Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 11

Original stolen marker
The article doesn't give the circumstances relating to the theft of the original marker at Oswald's grave. More details should be added if they are known.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Police car horn outside Oswald rooming house
I omitted the testimony from the landlady of Oswald's rooming house as, the way it stood, it was a complete non-sequitor, as it stated nothing about Oswald's actions, there was no indication that Oswald reacted in any way to this incident, and Oswald was subsequently observed to leave and not otherwise interact with this vehicle. Far from "letting the reader decide," the very inclusion of this incident implies some sort of connection between Oswald and the Dallas police, as its inclusion implies some significance. But that was not stated by the witness nor, logically, is inferred by his subsequent actions where he encountered a Dallas officer and killed him.

This is in contrast to any of the observed events surrounding the Tippit encounter as Oswald DID interact with that police officer.

Unless there is some relevance we can attach to this incident, it should be omitted. Canada Jack (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Brandon, instead of repeatedly trying to re-insert text which several editors have flagged as being irrelevant, please let us now how you believe it is relevant given there is no indication Oswald responded in any way whatsoever to this incident. This stuff more properly resides on the conspiracy page where some ascribe some significance to it. Canada Jack (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki rules are what define the mission, not the passing of judgement on a Warren Commission witness)

"Wiki rules" also cover edit disputes, which this is, and since you've been reverted by THREE editors, and I've initiated discussion on the issue in question, one wonders when you will deign to engage in discussion? So far, your only comments are on the edits themselves.

AS for your point here on "passing judgment" on the witness, the issue is not the veracity of the witness, it is whether this testimony is of any relevance to the life and actions of LHO even if we accept that the testimony was accurate. I, and the other editors who have weighed in, fail to see how it is relevant. This was flagged by someone else several months ago and for good reason. There is no indication - NONE - that LHO in any way interacted with the police car; that he was given a lift or talked to the presumed officer in the vehicle; that the car horn was in any way connected with LHO or a signal of some sort for him. And, more to the point, this incident has no known bearing on LHO's actions that afternoon, as opposed to, for example, the bus he was in becoming stuck in traffic.

That's why, to make some analogies, we don't on the main pages make mention of every suspicious act or actions. We don't, for example on the main assassination page, describe the truck that stopped at the curbside before the motorcade came by. Or mention the epileptic seizure someone had shortly before the motorcade's arrival. Or the man who lifted his umbrella and spun it as the limousine passed when the shots rang out. These are all events some have deemed "suspicious," but have no bearing on the actual sequence of events of the assassination. But they are elements cited by some as evidence of a conspiracy. And that is where this properly resides - on the conspiracy page discussing Dallas police allegations. Canada Jack (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The wiki rules state: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Editors wishing to include a particular piece of information must justify that inclusion. We don't simply pile in a bunch of random facts and "let the reader decide". Gamaliel (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The car-horn text is not about LHO. This article is primarily about LHO - not about conspiracy theories, the assassination, or unexplained events surrounding the assassination. Incidentally, there is a traffic light outside that residence. If the light had turned red, a police car would normally be expected to stop. If the car in front of it did not move when the light turned green, a police officer could honk to alert the driver or perhaps give a ticket.--JimWae (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oswald and the "package" part one
Sure, you can find some evidence which MAY suggest some innocence - like the witnesses who said the package was too small - but what about the OTHER evidence which links that package to Oswald? They pretend it doesn't exist. (Canada Jack)

"...it is my earnest belief that the paper bag never existed - certainly not until later, when it became apparent that some means of conveying a concealed rifle into the building had to be established." -- former UK detective Ian Griggs

The Discovery

"the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle to the Depository was found close by the window from which the shots were fired."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0022a.htm

Vital to the prosecution's case against Oswald was the establishment of a "chain of custody" of the evidence, in the case of the paper "gunsack", beginning with who it was who found it on the 6th floor near the sniper's nest.

The Commission was unable to do that, because two different detectives, Robert L. Studebaker and Lt. J.C. Day each claimed in FBI reports to be the one who found it.

Studebaker's claim. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=131

Day's claim is the very next page, on http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=132

Day adds in his claim that Roy Truly was a witness to his finding it and "no one else viewed it".

But Truly testified that he didn't know "things" were found in the southeast corner and WASN'T present when they were found.

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor? Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases. It could have been at the time I went up and told them about Lee Harvey Oswald being missing. I cannot remember. But I didn't know it. I didn't see them find them, and I didn't know at the time I don't know how long they had the things.

Why would Truly be in the southeast corner BEFORE the spent shells were found ?

Remarkably, with this conflict in the evidence, Truly was never asked one single question about the discovery of the "gunsack", the wrapping paper and tape allegedly used to construct it, the sample of the paper and tape the Dallas Police took from the TSBD on November 22, 1963, or the construction of the replica bag by the FBI on December 1st.

Here we have a witness who may or may not have been present at the discovery of the paper "gunsack", was present at the taking of the sample tape and paper, and present at the construction of a replica bag 10 days later, and he was never asked one single question about any of it !!!

That is bizarre to me.

So we really don't know who found it and thus no chain of custody of this evidence can be established.

Not only can we NOT establish the chain of custody, there is no photographic evidence that the "gunsack" was where the police said it was.

Equally remarkable is that although both men who claimed to find the bag were police photographers, none of the sniper's nest photos taken by Lt. Day or Detective Studebaker show the "gunsack" allegedly found beneath the window. You would think that such an important piece of evidence would have been photographed in situ.

The area where it was allegedly discovered was photographed by DPD, but there is no "gunsack" in the photo.

This corresponds to the testimony of the first law enforcement officers on the scene. Sheriff Luke Mooney, who discovered the sniper's nest, testified that he saw the 8-12 inch high brown paper "lunchsack" that had been left behind by Bonnie Ray Williams. Mooney was asked if he saw a paper bag at any other window:

Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window? Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0148b.htm

He was also asked if he saw anything in the corner.

Mr. BALL. .....Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner? Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0147b.htm

Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first DPD officer to arrive, also only saw the lunchsack:

Mr. HILL. The only specifics we discussed were this. You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack, supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly carried the weapon into the Depository, and I at that time told you about the small sack that appeared to be a lunchsack, and that that was the only sack that I saw, and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun.

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:

Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not? Mr. CRAIG. No; I don't remember seeing any.

Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Day and Studebaker:

Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found, near the windows alongside which the hulls were found? Mr. BOYD. I don't believe I did.

Incredibly, lacking an actual photograph of the "gunsack" in the sniper's nest, and with numerous officers who saw the 'sniper's nest" testifying that they never saw the "gunsack", the Warren Commission placed in evidence a photo of the sniper's nest with the outline of the "gunsack" drawn in!!!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0336a.htm

This was based on the observation of Det. Studebaker, who told the Commission that he was asked by the FBI to mark where the "gunsack" was located :

Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures---one of the shots after the duplicate shot. Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F." (Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.) Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture? Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't. Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL Did you draw the diagram? Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down--I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found. Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Mr. BALL. Now, there is something that looks like steam pipes or water pipes in the corner there? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Mr. BALL. Where was that with reference to those pipes--the paper wrapping? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Laying right beside it--right here. Mr. BALL. Was it folded over? Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled--it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over.

The first thing Studebaker did was take photographs of the crime scene before anything was disturbed. Leaving nothing to chance, Lt. Day duplicated Studebaker's photos. Neither man felt that this important evidence warranted a photograph showing it in place??? But it was important enough to dust for prints???

Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately? Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know--I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know. Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up? Mr. STUDEBAKER. No. Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took? Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures.

( ibid.)

Shouldn't the "gunsack" still be in the photos, even if police initially didn't recognize its importance ?

One of the first things police officers are taught about crime scenes is the preservation of the scene itself, that is, to prevent anything from being disturbed. But apparently, this "gunsack" was touched by detectives at the scene.

Studebaker admitted picking it up in order to dust it for prints. Detective L.D. Montgomery confirmed that in his testimony:

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.

But Montgomery's partner told a different story to the Warren Commission:

Mr. BELIN. Do you know who found it? Mr. JOHNSON. I know that the first I saw of it, L. D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it. Mr. BELIN. When it was folded up, was it folded once or refolded? Mr. JOHNSON. It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0056a.htm

Even if it had been inadvertently picked up, shouldn't it have been returned to the area where it was found, if for no other reason, than to photograph it in place and to present the scene in its original condition ?

Even though Montgomery claimed to have seen the "gunsack" in position and carried it out of the TSBD, Montgomery didn't recognize it when he saw it, remembered it being "somewhere" and sounded like a man who was covering for his fellow officers:

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now? Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that? Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't. Mr. BALL. Evidently you don't know? Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0053b.htm

Although the Commission stated that the "gunsack" had been found on the sixth floor near the sniper's nest, it provided no physical proof that it had and failed to name the person who found it, thus preventing the establishment of a chain of custody.

More to come in part two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.38.14 (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the Commission stated that the "gunsack" had been found on the sixth floor near the sniper's nest, it provided no physical proof that it had and failed to name the person who found it, thus preventing the establishment of a chain of custody.


 * To be blunt: So what? The package was still connected to Oswald via his fingerprints and via fibres. Plus, he was seen taking a similar package into work that day.


 * The CT crowd likes to underline the rather unremarkable point that the Dallas police screwed up in terms of chain of custody, in terms of possible contamination of evidence. As if this fact means the evidence they collected is immediately suspect. But what they fail to note that they DID establish the original location of the shells, the rifle, and the boxes which Oswald's prints were on, in a position to fire in the manner the WC concluded he did.


 * The further inanity of this argument over the package is it presupposes that the Dallas police, it would seem, HAD to "fake" a package for Oswald to have brought the rifle in. But why did Oswald "have" to have a package left behind? Unlike the rifle itself, there was no expectation that the package it was carried in would have to be there too. For one, he could have simply put the bag in his pocket and discarded it later. Which is an entirely reasonable expectation. So, if there was NO package, THIS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNEXPECTED.


 * So the question has to be asked, if the Dallas police decided they needed to fabricate this evidence, WHY? Why go to the bother of fabricating the bag when we'd not need to have a bag present? And why go to the bother when the possibility that sophisticated tests by the FBI could reveal this fakery?


 * This is the problem with the CT crowd. In their infinite attempts to explain away evidence, logic is tossed out the window. There'd be no need to fake the bag evidence as there'd be no expectation that a bag "had" to be there.


 * Any more silliness? Canada Jack (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If there was no bag, what does this prove exactly? That no one could have brought in a rifle and that the police planted it?  Right.  I'll buy this when someone finally explains what happened to those imaginary curtain rods that Oswald was supposedly carrying instead of his rifle.  Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Oswald and the "package" part two
Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint

The interesting thing about the discovery of the of the fingerprint and palmprint isn't that the fingerprint was of the left index finger and the palmprint was of the right hand, but what part of the finger and hand those prints were.

In testimony before the Commission, the FBI's fingerprint expert, Sebastian Latona, testified that the part of the palm that left the print was the "heel" or "ulnar" side, the same side as the little finger.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0008a.htm He drew a circle around the part of the palm and it was entered into evidence as Commission Exhibit 631:

Of course, imagining that Oswald would have carried the bag with the bottom resting on the heel of his right hand with his fingers spread apart ( he left no other fingerprints on it ) and a single left index finger holding the opposite end is ridiculous.

But that's not the end of it.

Latona's description of what part of the left index finger left the print is equally silly. He testified that the part of the finger that left the print was on the LEFT SIDE ( thumb side ) of the left index finger at the first joint ( distal phalanx ).

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0008b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0008b.htm

Try carrying an 8 lb, 40" rifle with half of the tip of your left index finger at the top and balanced on the left end of your right palm at the bottom.

And carry it in such a fashion that no one will see it.

Neither of the two witnesses who claimed to have seen him carrying a package that day, ever testified that he carried it in any fashion that would allow the prints to be left as they were.

In addition, since there were no other identifiable prints on the bag, are we to believe that Oswald or anyone else could have constructed this bag WITHOUT LEAVING A SINGLE IDENTIFIABLE FINGERPRINT ON IT ?

And why would Oswald construct a bag to carry his rifle DISASSEMBLED, when he could have just as easily made one up for the rifle ASSEMBLED and saved himself a lot of time reassembling the rifle on the day of the assassination ?

I'm not going to challenge that the prints were Oswald's, but the lack of evidence to support the bizarre way in which Oswald would have had to carry the bag in order to leave those prints and the fact that no other prints were found on the bag, is evidence that the prints were NOT left on it by carrying it.

The Warren Commission said that Oswald took his rifle into the Texas School Book Depository in a brown paper sack that measured 38 inches long. The rifle broken down was 34.5 inches. In this clip, Buell Wesley Frazier, the Oswald co-worker who gave him a ride to work on the morning of the 22nd and one of two people who actually saw the "gun sack" prior to the assassination, describes the package he saw. His description of the length of the package and how Oswald held it when he carried it indicates that the package Oswald took to work that morning did not contain the Carcano later found in the TSBD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDWaOjFqgHk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.62.161 (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've show in this youtube video that Oswald could not have carried the disassembled rifle cupped in one hand and with the other end tucked into his armpit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_-5L_JNF6g

There is another way that Oswald could have left those prints on the bag.

It's difficult to believe that the evidence against Oswald was not presented to him during his interrogation. Could items like the rifle and the bag have been shown to him for his examination and touched by him at that time ?

We'll never know for sure because Oswald's interrogation sessions were neither taped nor transcribed.

Whether this is how these odd partial prints got on the bag or not, there's no evidence to support the conclusion that the palmprint and fingerprint were put there by Oswald while carrying the bag.

Identical Paper & Tape

On March 29, 1963, the Texas School Book Depository received a shipment of 58 rolls of 24" 60-lb. Kraft Wrapping Paper from the Texas Paper Company of Dallas.

The Texas Paper Company got the rolls from the Jacksonville, Florida mill of the St. Regis Paper Company.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=356309

The rolls from that shipment were used from March 1963 thru January, 1964.

On the day of the assassination, the Dallas Police obtained a sample of wrapping paper and tape from the shipping room of the Depository and forwarded it to the FBI Laboratory in Washington. James C. Cadigan, a questioned-documents expert with the Bureau, compared the samples with the paper and tape in the actual "gunsack".

He testified, "In all of the observations and physical tests that I made I found * * * the bag * * * and the paper sample * * * were the same." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0080a.htm

Mr. Cadigan concluded that the paper and tape from the bag were identical in all respects to the sample paper and tape taken from the Texas School Book Depository shipping room on November 22, 1963.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0080b.htm

I know there are researchers out there who believe that the FBI originally found the papers and tapes to be NOT IDENTICAL and then changed the record to indicate that they were.

I do not. I believe that the evidence shows just the opposite: that the original report indicated that the papers and tapes WERE identical and the FBI did everything it could do to downplay that fact.

Apparently, there were contradictions in the Gemberling Report of 11/30/63 when it was originally submitted to FBIHQ. As a result of those contradictions, a list of corrections was compiled by FBIHQ and returned to Dallas as part of a http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=689620.

In other words, the report was "bounced back" as we used to call it.

One of those contradictions, ( item # 11 ) indicated that on line 10 of page 129, the paper and tape on the paper "gunsack" and the paper and tape sample retrieved from the shipping room of the TSBD on the afternoon of the 22nd were said to be identical. FBIHQ wanted to replace the word "identical" with the phraseology it used on the report's page 165.

FBIHQ then ordered the Dallas FBI office to "handle corrections":

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=171

was the report of the FBI lab that concluded that the paper and tape from the "gunsack" had the "same observable characteristics" as the sample taken on 11/22.

So page 129 was re-written to match page 165:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=132

Thus the word "identical" was replaced by the phrase "same observable characteristics".

The Commission, on the other hand was not so enlightened and had no problem using the word "identical" both during the testimony and in its Report.

The fact is that the rolls and tape were identical and subject to several tests, according to James Cadigan.

Cadigan testified that he examined both the paper "gunsack" and the sample paper and tape on November 23rd, the day after the assassination.

He examined the papers through natural light, incident light and transmitted light.

He then looked at their surfaces through a microscope for paper structure, color and imperfections.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0049b.htm

Then he examined the papers under ultraviolet light.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0050b.htm

He measured both with a micrometer at .0057".

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0051a.htm

Cadigan testified that, "In all of the observations and physical tests, that I made, I found that for Exhibit 142, the bag, and the paper sample, Commission Exhibit 677, the results were the same."

Mr. EISENBERG. In all these cases, did you make the examination both of the tape and the paper in each of the bag and the sample? Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes. Mr. EISENBERG. And they were all identical?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

And this is why I believe that the original report supported the original findings of the FBI expert--that the papers were identical as were the tapes.

FBIHQ had a reason why it had to downplay the "identical" angle. In fact, the FBI went out of its way to NOT use the word "identical" in its reports when describing the comparison of the paper and tape on the "gunsack" with the paper and tape taken on the afternoon of the 22nd.

In their zeal to "prove" Oswald guilty by connecting the "gunsack" to the wrapping paper in the shipping room of the Texas School Book Depository, the Dallas Police unwittingly provided proof that they had manufactured the evidence on the afternoon of the assassination.

And the FBI did what they could to suppress that.

And the proof centers around something they could not have known about---how long a roll of paper and tape lasted.

Two rolls from the same batch of paper?

