Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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, [[1]]. 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, [2] [3]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 [including all significant viewpoints] 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 [4] 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.[5]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. [[6]]

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 Wikipedia 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:

[deleted long list of edit summaries already posted in multiple article talk pages by RPJ - G]

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. [7]Blow it up in size for a good look. In fact, here is a blow up of it for the reader. [8]

Compare it to other pictures of Lee Oswald. [9]

Fabricating pictures was quite primitive in 1963. Look at another Oswald picture on the page. [10]

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)

Oswald's Chin. This photomontage shows Oswald from the backyard photo March 31, 1963, and in his booking photo a day after the JFK assassination Nov 23, 1963. The mugshot has been turned to black and white, and contrast-enhanced and degraded to mimic a black and white sunlight snapshot.

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. [11]

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). [12]

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. [13]

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 [14] 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." [15]

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 [16]

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??

[17] 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. [18] 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.[19] The fabrication is obvious.

Then the smoke screen defense starts:

1) Smoke screen defense one: "[The chin]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. [20]

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. [21]

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. [22]

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. [23]

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. [24]

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)

Footer

Current discussion: Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald