Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 6

message: Lee Oswald's mother believed that her son worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. At that time the CIA was going through a very violent period in its history with close connections with mobsters, and right-wing fanatics. The CIA had a bad history of conspiring in assassination plots, bribing the news media, and other lawless behavior. The Wikipedia article on the CIA details some of the history.
Lee Oswald came from a family connected with organized crime in New Orleans and was in the Civil Air Patrol until he was 17. The Civil Air Patrol is an auxiliary branch to the United States Air Force. There he met right-wing fanatic, David Ferrie, who was connected with both mobsters and the Central Intelligence Agency in New Orleans. Oswald later connected up again with Ferrie in the months leading up to the Kennedy assassination. At the time Kennedy was murdered Ferrie was working for a mob boss in New Orleans that wanted Kennedy dead.
This was explored for the first time in any detail by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Ferrie died a sudden death before he had to testify. 
Another right-wing Texan by the name of George de Mohrenschildt, who had a number of ties with the CIA and had close ties with very wealthy Texas right wingers, became Oswald's best friend in the year before the assassination. George de Mohrenschildt reportedly committed suicide after being contacted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations about his ties with Oswald. The Wikipedia article on de Mohrenschildt discusses this briefly. 
At 17, Oswald went into the Marines as did his older brother whom he idolized. Oswald was stationed at an air base in Japan where the CIA operated its U-2 spy plane flights over Russia. It was there in the Marines that Oswald learned to speak Russian. 
Oswald then unexpectedly "defected" to the Soviet Union and then returned to the United States, and got back together with right wing fanatics. 
This background of Oswald as developed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations needs to be presented in the Oswald article along with the assumptions in the article that he really was a Communist.  
The oddest thing about Oswald is that if he were a Communist, he never seemed to have any Communist friends.  Once we get some of this information into the article it will provide the reader other significant viewpoints of Oswald than was presented 42 years ago by the Warren Commission. 
There are plenty of sources. Looking back on the "history" of this article, I’ve noticed time and again that reliable information backed up by reliable sources is deleted because some one doesn't like it.  One point that is repeatedly taken out of any assassination article  is information that didn’t become public until fairly recently:
**"But when LBJ then asked "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September," an event of no little interest to the inner circles of government, Hoover replied "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there." In other words, an imposter had implicated Oswald in a relationship with Soviet agents, less than two months before the assassination.”
[
I will try again now that November 22 is coming up again and many students and others will be reading the Kennedy Assassination related articles.
RPJ 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ferrie's untimely death came just before the Garrison trial with whom Ferrie allegedly conspired.
RPJ 04:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee Oswald's right-wing friends 

message: *Besides knowing right wing fanatic David Ferrie, who worked for the CIA and the New Orleans mob boss, the House Select Committee on Assassinations pointed out that Oswald considered de Mohrenschildt his “best friend” and in return de Mohrenschildt considered Oswald a good friend. This was odd since de Mohrenschildt also had extreme right wing leanings. His Nazi leanings are discussed in the House Report in 1979.   
*The HSCA  Report which went deeply into this strange relationship. In fact, de Mohrenschildt  felt that one of the senators implied that he and Oswald had a homosexual relationship, but de Mohrenschildt claimed this was not so. He said they were just good friends he said. 
*The Congressional Committee’s report noted that de Mohrenschildt died of a gunshot wound on the day the committee investigator contacted him: “Apparent suicide.” 
*de Mohrenschildt said he had conferred with the CIA before befriending Oswald and was told “He is ok.” For help given to the CIA, de Mohrenschildt believed that he received some valuable business deals in Haiti.  This is all in the government report.   
*This Report should help clarify Oswald's background and give substance to what Oswald's mother believed that he was a CIA agent recruited while in the Civil Air Patrol as a teen ager (probably by David Ferrie who was notorious pedophile). This would explain why  Oswald was stationed at CIA bases when he was in the Marines. If Oswald's mother was correct, Oswald was an agent that went undercover and then used as a "patsy" by the right wing fanatics when they killed the President.RPJ 09:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Was a right winger Oswald’s “best friend?”

