Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

Archives

Earlier discussion archived at:

• /Archive01
• /Archive02
• /Archive03
• /Archive04
• /Archive05

Lee Oswald's right-wing friends

Lee Oswald's mother believed that her son worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. At that time the CIA was going through a very violent period in its history with close connections with mobsters, and right-wing fanatics. The CIA had a bad history of conspiring in assassination plots, bribing the news media, and other lawless behavior. The Wikipedia article on the CIA details some of the history.

Lee Oswald came from a family connected with organized crime in New Orleans and was in the Civil Air Patrol until he was 17. The Civil Air Patrol is an auxiliary branch to the United States Air Force. There he met right-wing fanatic, David Ferrie, who was connected with both mobsters and the Central Intelligence Agency in New Orleans. Oswald later connected up again with Ferrie in the months leading up to the Kennedy assassination. At the time Kennedy was murdered Ferrie was working for a mob boss in New Orleans that wanted Kennedy dead.

This was explored for the first time in any detail by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Ferrie died a sudden death before he had to testify.

Another right-wing Texan by the name of George de Mohrenschildt, who had a number of ties with the CIA and had close ties with very wealthy Texas right wingers, became Oswald's best friend in the year before the assassination. George de Mohrenschildt reportedly committed suicide after being contacted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations about his ties with Oswald. The Wikipedia article on de Mohrenschildt discusses this briefly.

At 17, Oswald went into the Marines as did his older brother whom he idolized. Oswald was stationed at an air base in Japan where the CIA operated its U-2 spy plane flights over Russia. It was there in the Marines that Oswald learned to speak Russian.

Oswald then unexpectedly "defected" to the Soviet Union and then returned to the United States, and got back together with right wing fanatics.

This background of Oswald as developed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations needs to be presented in the Oswald article along with the assumptions in the article that he really was a Communist.

The oddest thing about Oswald is that if he were a Communist, he never seemed to have any Communist friends. Once we get some of this information into the article it will provide the reader other significant viewpoints of Oswald than was presented 42 years ago by the Warren Commission.

There are plenty of sources. Looking back on the "history" of this article, I’ve noticed time and again that reliable information backed up by reliable sources is deleted because some one doesn't like it. One point that is repeatedly taken out of any assassination article is information that didn’t become public until fairly recently:

• • "But when LBJ then asked "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September," an event of no little interest to the inner circles of government, Hoover replied "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there." In other words, an imposter had implicated Oswald in a relationship with Soviet agents, less than two months before the assassination.”

[[1]

I will try again now that November 22 is coming up again and many students and others will be reading the Kennedy Assassination related articles.

RPJ 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ferrie died almost 10 years before the HSCA convened. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ferrie's untimely death came just before the Garrison trial with whom Ferrie allegedly conspired.

RPJ 04:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal to information of Oswald's right wing friends

There is NO credible evidence that Oswald connected with Ferrie again just before the assassination. The witness testimony was later admitted to be completely lied about, or else from people who did not know the men personally at the time, which kind of testimony we've since learned is worthless. All indended comments here are mine, and further margin comments are RPJ's SBHarris 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ferrie died long, long before the HSCA hearings. He had a brain hemorrhage after telling the FBI he didn't even remember or know Oswald.SBHarris 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So? de Mohrenschildt was hardly Oswald's best friend by anybody's account, including de Mohrenschildt's. And what's the point of discussing him? His main place in history is as a recipient of an Oswald backyard rifle picture, signed by Oswald. So much for the fake. SBHarris 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oswald studied Russian informally from the mid 50's on. And never was very good at it. SBHarris 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

de Mohrenschildt as right wing fanatic? Come, now. And there is no good evidence that Oswald had anything to do with Ferrie or Banister, despite Oliver Stone's fantasies. SBHarris 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Earth to RPJ. He really was a Communist. Just not a Soviet-believer by that time. SBHarris 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Communist friends are hard to find in Texas. Oswald found as many Russophiles as he could, including Ruth Paine and de Morhenschildt. As a right winger, De M would hardly have found the backyard photo funny, nor would Oswald have sent it. But he did. And he did take that shot at rapidly right wing General Walker. Does that sound like a CIA plan? SBHarris 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

”Less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to the new President Johnson on the state of the investigation. Noting that the evidence against [Oswald] is "not very very strong", Hoover reported on the tracing of the rifle to an alias of Oswald and other details implicating him in the shooting.

That must be a dictation error. By that time, Hoover would have been saying IS very, very strong. SBHarris 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Another FBI screwup, and another Hoover premature and confused summary, just to have smoke to blow. None of this made it into any final reports. SBHarris 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ferrie would have sailed through the Garrison trial even better than Shaw did, having great alibies. Garrison's lucky the man stroked out. Poor Ferrie's rep is not so lucky. SBHarris 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

— Marina was a virtual single mother with two babies, with little ability to speak English. Describing Ruth Paine as Right Wing seems odd. She was a pacifist Quaker during the Cold War who wanted to learn Russian for World Peace. Something that today would pass for Progressive. I think de Mohrenshildt's friendship would be similar to Paines, sympathetic to Marina and tolerant of LHO. What did LHO have to offer Right Wing elements ? As little as Left Wing, he had no technical skills, no social skills, little prospect of being a mole somewhere useful. Yes, a bright person can fake dysfunction, but LHO's dysfunction goes back a long way into childhood. I don't see why anyone would invest their trust in him. I am not convinced his sad bio was all a trick.Hrothgar 17:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely on Paine. As for George de Mohrenschildt, when I went to look at his Wiki I was astounded that there's no link to his 2-day 118 page Warren Commission testimony, so I went and added it [2]. There's a hell of a lot about the man in there, including his political views, which the Committee asked him about. He describes father and elder brother as very anti-Communist, but as for himself, he candidly says he's basically a pro-lassaiz faire type whose personal philosophy is "live and let live." He says he divides the world up between rich and poor countries (he actually took a degree in economics in which he studied North America's influence on South America), and he had some sympathy for Communism as a system in dirt-poor counties to get rid of serfdom, but didn't think it was a good idea for more advanced countries, which needed to learn business. This is a sophisticated businessman with multiple degrees and languages, whose interest in Oswald was stuff like shared memories of Minsk, where De M lived some of the time while growing up. He said Oswald was a "kid to him" with whom he liked to mess around to see what was in his head (he said what was in there was Oswald's private idealistic Marxist theories). De M was an overly extroverted person (by his own reckoning) who knew everybody everywhere. But he said he never considered Oswald a friend, though Marina ended up considering the de Morhenschildts some of her last friends, probably because the last time Lee beat her, they came and took her and the baby away from him by force, getting threatened in the process (De M. describes this in his testimony, as well as the rifle he knew Oswald had). His opinion ended up being that the US never should have let Oswald back into the country at all, and if was there, he certainly should have kept away from Dallas while the president was visiting. Anyway, I'm tired of editors who read a couple of conspiracy books and then come here and decide to edit, willy-nilly. If you're going to edit, read the WC report-- all 26 volumes. There's no excuse not to, since it's all up on the web. That's where you start. SBHarris 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Was a right winger Oswald’s “best friend?”

