Talk:George Reeves/Archive 1

message: Look most anywhere on the internet and you'll find his birthday given as 1/5/1914, but according to what's written on his grave, it was actually 1/6/1914 (visible
[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pis&GRid=1284&PIgrid=1284&PIcrid=8193&PIpi=86007&pt=George+Reeves&ShowCemPhotos=Y&
here]), so that's the date I gave in the article. Everyking 22:33, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken Gravesite 

message: :2 vndls chngen dis byo, keipe unn duen dis, wil no hep u, wee r duinn oni watt s kurek, nutin moerr, nutin ls, suw gt lse, wee r hierre 2 tsei! User:Vesa 21:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "Gorge Reevs Projet" page, which is totally POV (and probably a bogus invention on your part) is already marked for deletion, and your continued bogus editorializing on the Reeves page will "no hep u" either. You silly pudding. Wahkeenah 18:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Pooden? A no pooden!11! U pooden! Gorge Reevs mrdrd nd sht nd nutin u duw baout t. NUUTiN!11!11! User:Vesa 15:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "Greevs Projet" page, a copycat of your previous page, is also now marked for deletion.
Wahkeenah 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: lk 2 sei u rti. User:Vesa 20:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update... it is now deleted. You silly pudding. Wahkeenah 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: WEE SEI LL!11! User:Vesa 20:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gorge Reeve Projet

message: Since there is a minor edit war over the start date of the series, I searched on the web and found:
*According to tv.com the first show was aired on September 19, 1952.
*imdb.com gives a start date of 1952.
*amazon.com also give a start date of 1952 in the title of the dvds of the show.
*this hobbyist-type site quotes from THE COMPLETE DIRECTORY TO PRIME TIME NETWORK AND CABLE TV SHOWS 1946-PRESENT By Tim Brooks and Earle Marsh: "Although the first batch of 26 Superman films were made in 1951, the series did not reach local TV stations until late 1952."
*this hobbyist-type site says that the first season was filmed in 1951 and gives a TV premiere date of "early 1953"
*[this hobbyist-type site  gives the same dates -- filming in 1951, TV premiere early 1953
*this hobbyist-type site gives a premiere date of April 1 1952 (and ending in 1957).
So we have:
* 1952:
:*All three professional sites.
:*The one hobbyist-type site that quotes from a published source.
*EARLY 1953:
:*Two hobbyist-type sites.
*EARLY 1951:
:*One hobbyist-type sute.
Considering also that shows premiered in fall. A spring start (either 1951 or 1953) would be most
unusual, although note that this was syndicated program. All in all, it seems that 1952 seems
the most likely start date.  (There are a couple of published books that would clear this all up, but I don't have any of them). So I have changed the start date back to 1952, for now Vesa, if you have sources that describe otherwise, could you cite them here? Herostratus 04:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premiere date of "Adventures of Superman" 

message: Cut from article:
The book makeintresten agruemnt fr Reevsavin beinn tagrte ov "hit" duw 2 huvenspurned lon-tiem luv wt mub knxshun. hepsis ta cr adent wuss tempedd hei. De r nt ropni envishun bt trng 2 chng dat tifkatt. f Gorge lve 2 sei Juwe seitee, hee ha turun  mahct wt lieavieh chmpn hee wul rc muer. Reevs buxn fne nd it hr 2 kunseev hee kl heeseh foer bedai n reen. Gorge Reevs wuss gogluh chmpn n yui wt unfeeteh rekr.
Some of this may well belong in the article, especially if it can be cited, but the whole passage
is basically unencyclopedic. Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...okay, wackjob. Whatever. Wumbo 15:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please be aware that it is not the purpose of Wikiepdia to right the world's wrongs. We're only here
to write the world's encyclopedia. Your project should not try to use these pages to further some external goal. Sourced, verifiable information, presented in a neutral fashion, is welcome. Thanks, -Will Beback 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Vesa a.k.a. User:Projects (among others) can't even get the air dates right, and the
rest is a POV that is well-covered in the interesting book I cited, Hollywood Kryptonite. "These" users also cannot write proper English, which is what gives away that "they" are the same user, despite "their" denials. Wahkeenah 00:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like your Caps Lock key got stuck. You might want to check that. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you say obsessed? Dyslexic agnostic 21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncyclopedic passage 

