Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

Implausible theory

In "Other investigations and dissenting theories", a whole paragraph is devoted to just about the most ridiculous theory imaginable, that Oswald was really a 'Soviet double". Many serious people have real doubts about the 'lone gunman' conclusion. To put this one 'potty' theory forward as the only content in this section distorts the picture as to why many people continue to have doubts. Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the relevant paragraph. This article can touch on the fact that many people don't buy the official conclusions, but anything more than that should go in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or in the articles about whomever is pushing whatever theory. While it is appropriate to briefly discuss the role that Michael Eddowes played in obtaining the exhumation, relevant details of the "Soviet double" theory should be discussed in the Michael Eddowes article... and they are. -Location (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete and Location: I agree too. —usernamekiran[talk] 02:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Roger Craig and LHO Interrogation

The section on Oswald's interrogation now incorporates Roger Craig's claims that he was present during Oswald's interrogation. This is sourced to ratical.org, which notes that the 'book' it came from was an unpublished manuscript by Craig. Craig's claims on the interrogation were hotly disputed by, among others, Will Fritz, who said Craig was never in his office during the interrogation. Craig's claims should not be put into the article without some indication of this. Craig testified about some of this to the Warren Commission, while Fritz has an affidavit to the WC; all of these are better sources than unpublished manuscripts from the internet. Rgr09 (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. WP:REDFLAG is relevant here. I don't see the need to insert primary sources into the article to refute the claims. His claims should be omitted because there is a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Whatever reliable secondary source coverage there is about Craig might warrant inclusion in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories but not here. -Location (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

Note: I removed the apparent vandalism by some unknown person who hid the below interesting comments by means of (how cynical!) a "[WP:DENY] action. Harald88 (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This page is biased towards a theory that LHO assassinated Kennedy. That Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald is not an indisputable fact. The credibility of the evidence against Oswald was drawn into question, as it suggests he might have been framed. I resent the immediate revision of my revision on this point without explanation. N0MINAY (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Do a very thorough read of this talk page and archives, as well as Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy and its archives. This accusation of bias in the article pops up from time to time. A persuasive argument (with evidence) that LHO did not assassinate JFK has never been made. Wikipedia gives little to no weight to fringe theories. Wikipedia gives no weight to personal opinions of individual editors such as you or me. Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources, and if there is disagreement about the meaning of those sources, it is decided by consensus. There is a separate article, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, that more fully addresses ideas like yours, but those conspiracy theories are not presented as facts because there is no credible evidence. Sundayclose (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The idea that Oswald having shot Kennedy is uncertain and controversial is a "fringe theory" is preposterous. This page with the likes of you are intolerant of credible research which contradicts the official version. Any person half familiar with the case knows that it is the Warren Commission that lacks credibility. I have no doubt that compelling evidence which casts doubt on Oswald's innocence would unfaze you, and would be a waste of time to introduce here. N0MINAY (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, the word "innocence" should have been "guilt" instead. N0MINAY (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:TRUTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS EvergreenFir (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is the claim that Oswald did not kill Kennedy considered "fringe"? Because to make that claim, one has to reject the overwhelming evidence which points to a single assassin of Kennedy and to, further, claim without substantiation that the evidence that suggests Oswald killed Kennedy was planted or faked.

Any person half familiar with the case knows that it is the Warren Commission that lacks credibility. And any person who has is more fully familiar with the evidence assessed by the Warren Commission, which was, in light of the critiques of said Commission, re-examined by the HSCA, knows that the evidence strongly supports the conclusion Oswald shot and killed the president and the officer. The WC can be faulted for many things, but the competence or lack thereof of that body does not negate the reality of what actually happened in Deally Plaza. And the HSCA, while criticizing the Warren Commission, nevertheless confirmed that basic conclusion: Oswald killed Kennedy. And they did so with the critiques in mind. For example, addressing the "anomalies" in the photos of Oswald with the rifle, checking for fakery with the autopsy photos, etc.

