell it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.2.41.84 (talk • contribs) .

New Orleans

A number of facts have been removed from the article supposedly because they are "conjecture":

• "Oswald's letters, applications, etc. were constantly filled with lies" This is a fact. There are a number of Oswald's applications in his own handwriting which mention schools he never went to, references who don't exist, jobs he never had.
• "there is no credible evidence that [Oswald and Ferrie] had any significant contact then or knew each other in 1963". This is a fact. Other than the CAP photo, there is nothing to link the two people. To not say otherwise is to push the Garrison POV that there was a connection.
• "There is also no credible evidence that Oswald knew Banister or rented an office at Banister's building". Another fact, another implied connection if we don't mention this.

I'm going to restore these in the article. Gamaliel 03:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Constantly filled with lies mean that all his letters applications etc were 100% lies. Schools he never went to isnt enough, how many schools are mentioned that he did go to ? To demolish your statement I only need to find one truth in everything Oswald wrote.

Above are all judgements made by yourself about the quality of evidence - Not Facts.

Please define significant contact. I suggest that is one variable too many to make your statement have any meaning, however one can also read it that you concede they had insignificant contact. Likewise your words above also concede that the CAP photo is credible evidence of a link. Your phrase to not say otherwise is a double negative and I have to note you seem to be tying yourself up in knots a bit here. Are you suggesting that in order to maintain a neutral point of view we have to suppress evidence supporting Garrisons Point of View?

The suggestion as to why FPCC flyers have Banisters address is conjecture. It also casts doubt on the neutrality of the writers above judgement that there is no evidence linking Banister and Oswald. Clearly there is a link and you are uncomfortable with it. Hengistmcstone 12:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)hengistmcstone

"Constantly filled with lies" does not mean and was not intended to mean 100% lies, but I will change the wording to prevent your accidental interpretation.

The CAP photo clearly exists and seems to be authentic. All it means is that a former-CAP leader (Ferrie was ousted in 1954) attended the same event as a 15-year old Oswald. This is not evidence they conspired to kill the president a decade later.

Actually, 544 Camp Street was not Banister's address. It was 531 Lafayette. They share the same shell but have two separate entrances on two separate streets. 544 was the former address of the Cuban Revolutionary Council. Given the lack of an Oswald-Banister connection and the proof of Oswald's contact with Cuban groups in N.O., which makes more sense?

"Clearly there is a link and you are uncomfortable with it." If you are going to continue to play armchair psychologist, I'm not going to continue to discuss anything with you. I find your attempts to attribute my motives to some imaginary psychological weakness very offensive. Gamaliel 16:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the CAP photo doesnt prove they conspired to kill the President. My observation that you are uncomfortable with a piece of evidence is not playing armchair psychologist, it is part of an evaluation of the case you put forward. A case that says because you are dissatisfied with evidence of a link there is no such link and any such evidence suggesting a link must be explained away with a ridiculous political theory. You are of course entitled to your opinion, I do not wish to disabuse you of your beliefs but I think its right to remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum for speculation or original research. You pose a question that relies on the premise of your percieved lack of an Oswald Banister connection, however you dont have any evidence to disprove the link. There is a body of evidence that clearly suggests a link and the burden of proof should be on you to disprove it before posing such a theoritical and presumptive question. Oswald used the 544 Camp Street address for the FPCC period. If an explanation were needed I would quote Occams Razor and say that the New Orleans operation of the FPCC was conducted out of that address because that was where Oswald had office facilities. But Im not going to get involved in theorizing or speculation over this, and will continue to edit this page accordingly. Ps In earlier postings you stated “I simply don't believe we have an obligation to record faulty theories in this article.”and “ I'm not going to participate in watering down historical facts to work in conspiracy theories which have nothing in the way of evidence to back them up” I think you should withdraw those statements or reconsider your position.Hengistmcstone 19:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I am uncomfortable with is your attempts to attribute motives to me and your bizarre idea that you can read my thoughts by "evaluating the case", whatever the hell that means. Instead doing the courteous and reasonable thing and stopping this, you insist on continuing and push further by suggesting that I withdraw perfectly reasonable positions. On the contrary, I insist you withdraw your offensive amateur analysis of my thoughts and motives which are contrary to Wikipedia:Civility. Gamaliel 19:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never attempted to attribute motives to you nor read your thoughts. I can read what you write and confidently state that the editorial standards you claim to be working to are very different to how you actually edit. The positions I suggest you withdraw are indeed perfectly reasonable but you are simply not living up to them. In fact your editing is biased and you will record conjecture and faulty theories and obliterate historical facts if they dont fit in with your point of view. I note your comments about civility but after having read the whole of Wikipedia:Civility I cannot see which protocol I am supposed to have transgessed nor how, can you be more specific? On the contrary it is you that is deleting almost all of my contributions with cursory explanations. What do you mean by red herrings in the Warren Commission evidence? How can referring to a DAs investigation be pushing a POV? Why am I supposed to discuss contributions beforehand but no one else is ? Ive previously asked "Are you suggesting that in order to maintain a neutral point of view we have to suppress evidence supporting Garrisons Point of View?" but never got an answer. Hengistmcstone 10:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• "Clearly there is a link and you are uncomfortable with it."
• "I have never attempted to attribute motives to you nor read your thoughts."

Both of these statements can't be true.

I have clearly and repeately stated, with quotes from your posts, the problem I have had with your offensive comments. First you claim your offensive comments are just "part of an evaluation of the case", now you claim ignorance that you made any such comments in the first place. Most of the time I'm a perfectly reasonable person, and I don't think it's too much to ask that you not do what I've repeatedly asked you not to do. After all, I don't post here speculating about why you take the positions you do and your motives.

I've already made my position on the N.O. section quite clear, but I'll note my thoughts on the Walker section:

• You've introduced examples of right-wing violence in Dallas at the time. This isn't relevant to Oswald and since Oswald's assassination attempt was an example of left-wing violence, it isn't relevant in general. Perhaps you're trying to make it seem like there was a culture of political violence on both sides in Dallas at the time, but this isn't true. This reads like it is pushing the pov, "look, everyone was violent there, so someone else probably did it."
• Smack in the middle of the evidence of Oswald's guilt, you mention one single witness who saw a car leaving a church parking lot after a service, a witness I might add is contradicted by other witnesses whom you do not mention. Another red herring. Gamaliel 18:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

We are suppposed to be trying to understand one another so I noted your discomfort. Im sorry if you have a problem with that, but it was meant as an observation about your reasoning or your method. It is not reading thoughts or speculating about motives. I do not understand why you have a problem with 'evaluation of the case', that is what editors do.

• I wrote "JFKs assassination was not the only violent political act in Texas in 1963" and listed the attack on Stevenson. I made no comments about "sides" whatsoever still less have never distinguished between right wing and left wing on anything Ive written. Please justify your statement “You've introduced examples of right-wing violence in Dallas at the time”. You attribute a political stance to me which is entirely your own invention. I find that offensive. Your words "look, everyone was violent there, so someone else probably did it" is an exaggeration and confusing context with pushing a POV. I am frankly mystified by what you have written in that paragraph.
• I lifted two sentences from the Warren Report about two witnesses[[13]]. You are quite welcome to add your contribution that those witnesses are contradicted somewhere. But if you are suggesting that the Warren Report contains red herrings then that becomes the standard others will follow. Hengistmcstone 12:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you "evaluating" this article, I have a problem with you "evaluating" myself. Instead of attemping to be civil, you insist on purposely and needlessly antagonizing me by repeating this bullshit about the supposed "discomfort" I feel about certain nonexistent evidence. If you want to work on this article, fine, let's collaborate, or if you want to continue an edit war, you can just keep needling me with your nonsensical and offensive analysis of my motives.

And for the record I did not attribute a political stance to you, I attributed a political stance to those people who attacked Stevenson. Calling the attackers right-wing has nothing to do with you or your motives, whatever they are. Gamaliel 19:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Lets Collaborate. I suggest we start by cutting all conjecture, opinion, and subjective analysis from this article with the intent of leaving only undisputed facts. Ultimately some disputed facts can stay but reworded so that their status is clear. For instance in the first draft of this page by one Daniel Lee Crocker (which I have to say is a much more sensible and manageable length) it describes Oswald as the putative assassin of JFK. That should satisfy all. But as it stands there is little point in this article, which now goes as far as detailing what the neighbors thought Oswald and his wife were arguing about. I mean when you take it that far all pretence of objectivity is gone. I also suggest General Walker is disambiguated, he deserves his own place in history anyhow Hengistmcstone 16:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand why you think replacing the current article with this version would be a good idea. It has nothing to do with what we think about it; almost all Wikipedians would agree that a two paragraph stub on such an important historical figure would not be satisfactory or sufficient. As for Walker, whom I believe has a small article of his own, I don't think this article would be improved my removing the information about him. I disagree that this article is too long and unmanagable in general, but if you want to trim some fat I suggest we start with the lengthy recent additions to the sections about his life in the USSR, which I think ramble on a bit much. Gamaliel 18:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Lee Oswald is an important historical figure, regardless of whatever we don't yet know about him. Moreover, although the Warren investigation had some flaws, most serious historians do note that Oswald was likely the lone assassin of John Kennedy and yes, coincidence and unexpected opportunity do seem to have been involved. Given the extraordinary nature of his crime, the unusual circumstances surrounding Oswald's life and the lingering controversy, a highly detailed article is helpful, even needed. This article is about as balanced and objective as any I 've seen. Interjections of spurious tales and assertions as an attempt to tie LHO into sundry conspiracy theories would be unhelpful and likely violate WP policy regarding reliability of sources and NPoV (for example, even assertions of prior contact with Ferrie are utterly unsupported- never mind the lack of support for any involvement by Ferrie in a wider conspiracy- New Orleans was a relatively small town and it's no surprise Lee was photographed at some point during his youth with someone there who later had unsavory connections and a violent death): This is a biographical article, not an article on the assassination. There are some omissions of documented detail here and there (nothing controversial though) and I see no reason for the dispute tag. Wyss 18:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Lee Oswald achieved nothing worthwhile in his lifetime yet he is given an entry here that is longer than many of our less illustrious presidents all of whom achieved great things. The original article is superior because it is truthful and comes from a neutral point of view. The current article does not. General Walker does indeed have an entry of his own and the wording on it is exactly the same as this page. I shall disambiguate it to avoid duplication. As for Oswald being an important historical figure that depends on what you believe. Yes, he is is connected to a seminal historical event, but how he is connected to that we seem to disagree. He is not the only character in the tragedy, his importance can only be judged by comparing him to the others. By the way what is the point of the New Orleans paragraph about Ferrie et al? If your assertions were true there would be no point in denying a connection between Oswald and Ferrie since no such connection existed. Hengistmcstone 21:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your comments are supported by the historical record, however one might interpret it. Moreover, denying a mistaken assertion can be helpful. Wyss 21:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What youre saying is just opinion NOT FACT. Your statement that because of the lingering controversy a highly detailed article [...]is needed is incompatible with a neutral point of view. You are clearly setting out to resolve the controversy in a certain way, that is not what we are trying to do on Wikipedia nor is it possible here. Any attempt to resolve the controversy will not be believable and denigrates the hard work that all wikipedia editors put in on all sorts of topics. No original research. Can you substantiate your statement beginning most serious historians, have you canvassed most serious historians ? I would say the Oswald Ferrie connection is no mistake but I really dont see how you can pretend this is balanced if you're going to mention that connection just so you can shoot it down! If its not true why mention it? New Orleans was not a relatively small town Get real! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hengistmcstone (talk • contribs) .

As Gamaliel says below, no way will this article be shortened (largely for the reasons he outlines). I've removed the dispute tag and I'll revert further wholesale deletions of content (blanking sections, paragraphs and so on) by you as vandalism. WP does mention the unsupported speculations you refer to. Given the thoroughly disambiguated nature of the JFK assassination topic on WP it would be unhelpful and utterly misleading to mention them here. Please take the speculative aspects of your contributions to the articles created for them. Wyss 15:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Some quick points:

• There is absolutely no point in advocating a two paragraph version of this article. That's just not going to happen. Not because I say so or because Wyss says so, but because most Wikipedians will not accept that. If you don't understand why that is, I suggest you spend some time looking around the rest of this database to see what we're doing here. I'm not sure what else I can say to convince you, but there's no point in wasting any more time on this issue.

• Oswald is an important historical figure, regardless of what you think his particular involvement or non-invovlement was. Dozens of books have been written about him. Britannica's got an article, I'm sure every general English language encyclopedia on the Earth does too. Deal with it. You may argue the particular level of his importance, but so what? At that point, you're just arguing to argue.

• I don't think you have any idea what the word disambiguate means in the context of Wikipedia.

• It is useful for an encyclopedia article to correct commonly held but mistaken beliefs, such as the King James Bible article mentioning the mistaken idea that Shakespeare was one of the translators. Gamaliel 15:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED Nothing I have said is speculative, I have removed a number of speculative points and they have all been reinstated by yourselves. The dispute Tag is there for a reason, do not remove it. Whilst you are welcome to express your opinion you must remember it is only one of a number of opinions and so long as you censor other opinions (and evidence supporting them) the bias in your work will be obvious and on Wikipedia disputed Hengistmcstone 19:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, your insistence on the dispute tag more resembles a tactic than a genuine dispute concerning the biography of LHO. Please list your points of dispute below. If they involve disputed aspects of the historical record as they relate to the life of LHO, which you can cite through reliable secondary sources, it may be possible to add notes about those points of dispute somewhere in the text. Wyss 19:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by the historical record ? You have not substantiated your assertion about most serious historians, so you're hardly in a position to quote an historical record at me. You are making it up as you go along. There are some things we know about LHO and some things we dont and a great deal of speculation which you are passing off as fact. Whilst I cannot stop you doing that I can register that there is a dispute and will continue to do so . That you are unable to deal with my points is your problem, but the article is still under dispute and it is DISHONEST of you to remove the tag. Hengistmcstone 20:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked you to list the specific points of dispute below. Wyss 20:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have already mentioned numerous points of dispute none of which you have addressed. Not only that, you are not addressing the points of dispute I am raising in this correspondence such as substantiate your assertion that you can speak for most serious historians, what precisely do you mean by the historical record? As for the Article itself well my points of dispute are too numerous to mention right now so Ill list for you half a dozen to be getting along with and come up with some more over the few days. But the NPOV dispute tag is going back; removing it is vandalism.

