Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

In America

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." Why does this article say Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK even though he never had a public trial? Shouldn't he be called a suspect? 221.194.176.22 (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have to agree. Jusdafax 00:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Presumption of innocence" only means that you have to prove that someone did something before you imprison them. Various investigations found that Oswald did it, but they weren't about to imprison his body. (This one has been discussed so many times here that it probably does need an FAQ.) - Location (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• <ec>By the same logic John Wilkes Booth should be described in the same manner, yet nobody is concerned about his civil rights. He's equally dead and is equally described as an assassin by scholarly sources. The same principles could be applied to anyone who died before they could be tried, but we don't try the dead. There were, of course, multiple investigations of LHO that reached this conclusion, they just weren't trials. We probably ought to have an FAQ to address this, but such proposals have been drowned in the past by walls of text. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not trying to be controversial but seriously it seems a little bit weird to be reading assertions of guilt about people who were accused of crimes but never proven in a court of law to have committed them (even if due to death). Also, if you read again from Universal Declaration of Human Rights the article I mentioned, it doesn't mention detainment at all. It is saying people have a right to be presumed innocent. This is why people on the news call people "the accused" even when it's reasonably obvious the person is likely guilty. There should probably be a more clear guideline about this because it feels like we're violating the rights of people posthumously. 221.194.176.22 (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not controversial; it's simply a failure to understand the concepts of "rights", "presumption of innocence", and "guilt" in a legal context. Now, I've looked over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I cannot find how this version of human rights is extended to corpses. I'm no legal scholar, but I don't think we need to be concerned about violating Oswald's "posthumous rights" since he stopped being a "member of the human family" shortly after he met Jack Ruby. - Location (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If multiple US government investigations conclude that Oswald killed Kennedy, and they don't wriggle around with words like "alleged" or "accused", then we don't . EOS. --Pete (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You are like Mr Cooper the Clinton lackey in the lost e-mails scandal assuming good faith. This is a bit like the termination of World Trade Centre #7 something that with the collusion of the CIA does not appear open to further discussion on Wikepedia. (I need to check out my donations to this spuriously honest/unbiased website.)

Weatherlawyer (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC) The question betrays a basic misunderstanding of what "presumption of innocence" means. It means that when someone is at trial, they are presumed innocent until evidence links them to a crime - i.e. the onus is on the prosecution to establish that this person - presumed innocent - in fact carried out the crime in question. This is in contrast to other systems where the onus is reversed and the defendant, presumed guilty, has to establish his or her innocence.

In regards to Oswald, the question is moot as there is no trial at play so no presumption of innocence per se. It is completely normal to consider a person guilty of a crime when they are no longer alive to go to trial, if the evidence establishes that guilt. Death doesn't mean a defendant avoids a "guilty" judgement. The evidence which no doubt would have been presented at trial firmly establishes his guilt according to two of the most exhaustive investigations in American - maybe world - history. As previously noted, there is no similar hue and cry over whether Booth was "guilty," as he didn;t stand trial, nor do we preface any discussion of Hitler or Stalin with "the alleged perpetrator," etc. because they never stood trial for their crimes. Canada Jack (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if my ip address has changed but I'm the original opener of this question. So I'm OK with this concept of assuming people are guilty if there was no trial, but I think in fairness it should be blanket applied, or at least written somewhere what the process is to determine wording. Today I was reading Christopher Columbus's page and there's a section called 'Accusations of tyranny during governorship' which goes on to show in my opinion overwhelming evidence that these were not just accusations, including mentioning numerous testimonies and so on. So my point here is that if Wikipedia is claiming Lee Harvey Oswald definitely did the things he was accused, can we have a clearly defined list of requirements for this type of thing? I personally believe there needs to be some kind of mention about how guilt is assumed by default because a trial was impossible and so on, but that's just an opinion. Either way, I think everyone should have a fair article, even if they are dead. Is it possible even one person throughout history that we are all so certain was guilty wasn't? 69.16.138.116 (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

