Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Introduction should be changed back

Gamaliel's revert of the article by Mytwocents needs to be taken out.

The Warren Commission "concluded" this but very few people take the conclusion at face value.

One has to recognize that a reference work loses its credibility if it overstates or mistates information that most people know about, and have an opinion about. If the Warren Commission, HSCA, or any other panel was a court of law with the strict rules of evidence, due process, public hearing, right of cross examination, right to introduce contradictory evidence and other safeguards that give some standard by which third parties could measure the quality of the conclusion, then it would be proper to say that a Oswald committed the crime.

However, even when a court judgment is controversial it is sometimes better to say "Jones was convicted of murder" rather than "Jones murdered a person." That of course is just a matter of judgment on how controversial a criminal conviction is and the source of the controversy.

Once something as become a settled historical fact then one can speak with more certainty.

As it is, good judgment dictates that in a reference work one not attempt to inflate the meaning of non-judical conclusion. Just leave it at "XYZ" panel concluded "ABC."

Gamaliel scoffs at reference to what the majority of other Americans believe about the assassination, but its unclear why Gamaliel thinks he knows anymore about the subject than the average person.

Put it this way: If Oswald were still alive today, and hadn't been tried and convicted, a flat statement that he murdered the president would subject Gamaliel to a defamation lawsuit, that would have to be defended with alleging the affirmative defense of "truth" which puts the burden of proof on Gamaliel.

Almost all of the evidence cited in the article (assuming all the witnesses were still alive) wouldn't even be deemed reliable enough to get into evidence, let alone be persuasive to a jury. Therefore the flat statements that Gamaliel wants to make that Oswald killed the president is very reckless from the point of view of a reference work.

Remember that each reader that sees in this article some reckless, overblown statement that he or she believes to be untrue will then likely have doubts about the reference work as a whole.

Please do not revert the intrduction of Mytwocents. It is a workable compromise.

RPJ 19:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In the version I just reverted to there is more than enough material making it clear that the Warren Report is controversial.--FRS 20:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert Mytwocents. Please learn to read the history page more accurately. Gamaliel 21:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To help resolve this disagreement, it would be of assistance if the points that were addressed by other were addressed in more detail. Because when they are not addressed in detail, it becomes just a matter of reverting one another’s changes. My own preference is to merely have the short introduction to Oswald, and when he was born, why he is well known and how he died. Others disagree and immediately want to tell the reader who believes Oswald did what and supply evidence. This appears to be an unusual introductory paragraph, but if it is used then great pains should be used so as not to make a number of readers wince. If no reasoned discussion takes place for a detailed introductory paragraph, then the short one that would normally be used for an article will again be put in. The contributor "Mytwocents" did a good job on modifying it and the alternative that is being now presented should be supported with a thoughtful reasoned argument.

RPJ 20:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Veciana and New Orleans

Antonio Veciana Blanch, convicted drug dealer and founder of Alpha 66, claimed to be a CIA operative, yet provided no substantiation for his claims or evidence of the $253,000 he claimed he was paid by the CIA. On the days he claimed he saw Oswald in Dallas, Oswald was known to be in New Orleans. The HSCA concluded Veciana "had been less than candid" and totally discounted his claims. Gamaliel 03:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please provide your source of information on Veciana. RPJ

While waiting for your references, the rest is being reverted back since the references were to the Assassination Records Review Board Report which was cited.

The government report by the ARRB was published by the Organization of American Historians which publishes the Journal of American History.

Gamaliel must take this opportunity to check on his claim about what "most historians" believe about Lee Harvey Oswald. What better place to check than an organization of American Historians?

If Gamaliel doesn't check and puts that claim back about what most historians believe without references, then it is time for Gamaliel to stop being a contributer to this article. This is because Gamaliel has repeatedly disregarded the rules for giving references to important statements that readers will rely upon.

Nobody wants to work on a project that some else can discredit, and does, intentionally and willfully, discredit. RPJ 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The HSCA dismisses Veciana on page 137 of the HSCA report.

Really, your constant attacks upon my person are quite tiresome. I must insist that from now on you act within the bounds of Wikipedia:Civility as per the rules of this website and refrain from further personal attacks or insinuations. Gamaliel 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Veciana and New Orleans: Round II

In 1998. the federal Assassination Records Review Board issued the following report on Antonio Veciana:.

“[He] was an anti-Castro Cuban activist in the early 1960s. Veciana led Alpha66, a violent anti-Castro organization that engaged in paramilitary operations against Castro's Cuba as well as assassination attempts against Castro."

Many years earlier:

Veciana testified to the HSCA that he acted as an agent of the U.S. government, and that he met Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in 1963 in the presence of his American "handler." [12]

His group was publicly criticized by President Kennedy for some of its violent hit-and-run tactics in Cuba, but he defiantly stated he was going to do it "again and again."

In 1998, the ARRB noted Veciana as one of the people for which additional government files were going to be produced.

Gamaliel reverted out the reference to the violently anticommunist Veciana meeting with Oswald soon before the assassination. Gamaliel claims:

“On the days he claimed he saw Oswald in Dallas, Oswald was known to be in New Orleans.”

Gamaliel then gives a citation to page 137 of the HSCA Report that discusses Veciana. The page citation doesn’t support his statement at all.

Page 137 does discuss the secret testimony from two women about a meeting that Oswald had with some different paramilitary Cuban exiles in Dallas, at a different time. The HSCA also discusses how the Warren Commission decided to believe Oswald was in Mexico at the time though the FBI wouldn’t couldn’t substantiate the alibi.

Importantly, page 137 does not support Gamaliel’s alibi that Oswald was known to be in New Orleans at the time of the Veciana meeting in Dallas.

The reason given by the HSCA about discounting the testimony is because neither the CIA nor Mr. Veciana would provide details about his 13 year relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies, and the money paid to him.

This is why the ARRB, under the JFK Records Act sought additional documents about the matter. Sooner or later, the truth will come to the surface about all of this. Citing fictitious alibi’s is a waste of time. The readers of Wikipedia should, if they are interested go back and read the HSCA report on the Oswald-Cuban exile relationships with Veciana and the other groups that are in the surrounding pages to page 137 -140 of the HSCA report. It gives a picture of Oswald quite different from the alleged cover story of being a “Marxist.” The HSCA, running out of money and time, finally said it didn’t reach any firm conclusions on what these entanglements of Oswald with the paramilitary anticommunists meant. See page 140.

This is why the JFK Records Act was passed in 1992, in order to pry out from the federal agencies the documentation that establishes exactly who was Oswald working for and what involvement, if any, did these powerful, insulated agencies such as the CIA and FBI have in the Kennedy assassination.

RPJ 20:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said Oswald's "alibi" was on page 137. I clearly said page 137 contained HSCA's dismissal of Veciana's testimony. It's clear that you view this process as adversarial, with your continued attacks on me, your insinuation that I am lying because I supposedly said something was on page 137 when I never said it was, and your reference to this as "round II". WP articles are intended to be constructed in a collaborative process, but you obviously have no interest in collaborating, only in attacking people that don't accept your conspiracy theories as fact. You've attempted to rewrite the entire New Orleans section based on the dismissed testimony of a drug dealer and terrorist, testimony that was thought to be false even by the HSCA who concluded there was a conspiracy, and you don't even bring up this in your version, which clearly indicates you have no interest in or understanding of NPOV. Gamaliel 21:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary of American History

Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. p327-331. 10 vols.

From the preface: "The Dictionary of American History has been the leading reference work in United States history for more than six decades." Such an undertaking (ten volumes) is not the whimsical project of one person but represents the consensus of current thought in the academic community of mainstream historians.

On the JFK assassination: "Although every aspect of the assassination of John F. Kennedy has been the subject of controversy, the basic facts seem beyond dispute. At 12:30 P.M. on 22 November 1963, while riding in an open car past Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, President John F. Kennedy was fatally struck by two bullets from a high-powered rifle fired from the adjacent Texas Book Depository building.

All evidence pointed to a worker in that building, Lee Harvey Oswald. A former marine, Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union, redefected, and most recently had been active on behalf of Fidel Castro's Cuba. He owned the murder weapon, had been seen smuggling a long package into the building, had fled shortly after the assassination, and had killed a policeman in panic. Furthermore he was capable of committing political murder, having recently attempted to shoot the retired general Edwin A. Walker, a prominent right-wing figure.