message: ...it is still unacceptable because your usage of English sucks so badly. Go take some classes and come back here when you can write an actual normal English sentence. Wahkeenah 20:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible that the above is trolling, pure and simple? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Is it possible" that the above is a continuation of said trolling? I think one look at my contributions list and that of User:64.107.1.197 will settle the matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Even if everything you and your sockpuppets say were absolutely true...

message: And you people dont seem to understand, this is how it should look like:
*And you don't seem to understand that (1) you're pushing a point of view, which is against wiki rules and (2) even if your "facts" were verifiably true, which they are not, your English usage is unacceptably inferior. Your defense that you haven't had "time" to write the article in proper English is no excuse. Wahkeenah 00:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It has been discussed many times

message: :Given that nearly half of the article appears to be about controversy over Reeves' death, it is remarkable that there are almost no clear citations in the portion relating to his death. (Books are mentioned. It is not clear what comes from where. In no case are page numbers cited.)
::Also, I cannot work out what to make of the line "Unfortunately, both Geisler and Reeves' mother died before anything could be proven." While I suppose death is always unfortunate, "unfortunately" here is POV. Also, given that apparently nothing of what Geisler was trying to prove is even now "proven", the sentence makes almost no sense. - Jmabel | Talk 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon they were trying to say "unfortunately for the investigation..." which is obviously redundant. A "however" would have been sufficient. I haven't done much with this page lately. Maybe I can put some more work into it. There was a lunatic vandal on here for awhile, but he seems to have faded into the woodwork, so it might be safe. Wahkeenah 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have much of a problem with the usage of "unfortunately" there; it's common usage.  I do, however, have a problem with the extensive uncited discussion of the controversy over Reeve's death. There should be some discussion, but not this uncited mess; hence, it needs to be fixed. Wumbo 23:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, it could almost use a separate article. We need some more contentious issues here. Wahkeenah 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps there should be a separate section about all of this controversy over his death.  The "Death" section of this article, as is, is particularly bad.  The writing isn't great, there's some POV problems, and there's several large paragraphs of controversial allegations with absolutely no citation.  I'm not a big citation cop, but if you're going to be making claims about things that run counter to the official story, you should probably provide good reason for it. Wumbo 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's had a few too many cooks. If you think it's bad now, take a look at what that one lunatic was doing with it a few months back. Once he was banned, things calmed down. But it appears to be too much self-contradictory detail. You had the official story, and the suspicions summarized in Hollywood Kryptonite, and the fact we're never going to know for sure, and that's about it. Wahkeenah 05:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: I've done a little searching in regards to the George Reeves/Psycho controversy: Googling shows all Reeves/Psycho references to appear to have originated from Wikipedia. Just to be sure, I checked several books on Hitchcock, including Stephen Rebello's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho. No mention of George Reeves was found in any of them. Unless someone can find a source that shows evidence to the contrary, this appears to me to be the worst kind of vandalism, intentionally using Wikipedia to spread disinformation. That this hoax seems to be spreading beyond Wikipedia makes it all the worse. Rizzleboffin 23:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo, my old man's an film expert and has a ton of movie history info; he never found a hint of truth to it. Know what im saying? --Jonathan.Bruce 07:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: George Reeves & Psycho

message: The movie was in production in 1959, whoever wrote about Reeves and psycho, was a psycho, clearly shows that people can write anything they want here, under trivia I did not see anything associated with Hitchcock's twiested Psycho, as far as I know Hitchcock never even tried to contact Reeves for that part.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/
It is amazing how long it took people here to find out about this.,..
*I wouldn't be surprised if the IMDB story came from this page. It appears to be a hoax. There is nothing about it in Hollywood Kryptonite, and that book has plenty of detail. Reeves was going to do some boxing exhibitions, and also was going to revive the Superman show, even though he was getting a tad old for that at 45. Nothing about either Hitchcock or Psycho. Wahkeenah 01:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imdb Psycho

