Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Lee Harvey Oswald. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Removal of JFK's body from Texas

Seeing as in 1963, it was not a Federal crime to assassinate the President of the United States, the trial against Oswald would have been held in Texas. The Secret Service agents broke Texas law by removing the President's body from the state, therefore wouldn't the case against Oswald have been dismissed?--jeanne (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but Governor Connally was alive and kicking. Man, he was tough. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oswald would have stood trial for the murder of Tippitt and attempted murder of Connally. Strange, how the Secret Service took the body of Kennedy out of Texas knowing Oswald could not legally be tried for the murder sans body.--jeanne (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in Texas statutory or case law supports such a disallowance. Related, a decision by the Texas Court of Appeals which the U.S. Supreme Court let stand:

Mahaffey v. State (Cr.App. 1971) 471 S.W.2d 801, certiorari denied 92 S.Ct. 1297, 405 U.S. 1018, 31 L.Ed.2d 480.

"In the first ground of error, complaint is made because the court permitted Dr. Dowdey [the Dallas County medical examiner] to testify from an autopsy report which had been prepared by another doctor. It is contended that the testimony was hearsay and was in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St. and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States....

"The report was admitted before the court but not before the jury. Dr. Dowdey did not participate in the autopsy, but from the report prepared by Dr. Rose, he testified that Dennis died as a result of injuries caused by the bullet.

"The testimony of Dr. Dowdey was relevant and admissible in evidence.

"The contention that Article 49.25, V.A.C.C.P., Article 3731a, V.A.C.S., and Article 3737e, V.A.C.S., as applied to the facts of this case as unconstitutional is overruled.

"The first ground of error is overruled....

"Complaint is made in the third ground of error because the court permitted the testimony of Dr. Dowdey that the finding of cause of death in the autopsy report was consistent with the descriptions of the body as set out in the report because it was hearsay. The witness testified from facts recited in the autopsy report. Based upon his own qualifications as a physician and pathologist, he was properly allowed to express an opinion as to the correctness of the cause of death as stated in the report. This Court held that it was proper for a pathologist to testify to his own expert opinion based upon the autopsy report made by another pathologist over the objection that it was hearsay. [emphasis added] Neely v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 552.

"No error has been shown. The third ground of error is overruled."

— Walloon (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Earl Rose, who also had the distinction of autopsying J.D. Tippit, Oswald and Ruby was part of the medical team that handled the President at Parkland. It was Rose who attempted to stop the Secret Service from removing JFK's body from the hospital. The Secret Service responded by holding Dr. Rose at gunpoint while wheeling the President out of the building. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you supply a first-hand account of Secret Service agents pointing their guns at anyone inside Parkland Hospital? — Walloon (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As earlier as 1967 in The Death of a President William Manchester spent a full ten pages on the tense confrontation between Rose and the Secret Service. That account never mentioned a weapon leaving its holster however. For that little addition to the story, we have Crenshaw's JFK: Conspiracy of Silence (1992).

"When the entourage had moved into the main hall, Dr. Earl Rose, chief of forensic pathology, confronted the men in suits. Roy Kellerman, the man leading the group, looked sternly at Dr. Rose and announced, "My friend, this is the body of the President of the United States, and we are going to take it back to Washington." Dr. Rose bristled and replied, "No, that's not the way things are. When there's a homicide, we must have an autopsy." "He's the President. He's going with us," Kellerman barked, with increased intensity in his voice. "The body stays," Dr. Rose said with equal poignancy. Kellerman took an erect stance and brought his firearm into a ready position. The other men in suits followed course by draping their coattails behind the butts of their holstered pistols. How brave of these men, wearing their Brooks Brothers suits with icons of distinction (color-coded Secret Service buttons) pinned to their lapels, willing to shoot an unarmed doctor to secure a corpse. "My friend, my name is Roy Kellerman. I am special agent in charge of the White House detail of the Secret Service. We are taking President Kennedy back to the capitol." "You are not taking the body anywhere. There's a law here. We're going to enforce it." Admiral George Burkley, White House Medical Officer, said, "Mrs. Kennedy is going to stay exactly where she is until the body is moved. We can't have that … he's the President of the United States." "That doesn't matter," Dr. Rose replied rigidly. "You can't lose the chain of evidence." For the second time that day, there was little doubt in my mind as to the significance of what was happening before me. "Goddammit, get your ass out of the way before you get hurt," screamed another one of the men in suits. Another snapped, "We're taking the body, now." Strange, I thought, this President is getting more protection dead than he did when he was alive. Had Dr. Rose not stepped aside I'm sure that those thugs would have shot him. They would have killed me and anyone else who got in their way." Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Why weren't they as protective of JFK when he was in the motorcade? And why were they so adamant that his body had to be moved out of Texas jurisdiction? Without an autopsy performed in the state of Texas, LHO could not have been tried for his murder. The agents didn't care. WHY did they not care, unless they knew Oswald wouldn't live long enough to stand trial anyway? Another thing which makes me laugh when the Oswald-acted-alone group insist that LHO couldn't have been part of a conspiracy,because nobody would trust a nut like Oswald with the job. Yeah, well the Bulgarian Secret Service entrusted a pretty nutty guy with the task of shooting the Pope in 1981. Oh Joe, had they shot DR. Rose, do you think Oswald would have been made to take the rap for that killing as well? I just don't know how they got away with all of that. The entire assassination was obviously one MASSIVE cover-up.--jeanne (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not touching any of that speculative stuff on the Secret Service. If you're really interested in the weird story of the two autopsies, try Lifton's Best Evidence. Be careful though, Lifton got some things wrong. You might also read the opinions of Dr. Cyril Wecht on the matter. But again, his opinions are at odds with other doctors who had access to the same information he had. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

" Without an autopsy performed in the state of Texas, LHO could not have been tried for his murder." Jeanne, I'll repeat what I said above: nothing in Texas statutory law or Texas case law supports your assumption. For a contrary decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see what I wrote above. — Walloon (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oswald's Brother

Robert Oswald has stated in interview that he believes his brother guilty of having shot JFK. When he saw L.H. Oswald in police custody, he found him strangely detached in the face of being held for the killing of the most important man on earth. This fits a profile: psycopaths do not feel "normal" emotions, such as anxiety or confusion, in the same way as do others. Then again, psyco-sociopaths are known to be able to pass lie detector tests, and I believe Oswald refused one.~~opusv5~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The psychological make-up of a person has no bearing on whether or not they had the opportunity to commit murder. Anyone can fit the profile of a killer, some are detached loners, some are respectable pillars of the community, others are simple thugs who thrive on violence. It doesn't matter whether Oswald was any of these, it matters whether he had the opportunity in 90 seconds to do all of the things the Warren report claimed he had.--jeanne (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the 1 minute 30 seconds is the time it took Truly to reach the lunchroom from outside at the time of the first shot. Oswalds movements were recreated in about 1 minute 18 seconds. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

1 minute and 18 seconds is still a very short period of time to do the things Oswald is alleged to have done.--jeanne (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops I meant Baker. Truly was the building manager. But the only thing the WC has Oswald doing, is firing three shots at a minimum of 7.1-7.9 seconds. Going across the floor to go down four flight of stairs (and these are not long skyscraper type stairs) to the second floor where he encountered Baker and Truly. Also the WC allows that the time frame may have been longer on November 22 because of crowd jostling and other things going on. The 90 seconds is a minimum time. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From p. 152 of the Warren Report: Two recreations were done for Oswald's time to the second floor. One was 74 seconds, the other 78. Two were also done for Baker. One was 75 seconds, the other 90. From the WC: The minimum time required by Baker to park his motorcycle and reach the second-floor lunchroom was within 3 seconds of the time needed to walk from the southeast corner of the sixth floor down the stairway to the lunchroom.

So the WC makes this work, as long as the everyone forgets about the stuff they knew about but skipped: Looking out the window for several seconds after the shooting, escaping from the sniper's nest (which was somehow done either without pushing the 50 lb. boxes out of the way, or by pushing them back into place after exiting the nest), hiding the rifle between stacks of boxes, pushing another full box over the two stacks with the rifle in between, descending the stairs while somehow completely avoiding Victoria Adams, and (possibly) buying a Coke. All without breaking a sweat. Man, what a cool customer. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember the coke machines were slow in those days, and the bottles had to be opened with an opener attached to the machine. I saw a programme today on Italian tv. It seems as if there may have been 6 shots fired at the motorcade, not 4. And Gov. Connally insisted he was still waving at the crowd when he heard the shot that got Kennedy through the throat. The Governor himself was hit 2 seconds later. How did the bullet remain poised in the air for 2 seconds?!!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is some evidence (from Marina Oswald) that Oswald tried to assasinate a prominent right-winger named Walker shortly before JFK's assasination. If this be true, he at least had it in him to shoot to kill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, his personality is irrelevent. The discussion here is opportunity.--jeanne (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good job JGF. As I have said repeatedly, you continually find holes in the Warren narrative without misquoting or inaccurately analyzing/summarizing the report. Yes, the WC allows for the 90 second minimum time but makes room for a longer time period as well. One thing, both Truly and Baker remember Oswald's hands being empty during their encounter, and as for Adams, either the WC misquotes or her or she was incorrect, her possible re-entry into the building would have had to been about five minutes after the shooting unless Lovelady was wrong about the time he returned to the building. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you. Ram's observations are all correct and relevant and I'd love to address them:

1. Baker's run: The WC observes that possibly Baker had more than 90 seconds to reach the lunchroom, because there's no way the recreations could fully take into account the chaos of the situation right after the assassination. A good point.

2. Who was Victoria Adams? Adams and Sandra Styles watched the motorcade from the fourth floor and descended the same staircase used by Oswald after the assassination. According to Adams, they were on the staircase 30 to 60 seconds after the shooting, and she saw and heard no one. The WC chose to concluded that Adams was mistaken, and that she had not descended the staircase for several minutes. They discounted Adams' testimony because she also claimed to see Billy Lovelady immediately upon her arrival on the the first floor. Lovelady had made a statement in April of 1964 that he had immediately left the SBD after the shooting, and did not return for several minutes. However, the WC chose to accept this later account from Lovelady, and ignore his sworn affidavit given on the day of the assassination, in which he stated that immediately after the shooting he went back into the SBD to help direct police officers. This earlier account is completely consistent with Victoria Adams statement.

3. What about the Coke bottle? In Baker's WC testimony, he stated that Oswald had nothing in his hands when he encountered him in the lunchroom. However, Baker subsequently submitted a handwritten statement, in which he wrote of Oswald, "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom, drinking a Coke." The words "drinking a Coke" were subsequently scratched out and initialed by the officer. Very confusing. What we do know is, Oswald's next move was not to leave the building, but to casually stroll past the desk of SBD employee Mrs. R. Reid, while drinking a Coke from the lunchroom.