• The opening line assassinated US President... has not been proved in a Court of Law. Britannica gets round the problem by using the phrase accused assassin or the original article's phrase putative assassin would be fine. This is one of numerous assertions of suspicion being cited as fact.
• The Walker piece is already a duplication so should be deleted on those grounds, but it is also speculation masquerading as fact. For instance it is speculation that Oswald put Walkers home under surveillance. I have tried to address this and rewrote the piece stating the facts i.e. And photographs of Walkers home were found amongst Oswalds possessions. However it was reverted to the speculative version.
• Though Atsugi was a base for the U-2 spy planes which flew over the USSR, Oswald was not involved in that operation Speculation, not all of Oswalds military record has been released. You cannot prove the negative.
• Statement assessing the link between Oswald and Ferrie is biased, I have made the point numerous times before and never had a sensible answer.
• New Orleans piece finshes with a link to a speculative work to back up biased conjecture. The suggestion of an attempt to embarrass CRC is pure conjecture and is inappropriate here, but the article cited to substantiate it is even worse, none of it is fact. It is a theory. And this is not the place for Theory. As I have said before it is not neutral to assert evidence you do not like and then dismiss it.
• I dont know whether Oswald was devastated and humiliated by his encounter with Bringuier and neither does anyone else, statements about Oswalds character or emotions cannot be substantiated.
• The Rifle, why is that here? This is supposed to be a biographical article. This section finishes biased, what undisputed evidence is there that LHO had prior experience with a MC? CBS is quoted here but some of the text trails off (needs fixing obviously) but if youre going to quote a CBS investigation then it has to be balanced by allowing other media investigations, some of which have come up with very disturbing evidence of a political nature. There were 6 seconds between the shots. Ultimately the CBS survey proves nothing it was just a stunt.
• I have numerous written accounts saying the head snapped back. There is no substantiation on the piece describing the Zapruder film and unless it is on the web frame by frame it will continue to be disputed because there has been a great deal of misinformation on this including reversal of frames in the few occasions it has been published.
• Again the Tippit section is a little biased and then becomes more biased as we go on. The statement To many who heard it, this calm response to such a seemingly startling question, complete with its "non-denial denial", sounded like a rehearsed answer is entirely unhelpful. Has the author canvassed many who heard it? Obviously not, so the writer is unable to justify that statement. The point that should be made here is that none of the Dallas PD took notes throughout their interrogation. What is a "non-denial denial" anyhow.

This is not a complete list of my points of dispute. Most importantly it is the Point of View of the narrative I am disputing, only one side is projected throughout this piece. Nearly every time any alternative evidence is raised ( and thats not often)it is dismissed or denigrated in some way. None of this allows the reader to make up his or her own mind, and hence this piece will always be dismissed as biased. Hengistmcstone 21:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Your points, in order:

• Read the first sentence again. It says LHO is the assassin "according to the conclusions of two government investigations into the assassination". That is accurate and NPOV.
• "Duplication" is not grounds for removing directly relevant material. It is not "speculation" that Oswald put Walker under surveillance - some of the surveillance materials (photos, etc.) still exist.
• If there is no trace of any records showing Oswald's supposed involvement in U-2 spying, is it "speculation" to say that? In fact, you are the one who is speculating, alluding to allegedly sealed records which may or may not exist.
• We've been over this before. There is no connection between Oswald and Ferrie aside from a group photo of a teenage Oswald. It is pure speculation to assume any further connection.
• It is perfectly legitimate to offer a possible explaination for the flyers. He did not have an office at Camp Street so another explaination is necessary.
• The testimony of his wife and other witnesses, such as the radio host who conducted the debate, substantiate this observation.
• I have no paticular opinion on the rifle section at this time.
• Not sure what you're referring to here.
• I've removed that particular sentence, I agree that it is a bit troublesome and tortured. Gamaliel 22:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel didn't mention that encyclopedic content need not have been presented and "proven" [sic] in a court of law. Truth be told, Hengistmcstone wishes this article to be a cryptic, biographical stub which would advance his goal of swaying WP to his rather pegged PoV that LOH didn't assassinate JFK. Most serious historians think he did (although conspiracy books have gotten higher sales overall than scholarly ones over the past few decades, never mind some people can't accept that a popular and charismatic young president could have been murdered through the essentially random, opportunistic act of a hopelessly messed up wannabee). Whatever, that's what the evidence suggests and the Warren Commission Report, with all its flaws, seems to have gotten the basics right. Hengistmcstone, you're not going to stubify this article through these tactical, unsupported arguments and a dispute tag. Wyss 22:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You are talking rubbish. You claim to speak for most serious historians yet still you have not justified that position despite repeated requests that you do so. You are also unable to speak for me. I do not hold and have not made nor suggested any such views or goals as you are attributing to me here. I think you should withdraw your remarks about me. I dont see any further point in discussing anything with you if you are going to try and put words in my mouthHengistmcstone 23:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"You are talking rubbish" is neither a scholastic nor a Wikipedian reply. Meanwhile I claim to speak for no one but myself, you're the one asserting without support that the article should be turned into a stub. I can't withdraw my remarks since I've read this talk page and watched you blank the entire General Walker section (I know, because I'm the one who restored it). Please stop edit warring. Please stop attempting to edit by attrition (trust me, it doesn't and won't work). If you don't think LHO assassinated JFK I can only suggest you take your assertions to the appropriate conspiracy articles, never mind this article does cartwheels (backwards) to avoid an unqualified assertion LHO did murder Kennedy. Wyss 00:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• The opening line assassinated US President... has not been proved in a Court of Law...

Lots of verified material in Wikipedia has not been "proved in a Court of Law".

• The Walker piece is already a duplication so should be deleted on those grounds, but it is also speculation masquerading as fact.

Duplication in itself isn't an issue, lots of WP history articles do and should overlap some. The physical evidence is overwhelming, along with Marina's confirmations shortly after the JFK assassination.

• ...U-2 spy planes which flew over the USSR, Oswald was not involved in that operation Speculation...

There is zero evidence he was involved and saying that is not speculation.

• Statement assessing the link between Oswald and Ferrie is biased, I have made the point numerous times before and never had a sensible answer.

Zero evidence of any link between Oswald and Ferrie aside from casual contact when LHO was a teen.

(i am not overly critical of the piece and new to wiki) the connection between Ferrie is strongly supported (admittedly still circumstantial) by the fact martin knew there was one... this is not disputed even by the FBI. How could Martin know? he was telling this story from the offset. even if we assume its a pack of lies about the conspiracy to kill kennedy because he was motivated by revenge on Bannister or the such like, the FACT remains he knew Ferrie knew Oswald from the air cadets. Even if we assume he only knew because Ferrie told him in passing this at least draws Ferrie towards recognizing Oswald as a former air cadet by seeing him near or about 544 camp street or Rileys even if he had no real contact with him. However "no evidence" is too strong a term. I should add i am quite willing to entertain oswald as a lone gunmen. BUT the fact Martins story took place (even if false) is not in dispute. to explain he knew this trivia by some other means such as his own research strikes me as absurd given the timeframe. I would say there is evidence Oswald knew Bannister and Ferrie in NO but its not conclusive. (82.45.214.176 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC))Boris

• New Orleans piece finshes with a link to a speculative work to back up biased conjecture. The suggestion of an attempt to embarrass CRC is pure conjecture and is inappropriate here, but the article cited to substantiate it is even worse, none of it is fact. It is a theory. And this is not the place for Theory. As I have said before it is not neutral to assert evidence you do not like and then dismiss it.

Don't agree about lack of appropriateness, agree it should be cited more thoroughly if included.

• I dont know whether Oswald was devastated and humiliated by his encounter with Bringuier and neither does anyone else, statements about Oswalds character or emotions cannot be substantiated.

Ever heard the audio? Seriously, many authors can be cited on this, though I agree with you in that it's not necessary to include his emotional reaction in the article.

• The Rifle, why is that here? This is supposed to be a biographical article.

Because he shot JFK with it and it was traced directly back to him (two paths back to the purchase btw, plus the backyard photos, plus Marina testimony, plus found at his place of work immediately after the assassination).

• This section finishes biased, what undisputed evidence is there that LHO had prior experience with a MC?

Walker attempt is well documented, plus other testimony of Marina Oswald.

• ...There were 6 seconds between the shots...

More like 8 and it's been proved (through ballistics, spectrometry and timing tests) Lee could have made all three himself (and did).

• I have numerous written accounts saying the head snapped back...

This is old news. It snapped back from the jet effect after it snapped forward against the chest. I'm perpetually amazed how buffs mis-interpret/abuse Zapruder but that's only a personal remark of mine.

• ...there has been a great deal of misinformation on this including reversal of frames in the few occasions it has been published.

No need to delve into original research when the documented conclusions are so widely published and generally accepted by serious historians.

• Again the Tippit section is a little biased and then becomes more biased as we go on. The statement To many who heard it, this calm response to such a seemingly startling question, complete with its "non-denial denial", sounded like a rehearsed answer is entirely unhelpful.

Agreed there is no reason to editorialize on the emotional tone of LHO's words.

• ...none of the Dallas PD took notes throughout their interrogation.

Mistaken notion, widely repeated by buffs. Notes were taken although there is much variation in their completeness and disposition (from what I've heard this is not unusual for a local murder investigation in Texas then). Wyss 12:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Tag Removed

I have removed the NPoV tag because discussion stopped. I will remove it as straight, tactical vandalism unless the points of dispute with specific items in the text are listed plainly below, thanks. Wyss 00:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• First point of dispute (pls include disputed text from article)
• Second point of dispute (pls include disputed text from article)
• Third point of dispute (pls include disputed text from article)
• and so on

I thought Joe DiMaggio did it!

--220.238.2.146 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC) [14]--220.238.2.146 07:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The Tone of the Discussion is Intense

The tone of of discussion on this article about Oswald seems unusually intense. This interferes with the process of producing a balanced article.

But, there is no sense getting upset about it. Oswald was either framed for murder or he wasn't framed for murder. And, if he wasn't framed, he either acted alone or didn't act alone.

What makes the case so interesting to some people is that in order to frame Oswald for murder, there would almost have to be the active and knowing participation by a number of people in a number of government agencies who, under the law, would then be deemed to have participated in murdering Kennedy.

Moreover, it would not only be a public relations disaster for any agency caught participating in the murder (either before-the-fact or after-the-fact) but, also, since there is no statute of limitations on murder, there may very well be people alive who could still be prosecuted for it.

So the stakes are high: If Oswald was either framed, or not acting alone, someone is getting away with murder.

Therefore, tensions seem high. To counteract this, those who contribute to the article should adopt the mindset of a professional advocate. Approach matters calmly, and professionally. Forget about personal attacks on the people who don't agree with you. Forget also about the mindless attacks made on you by others. These just distract from obtaining a professionally done article.

Accusing someone of being either a buff or a dupe (depending upon your point of view) doesn't add anything to the debate.

Finally, don't hide from the truth. Unless one has a monetary or other real life stake in the debate, look at the evidence and let that be your guide on each issue. RPJ 01:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"Most historians" needs to be dropped unless supported.

An unsupported statement such as "all experts agree" is not acceptable for a reference work and is not even an acceptable form of debate. It asks the reader to accept an opinion of a secret person, who may or may not exist, and may or may not be qualified to give an opinion, and may or may not be biased. This is not acceptable for opinion references.

Therefore, the statement about "historians" needs some support that may or may not exist. RPJ 02:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC) RPJ 02:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Oswald's Photograph Holding the Rifle Picture Needs to Go

This is a basic reference work. The article should not use evidence that contradicts what it is supposed to support. One instantly loses respect from the reader. The evidentiary support should instantly and unimpeachably establish the point being made. The reader should feel safe in relying upon the content of the article.

The article starts off with the powerful, informative point that two major investigations, one by the executive branch and one by the legislative branch concluded, after a long period of investigation, that Oswald participated in the murder. They simply differ on whether he did it alone. This is factual, important information.

The Article should not then follow up with evidence of Oswald's guilt with photographic evidence that might immediately lose the respect of the reader. Oswald’s chin is twice as wide as it should be, and the reader can simply measure it. Check the width of Oswald's chin in the mug shot with him holding the murder weapon. Once the reader spots the chin problem, the reader will wonder why the article didn’t warn that this picture is highly controversial.

This warning must be given to the reader, even if the photograph is absolutely 100% genuine.

Don't let the reader walk into an ambush in some discussion, school paper or debate based on information from this article. Its great that there is an exhibit consisting of Oswald in a photograph holding the murder weapon, and a fistful of left-wing propaganda. But, lets face it, Oswald’s defense was "I didn't do it and I've been framed." He was shown this picture and he said it was a fake and he can prove it. It does look fake—just measure the chin. This chin problem is an objective fact.

Now this is important: Even if there is an innocent reason for chin’s appearance, the reader must be warned of the specific problem. The reader of the article isn't going to be happy with the article if the chin problem is pointed out to the reader by some one else in who knows what embarrassing moment.

If there is a persuasive answer to the chin defect,the article should have the answer or don't use the photograph. RPJ 05:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The photograph was genuine according to every government investigation into the assassination, including the HSCA, which specifically looked into allegations the photo was fabricated. Gamaliel 05:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Then all the article needs to do is cite to the evidence relied upon by the investigators in support of their opinion that the apparent defect in the photograph is not what it appears to be. This is especially so since Oswald immediately claimed the photograph was a fabrication.

If this particular evidence can't be located, then the photograph has to go until the evidence explaining the defect can be found and the reader is specifically warned of the problem. RPJ 16:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)RPJ 16:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• do you have a decent source for the photo? - all the ones I've found were small or blurry or both. then we can measure his chin. The shadows are NOT clearly wrong & foreshortening accounts for size differences many have argued about
• from George de Mohrenschildt on April 1, 1977 Jeanne de Mohrenschildt gave the House Select Committee on Assassinations a photograph taken by Marina of Oswald standing in his Dallas backyard holding two newspapers and a rifle with a pistol on his hip. The existence of this photograph, while similar to others which had been found among Oswald's effects on November 23, 1963, was previously unknown. Jeanne de Mohrenschildt said it had been stored with other family items in the US for almost 14 years.
• didn't Marina once say she took the photos (even IF she has since changed herr story)? And even the site you offer does not question that she took SOME photos of him in the yard. Btw, that site[15] would never pass a NPOV test --JimWae 07:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please cite to the evidence the HSCA relied upon to support its conclusion that the photograph is not a composite fabrication that left the chin objectively distorted. Thank you. RPJ 22:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Please provide a source of an enlarged photo so we can objectively tell the effect is not just glare & pixellation --JimWae 23:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a fair question. It is the picture that was already in the Article and is still in the article. It was enlarged using Wikipedia's photo enlarger to 500px. Now I would be most pleased if you could put it back for others to see. Also I notice that a great deal of text has been removed. I'm not sure who did that or why. But if it was done in conjuction with the removal of the picture because of questions of how it was enlarged, I understand. But, would now ask, if you took out the text to also replace it. Thank you. RPJ 03:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Simply enlarging a photo does no good - there is significant pixelation in the original. That plus glare can easily account for much distortion. What is needed is a source with higher resolution.--JimWae 03:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Intensive discussion of the photo could be appropriate in the main text of the article - but the lead is supposed to just introduce the main topics of the article - not go into contentious detail--JimWae 03:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Here is a link that includes the HSCA deliberations http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/hscbkyd.htm --JimWae 04:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• and here http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/assass.htm --JimWae 04:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the two links to the photographic anaysis. The first of the two did have the discussion on Oswald's chin purportedly being someone else's chin, and it being the point where the composite photograph was pasted together.