message: I've taken the liberty in adding this.  It may be out of format for Wikipedia, but boy, does it seem necessary in this case.  Some of the myths are disspelled in the body of the entry, many are dealt with by jimB's referenced IMDb post... and this idiotic PSYCHO nonsense keeps getting re-inserted.  And, yes, the myth itself seems to trail right back to Wikipedia, about two months ago, and has spread like measles.  Somewhere else there was a post where the author describe his (her?) memory of being on the Paramount lot watching Reeves acting in the film and Hitchcock directing-- neat, except the film wasn't shot on the Paramount lot (and any child who really did grow up in LA would know the difference).  Psychiatrists call this "confabulation"-- I consider it wacky troll vandalism.  Some people still have a need to keep George Reeves from being thought of as a suicide. User:Ted Newsom 
*Some of this is repetitive overkill, and hopefully future editors will be able to smooth out that situation. I gave up awhile back, but I still watch the page. The Psycho story sounds like a hoax, as it doesn't really square with the timeline, for one thing; and, as you say, there are enough wikipedia copycats to enable hoaxsters to help spread rumors. But if the copycats refresh frequently, fixing it here should also help quell those references. We hope. It is also worth mentioning that although Reeves was officially a suicide, there is plenty of information to both introduce reasonable doubt into that conclusion by itself, and also to suggest murder. But it is unlikely we will ever know for sure, since all the interested parties are now dead, as far as we know. Wahkeenah 15:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just googled it. It's all over the Web. Dear Lord... Skrooball 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''URBAN LEGENDS'' ADDITION

