Talk:George de Mohrenschildt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

George H.W. Bush[edit]

Upon receiving notice to appear before Congress, George de Mohrenschildt suddenly decided it was a good idea to stick a shotgun in his mouth. For some strange reason, among his personal effects he had the telephone number of George Herbert Walker Bush, then Director of the CIA, and later President of the United States. But then again doesn't everyone have the phone number to the Director of the CIA in his/her pocket?—172.169.7.101 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for this?—158.234.250.71 06:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After De Mohrenschildt's death, his personal address book was located, and it contained this entry: "Bush, George H.W. (Poppy) 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum Midland." There is of course the problem of dating this reference. George Bush had moved his office and home from Midland to Houston in 1959, when Zapata Offshore was constituted, so perhaps this reference goes back to some time before 1959. There is also the number: "4-6355." "GEORGE BUSH: THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY" - PART 3 of 8

Can someone check the Midland or Houston phonebook in the 1960's and verify this?—172.133.136.218 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the answer, but you know we went to all-digit dialing most places in the late 1960's, so the number probably (almost certainly) dates from before that, to the time when GHW Bush owned the oil company that DeM worked for, and none of this has anything to do with what Bush was doing at the CIA in 1977 (long after phone numbers looked like that) in 1977. Pretty thin stuff for conspiracy. DeM had the name of his boss, in old style, and in such a way he didn't even have to remember the first two digits, which would of course have been some alphabetical mnemonic for that section of Texas. Find me that 2-letter alphabet mnemonic, add the 4 to it, and see if the complete 7-digit phone number matches on Bush's old company or home phone. But if it does, so what? SBHarris 21:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it gets better. There exists a letter from De Morenschildt to the elder George Bush during the 1960's. They are clearly friends from the tone of the letter. In addition, we must remember only family and close friends got away with calling him "Poppy". Everyone who knows the Bushes knows that.—172.163.230.164 19:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so? The man was a gregarious petroleum geologist and businessman who knew everybody (including Jackie Bouvier Kennedy's family when she was s pre-teen). And had every reason to know the Texas oil community as well as he could when he worked there, CIA or no CIA. Read his long autobio which he gave in testamony in the referenced notes to the Warren Commission. You'll know the man much better afterwards. SBHarris 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except Jackie never had links to the intelligence community (that we know of) unlike, Bush, Oswald and De Morenschildt. The conspiracy does not lie in the fact that Bush knew De Morenschildt. The conspiracy is that Bush, was an established CIA asset in Texas during the 1960's. (Well before he served as Director of the CIA) If you believe that the CIA was involved in the assasination of JFK, well you connect the dots....

Remember the Lincoln Assasination was part of a widespread conspiracy. The Jury is still out whether John Wilkes Booth had help from the Confederate intelligence services. Who knows political assasination might be the third oldest profession? Who killed Julius Caesar?

The other side of this is that Charles J. Guiteau and Leon Frank Czolgosz acted alone, so on the basis of those odds, it's 2 to 1 in favor of lone assassins when you get to JFK.

Way too much has been made to people having "links" to the "intelligence community" vs. (put it another way) just talking to the CIA (who gather information on foreign countries sometimes in the most efficient way, by simply debriefing people who've been there, and come home). Bush founded an oil company with a former CIA officer who still had CIA contacts, for sure. But so what? A lot of what the CIA does, perhaps most of what it does, is not James Bond stuff. It's strictly passive. Yeah it does a lot of time gathering "intelligence" about other countries. That means finding out about them. It all sounds so nefarious until you consider the alternative. Do you want the US government to go around in total ignorance of what everybody else in the world is doing? One man's intelligence gathering is another man's keeping informed. As Martha Stewart would say: "It's a good thing." SBHarris 04:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Methinks, we have another apologist for domestic warrant-less wiretapping by the Bush Administration. Benjamin Franklin said those who value security over liberty in the end will have neither. The CIA has no legitimate and legal interest in the business of domestic spying on American Citizens.

The CIA doesn't operate domestically. That's the FBI you're thinking of. And for the record, it was the FBI that de Mohrenschildt roundly hated, and said so at every opportunity. SBHarris 04:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
A Wikipedia discussion page is not supposed to be a bulletin board for debate about the topic. It is supposed to discuss the article itself. To answer the question above, George de Mohrenschildt's step-nephew was the roommate of George H.W. Bush at Phillips Academy in the early 1940s.—Walloon (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

pro-Nazi plot to kill Joseph Stalin.[citation needed][edit]

"Young George traveled around Europe and later claimed he was part of a pro-Nazi plot to kill Joseph Stalin.[citation needed]"

Anyone know where the heck this info came from?? It sounds like BS, but I'd like to know if it is legit.—Aliveboy 11:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It has to be false and provably so, since DeM (as he says in his WC testamony, which is referenced) was in Texas working for Humble Oil by 1939, before Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland (DeM got papers to be mobilized in the Polish army in 1939, but couldn't make it back to Europe from the US, or so he said). I'll remove it and see if anybody has a source or sticks up for it. As for the Nazis, they had signed the non-aggresson pact with Stalin and were best buds in Sept 1939 when they were carving up Poland. And of course before Hitler invaded the USSR in June, 1941. After that, there might have been a Nazi plot against Stalin but by time DeM was still in the US. His sympathies were with the Poles, never for a moment with the Nazis or Hitler, who he hated for having invaded Poland. SBHarris 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo of the man?[edit]

We need a photo of the man. Didn't the Warren Commission publish one? SBHarris 02:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No.—Walloon (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not suicide![edit]

On http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/ you see photos of the dead Mr. de Mohrenschildt and you don't see any exit wound at his head. This showes, that he did not shoot himself into the mouth. Many witnesses in the JFK-murder-case were murdered as well, which was ruled as suicide by officials as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.7.234.253 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There are hundreds of photos on that site. Where is a photo of the dead de Mohrenschildt? SBHarris 22:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Here it is. Warning:graphic! http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=28&pos=32 Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, but still proves little. Kurt Kobain used a shotgun in the mouth and had no exit wound. It happens. I see a huge amount of blood and suspect that the man's entire face is gone. That's also a shotgun suicide syndrome, where somebody puts the weapon under the chin and removes their entire face, but the back of the head remains intact. A few of these people even live for a while (yes, that's horrible). SBHarris 23:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A suicide? Please... get serious. I see that the CIA is editing Wikipedia again. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability and Original Research concerns[edit]

I added the tags to the article since I am not sure that article subject has sufficient notability outside of his alleged relationship with Oswald to warrant his own bio. Further the article seems to use a significant amount of primary sourses which may be original research. I suggest this article could be merged with the List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw or the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I vote keep. The article gets 1500 page view a month, which is not insignificant (it's about a quarter what Clay Shaw gets). As for "original research" because based on a primary source (the man's autobiography) how is that "original research"? This is the old problem of Wikipedia which nobody dares face, which is that some synthesis of chosen bits of material is bound to be done by the article writer, at some point. It doesn't matter if I select bits of the autobiography and sew them together, or if I go to various secondary sources which mention him, and select bits of them, and sew them together. In both cases there is far more material available than I'm going to use here, so I have to decide on my own which is interesting and encyclopedic, and which is not. You cannot get away from that no matter what you do. If I did NOT do that, but instead employed no original thought in my selection of material and presentation of it, I would have to use an entire block of material from a single source. And that would likely be plagarism. SBHarris 07:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Or indeed a copyright violation. Well argued User:Sbharris. I vote keep too. Testbed (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Clearly there is interest in the topic and likewise the article subject, but that is not the question raised, and let me state preemptively that I am NOT seeking to erase de Mohrenschildt from Wikipedia. However, WP:BIO states that among the invalid criteria for a biography is [t]hat person A has a relationship with well-known person B ... [said] relationship is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A). However, person A may be included in the related article on B. I think this may apply here. As for the original research part of this, as someone who's created a few articles here I fully understand the conundrum having to rely on third party bits of sourcing to somehow make a cohesive whole and that it can be impossible for some synthesis of sourcing to creep into the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Surname - de (french) Mohrenschildt (german) - this combination suggests a german-jewish background - maybe !? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.62.67 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:JFKdemohrenschildt2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:JFKdemohrenschildt2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lho-133A.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Lho-133A.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

ALLEGED Assassin[edit]

I said this on my talk page, what follows is an updated version in case no one has seen it.

I did not do the edit to mean that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, that Oswald was or was not the shooter, that the shots came from more than one gun, or that they came from the front or the back.

While it is true that many people claim there is enough evidence that Oswald did shoot Kenendy and while this is the iconic image which has remained of Oswald, that what the Lone gunman theory is...... a theory.

In reality Oswald has NEVER been confirmed to be the murderer of Kenendy, nor has he EVER been confirmed to be the murderer of Tippit. WC defenders maintain that the case against Oswald is airtight, and that were he to stand trial today he would be found guilty of the assassination.