But the investigations found Oswald guilty of the crimes for which he was charged! Your premise, that those who didn't stand trial for their crimes are merely "alleged" perpetrators meaning we can never assign guilt to those people, simply doesn't make sense. What about those mass-killers who kill themselves or are killed by police, shouldn't we, by your logic, refer to them as "alleged" mass murderers as they never went to trial? Check out the Columbine High School massacre page, and you see "perpetrators" even though those guys never stood trial. Why? Because the investigations said those two guys did the crime, as all the official investigations did in the Kennedy case. Same goes for the Virginia Tech shooting, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and any number of other crimes where, absolutely routinely, the person who died carrying out the crime is identified as "perpetrator" and not "alleged perpetrator" despite never having stood trial. Canada Jack (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I should also add that it isn't "Wikipedia... claiming Lee Harvey Oswald definitely did the things he was accused [of]", it's the official investigations which concluded he did those things. And we affix the "perpetrator" label as per those investigations. I should also add that, arguably, the questions raised by critics over the conclusions of the Warren Commission were addressed by the House Select Committee's investigation. And they came to an identical conclusion in terms of Oswald's role. So, more so than in just about any case you can think of, the questions have been addressed, the evidence assessed and re-assessed... and Oswald did, they concluded. Trouble is, many of the very questions addressed by the HSCA are STILL being raised by critics who refuse to acknowledge that they were answered back in 1979. Canada Jack (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I sympathize with the anonymous editor, however, we've had this argument many times and consensus of the editors is not to use "alleged." Read any major newspaper article when the anniversary of the assassination rolls around, and you'll see Oswald referred to as the assassin, not the alleged assassin. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the world does agree he was the assassin. And I probably should have picked a less controversial figure to bring this topic up on but here we are. My point is that yes, mostly everyone says and agrees that he did this. However I assume that Wikipedia is involved with facts rather than reporting. Actually I would prefer that all people found guilty of crimes were referred to as 'so and so was found guilty of x by y court/judge/investigation' rather than 'so and so did x' as I find the latter to be a bit anti-encyclopedic compared to the first. The fact in my view is that he was found guilty by investigations. That doesn't scientifically mean he actually did those things and again, it feels weird -to me- to read in an unbiased document that he or anyone actually did anything which was not certainly verifiable via direct evidence such as video of the incident combined with confession without duress. Then again maybe I'm being too pie-in-the-sky. I just want to note again, this topic for me isn't actually about LHO specifically; I just happened to post it here. 69.16.138.108 (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reporting. It is an encyclopedia, not an independent investigatory organization or journalistic outlet capable of conducting its own inquiries or drawing its own conclusions. See WP:5P and the proposed FAQ below. Acroterion (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I also think it is better not to firmly state Oswald assassinated Kennedy because there are many instances in history when even those who have been convicted of crimes have later been found innocent. It's better to say these investigations concluded he was the lone assassin, although at least one found there was a probable conspiracy. And to call Oswald a sniper in the first sentence is misleading; saying an ex-Marine or school book warehouse clerk would be more accurate.Mdus5678 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion below which addresses these points. --Pete (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Texas journalist Jim Marrs, who is one of the foremost authorities on the assassination, discusses how Oswald worked for the government as an informant or even agent, and tried to stop the assassination. You can find him writing about this in his book, Crossfire, and even speaking on a radio program at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojf2d6W5aHE . Author James Douglass brings up similar points in his book, JFK and the Unspeakable. As Marrs says, Oswald was quite possibly “the hero who's trying to stop it all, and they tagged him as the patsy.” What if he's right? What if years or decades from now, it's definitively discovered that Oswald tried to stop the assassination and was indeed a patsy as he said? And Wikipedia will be seen as one of those who put out a false narrative in saying he was definitely the assassin. It's one thing for a media member who hasn't really studied the case to say that, and usually the media report attributes that to the Warren Report. It's another for a site that is supposed to be an online encyclopedia that has more resources to do so. The Warren Commission has long been discredited as a rush job that tried to deflect blame from the CIA or Soviets, which LBJ suspected at the time and didn't want to deal with another Soviet confrontation or a civil war with the CIA. The HSCA was another government panel that blamed Mafia figures but not government agencies like the CIA, even though if you read actual testimony like from CIA agent Jim Wilcott, you will find them saying the CIA was involved. These bodies just disregarded those comments or said they weren't credible because they couldn't find other CIA agents to say similar things. It's hard for ex-CIA agents to go against the grain like Wilcott did, and he was harassed for speaking out. The point remains: No one has ever proven that Oswald killed Kennedy. Even Warren Report defender Gerald Posner said he believed Mark Lane would have gotten Oswald acquitted. Mdus5678 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jim Marrs is a conspiracy theorist, and we don't use conspiracy theorists. James W. Douglass is likewise not a historian but an ideological revisionist. Jim Wilcott repeated rumors that Oswald was employed or used by the CIA in the past, no in no way demonstrated any employment of Oswald during the assassination.

Wikipedia sticks to mainstream academic sources, and does not treat fringe or conspiracy theories as true. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the Warren report most accurately represents the reality of the assassination.

Think about it: if there is some crazy conspiracy, then everyone here but you is in on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, it seems that Canada Jack is still using his biases to keep this article's introduction wildly inaccurate. No article should describe LHO as the assassin, only that several commissions believed he was the assassin. There was no trial, and if there was, it is now almost certain that it would never go to jury (at least not for long) for lack of evidence. It is ridiculous to look at the historical record, read the results of several, wildly corrupt panels, and conclude that the most profound assassination in American history was sewn up. Let's be clear, that is exactly what the first sentence is doing, and even modern history textbooks no longer do this. Thus, what Canada Jack (and friends) are saying is that they know better than the millions of declassified records and the modern consensus of citizens and scholars. Please consider dumping this POV intro!99th Percentile (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree to the extent that the intro should be phrased as it used to be along the lines of "Lee Harvey Oswald, who, according to numerous government investigations, was the sniper who killed president Kennedy..." but I didn't write it as it stands now.

But if one claims in the next breath that "it is now almost certain that it would never go to jury... for lack of evidence," we see the result of a half century of lies and misinformation from the conspiracy crowd who beat that drum, despite the reams of evidence that would likely have easily convicted Oswald.

Let's say that Oswald's lawyer if he had lived had tried to defend Oswald in 1964. At that point, there was little discussion of the "grassy knoll" in terms of a possible location for a sniper. But even if that aspect was well-known then (it wasn't until about 1967 that that became an issue), the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was overwhelming. The prosecution could note that some 95% of earwitnesses heard three or fewer shots; that a similar percentage reported shots from a single direction. And that the only sniper seen was firing from the TSBD, there were about 10 witnesses who could establish that. Next, we have a witness who positively identified Oswald, that Oswald could not account for his whereabouts at the time of the assassination, that numerous statements he made after his arrest were provable lies and he alone fled the scene shortly thereafter. Oswald's lawyer could raise doubt on the positive identification, and point out that he wasn't seen on the stairs fleeing. But the prosecuter could also point out that that SOMEONE fired from there and that witness would have seen them if not Oswald, thus undermining their credibility.

But, more basically, we have Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest, we have them on boxes he'd not normally access during the course of his work, we have a paper bag with his prints consistent with a description of a bag he denied carrying seen by two witnesses, a bag which could have held the rifle, and, most incriminatingly, his RIFLE hidden on the floor, with his fingerprint, a rifle he denied owning yet his wife admitted he had one and photographed him with it, a rifle ballistically matched to the single bullet and the other bullet fragments found in the limo etc. Further, some 10 or so witnesses who SAW Oswald shot and kill a cop and/or flee the scene, an arrest where he attempted to shoot another cop, the gun ballistically matched to some of the shells found at the scene. These actions betray a consciousness of guilt. And, he was found with forged identifications which matched the name of the person ordering the gun he was arrested with and the rifle he claimed he never owned.

The conspiracy crowd has convinced itself that Oswald would never have got a conviction. The precise opposite is true, especially given that most of the easily refuted arguments which would have emerged after Oswald's trial, if he had lived, for the most part would have been tossed out. One classic example is the chain of custody for C399, the "single bullet." Most experienced prosecutors say the "chain of custody" issue would have not been an issue at all and the evidence would have been admissible, which is what happened when it was used as evidence in several mock trials in front of real judges.

