Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:03, 3 July 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,091 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 14) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:14, 22 July 2015 edit undoPudist (talk \| contribs)95 edits →Disinformation Next edit →
Line 49:		Line 49:
	Does anyone have any suggested edits? Otherwise, this section should be hatted. ] <small>(])</small> 23:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)		Does anyone have any suggested edits? Otherwise, this section should be hatted. ] <small>(])</small> 23:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
	:Yes, that delusional kook-a-loo worked at that coffee company for a few weeks while the loser slacker Oswald also worked there, reading hunting and rifle magazines in the adjoining garage until he got deservedly fired. Those are exactly the type of people who get hired for such jobs. Liars and losers. And that proves . . . absolutely nothing whatsoever. ] ] 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)		:Yes, that delusional kook-a-loo worked at that coffee company for a few weeks while the loser slacker Oswald also worked there, reading hunting and rifle magazines in the adjoining garage until he got deservedly fired. Those are exactly the type of people who get hired for such jobs. Liars and losers. And that proves . . . absolutely nothing whatsoever. ] ] 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


			14 Reasons to Believe in Judyth Vary Baker
			Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile, Part 2

			Interview with Dean Hartwell, DEAD MEN TALKING, about the death of JFK and the relationship between Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker.


			REASON #1. Documents and researchers prove Baker and Oswald worked together for months at Wm. B. Reily Co., a coffee company in New Orleans, and that these jobs were pre-arranged cover jobs:


			a) The A-1 employment agency shows records for both Oswald and Baker. Reily Coffee Company interviewed both Baker and Oswald on the same day (May 9, 1963). The Reily ads were 2 weeks old, but no one was hired until Baker and Oswald were interviewed. Note: Baker has much additional corroborating evidence, such as check stubs, w-2 forms, exactly matching Oswald’s dates, plus:
			b) Oswald, as a ‘gift’ on Baker’s birthday, May 15, pretended to job-hunt at A-1 again, and though employed at Reily’s, told A-1 nothing about having been hired there; at this time, Oswald is on record for the visit, which was to induce A-1 to reduce an unjust fee placed against Baker by A-1, due on May 27. Baker has all relevant records for this event.
			c) They were interviewed and hired the same day (May 9) by the same person.
			d) They began work the same day, on May 10, at the same address, a block from Reily Coffee Co.
			e) They were working in the same small sub-company of Reily, called The Standard Coffee Company, even though that small suite did not have a maintenance man (Oswald’s job for Reily) and Baker was Vice President William Monaghan’s secretary (Monaghan’s two offices were located in the Reily building). Baker was there to launder Oswald’s past so he could transfer with a clean record to Reily’s, for Oswald had been a fake defector to the USSR and had returned from that mission without arrest or detaining, to start new assignments. Reily was known for its ‘patriotic’ anti-communist position.
			f) Both Oswald and Baker were transferred on the same day, one week later, to Reily, across the street.
			g) The day Oswald was fired (July 19) an ad was ordered to replace Baker; a modified ad with more inducements appeared 2 weeks later when the first ad did not produce a replacement for Baker.
			h) The day Oswald was arrested for distributing pro-Castro pamphlets (August 9) Baker was forced to resign. Baker had been at Reily’s primarily to cover for Oswald’s and her activities elsewhere.
			i) Baker and Oswald rode the same bus to and from work (Magazine St. bus): there was only one stop between their respective bus stops; their apartments were within walking distance; both Oswald and Baker lived within minutes of each other, and key persons and places mentioned in Edward T. Haslam’s shocking new book (see below). Oswald and Baker bonded when he helped her after a police raid.
			Bus 11, riding the Magazine Street.

