Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gamaliel (talk | contribs) at 03:09, 9 August 2006 (rm trolling - if you want to file a complaint about another user, do so in the proper manner. you will no longer allowed to use this page to post lengthy rants attacking other users.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Controversial (history)

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives: 0102.

The Introduction should be changed back

Additional comments on this topic can be found in Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald/Archive02

The "most historians" intro version that we've been hashing out for the past week or so, just wasn't working IMO. I noticed that the intro to the kennedy assassination intro looked good, and tried for NPOV with sourced poll numbers addressing what americans think about the conspiracy issue. So i suggested that on the talk page. If any editor wants to change the 3 paragraph intro we have now for better NPOV or for brevity, I have no problem with that. But rv'ing to the "most historians" version probably isn't going to work. Mytwocents 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I had no objection to the short form of the intro, e.g, ]. I don't have the time or knowledge to analyze the substance of the material Mytwocents added--I just don't believe that material belongs in the introduction because an introduction should (a) not be longer than 2-3 short paragraphs; and (b) where, as here, we have a controversial issue, the issue should be identified as such, but the arguments on each side of that controversy should be dealt with in an appropriate place in the body of the article. If the Mytwocents content was left in, we would have to bring in all the counter arguments, and the intro quickly gets completely beyond any reasonable length.--FRS 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel - You keep reverting my edits to the oswald intro. The changes I am making are mainly just a rearrangment of the sentances to flow better, but are also clarification to a more accurate turn of events. Oswald was identified as the suspect in the assasination and murder. He wasnt convicted, or anything else other than a suspect (I think he did it, but he wasn't convicted, that is a fact - he died first!) The warrent commision determined him to be the lone gunman, also in my edits, and some people disagree, also in my edits. All of this is in both of our versions, but mine is more explicit about the actual events. I don't see how you can claim yours is more NPOV, when it removes facts relevant to the case, and facts which are central to the controversy in this article. I am double posting this comment to the talk page on the oswald article, feel free to respond there or here, or my talk. I am redoing the edits. Note I have totally refrained from any personal attacks, but with your style of editing, I can certainly understand where the other editors frustrations are coming from. The last line is the only one that remains controversial, and if you want to work something out on that line, lets talk it out! Gaijin42 23:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the current introduction seen here is a good NPOV compromise. It seems to me Gaijin42 made the change in good faith.

There has been a lot of contention, on this page about the intro, in the past. I think we can all work together, and explain our changes, and reach consensus, now that things have cooled down here. Mytwocents 04:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that Gaijin42's changes were in good faith. My main objection is that the wording was changed to read that he was found to be "the primary suspect". This is factually inaccurate and implies that there were other suspects according to these investigations. ALL the investigations concluded that he was the assassin and the intro should state that. I also object to the statement "the question of who plotted to kill the President remains unanswered", which states two untrue things, that there was a plot and that the question of who killed JFK remains unanswered. We should state that there is doubt in the minds of some people, that's fine, but these things shouldn't flatly be stated as fact like this. Gamaliel 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see Gamaliel's point. The problem with the statements is that they imply facts that are not in evidence. None of the investigation even hinted at another conspirator. At most, they mentioned conspiracy theories, only to debunk them. The Warren Commision is notable for listing and debunking such theories, known at the time. Mytwocents 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow my edit to the talk was lost here, responding to Gamaliel. I am reposting. I understand your objection, and have redited to take this into account. I listed him as the only suspect. The problem I have with your edit overall is that it messes with the timeline. Oswald was identified as the primary/only suspect. while in custody he claimed to be a patsy, and was killed by ruby. After his death, he was found to be the assassin by the warren (and other) investigations. My version presents the exact same information as yours, but preserves the timeline. I much prefer your last line regarding doubts, and have kept that unchanged. Gaijin42 21:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think we are getting real close. I have an issue with the order of clauses in the first line. The current wording gives too much weight to Oswald being the assasin (as a firm fact) vs being identified/found as the assassin. Information nearer to the front will be stronger in peoples minds.Compare to Ruby as the killer of Oswald that was caught on film (redhanded)

Lee Harvey Oswald (1939-10-18 – 1963-11-24) was the assassin of US President John F. Kennedy according to four US government investigations into the assassination.

How about :

Lee Harvey Oswald (1939-10-18 – 1963-11-24) was, according to four US government investigations, the assassin of US President John F. Kennedy

or

According to four US government investigations, Lee Harvey Oswald (1939-10-18 – 1963-11-24) was the assassin of US President John F. Kennedy.

I have changed the text to the first option above.

Gaijin42 21:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This all seems nothing but cosmetic to me. I guess it will be fine. Gamaliel 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oswald shooting Tippit

I believe that the section regarding Officer Tippit's murder should be changed so it does not display the point of view that Oswald did it without a shadow of a doubt, seeing as there are many conflicting theories regarding this. Instead of phrases such as "Oswald then shot Tippit" it should be "The suspect then shot Tippit" or somthing to that effect.

I am keeping this in the main talk rather than archiving, because it is undated Gaijin42 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The rule of this webpage

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views.

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted.

All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.

This means, when there is one view that a there was no Oswald impersonator at the Russian Embassy, and there is another view that there was an Oswald impersonator at the Russian Embassy, then both views are presented.