message: The Controversy section is in very poor style for an encyclopedia. A lot of it is unsourced and frequently employs the weasel words 'some people'. Additionally, much of it presents evidence for both sides, presumably so the reader can decide. This is not encyclopedia style. We should only present sourced analysis by notable others who have examined the evidence. Ashmoo 04:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not denying that there is controversy or that the controversy should be included. But we need to describe other people's opinions of the controversy  (from all sides), rather than current model, which provides the 'evidence' for each theory. Ashmoo 23:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, too many editors here have tried to make this story the Mystery of the Age. You should read what I went through with some looney back in the springtime or so (before he was banned). One curious thing to explore would be Jack Larson's apparent wishy-washiness on this subject. But this is hardly the JFK assassination, and it just doesn't need that amount of electronic ink. And I say again, there are questions that remain unanswered. To make assertions beyond that is to push a point of view. Wahkeenah 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: Wow, I cant believe this is becoming a little bit of a good conversation, I have to read all of this and get back to some people here, even though they do not deserve wasting my time...
What I can say for now is, as I said it before... POV, now, wht is pov, I did mention this before... if POV eventually becomes known and it gets around for many years it is no longer a theory... do you know what I mean, in science we call it a hypothesis, meaning it is a proven theory, but not yet 100% proven to be called a fact or to be accepted by all as certain, however it the scientific community a hypothesis is generally accepted as almost given, meaning most of the folks agree to be true, except they have their reservations, in other words common reason should govern humanity as Aristotle's ethics says, but he does not have to say that, if it is known for some time it is a strong rumor, 98% of Reeves fans are not certain if it was suicide or not, most of them are leaning towards murder, therefore if there is POV, it is no longer pov but generally accepted theories, so there is nothing wrong with mentioning them as most acceptable conclusion. Now... if some morons (here) insist Reeves had a Psycho movie starring role, the only conclusion is that they must be psycho, since I have not heard nor seen nor ever read for the last 20 years that Reeves was scheduled to play a supporting role, I am 100% certain he would be perfect for the role of the psycho or almost any other role, but bringing about such statements, all of a sudden and out of the blue is rediculous and unsubstantiated.
If somebody is interested I can give phone number to Reeves cemetery, they need to change that day there, January 6, any idea why did his mother do that? May be he was born at midnite, but doctors still thought it was the 5th... Any theories so we can make a hypothesis>?
Some of the people here like Wak... believe now that it was suicide, Jim Beaver and his book, I am very much familiar with, but even he himself said there is still little chance Reeves did not kill himself, so it's not for us to know, remember because his book was the last, therefore our opinions will shift towards his opinions. It reminds me of republicans who control oil, now it's down, why... because there is enough now, or a lot in reserve? Pure and simple BS, that may be part of the truth, however if we look at the broader scope of the situation we realize that republics control the oil, now they can say it's down, 2.60$+ it's still terrible... but many people are glad it's down... but in reality it is only temporary, so temporary truth is very misleading, take the iraq II hell in perspective, I can write a book on this but to make things pure and simple... handling of Reeves' body is not acceptable, was not done according to the standards, the certificate was issued suicide, they simply wanted the case closed asap. Way too many things just do not match and do not go hand in hand, and Beaver book, i strongly DO NOT RECOMMEND! Nice work, no doubt, but it is all taken in wrong direction.
G R 
George Reeves Lives
*Unfortunately, one thing I am 100% certain of is that George Reeves is no longer among the living. His memory lives with us Baby Boomers, but he himself joined the Great Silent Majority in 1959... shot by a Luger containing a Krytonite bullet. :( Wahkeenah 21:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Well since ignorants can answer much, check this out, a little bit of theories....and more
I do not have much time to waste, but this time around I want to say a few words....
Ted Oldsome... You are talking about logical arguments on murder then you
switch to accidental homicide. Make your point. You are only confusing everybody.
This is a mystery and therefore there are no concrete answers, (duuuh)
your answers might just as well be good as mine, you may be
wrong (and you are), and guess what, all of us could be wrong. (I am mostly right)
My simple intention from the very beginning was to have all possible theories
explained succinctly. And I know some of the people here will not appreciate
a blessed or freakin thing I wrote but no matter, I am not writing for them.
Yes, Reeves was to make (at least) additional 13 shows (or 26) and he was
to direct it. Yes there was a door where you could slip in and out,
yea Reeves was to fight Archie Moore, yes, he was about to get hitched to Lenore,
etc... all those things point out away for suicide. However, nothing is
certain. Reeves' autopsy is itself controversial, 45 pages long. Is it
because Eddie and his cronies wanted it as authentic as possible.
And what about the party? Now, some say there was only Lenore and Bill Bliss,
drinking and getting drunk. Everybody else was asleep and a certain pair
were cheating on their spouses. Some say who would kill themselves in a house
full of guests? Nobody. My theory is that the party was over, except for those
2, everybody was in their rooms. Reeves was asleep, she said it. 
After 5 minutes of conversation, she heard one loud shot. Reeves was dead...
Bill Bliss ran upstairs and he said... "My friend George, my friend is dead."
Did he really run up immediately? Did Lenore say it's just George shooting
himself? Wow, I can go on and on and what about those 2 bullets in the
floor? (Lenore said she was practicing shooting, some time ago from the same gun).
The devil and evil is the architect of confusion. I must admit, Sherlock Holmes
would have had serious, serious problems, trying to sort this mess out.
All the evidence presented in Reeves death simply point out it was not
suicide, official report says it was. The gunshot to the temple (so they say)
clearly points out to a suicide. Many experts say so, but there are some
who think otherwise. Then there are wounds on Reeves' forehead. Some say
