Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 1

message: Can we get a photo credit? Vicki Rosenzweig
* I know this famous 1963 image by photographer Bob Jackson has appeared elsewhere with a copyright notice.  Is it now public domain, or has the right for Wikipedia to use it been secured? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 20:19 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)
::Since I've still gotten no responce about this, I suggest this photo be deleted  unless we're presented with evidence that we have permission to use it or it has been placed into the public domain. -- Infrogmation 02:21 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
::: Deleted.
----
Again, a version of Bob Jackson's famous photograph, said in various souces to still be under copyright, was added to the article. Hfastedge, please clarify if you have gotten permission or if the copyright issue has been similarly resolved, or this will again need to be deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:24 22 May 2003 (UTC)
I believe the "innocent until proven guilty" practice should be applied here. So why dont you provide solid proof that it is not for public domain. (User:Hfastedge)
: Um, you could try google. this here  or here   
: By and large works copyrighted so recently as 1963 should not be assumed to be public domain; perhaps you're thinking of 1923.
: Here's a nice article about Jackson & the photo: http://alt.tnt.tv/specials/moi/photo_oswald.html (Note it credits "photo: Robert H. Jackson; courtesy of Robert H. Jackson".) You could try writing to him asking permission to use it. It might be nice to give him credit for it if so. -- Infrogmation 18:54 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia's license works perfectly well with copyrighted works: namely, Fair_use. You have not provided solid evidence that this picture is not for public domain. user_talk:hfastedge
:Once upon a time (it was 1976, for anyone who cares), I was told by a journalism professor that copyright on newspaper articles required that the original newspaper be acknowledged if copied or reprinted. That was before Congress rewrote copyright law in 1978, but I think that minimum standard needs to be met -- & I'm sorry to see that this wasn't done when it was re-incorporated back on 22 May. After all, this was probably the high-point in Robert Jackson's career, & using it without crediting him is wrong ethically, IMNSHO.
:Why can't someone who wants this picture in the article take the time to ask Jackson if it can be included under the usual Wikipedia terms? -- llywrch 19:08 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
Try contacting Gary Mack, the curator of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. Mack could give more details on Jackson or on the copyright of the photo. Contact info can be found at http://www.jfk.org/Media/Zapruder_Press_Conference.htm.
-- Hoshie
Copies of the copyrighted image have sat here over a year. (Has anyone who wanted it included yet cared about it enough to write to Mr.Jackson?)  Let's resolve this. I've listed the images on  Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Infrogmation 17:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bob Jackson photograph 

message: Obviously, the info on the Paines being related to presidential candidate John Kerry is not relevant to this encyclopedia entry. Therefore, I ask that it be removed. I will not do it myself, as I have worked too hard to have to stoop to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFamousNickJackson (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 June 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kerry info 

message: Can we have a citation for this new evidence, the letter and the "Al Hidell"?
Gamaliel 20:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Evidence

message: This article was featured in a Chicago Sun-Times article about Wikipedia - see http://www.suntimes.com/output/worktech/cst-fin-andy20.html for more. Pcb21| Pete 13:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. I've never been so happy about being called "rational and orderly" before.  Gamaliel 20:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous!

message: This is a controvercial subject that Wikipedia editors have mostly managed to improve the article on in a polite manner. The recent reverts back and forth are endangering this-- if it continues, it will become appropriate to put a temporary protection on the article due to edit/revert war, and the page will not be freely editable. I hope this will not be necessary. Please discuss changes on the talk page. Especially for points which have been changed back and forth more than once, please explain here why you think one version is superior to another, and do not change it back until others have had a chance to express their opinions and give feedback as well. Thank you. -- Infrogmation 20:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing and Reverting 

message: What are the points of dispute with the article? I'll start with one I (Infrogmation) have noticed: 
===Point one: What is happening with the handgun in the photo? ===
As far as I can see, :Image:Lho-133A.jpg shows Oswald with the rifle in one hand and the newspaper in the other, with the handgun at his side, not being held. If I am mistaken, please explain. The point as to if Oswald is holding, wearing, or wielding the handgun has been edited and reverted back and forth multiple times. From this, I assume that some Wikipedia editors either dispute over this point, or that they are not paying attention to some of the changes they make to the article. -- Infrogmation 22:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested change: In line with the above, I suggest changing the portion of the image caption which currently reads "This photo, showing Oswald wielding a rifle, a handgun, and the Belgrade daily newspaper Politika," to read "This photo, showing Oswald wielding a rifle, wearing a handgun, and holding the Belgrade daily newspaper Politika,". Objections, comments? -- Infrogmation 22:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know what the source is for the idea that it's Politika.  According to Posner, p.106, the newspapers are The Worker and The Militant.  Apparently due to photo enhancement the exact issues are known. I'm changing the caption accordingly. Gamaliel 21:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of dispute 

message: As far as I can see, :Image:Lho-133A.jpg shows Oswald with the rifle in one hand and the newspaper in the other, with the handgun at his side, not being held. If I am mistaken, please explain. The point as to if Oswald is holding, wearing, or wielding the handgun has been edited and reverted back and forth multiple times. From this, I assume that some Wikipedia editors either dispute over this point, or that they are not paying attention to some of the changes they make to the article. -- Infrogmation 22:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested change: In line with the above, I suggest changing the portion of the image caption which currently reads "This photo, showing Oswald wielding a rifle, a handgun, and the Belgrade daily newspaper Politika," to read "This photo, showing Oswald wielding a rifle, wearing a handgun, and holding the Belgrade daily newspaper Politika,". Objections, comments? -- Infrogmation 22:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Point one: What is happening with the handgun in the photo? 