• Besides knowing right wing fanatic David Ferrie, who worked for the CIA and the New Orleans mob boss, the House Select Committee on Assassinations pointed out that Oswald considered de Mohrenschildt his “best friend” and in return de Mohrenschildt considered Oswald a good friend. This was odd since de Mohrenschildt also had extreme right wing leanings. His Nazi leanings are discussed in the House Report in 1979. [3]

• The HSCA Report which went deeply into this strange relationship. In fact, de Mohrenschildt felt that one of the senators implied that he and Oswald had a homosexual relationship, but de Mohrenschildt claimed this was not so. He said they were just good friends he said.

• The Congressional Committee’s report noted that de Mohrenschildt died of a gunshot wound on the day the committee investigator contacted him: “Apparent suicide.”

• de Mohrenschildt said he had conferred with the CIA before befriending Oswald and was told “He is ok.” For help given to the CIA, de Mohrenschildt believed that he received some valuable business deals in Haiti. This is all in the government report. [4]

• This Report should help clarify Oswald's background and give substance to what Oswald's mother believed that he was a CIA agent recruited while in the Civil Air Patrol as a teen ager (probably by David Ferrie who was notorious pedophile). This would explain why Oswald was stationed at CIA bases when he was in the Marines. If Oswald's mother was correct, Oswald was an agent that went undercover and then used as a "patsy" by the right wing fanatics when they killed the President.RPJ 09:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

RPJ 07:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• STOP placing comments which have nothing in the reference you use, to back them. There is NOTHING to suggest de Mohrenschildt had extreme right leanings. His "Nazi leanings" are NOT discussed in the HSCA report [5] (which you ought to really read) except to essentially debunk allegations of them, because there's nothing substantial behind them. So that statement is pure insinuatation. De M grew up in Poland and watched his country divided by the Nazis and Soviets, and made a film about that. He had no love of the Nazis (why would he??), though he noted for the Warren Commission that this father thought the Germans were okay as people, but the Nazis were horrid. De M felt the same way, apparently. In Texas he worked with a French intelligence officer against the Nazis (before the US entered the war) to outbid market Nazi oil-leases. His uncle (with whom he made the resistance film) was accused of being pro-Nazi, due to his collection of Nazi propaganda films (Rieffenstahl and such, no doubt) but de M said these were merely for stock footage of the power and mobilization of the German army as film background footage-- entirely believable since such splices certain do appear in De M's Polish film. His uncle was a white-Russian (Germanic) who hoped the Germans would help him regain his lost Polish estates, confiscated by the Russians, but a Nazi this doens't make him. And in any case, this is not George De M. It is guilt by really faint association, in a worldly European. Finally, there's an incident where George De M is traveling in Mexico early in WW II with a girlfriend, and is stopped by the FBI. He's been making sketches of her on local beaches and has the bad luck to be making one of them on beach near a military installation. They stop him for maybe being a spy, collecting data, and accuse him of being a German spy (he has a European accent). De M doesn't even find out why he was stopped in Mexico until the Warren Commission tells him, 22 years later! In any case, at the time he's carrying a Polish passport, and the FBI lets him go. That's the end of it. READ YOUR SOURCES, including the data about De M in the the primary WC report, and later (by which time he's dead, of course) in the re-analysis by the HSCA. SBHarris 18:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted info

I deleted the following information because I could find no source supporting it. Please find a reliable source for it. Thanks

“ On Monday, April 1, after six months of work, Oswald's supervisor terminated Oswald's employment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, after seeing him reading a Russian satiric magazine (Krokodil or Crocodile, named for its political bite) in the cafeteria. ”

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Magic Bullet" : Was Oswald framed?

Now we can give the full picture on each of the alternative theories on the origin of the "Magic Bullet." Oswald claimed he was framed and didn't murder the President. Then Oswald was murdered. Now he is blamed for the President's murder by the Warren Commission whose conclusion rests on a "magic bullet." From where did the "magic bullet" come. The three theories are:

• The Magic Bullet came out of the body of Governor Connally:
  • Although [Hospital employee]Tomlinson was not certain whether the bullet came from the Connally stretcher or the adjacent one, the Commission has concluded that the bullet came from the Governor's stretcher. Warren Report

• The Magic Bullet came out of the body of JFK:
  • A week after the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover told President Johnson that the "matching" bullet came out of Kennedy--not Connally-- when Kennedy was given heart massage. FBI [6]

• The Magic Bullet was planted to frame Oswald, by Jack Ruby (who then went on to murder Oswald):