" The questioned and known items were examined visually by normal, incidental, and transmitted natural and electric light, and under ultraviolet light; examined microscopically for surface, paper structure, color, and imperfections; examined for their felting pattern, which is the pattern of light and dark areas caused by the manner in which the fibers become felted at the beginning stages of paper manufacture; measured for thickness with a micrometer sensitive to one one-thousandth of an inch, subjected to a fiber analysis to determine the type of fibers of which they were composed, and whether the fibers were bleached or unbleached; and examined spectrographically to determine what metallic ions were present. The questioned and known items were identical in all the properties measured by these tests. (The width of the tape on the paper sack was 3 inches, while the width of the sample tape was 2.975, or twenty-five thousandths of an inch smaller; however, this was not a significant difference)". ( WC Report, Appendix X, pg. 579 )

So if the 11/22 sample was identical to the "gunsack" found on the sixth floor, why did the FBI attempt in their reports to downplay the match, electing instead to present the test results as having concluded that the papers had "the same observable characteristics" and thus only similar ?

Because if the 11/22 sample and the "gunsack" were made from identical paper and tape, then the gunsack was made on 11/22/63.

The paper one could argue, because the rolls of paper were changed every three days or so. Chances are that the paper would NOT have matched. The Commission found that two identical rolls could be made from a single batch of paper. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0080b.htm

But the FBI never determined if an identical roll to the November 22 sample roll had been part of the shipment to the TSBD. Likewise, the FBI never tested the unused rolls of paper in the TSBD to determine if the matched roll to the 11/22 sample roll had been used or was still there. If the matched roll had NOT been part of the shipment, or had been part of the shipment and not yet used, then it was certain that the "gunsack" had been made on November 22nd.

But even if two identical rolls of paper had been part of the same shipment, what would the odds be that the matched roll to a roll of paper used to previously make the gunsack would be in the shipping room paper dispenser on November 22, 1963 ? And what are the odds, that out of the four rolls on the wrapping table, it would be the one arbitrarily selected by police for the sample ?

I'd say that's a long shot.

But it was a long shot that the Commission implied, concluding that the "gunsack" could have been made from the matched roll used at an unknown earlier date by Oswald:

"....since two rolls could be made from the same batch of paper, one cannot estimate when, prior to November 22, Oswald made the paper bag." ( ibid. )

First of all, the Commission never PROVED that two rolls of paper could be made from the same batch. The footnote for this statement found on page 136 of the Report ( ibid.) is footnote # 196. On page 824 of the Report, that footnote is a reference to the testimony of James Cadigan in 4 H 96 and Commission Exhibit 1965, neither of which contains any mention of two identical rolls coming from the same batch of paper.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0052b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0424b.htm

Because the Commission failed to prove that there was an identical roll of paper to the roll on the TSBD paper dispenser on 11/22 and failed to prove that this identical roll had been used prior to the day of the assassination, this damages the Commission's contention that the "gunsack" was made from a roll other than the one that was on the paper dispenser in the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.

From that, I believe that we CAN estimate WHEN the "gunsack" was made.

Because the motorcade route WITH the turn onto Elm St. was not announced until Monday, November 18th, and because Oswald was known to have read the newspaper a day LATE http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0181b.htm

and a roll of paper lasted only 3 days, for Oswald to have constructed the "gunsack" from the identical roll of paper in the shipping room on 11/22, he would have had to have done it between the afternoon of Tuesday, November 19th and the end of the workday on Thursday, the 21st.

There's no evidence that Oswald used wrapping paper or tape from the shipping room during this period or at any other period. In fact, TSBD shipping clerk Troy Eugene West told the Commission that Oswald was never around the shipping department:

Mr. BELIN. Did Lee Harvey Oswald ever help you wrap mail? Mr. WEST. No, sir; he never did. Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not he ever borrowed or used any wrapping paper for himself? Mr. WEST. No, sir; I don't. Mr. BELIN. You don't know? Mr. WEST. No; I don't. Mr. BELIN. Did you ever see him around these wrapper rolls or wrapper roll machines, or not? Mr. WEST. No, sir; I never noticed him being around.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0185b.htm

More to come in part three — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.33.45 (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You will note that the poster NEVER addresses the rather massive holes in his evidence and logic which I have pointed out.


 * But, here we go again. I'm not going to challenge that the prints were Oswald's, but the lack of evidence to support the bizarre way in which Oswald would have had to carry the bag in order to leave those prints and the fact that no other prints were found on the bag, is evidence that the prints were NOT left on it by carrying it.


 * More silliness from the CT crowd. As anyone in forensics will tell you MOST prints found on objects are not usable. So there is NO "expectation" that there'd be anything usable in the particular way we'd have expected Oswald to hold the bag. Further, the mere fact he held the bag is proven by the prints. This notion of a "bizarre" way to hold the bag is, in a word, bullshit. It presupposes that the prints were put there when he carried the bag into the TSBD. Which is, obviously, complete nonsense.


 * "I've show in this youtube video that Oswald could not have carried the disassembled rifle cupped in one hand and with the other end tucked into his armpit. More complete silliness from the CT crowd. There is no requirement he carried it in that manner. From behind, it would not be obvious if he had it in FRONT of his armpit. Or perhaps the witnesses weren't accurate in how Oswald actually held the bag. But of course, that is an impossibility in CT land. Witnesses which support your theories are infallible. Ones that don't are liars. Of course, they know which are which.


 * It's difficult to believe that the evidence against Oswald was not presented to him during his interrogation. Could items like the rifle and the bag have been shown to him for his examination and touched by him at that time ? You are kidding, are you? I hope so. Any evidence for this? I thought not. We call this "trying to explain away evidence."


 * "Whether this is how these odd partial prints got on the bag or not, there's no evidence to support the conclusion that the palmprint and fingerprint were put there by Oswald while carrying the bag. Will this inanity ever end? His fingerprints are on the bag, which means he handled the bag. There can't be anything simpler than that. And precisely when he held the bag before the assassination is neither here nor there, which is something the CTers don't get. The ONLY relevant issue is whether the prints are his. Duh. But the CTers continually tie themselves in knots trying to explain this away.


 * In their zeal to "prove" Oswald guilty by connecting the "gunsack" to the wrapping paper in the shipping room of the Texas School Book Depository, the Dallas Police unwittingly provided proof that they had manufactured the evidence on the afternoon of the assassination. Migod, this gets sillier by the moment. As I pointed out above, let's employ some LOGIC here. WHY WOULD DALLAS POLICE FEEL THE NEED TO MANUFACTURE THIS EVIDENCE???? If there was NO bag found, there'd be no mystery. Just the assumption that whatever Oswald carried the rifle in was disposed of, likely by him. So why, in God's name, would they risk detection by, say, making the bag of the wrong dimensions? By being detected by others who saw them manufacture it? ANd, why, in God's name, do it in the first place? In their zeal to explain away evidence, CTers invent ridiculous, inane scenarios for the faking of evidence which no sane conspirator would feel the need to fake in the first place! Canada Jack (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Of course, imagining that Oswald would have carried the bag with the bottom resting on the heel of his right hand with his fingers spread apart ( he left no other fingerprints on it ) and a single left index finger holding the opposite end is ridiculous." Not at all. If the rifle is carried (inside a package) so the butt is cradled in the palm of the right hand, that's exactly what you get. The other end of the rifle passes up the side of the body, where it is clamped against the body by the arm, and passes under the armpit and out the back or the front of the shoulder, between arm and body. It's too long to carry completely under the armpit, but it's not long enough to project above the shoulder, so you can't see that it projects from the armpit in front, if you look from behind, and vice versa. This would be the most natural way to carry a package with least amount of exposure, as the arm covers most of it. There is no reason to greatly stabalize the package at the barrel end with the left arm, because it's clamped in the right armpit area, with the weight straight down into the palm of the right arm, held straight down along the body. If you DO need to adjust it (perhaps to hold the top end so somebody behind you can't see it), using the index finger of the left (opposite) arm as an adjustment "hook" is also natural, and the part of the left index finger that will contact the upper end of the package is just the one that is reported here. Try it yourself. S  B Harris 19:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DFTT
This page is not a venue for debate about the Kennedy assassination, however fun it may be. The 92.X.X.X IP has been a prolific block-evader who has previously focused on subjects relating to Alcatraz, inserting OR, POV or just plain unhelpful edits. They're branching out now to Talk:Richard Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, Talk:Moon landing, Talk:Jimmy Hoffa and others. Let's not feed them, please.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I will exercise more restraint in the future. Canada Jack (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

BrandonTR reverts
This editor has repeatedly been requested, in light of his reverts of material which other editors see as not constructive to the page, to engage in discussion before including material. Thus far, he has refused to engage in a discussion on this page. He's reverted material twice today, if he does a third revert without first engaging in discussion, I suggest it would be time to put a stop to this nonsense. Canada Jack (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While I have disagreed with Brandon on many of his past edits, I am not decided that he is on the wrong track regarding which external links are more relevant to biography rather than conspiracy theories. On the face of it - from the title- Ford's work seems to be more about LHO. I would like to see the case for each made here......... I am skeptical, based on just the title, that the book about how conspiracy theories got it all wrong is more biographical. --JimWae (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since many of us have not read the books in question (the Ford book is a straight repetition of Warren Commission findings), I do think it is up to anybody who wants to replace (rather than add) bio material to make their case on the TALK page here. Simple additions, I would think, would not require a note unless outrageous. S  B Harris 21:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "on its face" Brandon has no interest in improving the page, he is more interested in making some point about previous edits he personally doesn't agree with. Why do I say this? Because he stated this on these changes he made: "removal/ book concerning the Garrison investigation and Oliver Stone movie "JFK" irrelevant to biography of Oswald" and " relevant book added/ former president & WC member Gerald Ford details his amazing insights into Oswald's mind in this book".

To most of the editors here, he is engaging in trolling. If he wants to make a case on what should and shouldn't be on the page, this is the place to do it, not on repeatedly reverting changes. He's violated 3RR several times already.

On substance, since there are mentions of the Garrison investigation and some of the alleged contacts with Guy Bannister, the source has a place as it informs LHOs biography, though, obviously, there is debate on this particular claim. Ford's book, since it isn't a source, nor does it add to what we already have via the WC, doesn't arguably have the same weight. (Though we could probably have both.)

And, on substance, since the edit he objected to - about the police car horn - is not linked by anyone or anything to LHO, it has no place on this page. As it stood, it was a non-sequitor. He was repeatedly invited to make the counter case on this page, he refused. Canada Jack (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We should report 3RR violators to the 3RR noticeboard. Given this article's history of abusers flagrantly violating Wikipedia rules, it's important that we nip this sort of behavior in the bud. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted the latest silliness from Brandon twice, and he's predictably redone his changes. Not only does he repeatedly remove material, he now insists on talking only on his own page as there is no "rule" here on wikipedia to discuss only on the relevant page. Right. If this is not the definition of "troll," I don't know what is. Time to nip this one in the bud. Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation NOT needed
Oswald's father died prior to Oswald's birth, and Marguerite raised her sons alone. When Oswald was two, his mother placed her sons at the Bethlehem Children's Home orphanage in New Orleans for thirteen months, as she was unable to support them.[citation needed] On May 7, 1945, his mother married Edwin Albert Ekdahl (1895–1953) in Fort Worth, Texas; he engaged in numerous extra-marital affairs and filed for divorce in 1948.[citation needed]

The above information is all contained in Marguerite Oswald's testimony before the Warren Commission, and is also cited in numerous books. It may not be universal knowledge but is certainly common knowledge to anyone with an interst in Oswald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.136.45 (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Common knowledge" or not, it still requires a citation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Further reading — unreliable references
I'm removing the book titled, "False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison's Investigation and Oliver Stone's Film JFK," because the book's title reveals that it is irrelevant to the Oswald biography.BrandonTR (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The page mentions the Garrison investigation. Indeed, there is a link to the Clay Shaw trial. Therefore it is relevant. And, therefore, it should remain. Please explain how in your view it is not relevant to the Oswald biography. Canada Jack (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The page also mentions Castro and New Orleans -- but not every book about them merits inclusion. I think books should be included only if Oswald is a predominant topic of the book. I know Oswald is mentioned in the book, but the book does not seem to be mostly about him. What is the case FOR inclusion? --JimWae (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Lambert's book, "False Witness" is not only irrelevant, the book promotes her own pet conspiracy theories. Lambert is a strange case: back in the late-1970s/early-1980s, she helped edit conspiracy writer David Lifton's book, "Best Evidence." Lifton's book posits that JFK's body was secretly hijacked from Air Force One on its way to Bethesda and taken to a secret location, where surgery was performed on JFK's head to alter the wounds. A November 20, 1988 article (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-20/magazine/tm-206_1_david-lifton) in the Los Angeles Times gives some background: "[Lifton's] longtime friend Patricia Lambert, a writer and editor, acted as Lifton's conscience. In the summer of 1975, nearly 10 years into his odyssey, he still hadn't written a word. "It was still in the form of file material, conclusions, memos, but not a manuscript," he recalls. He says that Lambert, who was later hired by Macmillan Publishing to help edit "Best Evidence," would tell him: "David, you have to create a manuscript. You can't just have these thoughts, your files, your research and your concepts. You have to tackle the process of writing every day." BrandonTR (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Does the book or does the book not discuss Oswald and his activities in New Orleans, even in light of the Shaw trial? If it does, please explain how it is "irrelevant." Further, your head says "unreliable." Are you saying the book is irrelevant, unreliable, or both? And, speaking of "irrelevant," what does Lifton have to with this? Canada Jack (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Lambert's book is unreliable in the same way that the editors have deemed other books to be unreliable when they espouse conspiracy theories. Lambert revealed her conspiratorial bent decades ago when she encouraged conspiratorial writer David Lifton to write a book saying that JFK's body had been hijacked and even altered (as the LA Times article reveals). Lambert even acted as Lifton's editor. Regarding relevancy, as JimWae said, "...books should be included only if Oswald is a predominant topic of the book." Setting some other standard would necessitate the inclusion of hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of books. BrandonTR (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That article does not support her encouraging him to write a book with any particular perspective. What I see is her trying to get him to write something other than ramblings. Drop the reliability/unreliability tactic and stick to the degree of relevancy/irrelevancy. --JimWae (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Lambert's book is unreliable in the same way that the editors have deemed other books to be unreliable when they espouse conspiracy theories.

You seem rather confused, Brandon. Certain sources which espouse conspiracy theories are relevant to particular topics. In particular, those discussing or describing conspiracy theories or controversies, such as the exact relationship between Oswald and Bannister, which appears on this page. THAT is "relevant." They are also "reliable" in that they supply the argument for that viewpoint. But when we talk about a "reliable" source more generally, that is more along the lines of a source which forms the basis for an article, such as the Warren Commission report on Oswald's life. While the CT community may scream "bias," the simple fact is the WR/HSCA supplied most of the evidence which is still being debated. And, on a more general sense, the problem with portraying the "other" side, one has to ask: What "other" side, when there are literally hundreds of theories about what "really" happened.

''Regarding relevancy, as JimWae said, "...books should be included only if Oswald is a predominant topic of the book." Setting some other standard would necessitate the inclusion of hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of books.''

If a book with multiple chapters deals with Oswald in one, are we to omit it arbitrarily simply because Oswald isn't the chief subject? Should we therefore remove any reference to the Warren Report which devotes only a single chapter to Oswald's biography? Makes little sense. What we do with reading lists is include a selection of books which cover the subject in question, even if some publications only devote a portion to the said subject. I could pull up literally THOUSANDS of examples of this here at wikipedia. There is NOTHING which would "necessitate" the inclusion of 100s, 1000s of books. There is no attempt with a reading list to exhaustively include every book on a particular subject.

In the end, this is a rather silly over-reaction to the exclusion of a line of text which stood as a complete non-sequitor, regarding a police car horn when Oswald returned to his rooming house. How that was "relevant" was never spelled out - and in the context it was included, it needed to be - which is why it was removed. Canada Jack (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Lambert book has not been proven irrelevant. If Brandon wishes to counter it with a reliably sourced rebuttal, fine; just don't remove the book. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

When Canada Jack says that Patricia Lambert did not encourage conspiracy theorist David Lifton to write a book (as reported in the "L.A. Times") with any particular perspective, he ignores the rest of the "Times" article, which says that Lambert was hired by Macmillan Publishing to help edit Lifton's conspiracy book. It's farfetched to say that Lambert helped to edit a book that she did not agree with. As stated before, Lifton's book theorizes that JFK's corpse was hijacked from Air Force One and taken to a secret location, where surgery was performed on JFK's head to alter the wounds. To say that Lifton's book is fringe, and out of the mainstream, is an understatement. The fact that Lambert edited Lifton's book shows that she had a particular conspiracy agenda at that point in her life. Later, Lambert embarked on a different agenda by writing a book whos main thrust was to discredit Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone, as demonstrated by its provocative title. Conspiracy theorist Patricia Lambert is not the kind of author that one should cite as a reliable source. BrandonTR (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * When Canada Jack says that Patricia Lambert did not encourage conspiracy theorist David Lifton to write a book (as reported in the "L.A. Times") with any particular perspective, he ignores the rest of the "Times" article...


 * ??? I said or suggested no such thing. I simply asked how any of this Lifton stuff is of any relevance.