The website rules require the information about the Oswald impersonator be presented, not deleted.

RPJ 03:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, the rule would apply as such - IF one side is presented, then the other side should also be presented (with some exceptions). There is no rule that both sides on all issues must be presented in any single article. The solution to all this edit-warring is to create a separate page(s) to deal with all the details of all the evidence. I am glad to see agreement that neither side should be asserted (as fact, without attribution) Perhaps we can stop asserting as fact that an impersonation took place? --JimWae 03:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Another part of NPOV is not giving undue weight to a viewpoint. Going into detail on how Oswald was a patsy & the contentious issue of impersonation in the introduction would be undue weight EVEN if it were not asserted
• Furthermore, you are NOT even presenting both sides, just one--JimWae 03:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

All significant viewpoints need to be in the article.

Also, one does not "fork" an article by creating seperate pages and putting information one doesn't like on the second page. That is a basic rule of the web site. It is called a point of view fork and the trick is so old it has a grey beard.

If there are two sides to the Oswald impersonation matter put it in. Some of you editors are so convinced that Oswald did it and so convinced that his denials are untrue, you don't want anyone to hear about the other evidence, and don't want anyone else to know about.

Why not put in the introduction evidence that someone was seen impersonating Oswald trying to hire a hit man in Mexico City soon before the assassination? The CIA doesn't want anyone to know about it--that's why they hid it for 40 years according to the PBS program. Don't be so gullible. Just follow the web site rules and allow the readers to decide for themselves.

RPJ 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The rule of this webpage

The comments made above by editor "Jimwae" indicates a misunderstanding of the rule requiring the inclusion of all significant viewpoints--not just those viewpoints adhered to by the editor.

Editor "Jimwae" disagrees and states:

No, the rule would apply as such - IF one side is presented, then the other side should also be presented (with some exceptions).

"Jimwae" is incorrect that an entire subject matter can be deleted because no one wants to include the other viewpoint.

This would create a giant loophole.

For example,if some editors admire a famous politician, and include his exploits in the article. Then, another editor wants to include references to an incident of public failure by the politician. The inclusion of the failure, even if it is contentious, cannot be excluded by the admiring editors simply by arguing that they haven't said anything about the failure by trying to show it wasn't too bad, and therefore evidence of the failure should be excluded because "both sides aren't presented."

Such a rule would lead to no article. The political supporters of the politician would want to exclude everything "bad" and the opponent would want to exclude anything "good" merely by stating they don't want to discuss certain subjects and therefore "both sides wouldn't be presented."

Editor "Jimwae" then argues the information he doesn't like should be segregated out and put in a seperate article:

There is no rule that both sides on all issues must be presented in any single article.

"Jimwae's" statement is incorrect. "Both sides" of the issue must be put in the same article. Otherwise it is like sticking the arguments one doesn't agree with in the closet out of sight. The web site prohibits this unfair and evasive tactic to hide "unpleasant" viewpoints. This prohibited tactic is called a "point of view fork." The rule states:

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article.

The editor that wants to engage in such a prohibited practice of a pov fork will often revert out the information that he finds unpleasant; and then offer to start another article to cover the conflicting point of view and hide it out of sight.

Application of the web page rules to this article

The excluded viewpoint and evidence relates to Lee Oswald being framed as a "patsy" for the murder of the president.

"Jimwae" believes that Oswald, in fact, did murder the president. This view point ("Oswald the killer") is repeatedly mentioned in the article. Opinions of government panels and circumstantial evidence are given prominent display to support the "Oswald the killer" view point throughout the article.

On the other hand, "Jimwae" wants to exclude highly relevant evidence of Oswald being framed ("Oswald the patsy"). Besides the statements by Oswald that he was a "patsy" and that the photograph of him holding the alleged murder was fabricated, "Jimwae" wants to exclude from the article any other opinions or evidence supporting Oswald's defense that he was framed including the following evidence that PBS claimed to have "electrified" government officials but was withheld from the public:

Immediately after the assassination, high government officials up to and including J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson discovered that some one, in fact, 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.

The transcripts of the telephone call are on the internet at the one citation. The PBS reference has a long transcript of its coverage in 2003, where the information is supported by additional information of deception and concealment of the information by the CIA for more than 40 years.

Why does "Jimwae" revert the information? In his own words he writes:

"19 February 2006 JimWae (remove jumping to conclusions POV)"

"19 February 2006 JimWae (remove junk "evidence" & POV from intro - there are witnesses he was at embassy - see talk)"

On the talk page "Jimwae" adds this:

"not everything on the PBS site comes from the news department - they show numerous "speculative" programs --JimWae 15:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)"

"The pbs site is also jumping to conclusions. I presented a link to witnesses above. Why do you repeatedly start a new topic instead of replying to issues addressed? There is no clear-cut evidence of impersonation - there is only evidence that a picture the FBI/CIA thought was of Oswald was not of him --JimWae 05:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Jimwae" should just do what everyone else does and put his supported "evidence" into the article--not delete the evidence he finds unpleasant.

It is time for "Jimwae" to stop violating the fundamental rules of this web page. If he has other witnesses put them in the article.