The "Panel" (as the HSCA calls itself) concedes that people have commented that the chin looks fake. One can understand why. Take a look at the chin. [16] Malcolm Thompson, a British forensic photography expert, testified that "I have seen photographs of Oswald and his chin is not square. He has a rounded chin" He goes on to say "[O]ne can only conclude that Oswald's head has been stuck on to a chin, not being Oswald's chin."

While the Panel said that it was investigating the claims of "fakery" Panel doesn't address this obvious "fakery." It discusses, at length, other things but not this.

One has to come to grips that the picture is an obvious fake and someone did it. It is an uncomfortable fact, but true. RPJ 05:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• And yet several others examined the originals - not pixelated reproductions - possibly edited by LIFE magazine - that we see - and concluded they were not faked. There's not nearly enough there to take a POV in the article. There is enough to raise the issue - but not to make it dominate the article. Consider also that Marina said she took the photos - AND there really was no need for others to show up 14 years later.--JimWae 06:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

For such an "obvious fake", a lot of people have been "fooled". "...the Warren Commission's FBI photo experts concluded the shots were real and there was no evidence of retouching...Twenty-two of the nations leading experts studied the backyard photos [for the HSCA]...Because of microscopic frame edge marks and scratches left by a camera on a negative, they concluded that Oswald's Imperial Reflex took the photos, to the exclusion of any other camera ever made...Using five tests, Calvin McCamy, speaking for the photographic panel, said, 'We found no evidence whatsoever of any kind of faking in these photographs.' The HSCA panel addressed twenty-one issues raised by the critics and scientifically disproved each...Finally, HSCA handwriting experts determined that Oswald's handwriting was present in an inscription on the back of one of the originals." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed, pg. 107) Gamaliel 09:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Citations relating to the Controversial Photograph

As discussed earlier, the photograph of "Oswald" holding the murder weapon needs either a very complete discussion or be removed from the article to prevent the reader from assuming the photograph has stood the test of time as genuine since just the opposite is true. The photograph is highly controversial and even a casual examination shows the chin is badly deformed. If anything, the photograph has become exhibit 1 for supporting Oswald's contention that the picture is a fabrication and was being used to frame him.

Consider this: In 1992, the Dallas Police Department released to the public two other photographs of Oswald's backyard. On February 9, 1992, the HOUSTON POST ran a story stating:

"One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation" (Lane xxii, and reveals "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the background" of the backyard picture." (Lane xxii).

The POST provided this description of the photograph:

In the manipulated print in police files Oswald does not appear. Instead, there is a white silhouette of a human figure holding an apparent rifle and newspapers. The silhouette appears to be an example of matting, a darkroom technique that can serve as an intermediate step in the combining of photographic images. (Lane xxii)

A thorough discussion of the photograph can be found at the following site. [17] The photograph simply can't be used in a reference work without a full discussion to alert the reader. Otherwise it has to go. RPJ 07:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oswald Photograph-- Remove It from Article or Explain It?

Perhaps it is better that the photograph remain in the Article and the controversy over the photograph be discussed in detail. The photograph goes to the heart of a forty two year old murder investigation.

Was Oswald framed or not--Start with the Photograph

This Article on Oswald used to start off with the statement that Oswald was guilty of murder and used one of the most controversial pieces of evidence known to the legal system to prove it. In a prior discussion that was posted yesterday, I directed the readers to just one source that analyzes the photograph and the reader can decide for him or herself how the photograph should be interpreted.

Anymore one can't merely tell a reader that someone else thinks the photograph is not fake or is fake. One problem supporters of the Warren Commission face is the erosion of confidence people have for government agencies. Merely stating that a government agency concluded something doesn't persuade that many people anymore. This especially so when the agency works in secret and basically asks the public to trust it.

Also, one cannot ask the findings of some ad hoc committee that operates in secret to be given a the same weight as a decision made in a court of law. In a court of law in the United States, there are evidentiary rules, the right of people with an interest having an opportunity to be heard, and the proceedings conducted publicly. This why the courts are a separate independent branch of government.

Moreover, in todays world people question conclusions of the courts, as well as anyone else. This is a right we have and it should be done in a professional dignified way.

Who would want a group of politicians to decide one's fate in a criminal trial and do it in secret? Some of the procedures and selections of these ad hoc panels were perplexing. Allen Dulles was put on the Warren Commission, even though Kennedy fired him as head of the CIA and the CIA was also in the assassination business back in 1963.

The additions to the Oswald article are done, in part, as a matter of historical fairness. If Oswald was a small time CIA agent used as a fall guy by whomever, then he shouldn't be saddled with being one of history's most notorious assassins. If he participated in the murder so be it. If he did so alone, so be it. In 12 years many of the remaining facts will surface and shed additional evidence on what happened. Until then historians should use the usual tools of evaluation.

To begin with, opinion testimony by experts, committees of politicians or anyone else are only as good as the methods and evidence used. If everything is done in secret, or partially in secret, the believability of the opinion falls drastically. In our court system, there is a very rigorous, and public fact finding procedure. It is done openly with all the evidence open for inspection, cross-examination and rebuttal. There are no ex parte communications allowed with the fact finders. There are no conflicts of interests allowed with the fact finders, and there are clear legal guideline that must be followed for what evidence can be considered and what can't be considered.

An appeal to the fact finder that we need to get a certain finding of no conspiracy or World War III will start obviously is going taint the result. This is irrespective of whether it was the right thing for President Johnson to say or not. The truer it is the more it would taint the result. Therefore, 42 years later we should take that into account and not rely too heavily on the Commission's opinion.

Everything that has been put in the Article has to my knowledge acceptable sources. It was written to be informative and readable. In a brief reference work one needs to get to the essence of the subject and why it is important to the readers. Lee Harvey Oswald's importance to almost any reader is limited to his association with the Kennedy assassination. It is a very controversial matter, and the Article may as well hit it head on.

Paragraphs of mind-numbing facts about Oswald's past may be important for research into his psychological make-up and whether it should be included is up to all the contributors. But, it seems fundamental that the charges against him of murdering the president and his denial and claim he was framed is what the reader should expect right up front in the Article.

The photograph was very widely publicized at the time of the assassination. It was used to "prove" he was a left-wing radical, and that he owned the alleged murder weapon. If the picture is fake this shows there was not only a conspiracy to commit murder but also a conspiracy by an organized group of people within our governmental system. This article should zero in on this and not have a knee jerk reaction by those that contribute that we need to avoid these questions.

A vigorous debate should take place over this. If there was a high level, or low level conspiracy to commit murder, some of the people involved may still be alive. In that case, such people would have a vested interest in stifling the debate, but no one else should.

Its hoped that the contributors will meet this additional suppliment head on and that it creates enthusiasm and interest that the entire subject matter deserves. RPJ 03:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC) RPJ 03:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Alleged faked photograph hotly debated

After being arrested Oswald immediately claimed the photograph of him holding the alleged murder weapon was a fake, and he was being set up as a "patsy." Then Oswald was immediately murdered while in police custody.

Issue: Was the photograph a crude fabrication by either the Dallas Police Department or someone else?

Those who say "Yes" it is a fake photograph argue this:

1-- Look at the photographic evidence itself starting with a known authentic photograph of Oswald here

and compare it to the "backyard photographs" of Oswald with close attention to unusually wide chin and the line above the chin. See blow-ups of the face in the "Backyard Photos" at the following web site. [18]

2-- Malcolm Thompson, a British forensic photography expert, testified that "I have seen photographs of Oswald and his chin is not square. He has a rounded chin" He goes on to say "[O]ne can only conclude that Oswald's head has been stuck on to a chin, not being Oswald's chin."

3-- February 9, 1992, the Houston Post uncovered, at the Dallas Police Department, a copy of the backyard scene photograph that was part way through the process of being faked. It was already partially "matted" for the insertion of the composite picture.

Those who say it is NOT clear that the photograph is a fake argue this:

1-- "Every government investigation" says the photograph is genuine. See "Gamaliel" a frequent contributor to this article.

2--"Twenty-two of the nations leading experts studied the backyard photos" and concluded that Oswald's camera took the photograph of Oswald's backyard. See "Gamaliel" again.

3-- Certain "HSCA handwriting experts" believe that handwriting on the back of the photograph appears to be Oswald's. See "Gamaliel."

4-- "Marina [Oswald] once [said] she took the photos (even IF she has since changed her story) - And even [proponents of fakery] do not question that she took SOME photos of him in the yard." "Jimwae" a frequent contributor to this article. (emphasis in original)

5-- images that have been presented on-line are not the originals, but low resolution reproductions which when enlarged are highly pixelated, making measurements meaningless. --JimWae 18:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

6-- Proving "the negative" (in this case, that they were NOT faked) is always an endless task. All that can be done is counter claims as they appear, providing other interpretations from those maintaining a widespread conspiracy. For every claim of "proof" of conspiracy, a counter-explanation has already been provided --JimWae 18:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

7-- Oswald's quick retort that the photos were faked is not evidence the photos were faked any more than it is evidence he had rehearsed his responses or had even faked the photos himself. There is no hot debate, there are people who think they have discovered "the truth" by concentrating on one side of the issue. Did you expect Oswald to confess? --JimWae 18:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

8-- HSCA has pointed out that Oswald had a jutting chin that appears different in different photos and different angles. Can you prove it is not stated in here http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/hscbkyd.htm (#410) or here http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/assass.htm? Here is a photo in which his jaw does seem flatter - likely due to shadows http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce2891.jpg --JimWae 21:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

9-- (regarding matted photo [which seems like it could have been part of the investigation into what a faked photo would look like] - moved here by RPJ & formatted by JimWae) I am assuming you mean this article: Ray & Mary La Fontaine, "Evidence on Oswald Photo, Arrested 'Bums'," The Houston Post, February 9, 1992. The La Fontaines are the authors of a conspiracy book called Oswald Talked. Claims they have made about these photos are discussed and debunked here. Gamaliel 19:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

We need someone now to make a debating style rebuttal to the the points that support that the photographs were faked. - sign here RPJ

There is much else to be covered in main article & not every current hot-button issue for someone is appropriate for main article --JimWae 19:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

1--to Jimwae: Your statement that one can not authenticate a photograph because it is trying to prove a negative is incorrect. It is done every day in courts by a witness who states this is a photograph that was taken and accurately depicts what was photographed. It is very standard procedure. 2--Where did the photograph come from in the picture of that you linked? 3-What else in your opinion needs to be covered in main article that is more important than whether Oswald was framed? RPJ 13:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Once again you have distorted what I said then responded to the distortion. See Strawman again. I did not say "one cannot authenticate a photograph". That photo was "authenticated" when Marina said she took it - and by several others also.
  2. not every dispute about every piece of evidence against Oswald belongs in this article. There's already an article (conspiracy theories of JFK assassination) for that - or create one specifically about evidence against Oswald.--JimWae 21:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

More Controvery: Should facts of Oswald's life prior to being a Marine be "censored" because of alleged speculation?

Contributor "Gamaliel" reverted the following passage alleging in a single word "speculation." Let me give my sources before I again post it. The source for these first three paragraphs are the existing article, most of it verbatim but with minor word editing.

As a child, Oswald was withdrawn and temperamental. Oswald's mother moved with her son to New York to live with John Pic who had joined the US Coast Guard and was stationed in New York City. During this time, Oswald struck his sister-in-law and threatened her with a knife.

His truancy from school resulted in visits to psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs who diagnosed the fourteen-year-old Oswald as having a "personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive-aggressive tendencies." In reaction Marguerite returned to New Orleans with her son before he could be institutionalized.

Oswald attended school infrequently and never received a high school diploma. Throughout his life he had trouble with spelling and writing coherently. His letters, diary and other writings have led some to suggest he was dyslexic while others have contended his poor writing and spelling skills were simply the result of a sporadic education. Nonetheless he read voraciously and as a result sometimes asserted he was better educated than those around him.

This next paragraph is all new. See the following cites: [19] and [20]

His favorite TV program was “I Led Three Lives”, the popular television series at the time about an American who pretended to the Communist Party in the U.S. that he was a Communist so he could infiltrate the organization and report back to the FBI the Party’s activities.

The next paragraph is in the existing article except for the bold print. What is the percieved speculation?

Oswald’s mother has been described as overbearing, and, possibly because of that, Oswald seemed much attached to, and idolized, his older brother Robert and wore Robert's US Marine ring. He later enlisted in the Marine Corps in October 1956, a week after his 17th birthday.

The next paragraph is in existing article except for the bold print. The information in the bold print comes from Wikipedia about the Civil Air Patrol:

At the age of fifteen, Oswald became a member of the New Orleans chapter of the well respected Civil Air Patrol which is the official auxiliary to the United States Air Force. The cadets wear a modified version of the USAF uniform, and practice military courtesy and customs such as saluting. The Civil Air Patrol is arguably best known for its Search and Rescue activities and is credited with saving an average of 100 lives per year.

All these facts are from Wikipedia in the links are provided.

In Oswald’s unit, was a Eastern Air Lines pilot by the name of David Ferrie who would later become the center of intense controversy relating to the Kennedy Assassination. Ferrie suffered from ephebophilia, which is a sexual preference in which an adult is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to adolescents and usually people between the ages of 13 and 16. Ferrie continued to work as a commercial pilot until he lost his job in August, 1961 after being arrested on morals charges.

Most these next facts are straight from the article. The statement that Oswald and Ferrie at one time knew one another is supported by the photograph of them together.[21] The article itself discusses Oswald's activities and Ferrie's activities. The only difference is that the editing brings together the facts as everyone knows them at one spot and tells a srory that may be uncomfortable for some to read. Oswald meets a spy in a youth group and wants to be a spy. The spy is more than willing to help. Their paths then cross again in New Orleans.

Gamaliel wants the reader to conclude Oswald is a dedicated Marxist when one or more explanations are clearly available; Let the facts speak for themselves. Facts that are buried in a sea of trivia tend to be hidden facts.