• • The bullet that is said to have inflicted seven wounds in two men, breaking a rib and shattering a wrist, was found in near-pristine condition on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital after the wounded men had been rushed there for treatment. It came complete with the rifling marks of Oswald's weapon. The Commission was so worried about the implication of a "planted" bullet that it refused to believe that Jack Ruby was at the hospital at a time when he could have placed the bullet on the stretcher, even though [Seth Kantor] a respected journalist who knew Ruby swore to the Commission that he spoke with Ruby at the hospital, a story corroborated by a second witness who saw Ruby there. Skeptics [7] RPJ 07:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, give it up. The idea of the bullet coming from JFK was based on the report of two FBI agents at the autopsy, and was out of date already when they wrote it, and certainly by the time Hoover used it. This is exactly the reason such stuff shouldn't go in the article. The doctors had called Dallas trying frantically to figure out the non-penetrating neck wound and were told of the intact stretcher bullet, but NOT of the throat exit hole. So they made a preliminary guess about the heart massage taking out a non-penetrating intact back-bullet. Only later, when it was found from fibers that the front throat hole not only existed but was an exit, with X-ray air connected the two holes in the neck, did the doctors learn better, and figure it out. (Also, the Warren Commission found the stretcher bullet could not have come from JFK's stretcher, whereever it came from, at least if the man who found it was to be believed). Hoover at this time was still in the dark. So sad. SBHarris 19:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Ruby shot Oswald, after first stopping off to wire a little bit of help-money to a stripper (who cares if you're about to murder a man? You gotta do what you gotta do...). Which act would actually have made him late for the assassination, had the Oswald transfer not happened to ALSO have been late. Great plan, there, Ruby, but you lucked out. And Ruby took his dog along and left it in the car. Maybe he thought it would enjoy sitting out there after he was arrested; or maybe he thought they were going to quickly give him a medal and let him go home with it. Yeah, I see evidence of a massively powerful mind in Ruby, all right. ;) If he planted the magic bullet at Parkland, I can well imagine him getting the wrong stretcher. SBHarris 19:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The above editor's ideas on presenting the three possible theories on the "magic" bullet are unclear. Which, if any, of the three theories does he want to keep out. Remember, 1) some believe the Magic bullet was planted by Jack Ruby or some one else before Ruby killed Oswald; 2) some, such as the FBI, think the bullet came from Kennedy's body; and 3) some believe the bullet came from Connally's body.

Consistent with web site policy, I think all three theories should be included. I provided the reliable citations.

Since, the editor above who might be oppossing the inclusion of all three, provides no citations for the information he cites, nor does he clarify what theories he wants to keep out of the article, he should try to clarify his position and provide reliable sources. RPJ 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I must've missed the reliable citations. Ten people seeing Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital would not consitute any evidence that Ruby planted CE399. It would only constitute evidence that Ruby visited Parkland Hospital. If (however) we had anybody placing Ruby anywhere near the stretcher where the bullet was found (which was some distance from both JFK and Connally) that would be another matter, since that actually might implicate Ruby at the expense of the other hundreds of people who passed through that hospital that day (though even this would be weak). But I know of no such testimony. Ruby was known to be interested in police matters, crimes, and anything going on. Given that, he had just as much reason and to be hanging around the places where things were happening in Dallas, as any reporter, or any interested citizen.

As for any good evidence that CE399 came out of JFK, I know of none. This bullet (unless it walked by itself for 90 yards) had no way to get from JFK to the stretcher where it was found, if you believe the testimony of the man who found it. But if you don't believe him, then why don't you? (And what basis do you have in doubting the testimony of a man who has no reason to lie, and who YOU have no reason to believe is lying? If you have it, cite it). We know the THEORY that the bullet came from JFK was invented by a somewhat frustrated and tired doctor late in an autopsy, to explain apparent absence of an exit wound, and with new knowledge that an intact rifle bullet had just been found on a stretcher at Parkland (but not which stretcher). When that doctor found out next morning that there was an exit wound, and the stretcher was and never had been anywhere near JFK, he abandoned this theory, which now had no evidence to support it. It nevertheless survived in an FBI report made during the autopsy, and (then) apparently in the views of the FBI director (for a time), before finally disappearing forever, except in the hearts of certain people who do not like to change their minds when confronted by new facts. Do you suggest we give all historical theories space in Wikipedia, even those which were made in a rush, on the basis of assumptions later shown and known to be false? Why? SBHarris 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a small number of people that still believe the Warren Report

Above is a person who still believes the Warren Report. That is his right. Also it is proper to put in the Oswald article the Warren Report theory of the "magic" bullet, both where the Warren Report theorized it came from and its odd ballistic qualities. I'm not sure if that person wants to exclude some or part of the three viewpoints on the "magic" bullet.

The policy of this web site is neutrality: In other words all three viewpoints should be included and allow the reader to decide.

Therefore, all three theories should go into the article.

RPJ 07:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably going to regret wasting words on you, but:

1. The idea that Ruby or anyone else planted the bullet is pure conjecture backed by nothing. It is no more a "viewpoint" than the idea that Kennedy faked his own death and now lives on the planet Tralfamadore with Elvis.

2. What makes you think that you have the right to add that phony header to SBH's response above? That's just wrong. Joegoodfriend 08:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You can believe anything you want to believe.

I moved what he wrote. The editor took it upon himself to intersperse what I had written with a number of his comments. That is similar to butting in while a person is speaking. One sees this all the time on the TV talk shows where people rudely don't even let people finish what they are trying to say, but instead try to drown them out.RPJ 09:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You may have yourself confused with Geraldo Rivera. Indeed, on a TV talk show you otherwise wouldn't be allowed to go on with point after point, for as long as you liked, with nobody interrupting you. Also, you're not an invited political speaker at a luncheon here. And I'm sorry, but this is not a wedding at which you're either preacher or bride. You rather are here as one among equals, and in an actual group of such equal people at a function, if you insisted on long speeches to everyone with no interruptions, then YOU would be viewed as the boor, and rightly so. We have Robert's Rules of Order to deal with such boors in actual social situations involving real-time debate (which this isn't). Thus, in your case, I'd leave the whole "conversation metaphor" alone, because you're on the wrong side of it.

That said, this is actually not a real-time conversation, but a point-by-point debate in print. In which it's often easier to intersperse comments to differing points, for ease of following by those reading and adding after. You might not like that style of point by point nested rebuttal, but that's too bad. It's done and accepted, and it's not going to change for you. SBHarris 19:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved his comments down to its own spot and gave it a header. If he didn't like the header he should have made his own. RPJ 09:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll be glad to make offensive headers for your comments, and move them around if I don't like them. But I think it would be a violation of WP:POINT. In any case, as others have told you, quit it.SBHarris 19:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't stick offensive headers onto other people's comments. Consider that an official administrative warning. Restrict your comments to article content and stop giving us your opinions about other editors. We're all well aware of what you think about the rest of us. Gamaliel 07:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

To what do you refer, when you say the offensive offensive header?

And whom do you include within the definition of "the rest of us."

What opinion do you claim is incorrect?

RPJ 08:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your approach of constantly feigning ignorance when you are called on your offensive behavior is both tiresome and unconvincing. If you really were confused about the nature you could have easily checked the edit history where you would have immediately seen the edit where I removed the header you created. You have no problem digging up quotes from other editors when it is to your advantage, so your claim of ignorance here fools no one. You have been blocked for this type of behavior many times in the past. Restrict your comments to article content and do not attack other editors. Gamaliel 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The information below was deleted and no reason given

This information was deleted for no stated reason:

Back in the United States, the Oswalds settled in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Oswald had found a best friend in the well-educated and worldly petroleum geologist George de Mohrenschildt who held extreme right wing views. [8] Marina meanwhile was befriended by a married couple, Ruth Paine and her husband Michael.