You've been lied to, 99th percentile. Took me 20+ years of being a conspiracy advocate to realize that, but there is a mini-industry of advocates whose very being rests on the premise that there was a conspiracy. And they have repeated lies for more than a half century to convince the American public the Warren Commission was wrong. They had enough strong points to warrant a re-opening with the HSCA in 1977, but the evidence pointing to Oswald was seen to be iron-clad, as was the evidence pointing to a single assassin doing the damage, though the possibility of a second gunman - who missed, they concluded - wasn't ruled out, nor the possibility of others being involved. But in terms of Oswald himself, he did it, it's such a slam dunk that those who say otherwise either don't know the evidence against him, or are delusional. Sadly for many in that crowd, the latter is the case. Canada Jack (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I'll take your old into to the current one. I didn't realize it could get worse, but it did. BTW, like most people with only superficial knowledge of the assassination, you focus on minutiae that wouldn't even make it to court. Any prosecutor would simply ask Oswald about his background in Intelligence and the case would fold in the first few hours. Only if the "fix was in" would it have proceeded to forensics, where the available evidence would have been laughed out of court. Please don't try to assert that you know the facts of this case, CJ. If you want a detailed analysis of modern history books and the errors still present (and why such errors are unethical), you can go here and here. 99th Percentile (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"those who say otherwise either don't know the evidence against him, or are delusional." I know the evidence as well or better than you, and I'm not delusional, and I don't agree with your take on the case. It's unfortunate that you cannot allow others to have an honest disagreement with you. No no, they must be ignorant or crazy. Frankly, that's no way to treat people. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Any prosecutor would simply ask Oswald about his background in Intelligence and the case would fold in the first few hours." This is an example of the fairy=tale land that has been constructed by the conspiracy crowd. In 1964, if he was to ask about those ties, and Oswald said he had none, they would need to bring forward evidence of such ties. So, 99, what would come to trial in 1964 about this? And how would this negate the other evidence against Oswald?

"I know the evidence as well or better than you, and I'm not delusional, and I don't agree with your take on the case. So, the fact that we have a witness who positively identified Oswald as the sniper; 10 witnesses who saw him shoot Tippit, or flee the scene with a gun; his palm and fingerprints on boxes which were used as a gun rest and sniper's seat, a bag which carried the rifle - and he was seen with by two witnesses - with his fingerprints; his RIFLE on the same floor; the bullets and fragments ballisticllay linked to that rifle to the exclusion of all rifles on the planet; his fingerprints on the rifle; his lying about even having had a rifle; his fake identity cards which matched the alias used for the rifle and the gun he was arrested with... this " would have been laughed out of court" according to 99? This is "minutia"? Perhaps 99, you could explain the steps of the trial which would result in Oswald's acquittal once the intelligence ties are brought up... ?

It's hard to see how Oswald could have defended himself and avoided a conviction given the reams of evidence linking him to the crime. Murder convictions routinely are won with one or two pieces of evidence directly linking someone to the crime. In this case, we have dozens of pieces of evidence. And to claim evidence was faked and/or planted, we'd need EVIDENCE that this was so, not the imperial wave of the hand from the conspiracy crowd. This is the reality these people can't - and won't - face. Even the suggestion of "intelligence ties" is laughable - even if they found these ties for the 1964 trial, Oswald would still be convicted in all likelihood on the evidence I've mentioned! Rarely has there ever been such a slam-dunk case where the evidence is a veritable mountain leading to probable conviction. But the conspiracy crowd pretends there is only a flimsy and circumstantial case against Oswald. It is like they are in an alternate reality. Canada Jack (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If someone were to say that there was not a strong case against Oswald, yes, that would be downright silly. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, as with the OJ Simpson trial, what may seem like a certain conviction may not end up that way. But in terms of a 1964 trial against Oswald, given the stacks of evidence against Oswald (some, but not all, mentioned above), the unlikelihood that much of this evidence would have been inadmissible (he'd still have a tough hill to climb even if we threw out the positive witness ID - good chance of that - and the chain of custody of C399 - little chance of that), and the irrelevancy in terms of his culpability if there was thought to be a second sniper or of his supposed CIA/whatever ties (even the HSCA which suspected, but couldn't prove a conspiracy AND with the presence of a second sniper, concluded nevertheless that Oswald was guilty of killing the president), Oswald would have been convicted. It`s a pure fantasy to pretend that there was a good chance he`d have been acquitted given that. Besides, if he had lived his "guilty" verdict would simply be dismissed as having come out of a "show trial" and not reflecting the conspiracy theories which emerged later. Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"the bullets and fragments ballisticllay linked to that rifle to the exclusion of all rifles on the planet". OK Jack, here's a challenge. I'll try to keep it an any subsequent remarks friendly. I think that what you've written in the quote above is not true. Got a source for me? Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

One editor has typed about 50% of all the words recorded in the past 12 years or so on the TALK pages for Wikipedia's articles on JFK's assassination. Why the sudden silence? Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Joe, I didn't see this until now (the request for a source on the bullet/bullet fragment claim). For the record, I've just marked 10 years on wikipedia and i think I started to engage in debates on these pages in 2008... Okay, I claimed that "the bullets [i.e. CE 399] and fragments" were linked to the Carcano to the exclusion of all other rifles. Let me be more specific - since I said "bullets" and there was only a single whole bullet found - the bullet (singular) matched to the rifle was the CE 399 bullet, the so-called "single" or "magic" bullet, as were two of the larger bullet fragments found, as were the three bullet casings found at the sniper's nest.

From the HSCA report: The rifle Boone found, a. 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano, was analyzed by the FBI in 1963-64 and by the committee's firearms panel in 1978, as was the other firearms evidence that was recovered. It was determined in both investigations that the bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital had been fired from the rifle found in the depository, as were two fragments recovered from the Presidential limousine. (74) Further, the three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the depository were determined to have been fired in the Mannlicher-Carcano.8 (75) The references are: 74) Report of the Firearms Panel, VII appendix to the HSCA-JFK para. 135-146 (hereinafter firearms report); Warren Report, p. 85.; 75) Id., firearms report, at 131-134.