Look at the facts--Oswald idolizes his Marine Corps brother; joins an auxiliary of the air force at 15; meets flamboyant spy at 15 joins the Marines at 17, is stationed at a U-2 base that spies on Russia; leaves the Marines and uses his Marine background to try to talk his way into Russia; leaves Russia and ends up in the same building as the CIA spy David Ferrie.

Everything in this paragraph is known and cited in the article but spread around in paragraphs of minor details. It is time to just pull it together. A reference work should not submerge relevant facts.One has to face facts Oswald and Feriie knew one another over a long period of time in the CAP. [22]

Whether Oswald was seduced by Ferrie is unknown, although they do appear together in a photograph with a small group of other cadets. Obviously they knew one another at the time. It is known that during the summer of 1963, Oswald and Ferrie had another opportunity to cross paths when the address of the same small building where Ferrie worked as a CIA agent was used as the address on pamphlets handed out by Oswald. These events again occurred in New Orleans, after Oswald got out of the Marines and had gone to Russia. By that time, Oswald claimed to be a Marxist –Leninist. The literature he was passing out asked for “Fair Play for Cuba” which by that time had become a Communist dictatorship. Oswald had just formed the group in New Orleans and paid several people to hand out the left-wing literature. Oswald was the only known member of the New Orleans group.

Censored? Whatever.

Here are my particular objections and comments:

• Now that a source has been provided, I agree to the inclusion of I Led Three Lives.
• A discussion of what the Civil Air Patrol is is unnecessary. The link should suffice.
• There is no connection to Ferrie beyond the photograph. The article should not discuss Ferrie's life in conjunction with Oswald's and should not speculate on whether or not Ferrie molested or otherwise influence LHO since there absolutely no evidence the two men knew each other beyond appearing in a group photograph at a group function of a group in which they both had membership.

More when I think about it. Gamaliel 06:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I Led Three Lives is really just a bit of trivia that probably shouldn't go in the article. But I did just write up a stub about it and mentioned the LHO trivia there. Gamaliel 06:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Contributor Gamaliel

1--The link is not sufficient. The Civil Air Patrol (CAP)is an auxiliary of the air force and joining it is consistent with Oswald wanting to serve his country, as was joining the Marines. Joining it is inconsistent with spontaniously becoming a Marxist.

2-- Oswald and Ferrie didn't just happen to have their pictures taken one time together, they were in the same CAP unit.

3--Your determination that something is "trivia" or not really isn't a proper yardstick. It is whether the information is relevant.

There are two competing theories on Oswald Theory One: Oswald was a part time or full time CIA agent who either "went bad" and shot the president, or was a convenient person to frame by some one who did shoot the president. Ferrie (who works for the CIA) recruits young boys into actually being part-time spies or actually becoming part time spies. Oswald is recruited, and on his own or with the help of the CIA and military become a spy. Oswald joins the military when he wants to, leaves when he wants to, goes to Russia when he wants to, comes back when he wants to, and hangs out with right wingers with CIA connections such David Ferrie and later Geoge De Mohrenshildt. His Address book cntains the name of an FBI agent. Oswald never seems to have any Communist friends.

Theory two

Sometime after young Oswald joins the Civil Air Patrol and meets Ferrie (a CIA agent), Oswald becomes a dedicated Marxist, and joins the military and is stationed at a U-2 spy plane base where he is a radar operator, and he learns Russian. Then for some reason he "went bad" and shoots the president.

The TV show that the young Oswald liked about a real American (Herbert Philbrick) who pretended to be a communist for the FBI is quite relevant to this inquiry. The addition will be put back in an edited form.

RPJ 13:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider it polite to accuse others of "censorship" or to speculate on their motives by saying that certain material "disturbs" others. Note I have removed the latter comment. If we're going to accomplish anything on this page, please act within the bounds of Wikipedia:Civility.

1. I agree that it is "inconsistent", but LHO was about 15, and teenagers aren't exactly known for their consistency. And our judgement about what is consistent and what isn't is really POV in the end. I don't think it was consistent for anti-war, Chomsky-reading Pat Tillman to sign up for the US military, but obviously he disagreed. In any case, how about just saying "The Civil Air Patrol, an official auxiliary of the US Air Force" and just leave it at that?

2. "CAP records show that while Ferrie was a member through 1954, he was disciplined because he gave unauthorized political lectures to the cadets. When he submitted his 1955 renewal, he was rejected. He was not reinstated until December 1958. Although he was not even supposed to be in the Civil Air Patrol when Oswald was a member in 1955, he may have continued to attend CAP events with a unit in Metarie." (Posner, pg. 142)

3. That's really the same thing, isn't it? I think it's trivia because I don't think it's relevant, and you haven't shown it to be relevant other than it seems vaguely suspicious and interesting. Perhaps we could get a third party's opinion on this.

Interesting theories, but they are all based on the idea that Ferrie, who was banned from CAP at the time, recruited a fifteen year old juvenile delinquent to be a CIA operative. Needless to say there is absolutely no evidence, aside from a group photograph, to sustain this flimsy theory, which is more suited for Alias than an encyclopedia.

Conspiracy theorists try to infuse insignificant events or facts with suspicious meaning, and we should be careful not to the same thing ourselves. Oswald had the name of Agent Hosty in his address book because Agent Hosty showed up at Ruth Paine's house to ask questions about him. This was part of FBI's standard operating procedure to interview and keep tabs on returning defectors. Nothing suspicious here, unless you assume the FBI, Hosty, the Paines, and Marina Oswald are all lying about it and in on some cover up.

LHO never had any communist friends because he was a creepy loner who had almost no friends. You try finding a communist in Dallas. Gamaliel 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Time for Some contributors to do some homework

The point was made previously that Oswald didn't really seem to be believer in communism because he seemed to be friends with anticommunists, rather than with Communists.

Contributor "Gamaliel" thinks he has an "answer" for that:

"LHO never had any communist friends because he was a creepy loner who had almost no friends. You try finding a communist in Dallas. Gamaliel 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)" (emphasis added)

___________________

About two minutes of research on the Internet discloses evidence of just the opposite of what "Gamaliel" is suggesting.

For example:

• James P. Hosty, Jr.'s, the former FBI agent from Dallas in 1964 wrote a book, Assignment: Oswald, (New York: Arcade, 1996), pp. 119-25. In it he states:

"The police had a long list of well-known Communists in Dallas . . . ."

Note also, that the Communists have had a long history in Texas: RPJ 04:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC) "A prominent figure in the labor movement of the mid-1930s was Emma Tenayuca of San Antonio. She died July 23, 1999 and was given honorable mention at the Texas AFL-CIO Convention of that year by Congressman Gonzalez. The handwriting on this photo says, "Emma Tenayuca, in prison for the cause of the worker. 6-29-37." In 1938, Tenayuca was the most prominent public leader of the pecan sheller's strike that was called the most important labor action in the Southwest up to that time. Tenayuca was a member of the Communist Party (CPUSA"

The moral of the story is: Making knowing comments doesn't substitute for doing a little bit of research.

Conclusion: It is still an open question of why Oswald hung around with strident anticommunists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:RPJ (talk • contribs) .

Congratulations, you've succesfully rebutted an offhand remark. You know, I never meant to say that there were no communists, just that they would be relatively harder to find than in, say, Manhattan. Hosty's book (which I've read by the way) doesn't disprove that point. Even non-communist liberals were hard to find; the Paines had a difficult time finding like-minded friends, which is one reason Ruth Paine took to Marina Oswald so eagerly. LHO was also more of a loner and a talker than a doer and an organizer, nor was he much for productive or local causes; I can't imagine LHO participating in something Tenayuca's labor actions.

I can't explain why LHO wasn't chummy with more communists. There were the right-wing White Russians in Dallas, but they had nothing in common except they all lived in Russia at one point, and they pretty much shunned LHO eventually. And De Mohrenshildt was a bizarre anamoly who probably enjoyed having LHO around because LHO pissed people off. I stand by what I said, the best explaination is a combination of the following: 1) LHO's negative personality 2) the scarcity of communists in Texas and 3) LHO's growing disenchantment with communism.

But...so what? What has your rhetorical triumph proved? This is not a debate, this is about what goes in the article. Even if we come up with an answer to this perhiperal point, our speculation doesn't belong in the article. Why are we even talking about this? Gamaliel 05:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

We are debating the issue of whether Oswald was a low level spy for the U.S. in the military or an "ardent Marxist" at 15 years old. Those are the two theories.

One position is that he grew up with male figures that were in the military: John Pic, his brother Robert, and Oswald joined the Civil Air patrol (an auxiliary of the Air force) from age 15 to 17 and joined the Marines at 17. He loved the show "I led three lives" when he was a kid. He wore his brothers Marine Corps ring.

The other position is that Oswald become an ardent Marxist at 15.

Or say that he became a Marxist when he was also studying Russian in the Marines, while at a spy plane base that flew spy planes over Russia?

Isn't that why we are debating this point? Was he a young patriot who pretended to be a communist or a real communist?

Also on being a loner. In grade school he not onfly hung around with the other kids but was also the leader of his little gang. See Phillip Vinson testimony in Vol. VIII Warren Report page 77-78. RPJ 03:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oswald's Tale Wikipedia has it listed as a "novel"

The Oswald article has Oswald's Tale as a biography, but the Wikipedia stub has it as a novel. Which is it? Has anyone actually read it? It can't be both.

Oswald's Tale by Norman Mailer is a non-fiction treatment of Oswald, with a focus on his days in the USSR. It was reported, Mailer actually lived for several months in Oswald's Minsk apartment while writing the book. He and his "producer", Larry Schiller, managed to get access (probably for a sizable cash contribution) to the Minsk KGB files on Oswald in 1993, which had been returned to the Belorus Republic in l992 after the collapse of the USSR.

Unfortunately, the book fails to give any kind of permanent citations to the material and is more of a "In Cold Blood" kind of treatment of Oswald rather than a rigorous work of history (for which there is regretably very little in JFK literature anyway...) ceesharp 24 dec 2005

Revisions and Misinformation

Several attempts have been made to correct misinformation which appears in this article. Those corrections have been reverted continuously to previous incorrect versions. For example:

In the section titled, "Oswald's Flight and the Murder of J.D. Tippit," the following information was corrected:

"...He lingered briefly at a bus stop across the street from his rooming house..." [Correction: The bus stop was not located across the street from Oswald's rooming house, but rather was located on the same side of the street just north of his residence. This correction was made and later reverted by another editor to the incorrect text above. Why?]

"...(the film being shown was War Is Hell, starring Audie Murphy)..." [Correction: Audie Murphy did not star in "War is Hell," which was a B-grade war film from 1963. Audie Murphy did appear in a prologue that preceded the film and his name and image were used in movie posters to help promote the film's release. To correct the text, Murphy's name was removed completely, but later was reverted to the incorrect version by anotehr editor. The latest revision (an apparent attempt at compromise) states that Murphy "narrated" the film. This is also incorrect. If Murphy's name remains in the text (which is fine) the text should state that the film "featured a prologue by Audie Murphy." Why does the person reverting text insist on inaccuracy?

The above facts are easily found in any good resource book on the subject. Those who participate in editing this article would do well to do their homework before submitting information that can be easily shown to be inaccurate.

After all, is not the purpose of this site to provide factual information? To those who insist on making changes that are factually incorrect, please resist the temptation to post incorrect information for personal reasons. Your efforts undermine the purpose of this site, are counter to the standards and regulations posted on this site, and force users to seek other sources for factual information. This is not a personal playground.

The end result of inaccuracies such as these forces the user to double-check every statement found in this article which is not only impractical but defeats the purpose of this website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.110.76 (talk • contribs) .

Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Is is generally considered quite rude to attack the motives of other editors, especially since you have no way of knowing what they are and their actions are quite easily explainable in other ways.

For example, when you changed the location of the bus stop, I looked it up in a source and changed it back, citing that source. That source may be wrong, but you have provided no evidence that it is wrong nor have you provided a source of your own. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources.

I also looked up the film War Is Hell on the IMDB, where it credited Audie Murphy as "Narrator". Including that information in the article seemed a reasonable move given that I had a source. Here again, you have provided no source for your information, nor a plausible reason why I or anyone would want to promote misinformation on this extremely trivial matter. Gamaliel 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The tone of recent edits is to dismiss anything that is evidence against Oswald & to present every tidbit that would question his guilt. I see no attempt to present both sides in these edits--JimWae 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

From the Carcano article: The name Mannlicher-Carcano is also misleading because the rifle's bolt action was based on a German Mauser-style bolt action, not the Austrian Mannlicher-style. The Mannlicher designation comes from the fact that the rifle uses a Mannlicher-type magazine system.

This as a response to the above comment. There needs to be a bit of fairness to the dead and neutrality in the presentation of evidence against Oswald. If he is guilty the evidence will establish it. The readers of this article also expect neutrality in the articles and that means not emphasizing one piece of evidence and hiding another that sheds additional light on the subject matter at issue. This is part of Wikipedia's meaning of having a neutral point of view.

Lets apply this neutral point of view rule to this atricle. The article states the following facts:

"Oswald shot Kennedy from a window on the sixth floor of the warehouse as the President's motorcade passed through Dallas' Dealey Plaza. ”

“The rifle and handgun later linked by investigators to the November 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy”

“Rifle Italian Mannlicher-Carcano”

It is now certainly relevant to ask "exactly who identified the rifle found on the sixth floor near the "sniper's nest" as an Italian Mannicher-Carcano"?

The answer to who found it is a deputy sheriff Seymore Weitzman and officer Boone found the rifle and Weitzman gave an official police statement that it was a Mauser. Why shouldn't this be disclosed? It is certainly relevant enough. Boone thought it was aMauser also.{http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/boone.htm][23]

Turn the question around now. Who does contributer Jimwae have that establishes Weitzman and Boone found a Mannicher-Carcano? RPJ 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the HSCA report, neither Boone nor Weitzman handled the rifle and concluded that "a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle could very easily be mistaken for other military rifles of its general type, including the 7.65-millimeter caliber German and other model Mausers." [24] Furthermore, an initial impression by two men of unknown expertise who did not handle the rifle does not invalidate a whole host of other reports. Also, a WFAA newsman filmed the recovery of the rifle. Pictures: [25] [26]. So is that a Mauser or a Carcano? Gamaliel 07:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Would the contributer Gamaliel please just give the witnesses names and exhibit upon which Gamaliel bases the claim of murder weapon identification being a cCarcano-Mannlicher rather than a Mauser. Plus the exhibits relied upon. On one hand, we have two police officers who identified the rifle as a Mauser and the rifle is booked into evidence as a Mauser.