"Jimwae" has a fallback position that if it is to be in the article it should not be mentioned in the introduction. No. He is wrong again. The introduction is packed with "Oswald the Killer" statements such as four government panels say Oswald did it, showing a photograph with "Oswald" holding the alleged murder weapon.

Now, "Jimwae" wants to keep the long concealed evidence relating to an Oswald impersonator trying to hire a "hitman" out of the beginning of the article and be pushed down into the middle of the article without mention in the introduction.

The approach by "Jimwae" is that of a fierce advocate who simply violating the rules.

RPJ 20:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are not worth my time --JimWae 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you lecturing JimWae on wikipedia rules? If you think an editor or editors are violating any wikirules, do a RfC or ask for mediation..... until then, assume good faith, and stop lambasting other people for alleged grievances. Mytwocents 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

To resolve disputes: Follow website rules

On this web site, we have to follow proper steps for disputes resolution.

"Mytwocents" has suggested dispute resolution under website rules for the Jimwae/RPJ dispute.

That seems the way to do it. But, he missed a step in website rules for resolving disputes. First of all, the parties must negotiate to find a solution. See, here are the website rules below:

Dispute resolution processes 1--Negotiation: Current surveys 2--Requests for comment | Third opinion 3--Proposed RFC enforcement 4--Mediation: Mediation Committee 5--Requests for mediation 5--Arbitration: Arbitration Committee 6--Requests for arbitration 7--Mentorship and Probation 8--Mentorship Committee

We are only at stage one: Negotiations.

Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Misplaced Pages usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. ]

Remember, at this website, all significant points of view must be included in articles.

RPJ 06:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. What an article. And yet some people wonder why Misplaced Pages isn't taken seriously! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.230.88.180 (talk • contribs)

Who wrote the the the tacky "Good grief etc" comment? Why didn't the person who wrote it, sign it as web site rules require? The constant rule breaking by a few of the editors of this article appears quite unusual when compared to other articles on this web site.

Is the statement supposed to be a clever comment? If so, does it presupose the reader is aware of some inside joke? RPJ 03:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, calm down. People without accounts leaving unsigned comments is a fairly common occurance. Next time just tag it with the {{unsigned}} template as I did above. Gamaliel 04:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance of the Conclusions section

I added 'Acceptance of the Conclusions' section towards the end of the page, as a place to mention the conspiracy theories. This can relieve a lot of the pressure to POV push in the main article. I trimmed the intro and removed the NPOV tag. The article , as it stands today, does read reasonably neutral. The Soviet Union section is too long, but I'm pressed on what could be trimmed out. I'll leave that to other editors.

Mytwocents 19:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Marina

It would be helpful if Marina Oswald had her own page. Ditto for Oswald's kids. At least then someone could verify their birth and death dates. Is there a specific reason why "Marina Oswald" should always redirect to LHO?

Only because no one has written an article for her yet. Gamaliel 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

POV and Weasel Words

i humbly submit that this section is inappropriate:

"Although Ferrie and Oswald were simultaneously members of the Civil Air Patrol in New Orleans during the 1950s and both appear in a CAP group photo, there is no credible evidence they had any significant contact when Oswald was a teenager, or knew each other a decade later in 1963. Banister had an office in the building at 531 Lafayette and Oswald stamped a few (but not all) of his flyers with the address 544 Camp Street. These addresses share the same structure, a building which was a block away from Oswald's job at the Reilly Coffee Company, but represent different entrances into it. There is also no credible evidence that Oswald knew Banister or rented an office in the building, and many historians have noted that Oswald's letters, applications and other written statements were consistently made up of lies."

it should be left to the reader of the article to determine whether a picture of Oswald and Ferrie together is 'credible evidence' of later interactions, and the "many historians" comments is just a weasel term for an assertion that oswald's writings are lies. Streamless 15:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To not note there is no credible evidence for a connection is to push the conspiracy POV that there was a connection. I'm fine with removing the phrase "many historians", but saying that LHO's applications were filled with lies is not an "assertion", but a fact, easily verifiable by simply looking at the applications. Gamaliel 19:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

instead of having the article, in prose, state that the applications are lies, should not the article cite to a primary or secondary source that makes such a claim? moreover, i don't see how refraining from making judgments about the "credibility" of evidence somehow pushes a conspiracy POV. indeed, claiming that "no credible sources" exist seems to push a non-conspiracy POV. it would be best to just find a primary or secondary source that claims the absence of credible sources and cite to it. Streamless 19:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

moreover, the first sentence, while technically correct and perhaps not POV, is also weasely. the sentence reads, in abbreviated form: LHO assasinated JFK...as determined by the Warren Commission. it would be logically equivalent to start the article on OJ simpson by saying, "OJ Simpson, dates of birth, did not murder Nicole Brown Simpson, as found by a California jury". it's a weasely way to assert that the Warren Commission correctly identified LHO as the/an assassin, despite the fact that the legitimacy of such a determination and the legitimacy of the Warren Commission are very much disputed, and have been for over 40 years. Streamless 19:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Streamless, I would encourage you to edit the page as you see fit. The current version is pretty choppy. The weasel words and contorted prose are because the segments have been written defensively, in response to Conspiracy Theory POV pushing and edit wars. It's proved to be a delicate balance. There has been a lot of contention. If you can make the page more NPOV and clean then be bold, this page needs a fresh pair of eyes. Mytwocents 20:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

