Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 24, 2005, and November 24, 2011.

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?[edit]

I just noticed that this article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest. But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time.

any comment on the doubt of anon editor? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

When Leavelle testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963. When Counsel Joseph Ball asked Leavelle if he had ever spoken to Oswald before this interrogation, he stated; "No, I had never talked to him before". Leavelle then stated during his testimony that "the only time I had connections with Oswald was this Sunday morning [November 24, 1963]. I never had [the] occasion to talk with him at any time..."

In a 2006 interview, Leavelle said that he was the first to interrogate Oswald after his arrest (contrary to his Warren Commission testimony). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sloppy sourcing:[edit]

I noticed that Youtube was used as a source in a few spots in this article. These were just re-hosted videos, and I went ahead and replaced them with better sources. It wouldn't shock me if sourcing is a little sloppy in other areas in the article as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Evidence Oswald meant "scapegoat" by "patsy"[edit]

I agree with Cullen328's removal of the link and that "patsy" is not a direct synonym for "scapegoat". There is more than one nuance to its meaning and we need cited evidence as to which Oswald meant, which is going to be pretty hard to come by. Canada Jack re-inserted this wikilink so I think the onus is on him to provide a citation that Oswald in particular meant scapegoat by this. I'm pretty sure the dictionary definition comes from the mid 20th century. Whatever the case may be, M-W for example isn't strongly enough worded to support saying this is definitely what the term means. The synonyms listed are "chump, dupe, gull, pigeon, pushover, sap, sucker, tool" - notably missing is scapegoat. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I restored the original link, and the onus is to gain consensus for the removal of material that had been there for ages when editors are not in agreement, not the reverse.
Is "patsy" synonymous with "scapegoat"? From the patsy page, we read this: "The popularity of the name has waned with the rise of its, chiefly North American,[3] meaning as "dupe" or "scapegoat". So a definition of "patsy" is indeed "scapegoat." And what do we have on the scapegoating page? "Scapegoating is the practice of singling out a person or group for unmerited blame." Sure, there are differing interpretations as to what, exactly, "patsy" means, so where do we get the idea that Oswald meant not that he was a fall guy for some nefarious unidentified group, but a convenient "scapegoat"? From his own words! "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!" Claiming he was arrested for the mere fact he lived in the Soviet Union is the DEFINITION of "scapegoat." The inanity of claiming otherwise is that we'd have to believe that immediately after saying he was simply arrested for where he lived, he now claims some unidentified people duped him and set him up - which is admitting at least partial complicity! (!) Canada Jack (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It's the kind of argument I can imagine Michael Cohen making. "Your honour, the only reason my client was arrested was because he happened to have lived in the Soviet Union and the police saw a convenient scapegoat. Also, the guys who actually carried out the crime tricked him into putting himself into a circumstance whereby he'd look guilty." I can imagine the judge saying "I thought you just said the only reason he is here is because he lived in the Soviet Union - and now you're telling us he was set up? Clearly he knows these people and is therefore a possible accomplice - I hope you aren't charging your client a lot, mister, because you just admitted to a possible conspiracy."
Well, if you believe Oswald would in effect admit to that after saying he was a mere scapegoat... well, I really don't know what else to say.
Obviously, since "scapegoat" is a definition of "patsy," and Oswald defined "scapegoating" by the Dallas Police, that is what he meant by "patsy." Otherwise we'd have to believe he just confessed to a conspiracy. Canada Jack (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
My interpretation (which does not belong in the encyclopedia) is that Oswald, who was neither completely stupid nor very perceptive, blurted the "patsy" comment to falsely portray himself as an unwitting tool of others after he was unexpectedly arrested. He probably imagined that he would escape to Cuba or the Soviet Union, to be acclaimed as a hero. The word "patsy" comes from the true crime magazines popular in the 1950s and early 1960s. The bottom line is that the comment provides zero evidence that Oswald was innocent. Guilty people routinely say very foolish things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Canada Jack: I think you know that a wikipedia page is not a reliable source and that WP:PROVEIT says "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Yes, I think it is possible Oswald meant the more accurate definition of patsy in this case, "fall guy". We have no way of knowing so there should be no link - all you offer is your original analysis, violating WP:OR. You are also edit warring. Please revert yourself until this discussion is concluded. That's four guidelines or policies you have violated here. People can look up the definition of "patsy" if they need to. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you DIYeditor! I completely agree with your argument above. There is no way to interpret what Oswald said or meant. The reader will have to judge by him/herself what he might have meant with the expression. warshy (¥¥) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Plus, from what I understand looking at the history of this discussion, the word "patsy" is already linked once in the article. The insertion of the double-link here in Oswald's speech is a very clear interpretation/POV. warshy (¥¥) 15:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you know that a wikipedia page is not a reliable source.... This is getting rather silly. "Patsy" as "scapegoat," and the attendant definition of "scapegoat" don't derive from what pages on wikipedia say - these are the common, everyday defintions of those terms.

