Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

Archives

Earlier discussion archived at:

• /Archive01
• /Archive02
• /Archive03

Triva Note

"Trivia note: there is a photograph of John Wayne eating a meal at a Marine Corps dining facility and standing alone in the background, looking at the photographer is Oswald. John Wayne is facing away from Oswald, and so is everyone else in the picture."

Is there any proof of this? If so, is that an appropriate section? I think if there is such a picture in existence it should be sourced, as I can't find anything about it other than here on Wiki.

John Wayne was at Corregidor in January 1958, (filming "The Barbarian and the Geisha"), and Oswald was on kitchen police during his visit. There is at least one and possibly two photos of the two people in the mess hall. It does exist, but, it only serves as a comparrison of two Americans; one beloved by most in the USA and abroad, when he was alive and in the present. The other a symbol of a conspiracy to some, and hated as a person can be by others.24.195.242.116 02:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Some editors can't accept the that all signifcant viewpoints be included

It is disappointing that some editors just can't accept the basic web site rule that all significant viewpoints be included in this article. Editor Gamaliel has a very deep felt belief that Oswald was lying when he said he didn't shoot the president, and that the evidence against him was fabricated.

However, the Chief of Police for the City of Dallas points out that no one ever did place the alleged murder weapon in the hands of Oswald. There was also a very serious error by the police in identifying the type of rifle that was found in the place where Oswald worked.

Nevetheless, Editor Gamaliel wants nothing about this in the article. His deep personal belief rejects any viewpoint but his own.

But if he can't repress his urge to exclude viewpoints contray to his own beliefs, he needs to go to another web site. This web site requires all significant view points be included and let the reader decide--not just those viewpoints that are believed by Gamaliel.

Gamaliel has been told this time and time again. He just won't accept this rule.

RPJ 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Some deletions of important Oswald information

One of the editors still insists that the once secret CIA files about Oswald be deleted from this article on Oswald. Why does he delete it? Because the editor is embarrassed by the fact that such information exists and calls into question the editor's own pet theory about Oswald. Therefore, he deletes it.

For a long time this editor, who goes by the name Gamaliel, has stated that any body that disagrees that Oswald killed the president, and did it alone, is presenting “conspiracy nonsense.” See, his user page. However, as time goes on, and more and more information is made public, additional evidence establishes that some thing was covered up by the government in the Kennedy assassination and maybe Oswald was, in fact, set up as a “Patsy.”

Editor Gamaliel’s answer to this embarrassing trend, is to simply delete such contrary information from the article—without even commenting as to why. This is improper under web site rules. All significant viewpoints must be included to allow the reader to make up his or her own mind on controversial subjects.

Below is just some of the information that Gamaliel deleted today:

On PBS Frontline, historical evidence supporting Oswald's claim was found that "electrified" government officials right after the assassination, but was withheld from the public for over 40 years:

Immediately after the assassination, high government officials up to and including J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson [1] discovered that some one had been found impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald and, within 60 days before the assassination, had, while pretending to be Oswald, contacted the Russian Embassy and Cuban Consulate in Mexico trying to contact a known assassin who the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year. [2]

RPJ 00:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RPJ, I think you have a point. But I think the real issue is this: someone should write a paragraph for this article summarizing the documented facts regarding the impersonation of Oswald. Included would be of course, 1. J. Edgar Hoover's notation that someone was impersonating Oswald while he was in Russia, 2. the impersonator at the car dealership, 3. the impersonator at the gun club shooting other people's targets, 4. the impersonator having a rifle repaired under the name Oswald and 5. the Sylvia Odio incident. If anyone is up to writing this paragraph, it's you. If you document it properly, Gamaliel can't just dismiss it out of hand and delete it, can he? Joegoodfriend 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Such a paragraph belongs in Kennedy assassination theories. As much as people want to believe in these "documented facts" - which are really a bunch of witness misidentifications, something that happens in every crime - stringing them together to form a narrative to "prove" conspiracy is POV and original research. Gamaliel 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I can agree with you in a general way about the difference between this biographical page and the Kennedy assassination theories page. But I take issue with a couple of things you are saying here.

1. Hoover's 1960 memorandum regarding the possibility of an imposter using Oswald's identity is a simple fact exclusive to any theory of any kind, and thus might be included here.

2. Certain of the encounters with an Oswald imposter cannot possibly be dismissed as misidentification. The visit to the Mercury dealership of a man claiming to be Oswald and who knew details of his personal life but could not have been Oswald was corraborated in WC testimony by no fewer than four persons, three of whom heard the man use Oswald's name. The introduction of a "Leon Oswald" to Sylvia and Annie Odio cannot possibly have an innocent explanation. Other provocative instances of an imposter using the name "Oswald" or "Harvey Oswald" have also been recorded. Joegoodfriend 22:25, 01 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the editors (Gamaliel) is way out of line

One of the editors of the Kennedy assassination articles naming himself "Gamaliel" has become confused as to his role in this web page. Most of his work in Wikipedia is in comic books. But, for some reason he has embraced the Warren Report with the same passionate belief that most of us reserve for religious text. To this editor, any significant viewpoint that deviates from the Warren Report is deemed "nonsense."

His approach to editing the Kennedy related articles deviates from the fundamental rule of this web site which is to include all signicant viewpoints in an article and let the reader make up his or her own mind. Instead, this editor merely reverts out any viewpoints that don't support his own personal belief on the matter. Apparently this editor believes he is well versed in this subject, and that his conviction on the matter overrides all other considerations.

He has a couple of like minded people who also participate with him, and as a team, simply revert out everything with which they don't personally agree. He even brags about it on his talk page, and seems oblivious to the fact that he is violating the fundamental rule of the web site. He seems to have fallen under the spell of a web site controlled a rabid Warren Report supporter by the name of John Macadams who has become his source of inspiration.

He can't seem to realize that most people are skeptical of the Warren Report and the other secret federal government investigations of Kennedy's death and believe there is a cover up probably to protect several federal government agencies and the Dallas police Department who either had members that participated in the shooting or the cover-up.

Since Wikipedia allows the editors to remain anonymous, we don't know if Gamaliel is connected with any of the agencies that have come under suspicion, or merely has a "true believer' type of personality. All one can do is look at his work product which is to violate the basic rule of including all significant view points on every issue.

RPJ 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, RPJ, but Wikipedia has no such policy as you describe. It is NOT WP's business to give every viewpoint, including minority viewpoints, equal times and space. This is explicitly expressed in WP:NPOV, which you should review. In the case of the JFK assassination, there are too many minority viewpoints on the matter to even count. We are left to summarize the official views (in this case the findings of the four main government commissions) and leave the rest to Kennedy assassination theories-- A place where you've been allowed free reign, so long as you leave the relatively small debunking section alone.

When I read your stuff, you're just as biased. You want to take official autopsy results about where wound are, and call them "alleged." Unless they suit your purposes, in which case you want them accepted as gospel. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Once again, I suggest you watch the image-stable Zapruder film a couple of dozen times. You'll see the JFK assassination happen as it happened, and as Zapruder described it happening, before he'd seen his own film. [3]. And more or less as the autopsy photos and X-rays confirm. Just about any other theory is about as believable as the idea that NASA faked the moon landings (and photos). In fact, the stuff about shadows in the moon photos that are alleged not to belong, reminds me strongly of Oswald's chin. Maybe the same guys who were hired for Oswald were re-hired later to work for NASA?