Critics of the WC, on the other hand, assert that Oswald was framed, that the case against him is flawed at almost every point, and that an impartial jury would acquit him in a trial where the normal legal standards of evidence were applied. In their view, not only is there far more than a reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt, but the available evidence shows he did not shoot the President. Most WC critics also believe that Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy.

George De Mohrenschildt (9 H 255) testified that Oswald was an admirer of President Kennedy and had praised him, considered Oswald a man "with no hatred in him."

So why is it not allowed to put alleged on here? Since Oswald denied killing anyone and since there is still theroies on the Assassination of JFK, I don't see why it couldn't translate to this article.

I'd highly recommend PRESUMED GUILTY, How and why the Warren Commission framed Lee Harvey Oswald(1976) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.156.88 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't forget to weigh in also on John Wilkes Booth, alleged assassin of President Abraham Lincoln. SBHarris 23:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The IP is a long-term POV pusher on Kennedy-related articles. I block the IP as it shows up, invariably from the same rather large range and ISP. Acroterion (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning of Holland, pars pro toto.[edit]

I'd like to request all mentioning of the sovereign state of the Netherlands as "Holland" be changed into it's proper name of "The Netherlands". For it is an improper and misleading term, a case of pars pro toto (a part taken for the hole); in which it is similar to using the term 'Russia' to denote the whole of the former Soviet Union, or using the term 'England' to refer to all of the United Kingdom, two other common cases of pars pro toto. Thank you. Renierius (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't think we should make a change like this without consensus on the idea. RudolfRed (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
In that case, does anyone perhaps oppose this correction? Renierius (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Bush address book[edit]

No appropriate reason has been put forth to demonstrate that this passing mention of the address book is of any significance or any connection to anything else in the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article already establishes that he wrote to Bush, so having his address adds zero new information. Traditionally on Wikipedia, the onus is on those who wish to add or include information to demonstrate its acceptability under Wikipedia policy. Until a valid reason for inclusion is demonstrated, it should remain out of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason for including what's in de Mohrenschildt's address book, specifically the inclusion of George Bush's address, is to allow the reader to weigh for him/her self the importance of the association between Bush and de Mohrenschildt. On the contrary, traditionally with Wikipedia, the onus is on those who wish to omit or exclude information. BrandonTR (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The reader already knows he has Bush's address, so there is no need to mention it twice. Your second assertion is flatly untrue. Gamaliel (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Wrong again. You can't reference where Wiki policy says that the onus is on those who wish to add information. Also, de Mohrenschildt wrote to Bush at his CIA Washington D.C. address. The address found in the address book was Bush's Midland, Texas address. BrandonTR (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Gamaliel (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You forgot to mention the 2nd clause of the Wiki sentence: "... and [the burden of evidence] is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." BrandonTR (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
So where is your evidence that this is relevant or significant or has any reason being in the article? Your burden does not end just because your random piece of information appeared in a source somewhere. Gamaliel (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The previous assertion you made is flat out wrong. You said, "The reader already knows he has Bush's address, so there is no need to mention it twice." Yet De Mohrenschildt wrote to Bush at his CIA Washington D.C. address. The address found in the address book was Bush's Midland, Texas address. BrandonTR (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to read a dozen pages of the Warren Report to find out if you are correct. Even if you are, so what? Gamaliel (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
So now you're using your own laziness as an excuse for deleting material whose relevancy you are unsure about. That's cute. BrandonTR (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You know full well that is not the only reason I removed it, and even if you are correct on this small factual point, the other issues still remain despite your determination to pretend they do not exist. Gamaliel (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
So just to clarify: What is your current stated reason for not having this information in the article? BrandonTR (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Removed by Gamaliel is an Epstein diary entry giving info that should surely be available from a more reliable source, if true. It is a coroner's investigation that includes a running tape recording that all but rules out any possibility of a struggle or foul play in De Mohrenschildt's suicide. This info is interesting to me, and I would consider it significant and important for a WP article, but why not source it better?

As for the rest (the address book and who asked for it and how many times) it's a he-said, she-said thing. There is no corroboration, and there's no context from which to imagine that the info would be meaningful even if it WAS corroborated from somebody else. De Mohrenschildt personally knew George Bush from his petroleum days, as we have said over and over above, and wrote him to see if he could help get the government off De Mohrenschildt's back (as he felt them to be-- though there is other evidence that was paranoid at the end). But Bush was director of the CIA and there was nothing he could have done about the FBI or the HSCA, even one or both WERE somehow harassing De Mohrenschildt in 1977. If De Mohrenschildt knows that his old pal or acquaintance is not heading the CIA in Washington, as he clearly does, of COURSE he's going to write to him there. Why not? The address of the CIA building in Washington would have been in the phone book and available from the D.C. long distance operators. I fail to see the thread of the thesis here.