Yes, I think it is possible Oswald meant the more accurate definition of patsy in this case, "fall guy". We have no way of knowing so there should be no link - all you offer is your original analysis, violating WP:OR. He himself defines "patsy" as "scapegoat" and there is no way around that, DIY. It doesn't matter what YOU think "patsy" means, it matters what Oswald thought it meant. And it's not my "original analysis." This is a common interpretation of what he said. Vincent Bugliosi, for example, made the precise point I make. Therefore, to avoid the OR critique I will insert his citation when I have the book at hand. And, "it's only possible" that he meant "patsy" in the other way if you ignore his comments about the Soviet Union. Which is what the conspiracy crowd routinely does - they leave out his Soviet Union comment. Otherwise, you are making the rather astonishing claim that in the same breath Oswald said he was picked up only for the fact he lived in the Soviet Union, that he was set up to be a fall guy by people he presumably knew (how would he know he was a "fall guy" otherwise?) which are two different and mutually exclusive things.

You are also edit warring. Please revert yourself until this discussion is concluded. I am edit warring? The existing text was removed - with no discussion - and I reinstated it. And it has been removed THREE times - I reverted TWICE. The onus is on the editor making the original claim to justify it if an editor has reverted it. The original text should be reinstated until a decision has been made one way or the other.

By applying the cite from the reliable source who says Oswald meant "scapegoat" by saying "patsy," the text as it stood should stand. Canada Jack (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