Nonetheless many Americans were not convinced. Perhaps unwilling to acknowledge that such an insignificant figure as Oswald could single-handedly alter the course of history, they followed conspiracy theories trumpeted by sensational books and in the tendentious motion picture JFK (1991). The alleged conspiracies were masterminded either by the Russians, the Cubans, the Mafia, the Central Intelligence Agency, Vice President Lyndon Johnson, or time travelers from an alternate universe. Two days after Kennedy's assassination, while Oswald was being transferred to another jail, he was killed by Jack Ruby, a Dallas strip club operator, providing more fuel for the conspiracy theories. Even in the early twenty-first century polls consistently showed that most Americans continued to believe in a conspiracy theory even though no credible evidence emerged to seriously challenge the conclusion of the WARREN COMMISSION that Oswald acted alone."

I think this is fairly clear. Gamaliel 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. The article does not state there is a consensus among mainstream historians that there is little credible evidence to support any of these theories and that Oswald acted alone.

It is the opinion of one author.

RPJ 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think a prestigeous academic reference work would publish encyclopedia/dictionary entires which represent the minority position of one author or entires which represent the consensus of mainstream academic thought on the subject? Of what use would this work, or britannica, or any reference work be if it was standard procedure to publish entires that are merely some random opinion and don't represent mainstream thinking on the subject? Do you honestly believe this is how reference works are created? I don't think you fully grasp this concept, as you've just inserted a rambling, childish response to this respected reference work into this Wikipedia article. Do you really think that's an appropriate action to take? Do you honestly think this is appropriate material for the introduction of a Wikipedia article? The more I interact with you, the more I think you have absolutely no idea what Wikipedia is about and what we are trying to do here, as you've been treating this like a message board instead of an encyclopedia. I don't want to make this personal (though you've shown no such restraint with your constant attacks upon me) but you really don't get it and you're just wasting everyone's time here when we could be doing productive work. Gamaliel 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Request for Comment

Hello, I came in to take a look with a fresh pair of eyes. It looks like the main issue is a revert war, with people disagreeing about whether or not a sentence such as "Nevertheless, most historians conclude that Oswald was the lone assassin and no evidence has emerged that clearly points to any other alternative suspect or co-conspirator," is appropriate for the article. Since this is obviously a controversial issue, my recommendation is to be very careful about quoting sources, especially under the Wikipedia policy of no original research. Any change that is made, should include an inline citation showing what the source of that change is. If a disputed sentence does not have a clear external reference, then guidelines under Wikipedia:Verifiability allow it to be removed. An example of an inline citation would be like this: "A documentary asserts that the JFK assassination was a Cuban plot." [1]. To state "most historians conclude", I would want to see an external reputable source that uses that language, such as "most historians" "a majority of historians" "nearly all historians", etc. For further information, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Elonka 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack Ruby's gun running activities and Castro imprisoning his Mafia connected friend

Ruby's underworld connections give a much different view of the man who murdered Oswald.

This is from the Jack Ruby article in Wikipedia. RPJ 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Dictionary cite should not be a lead in to other uncited sources

Perhaps this is a game that someone is playing. But, why?

If one has sources cite them. But don't use devices such as saying other sources exist when not cited. It is unclear why some contributor would have such a commitment to establishing that "mainstream historians" believe the Warren Commission's lone gun man theory is correct that the contributor would want to keep slipping in uncited material without sources. If the sources exist put them in.

Otherwise unsourced material that is controversial gets reverted out.

RPJ 05:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I am "some contributor"? Well I guess that is better than "contributor "Gamaliel"".

Perhaps you don't understand how reference works are constructed. They do not represent the whimiscal opinions of one person (unless they are written by one person, such as James Randi's invaluable Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes) but the consensus of the scholarly community. When reference works state things like "George Washington was the first president", it is clearly a widely held belief and thus there is no need to make a ridiculous statement like "The consensus of the scholarly historical community is that George Washington was the first president". Thus your strategy of demanding a citation of the obvious while disputing each citation provided as the "opinion" of a single person. Note that you have remained silent on the question posed to you above as to how many citations would satisfy you.

I have attempted several different versions of the introduction, and you have not responded in any meaningful way to any of them, other than to insert a clearly inappropriate rant in the introduction of the article. Nor have you attempted in any meaningful way to the rebutt the non-acceptance of conspiracy theory in academia. You have not cited a single mainstream academic historian who supports conspiracy theory. You simply are silent on the issue entirely. Perhaps you are unaware of the many, many historians who publicly objected to Oliver Stone's film JFK or, more recently, the History Channel series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. This clearly does not indicate a scholarly acceptance of conspiracy. It is not enough for you to believe conspiracy, you must deny the existence of people who disagree with it.

On the matter of the Dictionary of American History, it is not true that the entry is "based solely on the Warren Commission report" nor is it true that the entry is unsigned. Whatever our disagreements, please do not reinsert these factual errors into the article. Gamaliel 07:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Warren Report are being put back in

The opening paragraph of an article should summarize what is to follow and give the big picture. The big picture of the article regarding Oswald is:

Explaining his background and alleged participation in the murder of Kennedy. The seemingly explosive issue for some contributors is whether he did it alone. The reason for seemingly life-and-death seriousness for some is this: If Oswald didn’t do it alone then the FBI and the CIA have let the guilty parties go free, by failing to properly investigate, destroying evidence, concealing evidence and actively misleading those who do try to investigate. This misconduct by the FBI and CIA has been gone over in detail by Congressional investigators. The House Select Committee on Assassination reported on this extensively.

Some people idolize these agencies because they do work for them or have worked for them, know people worked for them or have just become enamored with these agencies and can’t accept they aren’t perfect. Now, what they want to say is well, the FBI and CIA may have made mistakes regarding Kennedy’s murder but Oswald was the sole assassin, therefore, “No harm-no foul.”

Very few people agree with this position. In fact, a large majority disagree with them. A 2003 ABC TV News poll showed that only 32% (plus or minus 3 %) of Americans who expressed a view believe that Oswald acted alone in the Kennedy assassination [2]; a Discovery Channel poll revealed that only 21% believe Oswald acted alone. [3]; a History Channel poll gave a figure of 17%. [4].

They have to face facts. Poll after poll, shows very few Americans believe the Warren Commission's single gun man theory that Oswald did it alone. Instead, most American's believe that Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy. The House Select Assassination Committee believes the conspiracy existed. There is no "mainstream belief" that Oswald did it alone as some contributors to Wikipedia believe with a highly intense fervor.

It is true that a small group of the population still believe in the Warren Commission. Representatives of this viewpoint can have there say in the article under the Wikipedia rules, and embrace the Warren Commission Report; but, that is all. They can't stop the inclusion of information backed by reliable sources that (besides their small group) most people don't believe the Warren Commission's result. They also can't block any evidence that refutes what some of the contributors fervently believe.

One can't hide from the facts. In the Wikipedia rules it discusses whether a very small group of "flat earth" believers can require its position to be included in geography. Neutral Point of View

The Warren Commission has not reached that point of "Flat Earthers" but the number of believers is dwindling. They can still have their say but, but they must accept the fact that they don't control the pages.

This small group of contributors that are true believers are disruptive because it is quite easy to drop into an article and delete something that someone has written with a short flippant remark that it is "nonsense." It appears that most the contributors that engage in that practice actually do very little writing themselves. When they do make comments on the discussion page they are generally riddled with spelling and grammatical mistakes and often misstatements about the additions to the article they have reverted, rather than debate the issue.

One common device used is to attack one point in an addition to the article, that is among a number of points made, then revert the entire addition.

Another is to simply revert and say in a comment that some source referred to in an addition has been refuted, or that contrary evidence exists. Often this is done without even any citation to sources. Of course both sides should be presented.

Sometimes the reverters work in a small tag team. One will do it for a while then another will take it over for a while and then a third will do so.

Almost always, a bare minimum of work is done.

RPJ 20:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, sadly you have chose to attack other contributors instead of addressing the matter at hand. I assume (since there's only so many people here, unfortunately) that most of this is directed at me, and your smears are quickly refuted by looking at our respective contributions. Contrary to your claim that I do "very little writing", I have written many dozens of Wikipedia articles, including most of this article. You, on the other hand, have done little besides insert one-sided information and rambling, barely coherent rants into assassination-related articles. I can't find a single edit that you have ever made to an article that isn't related to conspiracy and your sole purpose here on Wikipedia seems to be to push conspiracy.