message: I deleted the following information because I could find no source supporting it.  Please find a reliable source for it.  Thanks
Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted info

message: This information was deleted for no stated reason:
::: Back in the United States, the Oswalds settled in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Oswald had found a best friend in the well-educated and worldly petroleum geologist George de Mohrenschildt who held extreme right wing views.  Marina meanwhile was befriended by a married couple, Ruth Paine and her husband Michael.
*The above information was prepared and published in 1979 by a Congressional Committee called the House Select Committee on Assassinations.[ ] 
*The citation contains a lengthy report on Lee Oswald’s very close relationship with de Morhenschild. [] 
*Oswald’s mother testified before the Warren Commission that she believes Oswald worked for the CIA. Facts already in other parts of the article already suggest that Oswald did work for the CIA and as he claimed was set up as a "patsy" for the murder.  
*The citation to the Congressional Report on de Morhenschildt's relationship to Oswald was replaced by information supported by no source; much less a reliable source. 
Conclusion:Taking out information based on a reliable citation to a congressional committee report, and replacing it with new information that has no citation to any source does not comply with the policy of the web site that information be supported by reliable sources.
RPJ 19:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who deleted it, and perhaps they have other reasons.  But, once again it appears that you are doing original research.  Your consclusions are not born out in the HSCA report.  No where in the cite provided does it say that de Mohrenschildt had "extreme right-wing views". Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: RPJ, your edit summary said you were merely adding a citation, but instead you removed a significant amount of material while adding your own POV pushing.  You can't complain about the lack of an edit summary from others if yours are inaccurate or misleading. Gamaliel 19:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, but nowhere in your response does the HSCA say that he had right wing views.  Cite to the page number where that little info is located, and I'll remove my objection.  The HSCA does say that de Mohrenschildt was often accused of and confused with being a Nazi.  I guess that is where you are getting your "extreme right wing" viewpoint from, but of course as you know, taken fact A to make point B is synthesis...or in other words...original research. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The information below was deleted and no reason given 

message: On Friday, RPJ said he was going to seek mediation on the issues of Hoover's telephone conversation.  Instead he is now re-arguing those same points on this talk page.  RPJ, please begin the appropriate dispute resolution procedures on this issue or desists from making edits which are against the consensus of editors on this page. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start the RfC Already

message: The three main Kennedy assassination theories are: 
*There was a conspiracy to kill the president 
*There was a conspiracy to kill the president and Oswald was not one of the shooters.
* There was a lone gunman named Oswald that killed the president. 
Very few people believe the last theory that a lone gunman  killed Kennedy. Instead, most polls show the public believes there was a conspiracy and some of those people believe Oswald was part of the conspiracy and some people don't believe he was part of the conspiracy. 
*An ABC News poll found that 70 percent of Americans think there was some sort of plot  behind the Kennedy assassination and over two-thirds of those  Americans believe there was an “official cover up" to hide the truth from the public.  
*Less than 1/3 of Americans accept the 1964 finding in the Warren Report that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot Kennedy on November 22 1963.  
The evidence supporting Oswald being a participant in the murder and the evidence that rebuts him being a participant should be placed in the article. The evidence will reveal what ever it has to reveal. It is improper to delete information out of the Oswald article because it might, in the reader's mind "tilt" the weight of the evidence against Oswald's participation.
There is no reason why Wikipedia should try, through the deletion of the "tilt" the evidence in any direction. The basic principle of Wikipedia is to remain neutral as fairly present all the viewpoints. RPJ 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the "evidence" disproving Oswald's participation is from a reliable source, and the edit is done in a neutral way.  It should go into the article and stay in.  As it stands now, the article is very clear that Oswald denied any involvement in shooting both Kennedy and Tippit.  To list everytime he said it and to whom he said it, however, will give those statements undue weight against the physical evidence that rebuts him. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The three main Kennedy assassination theories 

message: The "Backyard Photos" is key evidence in the controversy of whether Oswald was guilty or whether he was set up as a "patsy" by a "sophisticated" and "highly organized group."  
*You argue that the photos should not all be included and argue: “That is not the purpose of this article.”
*Why wouldn't the “backyard photos” fulfill the purpose of this article?  
*In fact, what do you perceive to be the purpose of this article? RPJ 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The reader should be alerted to the important controversy

message: There are two different viewpoints by the experts: One is that the photos are fakes. The other that they are not fakes. 
Lets just show the photos and let the readers decide. The experts are looking at that chin on the photo and decide that it looks fabricated. Oswald said that it was fake the first time he saw it. 
If they are fake it evidences a sophisticated conspiracy to frame oswald. If they are not fake it implicates Oswald in the crime.  
Presently the article has one very dark "Backyard photo" that is highly disputed and one of the 
props of the case against Oswald. Remember, this is an article about Oswald.
The article has space. There are already two mug shots of Oswald, also a picture of Oswald in Russia, a picture of Marina Oswald; a picture of  General Walker, a picture of an inside of a movie theater, and a picture of the seat Oswald was sitting in when captured. The "Backyard Photographs" should be looked at if the reader wants to make up his or her own mind. RPJ 02:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Backyard Photos"  controversy