And... just to emphasize this point, because "fall guy" is the common modern interpretation of what "patsy" means, all the more reason to emphasize the "scapegoat" definition. It'd be the same if someone in 1963 called Oswald a "gay" young lad...well, there has been a semantic shift with that word, as there has been with "patsy." Because Oswald actually defines the "scapegoat" meaning of "patsy," there is no doubt what definition he intended... but, as has been pointed out, this has to be sourced, which it will be. Canada Jack (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is only "the common modern interpretation", as far as I know "dupe" or "fall guy" is the original 20th century sense. I personally feel that Oswald as not part of a conspiracy. The question is solid evidence of what he meant. Linking the scapegoat article seems to be a case of ramming it down the throat of the reader that this was not a conspiracy - POV-pushing.
I directly quoted the guideline explanation of adding or removing material. The burden is clear, unequivocally, on the person restoring uncited material to provide citation before restoring it! The long standing version does not take precedence. The challenge/removal takes precedence. Please self revert your edit warring. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Patsy has its own page, and a subsection is about how it's been used by Oswald and others. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That section actually describes a "fall guy" rather than "scapegoat" usage despite its use of "scapegoat". Fall guy is before the fact, scapegoat is after the fact. Not that I personally believe Oswald was part of a conspiracy. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Just link to the page patsy, and let people on that page worry about defining it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
That's certainly better than linking to scapegoat. Sounds like we have a solution. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I have the reliable source now that says the only possible interpretation of what Oswald said was "scapegoat." I will re-insert the link later with the missing citation and, for clarity, reproduce the relevant text here establishing this. Since those who claim otherwise typically a) omit the part about the Soviet Union which establishes the "scapegoat" interpretation and are b) conspiracy authors and therefore non-reliable sources, there should be no issue letting this stand. As it stood, I admit that without a citation this sounds like a POV assertion.
This is an important point to make, as the meaning of "patsy" has shifted in the 50+ years since the assassination as to basically exclude the "scapegoat" meaning. It would be a similar issue if, say, "gay" was used in its original sense to describe someone in 1963 - a note might be necessary to establish it isn't being claimed someone was a homosexual.
For the sake of interest, as DIY rather oddly claimed that me supplying a link to another page with the "scapegoat" definition found on the "patsy" page violates the tenet that wikipedia itself can't be its own "reliable source" - as if this definition is only limited to wikipedia (the only real issue here is what reliable source says Oswald meant "scapegoat" and not "fall guy" - any good dictionary has the "scapegoat" definition included for "patsy"). Here is what the Oxford English Dictionary says: Patsy: A person who is easily taken advantage of, esp. by being deceived, cheated, or blamed for something; a dupe, a scapegoat. So, indeed "scapegoat" is a definition for "patsy."
What is interesting about the OED citations is it is clear "patsy" had these multiple senses until as late as the 1970s - it is only now that the "fall guy" sense has become predominant, "scapegoat" not as common, so a clear semantic shift has occured since Oswald used the term some 55 years ago. Ironically, it's probably because of the conspiracy crowd's use of the Oswald quote - out of context - that has helped cement that interpretation even though he obviously meant it in the "scapegoat" sense.
Further, for interest's sake, here is one of the earliest published uses of the word that they found, from a play with a character named "Patsy," which explains how for many years the term was capitalized, and that the first sense of the word was "scapegoat": 1889 H. F. Reddall Fact, Fancy & Fable 404 A party of minstrels in Boston, about twenty years ago, had a performance... When the pedagogue asked in a rage, ‘Who did that?’, the boys would answer, ‘Patsy Bolivar!’... The phrase..spread beyond the limits of the minstrel performance, and when a scapegoat was alluded to, it was in the name of ‘Patsy Bolivar’..the one who is always blamed for everything.
Just to reiterate, I am simply by referring to the OED in this post establishing that a definition of "patsy" - indeed, the original definition - was the "scapegoat" one. The citation I will later insert will establish that that was what Oswald's sense of the word was, and not "fall guy," an issue explicitly covered by the reliable source. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have just re-instated the "scapegoating" link to "patsy," as I have also added the reliable source who makes that point. As DIY correctly pointed out, as I erred on this point, once the uncited claim was removed, the onus was on me to supply the cite, which I have now done.

And, as promised, here is the text and argument from the reliable source (Vincent Bugliosi) establishing that Oswald's clear meaning when he said "I'm just a patsy" was that he was a convenient scapegoat, arrested by the Dallas police for the sole reason he had defected to the Soviet Union. And, further, his dissection of the argument that Oswald meant "fall guy" by laying out the scenarios which render this interpretation implausible and nonsensical, putting aside for the sake of argument the clear meaning from the context of what Oswald said.

We already have Bugliosi on this page for several other references. From "Reclaiming History," pp 841-2 (Italicized portions as in Bugliosi's text):


Finally, we have the most famous and enduring words ever uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald, "I'm just a patsy," which surprisingly were only recorded in one place in assassination literature. Scripps-Howard newspaper reporter Seth Kantor jotted the words down when Oswald spoke them to reporters, Kantor's notes say, at 7:55 p.m. on the evening of the assassination. Oswald's declaration, which is audible in TV footage, has been repeated for years by conspiracy theorists far and wide as evidence of his innocence. "Maybe, just maybe," New Orleans DA Jim Garrison tells his staff in Oliver Stone's movie JFK, "Lee Oswald was exactly what he said he was—a patsy."

The only problem is that Oswald's declaration has been taken out of context by the conspiracy theorists, who want people to believe that when Oswald said he was just a patsy he was referring to being a patsy for the conspirators behind the assassination. But it appears from the context that he was not. From TV footage we hear this exchange:

First reporter: "Were you in the [Book Depository Building] at the time [of the shooting]?"

Oswald: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

Second reporter: "Back up, man!"

Third reporter: "Come on, man!"

Fourth reporter: "Did you shoot the president?"