This affair has given rise to my favorite conspiracy theory of all time, "The Coca-Cola Theory." J.I. Rodale, the editor of Organic Gardening and Farming, suggested in the 1960's that Oswald assassinated JFK due to mental impairment stemming from an addiction to refined sugar, as evidenced by his need for his favorite beverage immediately after the assassination. I guess it's too bad that Coke didn't switch to corn syrup sooner, or JFK might have lived. On the other hand, Oswald might still have been able to obtain sugar-sweetened Coke on his trip to Mexico. Hmm. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That explains why I'm slightly mad. Wasn't Lovelady the man seen in front of the TSBD as the motorcade was passing? I've seen the photo which was taken at that moment and he's there on the left.--jeanne (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The big issue with the WC "conclusions" on the time it took for Baker and Truly to meet up with Oswald is that it is inconsistent to the point of not meaning anything. It says the maximum time for their recreation is 90 seconds, but then says but it could have taken longer. In effect, nullifying their conclusion by saying two things at once. And jeanne yes, that was concluded to be Lovelady. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the Coke theory, you have to admit Oswald drinking the Coke, and then a bottle being pictured on the retaining wall by the knoll, can't just be coincidence. Can it? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Of course, Coke might be the patsy. I've never trusted PepsiCo. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

South-east corner window

I just saw a documentary on Italian television regarding the JFK assassination. It showed a photo taken of the TSBD, minutes after the assassination. The only window that was open was the south-east corner window, allegedly used by Oswald to fire at the motorcade. If this window was the only one open in the entire row of windows, we can safely presume that the shooter opened it himself thereby leaving prints. It would be a really far stretch of the imagination to say that Oswald had been lucky again in finding that some other employee had kindly left it open for him earlier, yet had not bothered to open any other windows. Remember November in Texas is quite cool. SO WHERE ARE THE PRINTS? None were found, so obviously that can only mean that the shooter (notice I do not say assassin), or someone who came up later, wiped away the prints. Now if that person was our Russian-speaking, Marxist, ex-Marine warehouse clerk by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald, well that just adds another activity he managed to complete in the narrow 90 seconds-1 minute, 18 seconds time margin allocated him by the Warren Commission.--jeanne (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne, it is a matter of public record that Dallas was unseasonably warm that day. The weather predicted that it would be cool, hence Jackie's wool coat, but it was a warm day. So first, anyone could have opened that window! Also fingerprints are not always easily left all over the place. Second, you are ignoring the prints that were found in that area, by focusing on this window argument. Third, if he did wipe away prints, as you speculate, clearly he didn't do a good job as several were found in the nearby boxes and on the rifle. Fourth, and as a matter of personal knowledge, I can tell you that if any prints were found on the window that matched Oswald's it wouldn't be as probative as you believe. Any defense counsel worth his salt would simply argue "of course LHO prints were there, he had worked at the company for weeks." I also imagine that LHO's prints would have existed alongside the numerous people who worked for the company. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It was the only window open and opened less than half-way, allowing enough space for a rifleman. By your argument, then it was logical for LHO to leave prints on the boxes as well, seeing as he would have touched the boxes during his course of work. The rifle only contained one print, on the inside. A lawyer would have gone berserk over that one. Oh, did they find the cloth he used to wipe down the gun?--jeanne (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if there was a trial and no murder weapon was found, the prints on the boxes would not be that probative. But combined with the other evidence, that was found, it makes the window argument less necessary. Clearly, if there were prints on the gun, the boxes, the window, and a rag found with prints on it, it would be even more of a slam dunk. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The only print found on the gun was on the INSIDE. Only two of the boxes had prints. Not much evidence to convict a man, especially as nobody SAW Oswald fire at the motorcade.--jeanne (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Prints were found on the barrel, wooden stock, and trigger housing. Among the witnesses who saw a man fire from the TSBD was Brennan (whose description of the man led the police to Oswald), Amos Lee Euins, and Robert H. Jackson. Malcolm O. Couch saw a rifle in the window after noticing two black workers in the fifth floor window straining to look above them, and there are other witnesses who saw various glimpses of the shooting in progress. Last thing, prints alone would not be enough to convict Oswald. But the prints in connection with the eyewitness testimony, and the forensics evidence linking Oswalds Carcano to the crime to the exclusion of all other guns is more than enough to find him guilty. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "is there enough evidence to get a conviction" and "Oswald really was the lone assassin."

Defense of the WR often falls back on Howard Brennan. To me, Brennan's "identification" of Oswald can be dismissed. It's true that by 12:45, police had broadcast the description of a suspect including height, weight, age, and physical build. The WC chose to presume that this description had come from Brennan. There's no evidence that it actually did. If Brennan was looking up at the sixth floor he would have seen, at most, Oswald's head and shoulders. And I just don't buy a man with questionable eyesight making a positive identification from 120 feet away.

And I certainly don't buy the "Oswald's Cacarno to the exclusion of all other evidence" conclusion. The head shot was clearly a fragmentation bullet, not a sniper rifle bullet of the kind used by the Cacarno. And only the stone-age science of the 1960's would lead to the conclusion that all the recovered bullet fragments came from the same "batch" of bullets. Modern analysis suggests otherwise [1]. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that it was CE399 that was matched to the Carcano to the "exclusion of all others" and the fragments of the other bullet(s) found show they were from the same batch? As for proof of a lone assassin, I'm not well versed enough to prove that, and the WC with its faults isn't really that helpful. It's a good thing I'm only trying to point out that there was enough evidence to get a conviction-- despite the claims of others. I've always made room for the fact that Oswald could have been helped... a conspiracy of two nuts. However, in my opinion, any search for conspiracy has to begin with Oswald, as the evidence and the inferences you can make from that evidence indicate he was much more than just a patsy. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Lewis Addition

I tagged it because although there isn't really any doubt that these claims were made, I am not sure they belong in this article. This appears to be a Roscoe white type of thing where someone makes an unverified claim to be a witness to history. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This book by Ron Lewis was published by "Lewcom Productions", so I've removed the material as it's from a self-published book. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Backyard photos

Can we categorically state that Marina Oswald took the "backyard photographs" given that in her testimonies the number of pictures taken changes. When first questioned she is very precise and said she had taken ONLY ONE photograph, 133-A, which subsequently appeared on the cover of Life Magazine. We know this to be a false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The text of the article addresses the fact that critics have questioned both the origin and authenticity of the photographs. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The text clearly states that Marina Oswald took the pictures, this is disputed given that she had no idea how many photographs are in existance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.79.51 (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The text as written is acceptable as long as it is backed by a citation from a reliable source. This article is a biography of Lee Harvey Oswald. Material on the minutiae of the debate regarding the authenticity of the photographs (possibly) belongs in the articles on Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or the HSCA. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The old photo is in the news again: "Dartmouth scientist says Oswald rifle photo real" by Holly Ramer, Associated Press Writer – Thu Nov 5, 6:19 pm ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_re_us/us_oswald_photo Шизомби (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible motives

The Warren Commission gives the possible motives of LHO for the assassination, which are very weak and do not hold up to closer scrutiny. For example, if Oswald shot Kennedy to gain a place in history, he would have shot him as the motorcade directly faced the TSBD and could not miss hitting him. He wouldn't have tried to escape either. This motive, therefore, crumbles into dust. As for being a Marxist, why would a committed Marxist want to replace Kennedy with Johnson, who was far more conservative than JFK? Doesn't make sense either. We can safely say that Lee Harvey Oswald had no motive for killing President Kennedy. This removes the motive, now all we're left with is the means and opportunity, which is the mail-order 1890-vintage Carcano rifle and eight seconds to fire three shots at a moving target from a rusted scope with a large oak tree in the way. Too bad the WC didn't employ the services of Lt. Columbo.--jeanne (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Officer Tippit

The article fails to mention why Tippit stopped Oswald in Oak Cliff. Yes, The WC claimed it was the highly-accurate description provided by Howard Brennan, which the police subsequently relayed via radio to all policemen in the greater Dallas area: white man, 5'10, 165 pounds, slender build, approximately 30 years old,. They also said that the suspect was believed to be armed with a 30.caliber rifle. Ok, let's digest this bit by bit, shall we? Starting with the last: Oswald was not armed with a 30.caliber rifle-how the police could have presumed the assassin would attempt to walk the streets of Dallas armed with a rifle, especially as his rifle was found hidden behind boxes at the TSBD is beyond comprehension. Also remember Officer Baker encountered Oswald on the 2nd floor of the TSBD sans rifle! Ok, so that part's easily eliminated. Now, for the age and weight. Oswald was only 24 and didn't look 30. That's a good six years age difference. Not many 24 years olds can be mistaken for thirty. He did not weigh 165, but instead 15 pounds less. So that just leaves a slender white man of 5'10. How many people all over Dallas fitted that description? Besides, Tippit in his patrol car approached him from BEHIND. According to author Michael T. Griffith, none of the witnesses who saw Officer Tippit's assailant, described him as "acting strange or suspicious" prior to the shooting. So, why did an ordinary policeman cruising around in his patrol car, become suddenly inspired with the notion that the slender white man walking ahead of him along a residential street, three miles from the scene of the crime, was the assassin of the most powerful man on the planet? A lightning bolt from heaven? ESP? The ghost of JFK whispering in his ear? The article fails to address this issue entirely.--jeanne (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC

I reckon it could be added, with reliable sources backing it. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point about the WALKING part. If they (cops) did not know who they had to find, then why would a cop stop a WALKING mand when you would think that he would look for someone in a car? Besides, witnesses said that the guy spoke with Tippit and then the action took place. It appears as if they must have known each other and then something happened to cause the murder - a murder which seemed as if it HAD to happen. That is, Tippit HAD to be killed, not just stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.176.58 (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article doesn't state why tippit stopped Oswald because we aren't allowed to post speculation. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But any reader would wonder how a cop with only a 10th grade education would be astute enough to spot the President's assassin from BEHIND? The article should contain this fact, Ramsquire. And it is a fact that Oswald and Tippit were moving in the same eastwardly direction, so Tippit could not possibly have seen his face until he pulled up alongside him.--jeanne (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Start a blog and you could put up all your musings. But here you need reliable sources, otherwise it's just original research. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the fact that here, on this article, the only reliable source that's accepted is the Warren Report so we never really get past Go, do we?--jeanne (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice use of a straw man. I'll respond further when you have something of substance to discuss. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty insulting to imply that someone with "only a 10th grade education" was stupid. Are you saying with a higher education Tippit could have better recognized Oswald? Tippit had two years of vocational training before he was hired as a police officer, and served as a patrol cop for eleven years before he was killed. Second point: There are numerous citations in this article that are not from the Warren Report (remember, the Report is one volume long; there are 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits), or the Warren Commission. Take a look. Third point: there is evidence that Oswald was walking west on Tenth St., and turned around and began walking the opposite direction, away from Tippit's squad car, which was traveling east, when Tippit approached him. Half of the witnesses who saw Oswald on Tenth (before he met Tippit) said he was walking west; the other half of the witnesses, who saw Oswald only as he encountered Tippit, said he was traveling or facing east. See the section Why Tippit stopped Oswald of Dale K. Myers' blog. Myers wrote an entire book about the Tippit killing. — Walloon (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my questions as to Tippit's reason for stopping Oswald show substance, if you don't mind me defending myself, Ramsquire. PS, I don' take put-downs too well. Walloon, I didn't mean to appear insulting when I mentioned Tippit's 10th grade education. Today, however, a drop-out wouldn't be able to join the military or police force. The article clearly states that Tippit pulled up behind Oswald.--jeanne (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Myers did a fine job in that book. I'm glad a got a copy before the price went to $130 on amazon! I have only one beef with him. Note that in the article he says, The shortest route, which ends with Oswald headed westbound on Tenth, would have Oswald leaving his rooming house headed south on Beckley to Davis, east to Patton, southeast on Patton to Tenth, and east on Tenth to a point near Marsalis Avenue. At that point, Oswald would double back on his route, heading back west on Tenth to the scene of the Tippit shooting at 404 E. Tenth. The total time for the trip would be about 13.5 minutes – which fits the time period available.

