| Revision as of 16:08, 21 February 2013 editCanada Jack (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,048 edits →Testimony of Oswald's whereabouts← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:31, 22 December 2024 edit undoAssanEcho (talk | contribs)173 edits →Opening paragraph: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{controversial (history)}} |
|
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{Old peer review|archive=1}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=B|listas=Oswald, Lee Harvey}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=28 September 2006 |
|
{{WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth|class=B}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Lee Harvey Oswald/archive1 |
|
{{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=Mid |listas=Oswald, Lee Harvey |
|
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|LA=yes|LA-importance= }} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid= |
|
{{WikiProject Criminal|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United States History|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
|otd1date=2005-11-24|otd1oldid=29160768 |
|
|
|otd2date=2011-11-24|otd2oldid=462288504 |
|
|
|otd3date=2017-11-24|otd3oldid=811803021 |
|
|
|otd4date=2020-11-24|otd4oldid=990442684 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Oswald, Lee Harvey|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography |military-work-group=yes |military-priority=low }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth |importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union |importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=high |LA=yes |LA-importance=high |USMIL=Yes |UShistory=yes |UShistory-importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history |class=B |b1=yes |b2=yes |b3=yes |b4=yes |b5=yes |US=yes |National=yes |Cold-War=yes |Biography=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{top 25 report|November 10, 2013|November 17, 2013}} |
|
<!-- New discussion goes at the bottom of the page --> |
|
<!-- New discussion goes at the bottom of the page --> |
|
{{On this day |date1=2005-11-24|oldid1=29160768 |date2=2011-11-24|oldid2=462288504 }} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive index |
|
|target=Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive index |
| Line 21: |
Line 35: |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 700K |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|counter = 17 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Ella German|Ella German|13 August 2020}} |
|
== Ruby Motive == |
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
The debate on the archived talk page about Ruby's motive is disgracefully bad. Ramsquire puts so much emphasis on the WC that no other sources are deemed relevant, the weakness of WC being precisely the reason other sources are valuable. Not good, and one of the problems with Misplaced Pages: editors using obscure rules to void debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
jmanooch 04:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== A suggestion regarding De Mohrenschildt == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a 'need for citation' note in the passage on De Mohrenschildt's confrontation with Oswald after the Walker shooting. Edward Jay Epstein is one author providing an excellent citation for this event. Contrary to the passage as written, Epstein's ''Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald'' (1978) claims on the basis of De Mohrenschildt's own testimony that he knew of Oswald's rifle prior to April 14th 1963, and not by seeing it directly (as implied in this article), thus he must have known of it through one of the backyard photos. Epstein includes the quotation (along with another remark) already mentioned, "Did you take a pot shot at Walker?" (Epstein, 213). He also notes that writing on one of the backyard photographs suggests it was given to De Mohrenschildt before the April 10th shooting (p. 320).] (]) 23:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:You really should read De Mohrenschildt's on this point. He told the WC that he and his wife visited the Oswalds on the Easter weekend of 1963 (Easter Sunday that year was indeed April 14, but the visit could have been the day before or after). ] said that his wife saw Oswald's rifle in a closet and asked Marina about the telescopic sight and Marina and Lee told them he often took the rifle "target shooting" and then De Mohrenschildt himself somewhat jokingly asked him if he (Oswald) in his target shooting might have taken the "potshot" at General Walker that had been in all the papers, as it had happened just a few days before (on April 10). De Mohrenschildt said he never actually laid eyes on the weapon and wasn't interested in it. But he said that when he asked about Walker, Oswald's face took on a peculiar expression and that was the end of the conversation. As well it should have been! As to the backyard photo probably taken Sunday, March 31 (less than a week before Oswald learned the best job he'd ever had, would be over, as he was being fired), we'll never know if De Mohrenschildt had actually seen that photo at the time of the WC testimony. Possibly he had, but was omitting this. Oswald clearly made it out to him (and signed it!) on Friday, April 5, but probably sent it by mail, and didn't give it to him personally. Oswald probably had not decided to shoot Walker by April 5 (you don't decide to shoot somebody and mail your friends photos of yourself with your rifle at the same time). But Oswald had just been fired (or was about to be) and his last day at work (or at least the last day he got paid for) was April 5 (6?), and he probably spent the next days in a funk and was probably/possibly trying to make contacts with all of his friends who could do something for him, and perhaps mailing the photo (which would then just have been back from the film developer-- you remember those?) was one of these ways to look for a new job. I also have read that Oswald was not fired until April 6 (Sat), in which case he mailed this photo the day before. <p> De Mohrenschildt's ex-wife told the HCSA that De Mohrenschildt's got it in the mail but didn't open it, and packed it up with a lot of stuff to go in storage while he was in Haiti. Supposedly he didn't find it until in April 1967 when he returned from Haiti and sorted out his stored stuff. Clearly he opened it later and marked it "(c) copyright", but it's possible that he had not done this before testifying to the WC in April, 1964. I agree this is fishy, but it is barely possible. Or he might have lied by omission, for obvious reasons (which I think much more likely-- not too many people, however it happens, manage to open their mail three years after they get it). Interestingly (see reference above), we have another case of Oswald sending a postcard May 10, 1962 from Minsk to his brother Robert in Fort Worth, and marking it in the European/Russian style 10/V/62, exactly as he did in the De Mohrenschildt photo. In any case, read all of De Mohrenschildt's testimony. This was one fascinating guy, and his testimony is the longest in the WC. His picture of the Oswalds in Dallas and Ft. Worth is priceless. On reading it, you'll find it rather incredible to imagine Lee Oswald as any kind of Soviet agent. If he was, he was the best actor of his generation. Better than Olivier. Certainly better than any of the Booths (including Edwin and not just John W.) ever was. ]]]] 03:59, |
