Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 2

message: Gamaliel's revert of the article by Mytwocents needs to be taken out.
:The Warren Commission "concluded" this but very few people take the conclusion at face value. 
:One has to recognize that a reference work loses its credibility if it overstates or mistates information that most people know about, and have an opinion  about.  If the Warren Commission, HSCA, or any other panel was a court of law  with the strict rules of evidence, due process, public hearing, right of cross examination, right to introduce  contradictory evidence and other safeguards that give some standard by which third parties could measure the quality of the conclusion, then it would be proper to say that a Oswald committed the crime. 
:However, even when a court judgment is controversial it is sometimes better to say "Jones was convicted of murder" rather than "Jones murdered a person." That of course is just a matter of judgment on how controversial a criminal conviction  is and the source of the controversy. 
:Once something as become a settled historical fact then one can speak with more certainty. 
:As it is, good judgment dictates that in a reference work one not attempt to inflate the meaning of non-judical conclusion. Just leave it at "XYZ" panel concluded "ABC." 
:Gamaliel scoffs at  reference to what the majority of other Americans believe about the assassination, but its unclear why Gamaliel thinks he knows anymore about the subject than the average person.
:Put it this way: If Oswald were still alive today, and hadn't been tried and convicted, a flat statement that he  murdered the president would subject Gamaliel to a defamation lawsuit, that would have to be defended with alleging the affirmative defense of "truth" which puts the burden of proof on Gamaliel. 
:Almost all of the evidence cited in the article (assuming all the witnesses were still alive) wouldn't even be deemed reliable enough to  get into evidence, let alone be persuasive to a jury. Therefore the flat statements that Gamaliel wants to make that Oswald killed the president is very reckless from the point of view of a reference work.
:Remember that each reader that sees in this article some reckless, overblown statement that he or she believes to be untrue will then likely have doubts about the reference work as a whole. 
:Please do not revert the intrduction of Mytwocents. It is a workable compromise.
RPJ 19:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the version I just reverted to there is more than enough material making it clear that the Warren Report is controversial.--FRS 20:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not revert Mytwocents.  Please learn to read the history page more accurately. Gamaliel 21:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To help resolve this disagreement, it would be of assistance if the points that were addressed by other were addressed in more detail. Because when they are not addressed in detail, it becomes just a matter of reverting one another’s changes. My own preference is to merely have the short introduction to Oswald, and when he was born, why he is well known and how he died. Others disagree and immediately want to tell the reader who believes Oswald did what and supply evidence. This appears to be an unusual introductory paragraph, but if it is used then great pains should be used so as not to make a number of readers wince. If no reasoned discussion takes place for a detailed introductory paragraph, then the short one that would normally be used for an article will again be put in. The contributor "Mytwocents" did a good job on modifying it and the alternative that is being now presented should be supported with a thoughtful reasoned argument. 
RPJ 20:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Introduction should be changed back

message: In 1998. the federal Assassination Records Review Board issued the following report on Antonio Veciana:.
“[He] was an anti-Castro Cuban activist in the early 1960s. Veciana led Alpha66, a violent anti-Castro organization that engaged in paramilitary operations against Castro's Cuba as well as assassination attempts against Castro." 
Many years earlier:
Veciana testified to the HSCA that he acted as an agent of the U.S. government, and that he met Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in 1963 in the presence of his American "handler." [12]
His group was publicly criticized by President Kennedy for some of its violent hit-and-run tactics in Cuba, but he defiantly stated he was going to do it "again and again."
In 1998, the ARRB noted Veciana as one of the people for which additional government files were going to be produced.
Gamaliel reverted out the reference to the violently anticommunist Veciana  meeting with Oswald soon before the assassination. Gamaliel claims:
“On the days he claimed he saw Oswald in Dallas, Oswald was known to be in New Orleans.”
Gamaliel then gives a citation to page 137 of the HSCA Report that discusses Veciana.  The page citation doesn’t support his statement at all.
Page 137 does discuss the secret  testimony from two women about a meeting that Oswald had with some different paramilitary Cuban exiles in Dallas,  at a different time. The HSCA also discusses how the  Warren Commission decided to believe Oswald was in Mexico at the time though the FBI wouldn’t couldn’t substantiate the alibi. 
Importantly, page 137 does not support Gamaliel’s alibi that Oswald was known to be in New Orleans at the time of the Veciana meeting in Dallas. 
The reason given by the HSCA about discounting the testimony is because neither the CIA nor Mr. Veciana would provide details about his 13 year relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies, and the money paid to him.
This is why the ARRB, under the JFK Records Act sought additional documents about the matter. Sooner or later, the truth will come to the surface about all of this. 
Citing fictitious alibi’s is a waste of time. The readers of Wikipedia should, if they are interested go back and read the HSCA report on the Oswald-Cuban exile relationships with  Veciana and the other groups that are in the surrounding pages to page 137 -140 of the HSCA report. It gives a picture of Oswald quite different from the alleged cover story of being a “Marxist.”   The HSCA, running out of money and time, finally said it didn’t reach any firm conclusions on what these entanglements of Oswald with the paramilitary anticommunists meant. See page 140.
This is why the JFK Records Act was passed in 1992, in order to pry out from the federal agencies the documentation that establishes exactly who was Oswald working for and what involvement, if any, did these powerful, insulated agencies such as the CIA and FBI  have in the Kennedy assassination.
RPJ 20:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veciana and New Orleans: Round II 