i actually have noticed the history of the edit wars on this page, and based thereon, i'll refrain from doing any editing myself, preferring instead to engender discussion beforehand. i offer two opinions: 1) it seems that, because of frustration with the argumentative style of RFJ (i think that's the name) RPJ, other editors are hastily deleting notable, verifiable contributions to this page, such as the report of how the american government covered up knowledge of LHO's activities as stated on the pbs.org website. irrespective of anyone's frustrations with any other editor, such information is proper in an encylopedia article about LHO. 2) while editors are charged with assuming good faith, it is rather difficult to do so when other editors refer to "conspiracy nuts" or "conspiracy nonsense" in their user pages. wikipedia is an informative collection of primary and secondary sources, not a battleground for competing theories, each of which impossible to prove, about the kennedy asassination. Streamless 20:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that the US govt. did cover up some aspects of the case, but it's one thing to note that, it's quite another to post in the intro a conspiracy theory about Oswald doubles and state it as established fact. This is not just a matter of RPJ's "argumentative style". Gamaliel 20:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

fair enough re: "argumentative style", and perhaps it's easy for me to opine while not doing any editing myself, but i did not think it was appropriate for whichever editor to delete all mention of the information from the website i mean. Streamless 20:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Gamaliel is that, on one hand he wants to characterize viewpoints that he doesn't agree with as "nonsense" and deletes the viewpoints he doesn't agree with, and on the other hand berates editors he doesn't agree with as being "uncivil" etc. He has a long history of doing this. If he wants to debate this, he can--but he won't. He spends many hours a day on the site deleting viewpoints he doesn't agree with. He is from the school of thought championed by a web link run by John Macadams who seems to earn a living ridiculing those who don't believe in the Warren Report. Macadams and Gamaliel work themselves into a frenzy over any viewpoints with which they don't agree. They just don't believe in the presentation of all significant viewpoints being presented which is the cornerstone of this web site. Why they don't believe in presenting all viewpoints? I don't know.

Also, an editing point: Capitalize the word "I."

RPJ 08:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have spent many hours discussing minor points of conspiracy theory with you and searching for facts to rebut the various theories you have attempted to insert into the article. Your claim that I won't debate this is simply false. I don't berate you for being uncivil because I disagree with you, I berate you for being uncivil because you are amazingly rude to every other editor working on these articles. Gamaliel 01:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel's debating style

Gamaliel deletes information with these types of comments:

There are several things wrong with Gamaliel's "debating style"

1--The congressional committee that investigated the Kennedy murder concluded in 1979 President Kennedy was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy. See, House Select Committee on Assassinations.However, since "Gamaliel" thinks this finding is "nonsense", he doesn't want any of the specific evidence of the conspiracy mentioned in the article.

2--70% of Americans believe there was a plot to kill Kennedy--Gamaliel is in the small minority of people that still believe the Warren Report.

If you look at the survey, it says that 40% are sure it was a conspiracy, and 30% have a hunch. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that they simply think it's fun to believe in conspiracies? I'd like to know also how many believe in UFOs, alien abductions and astrology - whether it's just a "hunch", or whether they'd put money on it. You'll note also, that since Posner's work, the percentage is dropping. Bipedia 15:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

3--Gamaliel simply refuses to adopt the policy of this website that all significant viewpoints be presented and allow the reader to make up his or her own mind. Instead, if Gamaliel decides something is "nonsense" because some author he likes has allegedly "rebutted" the viewpoint or evidence, then Gamaliel deletes the viewpoint or evidence he doesn't like.

Gamaliel has got to face facts that this is wrong under web site policy. All significant viewpoints must be presented. Gamaliel is not the "gatekeeper" of knowledge.

RPJ 02:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

RPJ, if you have a complaint about my conduct, please direct it to the proper forum. You have been repeatedly informed about how to do this. I'm sure all of us would appreciate it if you stop posting long diatribes here and file your complaints in the proper manner. This talk page is for discussing the article, not for complaining about other editors. Gamaliel 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Big Chin" repeatedly mentioned?

"Gamaliel" claims he deletes mention of the "Big Chin" because it is repeatedly put in the articles. Gamaliel's claim is incorrect.

What is the "Big Chin?"

The "Big Chin" is what appears to be a tell tale defect in the famous backyard photograph of Oswald holding the alleged murder weapon used on Kennedy. This was a primary piece of evidence used to conclude that Oswald shot Kennedy. Oswald is conveniently holding a left wing newspaper, the alleged murder weapon of Kennedy and the alleged pistol that shot a police officer.

This startling evidence was immediately found by someone in the police department and shown to Oswald. He said it was a fake with his head pasted on someone else's body.

Government experts claim its real. Other experts disagree.

Gamaliel doesn't want other expert's to have their viewpoints included, because any other viewpoint is "nonsense."

Gamaliel doesn't even want the reader alerted to the "Big Chin" as a possible sign of fabrication. Gamaliel doen't want anyone looking too close at the picture.

Here is why. Go to the Backyard picture and look closely at the chin. Blow it up in size for a good look. In fact, here is a blow up of it for the reader.

Compare it to other pictures of Lee Oswald.