 * Your rather odd premise seems to be that we have in some way "established" that pro-conspiracy authors are not reliable sources. But you've failed to establish that is in fact the case, you simply have mischaracterized some previous comments. Indeed, you've completely MADE UP something I supposedly said about Lambert. Any more nonsense? Please, we are waiting breathlessly. Canada Jack (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's farfetched to say that Lambert helped to edit a book that she did not agree with.

Do you have editing experience? In the 70s, my pop was Senior Editor at one of Canada's largest publishers (McClelland and Stewart) and freelance edited book manuscripts for decades. If he was still around, he'd roar with laughter at that line. A job's a job.

Maybe she did agree with Lifton. But that can't be inferred by the above. It would be POV to suggest that that alone establishes her attitude towards the book in question. But, even if it did, even if she was pro-conspiracy, you have still failed to establish that that in any way should exclude inclusion of a book by her here. We quote from the HSCA, which was "pro-conspiracy," indeed several key members of the committee were adamant that the Mafia were involved. Should we excise that as well, going by your logic?

Simply put, you have mischaracterized and misunderstood what a "reliable" source is. Canada Jack (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Canada Jack says: Your rather odd premise seems to be that we have in some way "established" that pro-conspiracy authors are not reliable sources.


 * In fact, the editors have established that certain conspiracy authors are not reliable sources. The editors do not allow conspiracy author Anthony Summers' book on the JFK assassination to be listed in its "Further Reading" category. The editors also do not allow conspiracy author Jim Marrs to even be cited as a reference, because Marrs committed the unconscionable sin of once writing a book about the possibility of alien beings visiting Earth. But, of course, Canada Jack is already aware of this double standard. He has chosen to defend it with his verbal gymnastics time and time again. BrandonTR (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Anthony Summers is mentioned by name and his books used for citations in this article, in the assassination theories article, in the JD Tippitt article and elsewhere. Is someone literally objecting to his inclusion in 'further reading'? Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Let's see what happens when I put Summers' book in the "Further Reading" section. BrandonTR (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, the editors have established that certain conspiracy authors are not reliable sources. The editors do not allow conspiracy author Anthony Summers' book on the JFK assassination to be listed in its "Further Reading" category. The editors also do not allow conspiracy author Jim Marrs to even be cited as a reference, because Marrs committed the unconscionable sin of once writing a book about the possibility of alien beings visiting Earth.


 * I must have missed this. When you were trolling, there were reverts as you were clearly vandalizing the page. But I'm not aware of conspiracy authors being omitted for being conspiracy authors, per se. On the main assassination page, for example, we have multiple pro-conspiracy authors. Marrs is there, as is Lifton, as are numerous other pro-CT references. As I said before, you are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the issues here. Canada Jack (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Having Summers book in the "further reading" section shouldn't be an issue as long as it deals at least in part with Lee Harvey Oswald. Omitting books willy-nilly as you were WAS a problem, especially on the rather bizarre premises you were stating. Which underlines what I have been saying here - you are making the wrong argument here, you are misunderstanding the issues. Canada Jack (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the editor Gamaliel has, on numerous occasions, deleted material cited to author Jim Marrs, using the excuse that Marrs is not a reliable source. BrandonTR (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Coke bottle, Oswald unaccounted for
I omitted the debate over the Coke bottle Oswald has in the lunchroom as that debate is of no particular relevance here. As it stood, we had a back-and-forth on whether he was seen or not seen with the Coke bottle. The reason why this is of any importance is not stated, and is therefore superfluous information completely mysterious to anyone not already well-versed in the assassination. That issue IS relevant to the debate over whether Oswald could have dashed downstairs in time. But this section doesn't describe that debate or delve into the issue, it merely states that various investigations concluded he fired shots (in how many seconds is also of little relevance here), descended the stairs, then was seen in the vestibule, then he left and caught a bus, etc.

Further, the way the text was worded on the issue of Truly calling to the Dallas police's attention that Oswald was missing, it seems he was singled out even though others were not accounted for. But the others WERE accounted for, though not in the building at that moment. Oswald was not. So, instead of implying there was anything sinister in Oswald, alone, being singled out, the text had to go. Canada Jack (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Inviting the reader to ponder whether or not Oswald had a Coke or not (by going into detail about it) is suggesting that whether he had one or not is somehow significant to Oswald's life. There is absolutely no reason to suppose it was; it is neither evidence for or against his role in the assassination, yet it is presented as if it is somehow relevant. Furthermore, this is not the proper article to present in detail unresolved details regarding the assassination. I call for a show of support that this "Coke" passage be indefinitely removed from the article, and end this irrelevant see-saw.

Here is the text. Note it is already in parentheses. Mrs Reid does remark *in passing* that he was calm, but she also thought it was strange that he would be in the office. Why is the passing remark about his having a Coke important, and not the one about him being somewhat "out of place" in the office? Having a Coke says nothing about his demeanor. True, saying he was calm does say something about *her assessment of* his demeanor - but why focus on the Coke at all? -- and why the earlier sentence about a Coke? The most we have here is "one witness thought Oswald was calm after the assassination". How does that assessment by one witness of his demeanor become encyclopedic?
 * (Baker initially wrote in his statement to the FBI that he "saw a man [who he would later identify as Oswald] standing in the lunchroom drinking a Coke." He subsequently crossed out the words "drinking a Coke" and there is no reference to the Coke in his Warren Commission testimony.) Mrs. Robert Reid, clerical supervisor at the Depository, returning to her office within two minutes of the assassination, said she saw Oswald who "was very calm" on the second-floor with a Coke in his hands.


 * Support. - as nominator. The person who has repeatedly re-added the text has not made a case for, nor even discussed here, any reason to include this material -- which is ultimately irrelevant. --JimWae (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. No case for relevance has been made to include this detail. It seems trivial. In any event, the edit-warring needs to go and the person trying to force it into the article needs to discuss here. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  03:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Unless a compelling reason to include such a trivial matter is presented, I can only conclude that it was inserted to seed the article with doubt and push a pro-conspiracy agenda.  What other reason could there be to include such historically irrelevant trivia?  Gamaliel (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Any information regarding Oswald's possible movements following the assassination up until the time he was arrested should be in the article. It's not up to us to decide whether the coke bottle was of any importance or not, but rather the readers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It is ALWAYS up to the editors to decide if something is relevant to the article. What possible relevance could this have?--JimWae (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We are here to provide information, not omit it out of fear that it provides fodder to the pro-conspiracy cannon. I have no agenda here, but the coke bottle incident does have notability, thereby making it relevant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Everything that we include must have a justification for inclusion.  If the significance of the coke bottle is not justified, then it should not be included.  Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Obviously, I agree with Jim. On THIS page, we don't need the debate, just to note that the investigations contend Oswald shot the president and descended the stairs. And that all agree he was next seen on the second floor, then he left the building and this was soon noticed. The "coke" issue properly belongs when the arguments about Oswald being able to get there in time after the assassination, along with how long it took to get down the stairs, the two women who saw no one, etc. Canada Jack (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, reading Mrs Reid's testimony, it appears 2 minutes was the minimum, not the maximum - towards the end she says that she was huffing when she did a test-run in just 2 minutes. --JimWae (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but a man Oswald's size and matching him in age, and in even half-way decent physical shape, can make that walk from 6th floor firing position to 2nd floor lunchroom arrival, in 48 seconds, without huffing in the least. Also, without doing anything more than a rapid walk.Look here.It's less than a minute for anybody not grossly obese or handicapped, and anybody not sedentary would not be breathing fast (remember, Oswald didn't own a car or drive-- he was thin, young, and doubtless in a reasonable state of fitness). Nobody cares about whether Mrs. Reed had to breathe fast. And even if the two-minute time is correct, and even if Oswald did buy a Coke, it gives him more than a minute to do so. S B Harris 01:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: Mrs. Reid's testimony is about how long it took her from being outside at the time of the assassination until she returned to her 2nd floor office. Thus Oswald likely had quite a bit more than 2 minutes to get there--JimWae (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The Coke incident is related to the veracity of Oswald's police interrogation during which Oswald claimed that, at the time of the assassination, he was eating lunch in the Depository's first-floor lunchroom and then went to the second-floor to buy a Coke where he encountered a policeman. Moreover, the witness testimony regarding the Coke incident is also indicative of Oswald's state of mind, and can be interpreted in different ways. Some might conclude that Oswald's stopping to buy a Coke before leaving the building indicates his innocence, deeming such an action inconsistent with someone who had just shot the President. Others might conclude the opposite. For example, when the late-President Gerald Ford was asked about the Coke incident in 1991 by Bill Kurtis for Investigative Reports, Ford replied that Oswald's action just reaffirmed in his mind that Oswald was a nut. In either case, the Coke incident is hardly irrelevant as evidenced by the fact that news reporter Bill Kurtis deemed it worthy to question President Gerald Ford about it. BrandonTR (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - and in an article that was about evidence regarding the assassination, it could be relevant (though it still shows not much more than that he *probably* lied about where he ate lunch) - but in itself it adds nothing but pointless speculation to an article about his life.--JimWae (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I have put a NPOV tag on this section because I do not believe that it is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for neutrality, specifically in regards to an incident referred to on this article's discussion page titled, "Coke bottle, Oswald unaccounted for." The Coke incident was deleted by an editor who claimed that it was irrelevant to the article. Yet this editor, and other editors, who dispute the relevancy of the Coke incident, either do not address the points I have made, or choose to talk around them. I believe that these editors have abandoned a neutral point of view and seek to discard anything that does not conform to the Warren Commission's Oswald-did-it-alone version of the assassination. Evidence for the lack of a neutral point of view comes from several editors, but most flagrantly from editor, Canada Jack who, on the discussion page, repeatedly and derisively refers to the "CT [conspiracy theory] crowd," and the need to stay vigilant against supposed apostates like myself. BrandonTR (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence of non-NPOV must come from content of the article, not content of the talk page. What precisely do you think the Coke bottle is evidence for?--JimWae (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What precisely do you think the Coke bottle is evidence for? -- See: section, "Coke bottle, Oswald unaccounted for." BrandonTR (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's not strong enough evidence to actually say in the article that it casts doubt on his veracity, it does not belong anywhere in the article. If it is strong enough to say that, it still would not belong in that section without stating WHAT it is evidence for. The article is not a dumping ground for innuendo --JimWae (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Innuendo implies speculation and this material does not speculate as to the meaning of the witness testimony. The only question is relevance. I believe that I have demonstrated relevance and have yet to hear a good argument why this witness testimony is irrelevant. BrandonTR (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a trivial, meaningless fact unless it is supposed to suggest something else - that is innuendo--JimWae (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The testimony is not trivial and it is not meaningless, as pointed out previously. Regarding what the witness testimony suggests -- this is subject to interpretation. I suppose this is why, at trials, jurors are often divided regarding the meaning of witness testimony. BrandonTR (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence, I used the word "unless".--JimWae (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the article mention that Oswald said he went there to get a Coke? YES. Your complete confusion on the subject is apparent. The big issue for most here is NOT whether he in fact got a Coke, it's whether or not he had the Coke when encountered by Baker. But on this page, as I have pointed out, the Coke incident isn't of any particular relevance because there is nothing explaining its significance. And not mentioning the dispute doesn't diminish the page either. For the purposes of this page, all we need to know is the fact of the encounter. The WC, as quite clearly noted, maintains Oswald shot the president and descended the stairs. Then, and no one disputes this, he encountered Baker and was identified by Truly. Then, in a subsequent section, Oswald explains why he went to where he was seen - he went to get a Coke. Whether he actually was holding a coke bottle IS IRRELEVANT here as no one disputes whether he in fact either had a coke at the encounter or purchased one immediately thereafter. But to go on at length whether Baker saw a Coke or not confuses the casual reader as there is no obvious reason why this is of any significance. That's because getting a coke is something he reasonably would have done if he wanted to explain away why he was back in that room if he shot the president and descended the stairs AND would be a reasonable explanation if he was in the lunch room and needed a drink. So, why, the casual reader might ask, do we give a fuck whether he in fact was holding a bottle of Coke when Baker saw him? Wouldn't he have got a Coke either way?

When it DOES become relevant is when it is debated whether he could have descended the stairs in time, AND purchase a Coke BEFORE Baker saw him, and whether in fact Baker saw Oswald with the Coke or not. But this issue is not even mentioned here, which is why whether he actually had the coke or not at the moment of the encounter is not relevant. You say the presence of the coke indicates his state of mind - which is POV, he could simply have used "getting a coke" as an excuse to be in that room at that time - but even if we accept that, the article ALREADY MENTIONS OSWALD SAID HE WENT TO GET A COKE. THAT is relevant as we need to know why he went there - but this was not known until he explained why. Whether he in fact was holding the coke is NOT relevant as the article is written, indeed, since no one saw him purchase the coke he had, we don't know when he got the coke anyway: moments before Baker saw him; moments after Baker saw him; a half hour earlier. Canada Jack (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You have again been disingenuous by not addressing the points stated, which are: The Coke incident is related to the veracity of Oswald's police interrogation during which Oswald claimed that, at the time of the assassination, he was eating lunch in the Depository's first-floor lunchroom and then went to the second-floor to buy a Coke where he encountered a policeman. Moreover, the witness testimony regarding the Coke incident is also indicative of Oswald's state of mind, and can be interpreted in different ways. Some might conclude that Oswald's stopping to buy a Coke before leaving the building indicates his innocence, deeming such an action inconsistent with someone who had just shot the President. Others might conclude the opposite. For example, when the late-President Gerald Ford was asked about the Coke incident in 1991 by Bill Kurtis for Investigative Reports, Ford replied that Oswald's action just reaffirmed in his mind that Oswald was a nut. In either case, the Coke incident is hardly irrelevant as evidenced by the fact that news reporter Bill Kurtis deemed it worthy to question President Gerald Ford about it. BrandonTR (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How many times must this be stated? Your identified issue is irrelevant on this page. NO ONE disputes that he went to the coke machine. There is no "veracity" issue in terms of that. Why? BECAUSE HE GOT A COKE AND EVEN THE WARREN COMMISSION WHO CONCLUDED "GUILT" DON'T DISPUTE HE AT LEAST WENT IN PART TO THE ROOM TO GET A COKE. And, even if he was never observed with a Coke in his hand, it is still a reasonable explanation. The REAL issue is WHERE HE WAS COMING FROM to go and get the coke. Wading into a long-winded discussion on who saw him with the coke or not adds NOTHING to this page, indeed it confuses people as to why this is an issue at all. So, instead of confusing people with information which is not pertinent, the solution is to remove it. As it was written, there was NO indication as to why this was an issue.


 * We don't just drop text in willy-nilly for people to come to some conclusion; we include information of pertinence, either (on this page) to Oswald's biography or connected to some issue. As it stood, discussing the Coke bottle in detail needs to be connected to arguments over whether he had it or not when seen by Baker (the timing issue) or as a suggestion of his state of mind. NEITHER of those issues were mentioned.


 * AGAIN, where it IS an issue is when it is discussed whether Oswald had time to get the coke and be seen by Baker. The same goes for those who suggest the presence of a bottle of coke somehow indicates his state of mind. It would along the lines of "some say [add citations] that the act of getting a coke suggests Oswald was not in the frame of mind of someone who just assassinated the president." And, "the issue of timing is underlined by those who state [add citations] that Oswald did not have sufficient time to descend the stairs, purchase a Coke and be seen by officer Baker. He did, however, have time to do this if he came from where he claimed he came from - the lunchroom. Others say he had the time regardless and was not observed to be holding a coke when encountered [with citations]."