• The above information was prepared and published in 1979 by a Congressional Committee called the House Select Committee on Assassinations.[ [9]]

• The citation contains a lengthy report on Lee Oswald’s very close relationship with de Morhenschild. [[10]]

• Oswald’s mother testified before the Warren Commission that she believes Oswald worked for the CIA. Facts already in other parts of the article already suggest that Oswald did work for the CIA and as he claimed was set up as a "patsy" for the murder.

• The citation to the Congressional Report on de Morhenschildt's relationship to Oswald was replaced by information supported by no source; much less a reliable source.

Conclusion:Taking out information based on a reliable citation to a congressional committee report, and replacing it with new information that has no citation to any source does not comply with the policy of the web site that information be supported by reliable sources.

RPJ 19:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who deleted it, and perhaps they have other reasons. But, once again it appears that you are doing original research. Your consclusions are not born out in the HSCA report. No where in the cite provided does it say that de Mohrenschildt had "extreme right-wing views". Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

RPJ, your edit summary said you were merely adding a citation, but instead you removed a significant amount of material while adding your own POV pushing. You can't complain about the lack of an edit summary from others if yours are inaccurate or misleading. Gamaliel 19:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• The identity of the editor who deleted the Report by the Congressional Committee on the Oswald/de Morhrenschildt friendship is below:

• • 14:49, 6 November 2006 Gamaliel (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by RPJ (talk) to last version by Blouis79)

This deleted material is very good:

• If you read the deleted congressional report you will see it is a real eye opener. [11]

• The Congressional Report discusses the very close relationship between accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and George de Mohrenschildt during the time leading up to the assassination.

• The unusual background of Oswald's best friend is discussed in the Congressional Report and will probably be of high interest to those that read the Oswald article.

• The Report discusses de Mohrenschildt's relationship to the the CIA and the periodic debriefings the agency conducted on de Morehschildt.

• de Mohrenschildt purportedly found key circumstantial evidence long after Oswald died but then died of a gunshot wound the day the Congressional investigator contacted him. It was ruled a suicide.

RPJ 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See, but nowhere in your response does the HSCA say that he had right wing views. Cite to the page number where that little info is located, and I'll remove my objection. The HSCA does say that de Mohrenschildt was often accused of and confused with being a Nazi. I guess that is where you are getting your "extreme right wing" viewpoint from, but of course as you know, taken fact A to make point B is synthesis...or in other words...original research. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Start the RfC Already

On Friday, RPJ said he was going to seek mediation on the issues of Hoover's telephone conversation. Instead he is now re-arguing those same points on this talk page. RPJ, please begin the appropriate dispute resolution procedures on this issue or desists from making edits which are against the consensus of editors on this page. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On which topic is there a consensus against me?

Ramsquire: Is there a consensus against me on something? Since Friday, I have been working on a "one-on-one" type of resolution at the mediation. This will provide a good faith effort to test out a fundamental position taken by myself and another.

Now, if there is a consensus on an issue against me, I will also take the time to review the matter. Please disclose to me the issue for which there is a consensus and the evidence of the consensus. RPJ 23:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

One, two, three, four editors on the JFK assassination page stated why the Hoover call should not go into the article. Now you are bringing up the same argument here. Four out of five editors all having the same opinion constitutes a consensus.

As for your claim about being involved in a mediation process, I have a few questions about it. Why haven't Gamaliel, SBHarris, Mytwocents or I been notified? A look through your edit contributions shows no evidence of you attempting to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. Since Friday you have only made edits to this article and the JFK assassination article and respective talk pages. Any mediation that does not involve the editors to which you have a dispute is in bad faith, and a waste of time.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

I took out these two statements. It is little more than hear-say. One is Mae Brussell's recollection of Oswald's denial of shooting anyone. His denial is already covered in the article. The 'fourth backyard photo' story is little more than trivia and the page doesn't suffer without it.

According to the complete collection of Lee Harvey Oswald's last words by Mae Brussell Oswald to his death denied shooting President Kennedy and Officer Tippit.

According to Oswald's mother, Marina Oswald showed her a fourth photo which had Oswald standing in the backyard with the rifle held in the air with both hands. She said that Marina later burned this photo and that she (Oswald's mother) flushed it down the toilet.

Mytwocents 07:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of what is in any of the articles is hearsay because most of what is said is out side of court. There is no Wikipedia rule prohibiting information unless given under oath and subjected to cross examination.

Also, the fact that Oswald consistently denied guilt makes his denial more persuasive.

• I observed a rifle in the Texas School Book Depository where I work, on Nov. 20, 1963. . . . Mr. Roy Truly, the supervisor, displayed the rifle to individuals in his office on the first floor. . . . I never owned a rifle myself.
• I didn't shoot Pres. John F. Kennedy or Officer J. D. Tippit
• Nothing irritated me about the President."
• John Kennedy had a nice family
• I didn't shoot anyone,
• I never killed anybody."
• "Did you kill the President?" Oswald replied, "No. I did not do it. I did not do it. . . . I did not shoot anyone."
• I didn't shoot John Kennedy I had nothing personal against John Kennedy."
• I'm not guilty.
• Don't believe all the so-called evidence."
• There was another rifle in the building. I have seen it.
• Warren Caster had two rifles, a 30.06 Mauser and a .22 for his son. . . .
• That picture is not mine, but the face is mine.
• I did not kill President Kennedy or Officer Tippit

Finally, If Oswald denied killing the president with his dying words also adds additional persuasiveness to the statement.