message: See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/interviews/blakey.html
"The photograph itself does several things. One: it self-identifies Oswald as associated with the Marxist literature. He's holding in his hand the Daily Worker and the Socialist Worker Party literature."
I have February 1964 copy of LIFE mag which first printed this photo and it says the paper is "The Militant" , which obviously contradicts the sources wikipedia is relying on . But no print on the newspaper is legible at all anyhow. Speculation as to the newspaper title is pointless and demonstrates a loss of focus for what the real questions and answers should be Hengistmcstone 21:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the source is for the idea that it's Politika.  According to Posner, p.106, the newspapers are The Worker and The Militant.  Apparently due to photo enhancement the exact issues are known. I'm changing the caption accordingly. Gamaliel 21:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Point two: That the daily newspaper is Politika is probably misinformation  

message: The following text by User:205.188.116.11 overwrote the ==Early life and Marine Corps service== section.
If somebody wants to merge it in the article, please follow the Wikipedia style and conventions:
:Lee Harvey Oswald was setup to take the fall for the killing of President John F. Kennedy. The Warren Commision was sanctioned to find Oswald as Kennedy's killer from the onset. Even though pictures show Oswald watching the President outside the Texas Book Depository. Within 90 seconds of the shooting a police officer finds Oswald on the second floor with a partially consumed bottle of pop. He wasn't even out of breath, stated the police officer. The bullet that struck Kennedy was from an Italian WWII rifle that used a 6.5, full metal jacket(military ammo). Now consider that the military didn't have any U.S. made weapon that used 6.5 ammo, but yet an East Alton IL. ammuntion manufacturing plant, made and supplied millions of rounds of 6.5 ammo to supply to the military. Why did the military need millions of rounds of ammo that they couldn't use? Or could they. After WWII the Italian Government unloaded it's rifles, almost 250,000 to a broker in the U.S. Thet were going to sell them for hunting. So the 'front story'goes. More than likely, those rifles were used in covert government operations. The story also goes Oswald ordered the rifle using a bogus name A.J. Hidell, but they couldn't even make up a story as to where Oswald got ammuntion. Oswald was indeed set up by the same organization he was connected to, probably the C.I.A.  
:History is written by the victors. And don't believe for a moment that it wasn't victory for some factions of our government when Kennedy was gunned down in Dallas.
There's nothing here worth preserving, it's all speculation and POV. The only actually relevant "fact" is false - that's not Oswald in those photos of the Depository.  That man has been identified by Depository employees again and again as an employee named Billy Lovelady.  Gamaliel 18:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  205.188.116.11 substitution 

message: Some years ago, a somewhat-satirical book came out that summarized all the different (and contradictory, of course) theories on the JFK assassination. It is hard for the writers of this article to avoid point-of-view, but they are taking a conspiracy as a "given" and forgetting a few fundamentals:
*Oswald was not a "poor" shot, he was a "good" shot, though not a "great" shot.
*The first time he faced the press, Oswald didn't talk about being set up. He was initially being held for the killing of the policeman, and a reporter blurted out, "Did you kill the President?" His answer sounded rehearsed: "I have not been accused of that; in fact, I didn't even know about it until you asked me that question."
*The famous "6 seconds" (reckoned by some to be more like 8) was the total time starting with the first shot. The elapsed time between shots was at least three seconds, possibly four; not two as is often stated erroneously.
*The most obvious "conspiracy" was the desire to ensure that it was the work of one guy so as not have to go to war with Russia, because it was immediately assumed by everyone in America that the Russians did it. Those who think otherwise are probably too young to know or remember what the "Cold War" was like, how much paranoia there was about the threat of Soviet Russia.
*The Kennedys themselves contributed significantly to the suspicions, by keeping such a tight lid on information. The facts have slowly come out, exposing much of the Kennedys' dirty laundry.
*There's no question that the Warren Commission left itself open to second guessing. But there is no real evidence, after all this time, that anyone other than Oswald was the guy... and I admit I was suspicious for a long time, but I've come around to the one-man theory.
*Our government is notoriously poor at keeping secrets. If you want to look for a conspiracy, look at the Mafia of that time, not at any government.
*Has anyone actually heard the supposed 4 shots on that audio recording?  It would take Superman to tell the shots from the static. Sorry, I don't buy it. And I'm not the only one.
:I must step in and say that people do not simply listen to the recordings of the shots, they use sophisticated equipment that can show when sound levels change and also can help point out where these noises originated from, please see readers digest March issue which explains the accoustical information. -John Geraghty
*Part of the continuing interest in the JFK assassination is that people are unwilling to accept the notion that one guy acting alone could change the course of history so starkly. But it happens.
*And in case you're wondering, I'm a Liberal and a JFK fan. But facts are facts. Wahkeenah 21:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You overlook that the lone gunman theory only works when the Secret Service coincidently violated several of their own procedures on that day. Not to mention the reports from eyewitnesses who all believed to have heard shots from the grassy knoll where several men claiming to be Secret Service Agents shooed civilians and policemen away (the Secret Service had no men stationed on the knoll).
Spookyadler 09:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never-ending conspiracy theories 

message: Just want to point out that Oswald was not sent to the brig for fighting with a sergeant, he was sent there for using Harsh language towards an officer and was cleared of pouring a drink over him.
:Got a reference for that we can check? I'm sure we can all agree on changing a simple factual error if this is one.  By the way, please sign your talk page posts, which you can do with four tildes (~).  Gamaliel 00:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oswalds fight with sergeant 

message: I want to apologize for replacing of facts and information, from now on I shall talk about it on chat and not simply replace it. I am currently in the process of providing sources for all of my facts and addressing the facts I feel need to be rewritten or altered.
All the best and sorry once again (John geraghty 16:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies for deleting of facts

message: The Wikipedia article says that Oswald was a good shot, how he scored 48/50 and 49/50 on tests on December 1956.  I'm debating the topic with a conspiarcy theorists, so I've been Googling up facts.  The only 1956 test I can find is when Oswald achieved a score of 212.  I have not found a document that lists a markmanship test scoring 48/50.  Can somebody confirm the 48/50 test or delete the info?  Hbdragon88 21:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused about the 1956 test 