 * But the specifics of what does or does not link Oswald to the assassination are not delved into in any depth on this page. So it seems a but more than ludicrous to focus on a bottle of coke as if this is the key to his guilt or lack thereof. It isn't. Canada Jack (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well said. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

When juries evaluate the testimony of the accused, they obviously want to examine it for truthfulness. When Oswald was interrogated by police officers after the assassination, we know (from witness testimony) that he told the truth about at least 3 things: 1) that he was on the 2nd floor of the Depository within 2 minutes of the assassination 2) that he had a Coke in his hand, and 3) that he encountered a policeman on the 2nd floor. This is why the Coke incident is important. The fact that Oswald told the truth about at least these 3 events establishes a pattern of truthfulness and might create, in some people's mind, a reasonable doubt as to whether Oswald was the assassin. The Coke incident is important for another reason: While some may not regard it as strange behavior for Oswald to buy a Coke within 2 minutes of having allegedly assassinated the President, others would beg to disagree. For example, when the late-President Gerald Ford was asked about the Coke incident in 1991 by Bill Kurtis for Investigative Reports, Ford replied that Oswald's action reaffirmed in his mind that Oswald was a nut. Thus, the Coke incident is hardly irrelevant as evidenced by the fact that news reporter Bill Kurtis deemed it worthy to question President Gerald Ford about it. So we have reporter Bill Kurtis and President Ford agreeing that buying a Coke within 2 minutes of the assassination was strange behavior, yet adding the Coke incident to the article is somehow deemed irrelevant to the article. BrandonTR (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No way. You are trying to prove Oswald's mental state, and your goal is impossible. You are trying to establish "a pattern of truthfulness" when Oswald's responses could be any combination of lying and truth. This is all disallowed by WP:NOR, a hard policy. Stop trying to change the world via Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Migod, Brandon. This is not a court case! We aren't replicated evidence pro and con in terms of Oswald's guilt! The page simply lists known facts about the life of Lee Harvey Oswald. Where there is some disagreement, that is noted. Hell, the page barely touches on the reams of evidence pro or con in connection to the assassination. I have identified a need for a SEPARATE page which would tackle the evidence which connects his to the assassination, as well as counter-evidence of which the coke issue would properly reside, and other editors here agree that this would be a good thing. THERE we can discuss these issues. HERE it is out of place, and no one agrees with your position! Canada Jack (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, editor Jeanne Boleyn agrees with my position (see above). It is some of the editors here who want to create a court case, where they assume the role of prosecutors for the Warren Commission. Wikipedia NPOV says that all sides should be presented, as long as they are sourced. Obviously, some of the editors here want to create a one-sided article. BrandonTR (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Brandon, what the hell are you talking about? Have you read the article? How does the article as it stands present the Warren Commission "case" that Oswald shot Kennedy? Indeed, clearly you've not read the Warren Report - or have you? - as virtually none of the Warren Commission's argument for assigning guilt to Oswald is here. Canada Jack (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tag removed. The instructions for the tag include that "The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." The assumption of significance has not been made using sources. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  15:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability violation
Some of the editors on this page have violated Verifiability by deleting sourced material. Verifiability states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons." Note: Wikipedia's "threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" and does not require a consensus for inclusion, as some of the editors have mistakenly asserted. BrandonTR (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:V doesn't mean that sourced material is in some way inviolate, nor that Wikipedia is a dumping ground for everything that has a source. Editorial judgment is required, consensus should be respected, and verifiability is being misused as a rationale for inclusion of tangential material that has a better home elsewhere. You're misusing verifiability by turning it on its head. All material in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but not all verifiable information must be included on Wikipedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue here is not verifiability, it is relevance. The material at issue is not relevant to the section as structured, and so far most of the editors here agree. The information itself is not in dispute. Canada Jack (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

WC Links Oswald to the assassination
While this page quite exhaustively accounts Oswald's life, I think what is lacking here are sections which a) describe the evidence which the WC used to link Oswald to the assassination and b) some of the major objections raised by those who believe Oswald either did not act alone or was not the (or a) assassin. Any support here to build a section (or sections) along the lines of "evidence linking Oswald to the assassination" and "critics objections"? Canada Jack (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Aren't there already several articles that deal with that?--JimWae (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything which spells it out from what I can see. Canada Jack (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Aren't those topics in Warren Commission, Assassination of JFK, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories? Maybe there needs to be NAVbox. Maybe there needs to be an article just on Evidence against LHO. It would be sure to attract a lot of attention, I think. --JimWae (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There are sections, such as on the assassination page, which link Oswald to the rifle, etc. But there is no section which details the evidence which the WC used to establish Oswald's guilt, which is a fairly basic issue, IMHO. I think your idea is a good one - create a new page. There'd be enough material to make a page, and there'd be room to make some of the detailed objections which are a bit out of place on this page. Such as the issue of whether Oswald could have made it from the sixth floor to the coke machine.

Let's also keep in mind the better we get these pages and the more comprehensive they are, the better resource they will be for casual readers, who will surely flock here over the next several years as the 50th (!) anniversary of the assassination beckons. Canada Jack (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. We need an Evidence For and Against LHO (since otherwise we'll have to do a separate one for the defense). The "against" goes first, as in a trial. Then the defense (and keep it relevent, counselor...). The defense would be a LOT shorter, like Buel's testimony that Oswald had the package under his armpit, which had to have been simple error in something he said he didn't pay close attention to, and admitted he saw only from the rear. But put it in. A later section of the article (if we want) could be "Evidence for or against Oswald acting alone" where we put in all the HSCA evidence that they couldn't find a conspiracy of any type, except for maybe a 4th gunshot (which even they say must have missed, making Oswald the lone assassin). Then the gunshot sound controversy. A lot of this is now in other articles, but some of it could be moved from them, and other stuff that isn't here now, could be summarized and put in these, per WP:SS. Much as we've done for the LHO backyard photos which do not have their own article, but are some of the most damning evidence (Lord, he's holding the assassination weapon, and has signed and dated the photo himself!). S  B Harris 15:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a proposed structure for the page I suggested with the general direction of the text...

Intro

Within hours of the assassination of JFK, LHO was arrested and charged with his murder, along with the murder of policeman JD Tippit. Oswald never stood trial as he was murdeded two days later, but several government investigations concluded that Oswald shot the president with the HSCA concluding he likely had accomplices. Almost from the publication of the WC's report in 1964, critics have disputed these conclusions, citing evidence which suggests either Oswald did not assassinate the president, or was part of a larger conspiracy who either put him up to it or framed him for the crime.

Section - Warren Commission concludes Oswald assassinated JFK (chapter 4 of the WC)

After concluding that the bullets which struck and killed the president were fired from the Carcano from the TSBD window, the WC concluding that LHO was that lone assassin.

The WC assessed the following: 1 - ownership and possession of the murder weapon (purchase of rifle, use of alias, ownership of po box, palmprint, fibres, photos, possession of rifle); 2 - rifle in the building (curtain rod story, missing rifle (from Paine garage), bulky package, bag location, bag linked to OSwald); 3 - Oswald at TSBD window (prints at scene and on bag, Oswald at location before assassination, witness id of Oswald at time of assassination, actions of LHO after assassination); 4 - Killing of officer Tippit (movements outside TSBD after assassination, description of shooting, eyewitnesses, murder weapon, ownership of, LHO's jacket); 5 - Oswald's arrest; 6 - Statements by LHO after arrest )denial of rifle ownership, the revolver, aliases, curtain rod story, actions during and after assassination); 7 Prior attempt to kill (Attemmpt of Gen Walker, Nixon incident); 8 - LHO's rifle capability (Nature of shots, Marine training, practice outside Marines, accuracy of weapon.

The WC concluded LHO was the assassin based on... (8 specific points)

Section - WC concludes no conspiracy (chapter 6 of the WC)

Structured as above, with reference to assessing circumstances surrounding the assassination, LHO's background, Ruby's possible role.

Section - Critics identify flaws with WC

[each section of the WC can be addressed by critics of WC]

Section - HSCA assesses crtiques of WC conclusion, and conclusion of conspiracy.

- Specific exploration of disputed evidence, such as LHO photo, New Orleans ties, etc. But conclusion of conspiracy by unnamed groups.

So, here is a start in terms of structure. Canada Jack (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Lord he's holding the assassination weapon..." so that means he did it. You need to get informed about some of the people who were apparently manipulating Oswald before the assassination, including his FBI contacts James P. Hosty and John Quigley, CIA-man David Atlee Phillips; CIA-connected George de Mohrenschildt and former FBI-man and rabid anti-communist Guy Banister. BrandonTR (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hosty "manipulated" Oswald by checking up on him on behalf of the FBI, leading Oswald to become so argry that Hosty had talked to Marina that he threatened an FBI special agent. George de Mohrenschildt was no more "CIA connected" than a hundred thousand other businessmen doing business in foreign countries. That's where the CIA gets intelligence. There is no solid evidence that Banister ever even met Oswald. A couple of totally unreliable people told tales about it later. Why Oswald, who had been a True Believer in Communism for a decade before the assassination, and was particulary fond of the Cuban brand of communism, would have had anything to do with the anti-communists and anti-Castro people who surrounded Banister, is perhaps THE most bizarre aspect of all these conspiracy theories. One has to believe that Oswald was really anti-communist (putting on a wonderful acting job from the age of 14) and worked for anti-Communist groups. Except they all forgot to give him any money (bummer). And why in the world Oswald got a job in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) long before anybody had decided that JFK was going to be driving by it, is never explained by conspiracists. Instead we're told all these people in in New Orleans were "triangulating fire" on JFK's position in Dealey Plaza in September, when the trip to Dallas had been scheduled, but no route had been planned. So how are you going to plan to triangulate a route you don't know because nobody knows it? This route wasn't planned until mid November, at a time when Oswald had been gone from New Orleans six weeks and had already been working at the TSB for three weeks. The route past the TSBD and Oswald was chosen by a secret service agent and JFK's travel secretary Kenneth O'Donnell, a man who would have thrown himself under a bus for JFK. And it was done merely to get to Dallas Trade Mart by the shortest way after going down Main Street. For O'Donnell's loyalty, and his method of planning grand motorcades (Dallas was like JFK in Paris), you need to read Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye. For Warren Commission testimony of Kenneth O'Donnell, see: . And it's not at all obvious why a route down Main Street should not continue on Main (not Elm and not by the TSBD) to go through Dealey Plaza, unless you knew it was headed for the Stemmons Freeway. Which you wouldn't, since JFK's luncheon speech site at the Trade Mart had not been chosen yet, when Oswald started work at the TSBD. And a shot from the TSBD out to Main St. in Dealey Plaza, a crossing shot at distance, would have been very much more difficult. So basically, none of it works. In October, it could only have been surmised that JFK would go down Dallas Main Street, but nobody could have predicted that the presidential motorcade would then turn to get onto Elm Steet. So, in summary, Oswald would have had to put on an act and been a government spy from the age of 14, and (even harder) he would have had to be able to see the future with a time machine in October, to be hired at the TSBD to shoot JFK. It wasn't even a matter of reading minds, because the decissions hadn't been made by ANYBODY when Oswald was hired. And all this for a poor schlub Oswald, whose wife is estranged because he beats her, and who is poor, and who has a crappy old 1940 surplus rifle. Some James Bond, there. Considering his incredible talent, the CIA should have sent him to their equivalent of Q Branch to get something in an attache case, not a beat-up Carcano he'd bought second hand for $19.95 the previous March, before JFK ever thought of going to Dallas. Look, if Oswald was going to kill the president, why didn't he go to Austin-- the one place JFK was sure to show up, if he ever did go to Texas? Eh? Oswald in fact got him just before he got to Austin. S  B Harris 23:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition, it's a little weird to argue that Oswald was "put up" to the assassination by Bannister, Hosty and others, then argue till you're blue in the face that Oswald couldn't have made it down the stairs, the gun wasn't his, etc. So... are we to believe that Oswald, if he didn't fire a shot, would, with his accomplices, do something unusual for him by arranging to stay the night at the house where his rifle was stored, then arrange to take in "curtain rods" on that particular day, arrange it so no one would see him during the actual assassination (not standing on the street where numerous fellow employees could see and remember him, and perhaps appear in a photograph as proof of an alibi), instead by his account sitting alone in the lunch room as if there is nothing more interesting going on when the most powerful man in the planet is driving past mere feet away and THEN, when he surely heard shots and screams and general mayhem going on outside, do what every person on the planet would do - go and get a bottle of Coke.(!) If any of these people would take a deep breath and think - try to think - rationally they'd realize just how completely silly most of these claims are. But that will never happen. I'm sure they are loading the guns, so to speak, against Stephen King for daring in his new book to accept the premise that Oswald indeed carried out the assassination, and are readying their delusion retorts when Tom Hanks' pro-lone gunman series comes out over the next few years. Canada Jack (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The conspiracists never spin out their own alternate scenarios, of course, since they violently contradict each other. Was Oswald ONE of the assassins? Or just a patsy? For the amount of brilliant effort the Black Hats put in to frame Oswald if he was framed, they could have had somebody else on the scene to make sure the job was done. After all, what made them sure Oswald, once he realized he had been set up as a patsy (rather than allowing him to do the job he'd agreed to do), wasn't going to spill his guts? So what about it, guys? What's your story? As I read it, Oswald is actually not a lifelong Commie, but a deep-cover anticommunist CIA spy. So deep-cover that he kept having to work manual labor jobs instead of CIA work, since the CIA forgot to pay him. The CIA wants the president dead, however, so superpatiot anticommunist Oswald is told he's going to have to be the assassin. It's a long argument. Finally, Oswald agrees to do the job, but he doesn't own a rifle. He brings this up, but his handlers brush it aside. They tell him to improvise: "Find a rod" they tell him. The night before JFK is assasinated, he goes home to get a spare set of curtain rods he owns (that must be what they mean). He leaves his wedding ring and cash for Marina, for this may be a one-way curtain rod murder-mission and he knows it. He takes the curtain rods to work the next day, tickling his armpit like the true works of interior decorating art that they are. His rented room has curtain rods and doesn't need new ones, but Oswald in thinking of how he can use the curtain rods to construct a weapon as instructed. Alas, he is not MacGyver. As he sits drinking his Coke at lunch, he realizes he can't do it. And he loves those curtain rods, anyway. How could he even bend one? Then there's a commotion. The president has been shot by somebody else! Oswald now realises he might have been set up. Taking his curtain rods so they won't be found, he slips out the building just before it is sealed off. Pausing to fondle the package one last time (he's never seen such a lovely window treatment) he leaves them in the garbage and heads back to his rooming-house room, by bus and cab. Grabbing his revolver he's stashed there, the only weapon he owns, he heads downtown to do something he's always wanted to do: see a daytime matinee film. And what better day to do it? On the way he hears sirens behind him! Boy, those cops are sure riled up about something. He slips into a store to look at shoes. No, fixing his rented window-curtains to look better, or buying some new shoes, will not fill the emptiness inside him, as it usually does. He needs to see a war film. So he slips into the Texas Theater without paying (got to save money). It's a black and white documentary about the Korean War. "The iron-guts guys who kill for medals... dames... or just to stay alive!" As he listens to Audie Murphy narrate, he thinks all that applies to himself. If only they'd pay him something! Then... oh, no! The lights go on. The nearly empty theater is full of cops. Oswald thinks he's going to go out by shooting a cop (his first-ever, but why not? Oswald will try anything once) but the revolver misfires (damned piece of junk-- why doesn't the government arm its agents better? He'd had to buy it by mail order). The cops slug him. Though he has attempted to kill police in order to die, he doesn't first turn the weapon on himself. The cops will do that. Also, he refrains from using his advanced martial arts training. Can't... let.. them... know! And he's taken and where's the dang cyanide? For two days they question him, and he realizes they've found an old surplus rifle in his work place (just the kind of rifle he'd own if he did own one!), and have faked a photo of him with it, and gotten his wife to say she took the photo, and that he owns the rifle. They've double-crossed him brilliantly, incredibly brilliantly, and he's screwed. Superassassin Jack Ruby had better show up on time, or this whole chirade will have to carried all the way to the electric chair, and Oswald doesn't know if he can hold out. The transfer is set. But then Oswald realizes he is not ready to die today. He delays, asking for a change of clothes (presentation is everything, and there are a lot of cameras out there). His luck doesn't hold, though. Ruby is doing something else unimportant when the transfer is supposed to happen, but when it actually DOES, he's THERE! For an instant Oswald sees him as he bores in, throwing the pistol to Oswald's abdomen like a boxer throwing a body blow. Pow! Ohhhhh!  Ruby gets off just one shot, like a true assasin, right to the stomach. And Oswald feels the blow and realizes Ruby has managed to hit his real target-- the abdominal aorta! That secret death-channel of the body, known to the CIA to be even more sure than a chest, brain, or spine shot. All it takes, is one bullet. And Oswald is out. Meanwhile, Ruby is thinking what he's going to say. He can't say what he knows. Even when headed to the chair, he can't say. He has many strippers to protect....  S  B Harris 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actor Tom Hanks -- New expert on the JFK assassination. LOL. BrandonTR (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding discrepancies in the official fairy-tale, Warren Commission apologists never deal with the following:

"On at least two separate occasions, Banister employees saw Oswald handing out pro-Castro literature and reported it to their boss. In one instance Banister simply laughed, and on the other, he told his secretary Delphine Roberts:  'Don't worry about him....  He's with us.  He's associated with the office.'  Roberts also said she saw Oswald at 544 Camp Street, and that he filled out one of Banister's 'agent' application forms." --Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy

Delphine Roberts told author Anthony Summers: "Oswald came back a number of times.  He seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and with the office.  As I understood it, he had the use of an office on the second floor, above the main office where we worked....  Then, several times, Mr. Banister brought me upstairs, and in the office above I saw various writings stuck up on the wall pertaining to Cuba.  There were various leaflets up there pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba.'" --Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime

"Delphine Roberts, Banister's long-time friend and secretary, stated to the [House Select Committee on Assassinations] that Banister had become extremely angry ... over Oswald's use of the 544 Camp Street address on his [Fair Play for Cuba] handbills." --House Select Committee on Assassinations - Appendix to Hearings, Volume 10, 13, p. 128

"They are the most ruthless motherf---ers there are and if they want to get somebody, they will. They will do their own people up." --David Sanchez Morales, talking about the CIA, (Morales was the Chief of Operations at the CIA station in Miami -- JM/WAVE -- and a consultant to the Deputy Director of the Joint Chiefs), cited by Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation

"We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there're fingerprints of intelligence." --Republican Senator Richard Schweiker, member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Village Voice, 15 December 1975

"The question of whether Oswald had any relationship with the FBI or the CIA is not frivolous. The agencies, of course, are silent.  Although the Warren Commission had full power to conduct its own independent investigation, it permitted the FBI and the CIA to investigate themselves -- and so cast a permanent shadow on the answers." --Walter Cronkite, CBS News anchor, 28 June 1967