|
|
30 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In that case, the passage obviously derives from the above, Epstein must not have seen this part of De Mohrenschildt's testimony, and someone should place it in this article's footnote.] (]) 12:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Epstein saw it; he just ignored it. Epstein interviewed ] (please read that WP article) on the day of de Mohrenschildt's suicide in 1977, and may very well have been the last person to see him alive. Were I a conspiracy theorist, I'd wonder if Epstein didn't actually kill him. But I'm not, so I think Epstein just scared the man to death, by rachetting up his anxiety about the pending HCSA investigation. It's inconceivable that Epstein wasn't totally familiar with de Mohrenschildt's 1964 WC testimony. I think Epstein is simply one of those paranoid anti-government nuts who sees a CIA or KBG plot in everything, all facts and other people's opinions to the contrary. It's a fixed delusion, rather reminiscent of those of ]. <p> If Oswald indeed was a KGB agent, as Epstein claims, he was the most uneducated and worst-paid and worst-equipped KGB/NKVD agent in the history of the USSR. Or perhaps just the most brilliant actor, as he managed to maintain the personna of being totally clueless and nearly totally destitute 24 hours a day, to everybody, including his unfortunate wife-- for a year and a half in the U.S. And then, after being arrested, walked around in cuffs for his last two days alive with a "cat that ate the canary" smile which is totally explainable by de Mohrenschildt's view that the only thing that drove Oswald in life was a narcissistic quest to be the center of attention in all places at all times (probaby due to lack of a father, and a nutty mother). Why would a ''secret agent'' act like that? It's incredibly brilliant as a cover, but what about after he'd been arrested, and was facing the electric chair?? You know? Didn't the man ''sweat''? Look worried, even? No. He looked so self-satisfied that even Jack Ruby noticed it, and shot him for it, in total rage (with a single shot to the gut that was more anger than anything else-- see Ruby's balled other fist.) Ruby was a hothead who really should never have been where he was, but totally by chance, showed up late. And so was Oswald where he should not have been in time and space, but was also late. ]! ]]]] 20:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 1st Hallway Interview == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the article Oswald is quoted as saying, "No, they're taking me in because of the fact that I |
|
|
lived in the Soviet Union..." |
|
|
To me, it sounds more like perfect tense, "No, they've taken me in because of the fact that..." |
|
|
] (]) 15:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== LHO-Lone Shooter or Conspiracy? == |
|
|
{{hat|Another discussion that ran off the rails}} |
|
|
I find it remarkable that anyone still debates whether LHO acted alone. There is in fact a small mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise. This comes from many eye witnesses, such as Ed Bowers in the Warren Commission Report and several key witnesses testimonies to Dallas Police, FBI agents or Secret Service agents at Dealy plaza on November 22, 1963. I do not think however, that there is anyone who would attempt to refute that Lee Harvey Oswald was actually inside the TSBD at the time of the shooting, (regardless if it can be proven he actually fired a weapon, firing a weapon does not prove he took the "fatal" shot). If in "fact" LHO was inside the TBSD, and it should be proven the "fatal" shot came from the grassy knoll, as stated by so many witnesses, then Lee Harvey Oswald would be in "fact" NOT the assassin of JFK. You cannot have it both ways. ] (]) 16:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)GhostJohn |
|
|
|
|
|
:Presumably you mean Lee Bowers, not Ed Bowers (he isn't widely known by his middle name). Trouble is, he didn't say he saw shots from behind the fence and he had a clear, unobstructed view and told the WC he was watching the "caravan" pass by until it disappeared from his point of view. What is so outrageous about the conspiracy community is the fact that while the WC didn't ask the question "did you see anyone fire from there," neither did Mark Lane who interviewed him on camera. What Lane DID do was REMOVE Bower's definitive statement on this issue when Bowers offered it (Lane conspicuously avoided asking him the simple, direct question) where he says there was NO ONE behind the fence at the time of the assassination. Bowers died in an accident a few months later and this has been grist for the conspiracy theorists for decades. Trouble is, his testimony destroys the contention that there was an sniper on the grassy knoll. So the question has to be asked, if Bowers was murdered, who would stand to benefit from that? Not the Warren Commission or its defenders, that's for sure. ] (]) 17:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: It would have to be the best-coordinated assassination in history. A bullet certainly hit JFK in the upper back passing through coat and shirt (as seen by thread direction, which is forward), over the top of his right lung, and out his throat. The fibers in the collar and tie knot from there on, are OUTWARD, showing that the bullet was leaving the throat, again going back-to-front. That bullet hit Connally and was found on his stretcher. It came from Oswald's rifle in the TSBD. Who do YOU think fired it? A second bullet from that same rifle was found in peices on the floor of the front of the limo. As though it had been through a head. And JFK's head indeed had a small hole in the rear scalp, and a big blowout in the right side. Bevelling in the skull shows that this bullet entered the rear, and exited the side, not the other way around. It didn't come from the knoll. The bullet fragments in the front of the limo (right where they'd end up after a head wound from the depository) also matched to the Carcano in the depository. Who fired that one? Do we NEED another bullet? I think not. The Warren Commission thought