message: How is it "not clear Oswald was assassinated", as someone stated in edit summary when removing category of "assassinated people"? 
Oswald assassinated JFK. Ruby murdered Oswald. Assasinations are considered to be murders of leaders or other important people. Oswald does not clearly belong to any group of "important people" --JimWae 02:59, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
My dictionary gives the definition of assassination as to "kill by treacherous violence" Ruby could be said to be treacherous of a sort when he shot Oswald . It is not true that only leaders or famous people can be assassinated ! Hengistmcstone 21:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Assassination of Oswald

message: :copied from wikipedia:reference desk/Humanities Jay 06:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  first broadcast of shoot out on TV 

message: Oswald was not convicted of the attempted assassination of General Walker and therefore the article should not read as if he was. Why has my edit which removes the presumption of Oswald's guilt from the Walker section been undone ? Neilmc 02:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surveillance photos of Walker's house and the surrounding area taken by Oswald, plans Marina saw Oswald burn, and the letter Oswald left for Marina, which still exists.  Gamaliel 16:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So Oswald is presumed guilty then ?

message: We dont know much about Lee Harvey Oswald for sure. We know where and when he was born and where when and how he died but what happened in between is a matter of which account you care to read. This Wikipedia entry is strongly slanted towards the orthodox view with no room for alternative narrative or other accounts or anecdotes that paint a different picture of who or what Lee Harvey Oswald was. Whatever he was, Oswalds place in history was only assured in the last few days of his life, and only written after his death. The neutrality  of any account can be called in to question therefore if the writer is vague about the timing of the information relied upon. This entrys  account of the attempted assassination of General Walker therefore can never be  said to be neutral. The information relates to months before the death of the subject  (Oswald) and was either suppressed until it was made public or fabricated. Wikipedia guidelines state its not neutral to say “of course shes probably lying” yet this entry goes much further  “and in any case Oswald's letters, applications, etc. were constantly filled with lies”. Neutral ? Come on. Of course that might be true if those applications were not written by Oswald, who knows? The many documented references to an impersonation of Oswald going on before his death seem to have slipped past this Wikipedia entry.
But its clear from the context that this Wikipedia entry is slanted towards character assassination rather than education.  Most of this entry is conjecture and supposition; whilst the judgments made such as “There is also no credible evidence that Oswald knew Banister” are clearly subjective. Or  (on the relationship between Oswald and David Ferrie) it says “there is no credible evidence that they knew each other then or in 1963” yet clearly they are in the same posed unit photo.  Thats knowing each other. And who defines “credible evidence” anyhow? Its being used rather a lot.
I find this Wikipedia entry not just biased and slanted but edited in such a way as to suppress inquiry into this hugely interesting and enigmatic subject. The first point of reference on any account of Lee Harvey Oswalds should be that we know remarkably little about him and what we do know can usually be contradicted by an alternative anecdote or account. It comes down to where you choose to draw your history from. Of course I could be wrong there is a chance no matter how small that this account is right on the button. But I doubt it, and who could prove it anyhow?  And until then the Wikipedia editors are wrong for not crediting that there are alternative accounts of Oswalds adventures, that this part of our history remains hotly disputed. 
Its for the above reasons and others too numerous to mention that Im filing an NPOV dispute on this entry.Hengistmcstone 19:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surveillance photos of Walker's house and the surrounding area taken by Oswald, plans Marina saw Oswald burn, and the letter Oswald left for Marina, which still exists.  Gamaliel 16:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of View =

message: A number of facts have been removed from the article supposedly because they are "conjecture":
* "Oswald's letters, applications, etc. were constantly filled with lies" This is a fact.  There are a number of Oswald's applications in his own handwriting which mention schools he never went to, references who don't exist, jobs he never had. 
* "there is no credible evidence that [Oswald and Ferrie] had any significant contact then or knew each other in 1963". This is a fact.  Other than the CAP photo, there is nothing to link the two people. To not say otherwise is to push the Garrison POV that there was a connection.
* "There is also no credible evidence that Oswald knew Banister or rented an office at Banister's building".  Another fact, another implied connection if we don't mention this. 
I'm going to restore these in the article. Gamaliel 03:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I am uncomfortable with is your attempts to attribute motives to me and your bizarre idea that you can read my thoughts by "evaluating the case", whatever the hell that means.  Instead doing the courteous and reasonable thing and stopping this, you insist on continuing and push further by suggesting that I withdraw perfectly reasonable positions.  On the contrary, I insist you withdraw your offensive amateur analysis of my thoughts and motives which are contrary to Wikipedia:Civility.  Gamaliel 19:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't understand why you think replacing the current article with this version would be a good idea.  It has nothing to do with what we think about it; almost all Wikipedians would agree that a two paragraph stub on such an important historical figure would not be satisfactory or sufficient.  As for Walker, whom I believe has a small article of his own, I don't think this article would be improved my removing the information about him.  I disagree that this article is too long and unmanagable in general, but if you want to trim some fat I suggest we start with the lengthy recent additions to the sections about his life in the USSR, which I think ramble on a bit much. Gamaliel 18:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Lee Oswald is an important historical figure, regardless of whatever we don't yet know about him. Moreover, although the Warren investigation had some flaws, most serious historians do note that Oswald was likely the lone assassin of John Kennedy and yes, coincidence and unexpected opportunity do seem to have been involved. Given the extraordinary nature of his crime, the unusual circumstances surrounding Oswald's life and the lingering controversy, a highly detailed article is helpful, even needed. This article is about as balanced and objective as any I 've seen. Interjections of spurious tales and assertions as an attempt to tie LHO into sundry conspiracy theories would be unhelpful and likely violate WP policy regarding reliability of sources and NPoV (for example, even assertions of prior contact with Ferrie are utterly unsupported- never mind the lack of support for any involvement by Ferrie in a wider conspiracy- New Orleans was a relatively small town and it's no surprise Lee was photographed at some point during his youth with someone there who later had unsavory connections and a violent death): This is a biographical article, not an article on the assassination. There are some omissions of documented detail here and there (nothing controversial though) and I see no reason for the dispute tag. Wyss 18:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As Gamaliel says below, no way will this article be shortened (largely for the reasons he outlines). I've removed the dispute tag and I'll revert further wholesale deletions of content (blanking sections, paragraphs and so on) by you as vandalism. WP does mention the unsupported speculations you refer to. Given the thoroughly disambiguated nature of the JFK assassination topic on WP it would be unhelpful and utterly misleading to mention them here. Please take the speculative aspects of your contributions to the articles created for them. Wyss 15:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Orleans 