In any case, BrandonTR, I support putting some of the coroner's investigation in, including the tape recording and reason for it. It wraps up the story nicely. But your source for the info needs work.

Finally, let me point out that at the time of his suicide, De Mohrenschildt was "sitting on" a first-generation Oswald back-yard rifle photo, one that nobody knew existed, and which was extremely important historically. That photo is another smoking gun. Here, in it, is Oswald basically admitting his own ownership of the murder weapon, and signing and dating it! All he failed to do was have it notarized. It's almost a signed and dated confession, and amounts to that, since Oswald after the assassination denied owning a rifle, and had told the cops after his arrest that a copy of this same photo from his house, which he was shown then, had been doctored, and was fake (of course, the Dallas police didn't have De Mohrenschildt's unique copy-- one that that had Oswald's personal signature, date, and inscription on the back, including some Russian, to show exactly what it was). So it's a historical bombshell, and would be, even if we didn't have Marina verifying that she took it (which she did). Paranoid De Mohrenschildt by this time probably thought he was eventually going to be criminally charged by the HSCA for obstructing justice and withholding evidence, which he had clearly done ever since finding the photo, years before. He had his wife to worry about also, since she also was culpable in a coverup after the fact by not coming forward. All this makes De Mohrenschildt and his story, including his wife's testimony about seeing the rifle in Oswald's closet, and her corroboration of De Mohrenschildt's having the photo and how he got it (including a copyright notice which shows he was wasn't giving up the the idea of making money from it), worthy of being including in WP as part of the crucial evidence regarding the JFK assassination. But let's keep perspective.

Brandon, this photo itself, and Mr. and Mrs. De Mohrenschildt's testimony, as well as Marina's that she took this photo, all show that Oswald is/was guilty as hell. If you don't think he is, how come all this doesn't make you very embarrassed? SBHarris 01:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful if you could stick to one point at a time instead of rambling off in all different directions. As for your last point that Oswald was guilty, it's nice to have your opinion on this, but this has nothing to do with the article. The article, as the title tells us, is about George de Mohranschildt. BrandonTR (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah? Where do you get off complaining about "usefulness," when YOU cannot be bothered to comment on ANY of my points at all? Historians are interested in De Mohrenschildt mainly for his relationship with Oswald and his photo, not because of his address book. Because of his bad relationship with the FBI (not the CIA) and because of his known covering-up of evidence related to a murder investigation, he had plenty of reason to fear the HSCA and be pushed toward suicide. Anybody in the government who wanted the Lone Gunman theory to fly, would have gotten rid of De Mohrenschildt, and his wife and his photo, many years before 1977-- and had his photo turn up in 1964. But the conspiracy theorists tell us De Mohrenschildt had to be silenced (1n 1977), and so (in their usual bumbling way) the massive government conspiracy finally got around to it, about a dozen years later. They had a string tied around their finger, but they forget it. And the photo, one of the most damning pieces of evidence that exits against Oswald, turns up as an afterthought, at the same time the bad buys are apparently hanging around from the ceiling with Mission Impossible pulley systems so they can't be heard on the recording, and sticking a shotgun in De Mohrenschildt's mouth-- but can't figure out what to do with his wife. Guess she's really tough! Can you see the Tom Cruise character give her the photograph? "Guess we didn't do this in '64, but what the hell. Here you are."
My minimalist theory is not nearly as interesting as people on ropes and pulleys who you can't hear on recordings. And it's not a cool as pulling off a brilliant photo forgery that hits the HSCA investigation just exactly at the right time for maximal impact, 14 years later and capping a suicide. Instead, I have this guy Epstein, who is such a paranoid knob twister that when he gets hold of De Mohrenschildt on 1977, he manages to scare him so badly and convince him that his life will be so screwed up by the FBI and CIA, that De Mohrenschildt finally can't take it anymore, and BOOM! Like most things in life, the anticipation is far worse than what would actually have happened, and so De Mohrenschildt just snaps. After he's dead, his wife gives the HSCA the photo, and nobody really does much, as they're all in full hue and cry over their new acoustic recordings and dictabelt things in Dealey Plaza. If only De Mohrenschildt had known to take some Valium and just let it ride! SBHarris 04:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like you have it all figured out ... looking forward to your next book. BrandonTR (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Right back at you. You want a (missing?) address book mentioned in this article, and an address. And a reporter's experience according to the reporter. Why? Random facts do not help unless in service of some narrative. You haven't asked what either of them had for breakfast that AM, or what kind of cars they drove. Clearly, with this Bush stuff, you're working on your theory and your own assumptions that include the Bush connection. Are you going to pretend you aren't? Oswald being a patsy is not compatible with the testimony and the De. M. photo. I was merely curious as to how you'd pack that into your world-view, but I guess you're not going to go there. Not surprising. I wouldn't if I were you, either. LOL. SBHarris 19:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories do not require a coherent world-view. All they require are some sinister-sounding elements and an attempt to subvert or undercut the mainstream viewpoint. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Those damn subversives! The mainstream viewpoint was that Nixon and his aides had not conspired to obstruct the Watergate investigation. But the release of the White House tapes showed otherwise, revealing a conspiracy. The real subversives turned out to be Nixon and his henchmen who reneged on their oath to uphold the US Constitution. Meanwhile, those who questioned officialdom were vindicated. BrandonTR (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That old canard of the conspiracy theorist: because a conspiracy happened somewhere once, my conspiracy is true. Nope, possibility is not evidence. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
But according to the Warren Commission apologists, there are no conspiracies in America. BrandonTR (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
[citation needed] Gamaliel (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
[citation needed] BrandonTR (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? Stop being ridiculous. Your own statement made that assertion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
[citation needed] BrandonTR (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