Fabricating pictures was quite primitive in 1963. Look at another Oswald picture on the page.

Which viewpoint does the reader believe? Is the "Big Chin" a sign of a fake or not?

Gamaliel will now try to change the subject and won't directly discuss the "Big Chin."

RPJ 04:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We've already discussed the Big Chin to death. It was one of many allegations of photo manipulation dismissed by the HSCA. You want to mention it as if 1) it was never debunked 2) it's the most important thing ever 3) it is proof of conspiracy. Gamaliel 08:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, none of the three things you just wrote make any logical sense. 1)Some believe the chin is not a fabrication. So what? This doesn't mean these true believers have "debunked" something. Its their opinion. The policy of this web site is to provide all opinions, and certainly not to hide the evidence. When are you going to understand this rule? 2) How important is it? It is relevant to Oswald's contention that some one was framing him. Whether that is the "most important thing ever' is up to the reader. 3) Whether it is proof of a conspiracy is also up to the reader.

Gamaliel, your frantic attempts to delete and hide any information that you disagree with is directly contrary to the web site rules. Why do you continue to do it? RPJ 06:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you conspiracy buffs. I've gone ahead and created a photo montage looking at this point. The proper comparison photo to the backyard photo is not Oswald's grad photo, but his stubbly and scraggly mugshot taken the day after the assassination, 8 months later. It needs to be turned into black and white, and contrast-enhanced to mimic a bad snapshot. But when you do this, you see Oswald has a rectangular chin patch which stands out, and the point of his chin might well disappear into a high contrast shadow such as we see in the backyard photo. Here you go. You can of course use this in any Wiki article you deem appropriate.Sbharris 01:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, there were two Oswald's. Lee Oswald and Harvey Oswald. One worked for the CIA and was the real triggerman, I forget which... But wait a minute, the fatal shot really came from the grassy knoll, from an anti-Castro Cuban, who wanted payback, for no air-support for Brigade 2506, during the Bay of Pigs disaster... No wait a minute Oswald was a paid hitman for the mafia...... oh well It's 3:37 in the AM, all this conspiracy stuff is making me loopy. Goodnight.

Mytwocents 08:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(personal attack removed) RPJ 06:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Web site rules of inclusion of all significant viewpoints

The evidence of the fabricated photograph is a significant viewpoint that was discussed in the HSCA report. Some experts believe it shows fabrication--some don't. Under the rules of this web site all significant viewpoints should be presented.

• Claiming that someone else disagrees with a significant viewpoint on a subject is not a ground for excluding it from the article.

• Arguing it is not the "most important thing ever" is not a ground for excluding the view point that the photographs are fabrications.

• Arguing that evidence that the photographs were fabricated is evidence of a conspiracy, is not a ground for excluding the evidence.

Gentlemen. These are basic web site rules.

RPJ 07:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Might I suggest a rephrasing of the introduction, to (Oswald) "was identified as the assassin of US President John F. Kennedy by the Warren Commission and..." would be more NPOV? As things are, the initial sentence looks very much as though it prefers the POV of the Warren Commission, and until this is fixed there will be no end of attempts to correct it. The only way, it seems to me, is to be *strictly* NPOV here, of all places in the article. My wiki activity is so sporadic it's unlikely I'll create an account, so I won't make this change myself, but clearly something should be done.

I do not think the intro over emphasises the warren commission point of view, however I have added some clarifying words to the intro, and re-arranged some of the sentences to make clear that a) oswald was identified as a suspect, but not convicted (because of his own murder), but that the warren commision did find him to be the lone gunman, but that there are alternate theories still around. The last sentance needs some work I think, as it gives too much weight to crackpot theories. Not all the alternate theories are crackpot, but I dont know how to distinguish between legitimate alternate investigations, and "communist UFOs did it" Gaijin42 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The new picture cinches it--Good work

The new picture of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle and other incriminating evidence is much better than the similar one that was in the article. See, Exhibit 746-A from the Warren Commission.

The new picture is much darker and conceals the apparent fabrication of the photo as complained about by Oswald before he was shot.

We have to keep in mind that the fabrication of photographs back in 1963 was still rather primitive. The similar pictures that the Warren Commission had available are either blow ups of the picture (which are too revealing with disastrous results), or the print is not dark enough to conceal the cut and paste job on the face of which Oswald complained. See, for example Warren Commission Ex 746-E with the face pasted on at the level of the chin.

It was also a wise choice not to use Exhibit 749 because it has that embarrassing oversight where someone drew in what appeared to be the butt of the gun stock for another photograph and re-used it with the triangular piece of gun stock still drawn in. (See, third picket from Oswald's leg).

It actually might be better just to describe the pictures and not reproduce. If the reader looks at one picture the reader might look at the rest.

RPJ 05:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Warren Commission Exhibit 746-E the "Chin"

It is time to confront the problem. Is the incriminating photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald a fabrication or not? There is Oswald holding the rifle that blew the head off of JFK. And Oswald is carrying a pistol on his hip, perhaps the very one that was used to shoot the police officer named Officer Tippit. Not only that, Oswald has in his hands what people claim is left wing literature.

The police found the picture immediately. Since the picture tied Oswald to the murder weapon, the police confronted Oswald with the picture right away. Oswald looked at the picture and threw cold water on the evidence that seemingly tied him to the murder weapon.