Oswald: "No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy."

It is clear from the context that Oswald is saying that the Dallas authorities (who he obviously is not suggesting are responsible for and behind Kennedy's murder) are blaming him for the assassination simply because of the fact that he had defected to the Soviet Union and he was a convenient person for them to accuse.


Bugliosi then spends several pages dissecting the "fall guy" interpretation set forth by conspiracy authors and why it is implausible, by accepting for the sake of argument that that is what Oswald meant. Most obviously, Oswald would have been admitting to being a part of a conspiracy, as either a witting or unwitting "fall guy." Remember what happened to the Lincoln assassination conspirators? (That WAS a conspiracy, btw.) They were all hanged even though only one guy fired a shot. Oswald, therefore, was no innocent bystander by claiming to be a "fall guy": He in effect was admitting he was part of a conspiracy if he meant "fall guy" by saying "patsy" and would bear responsibility. Next, was he a witting or unwitting "fall guy"? If Oswald was a witting "fall guy," why in hell would he agree to take the fall in the first place? Further, since he tried to escape and avoid arrest, it is clear he was not willing to take the fall for this, so this interpretation makes zero sense. But if he was an unwitting "fall guy," how could the conspirators know that Oswald would not be surrounded by witnesses, say in the lunchroom, at the moment of the assassination, thus providing him with an alibi? But, say conspiracy authors, they would have instructed Oswald, oblivious to the assassination plan, to be somewhere where no one would see him. But that is even less plausible, says Bugliosi, given what we know of his character - he was completely unreliable. Are we really expected to believe the fate of such a consequential act would rest on the shoulders of such a completely unreliable guy? Yet these are the scenarios we are forced to embrace if we accept the "fall guy" interpretation of "patsy," per Bugliosi. Canada Jack (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Stick to facts. Link to patsy, and then say "according to writer Bugliosi, Oswald meant scapegoat.". Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact is Oswald meant "scapegoat," as per the reliable source, and as per his actual quote. Canada Jack (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no need to couch it by saying "according to...", just because conspiracy authors, which are unreliable sources, claim otherwise by omitting the context - same as we don't couch the lede which says Oswald was the one "who assassinated United States President John F. Kennedy" just because the same conspiracy authors beg to differ. Canada Jack (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
As a bit of a Lincoln buff, I want to offer just a slight clarification regarding Canada Jack's technically correct statement, "They were all hanged even though only one guy fired a shot." Lewis Powell was assigned by John Wilkes Booth to murder Secretary of State William H. Seward, who was then recovering from a broken jaw which was the result of a runaway carriage accident. Powell attempted to shoot Seward's son at the door of his house, but his gun jammed. He then pistol whipped Seward's son, severely injuring him. Powell then ran upstairs and repeatedly stabbed Seward, who was grievously wounded. Seward's life was probably saved by his metal jaw brace which prevented Powell from cutting his throat. Powell stabbed and seriously injured another person while escaping. I know that this information is not relevant to this article but I think it is important to remember how pernicious John Wilkes Booth's conspiracy really was, and that there were other victims besides Lincoln, so I hope this comment will be forgiven. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I have again removed the second wikilink of "patsy" to scapegoat, which was in a direct TV quote from Oswald. The Manual of Style says: "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after." (Emphasis added.) Please note that the word "patsy" is already wikilinked before the quote, in the lead, where it is not part of a direct quote. We cannot be 100% sure what Oswald meant by that word, since he was soon dead, so I believe that it is best to let the quote stand on its own, without a wikilink, to allow readers to interpret it on their own. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cullen - I was thinking in terms of Lincoln about Mary Surratt - she arguably did not deserve to be hanged, her link to the conspiracy was arguably tenuous.
But, to the reversion, how can readers "interpret this on their own" when most readers (see above) are unaware "scapegoat" is even a definition of "patsy"? When we even have DIY baldly - and incorrectly - stating that "fall guy" is the original definition? "Fall guy is before the fact, scapegoat is after the fact." "Scapegoat", as I have shown, is the original meaning of the word, "fall guy" came much later. Unless you are an etymologist, how would you possibly know this? It is therefore no solution to simply link to the "patsy" page from the lede to let readers "decide for themselves", as most people would be unaware of the alternate meaning, and as that page reflects what we understand the word to mean in 2018, where "scapegoat" is a secondary meaning and even archaic meaning, not what it meant in 1963, when "scapegoat" was a more universally understood definition. This entire discussion underlines what I've been saying - without an explicit link, few people would know that Oswald simply meant (or if you want to argue about it POSSIBLY meant) "Scapegoat." To do otherwise would be to mislead readers into thinking Oswald said he was set up by conspirators when he was likely just sounding off about the Dallas police.
As I said earlier, when there is a semantic shift, we should at least flag that the word may not mean today what it meant 55 years ago, as with words like "gay."
Therefore, we should add text which says something like, "while many interpret Oswald as saying he was a "fall guy" by saying "patsy," the word also means "scapegoat." THAT would truly allow people to "interpret this on their own." The same Bugliosi link would suffice. Canada Jack (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem adding content about the meaning of the word, Canada Jack, if it is properly referenced. Instead, I object to wikilinking the word a second time within a direct quotation, which the Manual of Style recommends against. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a line to underline the different meanings - and that line is referenced to Bugliosi, with no link to "scapegoating" or "patsy" or "green onions," for that matter... Actually, this works better as you'd have had to hit the link to realize there was a semantic difference in the first place (if you didn't already know) - whether you hit "patsy" or "scapegoating." Canada Jack (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:OfI like green onions, and I like your solution to the problem. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well then, here's the link! [1]