I don't edit anonymously. I don't work for the government. I don't give a damn about official government views. I quite often disagree with US government policy (don't ask me about the FDA or the War on Drugs or the War in Iraq, for example). I'm always happy to catch the government in a mistake; I believe doing so makes for better government. But in this case, I agree with "Gamaliel." Anything very far away from the official version of what hit JFK really requires a degree of collusion and Mission Impossible type illusion-techniques that I don't think was possible outside science fiction, in 1963. You're welcome to believe whatever you like. Just don't demand that Wikipedia give you equal space.

And finally, why don't you read Posner's biography of Oswald, called _Case Closed_? Oswald was hired at the Book Depository by a guy who basically later said he hired him because he'd been polite (Oswald learned two key things in the Marines: how to shoot a rifle, and how to say "Sir" automatically to older men). Oswald was hired there long after somebody started (according to you) sending patsy firearms to his PO box. Would you explain how that worked? And then, how did they get JFK's motorcade to drive by Oswald's workplace? First, they set the man up as a patsy, THEN they get him hired at some obscure job in Dallas, THEN they get a whole bunch of people who set the president's motorcade route, to have JFK drive by under Oswald's workplace window??? Seems like a complicated way to fame somebody, with everything bass-ackwards. Steve 00:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the rule. This is a basic rule

The web site rules are quite clear. If you and “Gamaliel” don't understand it please don't try to edit, because you are wasting everyone else's time and efforts. All significant view points are included with authoritative and verifiable sources..

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics

There is nothing hard to understand about this. Please read it again and again until it sinks in. Then explain it to Gamaliel.

Putting in opinions from a person with whom you agree (such as Posner) is acceptable but deleting out information you don't agree with is unacceptable.

RPJ 01:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT: As usual, you quit before you got to the relevent part:

Undue weight Shortcut: WP:NPOV#Undue weight NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Basically, the idea that somebody managed to alter JFK's body, photos, X-rays, assassination footage, and autopsy results, as well as corrupt all the autopsy doctors, is a Flat Earth theory. As also the idea that JFK didn't really die in 1963, but spent the next decades hidden somewhere in a nursing home, maybe in the room next to his sister Rosemary.Steve 03:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The deletions of significant viewpoints is wrong

I pointed out above that some Warren Report supporters are wrongfully deleting out materials they believe conflicts with the conclusions of the 42 year old Warren Report. One of those who engages in the deletions concedes the basic web site policy is to include all significant viewpoints in the articles, but argues that popular viewpoints should get the most coverage and the view points that are equivalent to a "flat earth" theory should get very little space in the article. That's true, but what he doesn't tell the reader is that very few people still believe the Warren Report. The Assassination Records Review Board in 1998 observed that four of the seven member of the Warren Commission ended up voicing doubts over the Report.

Most of the public believes that Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy. The last secret investigation ending in 1979 concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated by a conspiracy. That committee suspected that one of the persons involved was David Ferrie, a bizarre right wing affiliate of the CIA who worked with the Cuban exiles in New Orleans. According to a congressional investigating committee he was clearly linked with Oswald in New Orleans when Oswald was young and then soon before the assassination. Even though most people don’t believe the Warren Report some diehards still delete anything that contradicts the Warren Report and pretend that skeptics of the Warren Report are similar to “Flat Earth” believers.

Here is something recently deleted from the Oswald article by the Warren Report believers:

On PBS Frontline, historical evidence supporting Oswald's claim was found that "electrified" government officials right after the assassination, but was withheld from the public for over 40 years:

Immediately after the assassination, high government officials up to and including J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson [4] discovered that some one had been found impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald and, within 60 days before the assassination, had, while pretending to be Oswald, contacted the Russian Embassy and Cuban Consulate in Mexico trying to contact a known assassin who the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year. [5]

Also deleted was this: Its noteworthy that a CIA file involving the top officials of the CIA discussing Oswald after the Kennedy assassination has been found missing at the CIA headquarters when demanded by an independent investigatory agency:

. "Of the missing or destroyed documents, two refer to the Kennedy assassination. One document from a 1963 listing is described as "Date of Meeting26 Nov; ParticipantsDCI & Bundy; Subjects CoveredMsg concerning Pres. Kennedy's assassination." The second document is described as "Date of Meeting 19 May 64; Participants DCI [Director of Central Intelligence], J.J. McCloy; Dinner at ResidenceRe: Oswald." This document is annotated "Destroyed 12872." CIA historians noted that both documents were missing when they reviewed the files in 1986. The Review Board designated as assassination records all relevant documents from the McCone files including the notations on the destroyed and missing records"

[6]

RPJ 07:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer:

Most of the public believes that Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy.

Most of the public believes the Earth is 6000 years old. So what? The public believes whatever it was they last saw in the movies, and the last theater movie they saw on the subject was a very skilful but very fictional work: Oliver Stone's JFK. Which is hardly a historical documentary (for example, its discussion of the magic bullet has the relative positions of JFK and Connally wrong in 3 significant ways, even though Stone knew better).

The last secret investigation ending in 1979 concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated by a conspiracy.

Only because of the audio dictabelt evidence, which has since been discredited in two good ways: 1) It contains a transmission which didn't happen until after the assassination, and 2) The policeman's mike it must have come from to be valid, not only says he wasn't at the spot where he needed to be for the "4 shot" theory to be valid, but later film analysis shows that indeed he was not. How simple is that?

That committee suspected that one of the persons involved was David Ferrie, a bizarre right wing affiliate of the CIA who worked with the Cuban exiles in New Orleans. According to a congressional investigating committee he was clearly linked with Oswald in New Orleans when Oswald was young and then soon before the assassination.

That Committee "suspected" no such thing (let's see your cite). The Ferrie/Oswald connection is on the basis of one photo which shows the two in the same Civil Air Patrol unit (so what?), and then later on the basis of unsubstantiated testamony from a 25 year-old guy from the Clay Shaw trial who waffled on his testimony, flunked a polygraph test, and didn't convince the Shaw jury for a second. That's it. And Ferrie himself is just a guy. There's no particularly good reason to think he was in on a JFK assassination plot. That just nonsense believed by people who've seen Stone's film too many times. Like the idea that that the magic bullet had to be magic, it's Hollywood, but it's not reality.Steve 16:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Steve. RPJ is right and you're totally wrong on the facts. You want a citation? Go read the introduction to Volume 10 of the HSCA Report [7].

"The committee believed that Lee Harvey Oswald's verified association with anti-Castro Cubans while living in New Orleans during 1963...further enhanced the possibility of the involvement of anti-Castro elements in the assassination." "Oswald apparently established some contacts with non-Cubans of anti-Castro sentiments...such as David Ferrie." "These reports include the statements of of the "Clinton Witnesses," seven persons who claim they saw Oswald together with David Ferrie."

This same volume also includes Jack Martin's orignial testimony that he saw Oswald and Ferrie together in 1963. Furthermore, HSCA document RG 233 is a flight plan dated 4/8/63 that details a pilot named Ferrie flying three passengers, including "Hidell" (alias of Oswald), and "Lambert" (alias of Shaw). Joegoodfriend 18:18, 03 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, but none of this made it into the Committee conclusions. You're reading a staff report of Committee activities. In the end the committee said they couldn't rule out involvement of anti-Cuban people (not as organizations) in a conspiracy. They didn't say who. And remember, they thought they had a smoking gun OF a conspiracy-- 4 shots. Ah, yes, Russo, the Curveball of his day. And thanks for reminding me of the Clinton witnesses. Sterling troopers all. Amazing they didn't convince the Garrison jury to convict and electrocute Shaw immediately on this stuff: [8].