Oswald only had ten minutes tops to cover the distance. He must have gotten a ride. That would also explain why Oswald was last seen before the shooting by his landlady standing on the corner outside his roominghouse (waiting for a ride), and why no one saw him between the roominghouse and the crime scene (many saw him fleeing from the crime scene). Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

About your statement that "Oswald only had ten minutes top to cover the distance", I disagree. The outer boundaries of when Oswald arrived at his rooming house, and when Tippit could have been shot are 12:55 p.m. and 1:16 p.m. respectively. The House Select Committee on Assassinations, in its reconstruction of the event, concluded Oswald arrived at “approximately 12:55 P.M.” His housekeeper, who saw him enter and leave, was trying to watch the assassination news on TV and adjust the picture when he came in. She gave no indiction that she looked at a watch or clock to note when Oswald entered:

Mr. BALL. You were working with the television?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I was trying to clear it up to see what was happening and try to find out about President Kennedy.

Mr. BALL. Why did you say to this man as he came in, "You are in a hurry,"why did you say that?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, he just never has come in and he was walking unusually fast and he just hadn't been that way and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry."

Mr. BALL. You mean he was walking faster than he usually was?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

. . . .

Mr. BALL. Can you tell me what time it was approximately that Oswald came in?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot — what time I wouldn't want to say…

The only actions Oswald is known to have taken in his closet-sized bedroom were to get his revolver and some bullets, and put on a jacket, both of which could have been accomplished in 3 minutes or less. Add a minute for Oswald to linger on the corner, where Mrs. Roberts last saw him, and it's still only about 1:00 p.m. The latest Tippit could have been shot was some time before 1:16 p.m., which is when bystander Domingo Benavides can first be heard on police radio channel recording trying to use Tippit's radio to notify police about the shooting. Subtract two minutes for Benavides to hide out in his vehicle, as he said he did to make sure the shooter was no longer in the immediate area, and it's 1:14 p.m. Oswald had 14 minutes, not "ten minutes top" to walk the distance from his rooming house, encounter Tippit, and shoot him. And re your statement "no one saw him between the roominghouse and the crime scene", three people (Jimmy Burt, William A. Smith, and William Lawrence Smith) saw Oswald on Tenth St. before he reached the crime scene. — Walloon (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

130 dollars! And I thought books were expensive here! How many pages does it have? Is it gilt-bound?--jeanne (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The book is out of print. That is the current market price for used copies. — Walloon (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You might say it's "guilt-bound." Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, that's a good one, Joe. --jeanne (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you read it as a put down, I was talking about discussing further once some citation or possible sourcing is put forward, not that your point had no substance. I did not intend to be insulting, and apologize if you took it that way. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Walloon and I have had this argument before, but in case you missed it:

The Warren Report says: "If Oswald left the bus at 12:44 p.m. and walked directly to the terminal, he would have entered the cab at 12:47 or 12:48 p.m. If the cab ride was approximately 6 minutes, as was the reconstructed ride, he would have reached his destination at approximately 12:54 p.m. If he was discharged at Neely and Beckley and walked directly to his roominghouse, he would have arrived there about 12:59 to 1 p.m. From the 500 block of North Beckley, the walk would be a few minutes longer, but in either event he would have been in the roominghouse at about 1 p.m. This is the approximate time he entered the roominghouse, according to Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper there. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1119-A, p. 158.)
Earlene Roberts said "it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after," when Oswald arrived.

So if Oswald arrived earlier and walked/jogged to the crime scene:

1. The Warren Report, despite being quite meticulous on this point, was wrong.

2. Ms. Roberts was also wrong, despite giving a time estimate consistent with the Warren Report.

3. Either Ms. Roberts made up the bit about Oswald standing on the corner, or Oswald had some logical reason for doing so other than waiting for a ride.

4. 12 people witnessed the shooting or its immediate aftermath, but not one has ever been identified who saw Oswald jogging to the crime scene. (I don't count the witnesses you mention because they were all within a block of Tippit's car).

5. Our eminent friend Dale K. Myers puts the killing at precisely 1:14:30.

So I say he got a ride. Is there any good reason why the HSCA suggested that Oswald arrived at 11:55? Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The Warren Report was indeed wrong on that point. Vincent Bugliosi writes in Reclaiming History, endnotes, p. 49–50,

Warren Commission assistant counsel, with a stopwatch, reconstructed with [cab driver Wiliam] Whaley the route he took with Oswald, leaving the cabstand at the Greyhound bus depot around 12:48 p.m., most likely several minutes later than Oswald actually left there. I say that not only because Oswald would have probably been walking at a fast pace from the time he left the Depository, but most importantly because the most reasonable assumption is that Whaley put 12:30–12:45 p.m. on his trip ticket because he left at some time prior to 12:45 p.m., making the Warren Commission estimate of a 12:48 p.m. departure from the bus depot at least three minutes too late. It makes little sense that if Whaley left the depot at 12:48, he would record his departure time as being between 12:30 and 12:45 p.m. From the cabstand, it took five minutes and thirty seconds, by cab, to reach 700 North Beckley, where Whaley dropped Oswald off, and at a normal pace, five minutes and forty-five seconds to walk the four blocks to Oswald’s rooming house at 1026 North Beckley (6 H 434, WCT William Wayne Whaley), making Oswald’s estimated Warren Commission arrival time there around 12:59 p.m. or slightly earlier, since Whaley said that he drove “a little bit faster” (accounting, he said, for no more than a half minute) than the driver during the reconstructed run (6 H 429).

With a probable minimum three-minute error by the Warren Commission, the real arrival time was most likely around 12:56 p.m. or earlier. The HSCA, in its reconstruction of the event, concluded Oswald arrived at “approximately 12:55 P.M.” (HSCA Record 180-10115-10004, September 19, 1977, p.2).

2. Mrs. Roberts gave a vague time, and gave no indication that she looked at a clock or a watch. She concluded, "What time I wouldn't want to say."

3. There was a bus stop on that corner across from Oswald's rooming house, along the Beckley bus route, and a bus transfer was found on Oswald when he was arrested. My guess is that Oswald considered waiting for a bus, and decided to walk to wherever he was going instead.

4. But no one saw Oswald getting into or out of a vehicle, either. Nor did anyone see Oswald walk from where the cab let him off at the corner of 700 N. Beckley to his rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley.

5. Yes indeed, Myers does. Do you know him?

— Walloon (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is never difficult for powerful organsations and the shadowy people behind them to obtain the services of a disgruntled actor such as Booth, or snarling Marxist Oswald, or a wild-eyed Princip. Most of the time they get away with it and the innocent public never suspect who really pulled the strings, but once in a while they slip up, as they did with Mehmet Ali Agca.--jeanne (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew I could count on Walloon for a rock-solid comeback. Is it conceivable that Oswald would wait at the bus stop for a moment, then change his mind and run off in the opposite direction from where a bus boarded at that stop would have taken him? Fascinatingly, yes, it's quite conceivable.

Such random behavior would be consistent with his earlier movements, including walking away from the SBD, then catching a bus...headed back towards the SBD. Next, making it to a cab stand, but then hesitating and not taking the first cab available. He was crazy enough to have done all the things he's been accused of, I'll give you that. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said LHO was your average guy, however, his behaviour could indicate that he was running away from people far more powerful than the police and just didn't know where to turn to. The bus journey was a perfect example of that.--jeanne (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dusting off my copy of the Warren Report, I become more convinced that Oswald could not have arrived at his rooming house before 1:00.

Oswald leaves the SBD at 12:33, walks seven blocks, catches a bus stuck in traffic at 12:40. Exits the bus at 12:44. Walks two blocks to the cab stand, takes the second cab available. It's 12:48. Gets dropped off 4/10th of a mile from his rooming house at 12:54. Arrives home 12:59-1:00, leaves 1:03, is standing on the corner at 1:04. Spotted within a block of the killing at 1:13.

Thus Oswald had only 9 minutes to make a trip that required (as described by Myers) a minimum of 13 and 1/2 minutes.

Bugliosi's argument is downright disingenuous. Warren's version is meticulous and is in no way contradicted by any known fact, yet Bugliosi concludes that Warren made a "probable minimum three-minute error." Why? Only because of an entirely subjective conclusion that the "reasonable assumption is that Whaley put 12:30–12:45 p.m. on his trip ticket because he left at some time prior to 12:45 p.m."

No one who's read Whaley's testimony would make such and assumption. (WR p.161) "Whaley testified that he did not keep an accurate time record of his trips, but recorded them by the quarter hour, and that sometimes he made his entry right after a trip while at other times he waited to record three or four trips." It is not a reasonable assumption that the log is accurate when:(1.) Whaley says that it is not accurate and (2.) he often makes numerous trips before writing them down.