Other smaller bullet fragments could not be positively linked as they lacked the distinctive barrel markings the intact bullet and the two fragments had. However, NAA analysis determined that the various fragments fell into two distinct groups which were consistent with the single bullet and the fragments linked to the rifle, suggesting, though not proving, that two and only two bullets were involved in causing the wounds to the president and the governor. However, both investigations were definitive in concluding CE 399 and the two large fragments (and the three shell cases) were fired by the individual rifle found in the Depository. Canada Jack (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still not sure the above is entirely accurate, and I'll have some notes when I can finish the underlying research. If I take too long to respond, feel free to crack any jokes that occur to you at my expense, as I've already done the same to you. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Joe - though I know there are some who try to explain this all away, I believe that the experts at the WC and the HSCA were unanimous in their conclusion about the bullet and two fragments being fired by the Carcano. There is room for debate on the NAA analysis, that's for sure, but even there, the results were consistent with what you'd expect if there were only two bullets involved. And with the bullets and shells from the Tippit killing (the shells were definitively linked to Oswald's revolver, there was divided opinion on the bullets as they were of a smaller caliber than the barrel of the revolver and therefore didn't have unambiguous barrel striations), some of the forensic ambiguity is diminished by the fact some 10 witnesses saw Oswald kill the officer or flee. Canada Jack (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I going to say. You got everything right on this - well done. Researching this for sources I even learned one or two things I didn't know. I'll have some concluding remarks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, here we go. First please keep in mind, I didn't raise this issue to suggest your understanding of the matter is incomplete, I did it for me - to see how far the evidence in question goes to rule out a second shooter.

• When we discuss "the fragments", we usually mean (as you've already clarified) five fragments: the two large bullet pieces known as CE 567 and 569[1], and three smaller fragments. According to the FBI, both large fragments retained enough jacket markings to be matched to Oswald's rifle. The FBI's findings in this matter have not been seriously challenged.
• All five fragments were examined twice by neutron activation analyses, first by the FBI in 1964 and then by Vincent Guinn in 1977.
• The FBI's "spectroscopy" analysis has long been criticized as not having obtained enough information to conclude that all the fragments came from the same group of bullets. Guinn's conclusions have also been criticized, even by those agreeing with them (see the linked article in the next point).
• In 2004, another NAA analysis[2] concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by only two bullets.
• However, in 2007 yet another study[3] found that the scientific and statistical assumptions used by the earlier studies were wrong, and did not rule out a second assassin.

Thanks again for letting me pick your brain. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. The problem with the official conclusions is that while the evidence seems pretty definitive, all that we can do is conclude those particular fragments and the bullet can be definitively linked to the rifle in question. It is highly probable that the other fragments are from the same bullets, given that the wounds are consistent with two, not three or more bullets, and it is hard to imagine how a third bullet would have shattered without leaving some obvious damage to either a person or the limo. But it is not impossible, so all we can conclude is that the evidence is consistent with two bullets. When it comes to the NAA analysis, while the technique suggests two and only two bullets, we can't preclude the unlikely possibility that a third bullet had a similar composition as one of the others, or a multiple number of bullets did so. (The analysis is predicated on the then-non-uniformity of bullet compositions owing to the manufacturing process, the forensic technique has since been abandoned as bullet composition is more typically uniform between individual bullets in a batch.) The debate on the NAA analysis usually hinges on whether you can PROVE only two bullets were involved. I'd say you can't, but it is highly unlikely that another bullet would match via this technique. Canada Jack (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016

"Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American sniper who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963."

The description of Oswald as a 'sniper' is misleading. He was a former U.S. marine whose specialty was radar operation. He was at best only an average shot. The epithet 'sniper' suggests this was his military expertise; it most certainly was not.

"According to five U.S. government investigations,[n 1] Oswald shot and killed Kennedy."

There were only two official U.S. government investigations into the Kennedy assassination, the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

"Oswald shot and killed Kennedy as he traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in the city of Dallas, Texas."

Oswald never went to trial, and was never found guilty by a jury of his peers. Assertions by government investigations do not a 'guilty' verdict make. No lawyer represented Oswald at either the Warren Commission or the HSCA. It is also arguable, and has frequently been argued, that if Oswald had lived and gone to trial, the evidence against him would not have stacked up. So-called 'television trials' are, likewise, no substitute for a proper hearing of evidence, for and against, in open court. With this in mind, the use of the words 'alleged' and 'allegedly' should be deployed throughout.

Lemontricycle (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The description of Oswald as a 'sniper' is misleading. He was a former U.S. marine whose specialty was radar operation. He was at best only an average shot. The epithet 'sniper' suggests this was his military expertise; it most certainly was not. "Sniper" is a generic term, and since he is most famous for shooting the president, the word is apt. He achieved "sharpshooter" status which made him an above-average shot, despite claims otherwise.

There were only two official U.S. government investigations into the Kennedy assassination, the Warren Commission and the HSCA. The Dallas police investigated and concluded Oswald shot the president, hence the charge (Nov 1963); The FBI investigated and concluded Oswald shot the president (Dec 1963); The Secret Service investigated the assassination, but that investigation was terminated as the FBI became the lead investigative arm of the Warren Commission. So I'd say the number should be four, at least by this list.

Oswald never went to trial, and was never found guilty by a jury of his peers. Assertions by government investigations do not a 'guilty' verdict make. You couldn't be more wrong. You are confusing and conflating Common Law presumptions of innocence - which pertain to trials - with determination of guilt. Deceased people routinely are declared "guilty" of crimes they are accused of despite never standing trial. That's why we don't call John Wilkes Booth the "alleged" assassin of Lincoln; why we don't say Hitler "allegedly" was responsible for all the crimes he instigated during WWII; why we don't call those mass killers who died while carrying out the "alleged" perpetrators, etc. etc.