message: THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED
Nothing I have said is speculative, I have removed a number of speculative points and they have all been reinstated by yourselves. The dispute Tag is there for a reason, do not remove it. Whilst you are welcome to express your opinion you must remember it is only one of a number of opinions and so long as you censor other opinions (and evidence supporting them) the bias in your work will be obvious and on Wikipedia disputed  Hengistmcstone 19:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "You are talking rubbish" is neither a scholastic nor a Wikipedian reply. Meanwhile I claim to speak for no one but myself, you're the one asserting without support that the article should be turned into a stub. I can't withdraw my remarks since I've read this talk page and watched you blank the entire General Walker section (I know, because I'm the one who restored it). Please stop edit warring. Please stop attempting to edit by attrition (trust me, it doesn't and won't work). If you don't think LHO assassinated JFK I can only suggest you take your assertions to the appropriate conspiracy articles, never mind this article does cartwheels (backwards) to avoid an unqualified assertion LHO did murder Kennedy. Wyss 00:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: I have removed the NPoV tag because discussion stopped. I will remove it as straight, tactical vandalism unless the points of dispute with specific items in the text are listed plainly below, thanks. Wyss 00:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag Removed

message: --220.238.2.146 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I thought [[Joe DiMaggio]] did it! 

message: The tone of of discussion on this article about Oswald seems unusually intense. This interferes with the process of producing a balanced article. 
But, there is no sense getting upset about it. Oswald was either framed for murder or he wasn't framed for murder. And, if he wasn't framed, he either acted alone or didn't act alone. 
What makes the case so interesting to some people is that in order to frame Oswald for murder, there would almost have to be the active and knowing participation by a number of people in a number of government agencies who, under the law, would then be deemed to have participated in murdering Kennedy.  
Moreover, it would not only be a public relations disaster for any agency caught participating in the murder (either before-the-fact or after-the-fact) but, also, since there is no statute of limitations on murder, there may very well be people alive who could still be prosecuted for it.
So the stakes are high: If Oswald was either framed, or not acting alone, someone is getting away with murder.  
Therefore, tensions seem high. To counteract this, those who contribute to the article should adopt the mindset of a professional advocate. Approach matters calmly, and professionally. Forget about personal attacks on the people who don't agree with you. Forget also about the mindless attacks made on you by others. These just distract from obtaining a professionally done article.
Accusing someone of being either a buff or a dupe (depending upon your point of view) doesn't add anything to the debate. 
Finally, don't hide from the truth. Unless one has a monetary or other real life stake in the debate, look at the evidence and let that be your guide on each issue.
RPJ 01:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tone of the Discussion is Intense 

message: An unsupported statement such as "all experts agree" is not acceptable for a reference work and is not even an acceptable form of debate. It asks the reader to accept an opinion of a secret person, who may or may not exist, and may or may not be qualified to give an opinion, and may or may not be biased. This is not acceptable for opinion references. 
Therefore, the statement about "historians" needs some support that may or may not exist.
RPJ 02:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most historians" needs to be dropped unless supported. 

message: This is a basic reference work.  The article should not use evidence that contradicts what it is supposed to support. One instantly loses respect from the reader.  The evidentiary support should instantly and unimpeachably establish the point being made. The reader should feel safe in relying upon the content of the article. 
The article starts off with the powerful, informative point that two major investigations, one by the executive branch and one by the legislative branch concluded, after a long period of investigation, that Oswald participated in the murder. They simply differ on whether he did it alone. This is factual, important information. 
The Article should not then follow up with evidence of Oswald's guilt with photographic evidence that might immediately lose the respect of the reader. Oswald’s chin is twice as wide as it should be, and the reader can simply measure it. Check the width of Oswald's chin in the mug shot with him holding the murder weapon. Once the reader spots the chin problem, the reader will wonder why the article didn’t warn that this picture is highly controversial. 
This warning must be given to the reader, even if the photograph is absolutely 100% genuine. 
Don't let the reader walk into an ambush in some discussion, school paper or debate based on information from this article. Its great that there is an exhibit consisting of Oswald in a photograph holding the murder weapon, and a fistful of left-wing propaganda. But, lets face it, Oswald’s defense was "I didn't do it and I've been framed." He was shown this picture and he said it was a fake and he can prove it.  It does look fake—just measure the chin. This chin problem is an objective fact. 
Now this is important: Even if there is an innocent reason for chin’s appearance, the reader must be warned of the specific problem.  The reader of the article isn't going to be happy with the article if the chin problem is pointed out to the reader by some one else in who knows what embarrassing moment. 
If there is a persuasive answer to the chin defect,the article should have the answer or don't use the photograph.
RPJ 05:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The photograph was genuine according to every government investigation into the assassination, including the HSCA, which specifically looked into allegations the photo was fabricated.  Gamaliel 05:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oswald's Photograph Holding the Rifle Picture Needs to Go 