			REASON #2: Baker has the testimonies of living witnesses confirming her intimate relationship with Oswald in New Orleans:
			a) William “Mac” McCullough, who was a musician, bouncer and bodyguard for New Orleans godfather Carlos Marcello, describes seeing Oswald and Baker together at a park, a restaurant, and seeing them together on several other occasions. His mother worked at a restaurant where Baker and Oswald ate, and he also saw them at a hotel where he sang and played the piano.
			b) Anna Lewis, wife of DAVID FRANKLIN LEWIS (known witness in JFK murder case) who was a private investigator for Guy Banister and an associate with Jack Martin in investigations and political activities in New Orleans, has testified on two audiotapes and on film that she and her husband accompanied Baker and Oswald on double dates in New Orleans, plus sessions of talk at Thompson’s Restaurant in New Orleans, over a period of months. Lewis was pressured to recant her statements but refused to do so.

			Video interview with Anna Lewis


			c) Baker told her sister, Lynda, that her secret lover had been killed while serving his country, and that he was working for the government in secret missions on the first anniversary of Oswald’s death in 1964, charging Lynda never to mention the matter again. Lynda finally spoke out decades later after Baker released her from this promise.
			REASON #3: Baker identified former Customs Agent Charles Thomas, also known as Arthur Young, as the person who was introduced to her by Oswald as the agent who expedited Oswald’s passport (along with others, to disguise the matter) to be issued only 24 hours after requested. Thomas described meeting and befriending Oswald in Buffalo, New York, when Oswald was a young teen.
			a) Baker described tattoos on the fingers, silver hair, German accent, his previous Customs station in Buffalo, NY, his connection to anti-Castroites and to the Mafia in Miami, and marriage to a Chitimacha Indian woman to Thomas’ granddaughter, whom she met in a class at The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, LA.
			b) The granddaughter, Kelly Thomas, verified that Charles Thomas also used the name Arthur Young, and then brought forth photos showing Cuban and mafia associates; the granddaughter and her family also had photos showing the tattoos on the fingers, the silver hair, verified the German accent and the Customs post in Buffalo, NY, which Thomas headed, even having a photo of the customs station at Buffalo. Charles Thomas had been dead for years and had kept his past a secret from the outside world, living in obscurity on the Chitimacha Indian reservation with his Chitimacha wife after the assassination.
			c) Baker contacted researcher Joan Mellen with details about Thomas; Mellen later wrote in her book that she had obtained evidence that Oswald worked with Customs and described his connections to Customs, without giving Baker any credit for the lead. This lack of giving credit has occurred several times with researchers.
			REASON #4: Baker has provided a cashed $30 American Express money order receipt dated May 27, 1963, linked to her bank records and receipts and to letters from Oswald indicating his use of $30 for office rent on the same date.
			a) The American Express receipt is linked in such a way as to show it was illogical for Baker to have purchased it for any reason other than to give Oswald an untraceable $30 ‘donation’ that he, with limited income, would not have to account for via his small salary. $30 = approx. $270 in today’s funds.
			b) An American Express file about Oswald exists in Rotterdam, Holland.
			c) Oswald received multiple American Express money orders from an unknown source in 1963.
			d) Witness Delphine Roberts has testified to Anthony Summers that Oswald had an office.
			REASON #5: Baker has a green glass which has been in her possession since 1963, given to her by Oswald, known to many by 1980 as given to her by Oswald.
			a) Over 30 people heard Baker, in 1980, explain that the glass had been given to her by Lee Harvey Oswald at Reily company, in 1963, and that they had ‘worked together’ there.
			b) Baker’s son, Josiah, has confirmed this; he also remembered his mother describing streetcar and bus rides with Oswald in New Orleans.
			c) Baker’s daughter, Sarah, remembers accidentally throwing away a note that Oswald wrote that was kept in the glass, and has been able to describe the note, and how upset her mother was. This event occurred during a household move from Orlando, Florida, to Lafayette, Louisiana. She also affirms that the green glass was given to her mother by Oswald.
			REASON #6: Baker provides evidence that her job and Oswald’s job at Reily’s were cover jobs for clandestine activities elsewhere.
			a) Baker provides time cards and clock-in/clock-out records showing Oswald’s outrageously late clock-ins, for which he was unaccountably not docked, while others who were late were docked, with Warren Commission testimonies backing her information; the clock-outs are precise, the clock-ins, irregular. Baker provides explanations: these and other details, such as 4907 mail problems, were not noticed by researchers--until Baker pointed out much that was obviously wrong in the official record.
			b) Baker provides inside knowledge of Oswald’s whereabouts that for the first time explains them logically, with important direct and circumstantial evidence to support her statements; many of her statements have been confirmed later by other researchers, following her leads; usually, she was not given any credit for these leads, but comparing her statements with researchers’ ‘finds’ confirm her pre-knowledge.
			c) Baker provides a financial information/character report on Oswald showing how it was deliberately created and rigged by herself and Oswald to cover up Oswald’s past, including his nearly 3-year stay in Russia as a defector, so that the highly conservative, anti-communist Reily Co. would be able to employ Oswald; a close and careful examination of all testimony concerning this document proves collusion.
			REASON #7: Edward T. Haslam investigated Baker and has confirmed her ability to conduct secret lab activities in New Orleans as described thoroughly in his landmark 2007 book, Dr. Mary’s Monkey. Haslam, a New Orleans native who knew some of the persons encountered by Baker and Oswald, only learned about Baker’s still being alive through Sixty Minutes investigators. Haslam describes Baker and Oswald’s clandestine activity together in New Orleans, with verified information as to its importance.