message: The point under discussion was to put the four "back yard" photos in the article. Looking at the photos may explain much about the Kennedy assassination. The reasons for including them are:
1)  The pictures  are a key element in whether Oswald was a "patsy" or owned a a rifle which he denied. 
2)The readers aren’t too dumb to look at the evidence. The reader can make up his or her mind about the photographic evidence and don't need us to decide whether they are helpful to the reader.
3) The editor above who wants to keep out the key photographic evidence used against Oswald claims it is a "hyper intensive examination of one issue."  But, showing the most publicized, and allegedly fabricated evidence, against Oswald seems almost demanded in the article. 
4)  Back at the time of the assassination (after Oswald was murdered) some of the news media published doctored photos that hid the alleged fabrication. The public should see the real photos.
5)   The problem with fabricating evidence is that, in an important case, the ruse has to be continued as long as there is interest in the case. As long as there is interest in the Kennedy murder case, there will be interest in the "back yard" photos. Does anyone think the public has any interest in Oswald besides his connection to the Kennedy murder?
6) The fact that those who claim the photos are real, but don't want the reader to see them all with all their peculiarities, and bizarre history says much about the problems in the photos.
7) The FBI's director Hoover believed both before and after the Kennedy murder that there was evidence that someone was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald has been uncovered in the FBI secret files. 
 This gives additional circumstantial evidence to show Oswald was a "patsy" as he said.  RPJ 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where on earth do you propose obtaining the "real" photos for inclusion here? The only real negative is in the national archive. It has been printed in various degrees of contrast to show Oswald's rifle or his face or any given type of detail. Some of these are so bad that facial features completely disappear, like the nose in the WC photo printed to show the rifle better. So which one of these is "real"? SBHarris 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We will publish the photos the government used to draw its conclusions. The reader can decide for him or herself. There is nothing to fear. It  is just presenting the evidence on the key issue of whether the photos were fabricated. Everyone can just look at them.RPJ 03:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *I do not know that the HSCA published any photos, and if they did, it wouldn't matter, because we can't get first generation copies here, but can only take the word of the people who have seen them. It is inappropriate to use WC photos lightened to show rifle detail, to "show" anything on a thereby washed-out face. Any time you print a photo to show detail A best, that obviously mitigates against using it to say anything about detail B.  Why-ever would you think otherwise? For the third time, why do you suggest the Wikipedia reader be pointed to the chin of a photo printed so badly (by the WC to show the rifle) that the subject has no nose?? That would the silly. I'm going to let the HCSA have my last word.  page 55:
Oswald claimed that he did not own a rifle and that the photographs were composites, with his head superimposed over someone else's body.(96) The Warren Commission, however, concluded that the photographs were authentic.(97) Critics of the Commission have questioned their authenticity for reasons generally based on alleged shadow inconsistencies, an indication of a grafting inbetween the mouth and chin, inconsistent body proportions and a disparate square-shaped chin.(98)To determine if evidence of fakery was present in these photographs, the photographic evidence panel first sought to determine if they could be established as having been taken with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera. This was done by studying the photographs (and the single available original negative) for unique identifying characteristics that would have been imparted by that camera. Once this was successfully done, the objects imaged in the photographs, as well as their shadows, were analyzed photogrammetrically. Finally, the materials were visually scrutinized, using magnification, stereoscopic analysis and digital image processing.(99)  In its analyses, the photographic evidence panel worked with the original negative and first-generation prints of the photographs.(100) Only such materials contain the necessary and reliable photographic information. In contrast, some of the critics who claimed the photographs were faked relied on poor quality copies for their analyses.(101) Copies tend to lose detail and include defects that impair accurate representation of the photographic image.  After subjecting these original photographic materials and the camera alleged to have taken the pictures to sophisticated analytical techniques, the photographic evidence panel concluded that it could find no evidence of fakery.(102)Now, apparently, I need to repeat this part for you:In its analyses, the photographic evidence panel worked with the original negative and first-generation prints of the photographs.(100) Only such materials contain the necessary and reliable photographic information.SBHarris 06:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we saying the "backyard Photos" are too hot to show the readers?