message: Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. p327-331. 10 vols.
From the preface: "The Dictionary of American History has been the leading reference work in United States history for more than six decades."  Such an undertaking (ten volumes) is not the whimsical project of one person but represents the consensus of current thought in the academic community of mainstream historians. 
On the JFK assassination: "Although every aspect of the assassination of John F. Kennedy has been the subject of controversy, the basic facts seem beyond dispute. At 12:30 P.M. on 22 November 1963, while riding in an open car past Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, President John F. Kennedy was fatally struck by two bullets from a high-powered rifle fired from the adjacent Texas Book Depository building.
All evidence pointed to a worker in that building, Lee Harvey Oswald. A former marine, Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union, redefected, and most recently had been active on behalf of Fidel Castro's Cuba. He owned the murder weapon, had been seen smuggling a long package into the building, had fled shortly after the assassination, and had killed a policeman in panic. Furthermore he was capable of committing political murder, having recently attempted to shoot the retired general Edwin A. Walker, a prominent right-wing figure.
Nonetheless many Americans were not convinced. Perhaps unwilling to acknowledge that such an insignificant figure as Oswald could single-handedly alter the course of history, they followed conspiracy theories trumpeted by sensational books and in the tendentious motion picture JFK (1991). The alleged conspiracies were masterminded either by the Russians, the Cubans, the Mafia, the Central Intelligence Agency, Vice President Lyndon Johnson, or time travelers from an alternate universe. Two days after Kennedy's assassination, while Oswald was being transferred to another jail, he was killed by Jack Ruby, a Dallas strip club operator, providing more fuel for the conspiracy theories. Even in the early twenty-first century polls consistently showed that most Americans continued to believe in a conspiracy theory even though no credible evidence emerged to seriously challenge the conclusion of the WARREN COMMISSION that Oswald acted alone."  
I think this is fairly clear. Gamaliel 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. The article does not state there is a consensus among mainstream historians that there is little credible evidence to support any of these theories and that Oswald acted alone.
It is the opinion of one author. 
RPJ 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary of American History 

message: Hello, I came in to take a look with a fresh pair of eyes.   It looks like the main issue is a revert war, with people disagreeing about whether or not a sentence such as "Nevertheless, most historians conclude that Oswald was the lone assassin and no evidence has emerged that clearly points to any other alternative suspect or co-conspirator," is appropriate for the article.  Since this is obviously a controversial issue, my recommendation is to be very careful about quoting sources, especially under the Wikipedia policy of no original research.  Any change that is made, should include an inline citation showing what the source of that change is.  If a disputed sentence does not have a clear external reference, then guidelines under Wikipedia:Verifiability allow it to be removed.  An example of an inline citation would be like this: "A documentary asserts that the JFK assassination was a Cuban plot." .  To state "most historians conclude", I would want to see an external reputable source that uses that language, such as "most historians" "a majority of historians" "nearly all historians", etc. For further information, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Elonka 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC - Request for Comment 

message: Ruby's underworld connections give a much different view of the man who murdered Oswald.
This is from the Jack Ruby article in Wikipedia.
RPJ 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Ruby's gun running activities and Castro imprisoning his Mafia connected  friend  