"I think the [Warren] report, to those who have studied it closely, has collapsed like a house of cards ... the fatal mistake the Warren Commission made was to not use its own investigators, but instead to rely on the CIA and FBI personnel, which played directly into the hands of senior intelligence officials who directed the cover-up." --Republican Senator Richard Schweiker, member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, speaking on the CBS News program Face the Nation, 27 June 1976

"If he had it to do over again, he would begin his investigation of the Kennedy assassination by probing 'Oswald's ties to the Central Intelligence Agency.'" --Richard Sprague, first staff director and chief counsel to the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, statement to Sam Anson of New Times magazine, cited by Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation

"[Lee Oswald's mother] Mrs. Marguerite Oswald frequently expressed the opinion that her son was recruited by an agency of the U.S. Government and sent to Russia in 1959, but she stated before the Commission that 'I cannot prove Lee is an agent.'" --Warren Commission Report, Appendix XII: Speculations and Rumors, Oswald and U.S. Government Agencies, p. 660

"It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.... Right after the President was killed, people in the Tokyo station were talking openly about Oswald having gone to Russia for the CIA.  Everyone was wondering how the agency was going to be able to keep the lid on Oswald.  But I guess they did." --interview of Jim and Elsie Wilcott, former husband and wife employees of the Tokyo CIA Station, San Francisco Chronicle, "Couple Talks about Oswald and the CIA," 12 September 1978

"[Former CIA Director Richard] Helms told reporters during a break that no one would ever know who or what Lee Harvey Oswald ... represented. Asked whether the CIA knew of any ties Oswald had with either the KGB or the CIA, Helms paused and with a laugh said, 'I don't remember.'" --Richard Helms, chatting with the Washington Post's George Lardner and other reporters in 1978, during a recess of the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, cited by Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation BrandonTR (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that all you've got?? The HSCA didn't believe Delphine Roberts when she said hello. For one thing, none of her story could be corroborated by anything. For another, she told different stories on any given day. First she said she'd never seen Oswald. Then she'd seen him many times with Banister. Then, she said Banister kept a big file on Oswald as a commie and commie fellow traveler, and was angry about Oswald using the building's address on his literature. You should see what the HCSA thought: Then Jim Marrs says Roberts told HIM that Banister told her Oswald was one of HIS agents(!). So which story is true? If Oswald was a Banister agent working against Cuba, he was certainly the biggest screwup in the world, allowing himself to get into a public debate with an anti-Castro Cuban national in which is made clear that although Oswald is pro-Cuba, he has no idea what he's talking about as regards Cuba or Castro. Do you think Banister is trying to help his cause by hiring opponents-to-the-cause who look to the public eye like idiots? And why use a guy who you've made a public idiot out of, for an assassination? And if this is a CIA operative, why is he being run by an ex-FBI guy who is doing private dick work? If you were the CIA and you wanted to kill the president, do you think you'd use Banister and Ferrie as intermediaries? Do they sound like the most stable individuals you've ever met? Okay, and do either of them sound like they are the types who would want JFK dead, and help you (the CIA) kill him? If they both hate commies and Castro, why kill JFK, who's been trying to invade Castro, then quaranteening his island? JFK's death can only help Castro, and in fact, many theories have Castro's agents killing JFK. I suppose that wouldn't exactly include Banister and Ferrie, now would it? Heh. S  B Harris 02:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oswald impersonator in Mexico
Someone deleted my following contribution in the Mexico section:
 * US government documents released in 1999 establish that CIA intercepts recorded telephone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate in Mexico in which someone was impersonating Oswald. The Oswald impersonator or impostor mentioned Valery Kostikov, a person known by the CIA to be to be a KGB assassin.

The deleter's reason was that this is just one person's opinion, that of Dr. Newman, the author of the PBS piece. (1) Footnote 23 of the PBS source is a govt record of a conversation between Pres. Johnson and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover establishing that Oswald was impersonated by someone who did not look or sound like him in Mexico City. More generally, the PBS source is unambiguous in stating as a fact, not as an opinion, that the CIA recordings establish that an Oswald impostor made an appearance in Mexico. (2) Even if this were just Dr. Newman's opinion, this would be notable and could not just be deleted from the article. This info. should be included--NYCJosh (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The PBS may indeed state this as a "fact", but it is in fact an opinion. If memory serves, no recording was ever found of intercepted phone calls as the surveillance unit recycled the tapes every few weeks. Secondly, the surveillance camera was new and frequently broke down. The person often identified as being "Oswald" in the surveillance photo was simply a mis-identified person who had nothing to do with Oswald. We know this because Oswald was positively identified by numerous Cuban and Soviet personnel, while the person in the photo bears zero resemblance to Oswald.


 * Is this notable? Just about every step Oswald took from the day he was born is open to dispute. What makes this opinion "notable?" Canada Jack (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this all makes sense. Duplicate-Oswald (the one with the evil beard) goes to Mexico and then comes back to Dallas with the duplicate Carcano. They set up in the TSBD and the grassy knoll in order to deliver near-simultaneous duplicate shots to JFK's head, from front and back. Then the duplicate bullet is planted on the stretcher where it becomes the magic bullet, and the dead JFK is loaded aboard Air Force One. Somewhere along the way on that flight (probably in a closet while Jackie is visiting the little girl's room and O'Donnell and Dr. Burkley and so on have all passed out in back from too much Scotch), JFK's body is switched to a duplicate casket. This one goes for a ride in a helicopter in Washington for a secret autopsy and alteration to his head, while the fake empty ambulence (a duplicate) takes Jackie and Burkley wandering off toward Bethesda. Just as they arrive, the president's body arrives in back and the coffins are switched again, in time for the autopsy. Question: are photo alternations even needed beyond that point? Probably. The ones the HSCA reviewed are clearly altered. ;)  S  B Harris 19:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I deleted it because this is a biographic article on Oswald, not a retelling of every mystery, nor about the life of any "doubles"--JimWae (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think everyone else has about covered it, but I'll add my bit and try to be concise. Billions of words have been spilled on Oswald, so to summarize him in this small space (as well as Wikipedia rules) requires that we limit ourselves to the indisputable and widely agreed upon facts of his life.  This is not one of those facts.  It is the conjecture of one man based on a fragment of a primary document, sourced to one footnote in one article in an extensive website that supplements a documentary in which this claim did not appear.  To use PBS as a source for this claim and to use PBS' reputation for quality and accuracy to buttress this fringe claim is to try to sneak in this outlandish theory in through the back door, essentially. Gamaliel (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * David Atlee Phillips was one of the most highly placed CIA agents in the Western Hemisphere in 1963. He has been accused by respected researchers of a relationship with Oswald. In September of 1977, he made this statement, "I am not in a position today to talk to you about the inner workings of the CIA station in Mexico City. But I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. We will find out that Lee Harvey Oswald never visited, let me put it, that is a categorical statement, there, there, we will find out there is no evidence, first of all no proof of that. Second there is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet embassy."
 * Further, there is the matter of the tape recording of "Oswald" speaking to personnel at the Soviet embassy. The FBI agents who interviewed Oswald agreed that his voice was not on the recording.
 * There is room in the article for a short, well-cited reference to the considerable evidence that the official record re Oswald's alleged visits to the embassies in Mexico City was not correct. Or, at the very least, a link to the JFK assassination conspiracies page where the controversy might also be discussed. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So the CIA, whose operatives in Mexico never met or talked to Oswald, is a better source than all those people who saw him there? Makes little sense to me, Joe. The fact is, Soviet and Cuban employees WHO ACTUALLY MET OSWALD positively identified him; multiple witnesses on the buses Oswald took, and employees at the hotel he stayed at positively identified him; OSWALD HIMSELF confirmed he went to Mexico City. In the end, even the HSCA which wanted to establish a conspiracy here concluded that it was "likely" Oswald indeed was there.

I'm intrigued by this FBI claim. How did they get access to tapes which by all accounts did not exist once they were recycled several weeks later? If they DID hear the tapes, why don't we have them now?

In the end, there is no "considerable evidence" Oswald was there, there is a ton of evidence he WAS there, with some voicing doubts second and third-hand. Which is why it has no place here. Canada Jack (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) If we are going to stick to facts that are undisputed about Oswald, this article will be a very short and uninteresting article. For example, many researchers who dispute the lone gunman theory are of the view that Oswald fired no shots at JFK--is the article going to omit that Oswald shot at JFK? Another example of controversy is found in the artice: the very intro sets out the conspiracy/lone gunman debate, so we cannot have an article that sticks to uncontroverted facts abput Oswald if this is going to be serious, meaningful article. I say, the generally-applicable WP rules should apply for this article as well: if the material is relevant, not undue weight and the source is RS, etc. then it should be included.
 * (2) If there is a factual dispute as to whether Oswald was in Mexico or it was an impostor, then assuming both versions are supported by RS, notable opinion, etc. (i.e. the usual WP rules for dealing with factually controversial issues) they should both be included. I have presented one side that had been missing (the version that Oswald was in Mexico is already present).--NYCJosh (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly Oswald visited Mexico City. There is considerable evidence that an Oswald imposter was there at the same time.
 * On 9/27/63, and again a week later a man identifying himself as Oswald visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. Consular Azcue would later testify that the real Oswald "in no way resembled" the "Oswald" to whom he spoke at length. Employee Sylvia Duran said that the real Oswald she eventually saw on film, "is not like the man I saw here in Mexico City." "Oswald" also introduced himself to Cuban emigre Oscar Contreras, who also described the man he met as shorter and older than the real Oswald.
 * On 10/1/63, the CIA issued a teletype for the FBI, State Dept. and Navy re Oswald's visits to Mexico City. This was accompanied by a photo of a man identified as Oswald who in fact looked nothing like him.
 * Also on 10/1, the CIA recorded two tapped telephone calls to the Soviet embassy by a man identified as Oswald. The CIA transcriber noted that "Oswald" spoke in very poor Russian. The real Oswald was quite fluent in Russian.
 * 11/23/63: J. Edgar Hoover's preliminary analysis of the assassination includes the following: "The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identifying himself as Lee Oswald contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring at to any messages. Special agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. These special agents are of the opinion that the referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."
 * That same day, Hoover has this conversation with President Johnson:
 * JOHNSON: "Have you established any more about the [Oswald] visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?"
 * HOOVER: "No, there's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there was a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy."
 * You trust J. Edgar Hoover, don't you? BTW, the CIA claims that the tapes were destroyed as a matter of "routine" in October, 1963. Although this too is (sigh) contradicted by other CIA contacts. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Joe, thanks, if you have additional RS for the info you present here, let's see it.
 * In answer to your last paragraph, here on WP it's not up to us to "trust" or not to trust Hoover, the CIA or anybody else. We provide info that meets WP rules. If RS support contradictory versions of the facts than we provide the contradictory versions. Stated differently, our job is not to "solve" the JFK assassination puzzles or to reconcile various view of the facts. We just present info to the reader based on WP rules.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You can find many "researchers" who will dispute any set of facts on any subject - evolution, global warming, even Pearl Harbor. But Wikipedia doesn't give currency to everyone with a soapbox.  We have a conspiracy article where all these disputes can be discussed in detail, but this article must deal with solid facts from reputable sources.  Maybe this stuff is considered reputable at CTKA or Spartacus or wherever, but not here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The HSCA fully covered this issue and concluded that Oswald indeed likely was the person who visited the consulates. For example, while Azcue and Duran at times stated that the man didn't look like Oswald, the fact remains that LHO signed papers in their presence and that signature was confirmed to be LHO's. Further, Azcue requested LHO obtain photographs of himself for the application, which he did. It strains credulity to say the least that when Oswald handed over the photos - which depict the Oswald we know - Azcue or anyone else there did not notice that the man in the photos was NOT the man who handed them over.

Further, there are allegations that Duran had an affair with Oswald. And that they attended a "twist" party together, Oswald perhaps accompanied by several other "beatnik" men.

In the end, there is definitely strong evidence that Oswald indeed visited the consulates, as confirmed by the HSCA. However, there are still questions about the possibility that someone claiming to be Oswald ADDITIONALLY made contacts with the consulates. Further, that he may have been in the company of others while in Mexico after arriving, and that he made contact with Cubans there aside from the consulate staff. HOWEVER, since this page is about Oswald and there is no serious doubt that he in fact visited the consulates (there is an open question as to another also was doing so claiming to be Oswald) it seems a question of opening a can of worms on a subject where the core - Oswald visited the consulates - is not open to serious dispute. Canada Jack (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooh, duplicate-Oswald, aka Daddy-O, with the evil black beatnik beard would be perfect as a Mexican operative. Imagine him attending subversive twist-parties, nailing Latinas, and teaching fellow socialistico hepcats the hand-jive. Sigh. Can't anybody admit that it's more likely somebody just made a mistake and connected somebody else at the embassies with Oswald, who was there also? The real Oswald (a square if ever there was one) actually didn't stand out very much. Oswald surely went to Mexico City, and he left his photos and signature and he admitted going down there, later. He was angry at the Soviet embassy for not expediting his visa. Clearly, he was on the way to see the last true socialist paradise, the one he'd been trying to impress for months with his pro-Cuba activities. Then, out of the blue, comes the news that JFK (that most anti-Castro of presidents) is going to be riding right under his work-window. With visa in hand, Oswald probably thought there was a reasonable chance he might even make it to Cuba after the shooting. But whether he did or not, it must have seemed like destiny. Finally, he'd get the attention he never got, and felt he always deserved. He had initially been attracted to communism by reading a pamphlet about the "martyrdom" of the Rosenbergs, and if he went out in the Texas chair in much the same way they did ("they say it only takes a minute to burn"), it would be a socialist crucifiction to end them all. Almost as good as presenting himself to Castro with the world's best credentials. S  B Harris 18:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have to admit that it's most likely that Oswald really did visit the Cuban embassy, and the CIA just goofed on the phone calls and photo. The visa application had genuine photos of Oswald. It stretches credulity that the embassy personnel wouldn't notice a mismatch between the applicant and his photos. Some day I'll hash out all this Oswald-double stuff on the conspiracies page. The Oswald doubles in Dallas are even more fun to argue about than the Mexico City double. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a subject worth exploring, but not here. As I said, it's pretty well a given Oswald was there, so THAT part is non-controversial. Even Oswald himself said so and others who knew him knew he went. There is, however, enough doubt there about precisely what else he did in Mexico City, who he may have associated with, and whether someone pretending to be him ALSO contacted the consulates he himself had contacted. But that's neither here nor there on this page, I submit. Canada Jack (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) I think some of us misunderstand our roles here as WP editors. We are not some commission of enquiry charged with reconciling pieces of evidence and with writing a version of reality that we deem most plausible. If you want to do that go try writing a book on Oswald. All we can do here is present info based on RS pursuant to WP rules.
 * (2) Therefore, it's not for us to venture a conclusion about whether Oswald was accompanied to Mexico City by doubles or he went alone or never even stepped foot there. If we have relevant info that meets WP rules, then we provide it in the article.
 * (3) On the relevancy of impostors to an article about Oswald: Are you joking? Serious US govt sources state that the man who is thought to have committed this most important assassination had others impersonating him in connection with establishing him as a defection attempter and can anyone say with a straight face that this is not relevant to an article about the man? If I told you that some famous celebrity was impersonated by someone else at the moment he had been thought to do something famous and consequential for his reputation, would you think this is irrelevant to an encyclopia article about the celebrity?--NYCJosh (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is most certainly our role to prevent the article from presenting a false picture of historical consensus, and those Wikipedia rules you cite also prevent editors from dropping in random bits of "evidence" to skew the article. If this "evidence" was so powerful and so relevant, we would have to rewrite the article from scratch to reflect this.  And for that we'd need multiple sources to hold the whole thing together. What history textbooks do we have that we can cite?  What encyclopedia articles?  What papers from peer reviewed history journals?  We don't have those things.  All we have is one footnote from one article from one website.   Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If I told you that some famous celebrity was impersonated by someone else at the moment he had been thought to do something famous and consequential for his reputation, would you think this is irrelevant to an encyclopia article about the celebrity?

Not if that celebrity CONFIRMED he did this famous and consequential thing and there is no plausible reason for that person to be lying. Which is what we have with Oswald. While I could see a possible case for why someone might want to suggest Oswald tried to go to Cuba, I don't see what possible reason HE'D have to lie about this. Canada Jack (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel, "a false picture" assumes that you have an accurate picture based on what you call "historical consensus." I am surprised that anyone can claim there is consensus on the facts surrounding Oswald and the JFK assassination. There are shelves full of books on each of these topics presenting a range of views based on official sources and credible evidence, and the least one can say is that there is two-way divergence between those historians and researchers subscribing to the lone gunman theory (e.g. Warren Commission) and those subscribing to some form of conspiracy theory (e.g House Select Committee).
 * Jack, whether or not you see a reason for his lying is irrelevant to whether the issue of impostors is relevant to the article. (Unless you establish yourself as a notable authority on this subject.) I can speculate or recite things I've read about a possible motive for why Oswald (or others) would wish to create a record of Oswald (or someone posing as him) trying to defect (and make a scene doing so) to establish his communist, anti-American, bona fides, but this would seem to be tangential. Let's just agree that for an article about person A, it is relevant whether an important act that would tend to signigicantly diminish his reputation in the public mind is committed by person A or a person posing as person A, and if there are facts that support both versions than those facts are relevant.
 * Finally, the fact that Oswald or his double knew the identify of a secret KGB assassin is noteworthy because an ordinary unemployed file clerk would not usually know of such things, and therefore this fact too is relevant because it helps establish a fuller picture of the man.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that argument is that Wikipedia accepts a much smaller shelf from which we can draw sources to document historical fact. Not every researcher with a tome on the assassination automatically gets on that shelf.  See Reliable sources and Fringe theories for starters. Gamaliel (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said otherwise. But I hope you are not excluding the House Select Committee, the Garrison investigation and all conspiracy theories--that would exclude you from being a fair editor for this article.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's just agree that for an article about person A, it is relevant whether an important act that would tend to signigicantly diminish his reputation in the public mind is committed by person A or a person posing as person A, and if there are facts that support both versions than those facts are relevant.

