Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

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)

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. SBHarris 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! SBHarris 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)

LHO-Lone Shooter or Conspiracy?

Another discussion that ran off the rails
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.[1] 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. ;) SBHarris 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. SBHarris 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? SBHarris 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. SBHarris 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, SBHarris 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? SBHarris 06:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Testimony of Oswald's whereabouts

IP editor 92.15.162.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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. [2]. 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 [3]. 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? SBHarris 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. SBHarris 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)

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..." SBHarris 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. [4] 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. ;))) SBHarris 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)

Honesty and conspiracy theory believers; arbitrary break

Yes, because conspiracy authors have always been completely honest when reporting their discussions with witnesses and because someone could not possibly have another motive for not wanting to discuss a traumatic event, such as harassment from conspiracy buffs. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Many lone-nut theorists like McAdams and Bugliosi are very dishonest. BrandonTR (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Many lone-nut theorists like McAdams and Bugliosi are very dishonest. Bull. I don't think I've ever read a book like Buglioisi's - at least on the subject of the assassination - which attempts to address each and every objection to the "lone nut" conclusions. You obviously don't agree with his conclusions, but neither Bug nor McAdams ignore the inconvenient evidence or alternate theories. Perhaps they don't get to EVERY theory, but that is because there are literally hundreds if not thousands of claims and counter-claims. The reports of a rear exit wound, for example. What is fascinating from their discussions on that issue is the realization that while there were indeed many who said that, many DID NOT and those claims are either ignored by the CT crowd, or many CT authors simply lie and say "all" Parkland witnesses say there was a rear head wound. And, when they address those who say "side" exit, they routinely invoke vague talk of witnesses either fearing retribution or imply that, well, that witness is clearly lying for "whatever reason." Why am I so passionate about this stuff? Because I read and believed those lies - it took me years to realize how deceptive those people were - and we are still hearing the same lies peddled today. There are genuine differences of opinion on some evidence. But there are many factoids peddled out as truth which were debunked as long ago as 1964 when the WR was published. Yet we keep hearing them. And that is more honest? Canada Jack (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The lone-nut theorists, McAdams and Bugliosi, are liars and frauds. As one example, in his book, Bugliosi says, "It is very noteworthy that without exception, not one of these conspiracy theorists knew or had ever met Jack Ruby." In fact, Bugliosi is lying as this information from Wikipedia attests:

"About an hour after President Kennedy was shot, White House correspondent Seth Kantor (who was a passenger in the motorcade) arrived at Parkland Hospital where Kennedy was receiving medical care. As Kantor was entering the hospital through a stairway, he felt a tug on his coat. He turned around to see Jack Ruby who called him by his first name and shook his hand. (Kantor had become acquainted with Ruby when Kantor had been a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald newspaper.) Jack Ruby asked Kantor if he thought it was a good idea for him to close his nightclubs for the next three nights because of the tragedy and Kantor responded that he thought it was a good idea."

Seth Kantor researched the Ruby case for years and concluded there was a conspiracy. He wrote a book about it, titled, Who Was Jack Ruby? BrandonTR (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that the best you can do Brandon? You have got to be kidding. This is why it is hard to take the CT crowd seriously. Are you pretending Bugliosi claiming none of the authors he was referring to knew Ruby rises to the sort of lies routinely peddled by the CT crowd when it comes to what witnesses actually said? Many of the scenarios painted by some of the main players in the CT crowd are out and out lies, and that is a fact. Stone, Lane, Garrison. ALL lied about what witnesses said and skewed evidence, and not mere trivia in regards to who actually knew Ruby or not. I'm talking about evidence which would suggest a conspiracy. Where did Bugliosi do that? Canada Jack (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You ask: Are you pretending Bugliosi claiming none of the authors he was referring to knew Ruby rises to the sort of lies routinely peddled by the CT crowd...? From your question, one can see that at least you admit that Bugliosi is a liar. BrandonTR (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I too am not going to give the conspiracy people a bit of credit for honesty unless they stop apologizing for Oswald, who is clearly a huge liar and guilty as hell, and unless they stop dismissing every peice of physical evidence as "faked." We have a mountain of evidence that the bullet entered JFK's skull from behind, and they include Hertzian cone shock beveling like you see from a BB through window glass. The same fiber evidence makes it clear a bullet passes into JFK's back and out his shirt collar. We don't need a front shooter. As for Oswald, who said he didn't own a rifle, he's contradicted not only by photos of himself with the rifle, and a long chain of evidence showing his buying of it, but also the testimony of his wife and Jean de Mohrenschildt, who both saw it. My favorite is Oswald being asked about use of alias Alex Hidell. He denies it. Okay, so what about the fake Hidell ID selective service card in his pocket? "You know just as much about it as I do" says Oswald. This is on par with his claim that somebody stuck a photo of his head on the photo of him holding the rifle, even with his wife saying she took it, and one copy existing of it signed by Oswald and inscribed to de Mohrenschildt! How far do we let this madness go? Was de Mohrenschildt's wife (later ex-wife) in on this plot TOO? Is there anybody implicating Oswald who isn't? SBHarris 18:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