not. The Select Committee, even thinking somebody else had fired at JFK, had no use for that second shooter's '''bullet''' which had no effect. So they decided it had made a noise, but had missed. Entirely. However, a better theory is that it was never fired at all. ;) ]]]] 04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The bullet holes in JFK's jacket and shirt line up exactly. However, these holes in JFK's clothing are too low for the bullet to have then exited JFK's throat, thus rendering the single-bullet theory impossible. Also motorcycle outrider Bobby Hargis, who was riding several feet behind and to the side of JFK's limo, got sprayed with brain matter, indicating that the fatal head shot came from the front, in the direction of the knoll. Hargis was hit with such force by the brain matter that at first he thought he had been hit by a bullet. ] (]) 06:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Trouble with that, Brandon, is the entry wound itself in the back, high enough. If his shirtt and jacket were bunched - and many photos showed they were - then the hole there would be misleadingly high. The back wound - which if course is the key place to measure - works perfectly in terms of trajectory, and the tests done on that wound prove it to be an entry wound. As for the brain spray, one only need to see Z313 to see a forward ejection of brain matter from the fatal shot. Further, JFK had nearly toppled over to his left by the time of the fatal shot - not obvious in the Zapruder film - so it is not unexpected that Hargis got hit by brain matter. ] (]) 14:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That should be misleadingly LOW, the hole in the shirt and jacket. ] (]) 14:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The single-bullet theorists originally told us that JFK's jacket got bunched (the reason for the low bullet hole in the jacket), now they are trying to tell us that JFK's shirt also got bunched (the reason for the identical low bullet hole in the shirt). They come up with an excuse for any discrepancy, no matter how farfetched. ] (]) 16:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
The jacket was bunched, as proven by photo, allowing a hole inward through it to align with the back wound found on autopsy, the internal path over the top of the right lung, not through it, and out the throat. A shirt can bunch with a jacket as you know if you have ever worn one. This is not far fetched compared with what happens if ONLY the shirt hole doesn't line up. Then bullet goes in coat, moves down to go through shirt, then back up to pass into skin just below jacket hole. Say what?? What is your scenario that is LESS far fetched that still accounts for photos and physical evidence? Stop sniping and lay out something more likely. ]]]] 18:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:My position is that Governor Connally was hit by a bullet other than the one that hit JFK from behind (in opposition to the single-bullet theory), something that Connally said himself in his testimony. ] (]) 18:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
actually, https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/fuf2RI93phc/_mt5WC-HGnQJ |
|
|
|
|
|
::Connally's wife (Nellie) also said that she believed that her husband was hit by a bullet that was separate from the two that hit Kennedy. ] (]) 19:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
There is no "also" here, as Connally was never sure of but one thing-- he wasn't hit by the first shot. But nobody on Earth thinks he was, so that's fine. He presumed that shot hit JFK but was wrong. Since neither he nor his wife had ESP or eyes in backs of their heads, and since neither one looked at JFK, neither one knows when he was hit. Connally never clamed to hear the bullet that DID hit him. The problem with the theory of two separate bullets from the rear is that a bullet that strikes JFK through upper back and throat while behind the sign has no place to go BUT into Connally. Likewise a bullet hitting Connally in chest and then ranging downward to forearm and thigh, has to come from a spot behind-- a spot blocked through most of that period by JFK. Connally reacts visibly after JFK does but so what? He's hit in a different place. From the moment Connally emerges from behind the sign he goes into a protective crouch around his right side and his actions are smoothly abnormal. There's no place where you can say "Ah, That is where he's hit!" Single frames convey that impression but only by omitting Connally's direction of movement, which is a rightward twist and hunch all the time after emerging from the sign, with no obvious break for a new hit in our full view. Are you suggesting another sniper next to Oswald?? Oh, right-- that would be his famous double, eh? ]]]] 03:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::But Connally told the Warren Commission that he turned to his right in an attempt to look at Kennedy (as the Zapruder film shows -- a point where JFK was already reacting to having been hit by a bullet) and that it was when he was turning back to his left that he himself was hit. (The lone-nut theorists have tried to get around this by saying that Connally wasn't aware that he had already been hit when he first turned to his right, and had suffered a delayed reaction.) Also, while Connally did not have eyes in the back of his head, he did have ears. As a hunter, Connally was familiar with firearms. He knew that the shots he heard were in too rapid a succession to be from Oswald's bolt action rifle. That is why Connally told the Warren Commission, "...the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved, or more, in this—or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle." ] (]) 06:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