			a) Baker provides substantial reasons for why she should never have been employed at Reily’s as a Vice President’s secretary, when her expertise was in cancer research and medical technology: New Orleans’ Ochsner Clinic was world-renowned as a cancer research center.
			b) It’s reasonable to assume that Baker would not leave her studies, family, and friends in Florida simply to become a secretary in New Orleans. Her ease in obtaining a well-paying chemistry research position soon after her return to Florida proves she had no reason to leave unless it was originally, as she asserts, to work under the prestigious Doctors Ochsner and Sherman.
			c) Haslam himself is a living witness that Judyth Vary Baker was impersonated in New Orleans in the 1970’s when he was trying to find out more information about the clandestine lab activities.
			Interview with Ed Haslam, author of "Dr. Mary’s Monkey"

			REASON #8: Film producer Nigel Turner had successfully presented six documentaries in the popular series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, a secure fixture on The History Channel that ran more than two decades. On the recommendation of known CIA asset Gerry Hemming, Turner investigated Baker and her witnesses for over a year. He photographed much of her evidence. He filmed her for 38 hours and matched 55 hours of her spoken testimony taken months earlier on a tape recorder with her filmed testimony. He had witnesses Baker knew nothing about verifying many of her statements. Turner was contracted by The History Channel to produce two more documentaries in the popular series--The Smoking Guns, and The Guilty Men--but requested and received permission (and then filmed) a third segment – The Love Affair, about Oswald and Baker’s romance and clandestine activities together in New Orleans, and their continuing relationship until Oswald’s death two days after Kennedy’s assassination. But Turner got too close to the truth, and all hell broke loose, destroying his series.
			The Love Affair (The Men Who Killed Kennedy)

			a) The Love Affair was the first and only time in Turner’s series where only one person–-Baker--was featured for the entire documentary. Though banned in America, it is currently an underground favorite on YouTube and is a popular underground film overseas.
			b) Living witness statements supporting Baker’s testimony were illegally withheld by a third hostile party who essentially stole the videotapes. They were later recovered, but were not included in the documentary. There may have been plans to produce a sequel to the documentary with witnesses.
			c) There was an outcry from Official Version Oswald-did-it important people, such as former President Ford, Jack Valenti and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson and her friends, over the new documentaries, and suddenly, three were banned, though the series was supposed to run for nine years.
			The Men Who Killed Kennedy 7 of 9 - The Smoking Guns

			d) Over 50,000 copies--prepaid--were destroyed and money returned, as a board of historians were called together by The History Channel to pronounce the documentaries falsely incriminating of former President Lyndon Johnson, who is clearly indicated as ruthless and involved. However, NONE of the historians met with or conferred with ANY of the witnesses, including Baker, nor did they look at ANY evidence whatsoever. This was the first documentary ever banned by The History Channel, or by anyone, so far as we are aware. In 2007, The History Channel lampooned Baker’s testimony.
			e) Nigel Turner was systematically maligned on the Internet and has been incommunicado since 2004.
			f) Baker was systematically maligned on the internet with big, impressive websites against her, and with newsgroup posts creating lies (such as that Baker claimed to be of Russian nobility, or that she said she was offered $600,000 for her story by a tabloid, or that she was a close friend of Dr. Suess, that Liberace learned how to play the piano on her father’s piano, and other ridiculous statements ‘proving’ she was non-credible!). Other statements claiming to be Baker’s flooded newsgroups, ruining her reputation. Arrest threats, job loss, and death threats began to plague her life.
			The Men Who Killed Kennedy 9 of 9 - The Guilty Men