The reason this kind of evidence has been admitted as put by Lord Baron Eyre is that “ they are declarations made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and when every [hope] of the world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth. A situation so solemn and so awful is considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive oath in the court of justice."RPJ 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And now, just exactly why would a person who'd been shot once in the belly with a pistol think themselves in that kind of a situation? Save this kind of reasoning to apply to the words of the guy on the scaffold about to be beheaded. Otherwise, don't bother us with it. SBHarris 01:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oswald said he was a patsy too. But if you look at the evidence it proves him to be a liar. Just read the section on the J. D. Tibbit murder and his capture in the movie theater and then ask yourself if he killed Tibbit And if he killed Tibbit, it's easier to see from the evidence and testimony, that he killed Kennedy. Limiting the hearsay statements is a way to gain balance in the article. I mean it to avoid tilting the page towards a conspiracy slant, when the facts of the story don't take the page there. Mytwocents 05:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course he killed Tippit. This is a guy taken in a movie theater trying to murder a cop, as testified to by multiple witnesses. So why's he doing that? The pistol he's using to do it provably belongs to him-- he mailordered it. He didn't even deny ownship of it or carrying it. But that weapon was used to kill Tippit 45 minutes after JFK assassination, at a place on near line between where Oswald lived and where he was arrested. Three brass cases found near Tippit were fired by Oswald's pistol. Four witnesses identified Oswald as the Tippit shooter. It doesn't get much better than that. But many conspiracy theorists still will not believe even the Oswald murder of Tippit. That's how you know they are nutso. SBHarris 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have often wished I could have seen Oswald’s trial for the killing of Tippit, given the ease with which any competent defense could have demolished the prosecution’s case. First, regarding the witnesses, the case against Oswald ain’t too good:

1.Helen Markham was plain crazy. 2.Jack Tatum described a man talking to Tippit who was wearing a white jacket. 3.Frank Wright said the assailant drove away from the scene. 4.Acquilla Clemmons described another man as the shooter. 5.Other witnesses also gave contradictory testimony.

Second the weapon and bullets. The bullets in Tippit could not be definitely identified as have come from Oswald’s gun. Whether or not the cartridge cases entered into evidence could be identified as coming from the gun is debatable. Furthermore, there is no chain of evidence for the cases, and if the prosecution introduced them as evidence, the prosecution could have pointed out that the cases in evidence did not have the initials of Officer Poe which he had carved into 2 of them on 11/22. Lastly, Oswald’s pistol had a defective firing pin.

Third, the jacket recovered near the scene and entered into evidence as Oswald’s, clearly was not Oswald’s.

Fourth, all evidence points to the murder having occurred at no later than 1:10. But Oswald did not leave his block until 1:04. William Alexander, the Asst. D.A. in Dallas who originally recommended that Oswald be charged with the murder on 11/22 has gone on record as saying that although he did not doubt Oswald’s guilt, he must have had accomplices. Joegoodfriend 18:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The three main Kennedy assassination theories

The three main Kennedy assassination theories are:

• There was a conspiracy to kill the president
• There was a conspiracy to kill the president and Oswald was not one of the shooters.
• There was a lone gunman named Oswald that killed the president.

Very few people believe the last theory that a lone gunman killed Kennedy. Instead, most polls show the public believes there was a conspiracy and some of those people believe Oswald was part of the conspiracy and some people don't believe he was part of the conspiracy.

• An ABC News poll found that 70 percent of Americans think there was some sort of plot behind the Kennedy assassination and over two-thirds of those Americans believe there was an “official cover up" to hide the truth from the public.

• Less than 1/3 of Americans accept the 1964 finding in the Warren Report that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot Kennedy on November 22 1963. [12]

The evidence supporting Oswald being a participant in the murder and the evidence that rebuts him being a participant should be placed in the article. The evidence will reveal what ever it has to reveal. It is improper to delete information out of the Oswald article because it might, in the reader's mind "tilt" the weight of the evidence against Oswald's participation.

There is no reason why Wikipedia should try, through the deletion of the "tilt" the evidence in any direction. The basic principle of Wikipedia is to remain neutral as fairly present all the viewpoints. RPJ 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as the "evidence" disproving Oswald's participation is from a reliable source, and the edit is done in a neutral way. It should go into the article and stay in. As it stands now, the article is very clear that Oswald denied any involvement in shooting both Kennedy and Tippit. To list everytime he said it and to whom he said it, however, will give those statements undue weight against the physical evidence that rebuts him. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

More Removed text

“ [The WC] wasn't able to establish a convincing motive for Lee Oswald to murder the president . Prior to Oswald being murdered in police custory Oswald said that “John Kennedy had a nice family;” “ nothing irritated me about the President;" and “ I didn't shoot John Kennedy and I had nothing personal against John Kennedy.” [13] Nevertheless,the Commission ... ”

The following was reverted for the following reasons. Whether or not the WC was able to establish a "convincing" motive is something that needs to be cited to a reliable secondary source. As is, it is original research by an editor and also violates NPOV. The quotes (I personally feel they belong in Wikiquote, and not in the article) need to be cited to a reliable source. A quick review of ratical.org shows it to lack some of the listed requisites of WP:RS. One, there is no evidence of any sort of peer review to check for the accuracy of its contributions. Two, the article seems to be extreme in its views. Such extreme sources are not acceptable except as to be used as a primary source. If there is another source for the Oswald quotes, please cite it to that source, and refrain from adding analysis to your edits. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are from a book. The People's Almanac #2

David Wallechinsky Irving Wallace Paperback. Bantam Doubleday Dell Pub (Trd) 1978-10-31. ISBN: 0553011375 / 0-553-01137-5 EAN: 9780553011371 RPJ 00:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Backyard Photographs

There are two schools of thought on the Backyard Photos. Under one view held by experts, the backyard phots are fakes. Other experts believe the photographs are not fakes. The House Select Committee on Assassinations had some experts advise it the photos were not fakes.

The reader can now decide for him or herself on this issue by showing all the backyard photos and get all the photos on before november 22 when the interest of many students and other readers will be heightened.

The public wants to know the evidence on this. Here is what one reliable source states:

• "One of the most publicized questions to emerge in relation to the Kennedy assassination involves the authenticity of photographs showing Lee Harvey Oswald standing in his backyard, with a holstered pistol strapped to his waist, holding a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle"

• "Oswald himself, when shown the pictures at Dallas Police headquarters after his arrest, insisted they were fakes. Through the years, many critics have argued the same thing. In part the controversy was stimulated by a 1964 Life magazine cover of a copy of one picture, retouched to enhance its quality."

• "If the backyard photographs are valid, they are highly incriminating of Oswald because they apparently link him with the rifle. If they are fakes, how they were produced poses far-area of conspiracy. "Faked" backyard photo[s] indicate a degree of conspiratorial sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility that a highly organized group had conspired to kill the President and make Oswald a "patsy."