As for the HSCA time line, the document cited does not seem to be available, and without a further explanation of their time of Oswald's arrival at home of approximately 12:55, the citation is meaningless. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, so this is the timetable for his departure at 1.03 from the rooming house(how did the woman happen to be so precise in her recollection of the time he left, most people are vague as to time?), at 1.04, he's standing on the corner, and then nine minutes later he's spotted within a block of the Tippit shooting at 1.13. How many blocks away is that? Did they calculate possible delays due to traffic, or were the streets miraculously clear that day, allowing Oswald unimpeded passage? Hmm, strange how his luck ran out due to an alert shopowner. Another thing, why didn't he just blow away the witnesses after shooting Tippit? He then could have taken all their wallets and escaped from Dallas. Finally, I would add that upon leaving the TSBD, why did he board a bus, when he could have gone into a downtown department store, and blended with the shoppers? Nothing makes sense. Nothing--jeanne (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It behooved Bugliosi, as an Italian-American to insist that Oswald acted alone. Had he supported the conspiracy theory, the possibility of Mafia involvement would have raised it's head, thus the fall-out onto the Italian community would have been tremendous. Ruby had links to the Chicago mob run by Sam Giancana. The names of Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante would have been brought up. Bugliosi, therefore, had a lot to gain by maintaining that Oswald, who was of English, German, French, and Irish ancestry, acted alone.--jeanne (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oswald changing direction

OK, Walloon, Ramsquire, I have read Myers' blog as to Tippit's suspicions being raised when Oswald most likely switched directions. I buy that explanation. Most cops would consider that behaviour bizarre. I lived in Texas for two years, and Texas cops are normally suspicious of anything out of the ordinary, but especially on 22 November 1963. OK, that part I can accept. But why was Oswald coming apart at the seams? He had maintained a cool, calm demeanor following the assassination, so much so that he fooled Baker and Truly. I would suggest that his weird backtracking had to do with the fact that his paranoia was growing by the minute, and didn't know who was friend or foe. I never said, guys, that I believed Oswald was innocent, I said (and I will carry this conviction with me to my grave), that he was the patsy in a conspiracy so convoluted that we couldn't even begin to unravel it forty five years later. He was indeed on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD, but probably escaped down the stairs seconds before the fatal head shot. Something was wrong with his part in the plot and he wanted to get away fast. Which is why he esaped by bus. More anonymous. I often have wondered why he drew attention to himself by leaving the TSBD, when he could have brazened it out inside the building his fellow employees when the police started their questioning. He had a meeting with a mystery person in Oak Cliff and obviously took fright when he saw Tippit. Michael T. Griffith has an interesting blog which questions Tippit's motives for stopping Oswald. --jeanne (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty much on the record that Oswald COULD have been involved in a smaller scale conspiracy, but that there's no evidence of it. However, his take that he was just a patsy, rings hollow as more and more is found out. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramsquire, the Oswalds, Agcas, Princips, are always guided by hands unseen and unknown.--jeanne (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Small

The small amount of money Oswald had on him when he was arrested suggests that he was not part of a vast conspiracy. Of course, he might have been keeping the amount small as a double bluff, to disarm suspicion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How much cash did Mehmet Ali Agca have in his wallet when he shot Pope John Paul II on behalf of the Bulgarian Secret Service? Anyway, would you walk the streets of a major city with a large amount of money in your possession?--jeanne (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The large amounts on the Watergate burglars are used as proof that they were criminals in the article on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your comments on Oswald's lack of cash got me thinking. A man who is planning to assassinate the president knows in advance that he will have to make his escape after the deed is performed. And that same person, even if he is borderline nutty, realises that to leave town and hide out, he needs cash-and plenty of it. As you point out, Oswald had no cash on him, nor was any large amount of money found at his rooming house. How did he plan on getting away without money? He could have robbed Tippit once he killed him, in order to obtain cash but did not. He was obviously counting on help from others, whose names we'll probably never discover.--jeanne (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oswald left $170 (that's about a month's take home pay for him) and his wedding ring with Marina the night before the assassination. He was clearly expecting to go away the next day, and maybe never come back. At this point, he was carrying out a meticulous plan of some kind. After the assassination, he knew he was in trouble, but he actions showed no coherent planning at all. But consider, if his plan was to kill the President and then escape the SBD, everything has gone perfectly. After that he has no plan? It doesn't add up. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Oswald never expected to escape the Texas School Book Depository, and was surprised he was able to walk out. — Walloon (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't add up. Nothing does. One explanation only provokes another question. Perhaps he was to meet up with someone inside the TSBD who never showed?--jeanne (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oswald seems to be lurching back and forth between having a plan and not having one a lot around here. First, he's resigned to being caught after the crime. Then, he instead executes a plan to both hide some evidence and escape the building, flying down the stairs at a break-neck pace. Then suddenly he has no plan whatsoever, walking away from the SBD, catching a bus at random, then leaving the bus to unhurriedly catch a cab ride, pick up a gun at home and then jog aimlessly around Dallas. Something's amiss here. Joegoodfriend (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe, that editor did start me thinking about Oswald's lack of money. That is definitely a clue that he was expecting aid from othe quarters. One does not escape without ready cash. Had he decided at the last minute to run off, instead of just waiting to be caught at the TSBD, he would have realsied his need for cash. He obviously had no money at his rooming house. So, when he shoots Tippit, who probably had money on him, why didn't he rob him after shooting him? I believe when he discovered his friends had abandoned him, and were to let him take the rap for the assassination, he fell apart and didn't know what to do or whereto go. Don't you remember that film No Way Out with Kevin Costner and Sean Young?--jeanne (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mannlicher-Carcano rifle

The section about the rifle is titled "Mannlicher-Carcano rifle", yet the article states above "purchased a 6.5 mm caliber Carcano rifle (also improperly called Mannlicher-Carcano) by mail order".

Mannlicher should be removed, as its misleading.12.152.67.72 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oswald/Hidell purchased a 6.5 Italian Carbine (6.5mm Carcano Model 1938). The Klein's Sporting Goods ad that Oswald/Hidell ordered from listed the gun as "6.5 Italian Carbine." Common names for the Model 1938 used in the US at that time (1963) included Mannlicher-Carcano, Paraviccini Mauser and Terni (arsenal name) which tecnically speaking are misnomers. Mannlicher is not misleading, it is superfluous, and the whole parenthetical comment could be removed because there are more than one misnomer for the Model 1938 which may appear in the literature and listing one or all really adds little important. Roy F. Dunlap Ordnance Went Up Front (Samworth, 1948) was a popular reference on WWII military small arms and stated: "The basic action is the Carcano. This mechanism is a hybrid, combining both Mauser and Mannlicher features, as modified by an Italian designer named Carcano." Also Walter H.B. Smith Rifles: Volume Two of the NRA Book of Small Arms (Telegraph Press, 1948) refers to the 6.5mm Italian Rifles as Model 1891 and Model 1938. The photo of the full-sized rifle is captioned "Italian Model 1891 Paraviccini-Carcano" Paraviccini being involved in designing the Model 1891 rifle though to a lesser extent than M. Carcano. I have seen the Model 1938 listed as Terni Carbine and as Terni Rifle. To be technical, the Oswald rifle was a Series 1891 Model 1938 made at Terni arsenal in caliber 6.5mm Italian (the first Model 1938 rifles were in 7.35mm Italian). The Italians used "carbines" with 17" barrels and called the Model 1938 with 20" barrel a rifle (although in US usage 20" is still considered a carbine length barrel). Naaman Brown (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did Oswald buy a Carcano instead of a Mauser rifle

Oswald was knowledgeable about rifles and by several accounts had been passionately reading gun magazines prior to buying the Carcano rifle. By far, the most popular World War II surplus rifle at that time was the Mauser Karabiner 98k, the standard WWII rifle for German infantry. Why would Oswald choose the almost obscure Italian weapon over the German gun? The Carcano has only slight advantages in concealment and cost to the Mauser which is more powerful, accurate and about ten times as available in Texas in 1963. Its 7.92mm round is very similar to the 30.06 which is the rifle round Oswald was most familiar with from being in the Marines. Also, the 6.5mm Carcano cartridge would stick out like a sore thumb in any homicide investigation. If Oswald had bought the Carcano from a gun store I would assume it was the only thing in stock but Oswald ordered this through a mail order catalog and could have ordered either for just about the same money.--TL36 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He bought it because it was pathetically cheap. Oswald was well-known for his miserly ways. Could he really have bought a superior Mauser for the same money? I can't speak to that, but even if true, Oswlad might not have put a lot of thought into it (he was like that about some things). If it was his intention to use the rifle illegally, it would of course have been smarter to buy it anonymously. Down-to-earth thinking was not his strong point. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe, there's another way of looking at it. If Oswald wanted a trail to lead back to him, the Carcano was the obvious choice. Just like his blatant act of ordering it from a mail order catalog instead of walking into any gunshop (which, speaking as someone who has lived in Texas, are more prolific than cowboy hats!), and buying one anonymously. All his actions prior to, and after the assassination in Dealey Plaza are bizarre, and that's an understatement. No author of fiction could ever have created a protagonist such as Lee Harvey Oswald.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He could have bought a Mauser for $20 at the most which is more than was paid for the Carcano but considering the importance of a firearm to Oswald, I don't think him being "pathetically cheap" is the answer. I also believe Oswald did a lot of prior thinking about buying a rifle although he might have placed the actual order suddenly.

Since it was before the Gun Control Act of 1968, it was possible in almost every state, including California to buy a firearm in many types of stores, not just gun stores and no identification needed to be shown. However, I can see Oswald thinking it was more clandestine to purchase the rifle through a mail-order catalog. --TL36 (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, buying a firearm clandestinely instead of openly would be in character with the cloak-and- dagger drama with which Oswald choreographed his every move up to and after the JFK assassination; it also lead a trail back to one of his aliases.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange World of coincidence

First may I say the evidence against Mr Oswald is overwhelming. What seems to have provoked so many suspiscions in the mind of conspiracy theorists is the strange coincidences in Lee Oswalds life. Also the fact that Lee was either a pathological liar or half the population of Dallas was against him. When Lee was a child his Uncle was a driver for Mr Carlos Marcello (House Assassinations Investigation). When Mr Marcello (who had often clashed with Mr Robert Kennedy) was asked if he had ever met Lee he said 'no'. The House Investigators found no reason to doubt his answer. When Lee was a defector in the U.S.S.R. a pilot from the same Air Base he had been stationed at in Japan Parachuted into the Soviet Union after having his plane shot from under him; Mr Francis Garry Powers. Did Mr Powers meet Mr Oswald in Japan or later in the U.S.S.R.? we do not know. When Lee was in custody he denied knowing anything about the photographs of himself holding a rifle. Tho no notes were taken of his interrogation, we are also told he denied being a member of a rifle club, he also denied bringing a large package to work on the day Mr Kennedy was shot. Either everyone els is lying or Lee did know about the photographs and Rifle etc.Johnwrd (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The lack of reference to Judyth Vary Baker is not objective

The lack of references on the main page of Lee Harvey Oswald to the wiki page of Judyth Vary Baker is certainly perplexing. Any objective account of LHO (even on a single page) would have to at least provide need a brief summary of their alleged affair with JVB and the surrounding circumstances of their work, especially so since these have been found to be supported by a number of evidences. What makes it even more essential, is that the portrait of LHO in the light of JVB strikingly differs from the current wiki description of LHO. Schatz87 (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources supporting the claims of JVB on her wiki page. A good overview of the evidence and its implications can be found in the documentary: The History Channel: The Men Who Killed Kennedy: "The Love Affair," 2003. (as TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.8 The Love Affair, in 5 segments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY&feature=PlayList&p=0ED4E37B91ABEDC4&index=0&playnext=1) Schatz87 (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you on two points.

Info on Baker does not belong on the LHO article because there is no evidence of a relationship between them. Their alleged relationship could instead be discussed on the Kennedy assassination theories page.

You say that there are plenty of sources supporting the claims of JVB on her wiki page. Well, what she's done is list a lot of people who she claims believe her story. So what? That's not evidence. The fact that she's failed to provide a single shred of evidence of the relationship speaks for itself. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is evidence she indeed worked on the Reily Coffee Company in the summer of 1963 (see copy of her W2 form from the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans: http://www.judythvarybaker.com/docs/The%20Coffee%20Company.htm).

Second, there is at least one surviving witness who have attested LHO and JVB knew each other well: the wife of David Lewis who worked for Guy Banister in 1963, see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2140352666545542746.

Thus, evidence exist and failing to mention this key love affair in Oswalds life and their work connections gives an incomplete picture of Oswald.

Schatz87 (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Christchurch Star

anyone has reliable reference about that? 93.86.91.184 (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[2] Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Related deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker may be of interest to editors here. Gamaliel (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. This is fascinating. I like the way she threatens to publically condemn wikipedia if she doesn't get her way. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

=I see gamaliel has said Baker provided no evidence and some others say this. But references show filmed live witness from New Orleans who everyone knows, testifying Baker had a sexual relationship with Oswald. See Anna Lewis http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lewis.htm I really want to stay out of this, but live witness testimony does not count in Wikipedia? Anna Lewis and also Edward Haslam http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/haslam1.htm but are not only ones on film or tape for Mrs. Baker. Mac McCullough of New Orleans is on tape. If someone has evidence they had an affair with accused assassin Oswald, and History Channel shows it, and then Mr. Haslam provides more evidence from 1972 (see his interview) then this is not fringe issue any more than biography of Carlos Bringuier is in Wikipedia really because he interacted with Oswald. As for Baker's cancer research, her young age made it remarkable and what was brought her to New Orleans while only age 19. She was first high school student ever allowed at national science writer's cancer research conference in 1961 and was guided by Nobel Prize winners in her research which is unusual age 17. There were hundreds of newspaper articles about her 1961. I am sorry Mrs. Baker got upset, but this has been a bad experience for her, be glad it not happen to you. I need her English skills to continue editing many articles so hope she will still help me. Allan M. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"If someone has evidence..then this is not fringe issue"

If two people or ten people go on television and claim that they saw the cow jump over the moon, that does not constitute reliable evidence that the cow jumped over the moon. That is particularly the case if those same people have radically changed their story over time and admitted to not telling the truth about it in the past.

"She was first high school student ever allowed at national science writer's cancer research conference in 1961 and was guided by Nobel Prize winners in her research which is unusual age 17."

Really? According to the 1961 article that mentions Judyth on jfkmurdersolved.com, Judyth was one of a "a group of 66 high school students (who) started work at the cancer research institute under grants supplied by the State of New York and the National Science Foundation." Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead

I removed a couple of bits from the lead[3] but was reverted in the name of consensus.[4] So, in the spirit of WP:BRD, I will come here to discuss my edits. I believe that my edits clear up a few basic problems with the lead:

The first sentence is a contradiction—it states that Oswald was the assassin according to three government investigations. However, one of the cited investigations was the HSCA, which found that Oswald was one of at least two assassins.
Oswald was the assassin based on the vast majority modern and reliable scientific evidence. The first sentence (probably accidentally) implies that only the three government investigations conclude that he was Kennedy's assassin.
Why even mention the HSCA in the lead? Its conclusions derived from misinterpreted evidence and have been discredited by modern science.

I can foresee reasonable debate on my latter two points, but the first sentence should not contradict itself; it has to be changed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the HSCA concluded that Oswald was the shooter and may have had assistance from persons unknown, including possibly a grassy knoll shooter who missed. Even if you accept the HSCA's mentioning of possibilities and probabilities as conclusions, that still leaves Oswald as the one who killed JFK.
If you can reword it to include scientific/historical consensus, I would support that depending on the wording.
I agree but 1) the conspiracy set would vociferously object and 2) we can't really ignore the HSCA and the conspiracy stuff, we have to address it, even if it is all nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the conspiracism, although I have to admit I don't care if the conspiracy theorists object; we don't have to cater to them. Perhaps it would be best to mention the HSCA but put their findings in the appropriate context. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be tough to form a consensus without catering to them in some form. The HSCA stuff is further fleshed out and given context in the body of the article as is appropriate via WP:LEAD. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Recommend that the lead not be changed.

one of the cited investigations was the HSCA, which found that Oswald was one of at least two assassins. The word assassin is used in the context of person or persons who caused JFK's death. All the government investigations concluded that this was Oswald only.

Oswald was the assassin based on the vast majority modern and reliable scientific evidence. -and- (the HSCA's) conclusions derived from misinterpreted evidence and have been discredited by modern science. I don't agree with these statements. In any case, they are subjective. I could counter-point them with opposite conclusions using equally "modern science."

To put this as politely as possible: I agree with Gamaliel on the need for a balance of viewpoints in the article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the words presumed assassin in the lead, which is what the Italian media always call Oswald. They never say the assassin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

'editorial' about logical fallacy

Hi, All.

Earlier today, I added this brief paragraph to the article's "Investigations" section, just before the "Possible motives" subsection:

A common logical fallacy is the belief that, if the purported number of shooters is more than one, then the assassination was necessarily the result of conspiracy. That is akin to believing that the involvement of two automobiles in an accident must mean that their drivers conspired to collide.

A while later, Ice Cold Beer removed the paragraph, describing it as an "editorial".

I believe that the paragraph (1) is relevant; (2) was fairly appropriately placed; and (3), in light of how frequently the fallacy is expressed by all sorts (those who believe Oswald acted alone, those who believe Oswald was not the assassin, and those who believe that Oswald conspired with others), is prudent to include. We have all kinds of people—laymen, legislators, jurists, authors, scientists, &c.—who, when discussing this issue, utter statements to the effect of "If there was a second shooter, then, by definition, you have a conspiracy."

Wikipedia has countless prudently placed corrections of logical fallacies. It should have this one, too.

(I was going to suggest that another explication I wrote might be considered to be more in line with the tone of an encyclopedia. I added it to another Wikipedia article today; but my present search for that edit is fruitless, leading me to believe that there is some delay in the addition of certain items to "my watchlist" and/or "my contributions".)

(If you do reply, please, notify me at my own Talk page, too.)

President Lethe (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of Alleged

Alleged assassin should be used in the lead as there is reasonable doubt as to Oswald's sole culpability in the assassination, which was also the verdict the House Committee reached.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't any doubt amongst people who take the evidence seriously. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Which evidence are you talking about? The 90 second time frame from the fatal shot on the 6th floor to the encounter with Officer Baker on the 2nd; lack of fingerprints on the window frame, pane and sill; the confused eye-witness reports, the ability for Oswald to be in Oak Cliff 40 minutes after the shooting in Dealey Plaza by the utilisation of public transport alone?!!!! I could go on. Even the House Committee admitted there was probably a conspiracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above talk page for the first time is mind-numbing. For what it is worth, it's my own view that there is indeed reasonable doubt about LHO, and the word alleged in the lede/intro is not out of line here, from what I think I understand about how Wikipedia 'should' work. However, I'm also aware that I have a lot to learn about the politics of Wikipedia.

It appears to me that this article is on the very front lines of a central ongoing struggle within the Wikipedia community itself. It also appears that adding 'alleged' in the LHO lede will not be done easily, as witnessed by the firm stand of Senior Editor and admin Gamaliel, who states his position on this article clearly above in the talk page as well as on his personal page. I also note that Ice Cold Beer is an admin; his stand appears uncompromising. What is evolving here, possibly over a period of years, is part of an ongoing discussion over what the definition of reliably sourced is.

One point I will make at the moment is that having visited Dealey Plaza and the Texas Book Depository, I noticed the plaque mounted outside on the building's wall does use the word 'allegedly' in the context we are discussing. The Wikipedia photo from the building's Wikipedia article backs this up; The wiki-link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BookDepositoryPlaque.jpg

This plaque was emplaced by the Texas Historical Commission on the site. Personally, I find that compelling in making a case. I would submit that if this word and context is good enough for the state of Texas, it is reasonable to use it in the article's lede. My cordial best wishes to all. Jusdafax (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, Jusdafax.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I also have visited Dealey Plaza and the Sixth Floor museum. The staff inside the museum take the Oswald acted alone POV. Almost all of the visitors I happened to overhear talking did not.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the rarely-cited WP:PLAQUE policy. I've definitely changed my stance now. Well done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is my favorite talk page comment ever. Gamaliel (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit I am curious. Since you are an admin, should we take your comment as your interpretation of WP:Civility? I ask as a student of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jusda fax 06:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You should take it as a snarky comment reminding you to cite actual Wikipedia policies and not ones that you've made up to push conspiracist nonsense. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't any doubt amongst people who take the evidence seriously.

This, of course, is not true. Many serious historians have researched and written about the fact that a strong case can be made that Oswald was not on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. Among these are Anthony Summers, Sylvia Meagher, Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and others I could name. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

None of them are recognized as a serious historian outside the conspiracy community. Do any of them have credentials as scholars of history? Are they recognized by historians for their contributions? Have they done any serious historical work outside of events related to the assassination? Gamaliel (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The version of the article we have now is fine. --John (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

None of them are recognized as a serious historian outside the conspiracy community.

This is, of course, not true.

Senator Richard S. Schweiker wrote that “Sylvia Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact was instrumental in finally causing a committee of Congress—with full subpoena power, access to classified documents, and a working knowledge of the nuances of the FBI and CIA—to take a second official look at what happened in Dallas November 22, 1963.” The FBI once stated that, “No one knows more about the assassination of President Kennedy than Harold Weisberg.” Anthony Summers is the author of scholarly works on Richard Nixon, Frank Sinatra, Marilyn Monroe, and several other subjects. Mark Lane successfully argued the defense of a publication sued by Howard Hunt for suggesting his involvement in the assassination.

Have you read any of these books? Do you have specific criticism to offer against the authors? If not, what is your basis for dismissing them as cranks and/or crackpots? These books examine the evidence and point out the flaws in the reasoning of the Warren Commission. They are at least as valid as the works of Posner and Bugliosi, whose work is highly touted by the pro-Warren crowd, despite the fact that they’re just a couple lawyers re-arguing the pro-Warren case. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We could discuss the conspiracy books I've read or the backgrounds of these authors, ranging from the amateur historian to the professional charlatan, but that's not the issue. I'm afraid the judgments of the FBI or a Miami jury or a Senator aren't the kind we use to evaluate sources. Have they convinced other serious professional and academic historians that their work is worthy of their respect and are they representative of mainstream academic thinking? Unless they have, we shouldn't be using their work as sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – - that’s all.” Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

I honestly don't think it matters to Gamaliel and Ice Cold Beer (and a few others) what the truth is. (If this is a misjudgement, my apologies.) In the past few days I've studied the issue of pages being "guarded" by admins or Senior Editors with a lot of juice. Short version, it's my belief that they don't care what you say, and don't have to... This is a sport, and the fix is in. Cheers, Jusda fax 20:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that your keen interest in the civility policy has disappeared. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. Permission to speak freely... Here's how I see it. The "frame" you use in your advocacy against those who do not believe as you do is the issue I raise with the Lewis Carroll quote. Seems to me that you and ICBeer strongly feel that anyone who does not believe absolutely and without question that LHO killed JFK is a "conspiracy" nutcase. Use of words like "amateur" "serious" and "mainstream" are designed by their very nature to create a worldview that conforms to your own, and enable use of sources you approve. To quote (if I may) from your user page:

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

I grant you, of course, that "conspiracy nonsense" exits. But I feel lumping anyone who even has some doubts about the so-called "mainstream" view of the JFK assassination, in with people who believe he was killed by space aliens, etc. does all of us and Wikipedia itself a disservice. Again, I believe use of the word "allegedly" in the context of LHO/JFK, based on the sincere doubts that exist for many concerned people, is reasonable. To you, the case is closed. This is the nub of the current disagreement about editing this article, along with debating the interpretation of reliably sourced and who is to be the final word on it.