			Reason #9: Wealthy Dutch researcher and film producer Wim Dankbaar investigated Baker and her witnesses for six years and fully supports her testimony and story.
			a) Dankbaar provides DVDs of Baker and her witnessess’ statements and their stories on his website.
			b) Dankbaar twice tried to produce a movie about Baker’s story, but was stopped the first time by a contract by a co-producer (Woods) who demanded Baker’s lifetime story rights, and the second time by a specious lawsuit by Robert Vernon, who stole evidence and spread lies about Dankbaar and Baker on the Internet. Vernon also distributed pornography about Baker and urged potential witnesses not to talk to Baker or Dankbaar. Important corroborating evidence, such as phone call records and films, have now vanished. Some witnesses were threatened and lost their jobs. Baker was hit twice by vehicles in Dallas.
			Reason #10: Famed Dutch investigator Peter DeVries, noted for uncovering political crimes and frauds, and solving murder cases, investigated Baker in 2005-2006.
			a) DeVries fully supported Baker’s testimony and story in an internationally televised miniseries shown across Europe in 2006.
			b) DeVries recently uncovered new evidence in the Aruba murder case famed in the US, using secret cameras and microphones, uncovering a confession no one else was able to obtain.
			Reason #11: CBS’s Sixty Minutes investigated Baker’s testimony and story for eighteen months and nearly filmed it three times. They called it their “longest and most expensive investigation” in their entire history. But an insider told Baker that (now disgraced, for lying about Bush) higher-up Dan Rather closed the investigation. “The door was slammed shut in our faces,” according to Sixty Minutes’ founder, Don Hewitt, explaining the problem to C-Span. “I brought that woman in to New York!” he stated. Hewitt called the story the most important story in Sixty Minutes’ history. Emails from Sixty Minutes producer Phil Sheffler state “we did not walk away from this story.”
			a) When the investigation closed, Sixty Minutes had not yet interviewed Baker’s living witnesses!
			b) Sixty Minutes was advised by Brian Duffy of US News & World Report to drop the investigation because there was ‘not enough evidence.’ Duffy was later found to have written a large article for USN&WR supporting Gerald Posner’s ‘Case Closed’ (Oswald-did-it) book–-a big embarrassment to Duffy if Baker’s story became known to the general public. Duffy had just been re-hired by USN&WR and would later become a chief editor there.
			c) Sixty Minutes’ chief source to check Baker’s reliability, Howard Liebengood, had been privy to all CIA and MKULTRA documents gathered by the HSCA, and was a renowned and trusted specialist in the Kennedy assassination. Liebengood confirmed Baker’s knowledge in general, and also her knowledge, specifically, of secret MKULTRA documents they had both seen, in front of CBS producers, Dr. Howard Platzman, and Baker. He urged CBS to film Baker.
			d) Liebengood died of a sudden and unexpected heart attack just a few days after retiring, and just before his promise to help Baker’s story get filmed by Sixty Minutes.
			Reason #12: More evidence and witnesses: At the time of the Sixty Minutes’ investigation, Baker did not know what evidence was important. She had avoided all contact with the case for three and a half decades. Only after she was allowed to look at records in the case was she able to recognize what evidence she possessed that was important, such as the American Express money order, and Oswald’s time cards, which she had initialed.
			a) Baker kept evidence from 1960-1964 concerning her cancer research, her relationship with Oswald, and the events in her life immediately before and after his death, much of which her family saw (such as Reily check stubs) without realizing what was important and what was not. The collection of evidence was finally placed in twelve 50-page books. Baker did not save anything but family photos and an occasional item from any other year. The mass of materials from this time period is rich and detailed.
			b) break-ins, robberies, and even kidnapping has resulted in the loss of some evidence, but all of it has been seen and photographed numerous times, and has been successfully linked to Oswald’s activities.
			c) new witnesses such as William Livesay (confirms secret medical experiments in 1963 were going on at Jackson hospital using Angola prison volunteers), Edwin Lea McGeHee, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Kelly Thomas, Mary Ferrell (gray Russian book unknown to public and a unique possession of Oswald’s, described by Judyth to Ferrell in front of witnesses), and many others confirm previously unknown details Baker has given.
			d) Baker described Bobby Kennedy’s involvement with Guy Banister and knowledge of Oswald, divorce plans of Oswald, details about Oswald’s Mexico City visit which were later confirmed by new witnesses.
			One of Oliver Stone's key conspirators in JFK is New Orleans private investigator and former FBI agent Guy Banister.