I didn't know about the Ferrie flight plan with a Hidell in it. Now, that's interesting. Ah, why do we think Lambert was an alias of Shaw? And WHY do we think that Shaw was up to anything particular in 1963, beyond occassionally providing info to the CIA about foreign affairs, and trying to deal with the problems of being gay in 1963? Which problems he possibly shared with Ferrie? Steve 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that the HSCA was a crazy mess, then we do have some point of agreement. And that goes double for Blakey. The committee was only too glad to find various points of evidence of conspiracy "credible," yet fully prepared to endorse Warren's conclusions until the last minute, when it chose to go for the acoustic evidence (I'm not going there). As for Blakey, he's still going with his script of, "I guarantee you Trafficante did it, I just can't give you any evidence."

Anyway, the flight plan thing came from this convict named Girnus. He contacted Garrison during his original investigation and told him a story (which certainly no one finds credible) about being involved in gun running with Ruby, Shaw and Oswald. However, Girnus did produce a genuine FAA flight plan with pilot D. Ferrie and passengers Hidell, Lambert and Diaz. The Shaw=Lambert connection is solely from Girnus, and of course a flight plan doesn't guarantee that a flight ever took place. I'm not going to get into the Clinton witnesses, except to say that if Garrison managed to brainwash upwards of a dozen ordinary people into saying that they saw Oswald when they did not actually see him, then Garrison is more talented than I thought. Joegoodfriend 19:50, 04 July 2006 (UTC)

Do read the entire link above, which includes early Clinton testamony and then later stuff. You can SEE it improve as witnesses are coached. In any case, all these people are identifying strangers (people they didn't know) from brief visits years earlier. Strangers who later become famous and whose pictures were all over the news. That's crazy! One person who "identified" Oswald could NOT even tell if he was, or wasn't, wearing a beard. RIIIIGHT. Lee Oswald got around before the JFK assassination (as people decided years after the fact) almost as much as Elvis gets around today. Steve 00:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy for one of the most powerful men in the state to intimidate a bunch of small town African-Americans into saying whatever he wanted. Gamaliel 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. You need to read lots of the stories of people wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit, and I don't just mean Satanic ritual abuse, McMartin preschool case, Wee Care Nursery School, Fells Acres Day Care Center, Kern County child abuse cases. I mean men released on later DNA evidence. All these cases have one thing in common: visual identification of a suspect by people not previously known to them. It's worthless. And yes, a District Attorney who is out for blood can turn up people who will SAY anything. I know you don't want to believe it.Steve 22:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Will Gamaliel and Steve stop deleting historical material

The House Select Committee on Assassinations writes that Lee Oswald was seen with the bizarre right wing fantatic named David Ferrie soon before the Kennedy assassination. This is the same David Ferrie that was seen in a picture with Oswald when he was younger.

Two editors that fervently believe in the Warren Report don't want the readers to know about this and want it deleted. What is their reason? The Congressional Committee relied on the statements of a bunch of black men.

Gentlemen, please, we understand your religious allegence to the Warren Report of 1964. We understand your program is to delete any information in the historical record that refutes it, but don't start sinking to that point. You make this web site look foolish.

RPJ 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the link on how the Clinton Witness testimony changed over time. It's simply a matter of whether or not you trust the memories or "identification ability" of people about total strangers they briefly met years earlier, but who later become famous and had pictures everywhere. This is such a perfect setup for recovered memory and bad ID's that it would be funny, if you didn't take it so seriously. You just cannot reliably place people at crime scenes with this kind of testimony. I'm sorry that I have to explain to you why not. But I'm not going to try any more. Suffice to say that Garrison's case was laughed out of court, and I'm frankly amazed they didn't fire and disbar him for bringing it. Any foolishness here isn't in the website, but in the behavior of a public official. Boy, look what undeserved credibility being played by Kevin Costner will get you! Makes me feel bad for poor Wyatt Earp. Steve 00:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of recent evidence by Warren Report supporters

One editor writing above, supports deleting the material from PBS’s Front Line news show in 2003.

The editor simply argues that evidence establishing a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy should be deleted because he believes, based on evidence, that there was no conspiracy. The editor quickly argues the Congressional committee's finding was flawed and the majority of the public is wrong in believing there was a conspiracy. But, these are the opinions of the editor and the policy of the web site is to include all significant viewpoints; not exclude them.

Since there are so few Warren Report supporters left, the editor should be grateful that his minority viewpoint has a place to be expressed and not aggresively try to delete the more widely accepted view that a conspiracy existed.

The material from the PBS news show should be in the article. It evidences a conspiracy to kill the President. It establishes that some one was impersonating Oswald. This was two months before the assassination. The deleted material links to a web site that provides the actual transcripts of a taped telephone call between President Johnson and FBI Director Hoover within 24 hours of the murder of Kennedy where FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to Johnson on the state of the investigation, which included Oswald denying everything. Here is what is provided at the source:

Noting that the evidence against [Oswald] is "not very very strong", Hoover reported on the tracing of the rifle to an alias of Oswald and other details implicating him in the shooting.

But when LBJ then asked "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September," an event of no little interest to the inner circles of government, Hoover replied:

"No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there.” [9] RPJ 23:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so what. This gets Hoover out of having to admit that his own agency had been helping the CIA watch Oswald in Mexico City, and had nothing to show for it. Look, Mr. President, we've been fooled, too! [[10]]. This could be typical CIA character assassination stuff, and it looks a lot like FBI "CYA" stuff. Perhaps this all deserves a paragraph in the Oswald bio, but interpretation of it is lacking. Suppose the CIA found out that Oswald was in Mexico City fooling around at the Soviet embassy and the Cuban onsulate, the CIA simply decided to smear him by making a phonecall or a visit in Oswald's name to the Soviet embassy, to put Oswald in bad odor with the Soviets? That's exactly how the CIA worked-- character smearing. Not that this needed to be done in this case (the Soviets had had enough of Oswald), but the CIA didn't necessarily know how much of a flake the Soviets already thought Oswald was. Or perhaps it's even simpler-- the CIA erased some tapes they shouldn't have, and now had to manufacture new ones, or else admit incompetence. The local FBI people apparently helped the CIA in Mexico when Oswald was there, by providing info on Oswald, and when Hoover later found out about all the intrigue, he either ended up being lied to by his own Mexico people, or else found out the truth and had to cover for them, to Johnson. We know Hoover was very unhappy with his own people and the CIA over this. But so what? Exactly where is the government conspiracy to kill JFK in all of this? I see at most a low-level CIA conspiracy to smear Oswald which got the FBI to participate in local spy-games, which got them burned later when Oswald did something really outrageous and turned the spotlight of history on it all. That's at max. At minimum, just two agencies trying to cover up their mishandling of survailance, after some nobody they'd supposed to have been watching, turned himself into a major player in history. But again...so?

Cuba was Oswald's new socialist paradise, the one he'd kept looking for all those years. He now had a Cuban visa in Nov 63. In his psychotic state, he probably had the idea that he could shoot the president, take a bus to Mexico (as he'd done before) and simply slip into Cuba on his visa, thereby becoming Castro's new Che. I personally think there would have been some ironic justice if he'd actually made it to Cuba, since I have no doubt that Fidel would have served him up on a silver platter to the U.S., faster than a hot potato.Steve 04:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting important historic information is wrong

The Warren Report believers don't understand that deleting important historic documents from an article is wrong. It is similar to book burning. It’s wrong. But,when its pointed out to them, they continue to delete them as if they can erase history,and each time they respond by literally saying: "So what. I deleted the information because it’s incorrect, and it’s incorrect because babble, babble, babble ....."