CONCLUSION: The wording we have now in the intro may be the closest we can come to compromise. (Unfortunately we now have two conversations going. I will discuss further below, thanks.) Jusda fax 22:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On authors of published research suggesting a conspiracy: are they representative of mainstream academic thinking?

YES.

David Scheim: PhD, MIT. Edward Epstein, PhD, Harvard. Gerald McKnight, Professor, Hood College. Joan Mellen, Professor, Temple University. Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, participated in HSCA. David Wrone, Professor, U. of Wisconsin. Walt Brown, PhD, former Justice Department employee. John Newman, Professor, University of Maryland. Henry Hurt, journalist, Rockefeller Foundation. Gaeton Fonzi, Federal investigator for the HSCA. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Peter Duesberg is a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He believes the HIV virus does not cause AIDS. He is a credentialed academic but his view does not represent the mainstream of academic, scientific thought on the issue of HIV and AIDS. The relevant articles should reflect the mainstream scientific view and not Duesberg's minority viewpoint.

Dr. James Fetzer is professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He believes that the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. He has a PhD in history but his view does not represent the mainstream of historical thought on the 9/11 attacks. The relevant articles should reflect the mainstream historical viewpoint and not Fetzer's viewpoint.

Do you see what I'm getting at now? A few academics, a number of them in non-relevant fields like mathematics, do not necessarily represent the mainstream historical viewpoint. Gamaliel (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is admin status being brought up so frequently in this section? Once we choose to involve ourselves in this article we give up our privilege of using the tools. Our admin status is completely, 100% irrelevant. Playing the David vs. Goliath card is pathetic and a distraction from the topic at hand. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't agree, and notice you don't trouble to address the issues I raised, and instead use terms like "irrelevant" and "pathetic", but I'll drop it for now.

Re: Joe's list - well done. Part of the trouble with this topic is the vast amount of literature there is out there. Perhaps we could get a list of sources we all agree on, and edit from there? Should be an interesting discussion, to say the least. Jusda fax 05:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that every time I answer this challenge regarding sources, the opposition then raises the bar and asks me to do it over again. Having cleared the "doubt amongst people who take the evidence seriously"’ bar and the "credentials as scholars of history" bar and the "representative of mainstream academic(s)" bar, now I have to clear the "mainstream historical viewpoint" bar.

Well we know what the mainstream historical viewpoint is among the American public. This has been surveyed many times, and the public believes that there was a conspiracy. Ah, but what about the viewpoint among credentialed academics alone?

Believe you me, I wish someone would poll historians on the assassination as well as a lot of other controversial subjects. I have been involved in an argument for more than two years on the discussion page of the wiki article on Alger Hiss as to whether “most” academics believe that Hiss was a spy.

"The relevant articles should reflect the mainstream historical viewpoint and not Fetzer's viewpoint. Do you see what I'm getting at now?"

No, I don’t see what you’re getting at. As I’ve said before, the authors I’ve mentioned are serious historians who represent mainstream institutions and whose original research and thorough analysis has been published by major publishing houses and universities and favorably reviewed by other historians. You can conceivably dismiss them as sources if you demonstrate specific flaws in their methods, treatment of facts and/or conclusions, but NOT just on differences of opinion. I thought wikipedia was supposed to fairly represent both sides of an argument, not just the majority opinion (which I don’t concede necessarily favors the "no conspiracy" conclusion in the first place). On a different argument, I DO concede that this article and the JFK Assassination article should be almost entirely reflective of the official conclusions on the assassination, while pro-conspiracy ideas belong on the Assassination Theories page.

P.S.: Boy howdy is Fetzer a loony. And I can name several JFK conspiracy theories from reputable publishers that are way-crazier than even Fetzer. Let me know if you’d like to hear about “The Coca-Cola Theory” or Norman Mailer’s “coincidental second gunman” theory. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We made this point when RPJ wanted to insert poll data into the introduction of the article. The American public's viewpoint is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We don't poll people regarding ghosts, AIDS, 9/11, creationism, global warming, etc, and we shouldn't do so here. We do represent these minority viewpoints where appropriate, but not in the main article and not as a legitimate viewpoint. If we put Mark Lane in here, we'd have to put Duesberg in the AIDS article and Fetzer in the 9/11 article. I'm sorry, but there may be a few historians who advocate conspiracy, just as there are a few historians and scientists who advocate the alternative theories I just mentioned, mainstream academic historians as a whole do not advocate conspiracy and such viewpoints are not embraced by the academy as a legitimate viewpoint. Gamaliel (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Gam, you stun me.

"we'd have to put Duesberg in the AIDS article"

From the wikipedia article on AIDS: "A small number of activists question the connection between HIV and AIDS," Citation: Duesberg PH (1988). "HIV is not the cause of AIDS". Science 241.

"The American public's viewpoint is irrelevant to Wikipedia."

From the wikipedia article on Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories: "Polls since 1966 have consistently reflected the public's belief that Kennedy was murdered as the result of a conspiracy. For example, according to a 2003 ABC poll, "seven in 10 Americans think the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the result of a plot, not the act of a lone killer — and a bare majority thinks that plot included a second shooter in Dealey Plaza.""

Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being precise. I don't advocate eradicating all mention of conspiracy from wikipedia and I never have. (My AFD votes on a number of conspiracy oriented articles should prove that.) Conspiracy is a phenomenon that should be documented. I don't advocate the deletion of Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and I think conspiracies should be documented there, definitely. You may recall that I wrote a version of the introduction which mentioned conspiracy theories and linked to the KACT article. What I am opposed to is using conspiracy sources in the same manner you would mainstream sources, as documentation of facts and mainstream viewpoints. For example, some conspiracists have accused William Greer of participating in the conspiracy, such as David Lifton in his nutty book about body switching. I participated in an editing conflict in which an anon advocated using Lifton's source in the Greer article, but this was opposed as WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I would, however, not be opposed to Lifton's theory being documented at the KACT article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I feel much better! The above comment is a good summary on handling the issues in question. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edits to intro by Ramsquire

I believe Ramsquire has found a good middle path with the current edit to the intro. I also like the comment with his edit: "changed intro to make it more fact based."

That, in my belief, is exactly correct. I also believe that putting as absolute fact in the opening sentence that LHO is the assassin of JFK is a misuse of Wikipedia. The way it reads now is a fact: Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to three United States government investigations, the assassin of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, who was fatally shot on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas.

The current revision, I strongly feel, reflects the essence of Wikipedia's core beliefs. This fact of this edit becomes more important than the article itself, I feel.

I believe, frankly, that those who argue for the former POV wording argue from a pre-set agenda. I call on them to admit to the basic justice of this edit, which has implications for Wikipedia that reach far beyond this article.

Bottom line: I do not know that Oswald acted alone or with others, nor do I know that he did or did not pull the trigger on Nov. 22, 1963. I do know, as Ramsquire states, that U.S. Government investigations say he did. That is a fact. Therefore the edit improves the article, and is NPOV. That, in my view, is crucial to Wikipedia. Nothing else is as important to this long-standing issue.

No one can dispute the truth of the opening sentence in Ramsquire's edit. Many would dispute the previous version. Jusda fax 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's much better now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And so the opening sentence returns to the way it was for years until this Aug 28 IP edit with no edit summary -- except for the placement of the ref. --JimWae (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of that. Aditionally, the no edit summary is of interest. I have yet to pour through the edit history here, but assuming that's the case, I contend those concerned with this matter remain involved by putting this page on their watchlist, refreshing often, and that the Ramsquire edit remain as established Wikipedia material on this high-profile article. I believe that the issue should be discussed here further, prior to making edits that state as uncontrovertable fact that LHO killed JFK. I also find the involvement of admins in this issue of interest, worthy in my view of further discussion in itself. Jusda fax 19:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I was unaware of this discussion when I made the edit. But yeah, I just restored what was there previously, not a big deal. As for years of consensus being undone in a flash... welcome to Wikipedia. ;) Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to thank you for your edit, which I see is more of a revert. Years of consensus undone in a flash is one thing (and, I now see, by an IP named, one-time editor!) but it being backed by powerful admins is another. I would especially like to hear from those involved in the discussion above. Jusda fax 20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Powerful admins", eh? That's news to me. I don't have any strings to pull, and I've never used my admin powers on this article. If you think I'm a pernicious influence, you are welcome exercise the exact same powers I do here: editing and talk page discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If I have misjudged you, Gamaliel, my sincere apologies. From what I understand of wikipedia policy, you could have blocked or even banned me already. Debating admins is a new experience for me, and one I do not seek.

To quote George Orwell, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." By this I mean that many here may experience a chilling effect with the status quo power structure in editing LHO's article. Your seeming backup of ICBeer's self-admitted "snarky" comment in the section above appears to make borderline incivility among admins toward non-admins an issue of concern in the context of what can be said and how it can be said.

Now, THAT being said, I am a fan of your work elsewhere. After a recent confrontation, it is my perhaps erroneous understanding that I should not bring discussion from other talk pages onto this one, so I will not name the page. But rest assured I don't see you as a "pernicious influence"... but as someone I have a very deep disagreement with around a few issues here. Best wishes, Jusda fax 23:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I want to reiterate that you don't have to worry about the ban hammer provided you stay within the bounds of civility required of all of us. Now we have a difference of opinion regarding snarky, lighthearted comments like ICB's. I think such humorous comments can be useful to lighten the mood and make points in a direct manner. Your opinion may differ, and that is the danger of humor at times. I think it is clear, however, that comments accusing other editors of not caring about the truth are out of bounds and obviously uncivil. Not that I bear a grudge or anything like that, I've heard much worse on Wikipedia.