On the other hand we have Contributor Jim wae who refers us to witness Studebacker for the identification. But his testimony doesn't id the rifle plus he doesn't fingerprint the rifle. Studebacker's testimony before the Warren Commission is that of a crime scene officer.He says he took some photos of the rifle but the photos aren't submitted into evidence. This is why people doubt the Warren Commission.

There is no "whole host of other reports" as contributer Gamaliel claims. Its all talk, and no evidence.

Lets face it neither contributor Gamaliel nor Contributor Jimwae have any evidence of the Mannlicher-Carcano being found. The Macadams website that Jimwae refers one to is an eclectic assortment of items. It takes more time, but give a clue what one is exactly looking for at this website. Preferably something that would stand up to even casual scrutiny and that supports the contention that the Dallas Police Department misdentified the murder weapon and that the Chief of the Dallas Police is wrong when he said much later that no one could connect Oswald to the rifle that was found. RPJ 05:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag

The lack of neutrality in this article does seem warrented. There is almost a philosophical or ideological ferver for some of the contributers that don't want any evidence mentioned relating to Oswald on whether he was in fact the assassin or even one of the assassins. But, contributers This is just another murder case. The world isn't going to come to an end if evidence is presented that Oswald had an accomplice. The world won't even come to an end if evidence is presented that tends to establish that Oswald wasn't even a participant.

A professional person who researching to find the truth simply goes through and analyzes the relevant evidence. Even a professional person who is researching to prepare for the role as an advocate must first search for the truth and then start viewing the matter as an advocate.

Its time for a contributor to put forth the evidence linking Oswald to the murder weapon. This was reported:

Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle. No one has been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." (November 5, 1969, United Press International)

Therefore, someone produce the evidence against Oswald showing his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Then we can evaluate something. And lets make it easy and assume that he did own a rifle.

Just show how his rifle got from the crime scene to the national archives. And, very importantly, who identified the gun and the chain of custody? unidentified investigators isn't good enough RPJ 05:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This is nuts. Fingerprints, witnesses, a picture of LHO holding the rifle, tracing the trail of how he bought it, and finding the damn thing on the sixth floor should be more than enough proof. Gamaliel 07:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't get off the subject. The assumption (for the sake of reasoned debate is Oswald owned an italian rifle). The issue is who found Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor? 2) who establishes the custody and control of the rifle that was found? 3) Who was handed the the rifle during the warren Commission hearing to identify it as being the one found on the 6th floor and kept in custody?

Please don't avoid the issue. RPJ 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the particulars of who had the rifle from the time it was found until its present location in the National Archives. Why don't you do some research on this issue? Gamaliel 19:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So far I have found nothing really helpful on it. The sheriff's department found the riflewhich at first was believed to be a Mauser, and the Dallas police took it and had the Deputy Sheriff give the identification of the rifle for the inventory of evidence but identified it as a Mauser. This is the rifle everyone believes was used to shoot the president of the United States. Then Chief Curry said he gave all the evidence to the FBI--but nothing that I see has been documented about this in any expected way. The Justice Department has specific rules on this. In criminal investigations the Justice Department has a written principle that "The handling of physical eveidence is one of the most important factor of the criminal investigation."[27] The proper identification, inventory and chain-of-custody are all emphasized for Justice Dept. investigators. See the above procedures. So far I don't see any of this yet in either the Dallas Police or the FBI information. RPJ 22:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Here's part of the "other side" that is being ignored to present just one side. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/double.htm
• another consideration: rules of evidence have tightened up somewhat in over 40 years. Also once Texas police handed evidence to FBI, the chain of evidence was no longer their responsibility, so of course they cannot answer for it. Once Oswald was shot, with no trial to prepare for, yes... people might have gotten sloppy too, unfortunately. It is not the job of this article to present every tidbit of difficulty there would have been in convicting Oswald in 1964, no less 1979 or 2006. --JimWae 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're sprinking the article with tiny bits of misinformation attempting to push a pro-conspiracy POV. Yes, Weitzman thought it was a Mauser:

Mr. BALL - In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action? Mr. WEITZMAN - In a glance, that's what it looked like.

But he only glanced at it, that doesn't mean a thing. The momentary opinion of one officer doesn't mean this was an official Dallas PD finding, and you disingenuously state it as a fact in the article that it was a Mauser, based on the fleeting impressions of a couple people during a stressful moment. In fact the rifle was repeatedly photographed on the sixth floor before it was removed. Here's another one: [28]. Now are these pictures, which you keep ignoring, pictures of Mausers or pictures of Carcanos? Gamaliel 04:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The wrong Murder weapon is not a tid bit of information

The evidence booked into the Dallas Police department as the murder weapon is listed a Mauser rifle. That is a fact. Look at the sworn testimony of Deputy Sheriff Weitzman. Oswald purportedly owned a Mannlicher-Carcano brand of rifle. Both types of rifles have their names stamped on them.

Does anyone believe that the Dallas Police Department is going to mis-identify the murder weapon of the President of the United States. Contributer Jimwae thinks so; and--he believes this is a "tid bit" of information. This conclusion by Jim wae is open to serious debate.

In any event. the Warren Commission concluded the Mannlicher-Carcona was used even though the Mauser was found. Michael Paine who a contributer puts forth as a witness for establishing that Oswald owned a Carcano, and it was used to assassinate the president did testify but doesn't support the contention in the article about the rifle. Instead Michael Paine claims he never saw the rifle before the assassination. He also said that he was told the night of the assassination that Oswald's wife couldn't identify the rifle that was booked into evidence by the Dallas Police as being her husband's rifle.

Nevertheless some contributors don't want to recognize that Chief Curry is right that no one connects up Oswald to the rifle that was found near the murder scene. The Warren Commission was given testimony that a Mauser brand rifle was in the building two days before the assassination. Isn't that a better lead?

Why is there this stubborness to face of evidence to try to push some unsupported information on the reader. Its better to look over the evidence and determine what happened rather than to put out incorrect information because of a belief system that transcends the evidence. RPJ 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

None of this matters unless that rifle in the pictures actually is a Mauser. Well? Gamaliel 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• It was an easy mistake to make if one just glanced at it - or even looked long without reading the name - or even after reading the name but not exactly recalling the name. AGAIN, from the Carcano article: "The name Mannlicher-Carcano is also misleading because the rifle's bolt action was based on a German Mauser-style bolt action, not the Austrian Mannlicher-style. The Mannlicher designation comes from the fact that the rifle uses a Mannlicher-type magazine system." It had a Mauser style - presenting this 2 rifle theory as conclusive demonstration of Oswald's innocence & ignoring the photographs taken in the book depository is plainly misleading & not NPOV. Despite your claim otherwise, NPOV cannot be ignored in this article. --JimWae 05:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What pictures are you talking about? And if they exist were they or the rifle shown to the police officers that found the rifle? Why all endless talk? Where is the evidence Jimwae and Gamaliel. Just give the evidence and skip the speeches. RPJ 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Look just above this section. Of course, it's a forgery, tho? --JimWae 05:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What endless talk? I've personally linked to three different pictures of the Carcano in the Depository and JimWae has linked to several pages discussing the issue. If you can't be bothered to notice that, it's not our fault. Gamaliel 07:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this Mauser nonsense from the article again. Gamaliel 19:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimwae and Gamaliel; This is a request that you stop,and read this. There is multiple sworn testimony that a mauser was found. Where is your verified evidence to the contrary? Who verifies your picture? who verifies when the picture was taken? Who verifies what ever the weapon shown in the picture is a Carcano?

Please do this. And if you do supply the evidence then what one has is a dispute of material fact where the reader should be shown the conflicting evidence.RPJ 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no serious dispute. You should not try to turn a simple, minor error from an offhand remark from a police officer into "conflicting evidence" that there was some sort of ridiculous gun switch conspiracy. Look at the evidence, you say, so let's look:

1) Read some of the comments from previous years above. They note that the Carcano and the Mauser are very similar, and that the former is based on the latter. Also, I mention again the HSCA conclusion "a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle could very easily be mistaken for other military rifles of its general type, including the 7.65-millimeter caliber German and other model Mausers." 2) Eugene Boone and Seymour Weitzman found the rifle. They did not touch, remove, or examine the rifle. Is it so hard to believe they thought it was a Mauser instead of an Italian knockoff? You claim above the name is stamped on the rifles, would they have seen it if they never picked up the rifle. 3) The rifle was removed by Lt. Carl Day, and the removal was photographed by the police and by television station WFAA.

The chain of evidence seems pretty clear and solid, and it is quite obvious that there is nothing to this Mauser story. Gamaliel 18:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Gamaliel's only function to undo any edits made ?

Looking through the recent history, that's all he appears to have done. If so, why not just lock the page and consider it complete ? It seems to me that Gamaliel is firmly in the Lone Nut camp and is rigidly against any edits which may not agree with his view. Surely he should be impartial and not so obviously one sided ? Could he please explain why he reverted my last edit without any explanation, when I removed an obviously Lone Nut biased sentence ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilmc (talk • contribs) .

So has a single compelling alternate suspect emerged? Do the majority of sane authors advocate a conspiracy? I restored that sentence because it was true. Gamaliel 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my experience, Gamaliel does a lot of reverting that some consider POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.84.56.172 (talk • contribs) .

So you are saying that the majority of authors who are published on the JFK assassination are insane ? Was Jim Garrison insane ? Mark Lane is insane ? Presumably you also believe that the majority of people in the US are insane as they also believe in a conspiracy. There are several compelling suspects in the assassination, as everybody knows. The reason no single one has emerged is because by definition a conspiracy needs two or more people so no single suspect could ever emerge. This sentence is wrong on the first count and wilfully misleading on the second. I don't blame Gamaliel for leaving it in initially, but to restore it after I removed it and explained why is just ridiculous. We all of course have our own viewpoint, but I think that the moderator needs to be completely objective and Gamaliel is far from that. Neilmc 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "moderator". I am a Wikipedia administrator, but I have no special control over article content, I just have the power to boot vandals and the like. In the context of writing this article, I'm just another editor like you.

Yes, I sincerely believe that Jim Garrison was mentally ill. So are probably a lot people who advocate the nuttier theories, like coffin switching or the idea that JFK was killed by an accidental shot from the Secret Service agent in the motorcade with the AR-15. Regardless, even your saner conspiracy theorists like Mark Lane have been shown to be stretching the truth so much that they should not be taken seriously. The fact that most people in the US may believe in conspiracy is meaningless to me, as you could come up with similar polls showing that large numbers of people believe in creationism, ghosts, and that Elvis is still alive. History is not written by polls, but by legitimate historians doing serious work. The presence of a large and vocal conspiracy press does not invalidate the work of these legitimate historians. Just as you would write a science article here that represents the viewpoint of legitimate science and not fringe nuts like creationists or the time cube guy, here we should write and article that reflects the viewpoint of the vast majority of serious historians. Gamaliel 20:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I meant administrator. So you really believe that Garrison was mentally ill ? But he managed to be elected District Attorney for many years and moved on to become a judge, quite a feat for a mentally ill person. Just because you disagree with him doesn't make him mentally ill. It is true that there are many nutty conspiracy theories out there, that doesn't mean however that there aren't any conspiracies in the world. Was Watergate a conspiracy ? Bay of Pigs ? Iran Contra ? Gulf of Tonkin incident ? There are plenty of valid conspiracies so don't throw the baby out with the bath water. People who believe in conspiracy in the JFK assassination are not necessarily mentally ill, the two do not follow. Most authors believe there was a conspiracy. Therefore this sentence is factually incorrect and deliberately misleading. I can't believe you are so stubborn on this one, there is no doubt about it. I think it should be taken out, shall I do it ? Neilmc 20:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he was retarted; there's plenty of mental illnesses you can have that won't prevent you from becoming a judge. In fact, in his case, they probably helped. I don't think he was nuts because he believed in conspiracy or because he disagreed with me. I think he was a paranoid, delusional megalomaniac.

You are correct when you say that there have been conspiracies in American history. This is an indisputable fact. That does not mean that there was a conspiracy in this case, and the majority of serious historians do not believe there was one. Gamaliel 21:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't imply that Garrison was retarded, so at least we agree on something. I recently reread Garrison's book and he seems remarkably intelligent and lucid and completely sane. I'm glad you acknowledge the numerous conspiracies that exist in American history, perhaps then you could refrain from using the derisory phrase 'conspiracy nonsense' when somebody suggests one in this case ? Getting back to the point I'm amazed that you are still defending this sentence :

However, many authors accept that Oswald was the lone assassin and believe no compelling alternative suspect or co-conspirator has ever emerged

Surely to say this, to remain fair you would have to say that far more authors believed Oswald was not the lone assassin. To say both is pointless, certainly from your point of view. The second half of the sentence is just silly, as I explained earlier. I'm going to remove it once more, if you revert my edit I give up. 22:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence is quite legitimate and reasonable, sorry. There is no single person that the conspiracy press agrees was the assassin or was in on it, thus "no compelling alternative suspect or co-conspirator has emerged". It is not true to say that far more authors believe in conspiracy unless you just limit yourself to the conspiracy press. Gamaliel 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you've changed 'authors' to 'historians' now, and I'm afraid that doesn't make things any better from my point of view. I also saw your request for any poll of historians opinions on the assassination and it seems there hasn't been one, so what is it that leads you to this conclusion ? Clearly this first part of the sentence is a matter of opinion so should not be stated as fact and should be removed. As for the rest of the sentence, the idea that a single alternative suspect could emerge is ridicuulous isn't it ? It was either one man ie Oswald or it was a conspiracy involving many men. There is a long list of possibile suspects as you well know and I'm sure you don't need me to list them here. Surely you must be seeing the light on this one now ? Ditch this whole sentence and forget about it. Neilmc 02:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'm wrong. I guess the majority of historians believe there was a conspiracy, and that they are teaching this fact in their classes and writing it in their textbooks, so we should easily be able to verify that by picking up any commonly used history textbook and seeing this information. I look forward to you providing quotes from these textbooks which discuss this.

You seem to be misunderstanding that other sentence, or that sentence needs to be tweaked. It is not saying that there is only one suspect ever, but that there is no figure or figures that is widely agreed upon as a participant in the crime besides Oswald. There is no person that the conspiracy press agrees upon and says in one voice "He planned it" or "He is the second shooter". And if the conspiracy press can't agree on a suspect, then certainly you must concede that there is no agreed upon alternative shooter or co-conspirator according to mainstream thought. WP reports the consensus of mainstream and academic thought, not polls and not the fringe. It does not ignore these fringe views, as we have articles on Kennedy assassination theories and creationism and UFOs, but it doesn't substitute fringe ideas in place of mainstream thought. Gamaliel 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not that I misunderstand the sentence, more that I am unable to explain to you the pointlessness of it. The sentence contends that no 'single' alternative suspect has emerged. Why should one ? And why is the fact that one hasn't relevant ? Why do you insist on expressing this in the introduction ? Why not mention the many compelling alternative suspects that have emerged ? As to the second part of the sentence, maybe you should say that whilst LHO was the lone assassin is still taught in schools, the majority of people who have studied the assassination believe it was a conspiracy. This is the only thing that would make sense according to your current reasoning. Neilmc 01:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oswald's youth needs complete reworking

This section below was taken out of the Oswald article.