message: As discussed earlier, the photograph of "Oswald" holding the murder weapon needs either a very complete discussion or be removed from the article to prevent the reader from assuming the photograph has stood the test of time as genuine since just the opposite is true. The photograph is highly controversial and even a casual examination shows the chin is badly deformed. If anything, the photograph has become exhibit 1 for supporting Oswald's contention that the picture is a fabrication and was being used to frame him. 
Consider this: In 1992, the Dallas Police Department released to the public two other photographs of Oswald's backyard. On February 9, 1992, the HOUSTON POST ran a story stating: 
"One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation" (Lane xxii, and  reveals "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the background" of the backyard picture." (Lane xxii). 
The POST provided this description of the photograph: 
In the manipulated print in police files Oswald does not appear. Instead, there is a white silhouette of a human figure holding an apparent rifle and newspapers. The silhouette appears to be an example of matting, a darkroom technique that can serve as an intermediate step in the combining of photographic images. (Lane xxii)
A thorough discussion of the photograph can be found at the following site.  The photograph simply can't be used in a reference work without a full discussion to alert the reader. Otherwise it has to go.  RPJ 07:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations relating to the Controversial Photograph 

message: This Article on Oswald used to start off with the statement that Oswald was guilty of murder and used one of the most controversial pieces of evidence known to the legal system to prove it. In a prior discussion that was posted yesterday, I directed the readers to just one source that analyzes the photograph and the reader can decide for him or herself how the photograph should be interpreted.
Anymore one can't merely tell a reader that someone else thinks the photograph is not fake or is fake. One problem supporters of the Warren Commission face is the erosion of confidence people have for government agencies. Merely stating that a government agency concluded something doesn't persuade that many people anymore. This especially so when the agency works in secret and basically asks the public to trust it. 
Also, one cannot ask the findings of some ad hoc committee that operates in secret to be given a the same weight as a decision made in a court of law. In a court of law in the United States, there are evidentiary rules, the right of people with an interest having an opportunity to be heard, and the proceedings conducted publicly. This why the courts are a separate independent branch of government. 
Moreover, in todays world people question conclusions of the courts, as well as anyone else. This is a right we have and it should be done in a professional dignified way. 
Who would want a group of politicians to decide one's fate in a criminal trial and do it in secret? Some of the procedures and selections of these ad hoc panels were perplexing. Allen Dulles was put on the Warren Commission, even though Kennedy fired him as head of the CIA and the CIA was also in the assassination business back in 1963.  
The additions to the Oswald article are done, in part, as a matter of historical fairness. If Oswald was a small time CIA agent used as a fall guy by whomever, then he shouldn't be saddled with being one of history's most notorious assassins. If he participated in the murder so be it. If he did so alone, so be it. In 12 years many of the remaining facts will surface and shed additional evidence on what happened. Until then historians should use the usual tools of evaluation. 
To begin with, opinion testimony by experts, committees of politicians or anyone else are only as good as the methods and evidence used. If everything is done in secret, or partially in secret, the believability of the opinion falls drastically. In our court system, there is a very rigorous, and public fact finding procedure.   It is done openly with all the evidence open for inspection, cross-examination and rebuttal. There are no ex parte communications allowed with the fact finders. There are no conflicts of interests allowed with the fact finders, and there are clear legal guideline that must be followed for what evidence can be considered and what can't be considered. 
An appeal to the fact finder that we need to get a certain finding of no conspiracy or World War III will start obviously is going taint the result. This is irrespective of whether it was the right thing for President Johnson to say or not. The truer it is the more it would taint the result. Therefore, 42 years later we should take that into account and not rely too heavily on the Commission's opinion. 
Everything that has been put in the Article has to my knowledge acceptable sources. It was written to be informative and readable. In a brief reference work one needs to get to the essence of the subject and why it is important to the readers. Lee Harvey Oswald's importance to almost any reader is limited to his association with the Kennedy assassination. It is a very controversial matter, and the Article may as well hit it head on. 
Paragraphs of mind-numbing facts about Oswald's past may be important for research into his psychological make-up and whether it should be included is up to all the contributors. But, it seems fundamental that the charges against him of murdering the president and his denial and claim he was framed is what the reader should expect right up front in the Article.
The photograph was very widely publicized at the time of the assassination. It was used to "prove" he was a left-wing radical, and that he owned the alleged murder weapon.  If the picture is fake this shows there was not only a conspiracy to commit murder but also a conspiracy by an organized group of people within our governmental system. This article should zero in on this and not have a knee jerk reaction by those that contribute that we need to avoid these questions. 
A vigorous debate should take place over this. If there was a high level, or low level conspiracy to commit murder, some of the people involved may still be alive. In that case, such people would have a vested interest in stifling the debate, but no one else should.
Its hoped that the contributors will meet this additional suppliment head on and that it creates enthusiasm and interest that the entire subject matter deserves.
RPJ 03:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Oswald framed or not--Start with the Photograph 

message: After being arrested Oswald immediately claimed the photograph of him holding the alleged murder weapon was a fake, and he was being set up as a "patsy."  Then Oswald was immediately murdered while in police custody.
Issue: Was the photograph a crude fabrication by either the Dallas Police Department or someone else?
Those who say "Yes" it is a fake photograph argue this:
1-- Look at the photographic evidence itself starting with a known authentic photograph of Oswald and compare it to the "backyard photographs" of Oswald with close attention to unusually wide chin and the line above the chin. See blow-ups of the face in the "Backyard Photos" at the following web site.   
2-- Malcolm Thompson, a British forensic photography expert, testified that "I have seen photographs of Oswald and his chin is not square. He has a rounded chin" He goes on to say "[O]ne can only conclude that Oswald's head has been stuck on to a chin, not being Oswald's chin."
3-- February 9, 1992, the Houston Post uncovered, at the Dallas Police Department, a copy of the backyard scene photograph that was part way through the process of being faked. It was already partially "matted" for the insertion of the composite picture.
Those who say it is NOT clear that the photograph is a fake argue this:
1-- "Every government investigation" says the photograph is genuine. See "Gamaliel" a frequent contributor to this article.
2--"Twenty-two of the nations leading experts studied the backyard photos" and concluded that Oswald's camera took the photograph of Oswald's backyard. See "Gamaliel" again.
3-- Certain "HSCA handwriting experts" believe that handwriting  on the back of the photograph appears to be Oswald's. See "Gamaliel."
4-- "Marina [Oswald] once [said] she took the photos (even IF she has since changed her story) -  And even [proponents of fakery] do not question that she took SOME photos of him in the yard." "Jimwae" a frequent contributor to this article. (emphasis in original)
5-- images that have been presented on-line are not the originals, but low resolution reproductions which when enlarged are highly pixelated, making measurements meaningless. --JimWae 18:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged faked photograph hotly debated  

message: Contributor "Gamaliel" reverted the following passage alleging in a single word "speculation." Let me give my sources before I again post it. 
The source for these first three paragraphs are the existing article, most of it verbatim but with minor word editing.
 As a child, Oswald was withdrawn and temperamental. Oswald's mother moved with her son to New York to live with John Pic who had joined the US Coast Guard and was stationed in New York City. During this time, Oswald struck his sister-in-law and threatened her with a knife.
His truancy from school resulted in visits to psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs who diagnosed the fourteen-year-old Oswald as having a "personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive-aggressive tendencies." In reaction Marguerite returned to New Orleans with her son before he could be institutionalized.
Oswald attended school infrequently and never received a high school diploma. Throughout his life he had trouble with spelling and writing coherently. His letters, diary and other writings have led some to suggest he was dyslexic while others have contended his poor writing and spelling skills were simply the result of a sporadic education. Nonetheless he read voraciously and as a result sometimes asserted he was better educated than those around him.
This next paragraph is all new. See the following cites:  and  
 His favorite TV program was “I Led Three Lives”, the popular television series at the time about an American who pretended to the Communist Party in the U.S. that he was a Communist so he could infiltrate the organization and report back to the FBI the Party’s activities.
The next paragraph is in the existing article except for the bold print. What is the percieved speculation?
 Oswald’s mother has been described as overbearing, and, possibly because of that, Oswald seemed much attached to, and idolized, his older brother Robert and wore Robert's US Marine ring. He later enlisted in the Marine Corps in October 1956, a week after his 17th birthday.
The next paragraph is in existing article except for the bold print. The information in the bold print comes from Wikipedia about the Civil Air Patrol:
At the age of fifteen, Oswald became a member of the New Orleans chapter of the well respected Civil Air Patrol which is the official auxiliary to the United States Air Force. The cadets wear a modified version of the USAF uniform, and practice military courtesy and customs such as saluting. The Civil Air Patrol is arguably best known for its Search and Rescue activities and is credited with saving an average of 100 lives per year.
All these facts are from Wikipedia in the links are provided.
 In Oswald’s unit, was a Eastern Air Lines pilot by the name of David Ferrie who would later become the center of intense controversy relating to the Kennedy Assassination. Ferrie suffered from ephebophilia, which is a sexual preference in which an adult is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to adolescents and usually people between the ages of 13 and 16. Ferrie continued to work as a commercial pilot until he lost his job in August, 1961 after being arrested on morals charges.
Most these next facts  are straight from the article. The statement that Oswald and Ferrie at one time knew one another is supported by the photograph of them together. The article itself discusses Oswald's activities and Ferrie's activities. The only difference is that the editing brings together the facts as everyone knows them at one spot and tells a srory that may be uncomfortable for some to read. Oswald meets a spy in a youth group and wants to be a spy. The spy is more than willing to help. Their paths then cross again in New Orleans. 
Gamaliel wants the reader to conclude Oswald is a dedicated Marxist when one or more explanations are clearly available; Let the facts speak for themselves. Facts that are buried  in a sea of trivia tend to be hidden facts. 
Look at the facts--Oswald idolizes his Marine Corps brother; joins an auxiliary of the air force at 15; meets flamboyant spy at 15 joins the Marines at 17, is stationed at a U-2 base that spies on Russia; leaves the Marines and uses his Marine background to try to talk his way into Russia; leaves Russia and ends up  in the same building as the CIA spy David Ferrie. 
Everything in this paragraph is known and cited in the article but spread around in paragraphs of minor details. It is time to just pull it together. A reference work should not submerge relevant facts.One has to face facts Oswald and Feriie knew one another over a long period of time in the CAP.   
Whether Oswald was seduced by Ferrie is unknown, although they do appear together in a photograph with a small group of other cadets. Obviously they knew one another at the time. It is known that during the summer of 1963, Oswald and Ferrie had another opportunity to cross paths when the address of the same small building where Ferrie worked as a CIA agent was used as the address on pamphlets handed out by Oswald. These events again occurred in New Orleans, after Oswald got out of the Marines and had gone to Russia. By that time, Oswald claimed to be a Marxist –Leninist. The literature he was passing out asked for “Fair Play for Cuba” which by that time had become a Communist dictatorship. Oswald had just formed the group in New Orleans and paid several people to hand out the left-wing literature. Oswald was the only known member of the New Orleans group.
Censored?  Whatever. 
Here are my particular objections and comments:
* Now that a source has been provided, I agree to the inclusion of I Led Three Lives.
* A discussion of what the Civil Air Patrol is is unnecessary.  The link should suffice. 
* There is no connection to Ferrie beyond the photograph.  The article should not discuss Ferrie's life in conjunction with Oswald's and should not speculate on whether or not Ferrie molested or otherwise influence LHO since there absolutely no evidence the two men knew each other beyond appearing in a group photograph at a group function of a group in which they both had membership.  
More when I think about it. Gamaliel 06:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More  Controvery: Should facts of Oswald's life prior to being a Marine be "censored" because of alleged speculation? 