These observations point out the reasons for putting in the back yard photo's in detail. RPJ 02:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion is that all the backyard photos should appear in the article. To put it politely, if “ the public wants to know the evidence on this,” there are many other web sites where the evidence of the photos is dissected in minute detail. That is not the purpose of this article. Joegoodfriend 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The reader should be alerted to the important controversy

The "Backyard Photos" is key evidence in the controversy of whether Oswald was guilty or whether he was set up as a "patsy" by a "sophisticated" and "highly organized group."

• You argue that the photos should not all be included and argue: “That is not the purpose of this article.”

• Why wouldn't the “backyard photos” fulfill the purpose of this article?

• In fact, what do you perceive to be the purpose of this article? RPJ 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

______

• The problem is that you're going to make the same argument about ANYTHING that tends to implicate Oswald, because you're going to have to find some way that it was faked. Marina said she took the pictures. The negative of one of them found in the house did come from her camera. The literature in the picture is indeed current issues of Marxist stuff Oswald subscribed to. The firearms seen are those sent to his mailbox. The rifle is identified by his wife. It was seen by Mrs. de Mohrenschildt, even though Oswald said he didn't own a rifle. A photo of Oswald with rifle, SIGNED BY OSWALD no less was sent to de Mohrenschildt 6 days after other (completely different) evidence suggests it was taken, and not found until years later. The photos themselves are stereo-pairs (hard to fake). The silver grains in the negative have not been tampered with (yeah, it's Oswald's head on that emulsion). And so on.

  The Entity which set all this up must be the same one that followed Oswald all around and did all the other stuff there's evidence Oswald did. Surveiled Walker's house with Marina's camera and took a shot at Walker with bullets from Oswald's ammo lot. Ordered a Carcano to Oswald's mailbox with his handwriting. Got a nearly identical Carcano to the one Oswald had (same serial number but what the heck-- that's easy) and managed to plant it at Oswald's place of work. Got Oswald to take curtain rods to work. Scattered bullets from that second Carcano in the limo and at the proper hospital. Followed Oswald down the street, scattering expended brass from Oswald's revolver near any convenient murdered policemen on the way, recovered the jacket he lost between room and theater, ate it, and substituted a slightly different one. And made Marina identify THAT one as one of two Oswald owned. Wow, this is some malignant thing. Oswald is not only a patsy, he's the Universe's Biggest Patsy Ever. We'll be forever showing this.

  You know, de Mohrenschildt's characterization of Marina was "bitchy." She had cause, but I say if a man only owns two jackets, and loses one near a crime scene, and the Bad Framers recover it and substitute one of slightly diffferent color, and your wife identifies it as yours ANYWAY, that's surely how you know, you're married to a bitch. :) SBHarris 23:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Backyard Photos" controversy

There are two different viewpoints by the experts: One is that the photos are fakes. The other that they are not fakes.

Lets just show the photos and let the readers decide. The experts are looking at that chin on the photo and decide that it looks fabricated. Oswald said that it was fake the first time he saw it.

If they are fake it evidences a sophisticated conspiracy to frame oswald. If they are not fake it implicates Oswald in the crime.

Presently the article has one very dark "Backyard photo" that is highly disputed and one of the props of the case against Oswald. Remember, this is an article about Oswald.

The article has space. There are already two mug shots of Oswald, also a picture of Oswald in Russia, a picture of Marina Oswald; a picture of General Walker, a picture of an inside of a movie theater, and a picture of the seat Oswald was sitting in when captured. The "Backyard Photographs" should be looked at if the reader wants to make up his or her own mind. RPJ 02:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

____________

• Hey, if you're going to use pictures, use them from both sides of the controversy. You're free to use:

And also a blowup of each one, further contrast-enhanced:

.

And for good measure, take a look of the chin of the top 1959 guy in the montage below. Well, it's really clear somebody with a square chin and a line across it, had been impersonating poor Oswald for at least 4 years (which is what this guy is actually arguing). Forget fake photos, this is a body double, yes indeed. Like the Carcano.

The alleged two faces of Lee Harvey Oswald, according to John Armstrong: American-born Lee (top row) and Russian-speaking Harvey (bottom). The split image at the far right is allegedly a composite of Harvey and Lee

SBHarris 02:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The “Back Yard Photos”

Let’s do this in an orderly fashion.

Presently, the famous "back yard" photos are being discussed because

1) these photos are either strong evidence showing Oswald owned a rifle or strong evidence he was framed by someone pasting his face on some else holding the rifle.

2) Oswald said the "back yard photo" he was shown was not him and was a fake and he could prove it. But, then he was immediately murdered while in police custody. Therefore:

• The "Backyard Photos" will be put in the article right away and let the readers decide.

Discussion of the four rows of photos shown above:

• The cropped mug shot on the top row left is already in the article. The photo on top right is in the article and is a dark version of the Backyard Photo that covers the paste-up of the face between the mouth and chin. RPJ 08:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Rather what you call the photo that "shows" the paste up, is an artificially lightened and contrast-enhanced photo, in which Oswald HAS NO NOSE. That's a clue that it's a bad print, don't you know, and that what it shows is not reality. This point has been made to you before. SBHarris 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• In the second row, the cropped photograph of the mug shot that was was recently doctored to make Oswald look like he has a broad chin. That is what the link says. RPJ 08:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not. No more "doctoring" was done than to the original backyard photo, which here has been contrast enhanced to show the rifle better. No doctoring of the broadness of the chin in the mugshot was done. It's just as broad as in the original. But if you contast enhance lighten it enough, light patches on it do expand, and a line across it appears. Which is the point. SBHarris 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• The picture to the right on the second row is from the Warren Report and shows what appears to have been a fabrication of Oswald's face pasted on at the chin level. RPJ 08:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, since many pictures of Oswald, including the 1959 one discussed below, will show the same features (exactly) if MERELY printed badly. SBHarris 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• The collection of photos at the bottom two rows (with the brown background)does not appear to contain any of the "back yard" photos. RPJ 08:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but it contains a photo of Oswald in 1959 (his passport photo, I believe) with a line across his chin. Will you argue this photo is therefore exposed as a "paste up", too? You see the difficulty. If that line across the chin is the mark of a fake Oswald photo, then you have trouble far, far outside his backyard.SBHarris 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• We should not fear showing the reader the evidence that is so important and so disputed. Those people such as Mr. SBHarris, and Mr. Goodfriend, who thingk the photos are real should be happy that the reader can see for him or herself the photos.RPJ 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

_____

• Let’s clarify one thing. Are you suggesting the possibility that Oswald did not own the Cacarno rifle found in the SBD?
• You are suggesting that the reader can make up his or her mind as to the authenticity of the photos because they saw small, low-grade digital reproductions on this web site. I think that is illogical.
• This is an encyclopedia article on the life of Lee Harvey Oswald. It is not a vehicle for an hyper-intensive examination of this or any other single issue to enable the reader to reach definite conclusions regarding a controversy.
• PS- Why do you insist on starting a new thread over and over when the topic has not changed? Joegoodfriend 18:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we saying the "backyard Photos" are too hot to show the readers?