message: Perhaps this is a game that  someone is playing. But, why? 
If one has sources cite them. But don't use devices such as saying other sources exist when not cited. It is unclear why some contributor would have such a commitment to establishing that "mainstream historians" believe the Warren Commission's lone gun man theory is correct that the contributor would want to keep slipping in uncited material without sources. If the sources exist put them in. 
Otherwise unsourced material that is controversial gets reverted out.
RPJ 05:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dictionary cite should not be a lead in to other uncited sources 

message: The opening paragraph of an article should summarize what is to follow and give the big picture.  The big picture of the article regarding Oswald is:
Explaining his background and alleged participation in the murder of Kennedy. The seemingly explosive issue for some contributors is whether he did it alone.  The reason for seemingly life-and-death seriousness for some is this: If Oswald didn’t do it alone then  the FBI and the CIA have let the guilty parties go free, by failing to properly investigate, destroying evidence, concealing evidence and actively misleading those who do try to investigate. This misconduct by the FBI and CIA has been gone over in detail by Congressional investigators. The House Select Committee on Assassination reported on this extensively.  
Some people idolize these agencies because they do work for them or have worked for them, know people worked for them or have just become enamored with these agencies and can’t accept they aren’t perfect. Now, what they want to say is well, the FBI and CIA may have made mistakes regarding Kennedy’s murder but Oswald was the sole assassin, therefore, “No harm-no foul.” 
Very few people agree with this position. In fact, a large majority disagree with them.  A 2003 ABC TV News poll showed that only 32% (plus or minus 3 %) of Americans who expressed a view believe that Oswald acted alone in the Kennedy assassination ; a Discovery Channel poll revealed that only 21% believe Oswald acted alone. ; a History Channel poll gave a figure of 17%. .
They have to face facts. Poll after poll, shows very few Americans believe the Warren Commission's single gun man theory that Oswald did it alone. Instead, most American's believe that Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy. The House Select Assassination Committee believes the conspiracy existed. There is no "mainstream belief" that Oswald did it alone as some contributors to Wikipedia believe with a highly intense fervor. 
It is true that a small group of the population still believe in the Warren Commission. Representatives of this viewpoint can have there say in the article under the Wikipedia rules, and embrace the Warren Commission Report; but, that is all. They can't stop the inclusion of information backed by reliable sources that (besides their small group) most people don't believe the Warren Commission's result.  They also can't block any evidence that refutes what some of the contributors fervently believe. 
One can't hide from the facts. In the Wikipedia rules it discusses whether a very small group of "flat earth" believers  can require its position to be included in geography. Neutral Point of View
The Warren Commission has not reached that point of "Flat Earthers" but the number of believers is dwindling. They can still have their say but, but they must accept the fact that they don't control the pages.
This small group of contributors that are true believers are disruptive because it is quite easy to drop into an article and delete something that someone has written with a short flippant remark that it is "nonsense." It appears that most the contributors that engage in that practice actually do very little writing themselves. When they do make comments on the discussion page they are generally riddled with spelling and grammatical mistakes and often misstatements about  the additions to the article they have reverted, rather than debate the issue. 
One common device used is to attack one point in an addition to the article, that is among a number of points made,  then revert the entire addition. 
Another is to simply revert and say in a comment that some source referred to in an addition has been refuted, or that contrary evidence exists. Often this is done without even any citation to sources. Of course both sides should be presented.
Sometimes the reverters work in a small tag team. One will do it for a while then another will take it over for a while and then a third will do so.
Almost always, a bare minimum of work is done.
RPJ 20:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Criticism of Warren Report are being put back in 

message: Contributors: I hope the introductory paragraph can now rest in peace.
RPJ 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't dislike the current version quite enough to revert it, but I think either of these  [] [] are much better.  The current version is too PoV, and I believe the statement "Many ... also claim that Oswald was not involved at all," is  neither supported within the article nor compliant with Avoid Weasel Words--FRS 18:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy and then murdered Dallas Texas policeman J. D. Tippit on November 22, 1963, as determined in 1964, by the Warren Commission and three other formal federal investigations into the assassination.  The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), conducted from 1976 to 1979, also concluded Oswald was the assassin but that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.  Oswald was never tried in court.  He was shot by nightclub owner Jack Ruby, two days after Pres. Kennedy's death.
I would like to see 3 wikilinks from "three other formal federal investigations into the assassination" statement (FBI?, Secret Service, investgations?).  
This intro covers the basics, and then we're off to the races with the rest of the article. (which BTW I think reads pretty good!) 
Mytwocents 21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Mytwocents's version just above.--FRS 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  R.I.P. 