message: The point was made previously that Oswald didn't really seem to be believer in  communism because he seemed to be friends with anticommunists, rather than with Communists.
Contributor "Gamaliel" thinks he has an "answer" for that:
"LHO never had any communist friends because he was a creepy loner who had almost no friends. You try finding a communist in Dallas. Gamaliel 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for Some contributors to do some homework 

message: Several attempts have been made to correct misinformation which appears in this article. Those corrections have been reverted continuously to previous incorrect versions. For example:
In the section titled, "Oswald's Flight and the Murder of J.D. Tippit," the following information was corrected:
"...He lingered briefly at a bus stop across the street from his rooming house..." [Correction: The bus stop was not located across the street from Oswald's rooming house, but rather was located on the same side of the street just north of his residence. This correction was made and later reverted by another editor to the incorrect text above. Why?]
"...(the film being shown was War Is Hell, starring Audie Murphy)..."
[Correction: Audie Murphy did not star in "War is Hell," which was a B-grade war film from 1963. Audie Murphy did appear in a prologue that preceded the film and his name and image were used in movie posters to help promote the film's release. To correct the text, Murphy's name was removed completely, but later was reverted to the incorrect version by anotehr editor. The latest revision (an apparent attempt at compromise) states that Murphy "narrated" the film. This is also incorrect. If Murphy's name remains in the text (which is fine) the text should state that the film "featured a prologue by Audie Murphy." Why does the person reverting text insist on inaccuracy?
The above facts are easily found in any good resource book on the subject. Those who participate in editing this article would do well to do their homework before submitting information that can be easily shown to be inaccurate.
After all, is not the purpose of this site to provide factual information? To those who insist on making changes that are factually incorrect, please resist the temptation to post incorrect information for personal reasons. Your efforts undermine the purpose of this site, are counter to the standards and regulations posted on this site, and force users to seek other sources for factual information. This is not a personal playground.
The end result of inaccuracies such as these forces the user to double-check every statement found in this article which is not only impractical but defeats the purpose of this website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.110.76 (talk • contribs) .
Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith.  Is is generally considered quite rude to attack the motives of other editors, especially since you have no way of knowing what they are and their actions are quite easily explainable in other ways.  
For example, when you changed the location of the bus stop, I looked it up in a source and changed it back, citing that source.  That source may be wrong, but you have provided no evidence that it is wrong nor have you provided a source of your own.  See Wikipedia:Cite your sources.
I also looked up the film War Is Hell on the IMDB, where it credited Audie Murphy as "Narrator".  Including that information in the article seemed a reasonable move given that I had a source.  Here again, you have provided no source for your information, nor a plausible reason why I or anyone would want to promote misinformation on this extremely trivial matter. Gamaliel 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions and Misinformation 

message: The tone of recent edits is to dismiss anything that is evidence against Oswald & to present every tidbit that would question his guilt. I see no attempt to present both sides in these edits--JimWae 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Carcano article: The name Mannlicher-Carcano is also misleading because the rifle's bolt action was based on a German Mauser-style bolt action, not the Austrian Mannlicher-style. The Mannlicher designation comes from the fact that the rifle uses a Mannlicher-type magazine system.
This as a response to the above comment. There needs to be a bit of fairness to the dead and neutrality in the presentation of evidence against Oswald. If he is guilty the evidence will establish it. The readers of this article also expect neutrality in the articles and that means not emphasizing one piece of evidence and hiding another that sheds additional light on the subject matter at issue. This is part of Wikipedia's meaning of having a neutral point of view.
Lets apply this neutral point of view rule to this atricle. The article states the following facts:
"Oswald shot Kennedy from a window on the sixth floor of the warehouse as the President's motorcade passed through Dallas' Dealey Plaza. ” 
“The rifle and handgun later linked by investigators to the November 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy”  
“Rifle Italian Mannlicher-Carcano”
It is now certainly relevant to ask "exactly who identified the rifle found on the sixth floor near the "sniper's nest" as an Italian Mannicher-Carcano"?  
The answer to who found it is  a deputy sheriff Seymore Weitzman and officer Boone found the rifle and Weitzman gave an official  police statement that it was a Mauser. Why shouldn't this be disclosed? It is certainly relevant enough. Boone thought it was aMauser also.{http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/boone.htm]
Turn the question around now. Who does contributer Jimwae have that establishes Weitzman and Boone found a Mannicher-Carcano?  RPJ 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: The lack of neutrality in this article does seem warrented. There is almost a philosophical or ideological ferver for some of the contributers that don't want any evidence mentioned relating to Oswald on whether he was in fact the assassin or even one of the assassins. But, contributers This is just another murder case. The world isn't going to come to an end if evidence is presented that Oswald had an accomplice. The world won't even come to an end if evidence is presented that tends to establish that Oswald wasn't even a participant. 
A professional person who researching to find the truth simply goes through and analyzes the relevant evidence. Even a professional person who is researching to prepare for the role as an advocate must first search for the truth and then start viewing the matter as an advocate.
Its time for a contributor to put forth the evidence linking Oswald to the murder weapon. This was reported: 
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry:
"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle. No one has been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."
(November 5, 1969, United Press International)
Therefore, someone produce the evidence against Oswald showing his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Then we can evaluate something. And lets make it easy and assume that he did own a rifle. 
Just show how his rifle got from the crime scene to the national archives. And, very importantly, who identified the gun and the chain of custody? unidentified investigators isn't good enough RPJ 05:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The NPOV tag   

message: The evidence booked into the Dallas Police department as the murder weapon is listed a Mauser rifle. That is a fact. Look at the sworn testimony of Deputy Sheriff Weitzman. Oswald purportedly owned a Mannlicher-Carcano brand of rifle. Both types of rifles have their names stamped on them. 
Does anyone believe that the Dallas Police Department is going to mis-identify the murder weapon of the President of the United States.  Contributer Jimwae thinks so; and--he believes this is a "tid bit" of information. This conclusion by Jim wae is open to serious debate.
In any event. the Warren Commission concluded the Mannlicher-Carcona was used even though the Mauser was found.  Michael Paine who a contributer puts forth as a witness for establishing that Oswald owned a Carcano, and it was used to assassinate the president did testify but doesn't support the contention in the article about the rifle. Instead  Michael Paine claims he never saw the rifle before the assassination. He also said that he was told the night of the assassination that Oswald's wife couldn't identify the rifle that was booked into evidence by the Dallas Police as being her husband's rifle.
Nevertheless some contributors don't want to recognize that Chief Curry is right that no one connects up Oswald to the rifle that was found near the murder scene. The Warren Commission was given testimony that a Mauser brand rifle was in the building two days before the assassination. Isn't that a better lead?
Why is there this stubborness to face of evidence to try to push some unsupported information on the reader. Its better to look over the evidence and determine what happened rather than  to put out incorrect information because of a belief system that transcends the evidence.
RPJ 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What endless talk?  I've personally linked to three different pictures of the Carcano in the Depository and JimWae has linked to several pages discussing the issue.  If you can't be bothered to notice that, it's not our fault. Gamaliel 07:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The wrong Murder weapon is not a tid bit of information 