Connally turns his head to the right also *before* the sign, and he is probably describing this , his reaction to the first (missed) shot. At no point does he say he's successful in seeing JFK. After the sign, Connally's motion is not realy a turn to look back-- it's a turn of his whole bod to protect his right side and lie back into his wife's lap; at this point he's been hit and no longer cares a %#¥€ about JFK. Watch the stabilized film a few dozen times and this will be clear. Connally is gawping at the air and dying after that sign, not looking in back of the limo. Sorry. ]]]] 07:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:The Warren Commission could have cleared this up by asking specific questions and by subpoenaing the Zapruder film, but preferred to skip over the details as it might have raised more uncomfortable questions. As for Connally's take that there was more than one shooter or that someone was shooting with an automatic rifle, the Commission again was negligent in asking for no clarification. ] (]) 15:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Read the link above. Even Connally said the SBT might be right so long as the single bullet wasn't fired first. Both WC and HSCA asked many people how many shots were fired and by far the most common earwitness answer was 3. Second most common answer was 2. Are you suggesting that Connally hunted mostly with automatic weapons to give him that extra edge in recognizing auto fire? Not very sporting, ]]]] 19:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You're getting pretty far into forum/debate territory here; lets get back to the ''article''. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 19:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:What ''about'' the article? WP:NPOV does not require that we spend much time considering that a bullet from LHO's rifle passed through JFK's jacket and shirt from the rear on that day, but that LHO, who was working at his usual job in a building in that direction, didn't fire it? What kind of neutral review of evidence is that? Sounds like a ] plot to me, not reality. How are we supposed to avoid such arguments when people come here whose grip on reality is so poor that they consider such things even marginally likely? ]]]] 06:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Testimony of Oswald's whereabouts == |
|
|
|
|
|
IP editor {{userlinks|92.15.162.199}} has been adding an exorbitant amount of eye-witness testimony to the "Return to Dallas" section with the apparent intention of casting doubt on Oswald's culpability for the assassination. There is legitimate interest in the conflicting eyewitness testimony with regards to where Oswald was at the time of the assassination, but at this point the amount of testimony being added there is exorbitant. It could be moved to a better section or summarized to reflect that some eyewitness testimonies offered conflicting accounts. This should be offset by noting testimony that supports Oswald's culpability.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The thing is, every crime or event produces conflicting witness accounts, due to mistakes or attention seeking or any number of human factors. We should not put an undue emphasis on the outliers. ] <small>(])</small> 18:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Obviously, only witness accounts that support the Warren Commission's conclusions should be allowed. LOL. ] (]) 18:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "a former U.S. Marine during the Korean War" == |
|
:::We should have a separate page on LHO and his connection to the actual assassination. (Brandon needled me about that the other day, I mentioned this first back in 2011, for once I agree with him...) I've written most of it as per the Warren Commission case against him, but we would need an HSCA section (which would further discuss conspiracy connections, for example, in Mexico City) and some of the major conspiracy objections. Should I post what I have done so far and we all go from there? ] (]) 18:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''"Lee's elder brother Robert Jr. (1934–2017) was a former U.S. Marine during the Korean War."'' |
|
:::Of course you would interpret it that way. I would suggest that if we must include witness accounts, include the ones that support each other - like the fifteen or so people who saw Oswald shoot Tippet - and exclude the unsupported outliers, like the car salesman who saw Oswald on the other side of Texas. ] <small>(])</small> 19:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, was he |
|
::True most cases produce conflicting accounts, but most aren't so rampant and ingrained into an individual's legacy as is the case with Oswald.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And most cases with conflicting testimony are decided by a jury in a courtroom, not by a hand-picked commission appointed by a succeeding President with a vested interest in the outcome. ] (]) 19:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. a marine during the Korean War, or |
|
I think we should show conflicting testimony because it should show a riddle wrapped inside an enigma and let people who look at this page judge for themselves. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:But we can't do that because the majority of the editors here think that the WC version should mostly be the Misplaced Pages article's version. ] (]) 19:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. a marine during some earlier time, preceding the Korean War, who left the Marines during the Korean War, after which he rejoined the Marines?, |
|
::No, Brandon, the majority of editors on this page recognize the quagmire in opening the debate HERE on the subject. The bottom line is this material is not necessary. Which is why a separate page which explores LHO and the assassination is required. We've had this debate before. To expand this page into the minutia of the events surrounding the assassination really requires its own page. It's that big a subject. On this page, it suffices to say Oswald was last seen at x, the WC concluded he did y and that that conclusion remains controversial. To say WHY it remains controversial requires us to explain why the WC concluded he pulled the trigger. And it has little to do with whether he was seen or not seen in a lunchroom, or whether he did or did not have a Coke in his hand when confronted by Baker. To expand soley on THOSE issues trivializes the case. And it suggests the possibility of large holes in the WC case. Which is what the CT crowd wants to focus on. ] (]) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or is this simply |
|
:::Well said. The CT crowd wants to overwhelm this article with trivia. ] <small>(])</small> 19:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The lone-nut theorists want to suppress anything that does not conform to the Warren Commission version. Mentioning that Baker testified that he saw Oswald with a Coke in his hand (which is in accordance with what Oswald told his interrogators) doesn't trivialize anything. ] (]) 19:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, but it is trivia. This is a summary, ]. ] <small>(])</small> 19:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It's your comment that's trivia. ] (]) 19:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. bad writing? ] (]) 15:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
Will you all stop debating?! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:According to an obit for Robert Oswald, in the then Wichita Times Record News, now just the Times Record News, Robert Oswald "spent his youth in Louisiana with his brothers Lee and John Pic before joining the Marine Corps in 1952 at age 18. He proudly served his country as a Marine in the Korean war. Upon returning from Korea, he met and married Vada Mercer on November 21, 1956 in Ft Worth, Texas." |