he was beat up and then killed. I say, it's unlikely. Why? Reeves was a wrestler,
few days before his death he had a friendly but serious wrestling match
with his neighbour, a big strong tough doctor. The match was drawn but Reeves was
burt badly. He did not mind, because it made him more confident for the Moore match.
Well... I can go on and on, I can talk about his favorite dog's dognapping,
about how his every step was followed, I can talk about truck accident 
and car accident (We wonder if the truck driver is alive today), 
threatening phone calls from Toni and her gardener, I can
talk about so much more... What good will it give our hero ? Not much.
Or will it greate additional queries. Was there justice for Reeves ? Let's talk 
about that... heck no....... I dont see it. And people like Oldsome baby boomer Ted
and Wacko, they are not buying things, but are judging others. Still, I 
like to read their opinions, there is some good material for constructive
argument. We may not like each other, but at least memory for Reeves unites us.
 Did you know Lenore was the first one to call Larson at 4 am, only 2 hours
after Reeves' death? Why did she call? She wanted psychological comfort,
she knew Larson was Reeves' good friend. Sure, they did not socialize but
there was admiration and respect between those two. Somehow in her mind she
wantes solace in the midst of woe. Her subconscious was driving her to
justify her act. Did the cops call her about his death? It's possible
but I doubt it. They dont call somebody at 4am, if they did, they would have
called his mom. And what about the engagement ring to Lenore?
Who cares, I doubt that the marriage was called off. The pianist who overheard
them arguing was correct, but so what, we all argue over many little things
and that argument was not of unusual nature.
Then they came home, Reeves had couple of drinks, took a shower and 
went to bed. When Lenore left him, he was asleep. Somebody came thru the
window, took his gun (Toni knew where he kept it and it was close on his desk)
and the rest is history. Since the gun's position was known to Toni, 
the rest was easy. She wanted Lenore to be blamed for murder. She did not
succeed. I am a man of truth and justice and I seek it. Due to my time
constraint, may be some of my words are not eloquent or fancy but the idea
is what matters. The idea behind the project is strong.
Toni did not want Reeves to belong to another woman, so she decided
not to loose him to some other slut (as she said it). Lenore was hungry
for love, she would never kill him. Sure, there are many unexplained things
surround her and her statements but that's only because certain situations
required some fast answers. And as time goes by, when one and one is put
together, more conusion arises. Comprende? Did she say it's just George
killing himself? Most likely, but it was more of a jest. If she did not
say it, then she made it up, so her story looks good, she did not want
to be blamed, she knew she was nothing in California, she had no power
there, the power belonged to the Mannix's and MGM executives. Even chief
Parker, the Hollywood police chief was paid by Eddie. Eddie controlled just
about everything. This can never be proven, but it's the most likely scenario.
And what about Harry the hitman? Who cares, how do we know that was his name?
The underworld source is probably Lozzi guy. Some of his things make sense,
but they begin to crumble when he talks about confession. That he held her
hand when she was dying, when she was confessing... No, no priest would EVER
allow anybody to be present in the room while he was in a state of cleaning
the soul, that's between the soul and the God only and that's not allowed
as evidence in courts. As far as why she waited 20 years to confess?
Duh, she knew she was dying, this time she had to find the courage to confess.
As far as changing the date on Reeves' grave marker, it is our business.
Mistakes should be corrected, especially in death. So, there you have it...
All these theories are now much more then theories, they are more than facts.
As far as beaver's book goes, well I had seen part of the book some time ago
(thru my sources). I dont have to read all of the book to know that he
wants the world to know that Reeves killed himself but even he has his doubts,
he simply wants his book to be sold. I am sure he is a fan and all, but
his book will overshadow everything else others wrote on this case and that's a shame.
 You can have your opinions, I have mine and I am sticking by them and if you
don't like them, well.. fine, great, whatever. Just dont show your ignorance
or changing the subject or pointing out your lousy philosophy which some of
you only barely explain. Reeves' death was not investigated properly, the
conclusion that he killed himself was rushed. It's the law-when a person
of fame dies, especially in Hollywood, special investigative units ought
to be called. Who investigated the death? Two cops who barely knew who Reeves was.
But even they had their reservation about suicide outcome. The devil is
in the details, evil creates evil, so does confusion. Again, people like
Reeves should be remember for what they stood and not (it depands on the person)
how they died, but justice should never be discarded as well, as it was in this case.
Hollywoodland did not resolve a damn thing about his death, only created
additional ficticious characters and questions. Reeves lives in his Superman 
role he played. The first season was really great. They could have had 27
episodes if the Mole man was cut into 3 parts. 
        In 1960 Jack Larson should have played the role 
of boy reporter with the old images of Reeves. I am sure
Reeves would not mind, at least he stays in people's memory. Besides, Larson
never found any good tv roles after that (except for guest appearance in Superboy).
At a certain george reeves meeting, many reeves fans (i was theer too) spoke about
this. Larson became sort of a cult hero, Jimmy O. comics became very popular
in 60's and 70's. I believe the 13 episodes offered to Larson would have
helped his career a lot. Lozzi may have something right, but some things he made up. Superpup, there is no mention reeves wanted to do that, i have not seen it anywhere. As far as superman goes, The show could have 
had less mistakes if the producers paid more attention to certain scenes.
In one of the scenes they had the S backwards, cheap special
effects, by superimposig certain scene they unknowingly reverted it and that's not all...
No doubt, first season was action packed. And what superpup, got links?!  All the evidence points out and it's leaning towards a conspiracy.
-George Reeves lives!
**That's just fine.  And there are plenty of boards that would dearly love to deal with all of this, like "The Friendly Adventures of Superman" board.  All fans, all well read and polite, all very pro-George.  That's where this sort of discussion belongs, not on an encyclopedia.  See you there.Ted Newsom 05:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If it was not mystery, it would not be confusing in the first place and