While you try to invoke WP:NPOV, you don't seem to understand what it means and certainly don't practice it, based on your continued insertion of one-sided material and rants. We obviously disagree, but I have never tried to deny the existence of people who disagree with me. I have always acknowledged that many people disagree with the conclusions of the four govt. investigations and have never sought to deny that. You, on the other hand, have never directly addressed the matter at hand, which is what mainstream historians conclude regarding Oswald and the assassination. You have simply attempted to deny the existence of historians who disagree with your conspiracy viewpoint and attempted to smear other Wikipedia editors. Gamaliel 22:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC

hello, dropped by after seeing the RFC posting on this article. It's apparent to me that RPJ's additions to the intro are inappropriate. Some of it is redundant to material already in the body of the article. Some of it belongs in or is redundant to Warren Commission. --FRS 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your statement has no specifics. "Some" of the posting is redndant and "some" belongs somewhere else or "some" is redundant to another article.

Gamaliel is going to have to start doing real work rather than vague comments such as these to revert postings. Gamaliel must give specific reasons, and show why the reasons apply.

Please "drop by" when the matter is thought through and articulated in a reasoned way.RPJ 22:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. This:

"While in police custody, Oswald denied he had murdered the President, and claimed he was a “patsy.” A day later he was murdered by Dallas strip club owner and underworld figure Jack Ruby"

is redundant to material in the body of the article.

This:

"After a number of secret sessions, the 1964 Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone. Most Americans reject the Warren Commission's conclusion"... through and including..."One reference called the Dictionary of American Biography still adopts the Warren Commission view in a brief unsigned article "no credible evidence emerged to seriously challenge the conclusion of the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone.""

may be properly located somewhere, probably as part of a "criticisms" section in the Warren Commission article to the extent that the material is not already there, maybe (in edited down form) in the body of this article. But plopping it at the end of a two paragraph intro to the LHO biographical article is unencyclopedic.--FRS 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To exactly what encyclopedic rule does FRS refer?

Why would the article start off with the mantra of how Oswald was found to be the sole murderer of Kenndy and not mention that he himself was murdered right after being arrested? Its Oswald's biography.

Why not start off simply saying that he was the alleged murdered of the President and give his biography?

The reasoning seems to be that, at every opportunity the group of people that believe Oswald murdered the president and did it alone want to advertise that point of view and then turn around and prevent some one else from pointing out that only a very small number of people believe that anymore.

Everyone has the right to his or her own belief system; and preach these beliefs, but not to the exclusion of other beliefs. If someone wants to repeatedly drum home a belief that is opposed by others then one has to expect a repeated presentation of the other viewpoints. Don't you agree?

RPJ 23:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction already made it clear that there are controversies about the Warren Report's conclusions; it's unnecesary and inappropriate to put in six paragraphs of criticism about it in the intro. There are plenty of other places where that subject can be engaged. --FRS 23:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a solution that seems appropiate. See if you agree.

RPJ 00:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to your short version intro, but don't agree to removing the 1963 photo. I put that back.--FRS 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this rv 20:42, January 24, 2006 Mytwocents I removed None of these theories are endorsed by any respected mainstream historian. which seems to be the bone of contention. Mytwocents 01:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. But there are other items that are not appropiate. For example: "The Dictionary of American History states that "no credible evidence emerged to seriously challenge the conclusion of the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone."

This simply is not true. Now that at least some of the secret documents and testimony have been opened, there is overwhelming evidence that seriously challenges the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone. It is just very difficult to reconcile the evidence with that statement.

RPJ 05:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is an intro from the John F. Kennedy assassination wikipage. I made a few changes to sentence flow, referances to Oswald and used two weblinks in liew of some statements on polling, to save some room. I propose we use in total as the intro to make it NPOV: (it may need spellchecking...)

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) allegedly assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy and then murdered Dallas Texas policeman J. D. Tippit on November 22, 1963, as determined by four formal federal investigations into the assassination. An official investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), conducted from 1976 to 1979, concluded that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This contrasts with the earlier conclusion by the Warren Commission that the President was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Many not only dispute the conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin (claiming that there was a conspiracy), but also claim that Oswald was not involved at all. Shortly after his arrest, Oswald insisted he was a "patsy." Oswald never admitted any participation in the assassination, and was shot two days after being taken into police custody, by night-club owner, Jack Ruby.

Investigations, scientific testing, and re-creations of the circumstances of Kennedy's death have not, in the American public's view, settled the question of who plotted to kill the president. A 2003 ABC TV News poll showed that only 32% (plus or minus 3 %) of Americans who expressed a view believe that Oswald acted alone in the Kennedy assassination. [5] Polls by other news orginisations [6][7] show even lower percentages. Polls also show that there is no agreement on who else may have been involved.

Mytwocents 08:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts. Gamaliel 08:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Warren Commission, et al didn't "allege", they concluded. That sentence carefully says that his guilt was assigned by the investigations, thus no need for a further disclaimer.
• The HSCA also concluded that Oswald was the assassin, whatever assistance they vaguely suggest he may have had. Your sentence seems to say this isn't the case at all. Their conclusion should be mentioned and is probably more important than their unsupported allegation of conspiracy.
• There's too much about the polls, and while public opinion probably should be taken note of, this is too much info for the intro, and I oppose discussing public opinion without discussing what professional historians have to say on the matter.

---

I believe its RPJ's changes should be taken into consideration. Although the oficial version of the facts says Oswald assasinated Kennedy, it should be noticed that this is not a proved fact and a important number of people beleive he was innocent.

R.I.P.

Contributors: I hope the introductory paragraph can now rest in peace.

RPJ 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't dislike the current version quite enough to revert it, but I think either of these [[8]] [[9]] are much better. The current version is too PoV, and I believe the statement "Many ... also claim that Oswald was not involved at all," is neither supported within the article nor compliant with Avoid Weasel Words--FRS 18:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry to change the intro either. But short and to the point might be the way to go. While the [[10]] version that FRS suggests is terse, it does get the job done. One thing about keeping the intro brief is you avoid tripping over NPOV, weasel words, or other wikistandards. Here is the existing first paragraph(trimmed), with a Jack Ruby sentence tacked on. This could serve as the entire intro:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy and then murdered Dallas Texas policeman J. D. Tippit on November 22, 1963, as determined in 1964, by the Warren Commission and three other formal federal investigations into the assassination. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), conducted from 1976 to 1979, also concluded Oswald was the assassin but that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Oswald was never tried in court. He was shot by nightclub owner Jack Ruby, two days after Pres. Kennedy's death.

I would like to see 3 wikilinks from "three other formal federal investigations into the assassination" statement (FBI?, Secret Service, investgations?). This intro covers the basics, and then we're off to the races with the rest of the article. (which BTW I think reads pretty good!) Mytwocents 21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mytwocents's version just above.--FRS 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

Now that some are thinking about reopening the introduction, we need to insist that those who still profess to believe no one helped Oswald cannot argue that only one point of view be presented. This isn't right. Most Americans hold the opposite point of view and believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices.

Most Americans believe the Warren Commission is wrong. Congress also believes there was a conspiracy, and came to this conclusion after a three year investigation.

America has rejected the Warren Report. Why do certain contributors believe they know more than anyone else about the Kennedy assassination? The polls clearly show only a very small number of people still support the Warren Commission's Report.

Why does this small group persist? It could be that by proving the Warren Report is wrong, a number of influencial federal agencies (the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service) will then bear reponsiblity for covering up for those who participated in the President's gruesome murder. If Oswald had help, these agencies have covered up for the accomplices, by misleading the rest of the government and the American Public about the other people being involved. Also, to help hush things up, the newly installed President Johnson then sealed all the evidence involving the murder of President Kennedy for seventy five years. He will also bear responsibility for the murder participants going free.

These facts can't be exluded. Those who support these institutions are likely to cling to the beliefs and hope that no one has gotten away with murder.

To continue the concealment of the truth, the committed few believers now want to "clean up" Jack Ruby. In the discription of Jack Ruby (who murdered,the subject of the article, Lee Harvey Oswald) the believers now propose that Jack Ruby be presented in his "cleaned up" version: The "Dallas night club owner."

Instead, the introduction must show Jack Ruby for what he is: Jack Ruby owned a sleazy strip-bar and his criminal background is violent and extensive. The introduction must show the real Jack Ruby:

"Ruby went to Cuba in 1959 on one of his gun-running ventures and to visit a Mafia-connected friend, influential Dallas gambler Lewis McWillie, whom Fidel Castro had briefly imprisoned. McWillie was also connected to leading mobsters Meyer Lansky, Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante Jr.

See Wikipedia article on Jack Ruby.

Does this true picture of Jack Ruby tend to prove that Oswald was silenced by organized crime? Of course.

This article can't start giving a false image of Ruby in the introduction. The introduction must give the true picture of the underworld hitman, who killed Oswald as he is already described in the Jack Ruby article.