From your question, one can see that at least you admit that Bugliosi is a liar. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "lie," Brandon. It was a "lie," only if Bugliosi KNEW that what he was saying was untrue. Where is your evidence for that? He simply could have been wrong, or - depending on the context, I don't have the book at hand - accurate if he referred to some specific other authors. Further, and to the point, whether Kantor did or didn't know Ruby is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the question of whether there was a conspiracy.

This is in stark contrast to Messrs Lane, Stone and Garrison (there are many others). Lane was caught lying by the Warren Commission in regards to what he claimed Markham said, has had numerous witnesses complain about how he changed the meaning of what they said, and his own notes are on transcripts of his interview with Bowers omitting key testimony which contradicted the grassy knoll sniper theory, a theory he promoted via the interview. Stone, when asked about his blatant misrepresentations in "JFK" lamely spoke of having the right to promote an alternate theory to what the WC promoted, but the difference here is that the WC based THEIR conclusions of evidence, and Stone did not. Which is a lie. And Garrison did so spectacularly, concocted evidence to frame Shaw. How he manipulated the Clinton evidence was not revealed for decades, but it is a lie that even fooled the HSCA. Canada Jack (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"I said earlier that the only people who believe Ruby was connected to organized crime and killed Oswald for the mob are those who didn't know Ruby. That is a true statement with one exception, which isn't strong at all, and it's from someone who probably hardly knew Ruby. Seth Kantor was a reporter...." Reclaiming History, page 1134. I am utterly shocked and surprised that a conspiracy theorist such as yourself would take a statement by Bugliosi out of context and use it to slander him. I'm shocked, absolutely shocked! I mean, conspiracy theorists would never do such a thing, and they certainly aren't known for having done it repeatedly for decades! Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

...taken out of context... -- this is one of the favorite excuses given by the lone-nut theory crowd. BrandonTR (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, where did I say that, Brandon? Not only did you not take a quote of context, you changed the quote! There you go again... Canada Jack (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Great one, Gamaliel! While I did wonder how Bug got that one wrong, I also wondered if Brandon was, as per usual, posting half-truths and falsehoods. You never disappoint, Brandon. Here's a question - did you find the quote yourself, or did you take it from one of the CT sites? Either way, that is no better illustration of how the CT crowd routinely distort and lies when it comes to this case. Canada Jack (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So you just figured out that I was responding to Gamaliel? Time to get a clue Canada Jack. BrandonTR (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bugliosi quote: I said earlier that the only people who believe Ruby was connected to organized crime and killed Oswald for the mob are those who didn't know Ruby. That is a true statement with one exception, which isn't strong at all, and it's from someone who probably hardly knew Ruby. Seth Kantor was a reporter.... Now I'm going going to have to revise the Jack Ruby article because some lone-nut theorist didn't include Bugliosi's full quote in order to make a false impression. What is it about these lone-nutters that they are always trying to deceive? BrandonTR (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

http://semiaccurate.com/assets/uploads/2012/03/I-See-What-You-Did-There..png Gamaliel (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Guess how I cracked that one? I looked up Kantor in the index of Bugliosi's book. And that's about twice as much research as most of the posters on Spartacus have done. Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a strange bit of writing by Bugliosi to state that the only people who believe Ruby was connected to organized crime and killed Oswald for the mob are those who didn't know Ruby; and then for Buglisosi to tell us a few pages later that he has to make an exception to his previous blanket statement. Obviously, this guy is a lawyer. BrandonTR (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's blame the victim for your own easily corrected mistake. Gamaliel (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

We are all victims of Bugliosi's contorted writing. BrandonTR (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If only his book had an index where you could look up people like Seth Kantor! Oh wait... Gamaliel (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If only that lone nut theorist had not posted an incomplete and misleading Bugliosi quote on the Jack Ruby site. We should all learn to never trust these guys. BrandonTR (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is to blame for you slandering Bugliosi except you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Slandering Bugliosi? You act as if he's a friend of yours. [comments removed per BLP] BrandonTR (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's been fun, but we're done here now. I've had fun poking the troll, but from now on I'm going to be removing your comments per WP:BLP when you use this page as a forum to libel living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Brandon, you are really on a roll today! More! We want more!! Canada Jack (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)