Oswald, who some believe is a lying little rat, said words to the effect: "That's not me holding that rifle. Someone pasted my face on someone else's body."

Lets take a look at the Warren Commission's Exhibit 746-E and decide whether the face does look pasted on to the body as Oswald claimed. I'll get permission to put it on the page.

COMMENT: We have the negative of one of the back yard photos-- the actual film with emulsion and silver grains. It's not a fake. I doubt we could fake an original 127 B&W emulsion even today. In fact, two of the photos can be used to view Oswald in a stereo pair, which would be incredibly difficult to do without a computer. You need to read very carefully. And for grins, see the two pics of Oswald's chin on this page, in the "Big chin" section above.Sbharris 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sbharris states: "I doubt we could fake an original 127 B&W even today?" That may be true because even a non-expert such as Sbharris and myself can tell it is a fake, just as did the expert from England that looked at the photo and noted the "chin."

No, I don't think it's a fake, for reasons explained already. The English "expert" didn't get to see the negative, nor any first generation copies. His opinion is accordingly worth less than the many experts in the US who have come to the opposite conclusion. Finally, I can see for myself, from the booking/mugshot photo, what a downward sun angle would do to Oswald's chin. It doesn't take Einstein.Sbharris 00:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The "downward sun angle" does not make Oswald's chin look twice as wide as his real chin. Or do you disagree?

It's not twice as wide. It's a little wider in a very poor copy, such as you're using. If you look at a better copy, such as the CE above, you'll see the white chin patch is about the same fraction of the distance between Oswald's eyes in ears, in both the backyard and the mugshot photos.

What is the name of the expert that actually gave sworn testimony that the huge wide Oswald chin is real?

I asked you to read

In this day and age I don't think anyone believes that the picture is real.

Look again at the "Frankenstein chin" and where the face above it is even misaligned.

Oswald's light chin patch is badly misalligned EVEN in his Dallas mugshot (in fact, by just as much). Are you claiming that's a composite TOO??

No wonder Oswald immediately spotted it and said that it was a composite. Then, Oswald was immediately murdered.RPJ 01:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Oswald didn't say "that's not my chin". He said "it's my head on somebody else's body."

Alas for him, his wife testified to taking the photo. Alas for him, it shows weapons mail-ordered by Alek Hidell. Alek being the name Oswald happened to use when trying to be a Soviet. And Alek Hidell being the name on the ID he was carrying when caught. And which he had every opportunity to deny never having heard of. But somehow didn't.

It's a pretty good plot to find out what alias Oswald used, and use that name to order a set of guns for him, and then manage to get one of them into his pocket without him knowing about it, until he discovered it there in the theater and tried to shoot an officer with it. Don't you suppose he was really surprised to find he was armed with a pistol he didn't own? "Is that a patsy setup pistol in your pocket, Lee, or are you just glad to see us?"Sbharris 02:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, SB Harris

1. You find Marina's statement that she took the photos conclusive? Putting aside that Marina contradicted herself on this story over time, and that she was threatened with deportation if she did not go along with the WC, Marina has also stated that LHO was a US govt. agent in Russia, was an FBI informant, and did not kill Kennedy. Why do you trust her on the photo statement, given that you're certain to discount pretty much everything else she says?

I admit you have a point on that. If this was the only evidence for the backyard photos it wouldn't be worth much. But they were found in Oswald's garage also (so would have had to be planted) and a copy was sent to one of Oswald's friends. I suppose that was a plant, too-- but how could they know DeMohrenschildt would stick the thing in the book and forget about it during a move, and not write or go to Oswald in early April and say "what the hell is THIS?" thus tipping Oswald off to people spoofing him with fake photos? Is DeMohrenschildt in on the plot along with the cops who found the photos (or who planted them in Oswald's garage), AND the people who interviewed Marina, AND whoever is using Oswald's PO box to order a rifle weapon without Oswald knowing it? Plus the guys who figured out how to send the JFK motorcade past where Oswald was already working (and had been before the exact route was planned)? Lay this out for me, please. Cause it's getting pretty complcated, about on the level of Mission Impossible.

I don't put it past the conspirators to plant evidence. DeMohrenschildt was a man who told lies for a living. And I never suggested Oswald didn't even know about the rifle (who did make the suggestion?). Here's the issue: You have suggested that there's something about the chain of evidence regarding the pictures that specifically precludes the possibility that they are fakes. Fine. You state one solid fact that proves this and I'll be the first to give you credit. Joegoodfriend 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Solid facts" all depend on individual honesty. They are all impossible to discern in a world of liars and conspiracists. Not one single item in the chain of evidence which convicts ANY criminal could not have been faked, given sufficiently widespread, motivated, and talented framers, at all stages of the chain. Alas the burden of proof is on you. Skepticism is no reason to empty all of our prisons. Nor would you like the result. Sbharris 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, in this context, the burden of proof is on you. YOU'RE the one suggesting that the facts, not conjecture, regarding that the chain of possession of the photos demonstrates that they could not be fakes. Perhaps nothing can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it you can't cite even one really convincing fact, well, then, why are you bothering to post? Joegoodfriend 12 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Is it inconceivable to you that Oswald's associates could know his alias and have access to his weapons (or identical weapons)? It wasn't Oswald who brought the Cacarno into the SBD.