|
Do I believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy? Yes I do! |
|
|
|
:So, we know this Oswald joined the Corps in 52', and was married (after leaving the service?) in 56', so it does seem like that falls in the time of the Korean War (50'-53'). So it looks like the answer is C. A proper rewrite would likely read something like this: Lee's elder brother Robert Edward Lee Jr. (1934-2017) was a U.S. Marine who served during the Korean War." Not going to make that edit at this time, as I'm uncertain how to mark this as resolved, but anyone who wishes to, feel free to. |
|
|
:I've also included Robert's FindAGrave page; uncertain if that falls under the umbrella of a RS or not, but I will say I use it regularly when tracking burials on Ancestry.com; it quotes the WTRN obit verbatim. |
|
|
:https://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/life/announcements/obituaries/2017/11/30/robert-edward-lee-oswald/108172714/ |
|
|
:https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/204935970/robert_edward_lee-oswald ] (]) 14:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Find-a-Grave is not a reliable source -- ]. The obit would normally be a usable source, but stuff like this is in any of the many, many books on the subject, and given the contentious nature of every little thing about the JFK assassination, that's what we should be using, because someone will have checked records, cross-compared, etc. ]] 16:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The more you know - thanks! ] (]) 16:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2024 == |
|
Do I think this is the place to discuss? no! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Lee Harvey Oswald|answered=yes}} |
|
:No Brandon, if we talk about a Coke bottle, then why aren't we talking about fingerprints in the sniper nest, witnesses describing the assassin, Oswald seen on the 6th floor, etc., all the other pieces of evidence which the WC concluded placed him as the assassin? As it stands, with these additions, the casual reader who knows little or nothing of the case, reads that the WC concluded LHO shot the president, stashed the rifle and went down the stairs, covered in the article by several sentences. Then, the casual reader starts reading about Coke bottles, a lunchroom and what was said at an interrogation about those issues. Excuse me if the casual reader will start to ask: Does this case hinge on a bottle of Coke? Well, the CT crowd likes to think so, but a fair reading of the case made by the WC and the HSCA tells a different story. As I said above, this is a far bigger subject which requires its own page. ] (]) 20:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
In {{alink|Burial}}, the link "]" should be changed to "]"; that is, the section anchor should be changed from <code>#John F. Kennedy conspiracy allegations</code> to <code>#The Oswald File</code>. ] (]) 11:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::But you do talk about that. From the article: "Witness Howard Brennan photographed in the same position where he was on November 22, 1963 across from the Texas School Book Depository. Circle "A" indicates where he saw a man fire from a rifle at the presidential motorcade." And: "Oswald's co-worker, Charles Givens, testified before the Commission that he last saw Oswald on the sixth floor of the Depository with a clipboard in his hand, and that Oswald asked him to close the elevator gate and to send the elevator back up to him. He believed that his encounter with Oswald took place at 11:55 a.m.—35 minutes before the assassination." ] (]) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 15:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::The Warren Commission did not conclude that Oswald was in the window owing to Brennan's description, they concluded that his testimony established that A MAN was in the window firing at the motorcade. As for Givens, again, that testimony did not establish to the satisfaction of the WC that Oswald was indeed at the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination, just that he was unaccounted for from that point on. In contrast, the debate about the lunchroom witnesses and the Coke bottle are designed to establish he WASN'T in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination. As it stands, there is no positive evidence presented on the page which the WC concluded established that LHO was indeed the assassin. These issues should be spelled out in a separate page. ] (]) 21:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The three witnesses who saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom with a Coke in his hand about 90 seconds after the assassination does not preclude Oswald being on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination; only that Oswald may have stopped in the 2nd floor lunchroom to buy a Coke before leaving the building. ] (]) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Opening paragraph == |
|
:::::True Brandon, but where is all the positive evidence in the body of the article that the WC used in establishing Oswald's guilt? We are debating a CT contention, not stating the case the WC made! Another example - the photographs of LHO are discussed here, and the debate over their authenticity. Yet there is not a word in the body of the article - none - of the WC's forensic investigation of that rifle which they used to link it to LHO. (A photograph's cutline does discuss the Hidell alias, though.) The casual reader coming here could be forgiven for thinking the only evidence linking LHO to the rifle was some photographs of him holding it, something which, despite the evidence establishing it as being real, nevertheless still could be faked - and, even if it WAS LHO holding the murder weapon, that doesn't prove he owned it or fired it - some "conspirator" may have simply asked him to hold the gun, one might conclude. So, far from being "pro-WC," the page, when it argues a case, argues the CT case, the pros and cons on some CT contentions, in the main body of the text, while just mentioning in passing that the WC concluded LHO was the assassin with little explanation as to why they so concluded, some of their arguments left to elliptical asides on photo cut-lines that the casual reader could easily miss. ] (]) 21:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::There's nothing in Misplaced Pages's policy, as far as I know, that says that articles should be aimed at the causal reader (i.e., readers who don't like to read that much). If you look at some other articles, for example World War 2, you will see that these articles are often very extensive. ] (]) 21:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::When I say "casual reader," I mean a reader - who may be a voracious reader - who knows little or nothing about the subject in question. THAT's the person we are writing for, not for those who want to carry on a debate, which is why much of these additions should not stand - it is confusing - and misleading - to this reader, for the reasons I stated above. ] (]) 21:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