message: Now that some are thinking about reopening the introduction, we need to insist that
those who still profess to believe no one helped Oswald cannot argue that only one point of view be presented. This isn't right. Most Americans hold the opposite point of view and believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices.
Most Americans believe the Warren Commission is wrong. Congress also believes there was a conspiracy, and came to this conclusion after a three year investigation. 
America has rejected the Warren Report. Why do certain contributors believe they know more than anyone else about the Kennedy assassination? The polls clearly show only a very small number of people still support the Warren Commission's Report. 
Why does this small group persist? It could be that by proving the Warren Report is wrong, a number of influencial federal agencies (the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service) will then bear reponsiblity for covering up for those who participated in the President's gruesome murder. If Oswald had help, these agencies have covered up for the accomplices,  by misleading the rest of the government and the American Public about the other people being involved. Also, to help hush things up, the newly installed President Johnson then sealed all the evidence involving the murder of President Kennedy for seventy five years. He will also bear responsibility for the murder participants going free. 
These facts can't be exluded. Those who support these institutions are likely to cling to the beliefs and hope that no one has gotten away with murder. 
To continue the concealment of the truth, the committed few believers now want to "clean up" Jack Ruby. In the discription of Jack Ruby (who murdered,the subject of the article, Lee Harvey Oswald) the believers now propose that Jack Ruby be presented in his "cleaned up" version: The "Dallas night club owner." 
Instead, the introduction must show Jack Ruby for what he is: Jack Ruby owned a sleazy strip-bar and his criminal background is violent and extensive. The introduction must show the real Jack Ruby: 
"Ruby went to Cuba in 1959 on one of his gun-running ventures and to visit a Mafia-connected friend, influential Dallas gambler Lewis McWillie, whom Fidel Castro had briefly imprisoned. McWillie was also connected to leading mobsters Meyer Lansky, Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante Jr.
See Wikipedia article on Jack Ruby. 
Does this true picture of Jack Ruby tend to prove that Oswald was silenced by organized crime? Of course.
This article can't start giving a false image of Ruby in the introduction. The introduction must give the true picture of the underworld hitman, who killed Oswald as he is already described in the Jack Ruby article.
RPJ 09:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree

message: This Wikipedia project is supposed to be an interesting and informative project on which to work. 
But some contributors don't want to work on a neutral point of view basis which means, in part this:
Evidence supporting both viewpoints needs to be included.
This isn't happening. Today there was included in the Oswald the documentary evidence that Oswald gave an alibi to the police and told them he was out on the sidewalk  with a Mr. Shelley when the president was shot.
The Dallas Police nor the FBI told the Commission about this alibi. Moreover, there is a photograph that seems to show Oswald out front at the time of the shooting and together with Oswald's immediate statement is very strong evidence in his favor that he was telling the truth.
The Warren Commission advocates have become highly agitated about this evidence and have now been reverting it out of the article. 
"Gamaliel" claims there is evidence that it is not true. Therefore, his position is to hide the evidence of Oswald's innocence. Gamaliel believes that because he has apparently weighed the evidence and determined he thinks Oswald is guilty that therefore, no contradictory evidence should be revealed. This is  apparently to prevent the reader from forming the "wrong opinion." 
"Gamaliel" can't seem to comprehend that both sides must be presented. 
A contributor name"Mytwocents" has done the same thing.  Please accept the fact you (Gamaliel and Mytwocents) have proven your loyalty to the Warren Commission's conclusions. Everyone should know that by now. 
That does not give you the right to revert out evidence you don't like. You know you are not supposed to do it and so do the other readers. So please stop it. 
RPJ 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is time for some contibutors to review why they participate 