message: Let's skip the literacy lesson.  (JB: Enough websites I checked have mitigated things to say about plurals on S/Z words, but whatever looks best, dat be jes fine.)  Now scratch your head and wonder why it is somehow more positive, uplifting and less depressing to be murdered than it is to take one's own life?  Or why someone would devote years of his own life to legitimately research a subject if he did not love the subject?
*It's not more positive and uplifting to be murdered, because the subject is still dead; however, it's sad for someone to be in such despair they would destroy themselves, whereas being murdered, while also sad, is something that was done to the subject by someone else. Easier to understand than to explain, maybe. Wahkeenah 04:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This little corner of the universe

message: Nothing in Hollywood Kryptonte should be taken as fact.  The myth of a fight with Archie Moore started long after Reeves was dead.  Maybe someone talked about it in real life, maybe not, but no public mention was made or any date specified-- all of which you would have if there was a business agreement between Moore and Reeves.  The connection is through Condon, who was writing a piece on Moore.  Ditto the Golden Gloves:  you'll find no statistics of George Bessolo's Golden Gloves career, because there wasn't one.  He boxed, and he got out, possibly at his mother's insistence (he did get a broken nose out of the expeience).  Check out the Jim Nolt website (The Adventure Conitinues) and Jan Henderson's SPEEDING BULLET; no mnetion of the fictitous Moore bout.  The idea that Helen Bessolo hired goons to bounce him around is nuts.  And-- unfortunately for the truth-- your statement that "many sources say..." anything doesn't mean anything is true.  So much horsepuckey has been made up about the man after his death that repetitions of the stories seems like truth, but isn't.
User:Ted Newsom
Ok, you need to add the fact that reeves was to attend hs graduation of his friend's son, from same home town and in the book hollywood kryptonite, lenore clearly says... "If you can go 2 rounds with the champ, you are my man" So, if there was no match for june 17th, it surely was set soon enough.
*Got it wrong, I think, pal-- or Hollywood Kryptonite does-- warned you about that rag.  Any quotes in that book are either 4x removd from their original sources, or sijply made up from the writers' imaginations.  As I understand it,  Reeves had promised to attend the graduation of Nati Vacio's son-- Nati wasn't from Reeves' home town in Iowa, Vacio was an Angelino, a friend since high school days.  Double-check this if you like, but it makes me wonder if you're the Reeves buff you think you are.  In any case, I don't think a promise to attend someone's high school graduation has any pertience to an encyclopedic entry. Nor -still-- is there any contemporary proof at all that there was an Archie Moore fight slated.  Just one contemporary, verifiable refernce, that's all I ask-- and we play by Wikipedia's rules.71.109.239.226 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The absence of fact