Oswald struck his sister-in-law and threatened her with a knife. His truancy resulted in visits to psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs who diagnosed the fourteen-year-old Oswald as having a "personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive-aggressive tendencies." In reaction Marguerite returned to New Orleans with her son before he could be institutionalized.

In two sentences, the article gives the impression that Oswald was a violent person whose mother moved from New York to keeo the boy out of mental institution.

Mr. LIEBELER. It would not appear from this [Hartog's} report that you found any indication in the character of Lee Oswald at that time that would indicate this possible violent outburst, is there? Dr. HARTOGS. I didn't mention it in the report, and I wouldn't recall it now. Mr. LIEBELER. If you would have found it, you would have mentioned it in the report? Dr. HARTOGS. I would have mentioned it; yes. I just implied it with the diagnosis of passive-aggressive. It means that we are dealing here with a youngster who was hiding behind a seemingly passive, detached facade aggression hostility. I mean this is what I thought was quite clear. I did not say that he had assaultive or homicidal potential. Mr. LIEBELER. And in fact, as we read through the report, there is no mention of the words "incipient schizophrenic" or "potentially dangerous" in the report. Dr. HARTOGS. No; I don't know where she has it from, but these are my words. I use it in other reports, but here it is not. Mr. LIEBELER. "Passive-aggressive tendencies" are fairly common in occurrence, are they not amongst people? Dr. HARTOGS. No; it is not so common. It is the least common of the three personality traits. It is either a passive-dependent child or an aggressive child, and there is a passive-aggressive child. The passive-aggressive one is the least common. [29]

Dr. Hartogs liked giving news interviews in New York and that FBI approached him and convinced him that an early report on Oswald arising out of school truancy gave rise to Oswald being a violent person.. This is when the FBI was trying to find a motive for Oswald allegedly shooting the president. The Warren Commission attorney interviewed Hartog seemed doubtful of what Hartog told the FBI and then confronted Hartog with the Passive aggressive tendencies that are fairly common, and not indicative of violent behavior. There was no indication Oswald was going to be put in a mental institution.

Trying to ressurect a picture of Oswald as a violent or homicidal child is simply not borne out by the record. This section needs change is it is to be included.

The Warren Commission testimony of Hartog cited above gives a very good insight into the aggressive nature of the FBI who approached Hartog in trying to develop a story of Oswald as a homicidal maniac to satisfy the need for a motive by Oswald to shoot the president. This lack of motive perplexed many at the time, and today. RPJ 22:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oswald leaving New York

"Marguerite Oswald returned to New Orleans with her son before he could be institutionalized. [30] "

This was taken out because:

1- Her testimony doesn't say this;

2- If it does please someone point to it.

3- Why send the reader to a lengthy transcript that doesn't contain the information. All one does is cause great doubt to enter the mind of the reader of the accuracy of the article and be very annoyed at the waste of time. RPJ 18:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that sentence to be true based on what I've read in the testimony and in my reading about this matter. I'm sorry that I've thus far been unable to find a sentence in her words saying that exactly, but I believe her WC testimony is pretty clear this was her motive, as clear as rambling Marguerite Oswald could be. Gamaliel 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

More substantiation, from WC testimony of John Carro (http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol8/page207.php) Gamaliel 19:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Carro: And the mother, I think, felt threatened about that time, that the boy was back in school, we were looking to get him psychiatric treatment, and she came in and wanted to take the boy out of the State, and we told her she could not take him out without the court's OK. As a matter of fact, I recall the case was put on the calendar before Judge Sicher in November of that year, 1953, when she was told, yes, that it was necessary to have the boy remain here, and that that is when the judge ordered a referral to the psychiatric clinic of the court, and to the Big Brothers who subsequently accepted the boy for working with. With that the mother took off in January, without letting us know, and just never came back.

Liebeler: Did you have the impression that Mrs. Oswald had the idea that you were going to take the boy and place him?

Carro: I think she might have had the idea because we certainly were coming back to court each month, you know, with the judge saying, "Well, try Children's Village. Try Harriman Farms, try this place and try that." I think she was threatened, that there was a plan afoot, that if the boy would not work out, that he would be placed. This was one of the recommendations that I felt he should be placed, and the court also; something could be worked out, because, incidentally, when he did go back to school he did go to school, but he was presenting, you know, marginal problems in school, and he was not doing as well as expected.

"And, as I said, my own reaction then was that he seemed like a likable boy who did not seem mentally retarded or anything. He seemed fairly bright, and once spoken to, asked anything, he replied. He was somewhat guarded, but he did reply, and my own reaction in speaking to him was one of concern, because he did not want to play with anybody, he did not care to go to school; he said he wasn't really learning anything;"

Carro gave very other interesting testimony: "[T]his was one of the problems, this was just initially a truancy situation, not one of real disruptive or acting out delinquent behavior."

Exhibit 1 attached to Carro's testimony ends up showing that Oswald not only went to school in New York City, and ended his truancy but also began behaving himself in school. [User:RPJ|RPJ]] 18:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Credibility

I feel that the implication in the beginning of the article, that Oswald assassinated the president is quite assertive, and in fact lessens the credibilty of this site. This implication, although supported by several comitees investigating the case, is quite unfounded. It does not take a lot of intellectual introspection to come to this conclusion. Firstly, a test showed that Oswald had not fired a gun at all that day. For me, even that is enough. But that is not nearly all. Secondly, the theory that he shot three shots at the president in 6 seconds, which is in itself utterly preposterous, as it took a rifle expert to copy this magnificent feat, but however, that excluded the time allegedly taken to aim. Also, the magic bullet theory is not something that anyone with IQ above 100 is going to just swallow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.208.231.135 (talk • contribs) .

This is not all. He was also seen on the bottom floor, 90 seconds after the shooting if I remember correctly, calmly buying a coke. If he had gone down from the "asssassins lair" to the bottom floor in 90 seconds, I believe he would have to be at least panting, if not struggling to catch his breath. Besides, the Zapruder film clearly shows which direction the shot that cracked Kennedys skull came from. And that was not the Book Depository, but the Grassy knoll. Many witnesses have testified to having seen men there, with guns, running away, and one woman even gave pursuit to these assassins. The unfounded claims that one can be thrown in any direction by a bullet are entirely untrue, and pseudo-scientific. If a given force is exerted upon a mass, it results in the mass moving in the same direction as the force was heading.. anything else is just so stupid I can't even imagine how anyone would believe that. Moreover, a latin man was seen by several witnesses shooting at the president from a different window of the book depository. He was later observed escaping the scene in a car. If this all is not evidence enough to prove that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, I sure as hell don't know what would be substantial to prove that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.91.98.77 (talk • contribs) .

By the way, why does the "Early life and Marine Corps service" not mention the fact that he was examined in Russian by the Marine Corps? Stating that he had Soviet sympathies is a quite one-sided view. It is not normal for a soldier to be tested in his Russian skills. And it is a fact that he "defected" to the Soviet Union, but returned to the States with amazing ease. Is it normal for a defected former soldier, who allegedly has sold secrets from the US marine corps to be allowed back in as if nothing had happened? I don't think so. This article seems to me as one-sided bullshit, that simply states what has been claimed officially by some puppet commissions, regardless of the obvious falsehood of those statements. An encyclopedia should be a source of knowledge, not a source of imperialistic propaganda and lies originated from politicians and warmongers. That is my opinion, at least. And I hope everyone who reads this agrees with this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.91.98.77 (talk • contribs) .

Captain Fritz couldn't identify the rifle from the sixth Floor

Captain Fritz ejected a bullet from the rifle on the 6th floor and knew it wasn't a Mauser of a certain caliber bullet. He never said it was a Mannlicher-Carcano. He was asked:

Mr. Ball. Or did you think it was such a thing [a Mauser]? Mr. Fritz. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges. Mr. Ball. Did you initial the rifle? Mr. Fritz. The rifle; no, sir. Mr. Ball. You didn't. Who did you give the rifle to after you ejected this live cartridge? Mr. Fritz. I believe that that rifle, I didn't take the rifle with me, Lieutenant Day took that rifle, I believe, to the city hall, and later I asked him to bring it down--I don't believe I ever carried that rifle to city hall. I believe Lieutenant Day carried it to city hall, anyway if you will ask him he can be more positive than I.

Still no identification as a Mannlicher-Carcano or chain of evidence.

---

This text posted by RPJ on main page placed by Mytwocents 07:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC) for POV

.....alias "Alex J. Hidell" to purchase the rifle and handgun later by claimed by some to have been used in the November 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Warren Commission was never able to hand the rifle to any witness and have the witness identify that it was found on the sixth floor of the book depository. The only police officers that identified a rifle that was found on the sixth floor described it as a Mauser.

The Warren Commission attacked the testimony of Officers Weitzman and Boone who described the rifle as a Mauser, claiming they only glanced at it, but put on no affirmative proof that it was a Mannlicher-Carcano since no one apparently was willing to identify such a weapon either under oath or otherwise.

A picture of a partially hidden rifle was identified as a copy of a picture that one officer had taken of the rifle that was found. See Warren Commission Exhibit 718. Only parts of the rifle can be seen in the picture and, oddly enough, the police officer who took the picture did not identify it as a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Some claim there is stronger evidence identifying the rifle as a Mannlicher-Carcano but the evidence apparently is not available for review.

Also, Dallas Police Chief Jessie Curry told newsmen a number of years later that:

We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand

[31]...

---

The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and the Oswald 'Backyard Photo' deserve their own Wikipages. That will allow editors to go into greater detail about these two items. I moved the text that RPJ added for POV, but it's preserved here to provide some background for further debate. I'll try to make my notes a little less cryptic in the future.

Mytwocents 18:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

More cryptic editing by someone called "Mytwocents"

Some contributor decided to move the testimony of Captain Fritz, and the references to Deputy Sheriff Weitzman and officer Boone, along with the statement by Police Chief Curry out of the article because the evidence they give does not support a pet theory that a Mannlicher-Carcano was found by some unknown "investigators."

It is suggested that contributor "Mytwocents" and "Gamaliel" should try to identify the unknown investigators upon whom they rely so completely for their version of the facts.

Of course this may take some work, and thought on the part of "Mytwocents" and "Gamaliel" but that is the generally accepted method of debating a point--find some evidence.

Apparently, they can't find any evidence. If so, just conceed that you don't have the time, energy, or maybe, or that the evidence you wish existed, doesn't exist.

But, don't keep reverting testimony and other evidence out of the article just because you personally don't like what it says. RPJ 09:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

We now have a John F. Kennedy assassination:Rifle main page where the subject of the who, what, where of the weapon in question can be edited at length. I pasted the latest edit by RPJ there. The rv I made restored the Wikilink to the 'John F. Kennedy assassination:Rifle' main page and also restored the revolver description that was lost with the latest edit. I think this will help to keep the size of the main LHO page within the 36kb guidelines and make it more readable. Mytwocents 19:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

That sounds good.

Here is the problem that seems to have arisen with analyzing this important historical event. It is presented much like a political ad campaign. Different sides of an each issue stretch facts, hide facts, and confuse facts to bolster positions to which they strongly cling irrespective of the evidence.

The analysis needs to be done with great precision. The reason The revolver discription needs to be put elsewhere is because there is no evidence that Oswald used a revolver to shoot Kennedy. It appears that the revolver was used used to shoot officer Tippit afterwards, and while this certainly seems connected with the assassination, it should be treated as a distinct item if it is important enough to address in this article.

Here (in the artice) is the rewrite. The changes may seem minor but seem very important. RPJ 21:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm comfortable with NPOV of the rifle section as you have made it with your last edit. Any editors that want to expand on the the subject of Oswalds rifle, its authenticity, chain of custody, connection to him and the assassination of Pres. Kennedy ect. will be able to do it at the John F. Kennedy assassination:Rifle page. The subject has needed room to grow for some time IMHO. Mytwocents 21:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What do "most historians" believe?

Contributor Gamaliel is convinced that "most historians" believe that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Gamaliel continually inserts this "most historian" statement into the article despite continually being requested by others to give the citations to the "historians" to which he refers.

Gamaliel never supports his statement with citations, but, instead, simply replies as follows:

+“unless we're teaching conspiracy in schools now, this is an accurate assessment”

+“unless schools are teaching conspiracy now, most historians would point to LHO”

+“I will keep doing unless you can show us history textbooks in which mainstream historians advocate and teach conspiracy.”

Gamaliel should recognize that he needs to support his contention with citations to these recognized historians. Gamaliel also must recognize that perhaps most historians may not have formed any opinion on whether Oswald was the lone gunman. Gamaliel simply has to do his research not simply hit the revert button.

Gamaliel should in the next couple of days research this and provide his results or remove his statement. RPJ 11:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I will of course second the above and add that Gamaliel posted a request on alt.assassination.jfk for information on whether there had ever been a survey of historians opinions on the assassination. It seems that there has been no survey and this also proves that Gamaliel himself is unsure of this statement. To then add to this initial untruth and say no evidence points to any alternative suspect or coconspirator is so obviously wrong it is an embarrassment to the page. I will therefore remove the both lines right now, whilst awaiting Gamaliel's proof of historians beliefs. Neilmc 21:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My request for information about a survey is not indicative of me being "unsure" on this matter, it is merely the most recent of my many efforts to disprove the latest wild assertion someone wants to insert into this article. It is pretty intellectually dishonest of you to claim that because the members of one usenet group do not post about a survey that it must not exist. The people in that group seem more interested in promoting their pet theories than in doing any serious work or information swapping, and in any case such a survey is not the only possible substantation of the statement in dispute here.

This is all quite ridiculous in any case. Whatever you believe about what happened in 1963, it is quite obvious that conspiracy is not a mainstream historical viewpoint. You keep demanding I cite historians. How many historians do you want me to cite? If I reach a particular number will you drop your ridiculous objections? Gamaliel 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Intellectually dishonest of me ? The newsgroup you posted on was the one moderated by John McAdams, the nuttiest Lone Nut there is ! If there had ever been a survey of historians opinions and it turned out they reckoned Lone Nut he would know all about it and would be shouting it from the rooftops, so it is not me who is being intellectually dshonest here.