Please understand, your special reasons for book burning don’t matter. The web site rule is to let the reader decide if the information is wrong. You have no special talents or knowledge in the area. If you did you could publish your ideas in a recognized and reliable source of information and have them included in the article. But, under no circumstances can you delete important historic documents relevant to an article.

Just look what you are deleting:

• Transcripts of the Warren Commission's deliberations are deleted.

• Transcripts of testimony of Mrs. Kennedy's bodyguard are deleted.

• Transcripts of conversations between President Johnson and FBI Director Hoover are deleted even though they are talking about Oswald and the assassination.

And this is a small sampling of the deletions.

Please stop it.

RPJ 06:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is some Walker information too sinister to Print?

The Walker article has been swept clean of information that one editor believes is too sinister to print. The information is relevant to an Oswald conspiracy. Witnesses told police they saw two suspicious persons near the Walker House two days before someone shot into it. Then on the night of the shooting another witness told police he saw two men running away. One editor took this out even though the House Select Committee on Assassinations believed it was relevant, and the police thought it was relevant to the incident.

In place of including what the authorities at the time believed was relevant, the same editor includes information that has been simply made up --as if this article is "fictional history." The HSCA said there is a strong possibility that Oswald was involved in the shooting. From this the editor takes the narrative position that not only was Oswald, in fact, involved, but tries to make it more believable with made up facts.

He planned the assassination for April 10, ten days after he was fired from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. He chose a Wednesday evening since the neighborhood would be relatively crowded because of services in a church adjacent to Walker's home; he would not stand out and could mingle with the crowds if necessary to make his escape.

From where is this secret source of information coming? We are not told. The article should stick to the hard facts such as what the police, said in their reports on the incident and skip the imagined source of information on what Oswald was allegedly thinking. It gives the reader a false feeling of there being inside information where there is none.

RPJ 03:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the look into the mind of Oswald there is too detailed, and would remove it. But I also would remove stuff from witnesses seeing "suspicious people" in the vicinity of a house. What the devil is a suspicious person? Or unidentifiable and undescribed men running. It's just not very good quality evidence. Weight, height, build, age, hair, ethnicity? The kind of thing that got Oswald described so well from window witnesses that the cops were on the lookout for somebody just like him, resulting in his being stopped by one officer, and identified in a store by a person who had merely listened to the news? Now THAT's a good description with meat. But too much detail to find even in this bio.SBHarris 08:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Police reported that two men fled from the scene. The fact that there were two of them is important to the conspiracy analysis. This is the same for the suspicious car in the vicinity with two people before the shooting.

The lack of a detailed description is a fact, but one assumption could be that one of the persons would be Oswald; though one could argue that since his description wasn't given, possibily not. Certainly Oswald couldn't be ruled out. We'll let the reader decide that.

RPJ 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record

A few hours ago, RPJ completely rewrote the first three paragraphs of this article. RPJ failed to add anything to the discussion page justifying these changes. Now I am a newcomer to wikipedia, and only somewhat familiar with policies and etiquette, but my understanding is that what RPJ has been doing is inappropriate.

Further, I find that the quality of RPJ’s edits wanting. Regarding today’s edit, I fail to see how it is appropriate for the second sentence of the introductory paragraph on an encyclopedia entry on LHO to read, “The Assassination Records Review Board made the following findings in 1998.”

Another example: We don’t need three of four separate bullet points listing the names of persons who have indentified Ferrie and Oswald in the 1955 photograph. First of all, this article is not meant to be a stream-of-consciousness list of factoids. Second of all, no one is questioning whether Ferrie and Oswald are in the photograph, only the idea that the fact that they were standing near each other in 1955 has any bearing on whether they knew each other years later.

Also, I would like to note that yesterday I added a paragraph to the Clay Shaw article, and Gamaliel subsequently edited it in a way that was accurate and concise and that added value.

RPJ, please stop this. Full disclosure: I believe President Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy. Joegoodfriend 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would advise you to read the earlier stuff before you make a decision. Try and be neutral. andreasegde 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the earlier stuff. Once upon a time, this page consisted of something other than a certain editor posting new subsections attacking gamaliel. The last NINE subsections above this one are virtually indentical tirades against the same editor. Doesn't that strike you as a little weird? It's perfectly legitimate to comment as to who's making more sense in this debate. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go loosen and misalign the scope on my antique rifle. Joegoodfriend 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Message for Joegoodfriend

Mr. "Joegoodfriend." You have many opinions that you don't explain. You start out as if you want to debate a change I made but then you don't. Instead:

• You tell us you are a "new comer" and "only somewhat familiar with the policies."

• • Therefore, my advice to you is: Don't try to edit until you are ready.
  • Also, don't critique other edits until you have something useful to say. Subjective opinions without reasons are a waste of time. No one even knows who you are.

• You tell us that the quality of the edits I did were "wanting"
  • That is odd. I included the synopsis of the Kennedy assassination written in 1998 by the Assassination Records Review Board. The Board was comprised of three noted historians, a federal district court judge and a highly respected rare book librarian.

• • I hope you (Sbharris) are not going to be another of a long string of people that read the John Macadams web site for a couple of weeks and start spouting off "know-it-all" critisism of information you don't like and then delete it.
  • A dead give away is your use of the phrases such as "We don't need ... " and the use of the word "factoids."
  • Your "full disclosure" is not relevant even if true. RPJ 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

None of whom were ever tasked with the job of figuring out who killed JFK and why. Their job was to collect assassination records from the government, using federal powers they'd been given, and archive them. Their opinions about what they've seen are interesting, but ultimately are not to be classed with the Warren Commission, Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission and HCSA, whose job it actually was to analyze history, rather than to analyze the simple provinance of historical records, which is all the ARRB was supposed to do. I wish you'd note the difference. SBHarris 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This response on the Lee Harvey Owald talk page is frowned upon by Wikipedia: "Don´t bite the newcomers". This is not what Wikipedia needs. Please be nice. andreasegde 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think you're mixing up editors. The stuff I think you object to was written by RPJ to Sbharris or JoeGoodFriend. Sbharris's entry begins with "none", I don't see why that is objectionable. He inserted it into the middle of RPJ's earlier entry, maybe that's why there's confusion. I think.Ramsquire 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The offending comment was written by RPJ, not me. Only the signed paragraph is mine. I've got to learn not to insert comments into somebody else's tirade without re-adding their signatures before them.SBHarris 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ramsquire; I wondered why the bullet-points were so crazy. Can you others please sort this out? Putting comments into the middle of other people´s comments is very confusing. Can you sort out your comments? It would be very nice of you. andreasegde 21:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed it.Ramsquire 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A round of (well-deserved) applause. Nice one. Now... can the editors in question go back and sign their comments in? (Better late than never, as they say.) andreasegde 10:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Despite multiple investigations, scientific testing, and re-creations of the circumstances of Kennedy's death, many people doubt the conclusions of these inquiries.

Anybody else think this sentence doesn't make sense? Is it trying to say that many people doubt LHO was the assassin, or that many people doubt that there was a conspiracy? Can this be rewritten to better state whatever it's supposed to say? Thanks! Dubc0724 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

70 percent of American adults believe that the assassination was part of a larger plot, according to an ABC News poll conducted in November 2003 (Penny Cockerell, "JFK Conspiracy Theories Abound 40 Years after Assassination," Associated Press, November 22, 2003). In 2002 it was 80 percent.