RPJ 09:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It is time for some contibutors to review why they participate

This Wikipedia project is supposed to be an interesting and informative project on which to work.

But some contributors don't want to work on a neutral point of view basis which means, in part this:

Evidence supporting both viewpoints needs to be included.

This isn't happening. Today there was included in the Oswald the documentary evidence that Oswald gave an alibi to the police and told them he was out on the sidewalk with a Mr. Shelley when the president was shot.

The Dallas Police nor the FBI told the Commission about this alibi. Moreover, there is a photograph that seems to show Oswald out front at the time of the shooting and together with Oswald's immediate statement is very strong evidence in his favor that he was telling the truth.

The Warren Commission advocates have become highly agitated about this evidence and have now been reverting it out of the article.

"Gamaliel" claims there is evidence that it is not true. Therefore, his position is to hide the evidence of Oswald's innocence. Gamaliel believes that because he has apparently weighed the evidence and determined he thinks Oswald is guilty that therefore, no contradictory evidence should be revealed. This is apparently to prevent the reader from forming the "wrong opinion."

"Gamaliel" can't seem to comprehend that both sides must be presented.

A contributor name"Mytwocents" has done the same thing. Please accept the fact you (Gamaliel and Mytwocents) have proven your loyalty to the Warren Commission's conclusions. Everyone should know that by now.

That does not give you the right to revert out evidence you don't like. You know you are not supposed to do it and so do the other readers. So please stop it. RPJ 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Lovelady photo

The man claimed to be "Oswald" on the steps of the TSBD is actually TSBD employee Billy Lovelady. This was conclusively proved back in the 70s, by a conspiracy theorist no less. Lovelady himself said "Hey, that's me, and look, here's the shirt I was wearing." Anywhere but Planet Conspiracy, that would be open and shut. To cast doubt on such a self-identification, you'd have to:

1. Show some sort of proof, or even a motive, that Lovelady is lying.
2. Provide some sort of compelling evidence (beyond a supposed "remarkable resemblance") that the man in the photograph is Oswald.
3. Find a witness, such as one of the many identified TSBD employees in the photo and in films showing the same scene, who places Oswald and not Lovelady at the scene. Of course all these witnesses have identified Lovelady as the one on the steps.

RPJ provides none of this, and doesn't even provide Lovelady's name, which s/he surely must know. NPOV does not arise by someone sticking in the article a whole bunch of nonsense supporting their pet theories and expecting other people to balance it out. NPOV is something that should be a goal at all times, with every edit. RPJ's refusal to acknowledge that this theory was debunked decades ago makes it clear that his/her interest is not in constructing an NPOV article, but in pushing a conspiracy POV.

Now some might say, why not present this information and the fact that has been long since debunked? Because this article should present the historical facts and a clear and concise manner and not get distracted by every red herring tossed out by the conspiracy press over the years. In discussing what we know about Oswald leaving the TSBD, should we discuss the one person who wasn't even there who says Oswald was picked up by a green Nash Rambler? In discussing what we know about Oswald in New Orleans, should we discuss the woman who claims (with little success, even among conspiracy buffs) 40 years later that she was having an affair with him? This article would quickly become a laundry list of conspiracy theories and the real facts would be lost among the nonsense. Our duty in constructing this encyclopedia is not to catalog every thing that every person ever said about November 1963 but to present the facts of what happened clearly and in a manner unencumbered by supposition and wild theorizing. Gamaliel 19:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

1--Much testimony that is mistaken does not arise our "lying." In this case Lovelady was simply handed a photo that bore a strong resemblence to both Oswald and to Lovelady and asked a leading question by an authority figure, if that was him? He knew he was in the area at the time and Lovelady agreed. He should have been asked if he recognized any of the people in the picture? Or, if the authority figure wanted to elicit a response that the person was Oswald, he could have asked "Is this a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald?"

2-- Not knowing there was any such picture to corroberate his alibi, Oswald said he was down where the picture was taken. That is pretty compelling don't you think?

specifically asked whether Oswald was outside when Kennedy drove by. This seems to be poor police work because the police and FBI knew this was Oswald's alibi from their first interview with Oswald. The existence of Captain Fritz's notes that contained Oswald's alibi was certainly a stunning revelation to the ARRB in 1997 as it was probably to all who follow the case.[11] It is very disturbing that the lead investigators (Hosty for the FBI and Fritz for the Dallas police)took it upon themselves to both conceal evidence and destroy evidence relating to Oswald's participation.[12] Jimwae and others who want to support the Warren Commission are certainly free to do so but should ask themselves why were the law enforcement officials perjuring themselves to conceal evidence?

Does Jimwae wish to respond? 66.91.203.81 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Response--Please don't get upset

Now the debate is getting down to something that can easily be addressed. As soon as Oswald is silenced, Captain Fritz commits perjury to hide the Oswald alibi. See main artle on Kennedy Assassination. FBI Hosty was there with Fritz[[13]] at the interrogation, and also he conceals the alibi. He is the FBI agent that destroyed the letter Oswald delivered to his office two days before the assassination. And as soon as Oswald was murdered, Hosty flushed the letter down the toliet. [14].

If one reads Shelley's interrogation, one should note that he is never asked point blank if he saw Oswald outside when the President rode by, [15] even though that is the witness who Oswald identified to police and FBI that also was outside.

Shelley is asked specifically if saw Oswald inside, but never was he asked specifically if Oswald was outside. The crucial question is not asked of whether Oswald was outside as Oswald told both Captain Fritz and Agent Hosty . This information would seem to have been the focus of intense inquiry. Why would Oswald give an alibi that wouldn't hold up? Why give Shelley's name, and why doesn't the Commission just point blank ask Shelley if Oswald was outside as he said he was?

As a footnote, another item odd about Shelley is that he person saw the Mauser rifle in the Texas Book Depository two days before Kennedy's murder, [16]and it was a Mauser that was first reportedly found near the sniper's nest in the building rather than the rifle that suppossedly belonged to Oswald. [17]

We know now, many years later, that Captain Fritz and FBI agent Hosty perjured themselves and concealed Oswald's alibi. We even know why: J. Edgar Hoover clearly said he wanted to convince the public that Oswald murdered the president and did it alone. [18] and didn't want anyone to pursue the evidence supporting Oswald's alibi.

In summary, three contributors---Jimwae, Gamaliel and Mytwocents appear unusually upset that any discussion about Oswald's long concealed alibi be in this article. From the rather dramatic language used by them and the constant reversions of information, it appears that the level of concern that Oswald might have been innocent, as he claimed before being murdered, exceeds their alarm that more than one person participated in the assassination of Kennedy.

RPJ 11:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are concerned about people getting upset, then you should stop your rude practice of speculating about the motives and feelings of other editors.

Assuming your tortured speculation is plausible, who did the other witnesses see on the steps, Lovelady or Oswald? These are people who knew both men. Since both men say they were there, which is more logical?:

1. The man who everyone says was there who has the shirt seen in the picture.
2. The man who no one says was there.

It's pretty simple. Gamaliel 02:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing whole paragraphs demanding a citation

This isn't going to fly, RPJ. Please use this talk page to discuss what particular facts you feel need to be cited. Those paragraphs are full of innocuous facts that are not in dispute and really don't need to be cited (such as "John Pic joined the coast guard" - do we really need to reference that?), so let's focus on the problem areas instead of scooping out large chunks of the article. It seems that you are trying to use your citation demand as a tactic to remove material you dislike, as you've raised problems with that section before. This claim of "the article is too long" isn't going to work either, especially since you're responsible for trying to insert such irrelevant trivia as Oswald's childhood television viewing habits. If you honestly believe that it is too long and you aren't using that as a tactic as well, then please have a look at the overwritten and overly long section on Russia. It is in desperate need of editing and I've long wanted to tackle it, but your thrice weekly attempts to insert conspiracy nonsense into the article have kept me too busy to deal with that section. Gamaliel 06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added 2 citations to the section that 66.91.203.81 removed earlier.... I think it's obvious Oswalds childhood needs to be covered thoroughly. BTW, I smell a sockpuppet at work...........

Mytwocents 06:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Any editor who wants more citations could put this template above the section....

{{Unreferencedsection}} Mytwocents 06:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason it was taken out was none of it was supported by the reference. RPJ 07:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed your header into a regular comment. There is no need to start a new header for your reply, especially in this case when you have placed no comments below the header.