And all this semantic acrobatics, that really leave you like an intellectual 'pretzel' just hanging up in the air out there, just to "prove," according to the biggest and most respected Warren Commission Apologist currently in existence (Mr. Bugliosi, of course), that not only there was no conspiracy ever, but even Oswald's recorded declarations cannot in any way, shape, or form ever possibly even refer to any hypothetical conspiracy. I.e., it has been proven by the Warren Commission and by Mr. Bugliosi, that even any possible hint to anything but the lone nut Oswald scenario is just pure and simple "conspiracy theory." And, of course, there are quite a few indefatigable WP editors whose only purpose here is make sure that only Mr. Bugliosi's arguments appear in the end as the correct ones, as opposed to any other possible arguments, which again are all just mere "conspiracy theories." Kudos! warshy (¥¥) 17:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

More like, when you scratch the surface of the conspiracy claims, they are often based on deliberate misrepresentations of the evidence. The "patsy" claim is a prime example of how authors for decades have been misleading the public. Have you ever heard that perhaps Oswald meant "scapegoat"? If you read them, definitely not. Worse are examples like how Mark Lane lied about Lee Bowers' description about who and what was behind the picket fence and grassy knoll., etc. Canada Jack (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Let me be very clear: Since I first heard his declaration back in 1963, "patsy" never meant for me anything but "fall guy," never anything close to scapegoat. For me also, that is still what was meant by Oswald in this context. The possibility that there were other people besides Oswald involved in the assassination in one form or the other cannot ever be discarded, not the least because Oswald himself was eliminated and silenced forever just a few hours after his "patsy" declaration. Only Warren Commission Apologists of Bugliosi's stripe will make semantics acrobatics such as the ones you described and repeated several times so well above to "prove" that even a slight possibility that there were other people besides Oswald involved somehow in the assassination does not even exist. It is a fundamental matter of American "patriotism": For this kind of belief, you either elevate the conclusions of the Warren Commision to the level of God's own words, as Bugliosi does, or you are a mere "conspiracy theorist," with all the cultural disdain that the term has acquired in American culture and society since November 1963. warshy (¥¥) 22:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Since I first heard his declaration back in 1963, "patsy" never meant for me anything but "fall guy," never anything close to scapegoat. Then I suggest you consult a good dictionary. It's what the word meant when coined, and it retained that meaning when Oswald said it. Look it up. Further, from the context, the "scapegoat" meaning makes perfect sense in relation to his comments about the Soviet Union, "fall guy" makes little sense, indeed it contradicts what he just said as it implies he was part of a conspiracy and set up, instead of simply being a former Soviet resident.
Only Warren Commission Apologists of Bugliosi's stripe will make semantics acrobatics... Here is what was said: Fourth reporter: "Did you shoot the president?" Oswald: "No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy." What do you call blaming someone for something solely on the fact they lived in an enemy country? Scapegoating. He immediately says the "patsy" line - what is a definition of "patsy"? Scagegoat. You call this "semantic acrobats"? Is English not your native language? It's a plain reading of what he said, and, not incidentally, conspiracy authors typically omit his "Soviet Union" line, thus dishonestly hiding that possible meaning.