Other theories are called "fringe" because they a) either ignore the mountain of evidence pointing directly to Oswald, and/or b) claim, with no evidence, that evidence was faked and/or planted. They are considered "fringe" for repeatedly raising issues with the evidence which in large part were addressed by the HSCA in 1979, and lying that these questions have been "ignored." And they reject standard forensic techniques, all the while creating elaborate scenarios without addressing the evidence which links Oswald to the crime beyond unsubstantiated claims of faked evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

N0MINAY, the first sentence of your first post said it all. This is a very biased forum controlled by a small cabal of passionate LHO-solo advocates. This is why Wikipedia should never be taken seriously as an authoritative source; unfortunately, I imagine the general public will never figure that out. 5198blk (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with everyone who has edited this article, but I looked up the numbers and saw that the #1 and #4 editors of this article are conspiracy believers who have edited primarily, if not exclusively, in JFK conspiracy articles. Rather than being "passionate LHO-solo advocates", the others who have edited most in this article tend to be editors who have years of experience in Wikipedia, edit in a wide variety of articles, and are likely to have more familiarity of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (including those pertaining to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and sourcing). In other words, the POV-pushers around articles like this tend to be those single-purpose editors who are passionately convinced that some cabal was responsible for the assassination of JFK. -Location (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@N0MINAY: I agree with Location, and Canada Jack. I read the Warren Commission for the first time four years ago I think. Later I read the HSCA report, and since last then I have been literally studying the assassination. And yet, I still cant make a cofirm decision. I mean, I still cant say for sure what really happened. But the fact remains the same, all the evidence point to Ossy as the assassin. Maybe he did assassinate Jack. Maybe he was framed by experts, with absolute perfection. Maybe he was manipulated by someone or some organisation to do it. Maybe he did it on its own. The history, and documents are muddled with confusion. The more one studies the assassination of Jack, the confusion keeps on increasing. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless an editor is going to suggest specific changes to the article, I suggest the editors stop commenting on this thread, as Wikipedia is not a FORUM. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"The history, and documents are muddled with confusion. The more one studies the assassination of Jack, the confusion keeps on increasing."

Not a big surprise there. Historical mysteries, unsolved crimes, and even some suicides often involve contradictory contemporary accounts, confused primary sources, and secondary sources trying to make sense of it all based on their author's particular understanding of it. Among some cases that come to mind:

• Edward II of England was effectively deposed in January 1327, after losing a military conflict with his wife Isabella of France and her allies. He was imprisoned, though his loyalists kept plotting to release him and restore him to the throne. A second war was considered likely. In late September, 1327, Edward's death was officially announced, without mentioning cause of death. Both natural causes and murder were considered likely. By 1330, rumors circulated that Edward II had been murdered and/or tortured to death. Graphic accounts of his murder were recorded in the 1330s and 1340s, and this became the "official" version of the tale. But the Fieschi Letter (written c. 1337), claimed that Edward II's death was faked, that he had managed to flee the country, and that he was still living in exile. Modern historians are still examining what happened to the deposed king, and have often come to much different conclusions about the reliability of the primary sources.
• Gilles de Rais was a Marshal of France and a highly accomplished military leader, but was forced into civilian life by 1435 and his relationship with the king deteriorated. In 1440, he was arrested on charges of kidnapping a cleric and investigations of other crimes begun. In a sensational trial, Gilles was accused of kidnapping, sodomizing, and murdering boys aged 6 to 18 over a period of several years, and of summoning demons. He confessed under threat of torture and was accused of at least 200 different murders. He was executed for his crimes. A number of historians suspect that some or all of the charges were false, and that the trial was orchestrated by his enemies among the Catholic Church and the nobility, in part to get their hands on Gilles' estates. The chief prosecutor in his trial confiscated most of Gilles' estates, claimed them for himself, and then distributed them among his own favorites. What actually happened is still disputed.
• Jack the Ripper was an unidentified serial killer who was supposedly active from 1888 to 1891 (with some attributing to him an early murder in 1887). The case got much attention from the police and the press, and there are still plenty of "Ripperologists" studying it. There is a wealth of details in records. The problem is that many of the primary sources are mutually contradictory or unreliable, life accounts of the victims and several of the suspects often lack essential details, and that in many cases it is even unclear why the police suspected particular people. For example, Montague Druitt. He was an upper-middle class barrister, assistant schoolmaster, and relatively well-known cricket player. He was fired from his job (for reasons that have not been recorded), disappeared for a while, and then his decomposing corpse was found floating in the River Thames. The verdict was suicide by drowning, though there are even doubts about that. Within a few years of his death, several accounts surfaced that Jack the Ripper committed suicide and most of them were eventually traced to the apparently widely-held belief that Druitt was the Ripper. There is no real evidence connecting him to any of the murders.
• Pat Garrett was an American lawman, bartender, customs agent, and celebrity author who was murdered in 1908. On the day of his death, Garrett was traveling with a man called Carl Adamson and they were approached on the road by another man, called Jesse Wayne Brazel. With only the three of them present (according to the official account), Garrett was shot and killed and his body was abandoned by the side of the rode. Brazel rode to the nearest town, surrendered himself to the authorities, claimed that he shot Garrett in self-defense, and pointed to Adamson as his witness. In the murder trial, Adamson did not bother to testify, and Brazel was acquitted for lack of evidence. Nobody was ever convicted of the crime, but several historians have examined the case. Several of them suspect that Brazel was lying and Adamson himself was the killer. Others suspect that Garret was ambushed and killed by either W.W. "Bill" Cox, Archie Prentice "Print" Rhode, or James Brown Miller, and that Brazel and Adamson was covering for them. At the time of his death, Garrett was involved in a complex land dispute and was trying to negotiate with all five suspects. The suspects were connected to each other as friends, business partners, and even family. Intriguingly, Miller was later discovered to have had a secret career as an assassin for hire. He was never convicted, but was executed by a lynch mob in 1909.

There are many other examples. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is seriously converting into a forum discussion. Which wikipedia explicitly forbids. We must stop.

As Joegoodfriend said above "Unless an editor is going to suggest specific changes to the article, I suggest the editors stop commenting on this thread".
—usernamekiran(talk) 10:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to reiterate on the claim that "the history, and documents are muddled with confusion. The more one studies the assassination of Jack, the confusion keeps on increasing..." in terms of whether this page, given that "confusion," accurately presents the historical consensus.

Again, this "confusion" is mostly on the part of those who claim there was a conspiracy and seek to muddy the waters, and they do so using non-historical methods which is why they are considered "fringe," much like Holocaust deniers are. That's because the reams of physical evidence supports the contention that a) Kennedy was shot from behind, with a bullet to the back and a bullet to the head, and b) the sniper was Oswald. And despite the often justifiable criticisms of the Warren Commission, the HSCA - which otherwise concluded there were likely others involved - nevertheless confirmed those two basic conclusions, and they did so with access to the actual evidence in most cases, unlike the vast majority of the critics. Almost the entirety of these claims are built on the testimony of a few witnesses who say "a" when the conclusion was "b," even though there are many witneses whose testimony matches the official conclusions, such as with the president's head wounds. Typically, physical evidence trumps witness evidence, but for many in this case the reverse is true - witness A is right, therefore the physical evidence is faked or forged. To suggest Oswald had no hand in the assassination requires you to reject normal historical, scientific and forensic approaches. Which is why it is considered "fringe." It's fake news! Canada Jack (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is a subject that interests me greatly. Does it interest me enough to be endlessly reminded -for the past ten years or so- that I'm the moral and intellectual equivalent of a holocaust denier? It's a tough call. Do you have anything add regarding specific edits to this article? If not, how about you stop commenting? Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)