I am going to revert your removal of this material again. The incident with the knife is described in John Pic's testimony to the Warren Commission, which I found in about 30 seconds with google. Please act as a collaborative editor and identify which items you have a problem with on the talk page and (though this is probably too much to hope for) participate in the editing process by making good faith attempt to find a citation on your own. Do not use your demand for citations as a tactic to remove material you disagree with or want to wish away. Gamaliel 08:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Lee Oswald "Lead Three Lives?"

Contributor Gamaliel believes it is trivia that, as a teenager, Lee Oswald's favorite TV show was "I lead Three Live" which was based on a true story about an American who appeared to be an ordinary citizen; but then infiltrated the Communist Pary in America, because even more secretly he was an under cover agent for the FBI.

Yet the Oswald article cites "Frontline" as a source of information that believes this attraction to "I Lead Three LIves" is important to explaining what shaped Lee Oswald when he was young.

NARRATOR: His favorite T.V. program was a saga of political intrigue and espionage.

ROBERT OSWALD: I Lived Three Lives- he became really engrossed in that particular television show. I think he just liked the atmosphere that you could do anything that you wanted to do, that you could imagine you could do.

Now, its a pretty straight forward that while he was 15 years old and in the paramilitary Civil Air Patrol, Oswald met David Ferrie in New Orleans, who was an instructor and also connected to the CIA. Because he idolized his older brother who was a Marine, Oswald joined the Marines at 17 years old, but just before joining, Oswald tried to “apply” to be a member of a Socialist Party Group.

Then, in the Marines, Oswald gets sent to a base where spy planes are housed that make high altitude spy missions over Russia, and while there learns Russian to help in his later "defection" to Russia.

Some people have pondered "What is the meaning of all this?"

Contributor Gamaliel has thought about it, and has simply reverted out any mention of Oswald's spy program fascination. Unlike Frontline Gamaliel doesn't believe the readers need to know about it. Only people with highly disciplined minds can be exposed to this information, and not get any "wrong" ideas.

RPJ 08:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oswald's early life: Too hot to print?

This subject seems very important and seems to have puzzeled some people. The "Frontline " TV story cited in the article refers to Oswald as an enigma.

Now, instead of looking at all the relevant evidence that explains the boy who then became the "most hated man in America," some contributors have been reverting out evidence about Oswald's youth. The evidence has been reverted out not because it is not well referenced, but rather because the evidence collides with an urban myth adopted by the article some time ago.

Some time ago, some contributor believed that Oswald was such a truant and trouble maker when he did go to school that he was going to be permanently placed in an institution in New York and Lee's mother took Lee back to New Orleans and thereby avoided Lee going to the institution.

That is an interesting story: A violent teenager, chronically truant from school, and a trouble maker when he did attend, but escapes being institutionalized by fleeing the jurisdiction of New York.

The problem is this story isn't true.

But one contributor won't let the story be modified by putting in additional evidence to show what did happen.

The evidence is an official Court record, given by Lee's school, that Lee Oswald was doing well in school when his mother moved back down to New Orleans. This information isn't too hot for the public to handle.

Another attempt will be made put in the information will be made. RPJ 23:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• What has been left out by RPJ is that "doing well" is not a complete account at all. ONE teacher said Oswald had improved (and perhaps there are details that he was now [for whatever reason] attending more frequently & saluting the flag) - not that he had no more problems. Teachers like to believe progress is being made anyway - It is absurd to include one teacher's hopes as a major piece of evidence that needs to not only be mentioned in the article, but quoted. The court need not be satisfied that no further action need be taken just because one teacher reports "improvement" --JimWae 15:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimwae is incorrect regarding what Oswald's school said. Jimwae said quote: "One teacher said Oswald improved ... not that he had no more problems." Jim Wae is wrong the school said this:

"On November 19, 1953, [a court official] contacted Mr. Rosen of P.S. 44. Mr. Rosen indicated that since Mrs. Oswald's visit to the school to discuss [Lee's] situation with them, Lee has been getting along very well in school. The boy is now saluting the flag and he is showing a great deal of improvement. Mr. Rosen stated that he is no longer a behavior problem in the school."

See Exhibit 1 to Carro's testimony before the Warren Commission. [19][20]

Disputable.

Due to the differing views held in reference to Oswald's participation in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I feel that it is but correct to add "Allegedly" in the beginning of the article. And I have done so. See the credibility section for my argumentation for this. Those who believe he was the lone assassin and so on should at least be able to accept this rightful demand? If something is held in so much dispute, it should at least be presented at "allegedly" instead of being a statement of fact, since it is all but a fact. I hope I have everyone's support in this. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.49.37.154 (talk • contribs) .

The intro does not state as a fact that LHO was the assassin, it states as a fact that four investigations concluded he was the assassin. Those investigations did not "allegedly" conclude, they just concluded. Gamaliel 01:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Could Gamaliel give the two investigations that reached the conclusion?

RPJ 06:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That still does not change the fact that the opening sentence of the article is misleading. It doesnt just neutrally say that these investigations determined he did it, but that he did it, AS DETERMINED by these investigations. Now, there are other investigations that are intellectually satisfying, which is something these most certainly were not. So I suggest that this abomination of an opening be reviewed in some way. That's not the only thing I think should be changed, but I won't bother with anything else. I just find it immoral to maintain such a disputable "fact" on a site that is supposed to convey knowledge. That is all.

Someone was impersonating Lee Oswald

Lee Oswald denied shooting the president or officer Tippit and claims he was a "patsy."

Recent discoveries in 1999, provide evidence of this. Immediately after the assassination, high government officials (specifically J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson) discovered that some one, in fact, had been found impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald; and doing so in a very big way: By contacts with the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate that would link Oswald (through the person impersonating him) to a known KGB assassin - Valery Kostikov - whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year. [21]

The story gets worse for the CIA.

The story on the PBS show "Frontline," discloses:

The news of this impersonation and the link to Kostikov, learned within hours of President Kennedy's assassination, electrified top government and intelligence officials and dominated their discussion in the immediate weeks following the assassination. It also became during the next 40 years one of the CIA's most closely guarded secrets on the Oswald case.

[22]

Irrefutable evidence, from the CIA's own files, establish the pattern and practice of deception to conceal the CIA that it knew Lee Oswald was being impersonated and knew the impersonator was trying to make contact with a professional assassin:

"Shortly after Oswald's Sept. 27 visit to the Cuban consulate to try to get a visa, the CIA station in Mexico informed headquarters about it and requested information on him. But headquarters lied to its station, saying that no information on Oswald had been received by headquarters since his return to the United States eighteen months earlier. Documents show, however, that most of the half-dozen agency employees who participated in the drafting and dissemination of this false story had signed for and read various FBI reports received on Oswald during those months, especially during the two weeks before this deception was invented."

[23]

"After President Kennedy's assassination, documents show that the [CIA] created two more false stories in connection with Oswald's Mexico City visit. The first cover story was that the CIA's tapes of the phone calls had been erased before the assassination. The second cover story was that the CIA did not realize Oswald had visited the Cuban consulate until they looked into the matter after the assassination."[24]

Even today outsiders do not know the name of who was impersonating Lee Oswald before Kennedy was murdered.

The CIA has admittedly not released all of its documents. Despite all this, a highly committed Warren Report believer wants to exclude this information about someone impersonating Oswald--for reasons unknown.

RPJ 00:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• ALL 3 links are the same (and I have moved one to a better position - could you at least do that to make it more readable). Why have you omitted that the impersonation was done over the phone only? That's all I see there. Embarassing for the CIA & FBI? Yes. Evidence of conspiracy? No --JimWae 05:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

PBS has the evidence: Oswald impersonator appears right before Kennedy murder

Congress then formed by special legislation the Assassination Records Review Board which, in turn, ripped the lid off the goverrnment secrecy surrounding the Kenndey murder. Congress enacted the JFK Records Act in 1993 after the American Public had an opportunity to see "JFK" the award winning film about the Kennedy assassination.

Information that PBS says "electrified" top U.S. officials has arisen out of the secret documents that have been found. One of the most stunning disclosures is that "Lee Harvey Oswald" attempted to contact a Russian assassin two months before Kennedy was murdered. This took place in Mexico City at the Russian and Soviet Embassy.

The problem is that the person trying to contact the assassin was not Lee Harvey Oswald. Instead, it was an impersonator. Not only was it an Oswald impersonator, but that the CIA knew it was and Oswald impersonator. [25]

Does this mean that the existence of an Oswald impersonator means there was a conspiracy? Yes.

What else does it mean? That someone was trying to frame Lee Oswald for the murder of Kennedy.