You should know that some of the editors here have been the victims of an onslaught of incivility. Until he was banned, a user named RPJ unleashed a near-daily wave of insults directed at us. There are plenty of drive by crazies who thrown in a text dump of "conspiracy nonsens" and insult when it gets reverted, the people like the JV Baker advocates who insult you because their personal conspiracy theory isn't in the article and might lower sales of their book, and the people who just want to talk and talk about their pet theory, like one editor on this page who not so long ago claimed a second shooter was hiding behind a road sign in plain view of hundreds and Zapruder's camera. So we get tired, we make jokes, and we call the people who have insulted us crazies and nuts. Does that mean we wish to vilify all who disagree? Does that mean we're insulting you personally because you disagree? No. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Will I never live that comment down?! I am the editor who made the comment about the man behind the Stemmons Freeway sign; however I did not explain clearly what I had meant about the shooter possibly having been behind the sign. I didn't mean directly behind it, I had meant that he might have been far back up the incline on the grassy knoll in the shadows of the trees, with the sign directly in front of him. I stood in that precise spot and there was a straight trajectory to the X in the street.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay that makes a lot more sense, he would have been behind Zapruder and the pergola at least, but any shooter anywhere on the knoll, even behind the fence, would have been visible to a number of people. Gamaliel (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but everyone's eyes were on the motorcade.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

View of the stockade fence from where Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman were standing. Judge for yourself whether Zapruder and Sitzman would not have noticed someone standing behind that fence and firing a rifle. Or whether an assassin would fire from there with Zapruder and Sitzman standing right nearby looking down at him, and Lee Bowers in the rail yard tower with an unobstructed view also looking down at the back of the fence. — Walloon (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the shooter was behind the fence; he could have been on the knoll in the shadow of the tree where I myself stood, and he would have had an unobstructed view of the JFK Lincoln Continental as it approached. Furthermore, it's possible the gun could have been concealed inside something else like a camera. I watched a film the other night, and (it was based on a true story which occurred in the 1960s), an assassin posing as a photographer killed a man with the gun concealed inside an ordinary-looking box camera.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Call for consensus on sources

Let's cut to the nub. As I see it, the major issue is what sources a reasonably firm majority of editors can agree on. Let's talk this over, because otherwise this page faces an ongoing low-grade edit war, with little hope of making overall improvements. If this page could someday make GA or FA status, it would be an outstanding achievement for Wikipedia as a whole... a symbol of the ability of the entire project to move forward. I do not pretend this will be easy, indeed, my proposal may cause more turmoil than lasting progress. But I see it as the only constructive way to go from here, unless someone has a better idea. Jusda fax 19:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Childhood

The current section "Childhood" bothers to include exact dates of birth and death and marriage for Oswald's parents, when none of that is really necessary. It just clutters up the paragraph with data for data's sake. There are a thousand pieces of data about Oswald's life and family; we can't include them all. I'd like to revise it to include just the years, if nobody objects. — Walloon (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tried and Convicted upon arrest

The police and media tried and convicted Oswald upon his arrest, so eager were they to have found Kennedy's assassin. The side-show atmosphere inside the station, the parading of Oswald before photographers and journalists who fired at him a barrage of dumb questions: "Did you shoot the president?", etc. Oswald should have been protected from the moment of his arrest, likewise during the transfer. The police incompetence coupled with the animalistic avidity of the journalists and photographers made it possible for any mentally-unbalanced person such as Ruby to grab a gun and avenge JFK before Oswald was even allowed to be defended before a court of his peers. During the transfer, the police should have shielded Oswald, instead they were exposing him to accomodate the photographers; indeed flashbulbs went off the instant Ruby stepped forward and murdered Oswald. The article should asign some of the blame to the journalists for the death of Oswald, as they were indirectly responsible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to add something to the article? Otherwise, it appears that you're using this section as a WP:FORUM. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that the police were chasing the last disaster. The president had been protected as well as possible from close-range pistol assassination (the mode in the previous three presidential assassinations) but then JFK was killed by a long-distance rifle sniper. The police figured this was the way of the future and had Oswald all fitted out with an amoured car to protect him from that, and with enough cops to protect him from "Texas justice" (a vigillante hanging mob, which the police chief actually mentions). Everybody, in their attempts to adapt, forgot that the "old" assassination methods still could work. In fact, ONLY somebody like a Ruby could have gotten through. S B H arris 07:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Backyard photograph analysis becoming controversial

I didn't think that the Farid analysis was going to be as controversial as is has become, so I added some text and a link to provide an opposing view to Farid's analysis. I don't know how big this controversy is going to get but if you are heavily invested in the Oswald article this might be a section to watch.grifterlake (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A detailed discussion of questions on the authenticity of the photographs is more appropriate to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It's my view that since the photos in question are of the subject of the article, therefore this is a fine and proper place to discuss them and their place in the article, rather than relegate that discussion elsewhere. Joe, you advocate defacto censorship, I feel. Jusda fax 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, conspiracy theorists take issue with every detail of the Kennedy assassination. To include each of their challenges would overwhelm the text. Gamaliel (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think if you try to lump this in with 'Martians killed JFK' and get away with it then Wikipedia as a whole is in trouble. Just yesterday I heard respected writer and national talk-show host Thom Hartmann talk about his new book on the JFK assassination, which I found had startling views. Now, Hartmann may be defined by some as 'progressive' or 'liberal', but regardless of what label you hang on him, he's no nut case but is mainstream by my definition. Once you put up walls about what can and can't be mentioned on a Wikipedia talk page you have to tread pretty carefully, in my view. I'm quite serious about finding the idea of cutting off reasonable discussion here to be contrary to the spirit on which Wikipedia is based. I suspect I'm not alone. The discussion page should be used for what is meant for, and acts as a kind of safety valve. I urgently suggest it not be plugged up. Jusda fax 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear I was speaking about the article. You can talk about whatever you want here on the talk page, within the limits of WP talk page policy. Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Based on Joe's comment, then yours, I misunderstood. Nevertheless, as I say, ground breaking info is coming out at this point in time. Hartmann's book and views will be featured on the History Channel, special this weekend. For those with a stake in this issue in general and this article in particular, it will be of interest no matter what you think actually happened on that terrible day in Dallas. Best wishes, Jusda fax 01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the History Channel. I'll check it out. Gamaliel (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The link: http://www.legacyofsecrecy.com/ and the air date - of course - is Sunday, Nov. 22, in the evening (check local listings.) I have not read the book, which is said to be based on the U.S. Government's own archives. Please understand me whan I assert that I do not want to believe any of this, for my own comfort in my daily life. I will, however, keep an open mind. UPDATE: I see I am mistaken, it is on the DISCOVERY Channel, not the History. Jusda fax 02:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in the text?

Is there a mistake in the text or is it just something I don't understand? The article states: "Four cartridge cases were found at the scene by eyewitnesses. It was the unanimous testimony of expert witnesses before the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations that these used cartridge cases were fired from the revolver in Oswald's possession to the exclusion of all other weapons"

Now, to the best of my knowledge revolvers do not eject a cartridge case when firing. Why were these found at the scene? If it was determined that Oswald ejected them manually for some reason it might be useful to include that info here, it's quite puzzling otherwise.

74.59.117.9 (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. The shooting of Tibbit provokes many questions that cannot be answered or explained.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, he was seen by a witness emptying his revolver and adding fresh ammo as he fled. Gamaliel (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, Gamaliel. This bit of info was in the article before, not sure when or why it was removed. Fortunately this question is easily answered.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's explained in the JD Tippit article. Here Walloon and I went to all that trouble to write that article and you didn't read it. ;) Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew I had seen it on the WP. I guess I was confusing articles. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now :) Thanks all for pointing me to the more complete info. Fascinating piece of history with lots of questions for sure. 74.59.117.9 (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Most television documentaries and journalists don't bother much with the particulars surrounding the JD Tippit shooting; however, Oswald's actions in Oak Cliff were even more bizarre and baffling than at the TSBD.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Done--Oneiros (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oswald, Communist

User:FencesandWindows has removed the tag that Oswald was an American communist, which somebody else placed. I think it's fair to say he was. He was converted at 16 from reading a pamphlet about the Rosenberg execution, and spent the rest of his life reading communist literature. He defected to the USSR! Back at home (disillusioned with the USSR not with communism) he read Krocodil and subscribed to Communist newsletters. He told de Mohrenschildt he was Communist and the latter (with much more experience) could only shake his head at O.'s lack of realism. Finally, Oswald focuses on Cuba as the last socialist paradise, after the Cuban Missle crisis (October 1962). He organized a Fair Play for Cuba Committee (consisting of just himself, typically) and got into a fight with ex-Cubans. He went on the radio, he passed out tracts. He tried to emigrate to Cuba at the very end of his life, and nearly succeeded (too bad he didn't). Not long after being fired from his only good job, he used his new rifle to take a shot at an anti-Cuban general. I have little doubt (though can't prove it) that his assassination of JFK (who had admitted the Bay of Pigs and had done much blustering during the missle crisis) was meant to be a blow on behalf of Cuba, which he figured might be a safe haven. I suspect (can't prove) he was headed to Mexico (where'd just been to try to get to Cuba) and a flight to Cuba, when apprehended. Communist? Hell, yes. S B H arris 20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume you have no idea what Krokodil was? A satirical weekly magazine with mostly cartoons (usually pretty tame) criticizing various aspects of Soviet life. Hardly evidence of ideological purity. In any case, as even you say, he was pretty muddle-headed. I'd call him more disturbed (crazy?) then a Communist. What I find most bizarre about his life is the whole trip to the USSR. Why was he accepted there? Why was he allowed to go back to the US? Why did the US take him back? Why weren't there any US legal consequences of his defection? My only theory is that neither side took him seriously at all. kovesp (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdated?

Is this information still current?

Oswald obtained knowledge of the U-2 spy planes which he may have passed over to the Soviets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.48.162 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Police Chief Curry's comments

I fail to see how the opinions of Police Chief Jesse Curry are deemed as "random quotes", when they were said by the man who legally had charge of the prisoner Lee Harvey Oswald, and in whose jurisdiction the assassination took place! Clearly the blatant removal of Curry's comments can be construed as an attempt to steer this article into the non-neutral POV camp where anything added that does not condemn Oswald as the lone assassin is instead deemed as pro-conspiracy nonsense. I think Curry's comments should be put back into the article. If editors are so certain of the infallability of the Warren Report, surely the " random" quotes made by Police Chief Curry shouldn't undermine their faith in the Commission's findings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If some context can be provided, then it will no longer be a random quote. Such as the obvious question of why Curry's investigation fingered this "innocent" person. It is a favorite tactic of conspiracies of all types (creationists, global warming "skeptics", etc.) to pull quotes out of context. If this is really a smoking gun, then let's see the context. Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I should also add that in this article we don't generally report the opinions of the many, many, many participants in Oswald's life and the assassination. If you'd like to start a section about opinions on his guilt, make sure you include the many people, including his wife and brother, who are convinced that he was the assassin. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that his wife and brother believed in Oswald's guilt has no bearing on the opinions made by Police Chief Curry, in whose jurisdiction the assassination was carried out and into whose keeping Oswald was placed. I would hardly consider the Chief of the Dallas police a mere "participant" in the life of Oswald and the JFK assassination. Jesse Curry was legally in charge of the investigation into the crime carried out that day in Dallas because in 1963 it was not a federal crime to assassinate the president of the United States of America. As a result his opinions do count, even if they happen to upset the apple cart carefully prepared by the Warren Commission.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I mention the opinions of others because I see the only reason to single out Curry is because the quote serves to push an agenda. If you want the quote in, then provide the context. Or would that upset your apple cart? Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Restore Curry's opinons. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Marine Corps Rifle Qualifications

It may not be worth including in the article, but it would be useful to at least have available as background or context information, that the Marine Corps only has 4 possible catagories of rifle qualification, and two of them are over-hyped.