Another problem here is if Oswald was so readily willing to point the finger at a conspiracy, why was this the only time he said something that could be read that way? For someone so loudly proclaiming his innocence, while he sure repeatedly suggested they arrested the wrong guy and he was the focus of rotten cops, he otherwise doesn't make claims that there were conspirators who did this and they should go after them. Except here, if we read "patsy" to mean "fall guy." For Oswald, doesn't that strike you as odd?
to "prove" that even a slight possibility that there were other people besides Oswald involved somehow in the assassination does not even exist. Migod, warshy, I was a conspiracy theorist for some 30 years, and whatever Oswald meant by "patsy" does nothing to "prove" anything. I mean, he steadfastly maintained his innocence, is that supposed to establish he wasn't involved?
As for the common conspiracy trope that the Warren Commission's word is "god" to the "true believers," well, no. The EVIDENCE is "god," and the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald did it, and did it alone. Was there a knoll gunman? Well, one witness was behind the picket fence in the railway tower, with an unobstructed view of the rear of picket fence. What did that liar Mark Lane do when, on camera, Lee Bowers stopped him and said, to clarify, when the motorcade he was watching went behind the fence from his point of view and he heard shots, there was NO ONE behind the fence? Bowers OMIITED that crucial piece of eyewitness testimony from his 1966 film and book and made it sound like Bowers implied something going on behind the fence, a "commotion." Well, yeah, there was a "commotion" - on the other side of the fence the president was being murdered! Duh! Fortunately for Lane, Bowers died later that year and was unable to correct Lane's dishonest account of what he said. Think of it - if Bowers wasn't killed in that car crash, we might not have had this "grassy knoll assassin" b.s. being peddled the last half-century. And Bowers wasn't the only person whose testimony Mark Lane, often descrbed as the father of the conspiracy theories, manipulated, often to the anger of those very witnesses.
And, this is my favourite "emperor has no clothes" argument, which, using common sense, suggests only a single gunman in Deally Plaza: A total of about 10 people either saw a man fire from the TSBD, the barrel of the rifle in the window or heard bullet casings dropping from overhead. There therefore is no serious doubt a sniper fired from there. Further, about 97% of witnesses reported a maximum of 3 shots, and about 96% of witnesses reported shots from ONE direction, though there was confusion about the source of those shots. Well, since we know there was a TSBD sniper, and virtually everyone says the shots came from one direction, those who reported hearing shots from the knoll area - and virtually to a person ALL reported hearing ALL the shots from the knoll - were actually hearing the SAME shots the TSBD sniper was firing but were confused by the acoustics of the plaza.
Yet the dishonest conspiracy crowd to this day makes head counts to try to establish there was a knoll assassin while never explaining how ALL the shots could have come from there given we know there was a TSBD assassin AND routinely claim at least 4 shots were fired even though the VAST majority said a maximum of 3 shots were heard. If their scenario was correct, we'd expect a substantial number of witnesses to have heard shots from multiple directions, not 3 or 4 per cent. Look it up if you don't believe. I know you won't though, you are a "true believer," aren't you? They've been peddling this obvious LIE for a half-century now - had me snookered for 30 years!
As for a conspiracy that put Oswald up to it, that remains more possible, but 55 years after the fact, we have nothing that establishes that.
So who is the naive one here, warshy, who is being fed nonsense and b.s. in order to come to a "correct" conclusion? It ain't me. Just took me a while to learn to think for myself instead of taking the word of conspiracy authors. And many make a fine living peddling this snake oil!Canada Jack (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)