The point under discussion was to put the four "back yard" photos in the article. Looking at the photos may explain much about the Kennedy assassination. The reasons for including them are:

1) The pictures are a key element in whether Oswald was a "patsy" or owned a a rifle which he denied.

2)The readers aren’t too dumb to look at the evidence. The reader can make up his or her mind about the photographic evidence and don't need us to decide whether they are helpful to the reader.

3) The editor above who wants to keep out the key photographic evidence used against Oswald claims it is a "hyper intensive examination of one issue." But, showing the most publicized, and allegedly fabricated evidence, against Oswald seems almost demanded in the article.

4) Back at the time of the assassination (after Oswald was murdered) some of the news media published doctored photos that hid the alleged fabrication. The public should see the real photos.

5) The problem with fabricating evidence is that, in an important case, the ruse has to be continued as long as there is interest in the case. As long as there is interest in the Kennedy murder case, there will be interest in the "back yard" photos. Does anyone think the public has any interest in Oswald besides his connection to the Kennedy murder?

6) The fact that those who claim the photos are real, but don't want the reader to see them all with all their peculiarities, and bizarre history says much about the problems in the photos.

7) The FBI's director Hoover believed both before and after the Kennedy murder that there was evidence that someone was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald has been uncovered in the FBI secret files. [14] [15] This gives additional circumstantial evidence to show Oswald was a "patsy" as he said. RPJ 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

___________

Where on earth do you propose obtaining the "real" photos for inclusion here? The only real negative is in the national archive. It has been printed in various degrees of contrast to show Oswald's rifle or his face or any given type of detail. Some of these are so bad that facial features completely disappear, like the nose in the WC photo printed to show the rifle better. So which one of these is "real"? SBHarris 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

___________

We will publish the photos the government used to draw its conclusions. The reader can decide for him or herself. There is nothing to fear. It is just presenting the evidence on the key issue of whether the photos were fabricated. Everyone can just look at them.RPJ 03:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough talk: Let the Reader look and decide

No reason to talk anymore: Which editors want to keep the four back yard photos out? No more talking just put your name below: RPJ 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

For putting in Backyard Photos:" RPJ 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as you are not going to start to add POV/OR analysis under it in attempt to guide the reader's decision. Also, please remember first and foremost, this is an encyclopedia. If it will stylistically impair the article, it's best to keept the photo out and create a new (spin-off not fork)article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Against putting in Backyard Photos:

Depends. For, if and only if the photo chosen is printed by STANDARD processing contrast technique, which is to show faces in the most detail and best light, at the expense of the rest of the photo (this is well-known photographic art and standard of practice for snapshots, and has nothing to do with Oswald; your local PhotoMat does it this way). Otherwise, no. I'd agree to two different backyard photos, so long as they are printed in this way. SBHarris 22:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is improper to alter the evidence for use in Wkipedia. We should just put in the photographs as they are published in the Warren Report and HSCA Report. What is there to fear?RPJ 03:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's improper to alter the evidence for use in wikipedia? Well then, since miniaturized, digital, compressed copies of the photos constitute a dramatic alteration of the original prints entered into evidence, I guess that settles that. Joegoodfriend 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I do not know that the HSCA published any photos, and if they did, it wouldn't matter, because we can't get first generation copies here, but can only take the word of the people who have seen them. It is inappropriate to use WC photos lightened to show rifle detail, to "show" anything on a thereby washed-out face. Any time you print a photo to show detail A best, that obviously mitigates against using it to say anything about detail B. Why-ever would you think otherwise? For the third time, why do you suggest the Wikipedia reader be pointed to the chin of a photo printed so badly (by the WC to show the rifle) that the subject has no nose?? That would the silly. I'm going to let the HCSA have my last word. [16] page 55:

Oswald claimed that he did not own a rifle and that the photographs were composites, with his head superimposed over someone else's body.(96) The Warren Commission, however, concluded that the photographs were authentic.(97) Critics of the Commission have questioned their authenticity for reasons generally based on alleged shadow inconsistencies, an indication of a grafting inbetween the mouth and chin, inconsistent body proportions and a disparate square-shaped chin.(98)

To determine if evidence of fakery was present in these photographs, the photographic evidence panel first sought to determine if they could be established as having been taken with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera. This was done by studying the photographs (and the single available original negative) for unique identifying characteristics that would have been imparted by that camera. Once this was successfully done, the objects imaged in the photographs, as well as their shadows, were analyzed photogrammetrically. Finally, the materials were visually scrutinized, using magnification, stereoscopic analysis and digital image processing.(99)

In its analyses, the photographic evidence panel worked with the original negative and first-generation prints of the photographs.(100) Only such materials contain the necessary and reliable photographic information. In contrast, some of the critics who claimed the photographs were faked relied on poor quality copies for their analyses.(101) Copies tend to lose detail and include defects that impair accurate representation of the photographic image.

After subjecting these original photographic materials and the camera alleged to have taken the pictures to sophisticated analytical techniques, the photographic evidence panel concluded that it could find no evidence of fakery.(102)

Now, apparently, I need to repeat this part for you:

In its analyses, the photographic evidence panel worked with the original negative and first-generation prints of the photographs.(100) Only such materials contain the necessary and reliable photographic information.SBHarris 06:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Immediately Murdered?"