message: This section below was taken out of the Oswald article. 
Oswald struck his sister-in-law and threatened her with a knife. His truancy resulted in visits to psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs who diagnosed the fourteen-year-old Oswald as having a "personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive-aggressive tendencies." In reaction Marguerite returned to New Orleans with her son before he could be institutionalized.
In two sentences, the article gives the impression that Oswald was a violent person whose mother moved from New York to keeo the boy out of mental institution. 
Mr. LIEBELER. It would not appear from this [Hartog's} report that you found any indication in the character of Lee Oswald at that time that would indicate this possible violent outburst, is there?
Dr. HARTOGS. I didn't mention it in the report, and I wouldn't recall it now.
Mr. LIEBELER. If you would have found it, you would have mentioned it in the report?
Dr. HARTOGS. I would have mentioned it; yes. I just implied it with the diagnosis of passive-aggressive. It means that we are dealing here with a youngster who was hiding behind a seemingly passive, detached facade aggression hostility. I mean this is what I thought was quite clear. I did not say that he had assaultive or homicidal potential.
Mr. LIEBELER. And in fact, as we read through the report, there is no mention of the words "incipient schizophrenic" or "potentially dangerous" in the report.
Dr. HARTOGS. No; I don't know where she has it from, but these are my words. I use it in other reports, but here it is not.
Mr. LIEBELER. "Passive-aggressive tendencies" are fairly common in occurrence, are they not amongst people?
Dr. HARTOGS. No; it is not so common. It is the least common of the three personality traits. It is either a passive-dependent child or an aggressive child, and there is a passive-aggressive child. The passive-aggressive one is the least common. 
Dr. Hartogs liked giving news interviews in New York and that FBI approached him and convinced him that an early report on Oswald arising out of school truancy gave rise to Oswald being a violent person.. This is when the FBI was trying to find a motive for Oswald allegedly shooting the president. The Warren Commission attorney interviewed Hartog seemed doubtful of what Hartog told the FBI and then confronted Hartog with the Passive aggressive tendencies that are fairly common, and not indicative of violent behavior. There was no indication Oswald was going to be put in a mental institution. 
Trying to ressurect a picture of Oswald as a violent or homicidal child is simply not borne out by the record. This section needs change is it is to be included.
The Warren Commission testimony of Hartog cited above gives a very good insight into the aggressive nature of the FBI who approached Hartog in trying to develop a story of Oswald as a homicidal maniac to satisfy the need for a motive by Oswald to shoot the president. This lack of motive perplexed many at the time, and today. RPJ 22:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oswald's youth needs complete reworking 

message: "Marguerite Oswald returned to New Orleans with her son before he could be institutionalized. 
"
This was taken out because:
1- Her testimony doesn't say this;
2- If it does please someone point to it.
3- Why send the reader to a lengthy transcript that doesn't contain the information. All one does is cause great doubt to enter the mind of the reader of the accuracy of the article and be very annoyed at the waste of time.   RPJ 18:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that sentence to be true based on what I've read in the testimony and in my reading about this matter.  I'm sorry that I've thus far been unable to find a sentence in her words saying that exactly, but I believe her WC testimony is pretty clear this was her motive, as clear as rambling Marguerite Oswald could be.  Gamaliel 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oswald leaving New York 

message: Captain Fritz ejected a bullet from the rifle on the 6th floor and knew it wasn't a Mauser of a certain caliber bullet. He never said it was a Mannlicher-Carcano. He was asked: 
Mr. Ball.
Or did you think it was such a thing [a Mauser]?
Mr. Fritz.
No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.
Mr. Ball.
Did you initial the rifle?
Mr. Fritz.
The rifle; no, sir.
Mr. Ball.
You didn't. Who did you give the rifle to after you ejected this live cartridge?
Mr. Fritz.
I believe that that rifle, I didn't take the rifle with me, Lieutenant Day took that rifle, I believe, to the city hall, and later I asked him to bring it down--I don't believe I ever carried that rifle to city hall. I believe Lieutenant Day carried it to city hall, anyway if you will ask him he can be more positive than I.
Still no identification as a Mannlicher-Carcano or chain of evidence.
-------------
This text posted by RPJ on main page  placed by Mytwocents 07:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Fritz couldn't identify the rifle from the sixth Floor 

message: Some contributor decided to move the testimony of Captain Fritz, and the references to Deputy Sheriff Weitzman and officer Boone, along with the statement by Police Chief Curry out of the article because the evidence they give does not support a pet theory that a Mannlicher-Carcano was found by some unknown "investigators."  
It is suggested that  contributor "Mytwocents" and "Gamaliel" should try to identify the unknown investigators upon whom they rely so completely for their version of the facts. 
Of course this may take some work, and thought on the part of "Mytwocents" and "Gamaliel" but that is the generally accepted method of debating a point--find some evidence. 
Apparently, they can't find any evidence.  If so, just conceed that you don't have the time, energy, or maybe, or that the evidence you wish existed, doesn't exist. 
But, don't keep reverting testimony and other evidence out of the article just because you personally don't like what it says.  RPJ 09:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More cryptic editing by someone called "Mytwocents"