message: ::Now the debate is getting down to something that can easily be addressed. As soon as Oswald is silenced,  Captain Fritz commits perjury to hide the Oswald alibi. See main artle on Kennedy Assassination. FBI Hosty was there with Fritz[] at the interrogation, and also he conceals the alibi. He is the FBI agent that destroyed the letter Oswald delivered to his office two days before the assassination. And as soon as Oswald was murdered, Hosty flushed the letter down the toliet. .
::If one reads Shelley's interrogation, one should note that he is never asked point blank if he saw Oswald outside when the President rode by,  even though that is the witness who Oswald identified to police and FBI that also was outside. 
::Shelley is asked specifically if saw Oswald inside, but never  was he asked specifically if Oswald was outside. The crucial question is not asked of whether Oswald was outside as Oswald told both Captain Fritz and Agent Hosty . This information would seem to have been the focus of intense inquiry. Why would Oswald give an alibi that wouldn't hold up? Why give Shelley's name, and why doesn't the Commission just point blank ask Shelley if Oswald was outside as he said he was?
::As a footnote, another item odd about Shelley is that he person saw the Mauser rifle in the Texas Book Depository two days before Kennedy's murder, and it was a Mauser that was first reportedly found near the sniper's nest in the building rather than the rifle that suppossedly belonged to Oswald.  
::We know now, many years later, that Captain Fritz and FBI agent Hosty perjured themselves and concealed Oswald's alibi. We even know why: J. Edgar Hoover clearly said he wanted to convince the public that Oswald murdered the president and did it alone.  and didn't want anyone to pursue the evidence supporting Oswald's alibi.
:::In summary, three contributors---Jimwae, Gamaliel and Mytwocents appear unusually upset that any discussion about Oswald's long concealed alibi be in this article. From the rather dramatic language used by them and the constant reversions of information, it appears that the level of concern that Oswald might have been innocent, as he claimed before being murdered, exceeds their alarm that more than one person participated in the assassination of Kennedy.
RPJ 11:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response--Please don't get upset

message: Contributor Gamaliel believes it is trivia that, as a teenager, Lee Oswald's favorite TV show was "I lead Three Live"  which was based on a true story about an American who appeared to be an ordinary citizen; but then infiltrated the Communist Pary in America, because even more secretly he was an under cover agent for the FBI. 
Yet the Oswald article cites "Frontline" as a source of information that believes this attraction to "I Lead Three LIves" is important to explaining what shaped Lee Oswald when he was young. 
NARRATOR: His favorite T.V. program was a saga of political intrigue and espionage.
ROBERT OSWALD: I Lived Three Lives- he became really engrossed in that particular television show. I think he just liked the atmosphere that you could do anything that you wanted to do, that you could imagine you could do.
Now, its a pretty straight forward that while he was 15 years old and in the paramilitary Civil Air Patrol, Oswald met David Ferrie in New Orleans, who was an instructor and also connected to the CIA. Because he idolized his older brother who was a Marine, Oswald joined the Marines at 17 years old, but just before joining, Oswald tried to “apply” to be a member of a Socialist Party Group. 
Then, in the Marines, Oswald gets sent to a base where spy planes are housed that make high altitude spy missions over Russia, and while there learns Russian to help in his later "defection" to Russia.
Some people have pondered "What is the meaning of all this?" 
Contributor Gamaliel has thought about it, and has simply reverted out any mention of Oswald's spy program fascination. Unlike Frontline Gamaliel doesn't believe the readers need to know about it. Only people with highly disciplined minds can be exposed to this information, and not get any "wrong" ideas.
RPJ 08:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Lee Oswald "Lead Three Lives?" 

message: Due to the differing views held in reference to Oswald's participation in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I feel that it is but correct to add "Allegedly" in the beginning of the article. And I have done so. See the credibility section for my argumentation for this. Those who believe he was the lone assassin and so on should at least be able to accept this rightful demand? If something is held in so much dispute, it should at least be presented at "allegedly" instead of being a statement of fact, since it is all but a fact. I hope I have everyone's support in this. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.49.37.154 (talk • contribs) .
:The intro does not state as a fact that LHO was the assassin, it states as a fact that four investigations concluded he was the assassin.  Those investigations did not "allegedly" conclude, they just concluded. Gamaliel 01:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputable. 