“ Oswald said the "back yard photo" he was shown was not him and was a fake and he could prove it. But, then he was immediately murdered while in police custody. ”

The above quote is a good example of the problem with many of RPJ's edits. He takes a factual situation (Oswald denying the authenticity of the photos and Oswald being murdered while being transferred) and then spins it into conspiratorial innaccurate nonsense. If someone were looking for information about Oswald, and had no prior knowledge of this case, they would believe that the Dallas Police murdered Oswald because he denied the accuracy of the photos. This would be ludicrously laughable if it wasn't so sad. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty much a textbook NPOV violation. Gamaliel 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, should and will be changed. Heck, Mrs. Connally said to JFK, as they rode down Elm, "Mr. President, you certainly can't say Dallas doesn't love you." To which he replied something like "No, you certainly can't.." before immediately being shot dead by a nutcase in Dallas. And this really WAS immediate, with a gap of seconds, and these literally being his last words. But no cause and effect should be expressed, implied, or inferred. It's just the irony of history. However, when anybody else connected with JFK ever says anything funny and dies later (no matter what the time frame) the conspiracy people spin it out like it was a murder to shut them up... SBHarris 23:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I took the above quote from this talkpage. But before RPJ protests that my post is misleading, he did attempt to place a similar edit in the JFK assassination article. [17] But this is par for the course. If something doesn't work in one area, move it to another one, and hope no one is paying attention. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Now editors don't want facts included because of their own fears on what they mean

Two editors are worried because two well known facts might be put in the article:

Oswald said the "back yard photo" he was shown was not him and was a fake and he could prove it. But, then he was immediately murdered while in police custody

Are these facts true? Of course they are true. The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported to the nation that:

Oswald himself, when shown the pictures at Dallas Police headquarters after his arrest, insisted they were fakes. [18]

But, Oswald never had a chance to defend himself because a day later he was shot dead while in police custody and handcuffed to two policemen. It happened on TV.

Because an editor has very strong feelings about the subject, even mentioning these two undeniable facts prompted these emotion charged statements that were written above:

The above quote is a good example of the problem with many of RPJ's edits. He takes a factual situation (Oswald denying the authenticity of the photos and Oswald being murdered while being transferred) and then spins it into conspiratorial innaccurate nonsense.(Emphasis supplied)

Perhaps this reveals the editor's deepest fears about what happened, and he doesn't want anyone else thinking the same thing. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is what the overwrought editor is concerned about. Why? Because he goes on to say:

If someone were looking for information about Oswald, and had no prior knowledge of this case, they would believe that the Dallas Police murdered Oswald because he denied the accuracy of the photos. This would be ludicrously laughable if it wasn't so sad.

This editor is wrong to fear the facts and about the encyclopedia rules on what to include. We are to put in the various points of view and facts to support various competing viewpoints and let the readers decide. That is how encyclopedia's provide information. RPJ 05:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

________

Not really. Unless you're hard at work on the flat-earth article (one point of view) which will take up as much space as all the stuff that concludes the Earth is closer to spheroidal. Or the creationist view that humans walked with the dinosaurs. (But take a look at thagomizer and have one laugh on me). SBHarris 06:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do those who want to include conspiracy evidence also believe the earth is flat?

The editor who fears that the inclusion of facts about Oswald's claim of being made a patsy by the use of fabricated evidence and then being silenced by murder, has received support from another editor by the name of Mr. Harris. (See, above) Mr. Harris argues the beliefs there was a plot to kill the president, and that Oswald was set up, is similar to believing the earth is flat.

No Mr. Harris, you are out of step with the modern world. In 1979, a Congressional Committee engaged in a three year study and determined that Kennedy was probably murdered as a result of a conspiracy, and in 2003 only 22% of Americans agree with you. Mr. Harris,[19] you are clinging to the past in the face of overwhelming information to the contrary that is slowly being made public as more and more documents are declassified. Sometimes one has to question old beliefs--not try to delete facts from books that disprove ones old beliefs.

Congress enacted federal legislation in 1992 to open up the mass of secret government records about the assassination.[20] The Assassination Records Review Board points out that not many people agree with Mr. Harris:

"The American public has expressed its dissatisfaction with both the work and the conclusions of the official investigations of the assassination and it was this dissatisfaction that was primarily responsible for Congress' initiative to establish the Assassination Records Review Board (Review Board). Section 3(2) of the JFK Act defines the records of each of these official investigative entities as assassination records. As such, the Review Board worked to review and release all records that these investigative entities used in reaching their conclusions about the assassination."[21]

Mr. Harris, it won't help your cause to argue that everyone but you is dumb, a "flat-earth believer", or must be sheltered from the facts. Please, just stop deleting facts from the articles. The old viewpoint that you want to believe is in the article. But, you’re not satisfied. You want to keep out the evidence that makes your position look improbable. But, the web site rules forbid you from deleting such information. Please obey the rules. RPJ 11:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding an improper "content fork" that suppresses significant information

A content fork is where significant information that should be grouped with the other significant information in an article is not included, but instead, moved to a different article. An encyclopedia is designed to provide all significant viewpoints and information. Splintering up the information into a number of articles is improper. For example, if a picture is placed in an article that supports viewpoint "A" and another picture, from a reliable source, supports viewpoint "B" it is of course improper to delete viewpoint "B" and the picture that supports viewpoint "B."

Likewise, it is improper to take picture "B" and put it in a different article because then the reader will have to go to two places to find the information that should be in one place. Improperly splintering viewpoints and supporting data into a sub-article is called a content fork. It is improper. If a content fork is is done deliberately, it is called a point of view fork.

Main article: Wikipedia:Content forking

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article

.[RPJ] 08:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• RESPONSE. Why is it, RPJ, that each time you quote this, we have to quote what follows, which is:

  NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.[got that, RPJ?] To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

  This means that if the expert view is that the backyard photos are genuine, minority or inexpert views do not need to be given the same amount of space. Furthermore, fork articles are not forbidden if they contain "criticism of common POV" material, so long as their parent article contains and short NPOV synposis of them, and they contain a short synopsis of the parent article: quote now from from WP:POVFORK:

  Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance — or that the person making it has mistakenly claimed a kind of "ownership" over it.

  The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article (in some cases people have even converted existing redirects into content forks.) However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article title. If one has tried to get one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight has never occurred inserted into existing aviation articles and other editors have rejected it as absurd, the answer is not to create Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight.

  In line with Wikipedia's semi-policy of assuming good faith, the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.

  So there you are. You can make a separate criticism article (like criticism of the general expert concensus on the backyard photos) so long as each article on this contains a neutral summary of the other. Each one need NOT give equal weight to each theory, since one theory is respected by most experts (and certainly all I know of who ever had access to primary evidentiary material). SBHarris 10:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)