None of this evidence is any longer in dispute. It comes right from the government's secret files that have been made public by the ARRB. [26]

Its ironic that the dwindling number of Warren Report believers exploded with indignation that the "JFK" film accussed the CIA of being involved in the Kennedy murder. However, the consistently inept CIA has been trying for a long time to convince people that none of its agents were involved in the Kennedy assassination. How hard has the CIA tried to mislead the public?

Remember this New York Times article about its propaganda program about the assassination?

Using the material from CIA headquarters, CIA field stations were directed to counteract the "new wave of books and articles criticizing the [Warren] Commission's findings...[and] conspiracy theories ...[that] have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization [CIA]." The CIA headquarters said the CIA agents:

1--- needed to "discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors "; and

2-- needed to"employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. ...Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. ..."

Don't try to conceal the truth anymore. The evidence is out.

RPJ 05:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

New York Times, December 26, 1977,"Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report",p.A3.

It looks like the main reason they covered up any Soviet/Castro connection was because LBJ was convinced revealing it would have forced the US and USSR into a nuclear war. The American people, in their indignation, would have demanded a nuclear strike:

To head off any congressional investigations, President Johnson decided to create a blue-ribbon commission that would be headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren and composed of august leaders like Senator Richard Russell. When Russell said he didn't like Warren and refused the assignment, Johnson told him that he had no choice, that it already had been announced, that he could work with anyone for the good of America, and that Oswald's apparent connection to Castro and Khrushchev had to be prevented "from kicking us into a war that can kill forty million Americans in an hour."

A weird piece of trivia, but hardly new or earthshaking. Was it Oswald on the phone? A CIA impersonator trying to shake the bushs?.... Who knows? It's just speculation and inuendo. Oswald was an odd bird with many strange sidetracks in his life. And the CIA, well, they don't call them spooks for nothing. This revealation doesn't take him out of the snipers nest, or change the bullet trajectory of the fatal shot. I don't think it deserves mention in the intro. Perhaps somewhere on the page.

Mytwocents 06:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The Oswald impersonator evidence goes into the introduction of the Oswald article

Lee Harvey Oswald is an important historical figure for only one reason: The Warren Commission claimed he alone murdered President Kennedy. When the American public started doubting this, the HSCA investigated and agreed that Oswald did it but conspired with others to commit the murder.

Oswald denied doing it. He claimed the evidence was fabricated; and claimed he was being framed for the murder. He was then quickly silenced by being murdered himself, and the two secret investigations mentioned above pronounced him guilty.

Thirty five years later, investigators uncover irrefutable documents that someone was impersonating Oswald while contacting the Russian and Cuban embassies to see a Soviet assassin. The impersonator did this less than two months before Kennedy was murdered.

The CIA knew about the Oswald impersonator all along. It was following the Soviet assassin, and kept constant surveillance on the Cuban consulate and Russian embassy.

Yet, as the records now show, the CIA lied about the existence of the Oswald impersonator, gave perjured testimony about it, and concealed the information from the American public for over 35 years.

Importantly for the Oswald article, the evidence of an Oswald impersonator, supports Oswald's claim that he was being framed. The first step in framing Oswald is to impersonate Oswald trying to hire an assassin. That is why this goes into the introduction. Don't be afraid of evidence. Look at it and learn from it.

Also, it should be noted, that the passage written by the reader who calls himself "Mytwocents" (see his comments on Feb 13, 2006) makes some very puzzling comments.

1---According to him, the CIA covered up the Oswald impersonator because "revealing it [an Oswald impersonator] would have forced the U.S. and U.S.S.R. into a nuclear war." That doesn't make any logical sense at all unless the imposter was working for the USSR. If the imposter was working instead for, say, an American right wing hate group, the American people certainly wouldn't blame the USSR. Instead, by concealing that someone was impersonating Oswald made it more likely that the American people would blame the USSR or Cuba since Oswald was supposedly a supporter of both countries.

2—Then, after arguing about the fears that "40 million dead Americans an hour" hinged on the concealment that Oswald had an impersonator, the reader calling himself "Mytwocents" goes on to immediately state: "A weird bit of trivia, but hardly new or earthshaking."

Well, is the information important enough to cause a nuclear war or is it trivia? One can't change one's mind on this from one sentence to the next and expect the reader to understand what you are trying to communicate.

RPJ 08:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, if you re-read the quote, it was LBJ's concern about Oswald's apparent connection to Castro and Khrushchev that led to the cover-up (or more like CYA). Since Johnson had just been sworn in, as the commander-in-chief, of the most powerful nation ever to sit at God's footstool....... he got his way. Mytwocents 07:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There was someone who was impersonating Oswald and trying to contact a professional assassin shortly before Kennedy was assassinated. The CIA concealed the information that someone was impersonating Oswald. Johnson concealed that someone was impersonating Oswald, as did FBI Director Hoover.

RPJ 05:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The citation given for the Hosty matter[27] is at the History Matters site. It looks like a Kennedy conspiracy web site. This would not be considered a reputable source. The page says the tape was erased.... but there is a transcript....

The quotes given above are taken from a transcript of the conversation made contemporaneously in 1963. The tape itself appears to have been erased at some time since then. The accompanying audio consists of 14 minutes of noisy silence. See "The Fourteen Minute Gap" essay for more information.

Mytwocents 06:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You Warren Report believers need to get into the current century. Carrying around a dog eared copy of the Warren Report is equivelant to carrying around a membership card to the "Flat-Earth Society. It is quite a bit outdated. Here is a link to a "hotbed" of conspiracy theory: Public Broadcasting's "Frontline." Read it. Don't ask someone else to read it and tell you what it says--just read it. [28]

66.91.203.81 08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• The citation does not say "impersonation". Several people who worked at the embassy identified Oswald as the person who created a disturbance in the embassy [ http://cuban-exile.com/doc_001-025/doc0017.html ]. An alternate possibility is that the photo & voice the FBI had - apparently from secretive US surveillance inside the embassy - did not match Oswald simply because the FBI screwed up & mixed up the photos. To say it was a case of impersonation is prejudicial POV. It does not belong in the intro, but if it is even mentioned, other evidence (EYEwitnesses) needs also to be mentioned. Further: there was no need to link Oswald to Cuba - he did that himself. Being a defector, he was also already linked to the USSR--JimWae 06:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

To bad Jimwae; no reputable source has suggested such a possibility. It is wishful thinking by one of the gullible few. That is not good enough for Wikipedia. The rules can't be bent for the gullible few that desperately cling to their beliefs and would love to put their Warren Report beliefs in the article--but, it is not allowed.

66.91.203.81

PBS News Report: New evidence that "electrified" Washington

Long concealed facts, that the usually staid PBS, termed "startling" establish that that the facts had electrified the top government officials from Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover and on down and dominated their conversations immediately after President Kennedy was murdered: 'Less than 60 days before Kennedy was murdered, someone, who was impersonating Lee Oswald, attempted to contact a Russian assassin'.

Oswald had contended he was being framed for Kennedy's murder before he was murdered while in police custody.

The PBS news program had this to say about the facts surrounding this long concealed facts about the Oswald impersonator [29]

It was 1993, the 30th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, when FRONTLINE first aired its documentary, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" In that program FRONTLINE concluded, "What now seems certain is that the CIA is still covering up its contact with Lee Harvey Oswald."

Now, ten years later, much material has been made available to the American public which sheds light on what the CIA had been hiding for forty years. This new information is the result of the U.S. Congress passing the 1993 "JFK Records Act."

Scholars are now going through the documents have already been released; and waiting for the release of a large amount of additional documents from the CIA and other agencies that have been scheduled for eventual release. The PBS news story went on to report:

By the time the Board's work was completed in the late 1990s, six million pages of documents had been made available to the public in the National Archives.

Arguably, the most startling information so far brought to light by the release of these intelligence records is the CIA cover-up relating to Oswald's visit to Mexico City

Oswald was in Mexico City in late September and early October of 1963.

CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin - Valery Kostikov - whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.1

The news of this impersonation and the link to Kostikov, learned within hours of President Kennedy's assassination, electrified top government and intelligence officials and dominated their discussion in the immediate weeks following the assassination.

It also became during the next 40 years one of the CIA's most closely guarded secrets on the Oswald case.

That sheds new light on Oswald's claim he was a"patsy" who was set up on "fabricated" evidence. Now, the question is "Who was the impersonator and for who was he working?"