Person A said he committed the act. The act was attempting to go to Cuba. What is the section describing? His attempt to go to Cuba. There is NO doubt, from what Oswald himself said, from those who knew him and the documentary evidence, that he in fact intended to go to Cuba.

A SECONDARY issue is whether someone was impersonating him even as he himself went to the consulates. But what does this say about Oswald's attempts to go to Cuba? NOTHING because Oswald's intention was to go to Cuba! Which is all the section is about!

These are two entirely separate issues as it has been firmly established that Oswald indeed intended to go to Cuba, which is all the section describes. It's the same as if we argued over how he got to Helsinki. There are those who suspect he was taken there by operatives. But did he or did he not go to Helsinki? For the purposes of THIS article all we need to know is he made his way to the USSR. On the CONSPIRACY page, the contention that he was aided by agents in his travels properly can be spelled out.
 * I hope you're OK with me stepping in here after your first point to facilitate discussion. Wanting to go to Cuba is not the same thing as defecting to the Soviet Union or Cuba. Taking steps to defect a couple of months before the assassination has significance for who Oswald is and even perhaps why he would want to kill JFK. Also, Oswald claiming to go to Cuba is not the same thing as having evidence of someone else helping him/doubling for him. It raises issues like why would someone else do this for him? Perhaps Oswald was not the lone floater that he sometimes seemed to have been.  Perhaps the doubles made other appearances in his life if, after all, they were willing to break the law posing in a foreign govt office as someone they were not.  Oswald doesn't usually come across as the kind of person to have bosom buddies like that. Did Oswald even know he was being impersonated? If he didn't, wouldn't that be perhaps just as relevant for Oswald?--a lowly file clerk in transition being impersonated!--NYCJosh (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Finally, the fact that Oswald or his double knew the identify of a secret KGB assassin is noteworthy because an ordinary unemployed file clerk would not usually know of such things, and therefore this fact too is relevant because it helps establish a fuller picture of the man.

You don't seem to understand how wikipedia works. There is significance to Oswald knowing the identity of the KGB agent? Says who? You? No, it doesn't work like that. You have to a) state its relevance and b) state who says this is relevant. So, over on the CONSPIRACY page, when discussing doubles, we can also say that author x notes that OSwald's/double's possession of this information is an indication of... whatever. Canada Jack (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Its relevant because it helps the reader know Oswald better: unemployed file clerks don't usually have such info. The fact that Oswald appeared to shows that he was privy to some sort of inside baseball, perhaps connections to some people that most working stiffs don't have access to. This informs the reader about who Oswald is and perhaps even goes to why he did what he did or why others did what they did. These points obviously depend on lots of other facts but that's why this is important--it can tend to connect up with lots of other points of info. The PBS author I linked to obviously thinks it's relevant --he mentions it in a short article as attaches important to it from the wealth of docs released in the 1990s, and he is notable per WP. That's more than enough to establish relevance.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

''Wanting to go to Cuba is not the same thing as defecting to the Soviet Union or Cuba. Taking steps to defect a couple of months before the assassination has significance for who Oswald is and even perhaps why he would want to kill JFK. Also, Oswald claiming to go to Cuba is not the same thing as having evidence of someone else helping him/doubling for him. It raises issues like why would someone else do this for him?''

True, wanting to go to Cuba is not the same as defecting, but the section doesn't say he intended to defect! And, he having help may raise other issues, but THAT claim is contentious and would open a can of worms over the veracity of the claims etc. As it stands, he intended to go to Cuba and there is little serious doubt he in fact made the attempt. AGAIN, having someone assisting him is a SEPARATE issue.

''Its relevant because it helps the reader know Oswald better: unemployed file clerks don't usually have such info. The fact that Oswald appeared to shows that he was privy to some sort of inside baseball, perhaps connections to some people that most working stiffs don't have access to. This informs the reader about who Oswald is and perhaps even goes to why he did what he did or why others did what they did.''

IN YOUR OPINION this is important. And that is because YOU derive certain conclusions, which are POV. I can just as easily - and plausibly say - If the allegations about Oswald's affair with Duran are true (and they can't easily be dismissed), this may simply have been information he got from his Cuban consulate lover, so there potentially is no particular mystery here. The point I was making above is that once we get into the SEPARATE issue on the other OSwalds etc., then these ALLEGATIONS are relevant. And, again, this OPINION of the importance of Oswald knowing this must come from an author making such a claim. Canada Jack (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Earlier Canada Jack says: The person often identified as being "Oswald" in the surveillance photo was simply a mis-identified person who had nothing to do with Oswald. We know this because Oswald was positively identified by numerous Cuban and Soviet personnel, while the person in the photo bears zero resemblance to Oswald. "We know this?" Really, Jack? Which Cuban and Soviet personel positively identified Oswald? BrandonTR (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oleg M. Nechiporenko was the consular official and KGB agent who spent a lot of time with Oswald at the Soviet Embassy. He had the unique opportunity to ask Oswald WHY he was doing all the crazy things he was doing. Unfortunately Oswald (who was positively unhinged during the interviews) didn't give him much to go on. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! You found a guy, Oleg Nechiporenko, who wrote a book in 1993 (30 years after the event) who purports to have been at the Soviet embassy at the time of Oswald's supposed visit. As to why we should trust Nechiporenko's belated account, when we are told that you can not trust Soviets or Cubans who, like the CIA, are masters of disinformation, is never explained. Meanwhile, we have the Cuban consul in Mexico City, Senor Eusebio Azcue testifying to the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassination in 1978 that the Oswald arrested in Dallas "in no way resembled" the man who visited him at the Cuban consulate. Cuban consul assistant, Silvia Duran told author Anthony Summers that "...the man [arrested in Dallas] is not like the man I saw here in Mexico City." Once again the Warren Commission apologists at this site, most notably Canada Jack, are violating Wikipedia policy which states: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." BrandonTR (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Did Oswald or did Oswald not visit the consulates in an attempt to go to Cuba? Even the HSCA concluded YES, which is all the section is describing.


 * Since Oswald HIMSELF confirmed he attempted to go to Cuba via Mexico, there is no issue on this aspect of his biography - that he attempted and failed to go to Cuba in the several months before the assassination. And that, again, is all the section is describing.


 * However, while the HSCA agreed that Oswald most probably did visit the consulates in person it could not rule out the possibility that another person pretending to be Oswald ALSO showed up or more likely called. And it could not rule out the possibility of an affair with the Cuban official. And it could not rule out the possibility that he attended a party with them.


 * THAT contention belongs on a conspiracy page as some authors suggest this indicates involvement by various security apparatus, etc. But it is not part of Oswald's biography per se as someone pretending to be LHO is, by definition, NOT LHO.


 * Two major investigations, two near-identical conclusions. Therefore, the one agreed-upon event is that Oswald in fact visited the consulates. What we can add on the conspiracy side - or on the "Oswald and the assassination" page I am creating - is a section detailing these allegations. Simply inserting "or someone else" begs the question "why would anyone else pretend to be Oswald," which would require a listing of the various allegations from the various authors. We have a page for such allegations. Canada Jack (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that I misclassified Canada Jack in my last post. Previously, I narrowly referred to him as a Warren Commission apologist. But, from his last comment, we see that Jack is also an apologist for the HSCA, but only when something that the HSCA said happens to agree with something that the Warren Commission said. One can also see, from Jack's last comment, that if Jack decides that Oswald was telling the truth on a particular matter, then Oswald's "truthfulness" will be the accepted viewpoint of the article. In previous instances, when Jack deemed Oswald untruthful, then Oswald's "untruthfulness" became the accepted viewpoint. In other words, viewpoints allowed in the article will only be viewpoints that Jack decides to allow, based on whatever evidence Jack decides to accept. BrandonTR (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice on soapboxing and debate
I came to this topic in dealing with a prolific serial IP sockpuppet who chose this subject, among others, as a target for his particular brand of random soapboxing and shaky opinions. I've found a great deal of theorizing and sniping, little of it germane to the Wikipedia article. I'm noting as an uninvolved administrator that this must stop; I know it's fun and all, but it's not helping the encyclopedia article. Please resist the urge to debate here, it will be treated as disruptive editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Original Research and LHO Wiki
I took a look at the sources for this article; My! What a lot of Warren Commission Report citations! Are the editors engaging in bit of the old "original research"? No original research

I was surprised that two of the standbys on LHO research were not in the sources - of course, they're not required to be there, yet...

One is Edward J. Epstein's Legend: The Secret Life of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978); the other is Philip H. Melanson's Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and U.S. Intelligence (1990).

Are any of the numerous Diss page participants familiar with these works? And why so many WC Report cits, rather than secondary sources? Unless a secondary source has cited them, they have no business being here. 36hourblock (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you are saying here. The Warren Report has a chapter on LHO - if the article is largely based on that, how is it OR? You seem a bit confused on what constitutes "OR." If the article was, say, based on editors here pulling documentation which the WC collected (but didn't base their conclusions on), that'd be OR. If editors simply largely replicated what the WC itself wrote in terms of what its evidence suggested, that is secondary material and therefore not OR.


 * As for your other works, as stated above, there will soon be a page which explains the case the WC made for Oswald's guilt, the major problems raised by critics and some of the later addressing of same by the HSCA. One of these aspects are the allegations that Oswald was far more involved with various intelligence players than acknowledged by the WC and HSCA, where, presumably, some of this material would be appropriate. Canada Jack (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Canada Jack - Thanks for clarifying this matter; I may, indeed, have been confused. I realize that the Warren Report is an interpretation of the 26 volumes of "Findings". The editors have not interpreted the testimony or physical evidence themselves. Got it. I would, nonetheless, encourage the use of published interpretations of the findings as secondary sources in addition to the WR.

The lede for the Warren Commission wiki article includes this: "The Commission's findings have since proven controversial and been both challenged and supported by later studies" - without citations.

The section "criticisms" from the same article includes this: "In the years following the release of its report and 26 investigatory evidence volumes in 1964, the Warren Commission has been frequently criticized for some of its methods, important omissions, and conclusions" - also without citations.

These require secondary sources to establish such assertions: here, the WR will not do. Thank you again, and I look forward to the new page on Oswald's alleged guilt. 36hourblock (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, those points in terms of the lack of citations should be tagged as such or you could add some of the missing citations. It's not hard when it comes to the WR as most of the planet dismisses its findings and has so almost from the moment it was released.


 * Here, the basic problem is it really does not delve in to LHO's role in the assassination in any detail, a deficiency which will hopefully be addressed by spelling out the evidence the WC used to conclude he was the lone assassin. It seems to me that this needs a new page to spell out the case from the WC, the major objections, and some of the later findings.


 * As for the specifics of his life, what we have here is more or less the material which is not disputed. When it comes to Walker and JFK, that material is clearly identified as what the WC concluded. SO, when the "case" page is built, we can have, for example, claims of his connections to intelligence communities, etc. Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. I agree with you about "most of the planet...", but the standards of this online encyclopedia must approach this systematically. A mathematical argument does not need to prove that 2+2=4; but the question of the reliability of the WR does. And any old source will not do.

A separate page on the "major objections" may be very useful, as you suggested.

In building a "case" and on the numerous "claims", I suggest that the hypotheses presented by various critics of the WR be covered individually, or grouped, if appropriate.

For example, a presentation of published "conspiracy theories" on the Chappaquiddick incident were posted this year (2011) at that site (Unfortunately, an administrator misrepresented it as "hi-jacking" and suppressed it). As a matter of fact, this may be a means to focus in on the criticisms of the WR, without overwhelming the visitors to the article. That's about all I have to say on this topic - the SESQUICENTENNIAL of the American Civil War calls to me... 36hourblock (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Image of apartment in New Orleans
I question the validity of the image File:4911MagazineNOLA.JPG as the apartment that Oswald rented in New Orleans. The image is of the building at 4911 Magazine St. Other sources I have seen on the internet (not that those sources are necessarily reliable, but I'm talking about multiple sources) identify the address as 4905 Magazine St., and the images of the building associated with that address are completely different. Does anyone have evidence that the address actually is 4911 Magazine St.? 75.177.157.233 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the building. However I can understand your confusion; I made what sounds like the same mistake you're making when I was first trying to figure it out. It might seem reasonable that "4905" would be part of the larger building just to the right (downriver) photo. However it turns out that one is just numbered 4901 & 4903. Odd numbers from 4905 through 4911 are all on this building: Commons:Category:4905-4911 Magazine Street, New Orleans.  (Oswald's apartment was on the wing on the right side of the building -- now almost impossible to see from the street, since it is hidden behind a fence and dense foliage (perhaps because of the infamous former resident).  Check the relevant Warren Commission pages on Oswald's 1963 Magazine Street apartment; CE 826 p. 3 landlord's statement;  Ruth Paine's sketch diagram of the layout (PDF)-- Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the details. Street numbering in many cities is very confusing. You seem to have sorted this out very well. 75.177.157.233 (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright of Warren Commission images
Are the Warren Commission images free of copyright? Kelly hi! 01:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All such published works by U.S. Federal agencies (including FBI etc) are public domain per US law, so pretty much everything from the Commission would be PD-USGov. (There may possibly be a few things within the volumes which didn't originate from the Government -- eg photos by commercial photographers reused by the Commission-- that this doesn't apply to.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to double-check - ran across some images on Commons for which the copyright is presumably owned by Marina Oswald Porter even though the Commission published them - just wanted to make sure the images above were made by US government employees while on duty. Kelly  hi! 01:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just replied on Commons to the deletion request on the famous back yard photo Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lho-133A.jpg. I think that one can be kept since back in the '60s U.S. copyrights had to be stated and registered on first publication to be valid. (That's why I mentioned "commercial photographers" -- works by news cameramen and other professionals who might have actually been in the habit of registering copyrights -- as the most likely cases to need detailed checking on current copyright status.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand - however, there may be a bit of a gray area where Oswald family photos were seized by the government and published as part of a Congressional report, possibly against the family's will. Those images should definitely have some other license than PD-USGov, as the government was clearly not the creator of the images. Kelly  hi! 02:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Impossible for Oswald to have acted alone, if he ever fired a shot at all
The doctors at Parkland who tried to save JFK's life all noted a large blowout to the right occipital area of the President's head and brains literally oozing out. That had to have been a shot from the front and the last surviving doctor recently described the throat shot as also a wound of entry. These facts alone show that Oswald, provided he fired a shot at all, could not have acted alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.130.37 (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Go convince the FBI and then when it hits the media that they have accepted it, we will have something based on reliable sources that we can put in the article. ⋙–Berean–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  11:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The doctors at Parkland disagreed as to where the head wound was, as they weren't looking at (they were trying to save the man's life). But some of them saw the wound at the side of the head above his right ear, as did all the secret service witnesses, as well as presidental aids riding in the cars behind JFK. And of course the autopsy is definitive.

The autopsy is NOT definitive because both RFK and Jackie Kennedy both monitored the autopsy in real time and ordered the coroner NOT to do many things, including tracing the bullet path from his back to the front, they were worried that JFK's diseased adrenal glands would be noticed. The irony is, that so many things about JFK and his killing were suppressed, in the end the truth has come out. It would have been so much better if people had been honest in the first place. See Mafia Kingfish 600 pages about how Carlos Marcello had both JFK & RFK killed.

The problem with a wound at the back of the head, is that there's no place for a bullet to enter the front of the head to produce it. And no way for such a bullet to get through the windshield of the car. And to miss the windshield and have the bullet come out of the right rear, no place to put that sniper, who would have had to be out in the middle of Dealey Plaza near Main Street somewhere, not on the grassy knoll. Lastly, the Zapruder film is pretty gory and it shows what all the witnesses to the shooting saw: the right side of the head above the ear opens up. Not the back. S B Harris 23:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If this was a government conspiracy as the evidence shows, the FBI is not about to acknowledge anything. Even behind the picket fence or at the underpass, with Elm sloping down, provides plenty of room for a head shot without involving the windshield.

I believe it is McClelland, a surviving Parkland doctor, who now talks about the throat wound being one of entry. The article appearing now is irresponsible journalism slanted in favor of a Warren Report whose conclusion is disbelieved by a vast majority of the public. BTW, I had written about brain matter oozing from the right occipital area. That portion was stated inadvertently and is incorrect (that was later exposed as a hoax), but there was a hole about the size of a normal man's fist reported by Parkland physicians and other witnesses.