You keep on about mainstream viewpoint, can I ask who exactly is in your mainstream ? The article begins by saying the second US government's official enquiry concluded conspiracy. The majority of US citizens believe conspiracy. The majority of books written on the assassination say conspiracy. Who is left ? It seems to me you, McAdams, Gerald Posner and a few old schoolbooks are your mainstream and the rest of the world is the poor old minority conspiracy theorists. Just because it says LHO did it in a text book doesn't make it so or make it mainstream opinion. Look up the Gulf of Tonkin incident in a textbook. It will say the US Navy was attacked and that started the Vietnam War. It has since been acknowledged that they weren't attacked it was just a ruse so the war could be started. The textbooks will never say this because they aren't very well researched. To be honest I think the initial sentence was better than the current one, if you're gonna keep reverting revert back to that one. This one is even more absurd. No evidence points to any other suspect ! You actually say that ! Imagine somebody reading this page for the first time who had any idea on this subject and seeing that. They would be laughing out loud ! And by the way I am not trying to insert some conspiracy theory into the article am I ? No I am taking something out, I am not adding anything or saying anything am I ? I am just trying to remove your increasingly desperate attempts to give the article a false impression from the beginning. Just give this one up Gamaliel, this is indefensible.82.16.38.197 23:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So now I'm intellectually dishonest because I didn't inquire in the right usenet group? Don't quite follow your logic there. I have no interest in usenet politics nor any desire to debate about the matter. If there is a usenet group or message board that you find more acceptable for me to use to make my inquiry, I welcome your suggestions.

As I've said before, I think this (as with all WP articles) article should follow the precident set by the evolution article. It presents the mainstream scientific consensus and does not present creationism on equal footing, regardless of what polls say people think about the issue or how many books are published by creationists. The mainstream is the mainstream academic community, not opinion polls and not the non-mainstream conspiracy or creationist press. No matter how conspiracists try to position themselves, they do not represent the mainstream academic consensus on this matter. Their views are not taught in schools and do not appear in mainstream history textbooks, old or new. Your analogy to the Gulf of Tonkin incident is not valid as what happened at GoT is widely accepted historical fact, and even the NSA admits there was no attack.

As I've repeatedly explained to you, that sentence does not say that no one else was ever suspected by anyone, only that there is no widespread consensus for a single alternate suspect. If you would care to suggest a wording for that part of the sentence that you find more comprehensible and that more accurately represents that intent, feel free to suggest it. Gamaliel 00:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Right well just to clarify on the Newsgroup issue, it seems you were unaware that the one you enquired on is run by the guy who has the biggest JFK Assassination Website which debunks conspiracy theories and firmly pushes the Lone Nut theory: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ The fact that you didn't know that explains why you didn't follow my logic and also explains why you thought I was being intellectually dishonest and in turn why I accused you. You haven't taken on board my points about the mainstream and instead have decided to compare the JFK assassination with Creationism and previously you have lumped the pair of them in with UFOs. I know you are contemptuous of people who believe conspiracy, honestly I already do, so it really isn't necessary you to continue to make such chidish jibes. There is no comparison between the two subjects. There is a wealth of scientific information which supports evolution and I happen to support it too. The people against it are against it for religious reasons. This has no bearing on whether you think conspiracy in the JFK case and I'm sure you already understand that, so please no more UFO or Creationism bullshit. You now say the 'mainstream academic community' believe the Lone Nut theory. This is the latest after 'authors' and 'most historians' Unfortunately again you cannot back up this claim with any evidence. You are just desperate to keep this sentence in the introduction to prevent losing face and I think that is wrong. On a lighter note I'm glad we agree that in August 1964 the US Government conspired to start a war which killed 3 million people. It's just a shame you think it so unlikely that the same people would conspire to kill one man in Dallas nine months earlier. Neilmc 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the usenet issue.

I'm sorry if you're offended by my repeated references to creationism or UFOs. I could have swapped in any number of things, ghosts, angels, Holocaust denial, Elvis and Tupac live, etc. My point is not to offend, though after being subjected to months of insults and amateur psychoanalysis from conspiracy buffs, you really can't be surprised and aghast if I get slightly snarky. I keep mentioning them because I can't think of any other way of making the analogy, which is that non-mainstream view X is still non-mainstream regardless of how well it polls.

Actually, I don't think it's particularly unlikely that the military-industrial-espionage complex, or the KGB, or even the Mafia would undertake such a thing. The possibility that they may have done so is just speculation, and the evidence just isn't there. But it doesn't matter what we think, it's what the mainstream academic viewpoint is. Now you have repeated a couple quotes of mine, perhaps you are trying to imply that I'm "changing my story" or somesuch. It's just different ways of saying the same thing, and that thing is that the mainsteam academic view does not support conspiracy. People keep talking about irrelevant polls or attacking me personally, but no one is tackling the point head on. Are teachers and professors teaching conspiracy? Do textbooks state conspiracy as fact? If the answer to these questions is no, how can all of you seriously deny that the mainstream academic consensus does not support your viewpoint? Gamaliel 04:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel

Gamaliel doesn't want anyone to know this:

"What I'm proudest of and spent more time working on than anything else are my contributions to Lee Harvey Oswald. The Oswald entry is even mentioned in a newspaper article (broken link) on wikipedia. If you want to go insane, try monitoring these articles for conspiracy nonsense."

RPJ 02:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is rapidly escaping the bounds of reality. If I didn't want anyone to know that, I wouldn't have put it on my user page! Stop wasting my time. If you want to complain about me, file an RFC or post a complaint at WP:AN. This page should be used to discuss the article, not to debate personalities. Gamaliel 02:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Contributor Gamaliel refers to those who believe that two or more people conspired to murder Kennedy are writing "conspiracy nonsense." Howver, most people don't agree with Gamaliel's belief that only Oswald was involved in the Kennedy murder.

The polls are in, and Gamaliel is among small group who believe the Warren Report:

A 2003 ABC TV News poll showed that only 32% (plus or minus 3 %) of Americans who expressed a view believe that Oswald acted alone in the Kennedy assassination [23]; a Discovery Channel poll revealed that only 21% believe Oswald acted alone. [24]; a History Channel poll gave a figure of only 17%. [25].

Nobody wants to deprive Gamaliel of his right to support his beliefs just because most Americans don't agree with Gamaliel. Yet, Gamaliel contually wants to deprive those who believe more than one person was involved, should not be heard because what they say is "conspiracy nonsense." Gamaliel then eliminates differing views by reverting contributions with dismissive one-line put downs. It doesn't take him much effort.

A congressional committee,(the House Select Committee on Assassinations,formally concluded there was a conspiracy of two or more persons who agreed to murder the president. This isn't nonsense. Gamaliel is out step both with what most other people believe about a conspiracy to murder Kennedy and out of step with the process of cooperative research, debate, and development of information for Wikipedia.

66.135.233.230 05:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Veciana and New Orleans

Antonio Veciana Blanch, convicted drug dealer and founder of Alpha 66, claimed to be a CIA operative, yet provided no substantiation for his claims or evidence of the $253,000 he claimed he was paid by the CIA. On the days he claimed he saw Oswald in Dallas, Oswald was known to be in New Orleans. The HSCA concluded Veciana "had been less than candid" and totally discounted his claims. Gamaliel 03:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please provide your source of information on Veciana. RPJ

While waiting for your references, the rest is being reverted back since the references were to the Assassination Records Review Board Report which was cited.

The government report by the ARRB was published by the Organization of American Historians which publishes the Journal of American History.

Gamaliel must take this opportunity to check on his claim about what "most historians" believe about Lee Harvey Oswald. What better place to check than an organization of American Historians?

If Gamaliel doesn't check and puts that claim back about what most historians believe without references, then it is time for Gamaliel to stop being a contributer to this article. This is because Gamaliel has repeatedly disregarded the rules for giving references to important statements that readers will rely upon.

Nobody wants to work on a project that some else can discredit, and does, intentionally and willfully, discredit. RPJ 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The HSCA dismisses Veciana on page 137 of the HSCA report.

Really, your constant attacks upon my person are quite tiresome. I must insist that from now on you act within the bounds of Wikipedia:Civility as per the rules of this website and refrain from further personal attacks or insinuations. Gamaliel 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Veciana and New Orleans: Round II

In 1998. the federal Assassination Records Review Board issued the following report on Antonio Veciana:.

“[He] was an anti-Castro Cuban activist in the early 1960s. Veciana led Alpha66, a violent anti-Castro organization that engaged in paramilitary operations against Castro's Cuba as well as assassination attempts against Castro."

Many years earlier:

Veciana testified to the HSCA that he acted as an agent of the U.S. government, and that he met Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in 1963 in the presence of his American "handler." [12]

His group was publicly criticized by President Kennedy for some of its violent hit-and-run tactics in Cuba, but he defiantly stated he was going to do it "again and again."

In 1998, the ARRB noted Veciana as one of the people for which additional government files were going to be produced.

Gamaliel reverted out the reference to the violently anticommunist Veciana meeting with Oswald soon before the assassination. Gamaliel claims:

“On the days he claimed he saw Oswald in Dallas, Oswald was known to be in New Orleans.”

Gamaliel then gives a citation to page 137 of the HSCA Report that discusses Veciana. The page citation doesn’t support his statement at all.

Page 137 does discuss the secret testimony from two women about a meeting that Oswald had with some different paramilitary Cuban exiles in Dallas, at a different time. The HSCA also discusses how the Warren Commission decided to believe Oswald was in Mexico at the time though the FBI wouldn’t couldn’t substantiate the alibi.

Importantly, page 137 does not support Gamaliel’s alibi that Oswald was known to be in New Orleans at the time of the Veciana meeting in Dallas.

The reason given by the HSCA about discounting the testimony is because neither the CIA nor Mr. Veciana would provide details about his 13 year relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies, and the money paid to him.

This is why the ARRB, under the JFK Records Act sought additional documents about the matter. Sooner or later, the truth will come to the surface about all of this. Citing fictitious alibi’s is a waste of time. The readers of Wikipedia should, if they are interested go back and read the HSCA report on the Oswald-Cuban exile relationships with Veciana and the other groups that are in the surrounding pages to page 137 -140 of the HSCA report. It gives a picture of Oswald quite different from the alleged cover story of being a “Marxist.” The HSCA, running out of money and time, finally said it didn’t reach any firm conclusions on what these entanglements of Oswald with the paramilitary anticommunists meant. See page 140.

This is why the JFK Records Act was passed in 1992, in order to pry out from the federal agencies the documentation that establishes exactly who was Oswald working for and what involvement, if any, did these powerful, insulated agencies such as the CIA and FBI have in the Kennedy assassination.

RPJ 20:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said Oswald's "alibi" was on page 137. I clearly said page 137 contained HSCA's dismissal of Veciana's testimony. It's clear that you view this process as adversarial, with your continued attacks on me, your insinuation that I am lying because I supposedly said something was on page 137 when I never said it was, and your reference to this as "round II". WP articles are intended to be constructed in a collaborative process, but you obviously have no interest in collaborating, only in attacking people that don't accept your conspiracy theories as fact. You've attempted to rewrite the entire New Orleans section based on the dismissed testimony of a drug dealer and terrorist, testimony that was thought to be false even by the HSCA who concluded there was a conspiracy, and you don't even bring up this in your version, which clearly indicates you have no interest in or understanding of NPOV. Gamaliel 21:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary of American History

Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. p327-331. 10 vols.

From the preface: "The Dictionary of American History has been the leading reference work in United States history for more than six decades." Such an undertaking (ten volumes) is not the whimsical project of one person but represents the consensus of current thought in the academic community of mainstream historians.

On the JFK assassination: "Although every aspect of the assassination of John F. Kennedy has been the subject of controversy, the basic facts seem beyond dispute. At 12:30 P.M. on 22 November 1963, while riding in an open car past Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, President John F. Kennedy was fatally struck by two bullets from a high-powered rifle fired from the adjacent Texas Book Depository building.

All evidence pointed to a worker in that building, Lee Harvey Oswald. A former marine, Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union, redefected, and most recently had been active on behalf of Fidel Castro's Cuba. He owned the murder weapon, had been seen smuggling a long package into the building, had fled shortly after the assassination, and had killed a policeman in panic. Furthermore he was capable of committing political murder, having recently attempted to shoot the retired general Edwin A. Walker, a prominent right-wing figure.

Nonetheless many Americans were not convinced. Perhaps unwilling to acknowledge that such an insignificant figure as Oswald could single-handedly alter the course of history, they followed conspiracy theories trumpeted by sensational books and in the tendentious motion picture JFK (1991). The alleged conspiracies were masterminded either by the Russians, the Cubans, the Mafia, the Central Intelligence Agency, Vice President Lyndon Johnson, or time travelers from an alternate universe. Two days after Kennedy's assassination, while Oswald was being transferred to another jail, he was killed by Jack Ruby, a Dallas strip club operator, providing more fuel for the conspiracy theories. Even in the early twenty-first century polls consistently showed that most Americans continued to believe in a conspiracy theory even though no credible evidence emerged to seriously challenge the conclusion of the WARREN COMMISSION that Oswald acted alone."

I think this is fairly clear. Gamaliel 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. The article does not state there is a consensus among mainstream historians that there is little credible evidence to support any of these theories and that Oswald acted alone.

It is the opinion of one author.

RPJ 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think a prestigeous academic reference work would publish encyclopedia/dictionary entires which represent the minority position of one author or entires which represent the consensus of mainstream academic thought on the subject? Of what use would this work, or britannica, or any reference work be if it was standard procedure to publish entires that are merely some random opinion and don't represent mainstream thinking on the subject? Do you honestly believe this is how reference works are created? I don't think you fully grasp this concept, as you've just inserted a rambling, childish response to this respected reference work into this Wikipedia article. Do you really think that's an appropriate action to take? Do you honestly think this is appropriate material for the introduction of a Wikipedia article? The more I interact with you, the more I think you have absolutely no idea what Wikipedia is about and what we are trying to do here, as you've been treating this like a message board instead of an encyclopedia. I don't want to make this personal (though you've shown no such restraint with your constant attacks upon me) but you really don't get it and you're just wasting everyone's time here when we could be doing productive work. Gamaliel 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Request for Comment

Hello, I came in to take a look with a fresh pair of eyes. It looks like the main issue is a revert war, with people disagreeing about whether or not a sentence such as "Nevertheless, most historians conclude that Oswald was the lone assassin and no evidence has emerged that clearly points to any other alternative suspect or co-conspirator," is appropriate for the article. Since this is obviously a controversial issue, my recommendation is to be very careful about quoting sources, especially under the Wikipedia policy of no original research. Any change that is made, should include an inline citation showing what the source of that change is. If a disputed sentence does not have a clear external reference, then guidelines under Wikipedia:Verifiability allow it to be removed. An example of an inline citation would be like this: "A documentary asserts that the JFK assassination was a Cuban plot." [32]. To state "most historians conclude", I would want to see an external reputable source that uses that language, such as "most historians" "a majority of historians" "nearly all historians", etc. For further information, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Elonka 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack Ruby's gun running activities and Castro imprisoning his Mafia connected friend

Ruby's underworld connections give a much different view of the man who murdered Oswald.