The two possibilities put forth by the Justice Department as who the public would believe was behind the impersonation(depending on the political viewpoint) was a Communist group who was impersonating Oswald, or that some right-wing American group that hated Kennedy was impersonating Oswald to blame the murder on the Communists. RPJ 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• The evidence shows that the FBI/CIA thought they had a picture of Oswald at the embassy - but it turned out they did not. The Hoover/LBJ conversation does not prove impersonation. There is little doubt Oswald WAS at the embassy - there are witnesses to his creating a disturbance there. To jump from "the photo was not of Oswald" to "someone was impersonating Oswald and that the impersonator was trying to link Oswald to an assassin" requires a leap of conspiratorial faith. Oswald was denied the documents he wanted at the embassy & then phoned an official of the embassy to complain. The man he phoned - according to documents -- was possibly a double agent (I see nothing yet that he was an assassin). That they had photos of someone else does not mean that that other person the CIA had photos of was the same person who phoned the guy. Oswald WAS in Mexico City. Oswald could very likely have phoned the guy to complain about not getting the documents - the agent also had official duties at the embassy. All this would need to be mentioned to introduce this "electifying evidence" into the article. NONE of this belongs in the intro. Editors of this article need to be interested in the whole truth - not just half-truths. --JimWae 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Furthermore, nobody had to fake links between Oswald & Cuba & USSR --JimWae 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The evidence seems pretty firm now that Oswald was a low level CIA counter agent set up to take the fall for the Kennedy assassination and to blame it on the Communists. While Oswald already had created a cover story of being a Castro sympathizer, there needed to be something more dramatic such as "Oswald" contacting a Russian assassin.

Readers "Jimwae/Gamaliel/Mytwocents" can't censor the Oswald impersonator story forever. That part is cold hard fact, along with a 30 year history of the Central Intelligence Agency concealing the facts from the public. Lets face it, that agency is in one fiasco after another. Its whole method of operation of its so-called "hidden hand" division is contrary to normal American ethics. It relies on bribery, backmail, and deception as its stock in trade.

Everytime it screws up, it resorts to the same tactics to cover its tracks. In the Kennedy assassination, the New York Times found out that the CIA had asked all its field agents to employ its "propaganda assets" to descredit anyone questioning the Warren Report or the CIA's role in the assassination. It wanted its CIA agents to appraoch their "elite assets" (meaning "politicians" and "news editors") to descredit skeptics of the Warren Report and the CIA's role in the assassination.

RPJ 23:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Details on Kosikiv link http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr12.html according to Soviet Colonel Nechiporenko
• What is the evidence in this matter?
  • Hoover once told LBJ that the FBI/CIA had a photo of Oswald in Mexico, then later told LBJ they did not
  • Immediately after the assassination of JFK, witnesses in Mexico identified Oswald as the person who created an incident at the embassy after being denied a visa
  • "true believers" are convinced that since Hoover once said he had a photo of a person claiming to be Oswald in Mexico City, that there really was one - and that the reason it has been suppressed is that it did not look like Oswald, rather than it being an error by the CIA spies --JimWae 22:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone claiming to be Oswald phoned the Soviet Embassy in Mexico - "true believers" present as "fact" that it was not Oswald because they cannot imagine that the FBI makes mistakes - and believe every word Hoover says only whenever it suits their purposes
  • Someone claiming to be Oswald spoke to Kostikov in Mexico - and no evidence shows it not to have been Oswald.
  • Kostikiv had official duties in Mexico and undoubtably spoke to many people JimWae 22:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Its against the Wikipedia rules to use unsupported factual contentions

The Assassinations Records Review Board unsealed documents that the mainstream news media deems important to Lee Harvey Oswald [30]:

Some one was impersonating him just before the Kennedy assassination trying to contact a Russian assassin either to frame Oswald or for someother reason.

Reader Jim Wae hates this new evidence and therefore reverts this fully documented information out of the article. He claims he has some evidence that may dispute this. You can't revert out information for that reason. Moreover, and contrary to the rules, none of the alleged facts Jim Wae mentions above does he support with citations and references as required by the Wikipedia rules. Jim Wae's alleged facts are just him talking. He can't find any real facts to put in the article so he makes up facts

The Oswald impersonator was in Mexico and was photographed and listed to by the CIA and FBI and pretended to be Oswald. These facts are now a matter of public record in the National Archives placed there by the Assassination Records Review Board. Read the evidence read the lengthy PBS news program so you are knowledgeble in the area.[31]

Here is the rule that we all must follow:

This policy in a nutshell: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

You cite no references for your alleged facts. Wikipedia requires you to do so. So please don't interfere with those who include information and follow the rules. You are breaking the rules, and in a big way.

RPJ 04:55, 19 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 is caught again. PBS is "jumping to conclusions." Not reasonable argument and again no references are presented to support his statement. Then, Jim Wae gets really worked up and states:

"I presented a link to witnesses above." Sorry Jimwae, but you didn't. It was just a bunch of yacking with no citations.

66.91.203.81 08:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WP on its knees

This article is a poster child for how Wikipedia can fall to its knees on controversial social science topics. In 2006 there is zero verifiable evidence of a conspiracy (though lots of evidence that the CIA was extremely embarassed after Lee, who they'd been aware of for years, shot JFK and as a result, we still don't know the whole tale about what happened in Mexico DF). Wyss 07:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights Ms Wyss

Most readers are probably wondering what happens after a "poster child" "falls to its knees"?

On the other hand, most readers are aware that the CIA was "extremely embarassed" after Oswald was accused of shooting the president because Oswald and the CIA were so closely connected. It started all the way back just before Oswald joined the Marines, and was in the same Civil Air Patrol group as the kinky CIA agent called David Ferrie. We all remember him from the movie "JFK." There is even a picture of Ferrie and Oswald together.[32]

66.91.203.81 08:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

More on CIA agent Ferrie and Oswald

PBS News had this story about the kinky CIA agent David Ferrie:

FRONTLINE located the photographer, Chuck Frances, who says he took the picture for the C.A.P. Francis also said that when he was interviewed by the FBI, he told them Oswald and Ferrie knew each other, but he did not tell them about the photograph. The executor of Ferrie's estate, as well as Ferrie's godson, also picked out Ferrie.

As most Americans know, Ferrie next pops up in New Orleans in the same small building that Oswald uses as his address for his Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Oswald's mother believed he was working for the CIA, and if so he was probably recruited early by David Ferrie.

Over the years, he used both his official and unofficial positions in youth groups to develop improper relations with post-pubescent (age 14-18) boys which was the age of Oswald when Ferrie first met him.

Oddly enough this information about Ferrie and Oswald was in the Oswald article, and was fully documented, and then was deleted for reasons unknown. Then the information was even deleted from this discussion page. This is why we all need to fight government censorship and control of the internet.

RPJ 22:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Status on discussion on Oswald impersonator

Everyone agrees that if, in fact, someone was impersonating Oswald and contacted the Russian Embassy shortly before the Kennedy assassination pretending to be Oswald such a fact would be highly significant.

1--An Oswald impersonator would substantiate Oswald's claim that he was being set up as a "patsy" andseriously undercut the contention that Oswald shot Kennedy.

2--An Oswald impersonator pretending to contact a "hit man" using Oswald's identity, would likely mean the same person or someone connected with the first impersonator would have impersonated Oswald for other purposes., (bought the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle e.g., by pretending to be Oswald).

3--An Oswald impersonator would likely mean a well organized group was going to kill Kennedy because it would have to know that Oswald was going to be in Mexico at the time, and make arrangements to be down there and so on. Perhaps this impersonator was one of Oswald's right wing friends such as Demorreshante

The area of disagreement on the Oswald impersonator is not the significance of the issue, but whether it is true:

One side contends the evidence shows there was an Oswald impersonator; and the other side claims that the initial evidence of an Oswald impersonator was later proven incorrect. 66.135.233.230 00:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your conduct is detrimental to the article

"Gamaliel" your consistent practice of deleting any evidence or viewpoint with which you disagree is greatly affecting the quality of the article. You are trying to freeze information to the 1964 Warren Report which most Americans don't accept. Most Americans agree with the last official investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy, completed in 1979. This was conducted over a three year period. In 1979 the House Select Committee on Assassinations issued the last official report by Congress and did so 15 years after the Warren Report.

The 1979 report concluded there probably was a conspiracy. It didn't identify the other participants but said there was a second shooter that was firing from the Grassy Knoll area. This was established by a tape recording of the assassination heard over the police radios. HSCA experts clearly identified not only the number of shots but the location of the two shooters. They were independently place exactly where eyewitness and photographic evidence establishes they were located. Later the expert government panel was questioned by a private study that claimed faint cross talk shows the tape was made 60 seconds later and was not reliable.