message: No reason to talk anymore: Which editors want to keep the four back yard photos out? No more talking just put your name below: RPJ 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is improper to alter the evidence for use in Wkipedia. We should just put in the photographs as they are published in the Warren Report and HSCA Report. What is there to fear?RPJ 03:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough talk: Let the Reader look and decide

message: Since I've been asked to explain my recent edit, here goes. I've recently changed the subject headers to conform to WP:MOS by taking out "the" whereever found.  I also cleaned up the backyard photo section by taking out the blockquotes and summarizing the Congressional reports.  Please try to not use them.  The articles are long enough as is, and too many quotes destroy the readability of the article.  Finally I added citations to some of the info that were tagged.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, but of course impossible to entirely do. Oswald the man did stuff that we can only find out about from government enquiries. Plus, there's a certain amount of "he said, she said." Marina said she took the backyard photos, and hubby owned a rifle. Oswald says he has no rifle and the photos are fakes. We can put both statements in, but how does one judge who's lying? He either owned a rifle or not. I've always been amused that Marina's testimony has been dismissed as a lie because she was afraid to be deported, so had motive not to tell the truth. But (think) Lee was trying to avoid the Texas electric chair-- how's THAT for motive? Doesn't compare. Mrs. de Mohrenschildt saw the rifle. Mr. de Mohrenschildt got a photo of Lee holding it, signed by Lee. All this before Lee used it on anybody, so how would Lee's framers know de Mohrenschildt wouldn't go to Lee in early April and say "What the devil is THIS you just sent me?" Only chance that he didn't. So now, you have both de Mohrenschildts in on the plot to frame Oswald, and it just expands and expands from there. And it IS either a giant frame of this magnitude (the best in the history of crime, if true, IMHO) or else Lee just did it. So we really have no choice but to stick this stuff in. SBHarris 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If de Mohrenschildt is telling the truth, you have a good point: if someone was trying to frame Oswald, they wouldn't want copies of the photos circulating. Also, accord to Edward J. Epstein, de Mohrenschildt says he reported both the photo and his beliefs regarding the attempt on Walker to the CIA . On the other hand, deMo might not have been in on the plot but still lied to suit his own purposes. After all, the guy killed himself rather than go through with an HSCA interview. Joegoodfriend 20:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem the HSCA summons was what pushed him over the edge, but who really knows why a man who kills himself without a note, does it? Sudden depression and impulse. We know how much De M hated the FBI and what the earlier Warren hearings had done to his rep and business contacts. Perhaps he saw deja vu all over again. He'd just put in a lot of work on a book on himself and Oswald and now the HSCA is definitely going to ruin this, by asking him questions which will either ruin the book or make him lie. In either case, screw him again. Plus, I think he had some skeletons in his closet. In his WC testimony Oswald comes out loonie and De M is asking why the government doesn't protect everyone from such people? Gosh, De M didn't know Oswald even had a rifle (as I recall). But in the Patsy manuscript Oswald has transformed to "my dear dead friend" and now De M has actually SEEN the rifle at an Easter 1963 visit, and made an off joke to Oswald about how he could have missed General Walker. To which Oswald doesn't laugh, wups. But De M still doesn't suspect a thing, duh. Well, would YOU want to say all this to a Congressional Committee under oath? SBHarris 06:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My remarks were mainly in response to this edit.  Clearly a long discussion of government reports with blockquotes included isn't appropriate in Oswald's article.  If anything, it should be in the HSCA article (and I'm not even sure it would fit there-- in it's current form).  As I said some discussion of these government commissions findings and conclusion is unavoidable.  However, the article shouldn't be turned into making a case against or in favor Oswald's culpability in the crime. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Marina's statements are substantiated by the paper trail from Oswald's purchase of the rifle, and by the photographs themselves, which have withstood scruitny despite what conspiracy pushers would have you believe. Oswald's statements are substantiated by nothing by conspiracy theories. Gamaliel 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, you're right about the ABC poll. Now, let's see if you can find the recent science knowledge poll that found that 25% of American adults think the Sun goes around the Earth. They do, you know. This is not, however, reason enough for Wikipedia to spend 25% of its space defending this idea. SBHarris 18:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of My Recent Edits

message: I deleted the above as a) it was not an investigation, and b) is it really necessary in a bio of Oswald? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Unless the ARRB came to a particular conclusion about Oswald, the assassination article is really the place for this, not here. Gamaliel 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The AARB

message: (Will be posted on related articles talk pages as well) I imagine with the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination approaching, there will be some newer scientific polling data available.  If anyone comes across said polls, can they update the sections which rely on the 2003 poll?  Thanks.  I'll have my eyes peeled as well. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Polling Data