According to a Fox News poll conducted in October 2003, 66 percent of the public think the assassination was part of a larger conspiracy (Dana Blanton, "Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts," Fox News, November 21, 2003). andreasegde 20:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

This link shows the changes made to the LHO article, August 2nd through 5th, 10:09. I like the statement on Oswald's marksmenship, I may put a short rephrasing of the old paragraph back in. Overall, I think the effect on the page is good, but I wanted to post the link here, so others could see the changes clearly. Mytwocents 16:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you did a good job. Some of what you removed was too heavy on speculation.Joegoodfriend 16:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Honks and bag

I put in Earlene Roberts testimony about the police car honking twice (WC) and that no photo of the bag inside the TSBD was taken. andreasegde 16:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And why are these relevant? Not every single piece of police work is documented by a photo. If a photo existed, somebody would be claiming it had been faked, anyway. So what's the point, here? ONE person heard a police car honk. So what? If one person saw a cloud go by, would you want that in, too? SBHarris 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

They are relevant because Earlene Roberts testimony was included in the Warren Comission report. The photo statement was included because it is a fact. (Sorry, but I find your sarcasm to be abusive, by the way.)

"I emphatically deny these charges", is what Oswald said [11], [12], or [13]. andreasegde 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Warren Commission report runs multiple volumes. The fact that something is in the WC is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. Gamaliel 20:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I´m surprised! Is the WC a source, or is it to be discounted as a source, or only parts of it? Please explain... andreasegde 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please. You know exactly what I mean. We can't stick in every fact from the WC report because then this article would explode in length. Gamaliel 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I put in two sentences, which were specifically selected. I´m sorry, but is that a problem? andreasegde 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

'Car honk' by itself lacks context. Is it a significant fact? Sure. But only in the Tippit-and/or-other-cops-were-involved-in-a-conspiracy context. After the assassination, all cars were ordered to the West End except for Tippit and one other. Why? It has been suggested that Tippit knew Oswald and/or Ruby. Are these suggestions credible? There is some evidence that the police tampered with evidence in the Tippit shooting. Did they really?

In this context, it might be highly significant that a police car pulled up to the house and honked just before Oswald went out and stood on the corner. Joegoodfriend 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A problem? Yes. We can't stick in every bit of random testimony from the WC report. Gamaliel 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Every bit of random testimony"? I presume it´s OK to put in Earlene Roberts testimony that Oswald´s room already had curtain rods and curtains, (which is extremely important) but to be selective about one other sentence seems unusual. I read through the whole of her testimony, and thought that one or two sentences were valuable enough to be included. It said nothing about a conspiracy, but merely reported what she had witnessed. andreasegde 03:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure you sign your edits. I think Gamaliel's above quote is being taken a bit out of context. I believe his concern is that since the WC is 26 volumes, we probably shouldn't try to recreate it in its entirety here, even though we technically could, especially since Wiki has guidelines as to the size of the articles. Earlier he stated his belief that there must be a bigger reason for inclusion other than simply because it's in the WC. That point is debatable, under WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, but I don't think he is advocating censorship with that statement. I could be wrong, but the way to handle it under WP:FAITH would be to ask Gamaliel for a clarification of his position, before accusing him of untoward behavior. Ramsquire 18:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You have summed up my position accurately. Thank you. Gamaliel 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"before accusing him of untoward behavior".?? Can you point out exactly where that was written, Ramsquire? I said "unusual". I feel insulted... andreasegde 03:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I never suggested trying to "recreate it in its entirety". (I put two sentences in.)

• I never said that Gamaliel is "advocating censorship". An apology is in order. andreasegde 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to apologize to you because I wasn't talking to you or about you. Why would you assume that I was...Guilty conscience? ;-). I wasn't even thinking about you when I wrote that. I was referring to comments that were removed from the pages from a currently blocked user. If I were referring to you specifically, I would have used your username, so as to not have this confusion or written those comments indented from your thread, as I've done now. I was trying to summarize Gamaliel's position, not accuse you of trying to recreate the WC here. If you read carefully, you'll note that I am skeptical of his position because of Wiki rules on verifiability over truth and sometimes accuracy. You can't be this sensitive if you are going to contribute here. You'll misread things, I'll misread things, it's one of the drawbacks of Internet communities. Before getting into a huff, and demanding apologies, why don't you first ask me what I am talking about? Please remember that this is an electronic format where mood and context is often lost. That is why I solemnly preach WP:FAITH to all users. If you are always looking for the attacker in the bush, guess what? You'll find them.Ramsquire 16:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you weren´t talking about me then I would like to know who you were addressing your comments to. The conversation between Gamaliel and myself was about including WC testimony in the article. (All of it, or only two short sentences). If your comments were addressed to someone else, then maybe you should have put the currently blocked user´s name in.

(BTW; No, I don´t have a "guilty conscience" (which I find demeaning) and I don´t "get into a huff". Nor am I "looking for the attacker in the bush", which sounds like you are accusing me of being paranoid (even more demeaning). I am trying to encourage neutrality, and clarity. andreasegde 12:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WHO'S THE WISE GUY??? Someone has moved my last comment and altered or deleted the timestamps of several other comments. What's going on here? Joegoodfriend 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You should be able to find out using the edit history. I looked at some of the recent edits but didn't find any edits removing timestamps. Gamaliel 18:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed two timestamps. It was RPJ who cut off the ")" from one of your comments. I smell a conspiracy...;) Joegoodfriend 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oswald and the bus stop

I think her comments about Oswald "walking fast", and "almost running" are also very important. Why are they not in? Too random? andreasegde 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a hint as to how to make Ms. Roberts' statements really relevant. She placed Oswald as standing at the bus stop at 1:04pm. The testimony of Tippit murder witnesses Helen Markham, TF Bowley, and D. Benavides and Sheriff Roger Craig make it clear that the murder took place no later than 1:10pm, not 1:15pm as the WC chose to assume. That gives Oswald 6 minutes to decide to stop standing at the bus stop, walk a mile, and meet and shoot Tippit. Does anyone think that's enough time? The WC itself timed (test conducted by Special Counsel Belin) the trip at just under 18 minutes. Joegoodfriend 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here´s something else: "1954: Roger Bannister breaks the four-minute mile." [14] andreasegde 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Jackson photograph

Has anyone bothered to write Jackson about his photograph? Those familiar with this article's history know that versions have been deleted from Wikipedia at least twice, I think more. -- Infrogmation 21:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain a bit more? andreasegde 14:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion on Archive01. I think part of the previous deletions were due to less clear "fair use" policies here some years ago, and also previous uploaders not properly attributing this famous copyrighted photo to the owner/photographer. It was suggested that if Wikipedia wishted to use it, whoever thought it important enough to upload should take the time to write to Mr. Jackson; info can be found on the Archive link. -- Infrogmation 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it should be attributed to him everytime it is used. But as for asking his permission, it is a one-of-a-kind iconic historical photo. Fair use pretty much covers such things, if used in low res and not commercially.