message: I've reverted the information regarding Reeves's mother falsely claiming one of her husbands had committed suicide.  It was his stepfather, Frank Bessolo, whom Helen falsely claimed had killed himself, not Reeves's real father, Don Brewer.  The A&E Biography show (in various incarnations) misquotes my own interview with the network.  I told them about the false suicide claim, but they mistakenly aired the statement that it was Don rather than Frank whom Helen had made the claim about.  To my knowledge, this is the only source of this false information, and as I am the person they got it and misinterpreted it from, I am reverting the material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JimBeaver&action=edit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.137.251 (talk • contribs).
*It's hard to imagine the mass media making a mistake, but I reckon anything's possible. Wahkeenah 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reeves's parentage 

message: *Have eliminated the Afflick/Hollywoodland reference from the opening paragraph.  The info is pertinent but parenthetical; it's really not the sort of thing that needs to be in a 2-line encyclopedic introduction. Ted Newsom 17:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Affleck

message: Jim Beaver has his opininons, I have mine (heck I can even write a book, i have loads of material), other people have their opinions.
A simple fact (or two)is bothering me... why did chief Parker declare this suicide so fast, how come there was no official investigation by proper law enforcement group, it is customary in this circumstance, when a Hollywood star dies, there must be deeper investigation. The local coroner also called it a suicide, saying the bullet wound matches suicide examples (cases). What bothers me he also claimed that the position of the body is also classic suicide, but that is pure bs, impossible.(contrary to all other suicide investigations) A gunshot might look like suicide, but not the position of the body. Is it possible somebody was holding on to him, so here's my point... If they were, then blood would have splattered all over those who held him. Did investigators find any blood on the window, or below the window? Around the garden, or if they did they simply cleaned it up? If somebody shot Reeves, no doubt some blood and brain tissue had to be transfered on that person. If you have those photos, let's see them here. Again, read above in my previous statement. (on boxing too). What Leonore said was not true... you are about to kill yourself and she has preminition... he will, dont you think the first thing to do is save that person's life? Something's rotten in Denmark... Hmm... What can I say ? I think it was only Leonore and Bliss who had the party that night, everybody else was asleep. (or more) Bliss came by, they drank, they heard the gun fire. Bliss ran up immediately? Ok, let's think about that, how long does it take to do that, was the window closed, if the window was open (summer) that means no doubt killer escaped, if it was closed, then hard to say, but then case is leaning more towards suicide. But reeves was only slightly drunk and what was the sudden change of mood ? There are millions of possibilities, i can go on and on and on. But for now, let's concentrate on these things. If somebody has copy of death certificate, send link.
I am still wondering, how many seconds it took Bliss (total stranger to reeves) to run upstairs and yell "my friend is dead" Or was he on the game as well, came to drink, while others came, he ran first so the killer can run away. Did he claim suicide. How many bullets were in the gun, how many used up? This is where current investigation into this mystery must concentrate. Both Parker and county coroner sound very suspicious. Well, that's that for now, time does not allow me more. GR Lives
*Oh, please.  The difference between your "opininons" and someone like Jim Beaver (and to a lesser extent, people like Jim Nolt and Jan Henderson, and to a far, far lesser extent, myself) is that those opinions are based on fact-- verifiable fact, from going through contemporry newspapers (not tabloid articles 25 and 30 years after the fact), seeing the locations and documents first-hand, and speaking directly to the people who actually were around.  Have fun believing the insane theory in "Hollywood Kryptonite," which is about as fact-based as the Lucky Luciano nonsense in HOT TODDY.  You've managed to turn Eddie Mannix-- a retired, behind-the-scenes functionary at one of the half-dozen on-the-skids motion picture studios in 1959-- into a combination Darth Vader and Prof. Moriarty.  He didn't "run" L.A. any more than  Pinky Lee.  Mr. Reeves was found laying on his back with a hole in his head. His gun was found right at his feet.  There was blood spattered where it would be expected to be spattered.  There was powder residue found where it should be, along the path of the bullet through his brain.  The ejected shell was found where it should have been, on the bed, beneath his body (which dropped backward in death from an upright sitting position.)  The death was investigated by the appropriate authorities; the results were obvious.  As for some nonsensical "cover-up" and a "fast" judgement of suicide, there are some things that don't take an Einstein to figure out.  "When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross." Ted Newsom 04:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suicide or murder