But, then in 2001, an important British scientific journal examined the tape recording with the most up to date technology available and found the criticism of the Congressional Panel of experts unfounded. The scientific study was peer reviewed and found only minor errors, but overall upgraded the probability of a conspiracy from the 95% certainty established by the Congressional scientists, to over a 96% certainty. This was based on the latest technology applied to the tape recording of the assassination of the President--as it took place.

The Congressional Committee couldn't identify the other conspirators in large part because the FBI and CIA were found to have destroyed evidence and with held evidence relating to the assassination. a possible connection between Lee Oswald and notorious David Ferrie who was involved with the CIA in violent anti-Cuban activities and anti-Communist activities. [33]

The House Committee tracked down witnesses that Ferrie and Oswald not only knew one another before Oswald went into the Marines,[ [34] but found witnesses that placed Ferrie and Oswald together again just months before Kennedy was assassinated. [35] Ferrie and Oswald worked nearby one another before Oswald took the job in the Book Depository where shots were fired.

Moreover, it has become public recently according to a lengthy news program on PBS that there was some one impersonating Oswald in Mexico both calling and visiting the Russian Embassy trying to contact a Russian assassin. The CIA and FBI had concealed this information for over 30 years, even though it secretly “electrified” official Washington insiders from Johnson and Hoover on down beginning the day after the assassination. [36]

Gamaliel doesn’t want anyone to know any of this if he can help it. To him conspiracy evidence is “nonsense.” But--why does "Gamaliel" think he is such a big expert? And even if he were the policy of this web site is all significant viewpoints must be presented. This includes viewpoints after the 1964 Warren Report. RPJ 07:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the stuff you are complaining about (the HSCA conclusion, the Thomas interpretation of the dictabelt recording, the polls about public opinion regarding the assassination, Ferrie and Oswald in the CAP together) is already in Wikipedia in one or more articles. No one is preventing any of that from appearing in Wikipedia. What we are preventing is your repeated insertion of fringe conspiracy theories as fact: the Oswald double, the Mauser switch, the big chin. The "policy of this web site" prohibits the presentation of fringe conspiracy theories as fact. Gamaliel 07:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Oswald double visited a car dealership, gun shop, and rifle range, and possibly several other places dropping the name LHO and behaving in a highly provactive way. This is fact, not fringe conspiracy theory. Discussion of whether or not someone claiming to be Oswald was, in fact, Oswald, belongs in this article. Joegoodfriend 14 April 2006

Leave this article in a readable state

Don't leave after every goddamn sentence in a paragraph. Use one tag; {{Unreferenced}}. Free free to argue about content, but make sure the current content is at least readable. I have just fixed a couple of paragraphs; I'm about to go after any others.--CalPaterson 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You should control your anger. Content that is both controversial and unreferernced should be taken out. Do that instead.--RPJ 23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Control my anger? What are you talking about? I'm not in a position to verify either way - I just want to make sure that the article is readable for the users.

This article is not neutral

Surely it's not the job of Wikipedia contributors to decide whether or not Oswald worked alone, was part of a conspiracy or had anything to do with the assassination at all. It seems to me that the only way of rendering a neutral article is to state that Oswald was arrested and held on suspicion of Kennedy's murder, but was killed before he could be tried. It can then be provably stated that the Warren Commission, in its Report, concluded that Oswald was guilty and had worked alone, but that there have since been many efforts and arguments that attempt to disprove this conclusion.

It's not our business to decide what really happened, which is what some people here are trying to do. We are here to report on and check verifiable facts, not persuade people of the truth of arguments, however watertight they may seem. As such, the Introduction clearly flouts the site rules.

Lexo 14:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It can be provably stated that the HSCA Report stated that Oswald probably didn't work alone.

It can be provably stated that the federal government believed someone was impersonating Lee Oswald within two months of the assassination.

It can be provably stated that Oswald hung out with right wing extremists rather than "Communists."

Isn't all this information suppossed to be put in the article and let the reader make up his or her own mind as to what took place?

RPJ 22:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem conspiracists have with this whole issue, is that it can be "provably stated" that 87% of the 180+ witnesses interviewed by the Warren Commission thought there were 3 shots, and a further 7% thought that there were less than 3 shots. Never mind what Americans think today; at the time, only 5% of the people who matter, thought that there were 4 shots or more. The JFK film by Stone was called "Crossfire", and completely hung on the idea that there were huge numbers of shots. If you believed Donald Sutherland's character, you'd think they were using machine guns from every angle. The job of the conspiracy theorist is to introduce a carpet of political factoids and ignore the basic problem that there were only 3 shots. We know two came from the back. The third didn't hit anything, except maybe Connally's wrist (if you don't believe the single bullet evidence). If there were more than 3 shots, then (1) the conspirators were using silencers, and (2) they were lousy shots, and hit 4ft away from their target, putting 3 wounds into Connally. You know, maybe we're missing something here. Connally had 3 wounds, so maybe he was the real target, and the shots to JFK were just to disguise this fact. Bipedia 15:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know, there is yet another theory that yes, Oswald was trying to shoot Connally. It happens that (six degrees of seperation, and all that) Gov. Connally was, I believe, Sec. of the Navy, when Oswald was trying to get his discharge from the marines. He sent at least one letter to Connally, but was, as we know, rebuffed in his demand. As weird as it sounds, he had more "motive" to hate Connally than Kennedy. But this little factoid has been lost to history.

Mytwocents 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be discussed at the theories article if it isn't already. Gamaliel 18:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your sighting of the number of Warren interviewees who stated that there were only 3 shots is incredibly facile. First of all, Warren chose to overwhelmingly ask this question only of government persons in the motorcade, not actual witnesses in Dealey Plaza, most of whom have said they heard more than 3 shots (or are they all liars?). Also, those in the motorcade who were asked the question, almost all of whom worked for the government, were heavily presurred not to rock the boat. This is mentioned, for instanced, in Tip O'Neill's 'Man of the House'. JoeGoodfriend 14 April 2006

Your argument is incredibly false. Three shots or less was the overwhelming opinion from Nov. 22nd onward.

Original research

At the end of "The Soviet Union" section, it's made obvious that the information provided came either through original research or through copyright infringement ("this writer" interviewed a sources for the article). Since the same writer appears to have written significant portions of this article due to a similar pattern of use of parenthesis, this entire article may require a re-write, or at least a serious vetting for original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.65.246 (talk • contribs)

I believe this problem is limited to the Soviet Union section, as that section was about quadrupled in size by a single editor who then promptly disappeared. I've been wanting to trim that down but we keep getting sidetracked here by other matters. Gamaliel 07:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm the guilty one. This is original research only in the sense that I am the first to have uncovered the information in 1991-92 but since then it has been cited in reliable published and broadcast sources: in, for example, John Newman's academic book, "Oswald and the CIA", New York: Carrol and Graf Publishers, Inc, 1995, and parts of it were published in The Third Decade Journal, State University College, Fredonia, New York. I was one of the consultants to the PBS documentary on Oswald and was the producer of a documentary on Lee Harvey Oswald in the USSR for Italian television. It is not "original research" as Wikipedia defines it. ("...material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source." ) Otherwise, the authors of any of the publications which Wikipedia writers cite, would be unable to make a contribution to Wikipedia on a subject which they had first written about -- because its their "orginal research." That is not the intent of the Wikipedia rule on "original research." I am a former television news producer who was stationed in Moscow 1988-1992 and I am currently a Ph.D. candidate in History at the University of Toronto in the field of Intelligence Studies and Criminal Justice History -- so I'm not exactly a "crank" with an agenda other than the study of history. I have provided linked references to either original primary source documents or to webpages with primary source references in them. I have also largely refrained from taking any position or speculating on the Oswald/JFK controversy. As for length, I really don't know what to cut. It's a hell of a story and it's only a hundredth of it that's in the article -- the Soviet Union part... The USSR is the litmus test to the JFK assassination and Oswald lore – while witnesses in the rest of the “free” world were getting molded by decades of assassination controversy, the witnesses in the Soviet Union remained on ice behind the iron curtain -- like those legendary glacial Mammoths – completely outside and unaware of the developing discourse of the government and congressional hearings and the assassination conspiracy literature; most of it, did not reach them in the USSR. In 1991-92 they just remembered Oswald as they remembered him, free of media influence. I was the first Westerner to talk to them – sometimes the first person ever to talk to them about Oswald since the assassination, as apparently some were not even interviewed by Soviet authorities. If this makes me ineligible to contribute an article to Wikipedia then that would be pretty sad. I try to venture no or little opinion in the Soviet section of the article, which, I did not write in its current entirety but am responsible for a large portion. ceesharp 13 April 2006