It is also arguable, and has frequently been argued, that if Oswald had lived and gone to trial, the evidence against him would not have stacked up. Sure, it's been argued, but most prosecutors dealing with the evidence against Oswald would have had NO problem convicting him. There are something like 50 pieces of evidence linking him to the crime and almost none of the evidence there would have not been admissible. The problem with the conspiracy-theorist echo chamber is they believe their own nonsense, such as the belief that virtually none of this evidence would hold up or be declared inadmissible, such as the Single Bullet owing to arguments over its custody. We have a witness who says it was Oswald firing, we have his fingerprints in the nest, his RIFLE on the floor, ballistcally matched to the SB and two bullet fragments, his prints on the rifle, etc etc. To claim there was planted/faked evidence REQUIRES evidence which suggests this is so. But we don't have that here. And, given the mountain of evidence linking his to the crime, even if we ignore the witness who said it was Oswald (Even the WC didn't think his testimony was conclusive), there is still more than enough evidence to convict him. This would have been a slam-dunk. Canada Jack (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Perennial argument by conspiracy enthusiasts. There is no serious disagreement among academic and journalistic scholarship that Oswald was Kennedy's assassin. The only real debate is whether there was a wider conspiracy. "Allegedly" is a weasel word that seeks to imply doubt where none exists. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the shooting, it was pretty common for expert marksmen to intentionally miss a few shots so they wouldn't get put into the most dangerous positions. I've spoken to some Vietnam vets, all good ol' boys who spent plenty of time hunting and knew how to shoot, who admit that pretty much everyone they knew did that unless they were suicidally gung-ho. Some didn't even hide it: they'd get a couple points short of Marksman, and fire every shot about a meter off. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Any assistance please?

I thought people who edit this article maybe able to assist me with this article. The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union it is being put up for speedy deletion for copyright violations. I have never had to deal with this before.

Any help would be most helpful. Thank you!! Moscowamerican (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

An Issue

Hi all. Please read this without thinking I am some conspiracy nut. I have a big problem with Wikipedia labeling him as the man who killed President Kennedy. While the Warren Commission and other investigations concluded the President was killed by a lone gunman and that the gunman was Oswald, there has since been evidence brought to light in the last 50+ years that at least creates reasonable doubt. Oswald was never tried and convicted in a court of law. And, if he were tried today, it's far from certain he'd be convicted. I believe it should say something to the effect of "is an American believed by government investigations, to have been the man who assassinated President John F. Kennedy"...or "is an American who allegedly, according to the Warren Commission, assassinated President Kennedy"...the word allegedly is important. I wanted to write this before making any edits to avoid a pointless edit war. It may not seem that important, but it is.

Thank you! Cubslakersfan (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Wilipedia summarizes what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic, and the highest quality reliable sources state that Oswald shot Kennedy. Yes, there are a wide variety of sources that put forward other theories, but these tend to be lower quality sources and their various theories are contradictory and convincingly refuted. There is no coherent, alternate theory accepted by academic historians that says that "person x" as part of "conspiracy y" shot Kennedy instead of Oswald. Instead, 53 years later, the best sources agree that Oswald was the assassin. Accordingly, that is what Wikipedia must say as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As for Oswald not being convicted in court, neither was John Wilkes Booth, and we have no problem stating that Booth killed Abraham Lincoln. The evidence against Oswald is as convincing as the evidence against Booth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The findings of Chief Justice Warren's inquiry are legally valid, so there's no 'alleged' about it. Khamba Tendal (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Atsugi

Oswald's service at the CIA's U-2 radar base in Atsugi Japan (1957-1958) should be part of his Wikipedia history. Should I draft an insertion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5198blk (talk • contribs) 04:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to the Naval Air Facility Atsugi. Atsugi is not a CIA facility although it would not be surprising if they conducted some operations there. The article already mentions Oswald's deployment to Japan. Any addition you propose to make must be referenced to an impeccably reliable source, 5198blk. Please do not reference conspiracy theorists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

My proposed insertion: "Oswald's assignment in Japan was as a radar operator at the Naval Air Station in Atsugi during 1957 and 1958 <http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html></ref>. Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation developed and directed by the CIA's Richard Bissell.<http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-u-2-spy-planes-cold-war-missions/><https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/the-people-of-the-cia-bissell-an-agency-leader.html> Bissell, CIA Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Director General Charles Cabell (brother of Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell) were later fired by President John F. Kennedy for their role in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.<http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-nsas-bay-pigs-9328> 5198blk (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is quite sufficient. The rest of it is largely irrelevant to Oswald. Sundayclose (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The third sentence is admittedly a bit much (even though I believe it relevant), but the second sentence is definitely relevant. It provides relevant background and details of LHO's lengthy assignment at Atsugi. 5198blk (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I fail to see how the second sentence provides any "details of LHO's lengthy assignment at Atsugi". For that matter, I don't see how it has anything to do with Oswald. Let's just stay with the first sentence, per WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence in reliable sources that Lee Harvey Oswald was directly involved in the U2 program. And even if he was, that does not prove that his Atsugi service had anything to do with his assassination of JFK which took place five years later. The only connection demonstrated by reliable sources is that Oswald was a pseudo-Marxist schmoe loser influenced by his own crazed assessment of world events who decided to take a potshot at JFK and was a good enough shot to have killed him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"So, for the record, you were the one who "personalized" the exchange" - if you really want to go back to the root of the personalization, it started with your use of the word "inane.

Is there any link between LHO and the CIA in his service here? No. Just speculation, and we can do without that, thank you! --Pete (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: second sentence. If you tell the reader that Oswald was assigned to Atsugi, it is irresponsible to leave out that Atsugi was a base in Bissell's U-2 program. There is nothing is the sentence speculating a "link" between LHO and the CIA. But readers should know about the base's function. After all, in Russia Oswald dangled important information about the U-2 to the Soviets, did he not? Cullen, your rant was unnecessary and reveals a lot. 2601:14D:4100:2864:A5A5:B2F3:67F5:4E62 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign that last post. 2601:14D:4100:2864:A5A5:B2F3:67F5:4E62 (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: Please don't edit while signed out to give the impression that there is another person here besides you. Read WP:SOCK. And there is no rant above. People can disagree with you without it being described as a rant. You need to stop personalizing this discussion. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before you continue down that path. And finally, whether or not Oswald "dangled important information about the U-2" has any relationship to his time at Atsugi is, in fact, pure speculation. You have not provided a reliable source that backs it up. And unless you can do so you need to drop that part of your argument. You seem to be unfamiliar with some important policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH. Please read them. Sundayclose (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Together, these three policies mean that we need a reliable source to state something. We cannot simply tumble in a barrowload of facts and ask readers to make their own conclusions. This is where many of the Kennedy conspiracy theorists come unstuck; they want to just dangle a lot of things in the air and hint that it's all connected somehow. We can't do that. We need a reliable source to state the link, and your average conspiracy blog isn't a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I posted plenty of reliable sources for my second sentence. I did not propose to go as far as adding that, in Russia, LHO dangled information he had learned as a marine radar operator, even though this is documented in Warren Commission Appendix 3, page 693. Atsugi was the main place LHO spent in that capacity, and thus where he had acquired much of his knowledge. I made the comment to provide more relevance for Atsugi's function as part of this discussion. The greater speculation would be to assume that LHO planned to omit anything he learned in Atsugi from what he would divulge. For convenience, I'll restate my second sentence here: "Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation developed and directed by the CIA's Richard Bissell.<http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-u-2-spy-planes-cold-war-missions/><https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/the-people-of-the-cia-bissell-an-agency-leader.html>" No hints there, but a fact that provides a more complete history of LHO than currently appears. If you would prefer that I include LHO's Russian offer to divulge radar operating information in order to "tie things together" better, I will do so. 5198blk (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Atsugi was the main place LHO spent in that capacity, and thus where he had acquired much of his knowledge": Give us a reliable source not your opinion. Read WP:SYNTH.

"Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation developed and directed by the CIA's Richard Bissell": Give us a reliable source that this has anything to do with Oswald, not your opinion. Read WP:SYNTH.

Is there something about WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH that you don't understand? If so, we can try help you. Otherwise this useless discussion is getting very pointless, very quickly. If you keep this up, I suggest reading another Wikipedia policy, WP:IDHT, because editors are sometimes blocked for repeating the same arguments over and over and over despite repeated and numerous corrections by other editors. If this is all you have, please move on. You're wasting your time as well as ours. I don't plan to respond to the same old stuff again and again. Sundayclose (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems that 5198 has bought the line from many in the conspiracy crowd: Oswald was a radar operator at Atsugi; the CIA ran operations and the U2 bomber flew out Atsugi; therefore Oswald was working with the CIA and on the U2 bomber. This is a logical fallacy, given the nature of the base, one of the largest American air bases, serving forces during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Thousands of military personnel served there and went through there, so to imply without evidence that Oswald was involved in the top-secret stuff, one has to do much more than imply a link. No more than suggesting an air traffic controller at a big airport was a spy because the CIA flew flights out of the same airport.

Further, and this is a point the conspiracy theorists like to gloss over, one would expect the CIA to recruit reliable, under-the-radar (so to speak) operatives who would blend in and not call attention to themselves. Yet, while at Atsugi, Oswald was court-martialed not once, but twice. Hardly indicative of the personality of someone we'd expect to be entrusted with these sorts of secret assignments. Sure enough, not only does this "super agent" defect - or whatever - to the USSR AND tell them he'd spill the beans on what he knew at that base - likely very little - this "CIA operative" consents to be interviewed BY THE PRESS, his name splashed in newspapers across America in 1959. If Oswald was indeed working with the CIA up to that point, his utility was destroyed. He could neither be trusted by the Americans nor the Soviets.

Yet for 50 years the conspiracy crowd has insisted that this barely literate self-important twerp whose stated goal was to become prime minister (!) of America somehow was entrusted with carrying out or being involved in some of what would have been some of the most sensitive American operations of the day begs the question: How stupid do you think we are to believe that? Yet, here we are, in 2016, discussing this inane theory. There is a place for these inane theories - the conspiracy page. Lacking reliable sources which state that Oswald indeed worked in these sensitive areas while at the base, it suffices to leave his presence there as a brief mention. Canada Jack (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Stick to the two sentences I proposed and stop making straw man arguments. I gave reliable sources for my proposed edits. That you all go off the deep end re: "conspiracy theories" when some undisputed factual information is inserted suggests paranoia. Present the facts without any conclusions - don't hide them so readers remain uninformed. Let them research the facts and draw their own conclusions. BTW, the U-2 was not a "bomber." Sheesh. And when Oswald was at Atsugi, neither the Korean nor Vietnam wars were active. What a crowd this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5198blk (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And when Oswald was at Atsugi, neither the Korean nor Vietnam wars were active. But the base was active, and one of the largest American bases in Asia, which is the point. It wasn't some dinky airfield where everyone knew everyone - at times there were thousands stationed in and around that base!

But to the main point, just because something is a "fact" doesn't mean it warrants inclusion on a page, it's is as simple as that. Lee Harvey Oswald worked at the base in question, that is a fact. And since this is a page about Lee Harvey Oswald, that fact likely warrants inclusion. Another fact? Secret programs were run off the base, including the U2 spy plane and other CIA endeavours. Which is hardly a sinister thing. News flash, 5198 - The US military and other agencies sometimes are involved in secret programs! And, given the size of the base, it is not surprising that many different operations were in play there. But to be included on the page, we need an explicit CONNECTION to the SUBJECT of the page - which is Lee Harvey Oswald. Otherwise the reader is left with the impression that since the fact was mentioned, there was a connection to Oswald. But no reliable source claims this.

To warrant inclusion, IWO, you need to supply a reliable source which explicitly links Oswald to the programs in question. But since only conspiracy theorists believe this - despite the investigations by the WC and the HSCA, the latter of which concluded "conspiracy," who found no credible connections here - and those are not reliable sources, we can't include them.