It's not about having a debate. It's about presenting the various eyewitness accounts -- not just certain eyewitness accounts. Misplaced Pages policy: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." ] (]) 22:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The opening paragraph is clearly a baldly false statement. Whilst it is 'widely believed' or taken as accepted that he was the assassin of Kennedy, be this as a conclusion of official investigations or later historical work, it is wholly impossible to definitively state that he 'was' the assassin. The example given in the talk page yellow box offers 'John Wilkes Booth' as a comparable example. This is invalid, since Booth was actually recorded as being in Lincoln's theatre box, and was seen committing the act by eyewitnesses! This cannot be said for Oswald. The comparison is absurd. |
|
:Brandon, what I am saying is the conspiracy case is being presented here on particular issues, but that the Warren Commission case is not presented. By that measure, the article is not NPOV as CT contentions are being discussed at length, not the WC contentions which drove their conclusions. It's not "balanced" simply because the CT contentions are argued pro and con. It should suffice on this page to say that the conclusion of the WC was that Oswald was the assassin, and that this is a controversial conclusion, and this can be left to a separate page a la "Oswald and the JFK assassination." ] (]) 22:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, that is probably what should be done. Otherwise, this argument is likely to resurface over and over again until at least the next millennium. ] (]) 23:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Accepted as being..' or 'Charged with...' or 'Widely believed to be..' are about as much as can be justifiably stated. Anything else is wilful misinformation. ] (]) 01:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Probably we will, if every time this comes up we take it for granted that Oswald had a Coke in the lunchroom 90 seconds after the assassination, like some game of Clue (Oswald in the kitchen with a Coke). But nobody at the time saw a Coke; it's a myth that starts getting into the tale in the lunchroom a year after the event. Baker puts it in, then takes it out. Three witnesses my ass. It comes from the testimony of Reid and she's the only one who reports it contemporaneously. If Oswald really bought a Coke he could have done it any time before exiting the front door. So What. . In fact Baker's first versions of this momentous meeting (24 hrs later is first written report) have the Baker/Truly/Oswald meeting on the stairway between third and fourth floor! The viewing angles are wrong for he lunchroom anyway . Baker's 90 seconds are an estimation by him, not some Olympic timed event. The man told FOUR significantly different versions of this anyway. When I try to inject the inconsistencies I am painted as trying to turn things off the rails, like an atheist pointing out that the Synoptics not only don't agree with John, but sometimes not with each other, either! I suppose we're just going to ignore all this while the further we get from Stone's witless film, the fishier they all look. Well yes-- yes they do, don't they? ]]]] 06:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:See the Talk archives....this one has been beat to death.] (]) 01:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I've always wondered about the logic of the entire incident. If we are to believe Oswald, within seconds of the president being assassinated feet away, he does what we all would do - he gets a Coke.(!) And... he is consistently described as being "calm," save for his startled reaction to being confronted by Baker. If he was "calm," he was the only person in Deally Plaza in such a state at that moment! The president has been shot! His actions suggest he thinks "whatever." This from one of the most politicized people those who knew him had ever met? Right. Finally, and this speaks to the logic of the situation, Oswald was seen walking INTO the room with the Coke machine. Logically, if he already purchased the Coke, wouldn't he have been going towards the staircase and not away from it? After the encounter, he went the other way, towards the staircase, and entered the offices with a Coke. His movements seem to indicate he was approaching the Coke machine, not having just completed a purchase. And, finally, no one knows when he actually purchased the Coke because no one actually witnessed him buying the Coke. Perhaps thinking ahead, he could have purchased the Coke BEFORE he went to the 6th floor, then grabbed it with the rifle, stashed the latter, and held onto the bottle of Coke. It gave him the excuse to be there in the staircase, if he reached the machine before being seen, or an indication that his lunch had been interrupted by the assassination and he came down with his Coke. Less than ideal as he'd have to account for where he was coming from, but he likely figured everyone would be at the Elm Street side of the building, watching the commotion. If he actually had the bottle of Coke in his hand when Baker saw him, it would mean he already had purchased it long before as by his movements he had not reached the Coke machine! ] (]) 15:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I've seen them. It doesn't matter, it's a valid point. Which is probably why it has been 'beaten to death'. ] (]) 02:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::What about the logic of Oswald sipping on a Coke while firing shots at the President? "The Coca-Cola Theory," suggested by the editor of an organic gardening magazine, posits that Oswald killed JFK due to mental impairment stemming from an addiction to refined sugar, as evidenced by his need for his favorite beverage at the time of the assassination. (see: JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories) ] (]) 06:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