message: Lee Oswald denied shooting the president or officer Tippit and claims he was a "patsy."  
Recent discoveries in  1999, provide evidence of this. Immediately after the assassination, high government officials (specifically J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson) discovered that some one, in fact, had been found impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald; and doing so in a very big way: By contacts with the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate that would link Oswald (through the person impersonating him) to a known KGB assassin - Valery Kostikov - whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year. 
The story gets worse for the CIA.
The story on the PBS show "Frontline," discloses:
The news of this impersonation and the link to Kostikov, learned within hours of President Kennedy's assassination, electrified top government and intelligence officials and dominated their discussion in the immediate weeks following the assassination. It also became during the next 40 years one of the CIA's most closely guarded secrets on the Oswald case.
Irrefutable evidence, from the CIA's own files, establish the  pattern and practice of deception to conceal the CIA that it knew Lee Oswald was being impersonated and knew the impersonator was trying to make contact with a professional assassin: 
"Shortly after Oswald's Sept. 27 visit to the Cuban consulate to try to get a visa, the CIA station in Mexico informed headquarters about it and requested information on him. But headquarters lied to its station, saying that no information on Oswald had been received by headquarters since his return to the United States eighteen months earlier. Documents show, however, that most of the half-dozen agency employees who participated in the drafting and dissemination of this false story had signed for and read various FBI reports received on Oswald during those months, especially during the two weeks before this deception was invented." 
"After President Kennedy's assassination, documents show that the [CIA] created two more false stories in connection with Oswald's Mexico City visit. The first cover story was that the CIA's tapes of the phone calls had been erased before the assassination. The second cover story was that the CIA did not realize Oswald had visited the Cuban consulate until they looked into the matter after the assassination." 
Even today outsiders do not know the name of who was impersonating Lee Oswald before Kennedy was murdered.
The CIA has admittedly not released all of its documents. Despite all this, a highly committed Warren Report believer wants to exclude this information about someone impersonating Oswald--for reasons unknown.  
RPJ 00:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone was impersonating Lee Oswald  

message: Long concealed facts, that the usually staid PBS, termed  "startling"  establish that that the facts had electrified the top government officials from Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover and on down  and dominated their conversations immediately after President Kennedy was murdered: 'Less than 60 days before Kennedy was murdered, someone, who was impersonating Lee Oswald, attempted to contact a Russian assassin'. 
Oswald had contended he was being framed for Kennedy's murder before he was murdered while in police custody. 
The PBS news program had this to say about the facts surrounding this long concealed facts about the Oswald impersonator   
:
::It was 1993, the 30th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, when FRONTLINE first aired its documentary, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" In that program FRONTLINE concluded, "What now seems certain is that the CIA is still covering up its contact with Lee Harvey Oswald."
::Now, ten years later, much material has been made available to the American public which sheds light on what the CIA had been hiding for forty years. This new information is the result of the U.S. Congress passing the 1993 "JFK Records Act." 
Scholars are now going through the documents have already been released; and waiting for the release of a large amount of additional documents from the CIA and other agencies that have been scheduled for eventual release. The PBS news story went on to report:
::By the time the Board's work was completed in the late 1990s, six million pages of documents had been made available to the public in the National Archives.
::Arguably, the most startling information so far brought to light by the release of these intelligence records is the CIA cover-up relating to Oswald's visit to Mexico City
::Oswald was in Mexico City in late September and early October of 1963. 
::CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin - Valery Kostikov - whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.1
::The news of this impersonation and the link to Kostikov, learned within hours of President Kennedy's assassination, electrified top government and intelligence officials and dominated their discussion in the immediate weeks following the assassination.
::It also became during the next 40 years one of the CIA's most closely guarded secrets on the Oswald case.
That sheds new light on Oswald's claim he was a"patsy" who was set up on "fabricated" evidence. Now, the question is "Who was the impersonator and for who was he working?"  
The two possibilities put forth by the Justice Department as who the public would believe was behind the impersonation(depending on the political viewpoint) was a Communist group who was impersonating Oswald, or that some right-wing American group that hated Kennedy was impersonating Oswald to blame the murder on the Communists.
RPJ 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PBS News Report: New evidence that "electrified"  Washington 