Wikipedia isn't designed to "let the people decide," giving them many different views on controversial subjects, it is designed to replicate what reliable sources tell us about particular subjects. Just as when we discuss Evolution, we don't give equal time to Creationists as they aren't considered reliable sources as they don't do what we call "science" per se, we don't generally insert alternate theories on subjects which aren't from reliable sources. We may mention controversies - Creation science is mentioned as a religiously infused reaction to Evolution which has won political victories on the teaching of Evolution, as an example, and claims of conspiracy are mentioned on the main assassination page as claims of conspiracy were instrumental in reopening the investigation in the 1970s - but we don't delve into these non-reliable sourced interpretations of evidence and conclusions on the main bodies of the pages in question, instead those issues are explored on pages which are explicitly from the conspiracy, non-reliable source viewpoints. Canada Jack (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I request that an uninvolved editor close this discussion. 5198blk has repeated the same argument numerous times, and each time the argument is refuted by a consensus of editors. 5198blk, you need to stop this or we'll be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have ordered three books I anticipate will make the connection you're asking for. Please allow me a few days to receive them. It is not a "news flash" to me that the "US military and other agencies sometimes are involved in secret programs." That's condescending. I agree that the U2 was not sinister, but throwing in "other CIA endeavours" as being non-sinister is ludicrous. The CIA, especially during the era we're discussing, was up to all kinds of sinister things. Many of the "arguments" attributed to me in these comments are not mine - they appear to be the standard fare directed at anyone who is viewed as threatening the "lone nut" theory. Sundayclose, only in your world have I been refuted. The sentences I've proposed are 100% true. Your only beef is whether they should be in the article. That's not refutation, it's editorial control based on ideology. 5198blk (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Refuted" as in every editor here has pointed out that your proposal violates core Wikipedia policies, yet you refuse to accept the overwhelming consensus. One more point and I'll leave this discussion for a while and move on to more reasonable, productive discussions. Just because a book has been written about something doesn't mean the book is a WP:RS. Anyone can write a book, and there have been thousands of fringe theory books written on the JFK assassination, the vast majority of which are not reliable sources for this article. I could write a book claiming that the Moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't make it true. Wikipedia puts great emphasis on scholarly publications by experts who are widely recognized as such by mainstream academia. A rule of thumb is, if you can find your ideas in a major encyclopedia with strict editorial control (such as Encyclopædia Britannica), it might be acceptable here. Many, many new single purpose editors have tried and failed to get their fringe ideas into articles. If you think you're the exception on this article, I'm afraid you're mistaken because JFK articles have a lot of eyes on them. Until you can start accepting the policies noted above that everyone here must accept, you'll never get anything to stay in an article. It's as simple as that. There are conspiracy websites that would welcome you input. This is not one of them. Sundayclose (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My proposal hasn't violated "core Wikipedia policies" until, even by your rules, I can't document that LHO was involved in U2 radar tracking. I've asked for a few days. But you already have your mind made up. My prediction - no matter what any book says, you'll reject it because it doesn't comport with the WC report and the staunch "lone nut" dominance of this ostensibly "neutral" Wikipedia page. But the WC report is just another book - it has been slammed and discredited more than any other government-sanctioned inquiry in US history, and for good reason. Your book has no better standing than many of the others. The American public has agreed for decades. The fact that you can't handle "Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation developed and directed by the CIA's Richard Bissell" says a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5198blk (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Every one else here asserts that your proposal violates those policies. Either you haven't read the policies, or you don't understand them, or you choose to ignore them. And consider this a warning since polite requests don't seem to work: Stop personalizing this discussion. Discuss the issues, not editors. That's it for me for a while. Have a good day. Sundayclose (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You personalized the exchange with your "5198blk news flash" comment. That was a personal attack and was very insulting. You have yet to be polite. Once again, I haven't violated any of your policies until I fail to establish that LHO was involved in U2-related radar. That wasn't even my original goal, but I'll try to jump through your hoops. I will post my findings from the ordered books in a few days. Good day as well. 5198blk (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 2016 (UTC)

Look carefully before you accuse. Sundayclose (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

5198 "You personalized the exchange with your "5198blk news flash" comment. That was a personal attack and was very insulting. You have yet to be polite."

Perhaps you forgot you wrote this, 5198: "BTW, the U-2 was not a "bomber." Sheesh. And when Oswald was at Atsugi, neither the Korean nor Vietnam wars were active. What a crowd this is." So, for the record, you were the one who "personalized" the exchange, you were the one who lobbed the first insult. And I responded to the very sarcastic and disingenuous remark about the Korean and Vietnam wars.

The bottom line here is there are clear and long-established standards on inserting information, no matter how factual or well-sourced, to an article. Most basically, the inserted information HAS to be connected to the subject of the article. In this case, the presence of the CIA and secret programs at the base are only relevant if there is a reliable source which explicitly links Oswald to those activities. If, for example, this was an article about the base itself, this information would likely be usable. Canada Jack (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Once again, I haven't violated any of your policies until I fail to establish that LHO was involved in U2-related radar. That wasn't even my original goal, but I'll try to jump through your hoops. I will post my findings from the ordered books in a few days." It should have been your original goal as the material is not germane to the page without the explicit link. And, you realize that you might save yourself a lot of time and bother (and money) by saying which books and which authors you are referencing here, as many of those who claim these connections are not considered "reliable sources." Jim Marrs is perhaps the most prominent example of such a person. Canada Jack (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"I agree that the U2 was not sinister, but throwing in "other CIA endeavours" as being non-sinister is ludicrous. The CIA, especially during the era we're discussing, was up to all kinds of sinister things." One more bit here, and I'll leave it at that. This was a joke, I should have said "there's nothing sinister about the sinister things the CIA was up to," or words to that effect. The fact that the CIA was up to no good is nothing everyone hasn't known for 41 years, and it's not surprising as every power has been up to "sinister things" for thousands of years. But no evidence has been produced which has convinced mainstream historians that Oswald was working with or for the CIA, or that the CIA had a hand in the assassination, so you have a rather high hurdle to overcome to have this claim included. Canada Jack (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC) "So, for the record, you were the one who "personalized" the exchange" Actually, your opening volley was the word "inane." Do you really expect people to shrug off the use of such vitriol without joining you in the dirt? I tried to be civil up until that comment. I'll buy the books and do the research I want without any interference from the powers that be on the LHO page. It certainly won't be limited to the Encyclopedia Britannica. 5198blk (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: Research all you want. But don't even consider the possibility that you can unilaterally decide what goes in the article. I've suggested to no avail that you read several policy pages, but if you plan to go down the path of trying to force something into any article, I suggest that you read WP:CON, WP:OWN, WP:DE, and WP:BLOCK. Sundayclose (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