This article disgraces Wikipedia and input from known conspiracy theorists should be introduced for balance. One of the truly stupid articles propounded by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.130.37 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a separate article for John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories just as there is for Apollo Moon landing conspiracy theories. Any shooter from Elm or the fence makes the great head hole above the right ear seen on the that side in the Z film, an ENTRY hole. Where's the exit? Finally, the idea of the throat wound as "entry" is possible, since entry and exit the same size are possible if the bullet doesn't deform. The problem with it, is then where is the EXIT. From Elm, a shot to the throat should have come out the back of his neck, not the base of his neck. The base of neck to throat vector points upward to the TSBD building 6th floor. S  B Harris 18:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo needed for infobox
Seeing as the previous infobox photo has since been deleted from Commons, we need to replace it with another. Can we decide which was to use? It seems strange for the article to have so many photos of Oswald, whereas the infobox has none. I suggest we use the colour mugshot photo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

1940 Census Records
I found Marguerite Oswald's household in the recently released 1940 census records, on Alvar Street in the Upper 9th ward. I'll leave it to someone with more experience as to whether this is interesting supplemental material for the childhood section. Row 57. --Adam Wolbach (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work, though off hand the only new info looks to be that they had a lodger living with them at the time. We are fortunate to have a photo of their house on Alvar before it was demolished. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Drama and popular culture
Of course the life of Oswald and the assassination have been the subjects of a few films, one TV drama, several plays, and historical and fictional texts over the years. If at all appropriate, would it be better to include such things here, or in the article on the assassination, or would it be superfluous to place such a section in both articles?Cdg1072 (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Mafia Kingfish
Why is no mention made of this book? 600 pages about how Carlos Marcello killed both JFK & RFK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.222.8 (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Of the hundreds pro-conspiracy books naming one assassin after another, Mafia Kingfish is a small fish in a big pond. Is there a unique point in the book that needs to be made? Location (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mafia Kingfish and David Scheim's Contract On America are both good books. To make a very long story short: Carlos Marcello hated the Kennedys. In one way or another, Oswald's uncle, David Ferrie, Jack Ruby and some of the Dallas cops who arranged Oswald's fatal jail transfer were all connected to Marcello. But the trail stops there. There's no hard evidence Marcello orchestrated the assassination. G. Robert Blakey, chairman of the HSCA would eventually write the book, The Plot to Kill the President. Same deal: Blakely says the mob did did it, but doesn't give us a smoking gun. In one way or another, everything interesting to be found in Kingfish is already discussed on Wikipedia. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The reporter asked "What did you do in RUSSIA"?
Oswald was asked during the full press conference "What did you do in Russia?" not "What did you do in the USSR?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.7.211 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Spartacus.schoolnet not a reliable source?
The last edit removed a cite to spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk saying it was not a reliable source. The spartacus article referenced an interview on ABC news, but the link to ABC News was no longer working.

Why would Spartacus not be a reliable source in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated ref with a link to abcnews.com. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding De Mohrenschildt
There is a 'need for citation' note in the passage on De Mohrenschildt's confrontation with Oswald after the Walker shooting. Edward Jay Epstein is one author providing an excellent citation for this event. Contrary to the passage as written, Epstein's Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978) claims on the basis of De Mohrenschildt's own testimony that he knew of Oswald's rifle prior to April 14th 1963, and not by seeing it directly (as implied in this article), thus he must have known of it through one of the backyard photos. Epstein includes the quotation (along with another remark) already mentioned, "Did you take a pot shot at Walker?" (Epstein, 213). He also notes that writing on one of the backyard photographs suggests it was given to De Mohrenschildt before the April 10th shooting (p. 320).Cdg1072 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You really should read De Mohrenschildt's own testimony on this point. He told the WC that he and his wife visited the Oswalds on the Easter weekend of 1963 (Easter Sunday that year was indeed April 14, but the visit could have been the day before or after). George De Mohrenschildt said that his wife saw Oswald's rifle in a closet and asked Marina about the telescopic sight and Marina and Lee told them he often took the rifle "target shooting" and then De Mohrenschildt himself somewhat jokingly asked him if he (Oswald) in his target shooting might have taken the "potshot" at General Walker that had been in all the papers, as it had happened just a few days before (on April 10). De Mohrenschildt said he never actually laid eyes on the weapon and wasn't interested in it. But he said that when he asked about Walker, Oswald's face took on a peculiar expression and that was the end of the conversation. As well it should have been! As to the backyard photo probably taken Sunday, March 31 (less than a week before Oswald learned the best job he'd ever had, would be over, as he was being fired), we'll never know if De Mohrenschildt had actually seen that photo at the time of the WC testimony. Possibly he had, but was omitting this. Oswald clearly made it out to him (and signed it!) on Friday, April 5, but probably sent it by mail, and didn't give it to him personally. Oswald probably had not decided to shoot Walker by April 5 (you don't decide to shoot somebody and mail your friends photos of yourself with your rifle at the same time). But Oswald had just been fired (or was about to be) and his last day at work (or at least the last day he got paid for) was April 5 (6?), and he probably spent the next days in a funk and was probably/possibly trying to make contacts with all of his friends who could do something for him, and perhaps mailing the photo (which would then just have been back from the film developer-- you remember those?) was one of these ways to look for a new job. I also have read that Oswald was not fired until April 6 (Sat), in which case he mailed this photo the day before. De Mohrenschildt's ex-wife told the HCSA that De Mohrenschildt's got it in the mail but didn't open it, and packed it up with a lot of stuff to go in storage while he was in Haiti. Supposedly he didn't find it until 3 years later in April 1967 when he returned from Haiti and sorted out his stored stuff. Clearly he opened it later and marked it "(c) copyright", but it's possible that he had not done this before testifying to the WC in April, 1964. I agree this is fishy, but it is barely possible. Or he might have lied by omission, for obvious reasons (which I think much more likely-- not too many people, however it happens, manage to open their mail three years after they get it). Interestingly (see reference above), we have another case of Oswald sending a postcard May 10, 1962 from Minsk to his brother Robert in Fort Worth, and marking it in the European/Russian style 10/V/62, exactly as he did in the De Mohrenschildt photo. In any case, read all of De Mohrenschildt's testimony. This was one fascinating guy, and his testimony is the longest in the WC. His picture of the Oswalds in Dallas and Ft. Worth is priceless. On reading it, you'll find it rather incredible to imagine Lee Oswald as any kind of Soviet agent. If he was, he was the best actor of his generation. Better than Olivier. Certainly better than any of the Booths (including Edwin and not just John W.) ever was. S  B Harris 03:59,

30 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the passage obviously derives from the above, Epstein must not have seen this part of De Mohrenschildt's testimony, and someone should place it in this article's footnote.Cdg1072 (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Epstein saw it; he just ignored it. Epstein interviewed George de Mohrenschildt (please read that WP article) on the day of de Mohrenschildt's suicide in 1977, and may very well have been the last person to see him alive. Were I a conspiracy theorist, I'd wonder if Epstein didn't actually kill him. But I'm not, so I think Epstein just scared the man to death, by rachetting up his anxiety about the pending HCSA investigation. It's inconceivable that Epstein wasn't totally familiar with de Mohrenschildt's 1964 WC testimony. I think Epstein is simply one of those paranoid anti-government nuts who sees a CIA or KBG plot in everything, all facts and other people's opinions to the contrary. It's a fixed delusion, rather reminiscent of those of Jim Marrs. If Oswald indeed was a KGB agent, as Epstein claims, he was the most uneducated and worst-paid and worst-equipped KGB/NKVD agent in the history of the USSR. Or perhaps just the most brilliant actor, as he managed to maintain the personna of being totally clueless and nearly totally destitute 24 hours a day, to everybody, including his unfortunate wife-- for a year and a half in the U.S. And then, after being arrested, walked around in cuffs for his last two days alive with a "cat that ate the canary" smile which is totally explainable by de Mohrenschildt's view that the only thing that drove Oswald in life was a narcissistic quest to be the center of attention in all places at all times (probaby due to lack of a father, and a nutty mother). Why would a secret agent act like that? It's incredibly brilliant as a cover, but what about after he'd been arrested, and was facing the electric chair?? You know? Didn't the man sweat? Look worried, even? No. He looked so self-satisfied that even Jack Ruby noticed it, and shot him for it, in total rage (with a single shot to the gut that was more anger than anything else-- see Ruby's balled other fist.) Ruby was a hothead who really should never have been where he was, but totally by chance, showed up late. And so was Oswald where he should not have been in time and space, but was also late. Kismet! S  B Harris 20:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

1st Hallway Interview
In the article Oswald is quoted as saying, "No, they're taking me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union..." To me, it sounds more like perfect tense, "No, they've taken me in because of the fact that..." Cdg1072 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ruby Motive
The debate on the archived talk page about Ruby's motive is disgracefully bad. Ramsquire puts so much emphasis on the WC that no other sources are deemed relevant, the weakness of WC being precisely the reason other sources are valuable. Not good, and one of the problems with Wikipedia: editors using obscure rules to void debate.

jmanooch 04:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanooch (talk • contribs)

LHO-Lone Shooter or Conspiracy?
I find it remarkable that anyone still debates whether LHO acted alone. There is in fact a small mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise. This comes from many eye witnesses, such as Ed Bowers in the Warren Commission Report and several key witnesses testimonies to Dallas Police, FBI agents or Secret Service agents at Dealy plaza on November 22, 1963. I do not think however, that there is anyone who would attempt to refute that Lee Harvey Oswald was actually inside the TSBD at the time of the shooting, (regardless if it can be proven he actually fired a weapon, firing a weapon does not prove he took the "fatal" shot). If in "fact" LHO was inside the TBSD, and it should be proven the "fatal" shot came from the grassy knoll, as stated by so many witnesses, then Lee Harvey Oswald would be in "fact" NOT the assassin of JFK. You cannot have it both ways. Ghostjohn (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)GhostJohn


 * Presumably you mean Lee Bowers, not Ed Bowers (he isn't widely known by his middle name). Trouble is, he didn't say he saw shots from behind the fence and he had a clear, unobstructed view and told the WC he was watching the "caravan" pass by until it disappeared from his point of view. What is so outrageous about the conspiracy community is the fact that while the WC didn't ask the question "did you see anyone fire from there," neither did Mark Lane who interviewed him on camera. What Lane DID do was REMOVE Bower's definitive statement on this issue when Bowers offered it (Lane conspicuously avoided asking him the simple, direct question) where he says there was NO ONE behind the fence at the time of the assassination. Bowers died in an accident a few months later and this has been grist for the conspiracy theorists for decades. Trouble is, his testimony destroys the contention that there was an sniper on the grassy knoll. So the question has to be asked, if Bowers was murdered, who would stand to benefit from that? Not the Warren Commission or its defenders, that's for sure. Canada Jack (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It would have to be the best-coordinated assassination in history. A bullet certainly hit JFK in the upper back passing through coat and shirt (as seen by thread direction, which is forward), over the top of his right lung, and out his throat. The fibers in the collar and tie knot from there on, are OUTWARD, showing that the bullet was leaving the throat, again going back-to-front. That bullet hit Connally and was found on his stretcher. It came from Oswald's rifle in the TSBD. Who do YOU think fired it? A second bullet from that same rifle was found in peices on the floor of the front of the limo. As though it had been through a head. And JFK's head indeed had a small hole in the rear scalp, and a big blowout in the right side. Bevelling in the skull shows that this bullet entered the rear, and exited the side, not the other way around. It didn't come from the knoll. The bullet fragments in the front of the limo (right where they'd end up after a head wound from the depository) also matched to the Carcano in the depository. Who fired that one? Do we NEED another bullet? I think not. The Warren Commission thought not. The Select Committee, even thinking somebody else had fired at JFK, had no use for that second shooter's bullet which had no effect. So they decided it had made a noise, but had missed. Entirely. However, a better theory is that it was never fired at all. ;) S  B Harris 04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The bullet holes in JFK's jacket and shirt line up exactly. However, these holes in JFK's clothing are too low for the bullet to have then exited JFK's throat, thus rendering the single-bullet theory impossible. Also motorcycle outrider Bobby Hargis, who was riding several feet behind and to the side of JFK's limo, got sprayed with brain matter, indicating that the fatal head shot came from the front, in the direction of the knoll. Hargis was hit with such force by the brain matter that at first he thought he had been hit by a bullet. BrandonTR (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Trouble with that, Brandon, is the entry wound itself in the back, high enough. If his shirtt and jacket were bunched - and many photos showed they were - then the hole there would be misleadingly high. The back wound - which if course is the key place to measure - works perfectly in terms of trajectory, and the tests done on that wound prove it to be an entry wound. As for the brain spray, one only need to see Z313 to see a forward ejection of brain matter from the fatal shot. Further, JFK had nearly toppled over to his left by the time of the fatal shot - not obvious in the Zapruder film - so it is not unexpected that Hargis got hit by brain matter. Canada Jack (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That should be misleadingly LOW, the hole in the shirt and jacket. Canada Jack (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The single-bullet theorists originally told us that JFK's jacket got bunched (the reason for the low bullet hole in the jacket), now they are trying to tell us that JFK's shirt also got bunched (the reason for the identical low bullet hole in the shirt). They come up with an excuse for any discrepancy, no matter how farfetched. BrandonTR (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The jacket was bunched, as proven by photo, allowing a hole inward through it to align with the back wound found on autopsy, the internal path over the top of the right lung, not through it, and out the throat. A shirt can bunch with a jacket as you know if you have ever worn one. This is not far fetched compared with what happens if ONLY the shirt hole doesn't line up. Then bullet goes in coat, moves down to go through shirt, then back up to pass into skin just below jacket hole. Say what?? What is your scenario that is LESS far fetched that still accounts for photos and physical evidence? Stop sniping and lay out something more likely. S B Harris 18:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My position is that Governor Connally was hit by a bullet other than the one that hit JFK from behind (in opposition to the single-bullet theory), something that Connally said himself in his testimony. BrandonTR (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

actually, https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/fuf2RI93phc/_mt5WC-HGnQJ


 * Connally's wife (Nellie) also said that she believed that her husband was hit by a bullet that was separate from the two that hit Kennedy. BrandonTR (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no "also" here, as Connally was never sure of but one thing-- he wasn't hit by the first shot. But nobody on Earth thinks he was, so that's fine. He presumed that shot hit JFK but was wrong. Since neither he nor his wife had ESP or eyes in backs of their heads, and since neither one looked at JFK, neither one knows when he was hit. Connally never clamed to hear the bullet that DID hit him. The problem with the theory of two separate bullets from the rear is that a bullet that strikes JFK through upper back and throat while behind the sign has no place to go BUT into Connally. Likewise a bullet hitting Connally in chest and then ranging downward to forearm and thigh, has to come from a spot behind-- a spot blocked through most of that period by JFK. Connally reacts visibly after JFK does but so what? He's hit in a different place. From the moment Connally emerges from behind the sign he goes into a protective crouch around his right side and his actions are smoothly abnormal. There's no place where you can say "Ah, That is where he's hit!" Single frames convey that impression but only by omitting Connally's direction of movement, which is a rightward twist and hunch all the time after emerging from the sign, with no obvious break for a new hit in our full view. Are you suggesting another sniper next to Oswald?? Oh, right-- that would be his famous double, eh? S B Harris 03:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But Connally told the Warren Commission that he turned to his right in an attempt to look at Kennedy (as the Zapruder film shows -- a point where JFK was already reacting to having been hit by a bullet) and that it was when he was turning back to his left that he himself was hit. (The lone-nut theorists have tried to get around this by saying that Connally wasn't aware that he had already been hit when he first turned to his right, and had suffered a delayed reaction.) Also, while Connally did not have eyes in the back of his head, he did have ears. As a hunter, Connally was familiar with firearms. He knew that the shots he heard were in too rapid a succession to be from Oswald's bolt action rifle. That is why Connally told the Warren Commission, "...the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved, or more, in this—or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle." BrandonTR (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Connally turns his head to the right also *before* the sign, and he is probably describing this, his reaction to the first (missed) shot. At no point does he say he's successful in seeing JFK. After the sign, Connally's motion is not realy a turn to look back-- it's a turn of his whole bod to protect his right side and lie back into his wife's lap; at this point he's been hit and no longer cares a %#¥€ about JFK. Watch the stabilized film a few dozen times and this will be clear. Connally is gawping at the air and dying after that sign, not looking in back of the limo. Sorry. S B Harris 07:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Warren Commission could have cleared this up by asking specific questions and by subpoenaing the Zapruder film, but preferred to skip over the details as it might have raised more uncomfortable questions. As for Connally's take that there was more than one shooter or that someone was shooting with an automatic rifle, the Commission again was negligent in asking for no clarification. BrandonTR (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the link above. Even Connally said the SBT might be right so long as the single bullet wasn't fired first. Both WC and HSCA asked many people how many shots were fired and by far the most common earwitness answer was 3. Second most common answer was 2. Are you suggesting that Connally hunted mostly with automatic weapons to give him that extra edge in recognizing auto fire? Not very sporting, S  B Harris 19:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You're getting pretty far into forum/debate territory here; lets get back to the article.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the article? WP:NPOV does not require that we spend much time considering that a bullet from LHO's rifle passed through JFK's jacket and shirt from the rear on that day, but that LHO, who was working at his usual job in a building in that direction, didn't fire it? What kind of neutral review of evidence is that? Sounds like a Warehouse 13 plot to me, not reality. How are we supposed to avoid such arguments when people come here whose grip on reality is so poor that they consider such things even marginally likely? S  B Harris 06:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Testimony of Oswald's whereabouts
IP editor has been adding an exorbitant amount of eye-witness testimony to the "Return to Dallas" section with the apparent intention of casting doubt on Oswald's culpability for the assassination. There is legitimate interest in the conflicting eyewitness testimony with regards to where Oswald was at the time of the assassination, but at this point the amount of testimony being added there is exorbitant. It could be moved to a better section or summarized to reflect that some eyewitness testimonies offered conflicting accounts. This should be offset by noting testimony that supports Oswald's culpability.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The thing is, every crime or event produces conflicting witness accounts, due to mistakes or attention seeking or any number of human factors. We should not put an undue emphasis on the outliers. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously, only witness accounts that support the Warren Commission's conclusions should be allowed. LOL. BrandonTR (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We should have a separate page on LHO and his connection to the actual assassination. (Brandon needled me about that the other day, I mentioned this first back in 2011, for once I agree with him...) I've written most of it as per the Warren Commission case against him, but we would need an HSCA section (which would further discuss conspiracy connections, for example, in Mexico City) and some of the major conspiracy objections. Should I post what I have done so far and we all go from there? Canada Jack (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course you would interpret it that way. I would suggest that if we must include witness accounts, include the ones that support each other - like the fifteen or so people who saw Oswald shoot Tippet - and exclude the unsupported outliers, like the car salesman who saw Oswald on the other side of Texas.  Gamaliel (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * True most cases produce conflicting accounts, but most aren't so rampant and ingrained into an individual's legacy as is the case with Oswald.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And most cases with conflicting testimony are decided by a jury in a courtroom, not by a hand-picked commission appointed by a succeeding President with a vested interest in the outcome. BrandonTR (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should show conflicting testimony because it should show a riddle wrapped inside an enigma and let people who look at this page judge for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.162.199 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But we can't do that because the majority of the editors here think that the WC version should mostly be the Wikipedia article's version. BrandonTR (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Brandon, the majority of editors on this page recognize the quagmire in opening the debate HERE on the subject. The bottom line is this material is not necessary. Which is why a separate page which explores LHO and the assassination is required. We've had this debate before. To expand this page into the minutia of the events surrounding the assassination really requires its own page. It's that big a subject. On this page, it suffices to say Oswald was last seen at x, the WC concluded he did y and that that conclusion remains controversial. To say WHY it remains controversial requires us to explain why the WC concluded he pulled the trigger. And it has little to do with whether he was seen or not seen in a lunchroom, or whether he did or did not have a Coke in his hand when confronted by Baker. To expand soley on THOSE issues trivializes the case. And it suggests the possibility of large holes in the WC case. Which is what the CT crowd wants to focus on. Canada Jack (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well said. The CT crowd wants to overwhelm this article with trivia. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The lone-nut theorists want to suppress anything that does not conform to the Warren Commission version. Mentioning that Baker testified that he saw Oswald with a Coke in his hand (which is in accordance with what Oswald told his interrogators) doesn't trivialize anything. BrandonTR (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but it is trivia. This is a summary, not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's your comment that's trivia. BrandonTR (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Will you all stop debating?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.162.199 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Do I believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy? Yes I do!