Oswald is just figuring out he's being set up about now. Can't you see him there with the coke bottle? He's so political about Cuba that a few months before he's been handing out pro-Castro literature in New Orleans. And if you have missed the radio broadcasts of him the audios are on YouTube -- I recommend them. But months later he's too busy even to watch President Missile Crisis drive past? That's pretty hard. He's gone home to get curtain rods on a Thursday and left Marina his savings and wedding ring-- he must've been anticipating a tough window treatment there-- the kind a man doesn't live through. But now he knows the role history has in store for him. Yes, he'll sneak out of work. Go back go his rooming house. Grab his pistol. Head downtown to shop for some shoes and see a daytime movie film matinee on the Korean War. Maybe try to shoot a cop. Later his older brother Robert E. Lee Oswald goes to see him, expecting the angriest guy in the world at the frame up. But Lee Oswald isn't angry. And that's when his brother KNOWS. ]]]] 07:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::: See the talkpage archives. Your recommendations on watering-down the lead contradict the consensus of reliable sources, no matter what the disparate assertions of conspiracy enthusiasts may claim. The FAQ is there because there are a lot of people who insist that Oswald's rights to a presumption of innocence survive his death, which is legalistic nonsense, hence the comparison to Booth's case. Proposals rehashing old arguments will go nowhere. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Absolutely, SB. I suppose so many have lived with this scenario for so long that they can't step back and ask themselves what anyone first hearing about this would likely ask: "Why the hell is he off buying a Coke and acting like nothing happened moments after the president has been assassinated?" I think we know the answer to that rather obvious question, even if the CT crowd can't cut through that ]. If we knew nothing about the man, that in itself raises suspicion as LHO - even if innocent - surely knew something just DID happen. And, if he somehow didn't know, he would have found out seconds later as he walked through the office - and his reaction to being told then is very telling - or, more to the point, when encountered by a gun-toting cop! Wouldn't an innocent man wonder if they were chasing after a crazed murderer? Wouldn't he be concerned? No. He buys a Coke and non-nonchalantly wanders off. Ask yourself how you would react if a cop pointed a gun at you at your place of work, demanding identification, then scurries off. Wouldn't you be concerned? or ask someone else what was going on? Nope, not if you are Lee Harvey Oswald! Further, if it is argued that he knew of what was to happen but wasn't the triggerman, then why did he not simply stand with a group of co-workers, and do or say something to ensure people would recall where he was at the moment of the shooting thus establishing an alibi... As for getting a Coke beforehand and your response with that theory, Brandon, it's always hard to discern the serious from the silly when it comes to the CT crowd (usually, they are one and the same), but don't normal human beings have a drink WITH their meal and not after it? Just saying. ] (]) 20:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::Perhaps the FAQ section in this talkpage should have a third point about the validity of him being the assassin. I dont believe a majority of people who take issue with the opening line of the lead stating he is the assassin are taking issue specifically that he cant be *legally* called the assassin, just that it's said he is so bluntly. I believe this would be good to add. ] (]) 23:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Maybe something like a "current consensus" list on the talk page so that people understand that. ] (]) 01:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That's a great idea! I think that and a third question would drastically reduce the amount of people who'd have a kneejerk reaction to the lead, since it would show that editors are aware of the alternative viewpoints and aren't just saying he's the assassin due to a bias or shilling, ect. Anyone else who would still make a topic on this talkpage against the lead would likely be people with a more constructive argument or be such a tiny group they can be much more easily be dealt with. ] (]) 04:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Death section == |
|
::Lately I've been having my cokes after I eat. But not during assassinations. ] <small>(])</small> 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
] <small>(])</small> 21:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)]] |
|
|
Well, let us examine the other possibility. Oswald told Frazier his unusual 3-foot package was curtain rods. Yet we know his apartment didn't need curtain rods and that the ones it had, were the old ones. Nor did anybody find curtain rods in the TSBD. Presumably, then, the escaping Oswald took his new rods with him, perhaps to fondle one last time before tossing them somewhere. The man only has less than two hours left of liberty, and two days left of life, and who knows when you can find good curtain rods when you want them? Life is short. <p> OR, perhaps, it isn't curtain rods at all. Perhaps gourmand Oswald is instead hiding the unusual length of his Friday lunch, which is what he told another worker the package was. You can't always get packages to fit your sandwiches, which is what he breezily later told the police about the package. Especially if your special affliction is... the Oswald Dagwood, a long, long sub with everything you can think of, on it. In this scenario, the Paine fridge is now empty, as all the food once in it, is now under Oswald's arm. So now we know where Oswald was, all Friday morning. We know he did none of his assigned work moving books. No, instead he was just trying, like today 's foodie ], to do nothing more than get around his monster lunch-baguette. The wrapping for which was later found on the 6th floor. A thing of gastronomical art, it had to have been, perhaps, the size of a diassembled Italian surplus rifle. So, by the time Lee waddled down to the lunchroom to get a weenie Coke to put into the last stomach space he had left, the president's trip past the front door was Oswald's last concern. He was on his way to the toilet: "Outta my way, cop-- I've got to take one of history's biggest dumps! Too bad it won't be famous..." ]]]] 21:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The death section currently reads LHO was unconscious when in the ambulance; but a medical student rode with Oswald in the ambulance (ambo drivers back then were just that merely drivers). He stated that Oswald fought him as he tried to provide medical assistance during the ride. He was probably in an altered conscious state (maybe) and unless I'm misunderstanding Beiberdorf's wording he is applying cardiac massage on route to the Hospital. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "thrashing about" and resisting efforts to support his life may have been his own body's reflex actions. Of course I'm no Doctor so he certainly could have been "fighting" with them but because Oswald expired not long after the journey to hospital it would make sense that he was in the stages of "dying" on route to Parkland. The section could be rewritten as; |