[remove per BLP] BrandonTR (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Loads of evidence?[edit]

>>Credible evidence has emerged that establishes that de Mohrenschildt was in the employ of the CIA, that he managed Oswald under the agency's direction. In contradiction to Vincent Bugliosi, Esq., there is loads of evidence that George de Mohenschildt was well connected to CIA Director Allen Dulles.<<

Not only is there nothing encyclopedic about "loads of evidence", we are not given any the so called "credible evidence" that de Mohrenschildt was in the employ of the CIA, let alone that he "managed Oswald under the agency's direction." This is a new low for you, BrandonTR. There's nothing sinister about being employed by the CIA (the CIA employs 20,000 people), but do we have a W-2 form, even? SBHarris 06:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Brandon was restoring material I removed that was added to the article by User:99.30.227.31. Or that IP address is Brandon, I have no idea. That material is cited to the work of Bruce Campbell Adamson, a self-published author who appears to have no credentials as a historian. This obviously doesn't meet RS criteria, but Brandon insists on wasting our time yet again, forcing us to explain once more the basic rules of Wikipedia to him until he gives up and moves on to the next way he finds to waste our time. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Letter from Hoover to Rankin[edit]

I have removed the following material cited to Douglass p.169:

"On October 23, 1964, Warren Commission chief counsel J. Lee Rankin received a letter from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, warning him not to release the FBI's "reports and memoranda dealing with Michael and Ruth Paine and George and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt ... Making the contents available to the public could cause serious repercussions to the commission."

That is an accurate portrayal of what Douglas states on p.169:

"FBI director J. Edgar Hoover apparently did notice, however, that there was a de Mohrenschildt-Paine parallel of a classified nature whose public revelation could threaten the credibility of the Warren Commission. Hoover wrote a letter to head Warren Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin on October 23, 1964, urging him not to release certain FBI 'reports and memoranda dealing with Michael and Ruth Paine and George and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt.' Hoover warned Rankin: 'Making the contents of such documents available to the public could cause serious repercussions to the Commission.'"[1]

Typical of the work of Douglas (and other CTs who cite this passage), the comments are taken out of context to suggest that Hoover was trying to cover-up information that would threaten the credibility of the Warren Commission and its findings. In fuller context, the following is what Hoover wrote to Rankin:

"However, I again wish to call your attention to the fact that many of our reports in the assassination case, the Lee Harvey Oswald case, and related inquires contain considerable information of a highly personal nature which was furnished by our Agents during the investigation of those cases. I particularly desire to point out those reports and memoranda dealing with Michael and Ruth Paine and Georege and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt and the personal lives of those people. Making the contents of such documents available to the public could cause serious repercussions to the Commission."[2]

...and in the same letter referring to an earlier discussion...

"Both Mr. Stern and Mr. Williams at that time concluded that if the Commission publicized such reports in their entirety, the Commission will be criticized for making public information concerning innocent persons."[3]

Wikipedia should not be inserting material from fringe sources that distort context to give the appearance that Hoover's letter was a nefarious part of a cover-up. -Location (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George de Mohrenschildt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George de Mohrenschildt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George de Mohrenschildt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)