message: I have tons of material, but little time and then when I do find time, not too many praises here. My friend forwarded me an email from the guy who heard the confession. I can post it here if that's ok... You know the Lozi guy, right?! He overheard confession, was he by the door, the way he wrote it, it seems priest allowed him, would he lie, he has a name to hold on to, after my friend asked him few questions, the dude never replied... Possibly offended, but who cares, if he does not reply, screw him. Remember, in latin mea culpa means my fault AND IT DOES NOT MEAN SOMEBODY IS GUILTY OF ANYTHING... Even these days in traditional catholic churches we hear those words, meaning we as hymans confess to our Creator, for our general sins, so, just because she said that we must take that as part of her catholic prayer/christain way. But Lozzi dude is an enigma you may say. But it's worth investigating. I wonder how did he hear all that? GR Lives
*Lozzi's story is so full of holes you could use it to strain spaghetti.  As to why people make up whoppers like this, who knows.  Self-serving publicity, probably, and he is a publicist (with, having checked out his website, a weirdly inflated opinion of his own importance.)  His Mannix story changes with the tides and phases of the Moon.  Recently an old git named John Frederick started claiming he was Superman in 18 shows filmed when Reeves was balking about continuing the series-- more nonsense.  If-- and this is an increidbly big IF-- Lozzi was listening at the door of a holy confession, he should be ashamed of himself.  IF, in the unlikely event that a priest would allow him to be present during a confession, for him to say anything he heard is appalling.  And if he heard, say, Toni Mannix say, "It was all my fault, I killed George, the poor boy would be alive today except for me," or something similar (and this is a LOT of IFs), even THAT doesn't prove anything.  Funny that he never replied to your friend's questions, huh? Ted Newsom 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Toni Mannix confession

message: You know, like George Reeves did with Superman?  Make a little stage show out of it, wrestle with your version of Mr. Kryptonite, rescue your version of Lois Lane, then sing some songs to the kids.  You announce repeatedly here that you're such an expert on this subject, brag that you've read Jim Beaver's book (which he hasn't even finished writing, much less published), and now admit that you're unfamiliar with the seminal and well-researched books by Gary Grossman and Jan Henderson.  What on earth HAVE you read, the funny books?  God bless you for your interest and persistence, but your missives read like transcriptions from Bizarro World.  Seriously, there are plenty of discussion websites that I'm sure would LOVE to see your posts-- IMDb, for one, or the myriad other Superman fan sites.  You might even find people of like mind who absolutely agree with everything you write.  But this place is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the local tavern where everybody comes to drink beer and swap tall tales.User:Ted Newsom 23:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Take it on the road

message: I mean, for goodness' sake, so much space about an event that didn't happen, something that may (or may not) have ever really been planned, which is not at all pertinent to whether or not he died by his own hand, all of which is in a section about misconceptions.  If someone wants to write a riff on his boxing and/or judo stuff (if that's even important), sure, but this thing has grown beyond its significance. (BTW-- note to Jim B:  if Nati's son's graduation was early in the day-- say, noon, when mine was-- it would still fit in with southward travel plans.Ted Newsom 03:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about deleting the boxing bit altogether?

message: Seriously, Reeves coulda been murdered....or might have shot himself after all. It's either of those scenarios, or the third idea: hitman by Mannix. My uncle says that he was a talented actor, but that he was an "old guy" for the role of Superman. I watched So Proudly We Hail and thought he did a good job, whose director he was on good terms with and died before Superman began. He often said that had the director not died, he (Reeves) wouldn't be in the "monkey suit" (Superman costume). So sad that he died. --Jonathan.Bruce 09:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ever wonder what really happened?