I'm even more bothered that I've gotten a "possible copyright violation" for a parody alteration of this photo in which Ruby shoots Jar Jar Binks. Since Mr. Jackson's photo does not show Ruby shooting Jar Jar, it's clearly a parody work of art, a category covered under fair use. The main reason being that Mr. Jackson cannot possibly be harmed by creation of such a parody, anymore than the original authors are harmed by Weird Al Yankovic song. Nobody goes out to buy a poster of Mr. Jackson's original shot, then doesn't do it because they are satisfied instead by a low res image they got off the web, of Ruby shooting an unpopular Star Wars character. But you'd have to SHOW something like that in a copyright dispute. SBHarris 15:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The parody image was a rearrangement of copyrighted material. Perhaps you could make a fair use claim (though I personally doubt such would be legitimate in the context where it was); but the image was tagged as "PD-self". I don't see how combining two copyrighted images by others can result in a work that is "PD-self", hence the copyright problem listing for the parody image. -- Infrogmation 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You may not be able to see it, but the legality was all gotten through in the days when Andy Warhol was lithographing Marilyn Monroe photos and Campbell soup cans. The courts decided against you. Get over it. And BTW you may want to check out [15] SBHarris 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with legal freedom to parody. IMO that is not the same thing as fair use on Wikipedia, and still another thing from licencing clearly derivative work as PD-self. However, this discussion is getting rather far from the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald; arguments and various opinions should be presented for discussion on WP:CP. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Earlene Roberts

Who actually disputed her testimony? andreasegde 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Journalist Hugh Aynesworth interviewed her four times, and her story changed each time. The police car didn't show up until story #3. Assuming she could have seen the car with her "terrible eyesight", as H.A. puts it, there is no record of any police car being in that location at that time. I also recall, though I don't have the book in front of me, a long discussion of this issue in Dale Myers' With Malice poking other holes in her story. Gamaliel 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the deletion, although Hugh Aynesworth was a strong supporter of the "lone assassin theory". [16]

So... why did Roberts mention a police car that had two officers in it (that she didn´t know)? Why would she make up that story? Interesting... (She was surely not working for Garrison back then... laugh...) andreasegde 22:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Roberts gave a consistent story regarding the car to the FBI and Secret Service on separate occasions, and subsequently to the WC. Her testimony is disputed really only because no one can explain it based on other assumptions about the case (similar to our argument on Frazier and Randle).

Roberts testified that the car passed while Oswald was in the house. “Right direct in front of that door-there was a police car stopped and honked. I had worked for some policemen and sometimes they come by and tell me something that maybe their wives would want me to know, and I thought it was them, and I just glanced out and saw the number, and I said, "Oh, that's not their car," for I knew their car.” “It wasn't the police car I knew, because their number was 170 and it wasn't 170 and I ignored it.” “It was parked in front of the house.” “I told the FBI and the Secret Service both when they was out there.”

Mr. BALL. On the 29th of November, Special Agents Will Griffin and James Kennedy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed you and you told them that "after Oswald had entered his room about 1 p.m. on November 22, 1963, you looked out the front window and saw police car No. 207?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No. 107.

Mr. BALL. Is that the number?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--I remembered it. I don't know where I got that 106---207. Anyway, I knew it wasn't 170.

Mr. BALL. And you say that there were two uniformed policemen in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, and it was in a black car. It wasn't an accident squad car at all.

Mr. BALL. Were there two uniformed policemen in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, yes. Joegoodfriend 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this means anything or not. But in her testimony she identified the Officers as Burnley and Alexander, whom she claimed to have known. It turned out that Burnley never met Roberts, and that Alexander, whom she did know and work for previously left the DPD in 1957. I guess the question raised is why would Alexander be in uniform in a sqaud car in 1963 unless something weird was going on... or maybe he wasn't at all, and Roberts is mistaken. Ramsquire 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

She did not identify the two officers as "Burnely" (sic) and Alexander; "and that's the way Officer Alexander and Charles Burnely would do when they stopped, and I went to the door and looked and saw it wasn't their number." (Read her WC testimony again.)[17]

Good catch, that is just sloppy reading and writing on my part-- I didn't mean to say or imply that she identified the officers as the ones in the car, just that they were possibly in the car, but I also missed the part where she definitively said it was NOT them. My main point was that the Officer Burnley never knew her and Alexander left the force in '57, so it would be weird for him to be in uniform in any case. Ramsquire 19:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point, and while I can't specifically refute it, it should be noted that the only person making this assertion is Dale K. Myers, and I have no reason to trust his research. He is given to quoting the Warren Report as gospel even on its most dubious assertions, and he is sometimes flat-out wrong. For instance, his work states, "Oswald’s left index fingerprint and right palm print were found on the paper bag." In reality, the lack of prints on the bag was confirmed on three separate occasions to the WC by the FBI, and Myers is apparently so sloppy in his work that he has confused the (somewhat dubious) palm print on the rifle for a print on the bag. Joegoodfriend 19:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Myers was right about the palm print being found on the bag according to the WC. Here's an excerpt from the commission confirming the prints. [18] Ramsquire 19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the officer's are the one's making the assertion, and Myers is reporting it. If he was incorrect, they have had ample opportunity to correct the record and haven't. I don't know that much about Myer's work, but he seems to be accurately stating what he was told. I guess that if there were strange happenings with the officer'd and Oswald, it would be easy for them to develop a cover story, relay it to Myers and for Myers to buy it and place it in his book. However, it is also possible the Ms. Roberts is making the stuff up. The documented record shows that reporters came to her on the day of the assassination and she did not report about the two officer's until about a week later. By itself, it means nothing as she could have had various reasons for not speaking about it. What makes the JFK assassination a difficult topic is that there are so many witnesses with so many different tales, that it is very hard to know who's telling the truth, who's covering up, and who's out to make a buck or gain some notoriety. Ramsquire 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have written above, there is a simple question that needs to be answered: Why would she make up the story about the police car? andreasegde 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So that 42 years later, in 2006, Wiki editors trying to do an article on Oswald would mention her name here. {joke}. Ramsquire 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice one :) (You made me laugh a lot, and I thank you, Ramsquire.) Humour on this page? What a great idea. andreasegde 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Q: How many conspiracy theorists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: All of them, but Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t do it.

Q: How many Warren Commission supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. The lightbulb should not be changed, because it would interfere with the facts. andreasegde 15:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bus stop

After having read Roberts´ testimony three times, I have found no mention of Oswald at a bus stop. Yes, "You´re in a hurry", and the police car, but no bus stop testimony. Who actually saw him there, waiting, and then walking away? andreasegde 11:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Found it. Only Roberts, who mentioned it to Hugh Aynesworth (who was the first reporter to question her) but not to the Warren Commission. If her testimony about the police car is dismissed, then so should her "bus stop" story. andreasegde 11:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Except we know Oswald needs to use the bus that day or lose the value of his transfer pass (which is found on him,, at arrest, and we also have the testimony related to where he very probably got it). So we know (simply from the physical bit of paper) that this man who can't drive, has little money, and is walking someplace across town, is looking at a free bus ride, if he can find a bus. I would say Robert's testimony on this point is thus corroborated by other facts, here (both physical facts like the pass, and the testimony of the driver who gave the pass to a man who could have been nobody but Oswald, since he turned up with it). Whereas the rest of what Roberts says, is coroborated by no other known fact or testimony. SBHarris 19:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Warren Commission places Oswald on that bus because when arrested, he had on his person a transfer from that bus, punched with bus driver Cecil J. McWatter's unique, identifiable punch-mark. An eyewitness, Mary Bledsoe, previously acquainted with Oswald testified to Oswald's presence on the bus. When the bus was halted in traffic, Oswald requested a transfer and walked to the nearby Greyhound Bus terminal, where he got in a taxicab driven by William Whaley, who picked Oswald out of a lineup that afternoon. Whaley drove Oswald to Oak Cliff. Warren Commission Report, pp. 157-63 [19] Ramsquire 19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that wasn't the point. Andreas is questioning why we know Oswald was waiting to use the bus AGAIN, after getting his coat and revolver at Oak Cliff. The answer is that he had an unused transfer pass, only good for that day. So his later waiting at a bus stop, if seen by a witness, is corroborated by fact and inference. If he knew the cops would be turning up shortly at his rooming house (which of course they did), he's certainly not going to be cought waiting around at a bus stop across the street. So his rapid walk to the nearest city bus stop downtown, is ENTIRELY understandable and expected. It seems some people's inference engines are not working here, though. The funny part is that even conspiracy believers view Oswald's actions as those of a man in flight, saying he knew he'd been set up as a patsy. But when you point out the bus behavior as perfectly fitting that of a man in flight, now they want to give you a hard time about it. Make up your minds, conspiracy-mongers! SBHarris 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok... gotchya! Ramsquire 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to sort out which bus he was on. I´m talking about after he left his rooming house. I would like to sort that one out first.

