User talk:Jerryb1961

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

You might want to read up on Neutral point of view. The edits you made to Rutles did not fall under this policy. Dysprosia 07:33, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vaughn Meader
Thank you for contributing! Please note that neither Oswald's involvement nor lack thereof in JFK's assassination has even been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (for example, he's been both convicted and acquitted in absentia in carefully controlled television "trials"). Neutrality at Wikipedia is vital. Radio Kirk   talk to me  05:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read Gerald Posner's excellent "Case Closed". I used to be a conspirati myself. User:jerryb1961


 * I've read Case Closed—you might want to read Case Open. For every argument one way, there's an equally legitimate argument the other. For every piece of "evidence", there's a house of cards that falls out from underneath—on both sides. In other words, once again, neither his involvement or his lack thereof is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


 * Here's a little food for thought regarding Posner's "excellent" book: If we presume the quotes are accurate, he somehow got Parkland medical officials to make a 180-degree turn from their contemporaneous accounts of JFK's wounds—to which I would give more weight, especially given the consensus at the time. Further, using photographs of Dealey Plaza from numerous angles, I've concluded that the first-shot-hit-a-tree-branch-and-richocheted-into-James-Tague theory is not only impossible, but ludicrous. With respect, Radio  Kirk   talk to me  14:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)