<< But no evidence has been produced which has convinced mainstream historians that Oswald was working with or for the CIA, or that the CIA had a hand in the assassination, so you have a rather high hurdle to overcome to have this claim included.>> I disagree with your 2nd pronouncement, but I have not made such claims here, nor do I intend to. I understand that I can't "force" anything into an article. That's why I started this discussion in the first place. 5198blk (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If you aren't claiming Oswald was connected with the CIA, then you missed the thrust of the comments here. If there is no connection, then there is no place in this article for the mention of those activities at the base. The reference to the spy activities out of that base are only relevant, given the size of the base and the ubiquity of such activity in that era, if the subject of the article is explicitly linked to those activities. But no mainstream historians claim he was involved with the CIA, and the HSCA extensively investigated those claims and found them lacking. So you are stuck with sources who agree with the premise there was a conspiracy to kill the president, which BY DEFINITION, are not mainstream historians. Unless you have a source which a) claims Oswald and Oswald alone killed Kennedy and b) Oswald worked previously with the CIA. I'd be astounded to hear you found such a source. Canada Jack (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You have gotten very carried away. I haven't said anything about Kennedy, and I don't seek to establish that Oswald was working for the CIA at Atsugi or anywhere else. The relevant point would be that Oswald, as a Marine assigned to MACS-1, tracked U2 flights and, in some instances, communicated with the pilot(s). That's it. Just part of his biography. I have received my ordered books and will weigh in again soon. 5198blk (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears that Oswald and many other Marines in the MACS-1 unit at Atsugi regularly tracked the U-2 flights and communicated with its pilot regarding requests for information about winds at 90,000 feet. Details of the U-2 situation at Atsugi and the knowledge of the Marine radar operators there are set forth in Jay Epstein's interviews with MACS-1 Marines Dale Dooley, James R. Persons, Joseph Macedo, Miguel Rodriguez, George Wilkins, Jerry E. Pitts, Pete F. Conner, Richard Cyr and Peter Cassisi. My take is that these Marines only knew that this was a very secret, high-tech plane that flew 25,000 feet higher than any other plane in existence. While some of them appear to have learned of the name "U-2," I haven't found ANY evidence that any MACS-1 Marines connected the U-2 to the CIA, or that they knew anything about the missions it was flying. That said, I propose that the following be added to the article: "Oswald's assignment in Japan was as a radar operator at the Naval Air Station in Atsugi during 1957 and 1958 <http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html></ref>. Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation developed and directed by the CIA's Richard Bissell.<http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-u-2-spy-planes-cold-war-missions/><https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/the-people-of-the-cia-bissell-an-agency-leader.html> Oswald and numerous other Marine radar operators in his unit, designated MACS-1, frequently tracked the U-2 flights and, on some occasions, communicated with the U-2 pilot(s). <Epstein, Jay: 'The Assassination Chronicles,' pp. 617-619.> There does not appear to be any evidence that Oswald or any other MACS-1 Marines at Atsugi connected the U-2 with the CIA." 5198blk (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As in the past, everything after the first sentence is superfluous, per WP:WEIGHT. We've told you this repeatedly, and finding additional sources that provide no information about the importance of U2 or CIA to Oswald doesn't change anything. At this point the consensus is overwhelmingly against adding anything except the first sentence, if anything. Please don't continue pushing this same argument that you have made numerous times already. Please read WP:IDHT. Thanks for doing the research, but conspiracy blogs are the appropriate place for these details, not Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not pushing an argument. I'm noting that Oswald tracked U-2 flights and communicated with the pilots. That's biographical material. Why do you feel this amounts to presenting a conspiracy theory? And why do you proclaim an "overwhelming consensus" against my proposed edit when not a single other person has weighed in on my latest proposal?5198blk (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Read my comments. I said anything about CIA or U2 is superfluous and should not be included because of WP:WEIGHT. Look at the comments here. You are the only person among several editors who wants to include anything about U2 or CIA regarding Atsugi; that's an overwhelming consensus. This discussion is endless repetition of the same information. I'm again asking an uninvolved editor to close this discussion because nothing substantial has been added for weeks. I'm finished here. I'll politely ask you to move on and stop repeating the same arguments. Otherwise we'll be discussing it at WP:ANI. That's the last time I'm saying that. Sundayclose (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree here with Sunday on this. The citations you've listed only say the radar operators transmitted wind information to some of these flights and tracked them. Therefore, the missions of these flights which we now know more about are tangential and not relevant to this page as, you admit, there is zero evidence that any of these radar operators knew anything about what these flights were doing. No more than, say, noting that a cop directing traffic who occasionally gave a firetruck a wave through was therefore somehow connected to the fire that the firetruck was headed to or had any special insight to the operations of said firetruck or even anything about the fire itself. Since the best you have found is they relayed wind information to and directed these planes - which exactly what we'd expect any radar operator to do - mentioning the U2 flights (let alone the CIA) is mere trivia. Canada Jack (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There is plenty of "trivia" in the article already, but I think most readers would feel slighted if they found out a detail as rare and unique as tracking U-2 flights and communicating with the pilots was deemed "trivia." Let's take the CIA out of it and go with: "Oswald's assignment in Japan was as a radar operator at the Naval Air Station in Atsugi during 1957 and 1958 <http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html></ref>. Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation <http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-u-2-spy-planes-cold-war-missions/> Oswald and numerous other Marine radar operators in his unit, designated MACS-1, frequently tracked the U-2 flights and, on some occasions, communicated with the U-2 pilot(s). <Epstein, Jay: 'The Assassination Chronicles,' pp. 617-619.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5198blk (talk • contribs) 00:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign. There is plenty of "trivia" in the article already, but I think most readers would feel slighted if they found out a detail as rare and unique as tracking U-2 flights and communicating with the pilots was deemed "trivia." Let's take the CIA out of it and go with: "Oswald's assignment in Japan was as a radar operator at the Naval Air Station in Atsugi during 1957 and 1958 <http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html></ref>. Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation <http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-u-2-spy-planes-cold-war-missions/> Oswald and numerous other Marine radar operators in his unit, designated MACS-1, frequently tracked the U-2 flights and, on some occasions, communicated with the U-2 pilot(s). <Epstein, Jay: 'The Assassination Chronicles,' pp. 617-619.>" 5198blk (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. The U2 mission may have been an important Cold War program, but as your source readily admits, the involvement of Oswald and the other radar operators was essentially nil, little more than traffic cops. The U2 work they did probably constituted a minuscule percentage of the radar work they did with all the other aircraft going to and fro - it was - is - a very large base. Using your logic, we should list each and every plane type that Oswald might have directed, we might as well list all military detachments that had a connection to the base when he was here - by singling out the U2 program, there is an implication that he was involved in something bigger - in context, he obviously wasn't, but to show the context would require us to list all the other programs and detachments involved with the base in the time period involved. Which is a huge digression from the thrust of the article - Oswald's biography. Canada Jack (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)