P.S. I think being told to "Make up your minds, conspiracy-mongers!" is very abusive. It´s extremely insulting to me personally, and if it doesn´t stop (this not being the first time) I will ask for guidance on how to proceed. andreasegde 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Abuse:

Referring to the above post I will put this in: "Furthermore, the fact that conspiracy hunters may indeed suffer from psychological or even pathological traits (most of us have a "conspiracy fruitcake" story to tell) does not mean that every conspiracy they claim to have identified is non-existent.” [20]

If the certain editor above is accusing me of having psychological problems, or that I am a "conspiracy-monger", then I think he should seriously think about his role in Wikipedia. I will definitely follow this up. andreasegde 12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out precisely where Sbharris is "accusing [you] of having psychological problems"? I'm afraid I don't see anything remotely like that in the above comments. Gamaliel 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Being called a conspiracy-monger, which I am assuredly not. That comment was either directed towards myself, Ramsquire, or both of us. I find it hard to believe that it was meant as a jocular, or friendly term. Even if it was directed at other people, it would not be considered to be a good example of how editors are supposed to react. Would he like to say exactly what he thinks it means...? andreasegde 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think being called a "conspiracy-monger" means he's accusing you of mental illness. Let's take this to personal talk pages please. Gamaliel 16:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FTR-- I don't think the comment was directed toward me but even if it were, it's clear SB is speaking in a general sense and not to any particular editor, so I would take no offense to it nor should anyone else, IMHO. Ramsquire 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I do take offence. Because this page has a "controversial historical topic" tag, it does not mean that it is an open forum for sarcasm and snide insults. It would never be allowed on other WK pages. This is not a page for people to vent their anger, or "let off steam", about their personal opinions. It is abusive. andreasegde 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest. I didn't intend conspiracy-monger to be any more abusive than fish-monger. But I consider those trying to sell the idea of a conspiracy here with Oswald, whether he was a shooter or not, to be selling moonbeams. This is an especially hard one to believe. We've been over, in detail, why. Oswald in Ocober is in Irving, Texas, only because Ruth Paine lives there and has taken the penniless Oswalds in (mainly taken in the very pregrant Marina, but Ruth was a Quaker with a big heart, so the schmuck Lee, even though he beat his wife, was also welcome in the house). Ruth tried to find Lee a job. A neighbor's brother (Buell Frazier) worked at the Texas depository (what are the odds of this, if this is a conspiracy to kill the president dating from New Orleans of months before?) and this kid knew of an opening for the Fall. Lee went with him and interviewed, said "sir" to the right person, and was hired. All impossible to plan (even if Ruth was in on the plot, how the devil did she get her NEIGHBOR to work at the right place??). All this 5 weeks before the assassination, and before anybody had planned to send JFK specifically past/under the depository on Elm, which is the only way a person shooting from the depository could have hit him. The rest is history, but I note for the record that the Oswalds were broke. Lee didn't have enough money even for a taxi to go home to get his old beat-up, second-hand broken-down rifle. I also am amazed the rifle worked, but that's not nearly as hard to believe as that Oswald was pawn of forces of such infinite power and resources that they could move people around like pawns to make coincidences come true, from presidential motorcade planners all the way down to nobody Quakers and their neighbors' jobs, in Nowhere, Texas. BUT who didn't give Oswald enough money to take care of his wife, let alone his rifle. Come ON! SBHarris 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis is quite solid. Certainly, the possibility that Oswald was manipulated into taking the SBD job as part of a plot seems remote in the extreme. On the other hand, the parade route was public knowledge a week in advance. If someone who wanted Kennedy dead also knew Oswald, they still would have had enough time to frame the poor dope. Joegoodfriend 18:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but now you can't have Oswald planning to kill JFK in New Orleans, or else the coincidences just get way too large. So either way, if he did it or if he was framed, it was as a "target of opportunity." Agree?

And one of the two targets of opportunity (Oswald) really has to have done all the stuff on his own with his own rifle and with Walker, otherwise again the coincidences get too large--- why is anybody going waste all that time setting up Oswald as the patsy shooter of Walker if they don't know JFK is going to be coming along one day, outside Oswald's work-window? Which they can't know, in April 1963 when Oswald is out of a job and JFK's trip hasn't been planned in detail.

So okay, let us posit that Oswald did Walker on his own, and somebody else knew that, and when that somebody else found out that JFK was going by Oswald's new workplace in November, they decided to take advantage. That's no more coincidence than the standard Warren Commission. But now, HOW to frame Oswald? You have to get Oswald's rifle out of the garage, smuggle it to the depository, use either it or some better rifle to shoot JFK with (either from the book depository or someplace else), and THEN (this is the really hard part) you have to make poor Lee, the patsy, want to go home a day early to Irving to get curtain rods for the assassination morning. He's completely unaware he's being set up, remember. So what are you going to do? You can knock down the rods in Oswald's room, but you have no guarantee he's going to do anything about that but complain to his landlady. Oswald's not exactly your Mr. Handiman, and straight men living alone in rooming houses are not usually known for their attention to window treatments. Even if your patsy brings some rods from home, you can't make him do it on the right DAY. The only thing I can think of, is a maybe a little mini-speakerphone under Oswald's pillow to implant subliminal ideas. Or get Marina to do it. "Curtain rods, Lee. You neeeeeeed curtain rods. Muuuuust haaaaave currrrtain rods!!" SBHarris 20:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any flaws in your reasoning. Putting aside whether Walker is coincidence or plot, you've got three basic tasks to set up Oswald. One, get the rifle, then build the sniper's nest, and plant evidence without getting caught. Two, convince Oswald to be seen with an incriminating bag-of-something. Three, convince him he's leaving Texas on the 22nd for some reason, hence the wedding ring and cash drop off. Difficult? Yes. It also helps if you have an Oswald imposter run around Dallas behaving in a highly incriminating manner. But we can debate that later. Joegoodfriend 21:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They weren't imposters. They were clones. Gamaliel 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Clones would presumably have different palm-prints, as identical twins do. No, I think we're looking at a matter-transporter malfunction and duplication, resulting in a good-Oswald and an evil-Oswald. Evil-Oswald is incredibly violent, unbelievably daring, and deadly even with bad equipment. Good-Oswald is sort of ineffectual, spending time putting up curtains, creaping around deserted movie matinees like Pee Wee Herman, and complaining about police brutality in a wussified way.

Or, alternately, we could be looking at the same psychotically passive-agressive person. The diagnosis Oswald was given at age 14. I know, too easy. Many prefer to imagine two Oswalds--- a theory which as been around for a long, long time. SBHarris 21:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Roberts´ testimony

Roberts was asked about the day that Oswald rented his room.

Mr. BALL. Did he take a bus? (After paying for the room)

Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know.

Mr. BALL. You don't know?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No, I don't. I don't remember---you know in a place like that---when you rent a room---I didn't pay no attention.