|
:::The gatekeepers of officialdom may have thought, like most people, that the reports of Oswald buying a Coke tended to exonerate Oswald: As evidence we see that Marion Baker's statement that Oswald was drinking a Coke was crossed out. As for Roy Truly, who was with Marion Baker when he confronted Oswald, Truly said that Oswald didn't have anything in his hands. But then we have this from the book ''Crossfire'': "A relative of Depository superintendent Roy Truly recently told researchers that due to intimidation by federal authorities, Truly was fearful until his death. Truly's wife, Mildred, still refuses to discuss the assassination--even with family members." ] (]) 05:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Drifting in and out of consciousness, Oswald was placed in an ambulance and was driven to ], the same hospital where President Kennedy had died just two days earlier. Frederick Bieberdorf, a medical student on duty, rode in the ambulance, said that several blocks before reaching the hospital, Oswald started thrashing about, resisting Beiberdorf's efforts of heart massage and attempting to free an oxygen mask over his mouth.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220122201825/http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0091b.htm |date=January 22, 2022 }}, Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 19, pp. 164.</ref>” ] (]) 13:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 13:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Spoken like a "Truly" believer, Brandon. Never asked yourself whether it made any sense for Oswald to be buying a Coke in the first place, eh? To me, the Dagwood theory from SB is far more plausible than any of the silliness I've heard from other quarters. Totally adds up. And it fits the witness accounts! What, there is no evidence of a sandwich? Never stopped other theories completely lacking evidence being proffered! But, all this is likely moot. An inconvenient fact for the CT crowd on timing - when the film of Baker running towards the TSBD was calibrated to other films, we realize that Baker likely took something like 2 minutes-plus to encounter Oswald. Sufficient time for Oswald to swallow the last of the Dagwood and start glurping down that Coke. (I thought he was a "Pepper" guy, though?) ] (]) 16:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The source says nothing I can see about "drifting in and out of consciousness". The rest might be OK -- I haven't checked in detail. ]] 12:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::This was probably posted by the UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP, who had a particular fascination with this point. They were most active about ten years ago from southern England. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Kennedy was shot because he knew too much about Lincoln having sunk the Titanic? ]] 13:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Pretty much. The IP had a fascination with articles about violent or tragic death with a particular focus on those three, and the ''Halloween'' movies, so it was all probably a joint John Carpenter/James Cameron/CIA operation 1863-1963 (Booth seemed to have focused on Lincoln in November 1863 - ''coincidence?''). '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
1. a marine during the Korean War, or
2. a marine during some earlier time, preceding the Korean War, who left the Marines during the Korean War, after which he rejoined the Marines?,
The opening paragraph is clearly a baldly false statement. Whilst it is 'widely believed' or taken as accepted that he was the assassin of Kennedy, be this as a conclusion of official investigations or later historical work, it is wholly impossible to definitively state that he 'was' the assassin. The example given in the talk page yellow box offers 'John Wilkes Booth' as a comparable example. This is invalid, since Booth was actually recorded as being in Lincoln's theatre box, and was seen committing the act by eyewitnesses! This cannot be said for Oswald. The comparison is absurd.
'Accepted as being..' or 'Charged with...' or 'Widely believed to be..' are about as much as can be justifiably stated. Anything else is wilful misinformation. Daisne (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The death section currently reads LHO was unconscious when in the ambulance; but a medical student rode with Oswald in the ambulance (ambo drivers back then were just that merely drivers). He stated that Oswald fought him as he tried to provide medical assistance during the ride. He was probably in an altered conscious state (maybe) and unless I'm misunderstanding Beiberdorf's wording he is applying cardiac massage on route to the Hospital. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "thrashing about" and resisting efforts to support his life may have been his own body's reflex actions. Of course I'm no Doctor so he certainly could have been "fighting" with them but because Oswald expired not long after the journey to hospital it would make sense that he was in the stages of "dying" on route to Parkland. The section could be rewritten as;
“Drifting in and out of consciousness, Oswald was placed in an ambulance and was driven to Parkland Memorial Hospital, the same hospital where President Kennedy had died just two days earlier. Frederick Bieberdorf, a medical student on duty, rode in the ambulance, said that several blocks before reaching the hospital, Oswald started thrashing about, resisting Beiberdorf's efforts of heart massage and attempting to free an oxygen mask over his mouth.” 92.40.218.226 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC) 92.40.218.226 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why does the article describe Oswald as the assassin of John F. Kennedy, instead of the alleged assassin, given that he was never convicted in a court of law?
A1: A legal conviction is required before government may label someone a criminal and punish him. But a legal conviction is not required for scholars and historians to draw their own conclusions based on the evidence: they may conclude that a person never convicted of some crime was, in fact, guilty (e.g. John Wilkes Booth); or they may conclude that someone who was convicted was, in fact, innocent (e.g. Timothy Evans). Although Oswald was killed before he could be brought to trial, reliable sources firmly establish that he fired the shots that killed Kennedy.
Q2: What if I still disagree?
A2: Read the discussions found in this page's archives before proposing that Oswald be described as Kennedy's "alleged assassin" or the like. Proposals rehashing old arguments will go nowhere.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Done