He could have been. In contradiction we have ONE guy who says he saw Oswald carrying a package in such a way that it couldn't (quite) have been a disassembled rifle. Not good enough. Easier to believe this guy is simply wrong. Oswald's carrying curtain rods to work?! How domestic of him. And I suppose they were made to disappear by other conspirators?

I think you're way off on the facts. First, both BW Frazier and his sister testified in exacting detail as to the length of the package; it was too short to hold the disassembled rifle.

I'm sorry, but "exacting detail" means they measured it with a rule, as the Bethesda people did to JFK's back. Anything short of that is "off-hand observation." They had no reason even to think they were observing anything important, remember? And memory is very tricky after the fact, as we all know.

So the WC simply concluded that they were both 'mistaken.' Second, according to Anthony Summers ('Conspiracy'): "Photographs of curtain rods have turned up in the Dallas police files on the assassination." You should like Summers, he thinks the backyard pix are legit. Joegoodfriend 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A poor reference. What am I supposed to do with it?

Read it. It's one of the most thoroughly researched books on the subject. In it you will learn that Frazier testified under oath that Oswald carried the package cupped in his hand under his arm, much too short for the 35" disassembled rifle. Joegoodfriend 12 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Who was it who suggested that someone slipped a pistol into Oswald's pocket? Oh, I, see, you're just using hyperbole to insult everyone who disagrees with you. Thanks, that's really helpful for this discussion. Joegoodfriend 09 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're suggesting the police planted the pistol on Oswald when he was arrested? This pistol that had been mailed to his mailbox without him ever noticing? If Oswald carried it into the theater, do you think he carried it in his hand? Again, lay your theory outSbharris 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Oswald picked up his mail order pistol at home after the assassination and was arrested with it in the theater. I don't think we have an argument here. Joegoodfriend 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. He mailordered a pistol but not a rifle. The photo of him with the rifle is fake. The people who he showed the rifle to, or send pics of him with the rifle to, are all liars. As the guy who found his print on the barrel, under the stock. Great theory. Requires lots of liars, tho.Sbharris 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Point: I suggested above that the conspirators may have had access to Oswald's weapons. I never suggested that the rifle wasn't Oswald's. Are you bothering to read other people's posts before you attribute 'theories' to them? And would it kill you to can the insults? Joegoodfriend 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory notice

I think it would be better to place the second paragraph of the section "The assassination of JFK" under a new heading of "Opposing theories" or something similar. The paragraph deals with unproven ideas, and shouldn't be placed where it can be mistaken as fact.

Edit: I just noticed that there is already a section titled "Assassination theories". Perhaps we could move the paragraph there?

Yahadreas 08:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yahadreas, you appear to be a new user. Diving into the LHO page is a bold move, there has been quite a lot of contention, in the past. but Jimbo Wales encourages us to be bold.... If you think you can change the layout of the page, for a more logical order, or to make it flow better, I say go ahead.

Mytwocents 04:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Which of the four investigations into the assassination is accurate?

Why are there so many differnet investigations into kennedy's killing? Which one is the correct one?

if we could answer that question definitevly, then this wouldnt be a controversial topic would it? :) Gaijin42 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of Talk

The talk page has a lot of old discussion, and a lot of (at this point) quiet topics. I think it would make it easier to see currently live debates, if we archived some of the settled items. The downside is of course new editors coming in and not seeing the existing negotiations. Ideas? Gaijin42 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving is a good idea, we should keep the {{controversial (history)}}, and use the {{Talkheader}} and {{Calm talk}} templates. --Mytwocents 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am moving all comments to archive2 that have not had activity in the last month. Gaijin42 18:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the move of all out of date topics. I believe there are still several topics worthy of moving, but they are more recent, so I will let others have their input. Sorry about the mass amounts of edits, I was trying to make sure work wasnt lost, and that individual topis could be pulled back if so desired. Gaijin42 18:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The smoke screen defenses to the fabricated Oswald Photo

First, a major flaw in the case against Oswald is spotted. This takes the form of a crucial picture of him holding the alleged murder weapon, that looks obviously fabricated. Please look at incriminating picture which Oswald immediately said was fabricated soon before Oswald was killed. Please look at picture. The fabrication is obvious.

Then the smoke screen defense starts:

1) Smoke screen defense one: "is not twice as wide, its a little wider in a very poor copy."

• • No, the picture is not of poor quality, it was taken from the Warren Report and was enlarged in the Report for better viewing of the rifle but importantly also gives a good look at the chin. This smoke screen argument that the chin is only a little wider is obviously not true just by looking at the picture.

No, for we can look at the picture right here: .

The righthand photo is the backyard enlargement you claim is fake. It does not give a good look at the chin. You will note backyard enlargement contrast on this turkey is so bad that Oswald's literature doesn't even have any print on it any more-- it looks like he's holding up blank sheets of white cardboard. And nevermind his "Frankenstein chin" -- he's got worse problems. Namely, no nose. And his chin creases do disappear along with the nose. However, it's all due to lighting effects and loss of detail with what they've done with the photo. If you look at the mugshot chin to the left (which I've rotated similarly and put into contrast), you see there's plenty of chin area to explain the white patch on the right. No change in jawline is evident. Sorry. Since you're claiming smokescreen, I'll just keep it very simple. Sbharris 08:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the funniest things I've seen on this page. The irony is terrific. In the past, the dwindling number of Warren Report supporters have taken the backyard photographs and tried to alter them by darkening them and otherwise manipulating them to look real. But, you do the reverse. You take a real photograph of Oswald and try to doctor it to look like the fabricated backyard photo contained in the Warren Report. Did you do all the photographic alterations yourself?