Do I think this is the place to discuss? no! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.162.199 (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No Brandon, if we talk about a Coke bottle, then why aren't we talking about fingerprints in the sniper nest, witnesses describing the assassin, Oswald seen on the 6th floor, etc., all the other pieces of evidence which the WC concluded placed him as the assassin? As it stands, with these additions, the casual reader who knows little or nothing of the case, reads that the WC concluded LHO shot the president, stashed the rifle and went down the stairs, covered in the article by several sentences. Then, the casual reader starts reading about Coke bottles, a lunchroom and what was said at an interrogation about those issues. Excuse me if the casual reader will start to ask: Does this case hinge on a bottle of Coke? Well, the CT crowd likes to think so, but a fair reading of the case made by the WC and the HSCA tells a different story. As I said above, this is a far bigger subject which requires its own page. Canada Jack (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But you do talk about that. From the article: "Witness Howard Brennan photographed in the same position where he was on November 22, 1963 across from the Texas School Book Depository. Circle "A" indicates where he saw a man fire from a rifle at the presidential motorcade." And: "Oswald's co-worker, Charles Givens, testified before the Commission that he last saw Oswald on the sixth floor of the Depository with a clipboard in his hand, and that Oswald asked him to close the elevator gate and to send the elevator back up to him. He believed that his encounter with Oswald took place at 11:55 a.m.—35 minutes before the assassination." BrandonTR (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Warren Commission did not conclude that Oswald was in the window owing to Brennan's description, they concluded that his testimony established that A MAN was in the window firing at the motorcade. As for Givens, again, that testimony did not establish to the satisfaction of the WC that Oswald was indeed at the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination, just that he was unaccounted for from that point on. In contrast, the debate about the lunchroom witnesses and the Coke bottle are designed to establish he WASN'T in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination. As it stands, there is no positive evidence presented on the page which the WC concluded established that LHO was indeed the assassin. These issues should be spelled out in a separate page. Canada Jack (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The three witnesses who saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom with a Coke in his hand about 90 seconds after the assassination does not preclude Oswald being on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination; only that Oswald may have stopped in the 2nd floor lunchroom to buy a Coke before leaving the building. BrandonTR (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * True Brandon, but where is all the positive evidence in the body of the article that the WC used in establishing Oswald's guilt? We are debating a CT contention, not stating the case the WC made! Another example - the photographs of LHO are discussed here, and the debate over their authenticity. Yet there is not a word in the body of the article - none - of the WC's forensic investigation of that rifle which they used to link it to LHO. (A photograph's cutline does discuss the Hidell alias, though.) The casual reader coming here could be forgiven for thinking the only evidence linking LHO to the rifle was some photographs of him holding it, something which, despite the evidence establishing it as being real, nevertheless still could be faked - and, even if it WAS LHO holding the murder weapon, that doesn't prove he owned it or fired it - some "conspirator" may have simply asked him to hold the gun, one might conclude. So, far from being "pro-WC," the page, when it argues a case, argues the CT case, the pros and cons on some CT contentions, in the main body of the text, while just mentioning in passing that the WC concluded LHO was the assassin with little explanation as to why they so concluded, some of their arguments left to elliptical asides on photo cut-lines that the casual reader could easily miss. Canada Jack (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in Wikipedia's policy, as far as I know, that says that articles should be aimed at the causal reader (i.e., readers who don't like to read that much). If you look at some other articles, for example World War 2, you will see that these articles are often very extensive. BrandonTR (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When I say "casual reader," I mean a reader - who may be a voracious reader - who knows little or nothing about the subject in question. THAT's the person we are writing for, not for those who want to carry on a debate, which is why much of these additions should not stand - it is confusing - and misleading - to this reader, for the reasons I stated above. Canada Jack (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not about having a debate. It's about presenting the various eyewitness accounts -- not just certain eyewitness accounts. Wikipedia policy: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." BrandonTR (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Brandon, what I am saying is the conspiracy case is being presented here on particular issues, but that the Warren Commission case is not presented. By that measure, the article is not NPOV as CT contentions are being discussed at length, not the WC contentions which drove their conclusions. It's not "balanced" simply because the CT contentions are argued pro and con. It should suffice on this page to say that the conclusion of the WC was that Oswald was the assassin, and that this is a controversial conclusion, and this can be left to a separate page a la "Oswald and the JFK assassination." Canada Jack (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that is probably what should be done. Otherwise, this argument is likely to resurface over and over again until at least the next millennium. BrandonTR (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably we will, if every time this comes up we take it for granted that Oswald had a Coke in the lunchroom 90 seconds after the assassination, like some game of Clue (Oswald in the kitchen with a Coke). But nobody at the time saw a Coke; it's a myth that starts getting into the tale in the lunchroom a year after the event. Baker puts it in, then takes it out. Three witnesses my ass. It comes from the testimony of Reid and she's the only one who reports it contemporaneously. If Oswald really bought a Coke he could have done it any time before exiting the front door. So What. . In fact Baker's first versions of this momentous meeting (24 hrs later is first written report) have the Baker/Truly/Oswald meeting on the stairway between third and fourth floor! The viewing angles are wrong for he lunchroom anyway. Baker's 90 seconds are an estimation by him, not some Olympic timed event. The man told FOUR significantly different versions of this anyway. When I try to inject the inconsistencies I am painted as trying to turn things off the rails, like an atheist pointing out that the Synoptics not only don't agree with John, but sometimes not with each other, either! I suppose we're just going to ignore all this while the further we get from Stone's witless film, the fishier they all look. Well yes-- yes they do, don't they? S B Harris 06:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've always wondered about the logic of the entire incident. If we are to believe Oswald, within seconds of the president being assassinated feet away, he does what we all would do - he gets a Coke.(!) And... he is consistently described as being "calm," save for his startled reaction to being confronted by Baker. If he was "calm," he was the only person in Deally Plaza in such a state at that moment! The president has been shot! His actions suggest he thinks "whatever." This from one of the most politicized people those who knew him had ever met? Right. Finally, and this speaks to the logic of the situation, Oswald was seen walking INTO the room with the Coke machine. Logically, if he already purchased the Coke, wouldn't he have been going towards the staircase and not away from it? After the encounter, he went the other way, towards the staircase, and entered the offices with a Coke. His movements seem to indicate he was approaching the Coke machine, not having just completed a purchase. And, finally, no one knows when he actually purchased the Coke because no one actually witnessed him buying the Coke. Perhaps thinking ahead, he could have purchased the Coke BEFORE he went to the 6th floor, then grabbed it with the rifle, stashed the latter, and held onto the bottle of Coke. It gave him the excuse to be there in the staircase, if he reached the machine before being seen, or an indication that his lunch had been interrupted by the assassination and he came down with his Coke. Less than ideal as he'd have to account for where he was coming from, but he likely figured everyone would be at the Elm Street side of the building, watching the commotion. If he actually had the bottle of Coke in his hand when Baker saw him, it would mean he already had purchased it long before as by his movements he had not reached the Coke machine! Canada Jack (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the logic of Oswald sipping on a Coke while firing shots at the President? "The Coca-Cola Theory," suggested by the editor of an organic gardening magazine, posits that Oswald killed JFK due to mental impairment stemming from an addiction to refined sugar, as evidenced by his need for his favorite beverage at the time of the assassination. (see: JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories) BrandonTR (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oswald is just figuring out he's being set up about now. Can't you see him there with the coke bottle? He's so political about Cuba that a few months before he's been handing out pro-Castro literature in New Orleans. And if you have missed the radio broadcasts of him the audios are on YouTube -- I recommend them. But months later he's too busy even to watch President Missile Crisis drive past? That's pretty hard. He's gone home to get curtain rods on a Thursday and left Marina his savings and wedding ring-- he must've been anticipating a tough window treatment there-- the kind a man doesn't live through. But now he knows the role history has in store for him. Yes, he'll sneak out of work. Go back go his rooming house. Grab his pistol. Head downtown to shop for some shoes and see a daytime movie film matinee on the Korean War. Maybe try to shoot a cop. Later his older brother Robert E. Lee Oswald goes to see him, expecting the angriest guy in the world at the frame up. But Lee Oswald isn't angry. And that's when his brother KNOWS. S B Harris 07:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, SB. I suppose so many have lived with this scenario for so long that they can't step back and ask themselves what anyone first hearing about this would likely ask: "Why the hell is he off buying a Coke and acting like nothing happened moments after the president has been assassinated?" I think we know the answer to that rather obvious question, even if the CT crowd can't cut through that Gordian Knot. If we knew nothing about the man, that in itself raises suspicion as LHO - even if innocent - surely knew something just DID happen. And, if he somehow didn't know, he would have found out seconds later as he walked through the office - and his reaction to being told then is very telling - or, more to the point, when encountered by a gun-toting cop! Wouldn't an innocent man wonder if they were chasing after a crazed murderer? Wouldn't he be concerned? No. He buys a Coke and non-nonchalantly wanders off. Ask yourself how you would react if a cop pointed a gun at you at your place of work, demanding identification, then scurries off. Wouldn't you be concerned? or ask someone else what was going on? Nope, not if you are Lee Harvey Oswald! Further, if it is argued that he knew of what was to happen but wasn't the triggerman, then why did he not simply stand with a group of co-workers, and do or say something to ensure people would recall where he was at the moment of the shooting thus establishing an alibi... As for getting a Coke beforehand and your response with that theory, Brandon, it's always hard to discern the serious from the silly when it comes to the CT crowd (usually, they are one and the same), but don't normal human beings have a drink WITH their meal and not after it? Just saying. Canada Jack (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Lately I've been having my cokes after I eat. But not during assassinations. Gamaliel (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)]] Well, let us examine the other possibility. Oswald told Frazier his unusual 3-foot package was curtain rods. Yet we know his apartment didn't need curtain rods and that the ones it had, were the old ones. Nor did anybody find curtain rods in the TSBD. Presumably, then, the escaping Oswald took his new rods with him, perhaps to fondle one last time before tossing them somewhere. The man only has less than two hours left of liberty, and two days left of life, and who knows when you can find good curtain rods when you want them? Life is short. OR, perhaps, it isn't curtain rods at all. Perhaps gourmand Oswald is instead hiding the unusual length of his Friday lunch, which is what he told another worker the package was. You can't always get packages to fit your sandwiches, which is what he breezily later told the police about the package. Especially if your special affliction is... the Oswald Dagwood, a long, long sub with everything you can think of, on it. In this scenario, the Paine fridge is now empty, as all the food once in it, is now under Oswald's arm. So now we know where Oswald was, all Friday morning. We know he did none of his assigned work moving books. No, instead he was just trying, like today 's foodie Adam Richman, to do nothing more than get around his monster lunch-baguette. The wrapping for which was later found on the 6th floor. A thing of gastronomical art, it had to have been, perhaps, the size of a diassembled Italian surplus rifle. So, by the time Lee waddled down to the lunchroom to get a weenie Coke to put into the last stomach space he had left, the president's trip past the front door was Oswald's last concern. He was on his way to the toilet: "Outta my way, cop-- I've got to take one of history's biggest dumps! Too bad it won't be famous..." S B Harris 21:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The gatekeepers of officialdom may have thought, like most people, that the reports of Oswald buying a Coke tended to exonerate Oswald: As evidence we see that Marion Baker's statement that Oswald was drinking a Coke was crossed out. As for Roy Truly, who was with Marion Baker when he confronted Oswald, Truly said that Oswald didn't have anything in his hands. But then we have this from the book Crossfire: "A relative of Depository superintendent Roy Truly recently told researchers that due to intimidation by federal authorities, Truly was fearful until his death. Truly's wife, Mildred, still refuses to discuss the assassination--even with family members." BrandonTR (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The only "evidence" I glean from Marion L. Baker's having crossed out "drinking a Coke" is that Baker decided this wasn't a true statement after he wrote it, for whatever reason, before he signed it. It is Baker who crossed that statement out, not some "gatekeeper" as you see by his initials "MLB" next to the change. Had somebody with the FBI had a gun to his head at the time, Baker would have had ample reason to fix that up later. But he didn't. Also, if it was a particularly scary thing to change, he could have written that statement out again and omitted it in a way we couldn't see it. So why didn't he? As for what third-hand hearsay may or may not have issued from Truly to a "relative" of Truly, to "researchers" (meaning Jim Marrs), to you, I don't want to hear it. Jim Marrs thinks space aliens live among us and that the US gov knows about it, and also that the US gov had a role in the 9/11 attacks. Just put your forefinger next to your temple, Brandon, and rotate it slowly like you're manipulating a manual eggbeater, and you'll be doing a good impression of Jim Marrs. As for Supervisor Roy Truly himself, he died in 1985 and thus had more than two decades to correct anything he told the Warren Commission about Oswald that wasn't true. It's amazing that "they" let Truly live that long, when at any moment he could have blown it all up. Why didn't he end up as a suspicious Marrs death, long before? You think Oswald having a Coke or not is going to give Roy Truly nightmares? You are kidding, no? Roy Truly is one of the few people who HAD to have been involved if Oswald was part of a conspiracy, since Truly hired Oswald on Oct 15, and could just as easily have said "no." Without Truly, our picture of history is Lee Oswald standing at the Dal-Tex building that October, trying to convince Abraham Zapruder that he might make a good seamstress for little girls' clothes. ;)))  S  B Harris 23:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Spoken like a "Truly" believer, Brandon. Never asked yourself whether it made any sense for Oswald to be buying a Coke in the first place, eh? To me, the Dagwood theory from SB is far more plausible than any of the silliness I've heard from other quarters. Totally adds up. And it fits the witness accounts! What, there is no evidence of a sandwich? Never stopped other theories completely lacking evidence being proffered! But, all this is likely moot. An inconvenient fact for the CT crowd on timing - when the film of Baker running towards the TSBD was calibrated to other films, we realize that Baker likely took something like 2 minutes-plus to encounter Oswald. Sufficient time for Oswald to swallow the last of the Dagwood and start glurping down that Coke. (I thought he was a "Pepper" guy, though?) Canada Jack (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)