This is from the Jack Ruby article in Wikipedia. RPJ 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Dictionary cite should not be a lead in to other uncited sources

Perhaps this is a game that someone is playing. But, why?

If one has sources cite them. But don't use devices such as saying other sources exist when not cited. It is unclear why some contributor would have such a commitment to establishing that "mainstream historians" believe the Warren Commission's lone gun man theory is correct that the contributor would want to keep slipping in uncited material without sources. If the sources exist put them in.

Otherwise unsourced material that is controversial gets reverted out.

RPJ 05:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I am "some contributor"? Well I guess that is better than "contributor "Gamaliel"".

Perhaps you don't understand how reference works are constructed. They do not represent the whimiscal opinions of one person (unless they are written by one person, such as James Randi's invaluable Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes) but the consensus of the scholarly community. When reference works state things like "George Washington was the first president", it is clearly a widely held belief and thus there is no need to make a ridiculous statement like "The consensus of the scholarly historical community is that George Washington was the first president". Thus your strategy of demanding a citation of the obvious while disputing each citation provided as the "opinion" of a single person. Note that you have remained silent on the question posed to you above as to how many citations would satisfy you.

I have attempted several different versions of the introduction, and you have not responded in any meaningful way to any of them, other than to insert a clearly inappropriate rant in the introduction of the article. Nor have you attempted in any meaningful way to the rebutt the non-acceptance of conspiracy theory in academia. You have not cited a single mainstream academic historian who supports conspiracy theory. You simply are silent on the issue entirely. Perhaps you are unaware of the many, many historians who publicly objected to Oliver Stone's film JFK or, more recently, the History Channel series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. This clearly does not indicate a scholarly acceptance of conspiracy. It is not enough for you to believe conspiracy, you must deny the existence of people who disagree with it.

On the matter of the Dictionary of American History, it is not true that the entry is "based solely on the Warren Commission report" nor is it true that the entry is unsigned. Whatever our disagreements, please do not reinsert these factual errors into the article. Gamaliel 07:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Warren Report are being put back in

The opening paragraph of an article should summarize what is to follow and give the big picture. The big picture of the article regarding Oswald is:

Explaining his background and alleged participation in the murder of Kennedy. The seemingly explosive issue for some contributors is whether he did it alone. The reason for seemingly life-and-death seriousness for some is this: If Oswald didn’t do it alone then the FBI and the CIA have let the guilty parties go free, by failing to properly investigate, destroying evidence, concealing evidence and actively misleading those who do try to investigate. This misconduct by the FBI and CIA has been gone over in detail by Congressional investigators. The House Select Committee on Assassination reported on this extensively.

Some people idolize these agencies because they do work for them or have worked for them, know people worked for them or have just become enamored with these agencies and can’t accept they aren’t perfect. Now, what they want to say is well, the FBI and CIA may have made mistakes regarding Kennedy’s murder but Oswald was the sole assassin, therefore, “No harm-no foul.”

Very few people agree with this position. In fact, a large majority disagree with them. A 2003 ABC TV News poll showed that only 32% (plus or minus 3 %) of Americans who expressed a view believe that Oswald acted alone in the Kennedy assassination [33]; a Discovery Channel poll revealed that only 21% believe Oswald acted alone. [34]; a History Channel poll gave a figure of 17%. [35].

They have to face facts. Poll after poll, shows very few Americans believe the Warren Commission's single gun man theory that Oswald did it alone. Instead, most American's believe that Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy. The House Select Assassination Committee believes the conspiracy existed. There is no "mainstream belief" that Oswald did it alone as some contributors to Wikipedia believe with a highly intense fervor.

It is true that a small group of the population still believe in the Warren Commission. Representatives of this viewpoint can have there say in the article under the Wikipedia rules, and embrace the Warren Commission Report; but, that is all. They can't stop the inclusion of information backed by reliable sources that (besides their small group) most people don't believe the Warren Commission's result. They also can't block any evidence that refutes what some of the contributors fervently believe.

One can't hide from the facts. In the Wikipedia rules it discusses whether a very small group of "flat earth" believers can require its position to be included in geography. Neutral Point of View

The Warren Commission has not reached that point of "Flat Earthers" but the number of believers is dwindling. They can still have their say but, but they must accept the fact that they don't control the pages.

This small group of contributors that are true believers are disruptive because it is quite easy to drop into an article and delete something that someone has written with a short flippant remark that it is "nonsense." It appears that most the contributors that engage in that practice actually do very little writing themselves. When they do make comments on the discussion page they are generally riddled with spelling and grammatical mistakes and often misstatements about the additions to the article they have reverted, rather than debate the issue.

One common device used is to attack one point in an addition to the article, that is among a number of points made, then revert the entire addition.

Another is to simply revert and say in a comment that some source referred to in an addition has been refuted, or that contrary evidence exists. Often this is done without even any citation to sources. Of course both sides should be presented.

Sometimes the reverters work in a small tag team. One will do it for a while then another will take it over for a while and then a third will do so.

Almost always, a bare minimum of work is done.

RPJ 20:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, sadly you have chose to attack other contributors instead of addressing the matter at hand. I assume (since there's only so many people here, unfortunately) that most of this is directed at me, and your smears are quickly refuted by looking at our respective contributions. Contrary to your claim that I do "very little writing", I have written many dozens of Wikipedia articles, including most of this article. You, on the other hand, have done little besides insert one-sided information and rambling, barely coherent rants into assassination-related articles. I can't find a single edit that you have ever made to an article that isn't related to conspiracy and your sole purpose here on Wikipedia seems to be to push conspiracy.

While you try to invoke WP:NPOV, you don't seem to understand what it means and certainly don't practice it, based on your continued insertion of one-sided material and rants. We obviously disagree, but I have never tried to deny the existence of people who disagree with me. I have always acknowledged that many people disagree with the conclusions of the four govt. investigations and have never sought to deny that. You, on the other hand, have never directly addressed the matter at hand, which is what mainstream historians conclude regarding Oswald and the assassination. You have simply attempted to deny the existence of historians who disagree with your conspiracy viewpoint and attempted to smear other Wikipedia editors. Gamaliel 22:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC

hello, dropped by after seeing the RFC posting on this article. It's apparent to me that RPJ's additions to the intro are inappropriate. Some of it is redundant to material already in the body of the article. Some of it belongs in or is redundant to Warren Commission. --FRS 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your statement has no specifics. "Some" of the posting is redndant and "some" belongs somewhere else or "some" is redundant to another article.

Gamaliel is going to have to start doing real work rather than vague comments such as these to revert postings. Gamaliel must give specific reasons, and show why the reasons apply.

Please "drop by" when the matter is thought through and articulated in a reasoned way.RPJ 22:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. This:

"While in police custody, Oswald denied he had murdered the President, and claimed he was a “patsy.” A day later he was murdered by Dallas strip club owner and underworld figure Jack Ruby"

is redundant to material in the body of the article.

This:

"After a number of secret sessions, the 1964 Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone. Most Americans reject the Warren Commission's conclusion"... through and including..."One reference called the Dictionary of American Biography still adopts the Warren Commission view in a brief unsigned article "no credible evidence emerged to seriously challenge the conclusion of the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone.""

may be properly located somewhere, probably as part of a "criticisms" section in the Warren Commission article to the extent that the material is not already there, maybe (in edited down form) in the body of this article. But plopping it at the end of a two paragraph intro to the LHO biographical article is unencyclopedic.--FRS 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To exactly what encyclopedic rule does FRS refer?

Why would the article start off with the mantra of how Oswald was found to be the sole murderer of Kenndy and not mention that he himself was murdered right after being arrested? Its Oswald's biography.

Why not start off simply saying that he was the alleged murdered of the President and give his biography?

The reasoning seems to be that, at every opportunity the group of people that believe Oswald murdered the president and did it alone want to advertise that point of view and then turn around and prevent some one else from pointing out that only a very small number of people believe that anymore.

Everyone has the right to his or her own belief system; and preach these beliefs, but not to the exclusion of other beliefs. If someone wants to repeatedly drum home a belief that is opposed by others then one has to expect a repeated presentation of the other viewpoints. Don't you agree?

RPJ 23:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction already made it clear that there are controversies about the Warren Report's conclusions; it's unnecesary and inappropriate to put in six paragraphs of criticism about it in the intro. There are plenty of other places where that subject can be engaged. --FRS 23:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a solution that seems appropiate. See if you agree.

RPJ 00:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to your short version intro, but don't agree to removing the 1963 photo. I put that back.--FRS 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this rv 20:42, January 24, 2006 Mytwocents I removed None of these theories are endorsed by any respected mainstream historian. which seems to be the bone of contention. Mytwocents 01:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. But there are other items that are not appropiate. For example: "The Dictionary of American History states that "no credible evidence emerged to seriously challenge the conclusion of the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone."

This simply is not true. Now that at least some of the secret documents and testimony have been opened, there is overwhelming evidence that seriously challenges the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone. It is just very difficult to reconcile the evidence with that statement.

RPJ 05:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is an intro from the John F. Kennedy assassination wikipage. I made a few changes to sentence flow, referances to Oswald and used two weblinks in liew of some statements on polling, to save some room. I propose we use in total as the intro to make it NPOV: (it may need spellchecking...)

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) allegedly assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy and then murdered Dallas Texas policeman J. D. Tippit on November 22, 1963, as determined by four formal federal investigations into the assassination. An official investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), conducted from 1976 to 1979, concluded that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This contrasts with the earlier conclusion by the Warren Commission that the President was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Many not only dispute the conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin (claiming that there was a conspiracy), but also claim that Oswald was not involved at all. Shortly after his arrest, Oswald insisted he was a "patsy." Oswald never admitted any participation in the assassination, and was shot two days after being taken into police custody, by night-club owner, Jack Ruby.

Investigations, scientific testing, and re-creations of the circumstances of Kennedy's death have not, in the American public's view, settled the question of who plotted to kill the president. A 2003 ABC TV News poll showed that only 32% (plus or minus 3 %) of Americans who expressed a view believe that Oswald acted alone in the Kennedy assassination. [36] Polls by other news orginisations [37][38] show even lower percentages. Polls also show that there is no agreement on who else may have been involved.

Mytwocents 08:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts. Gamaliel 08:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Warren Commission, et al didn't "allege", they concluded. That sentence carefully says that his guilt was assigned by the investigations, thus no need for a further disclaimer.
• The HSCA also concluded that Oswald was the assassin, whatever assistance they vaguely suggest he may have had. Your sentence seems to say this isn't the case at all. Their conclusion should be mentioned and is probably more important than their unsupported allegation of conspiracy.
• There's too much about the polls, and while public opinion probably should be taken note of, this is too much info for the intro, and I oppose discussing public opinion without discussing what professional historians have to say on the matter.

The Introduction should be changed back

Gamaliel's revert of the article by Mytwocents needs to be taken out.

The Warren Commission "concluded" this but very few people take the conclusion at face value.

One has to recognize that a reference work loses its credibility if it overstates or mistates information that most people know about, and have an opinion about. If the Warren Commission, HSCA, or any other panel was a court of law with the strict rules of evidence, due process, public hearing, right of cross examination, right to introduce contradictory evidence and other safeguards that give some standard by which third parties could measure the quality of the conclusion, then it would be proper to say that a Oswald committed the crime.

However, even when a court judgment is controversial it is sometimes better to say "Jones was convicted of murder" rather than "Jones murdered a person." That of course is just a matter of judgment on how controversial a criminal conviction is and the source of the controversy.

Once something as become a settled historical fact then one can speak with more certainty.

As it is, good judgment dictates that in a reference work one not attempt to inflate the meaning of non-judical conclusion. Just leave it at "XYZ" panel concluded "ABC."

Gamaliel scoffs at reference to what the majority of other Americans believe about the assassination, but its unclear why Gamaliel thinks he knows anymore about the subject than the average person.

Put it this way: If Oswald were still alive today, and hadn't been tried and convicted, a flat statement that he murdered the president would subject Gamaliel to a defamation lawsuit, that would have to be defended with alleging the affirmative defense of "truth" which puts the burden of proof on Gamaliel.

Almost all of the evidence cited in the article (assuming all the witnesses were still alive) wouldn't even be deemed reliable enough to get into evidence, let alone be persuasive to a jury. Therefore the flat statements that Gamaliel wants to make that Oswald killed the president is very reckless from the point of view of a reference work.

Remember that each reader that sees in this article some reckless, overblown statement that he or she believes to be untrue will then likely have doubts about the reference work as a whole.

Please do not revert the intrduction of Mytwocents. It is a workable compromise.

RPJ 19:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In the version I just reverted to there is more than enough material making it clear that the Warren Report is controversial.--FRS 20:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To help resolve this disagreement, it would be of assistance if the points that were addressed by other were addressed in more detail. Because when they are not addressed in detail, it becomes just a matter of reverting one another’s changes. My own preference is to merely have the short introduction to Oswald, and when he was born, why he is well known and how he died. Others disagree and immediately want to tell the reader who believes Oswald did what and supply evidence. This appears to be an unusual introductory paragraph, but if it is used then great pains should be used so as not to make a number of readers wince. If no reasoned discussion takes place for a detailed introductory paragraph, then the short one that would normally be used for an article will again be put in. The contributor "Mytwocents" did a good job on modifying it and the alternative that is being now presented should be supported with a thoughtful reasoned argument.

RPJ 20:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

---

The "most historians" intro version that we've been hashing out for the past week or so, just wasn't working IMO. I noticed that the intro to the kennedy assassination intro looked good, and tried for NPOV with sourced poll numbers addressing what americans think about the conspiracy issue. So i suggested that on the talk page. If any editor wants to change the 3 paragraph intro we have now for better NPOV or for brevity, I have no problem with that. But rv'ing to the "most historians" version probably isn't going to work. Mytwocents 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I had no objection to the short form of the intro, e.g, [[39]]. I don't have the time or knowledge to analyze the substance of the material Mytwocents added--I just don't believe that material belongs in the introduction because an introduction should (a) not be longer than 2-3 short paragraphs; and (b) where, as here, we have a controversial issue, the issue should be identified as such, but the arguments on each side of that controversy should be dealt with in an appropriate place in the body of the article. If the Mytwocents content was left in, we would have to bring in all the counter arguments, and the intro quickly gets completely beyond any reasonable length.--FRS 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)