Yes, but this is just a standard computer program. If you have Photoshop you can do it.

This is very challenging. The biggest service this article can now provide to the reader is to get some more real (un-retouched) Oswald pictures and compare them to the two fabricated photos: The backyard photos found immediately by the Dallas police, and your retouching a real photograph of Oswald to look fake.

You missed the point. No "retouching" was done. That involves airbrushing or erasing lines. I merely cut out comparable sections from each photo, enlarged for comparison, and changed the contrast uniformly. I could easily have "re-touched" to taking out the shadow lines on the chin of the mugshot. But you can see what would happen-- a whitened chin with the same external jaw lines is just the same size in both photos. There's nothing wrong with the size of Oswald's chin in the backyard photo-- it's just lit oddly and lines are gone by enhancing contrast (the same process which removes his nose and the print on his socialist pamphlets). Sbharris 22:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Oswald disputed the authenticity of the backyard photos immediately, his announced defense should be explored in detail to see if it holds up. There is plenty written about it and we can present it and, under the policy of this web site, the readers can decide for themselves, whether the backyard photos are crude fabrications to make Oswald a "Patsy" or simply some big misunderstanding. We need to have a sub-part to the article devoted to these photographs.

Some space in the sub-part on the backyard photographs will have to be devoted to Robert Groden's work in the area. He has a comprehensive photographic record of Oswald pictures collected called the "Search for Lee Harvey Oswald." ISBN 0-670-85867-6. He devotes five pages to the bizarre history of the backyard photos and how the fabrication is done. It even has a copy of the "Ghost of Lee Oswald" discovered at the Dallas Police Department. It is a photo of the backyard and a white cut out in the photograph showing a silhouette of the man is standing holding a rifle. It looks ready to paste someone into it. See Page 95. It also has a picture of the backyard with a police officer striking the requisite pose with the newspaper and rifle. See page 91.

One photograph Groden didn't include is the FBI experiment to "prove" how the sun light and shadows can make the allegedly real photograph of Oswald look fabricated. This experiment is also very funny, though probably not meant to be, and is found in the Warren Report. Click here.

Yes, that is a paper bag over the agent's head. He is a secret agent. RPJ 09:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

2) Then there is smokescreen defense number two that the chin is also misaligned "even in Oswald's mug shot."

• • Do all of Oswald's pictures come out looking fabricated? This isn't true: just look at the mug shop and compare it to Oswald 's incriminating photograph that is obviously fabricated. Look at how the head is pasted at the chin level and it doesn't even fit together right.

3) Smokescreen defense three: Look at a "better copy" where the chin looks narrower.

• • Yes. Please do look at the width of the chin on the allegedly "better" copy put in the start of the Oswald article. It has been darkened at the corners of the copy to make it look narrower. Some one has tried to make the unusually wide chin look narrower to mislead. Stick to this photo evidence and look at these pictures and see what they tell about sad truth about fabrication of evidence; and how people are still trying to use it. Remember, there is no statute of limitations on murder.

4) Smoke screen defense four: "Many experts" have looked at the negative of the fabricated picture and disagree with the expert that says it looks fake.

• • Please, identify the "many experts." Why do they say it is not fake even though the chin looks like it is from Frankenstein and doesn't align with the rest of the face? Please, look at the picture.

5) Smoke screen defense five: Lets change the subject, and talk about other circumstantial evidence such as Mrs. Oswald said she took the photo: (no citation given); "Alex Hidell I.D." etc etc.

• • Stick to one piece of evidence at a time and methodically go through it. The biggest red flag of junk evidence is when someone spots a real problem with it, and the person trying to use it as evidence wants to change the subject to some other evidence. The reason we should especially stick to this one piece of evidence at this time with this photograph, is this: Once a fact finder becomes convinced that one piece of evidence has been fabricated it gives a good indication that other evidence "found" by the same source could be fabricated. In this case, the Dallas Police immediately came up with the fabricated photo showing Oswald with the rifle and the left wing literature and they also "authenticate" finding the Oswald's rifle and the other circumstantial evidence.

• • We should remember that Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach was concerned that the Dallas Police immediately started blaming Communists for the assassination, and also immediately the federal authorities found out that some one was impersonating Lee Oswald purportedly trying to hire a "hit man" before the assassination.

RPJ 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Article from History News Network

Lee Harvey Oswald’s Motives By Mel Ayton, 10th April 2006

Jpeob 10:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the article text posted here with a weblink to the article due to copyright concerns. Gamaliel 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. . 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 Misplaced Pages 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..

Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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.

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 , 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"

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 .

"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: .

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 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.” 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! ]. 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 Misplaced Pages: "Don´t bite the newcomers". This is not what Misplaced Pages 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 , , or . 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

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.

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)