So then, on the day of the assassination - whilst watching TV newsflashes about Kennedy´s murder - she watched Oswald waiting for a bus, and then walking away, which she never mentioned in her Warren Commission testimony, but only to a reporter (Hugh Aynesworth). Credible witness? andreasegde 11:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Any comments about this? andreasegde 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to Wiki editors to reach consensus on whether Ms. Roberts is a credible witness. For purposes of creating an article, we have to consider whether portion of her testimony are credible, and verifiable, but as for her personally, it's irrelevant for us. The WC, has already decided that question by placing her testimony in their report. Ramsquire 21:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel did delete some of her testimony (sorry Gamaliel, but you did...) We can not accept parts of her testimony and then disregard other bits at will. What is acceptable? All (with certain reservations, and factual comments) or nothing (which would be not good.) Let´s make an intelligent comment about her testimony, and move on. andreasegde 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? If some testimony is cooberated by what we know about Oswald's movements and actions, should we not accept that? And if other testimony is contracted by her differing multiple accounts and what we know about the movements of the Dallas Police that day, should we not discount that? Gamaliel 22:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wedding ring

And while you're at it, conspiracy-people who believe Oswald to be an innocent child, then why DID he leave his wedding ring for Marina that fateful Friday morning? Was he worried about suferring a fatal accident while hanging those curtain rods he was about to take to Dallas? Something doesn't quite fit, here. SBHarris 20:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, Oswald left the One Ring in Marina's keeping so that it would not fall into the hands of Sauron. Joegoodfriend 05:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but he needed the invisibility. And besides, he wasn't going TO Mordor; he was going to DO mordor. Not the same. SBHarris 11:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The word is murder, I believe. andreasegde 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I should have said to morther. Old English murder = mortheren. Tolkien was a professor of Anglo Saxon and Old English, and there are many old English roots, and a distinctly Old English feel, about many of this places and neologisms. SBHarris 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this from the same person (SBHarris) that wrote, at 21:07, on the 23 July 2006, on the John F. Kennedy assassination rifle edit page: (rv. American president, American history. We use American spelling. Put your fibres in Churchill articles). andreasegde

JEEZUS. This is the TALK page. And I was attempting a bilingual PUN. Though like most puns it's really not, since Tolkein knew Old English. Mordor in Old English is also a mortal sin, with the word morther (murder) arising from that. There was also a Nordic mythic land of Mordor where the inhabitants do evil without realizing it. That's Oswald and his ring, too. SBHarris 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." The Fellowship of the Ring Joegoodfriend 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice quote, Joegoodfriend (I did laugh a lot... thanks.)

SBHarris must realise that puns, inane jokes, abusive insults and asinine sarcasm against other editors should have no place here, because a lot of people feel strongly about this subject (for/against, or neutral). It might not seem so, but we are very dedicated to completing this article. andreasegde 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(This will probably be taken as an attack but...) The only person finding offense to SB is you, Andreasegde. There is nothing wrong with a little humor to lighten up the mood here, and SB isn't directing anything towards any specific editor. Can he be a bit blunt at times? Yes. But as Gamaliel has pointed out, we've all been guilty of that from time to time. But it's not like he is accusing anyone of vandalism, or resorting to name-calling as a certain other editor (whom you chose to defend, btw) constantly does. If you feel strongly that SB is being abusive, report him to WP:PAIN, otherwise it is unfair to you accuse him of abusive behavior that no one else seems to see. Ramsquire 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

1. No, It is not an attack, and I thank you for your reply - but I am only using WPs rules.

2. Humour? I doubt that. Can you give me an example of SBHarris´ humour?...

I'm not a judge of comedic talent, but I can certainly surmise when someone is just having fun and when they are being a dick. In any case, WP:FAITH requires us to give each other the benefit of the doubt, not automatically assume someone's being abusive. Ramsquire 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

3. No, he definitely can not be "a bit blunt" at times - because this is not the place for that. Are we allowed that freedom?

Based on your spelling of "humour", "defence" and earlier "fibre" I am going to assume that your misunderstanding of my sentence is due to a cultural difference re: colloquial language. I am in fact agreeing that SB can be blunt, but I am not saying he has a free license to do so. I am just acknowledging the fact of his behavior, not condoning said behavior. Ramsquire 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

4. If Gamaliel agrees that "we've all been guilty of that from time to time", then that says a lot, and I thank Gamaliel for that.

5. SBHarris uses any comments that he can think of, and they are always sarcastic/abusive.

If you feel strongly about it, report him to WP:PAIN. But understand that the admins here may feel you are abusing the system based on the edits from SB that we see here. Ramsquire 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

6. I deeply resent my so-called "defence" of RPJ. He once wrote to me and said, "I don´t know - I´m only asking", which says a lot. He has never, ever, abused me. (I am still waiting....... (as editors have told me to wait)...... but I´m still waiting, BTW).

You did defend RPJ, see [21], in fact the heading says "support for RPJ". I'm glad he hasn't abused you. I wish he could extend that courtesy to others, especially editors he disagrees with. Maybe he wouldn't be blocked so much for personal attacks and trolling. Ramsquire 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

7.If people on this page don´t want to work together, I suggest that they work on something else. andreasegde 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence that SB, yourself, or any of the editors (except one) don't want to work together. It would just be easier if everyone remembered to assume good faith, and not be so sensitive to perceived slights. Ramsquire 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.-- SB if you are reading this, chime in on your own defense. I don't know how I became your advocate. Ramsquire 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oswald´s marksmanship

"Walker was sitting at a desk in his dining room working on his federal income tax when Oswald fired at him from less than a hundred feet (30 m) away. Walker survived only because the bullet struck the wooden frame of the window, which deflected its path."

100 feet away, a sitting target, and he missed... andreasegde 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

he "missed" because the bullet was deflected off of the window's frame. Ramsquire 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Either that or because he was a terrible marksman with a terrible weapon. If the rifle was in the same condition it was in when found at the SBD, with the "loose" scope, he might as well have been shooting blindfolded. Joegoodfriend 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The bullet was slightly deflected by the frame across the middle of the window so that it grazed Walker's hair instead of hitting him in the brain. Yeah, that was a terrible shot. Gamaliel 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Ramsquire 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he would have done better with a second and third shot? Sorry, that was humorous... andreasegde 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But not entirely off the mark, as it were. If Walker had thought he was hearing a cherry bomb and had just continued to sit there, as a politician in front of an audience, he'd probably had have his head blown off on shot #2 or #3. And remember, the standard view of the Warren Commission is that Walker was training for JFK. Oswald learned that if at first you miss, and you still have a target, just try again. SBHarris 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We all agree on this, apart from SBHarris. I will allow myself (just this one time) to paraphrase SBHarris. I will NEVER do this again. Here it is:

Not ENTIRELY off the MARK? WAY off the MARK. HEY, Cherry BOMBS? I thought they were for SCHOOL. Walker was sitting at HOME and NOT thinking that he heard a cherry BOMB. Did he have a FLASHBACK that he was in second GRADE? WE are talking about BULLETS here. A Politician would DUCK his head at the FIRST SHOT! "STANDARD VIEW" of the Warren COMMISSION? - Hey man, what cloud are YOU sitting ON? TRAINING for JFK? Oswald was some pretty BAD student, HUH? I do not KNOW where you get your FACTS from, but they do NOT sit well on MY side of the fence, cos I´m SITTING on IT. And WHY did not Oswald NOT practice a bit MORE? Maybe he could have KILLED a few more people? HE could have TRIED a bit MORE, don´t you THINK? Practice makes PERFECT, huh?

andreasegde 21:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)