message: The Assassinations Records Review Board unsealed documents that the mainstream news media deems important to Lee Harvey Oswald : 
::Some one was impersonating him just before the Kennedy assassination trying to contact a Russian assassin either to frame Oswald or for someother reason.
Reader Jim Wae hates this new evidence and therefore reverts this fully documented information out of the article. He claims he has some evidence that may dispute this. You can't revert out information for that reason. Moreover, and contrary to the rules, none of the alleged facts Jim Wae mentions above does he  support with citations and references as required by the Wikipedia rules. Jim Wae's alleged facts are just him talking.  He can't find any real facts to put in the article so he makes up facts  
::The Oswald impersonator was in Mexico and was photographed and listed to by the CIA and FBI and pretended to be Oswald. These facts are now a matter of public record in the National Archives placed there by the Assassination Records Review Board. Read the evidence read the lengthy PBS news program so you are knowledgeble in the area.
Here is the rule that we all must follow: 
This policy in a nutshell:
Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
You cite no references for your alleged facts. Wikipedia requires you to do so. So please don't interfere with those who include information and follow the rules. You are breaking the rules, and in a big way.
RPJ 04:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JimWae is caught again. PBS is "jumping to conclusions." Not reasonable argument and again no references are presented to support his statement. Then, Jim Wae gets really worked up and states: 
"I presented a link to witnesses above." Sorry Jimwae, but you didn't. It was just a bunch of yacking with no citations. 
66.91.203.81 08:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Its against the Wikipedia rules to use unsupported factual contentions

message: This article is a poster child for how Wikipedia can fall to its knees on controversial social science topics. In 2006 there is zero verifiable evidence of a conspiracy (though lots of evidence that the CIA was extremely embarassed after Lee, who they'd been aware of for years, shot JFK and as a result, we still don't know the whole tale about what happened in Mexico DF). Wyss 07:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP on its knees

message: Most readers are probably wondering what happens after a "poster child" "falls to its knees"?  
On the other hand, most readers are aware that the CIA was "extremely embarassed" after Oswald was accused of shooting the president because Oswald and the CIA were so closely connected. It started all the way back just before Oswald joined the Marines, and was in the same Civil Air Patrol group as the kinky CIA agent called David Ferrie. We all remember him from the movie "JFK."  There is even a picture of Ferrie and Oswald together.
66.91.203.81 08:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks for the insights Ms Wyss

message: PBS News had this story about the kinky CIA agent David Ferrie:
FRONTLINE located the photographer, Chuck Frances, who says he took the picture for the C.A.P. Francis also said that when he was interviewed by the FBI, he told them Oswald and Ferrie knew each other, but he did not tell them about the photograph. The executor of Ferrie's estate, as well as Ferrie's godson, also picked out Ferrie.
As most Americans know, Ferrie next pops up in New Orleans in the same small building that Oswald uses as his address for his Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Oswald's mother believed he was working for the CIA, and if so he was probably recruited early by David Ferrie.
Over the years, he used both his official and unofficial positions in youth groups to develop improper relations with post-pubescent (age 14-18) boys which was the age of  Oswald when Ferrie first met him.
Oddly enough this information about Ferrie and Oswald was in the Oswald article, and was fully documented, and then was deleted for reasons unknown. Then the information was even deleted from this discussion page. This is why we all need to fight government censorship and control of the internet.  
RPJ 22:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on CIA agent Ferrie and Oswald

message: Everyone agrees that if, in fact, someone was impersonating Oswald and contacted the Russian Embassy shortly before the Kennedy assassination pretending to be Oswald such a fact would be highly significant.
::1--An Oswald impersonator would substantiate Oswald's claim that he was being set up as a "patsy" andseriously undercut the contention that Oswald shot Kennedy. 
::2--An Oswald impersonator pretending to contact a "hit man" using Oswald's identity, would likely mean the same person or someone connected with the first impersonator would have impersonated Oswald for other purposes., (bought the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle e.g., by pretending to be Oswald).
::3--An Oswald impersonator would likely mean a well organized group was going to kill Kennedy because it would have to know that Oswald was going to be in Mexico at the time, and make arrangements to be down there and so on. Perhaps this impersonator was one of Oswald's right wing friends such as Demorreshante
The area of disagreement on the Oswald impersonator is not the significance of the issue, but whether it is true:
One side contends the evidence shows there was an Oswald impersonator; and the other side claims that the 
initial evidence of an Oswald impersonator was later proven incorrect. 
66.135.233.230 00:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status on discussion on Oswald impersonator