They are Marksman (the lowest qualification), Sharpshooter (average) and Rifle Expert (the highest). The only other possiblity is to be "Unqualified", which for a Marine is very, very bad, and can sometimes be grounds for discharge. But to be a "Marksman" is not much better. Marines take pride in their ability to shoot accurately, and to be awarded the "toilet seat" (the Marksman badge is a flat panel that could be thought of as a toilet seat) is a mark of shame, not pride.

Civilians read about how a Marine (such as Oswald) and they get the impression that he was a very good shot, when in contrast, by Marine Corps standards he was barely acceptable. To be a Sharpshooter is acceptable, but neither of these words convey the highest proficiency attainable. That would be a Rifle Expert. Civilians hear the "salesmanship" behind these words, and miss the simple fact that a "marksman" is the equivalent of a "D" grade. Stats showing the distribution of these medals/qualification, and what percentage are unqualified would be interesting. What if Oswald was in the lowest 20%, shared with those that failed to even qualify. That might lend some perspective to his "marksmanship".

Oswald was a poor shot, and not the steely-eyed gunman that those without military experience would believe him to be. I think that's important for people to keep this in mind, when reading about Oswalds "marksman" and "sharpshooter" rifle "expertise".

Further, I think it would be a good idea to do a little research and find out a workable number for the number of rifle shots that Oswald actually fired while in the Marine Corps. The total number of shots fired would probably surprise most people; with two trips the the qualifying range, I'd estimate the number of shots Oswald actually fired while on Active Duty would be about 200, or even less. It might be interesting for a more definative number to be determined.

This information would also serve to help dilute the idea that Oswald was somehow "special" in his rifle skills. He wasn't special, his reputation is a combination of Marine Corps marketing, and a reluctance on the part of Americans to believe in the unpatriotic idea that there are Marines that are not all that great with a rifle.

Jonny Quick (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

In a TV documentary, maybe Discovery Channel, there is a photo showing the outline of Oswald at the window, and another person in the window directly under Oswald's position. An interview with that person discovede the following testimony: "I heard three shots. Bang ! click click, BANG, click click,(pause a couple of seconds) BANG!" Why is this absolutely clear "ear-witness" evidence NEVER DISCLOSED ON ANY OF THESE discussions? I wish I knew exactly who the witness is, but I'm sure his testimony appears somewhere in the 17 million pages of stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.25.16 (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Selective service card says Alek James Hidell

The Warren Commission published a photo of the card found on Oswald. It says ALEK JAMES HIDELL. It does not anywhere say Alek J. Hidell or A. J. Hidell or Alex J. Hidell or numerous variations. If you can't verify for yourself that it says ALEK JAMES HIDELL, then get a seeing eye dog. But don't edit Wikipedia saying otherwise, please. S B H arris 20:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you need another source. Anything else is your own original research. The article reports on what the Warren Commission said, you can't report on what you say. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the relevant quote from the source used at present The arresting officers found a forged selective service card with a picture of Oswald and the name "Alek J. Hidell" in Oswald's billfold.681 On November 22 and 23, Oswald refused to tell Fritz why this card was in his possession,682 or to answer any questions concerning the card.683 On Sunday morning, November 24, Oswald denied that he knew A. J. Hidell. Captain Fritz produced the selective service card bearing the name "Alek J. Hidell." Oswald became angry and said, "Now, I've told you all I'm going to tell you about that card in my billfolds--you have the card yourself and you know as much about it as I do. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have counted to ten. The full WC report has a facsimile of this card in volume XVII:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh17.htm

CE 795 published in that volume (see above) has the Commisssion notation: "A spurious Selective Service System notice of classification card in the name "Alek James Hidell."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0354a.htm

Therefore when the Warren synopsis says "Captain Fritz produced the selective service card bearing the name "Alek J. Hidell," it is either contradicting itself, or else making a convenient abbreviation, since obviously Captain Fritz produced a card which the Warren Commission itself in volume 17 states bears the spurious name "Alek James Hidell," and not Alek J. Hidell as such. I do not know which is the problem (an error or a convenient abbreviation), and you don't either. To note that a potential problem between these even exists within the report would be original research also, unless you can find a source for somebody else who has a problem with it besides you. In any case, a detail that fine is not appropriate for this article.

So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to note that WC said that the card bore the spurious name of Alek James Hidell. I am going to note that the WC said that Oswald denied that he knew A. J. Hidell and refused to tell the interrogator why this card was in his possession, or to answer any questions concerning the card, saying "..you have the card yourself and you know as much about it as I do."

Finally, if you continue this obstructive and contentious editing, not only will I submit this problem to arbitration, but in the process I will ask that your account be investigated as the sockpuppet of a probable banned user, since you are clearly no newcommer to WP, and you are making quite a mess here, which suggests that you have made a similar mess here before, and been booted for it. Have you not? S B H arris 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not obstructive or contentious to suggest that an edit should reflect the source used to support it. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oswald's Odd Choice of Rifle

Oswald was knowledgeable about rifles and by several accounts had been passionately reading gun magazines prior to buying the 6.5mm Carcano rifle. By far, the most popular World War II surplus rifle at that time was the Mauser Karabiner 98k, the standard WWII rifle for German infantry. Its 7.92mm round is very similar to the 30.06 which is the rifle round Oswald was most familiar with from being in the Marines. Also, the 6.5mm Carcano cartridge would stick out like a sore thumb in any homicide investigation. It seems inexplicable that Oswald would choose this almost obscure Italian weapon.TL36 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It was on sale, very cheap, with a cutout ad from the American Rifleman. Oswald was relatively poor, although in March, 1963 he was probably working at the best job of his life, and had been for some time (he was due to be fired the next month). Had he been paid by some conspiracy, he'd have had enough money for anything he wanted. When Oswald bought the rifle, I doubt he intended to assassinate anybody with it, much less JFK. He liked guns-- he'd accidently fired a pistol he wasn's supposed to have, while in the marines, remember. A firearm made him feel less powerless, and in Texas it wasn't all that odd for people to be gun owners and collectors. My guess is that Oswald's mood in gun ownership was rather playful, as you see on the backyard photos, one of which he even sent to de Mohrenschildt (not an assassin's act). What really set Oswald off at the end, I think, was being fired in April. He attempted assassination of Walker only a few days later-- about as soon as he could, after casing his house over a weekend. Clearly, he was nuts and a walking timebomb from that point on, fixated on getting to Cuba, and angry at anyone who wasn't a Cuban Communist. Then JFK, who had his own many problems with Cuba, decided to take a motorcade route right under the window of the place Oswald was working. He could not have known that would happen when he started there. But when he heard, it must have seemed like destiny. Revenge on the world for all his problems. And there was always Cuba, as a dream of where to escape to. S B H arris 03:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing Oswald did or said can be readily explained. He is as much an enigma today as he was in 1963, and as he will go on to be for future scholars and historians. There are many strange quirks to the man's actions, from his choice of rifle to his leaving it behind the stack of boxes near the stairwell after the shooting. His escape by city bus cannot be comprehended nor his hiding out inside a place such a movie theatre. The responses he gave to journalists after his arrest remain baffling to us despite numerous viewings on television and YouTube. We as editors can ascribe all different types of motives for why he did this and why he said that; however, the fact remains that we do not know and probably never will because Jack Ruby silenced him forever.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

These are not great mysteries. What is Oswald going to do-- attempt to carry the rifle out of the book depository? Oswald didn't drive-- if he wanted to go anywhere he had to walk, get a lift, or take bus or taxi, but he'd left most of his money for Marina, so taxi was the last choice. And Oswald didn't have a cell phone. Waiting for a bus with little time to spare, I think he probably would have taken a taxi after leaving his appartment after the assassination, but how was he to get one? In retrospect he should have had the taxi tht took him home, wait. But he didn't think to do it, expecting to take a bus (which he had to take anyway to get to Mexico). S B H arris 18:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The bit about Oswald not having had a cell phone surprises me, and is indeed another mystery. I really would have thought he would have brought one with him to work that morning just so he could call Marina at 12.25 and inform her he was going to shoot the president. And yes, it was completely in line with Oswald's character to burst out of the building firing his Carcano just like Billy the Kid or the Rifleman.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think cell phones were available in 1963 in the US, and if they were they were certainly out of Oswald's price range. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

They were available, but just not as common as they are today. The actual fact was he had a Motorola RAZR on him but his call plan had expired the month before, so no help to him. --Breshkovsky (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This talk about cell phones is hogwash. It was established by the Warren Commission (cf. Report, Vol. 17, pp. 672-843) that Oswald was issued with a 12-RP Infantry HF Radio (with both 5-SG2 and 12-R components, more details here: 12-RP Details) by his handlers. He was under strict orders to keep it with him at all times. However this was a WW2 surplus Red Army radio, weighed over 14 kilograms with batteries and needed a rather large knapsack to carry. It is perhaps understandable that he left it at home from time to time; had he survived the mission, he would have, in all likelihood, been subject to an investigation, demotion and possibly even a fine for violating regulations. The radio was found buried in the back yard of his house, carefully wrapped in oil-skin, batteries fully charged. This was suppressed from the media, as the US military wanted to study it for possible incorporation of its features—decades ahead of anything the US had at the time—in it's own equipment designs.--kovesp (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Capture

Under "Capture", the passage has become ungrammatical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.254.83 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed now. EEng (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

No problem...re: the "token" reference, but I thought that comment was part of a post here by Alistair Stevenson? If you want to get into this, Sbharris, how did LHO know to get a job working in the last building before the overpass and that the JFK motorcade would take the turn to go by the book depository while traffic direction, normally one way, the other way, would be reversed for that occasion? Speaking of his job hunting, were you aware of this?

Extensive primary material, supplied by Ruidoso, on certain incidents related to Oswald, along with scattered discussion with other editors re their relevance to the article

{{{2}}}

Again, I have made a reasonable, well supported argument for leaving the third paragraph of the Lead of the LHO article just the way it is now. If you insist on adding a disclaimer to it concerning the HSCA finding of a conspiracy, then accuracy and fairness to the readers of the Lead require similar disclaimers be displayed next to the descriptions of the WC and FBI investigations and findings. Ruidoso (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

^ [5] photo of the order slip and order envelope for the murder weapon]

[1] [5] photo of the order slip and order envelope for the murder weapon]

[1]