			e) Baker’s presence in a car with Oswald in Jackson (by two different witnesses of repute), and Baker’s explanation of the Clinton matter (which for the first time logically places Oswald, David Ferrie, and Clay Shaw together as seen by–-but unable to be explained by–-eight disparate witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana), where a black Cadillac sat for five hours for no known reason (however, Baker’s testimony clears up the matter, with additional new evidence from the Clay Shaw Grand Jury testimonies finally released to the internet) (see the banned documentary, The Love Affair).
			Reason #13: Dr. John Williams, a US professor with a doctorate in statistics, collected data and statistics about the confluences and evidence Baker has presented, with the help of witness Kelly Thomas Cousins, and produced an analysis of events indicating that the chances that Baker and Oswald knew each other intimately are 99%.
			1032 Marengo St. Baker lived here in 1963, close to Oswald.

			a) Dr. Williams also produced a statistical study indicating that there was only one chance in a MILLION that Oswald and Baker did NOT have prearranged jobs with Reily.
			b) Dr. Williams has now published two technical papers in The Dealey Plaza Echo which publishes journal style papers on the JFK/RFK/MLK assassinations in Great Britain.
			Reason #14: Why is Baker's life being threatened? She is currently in hiding in a Scandinavian country under EU political asylum rules and regulations due to denigrating Internet and television productions, break-ins, robberies, burglaries, Internet stalking, persecution, live stalking, arrest threats, and death threats.
			a) Baker’s book has twice gone to print without her permission, with changes and excisions.
			b) Baker wants the REAL book to get published, and will support and authorize its sales.
			c) Baker will not return to the United States until after the book is published: she is willing to risk her life to promote the book.
			d) “If I had said Oswald DID IT, today I’d be a rich woman, instead of in hiding, fearing for my life.” (JVB) The book is true. It’s relevant, pointing to Oswald’s innocence and indicating a Coup d’etat. ] (]) 04:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

	==RfC: Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage?==		==RfC: Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage?==

Revision as of 04:14, 22 July 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lee Harvey Oswald article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 28, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 24, 2005 and November 24, 2011.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Louisiana Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States History Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lee Harvey Oswald article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Disinformation

I understand why this particular article is watched so closely watched, by FBI, CIA and NSA people. Heaven help us if the truth were ever revealed, I fully understand why they've knee-jerked, in "semi-protecting" this article. Colored with carefully framed disinformation, over-polished and over-honed by the best and brightest embedded within America's defense-intelligence complex, even the most obtuse of laymen would have little choice but begrudgingly concede, at face value after reading this particular Misplaced Pages article, it's hopelessly tainted. Ever run a DMV on Lee Harvey Oswald? I did. It produces zip; nada; nothing. No infractions, no reckless driving; no DUIs, no speeding tickets, not one parking ticket, he always signaled, not one car accident, not one stop sign or red light did he ever blow, Lee Harvey Oswald goes down in history as the kindest, most law abiding, most thoughtful and perfect motorist, in the history of car culture? Indicative of too many chefs, it becomes painfully obvious Oswald's been scrubbed, then superimposed upon by so many intelligence specialists, that the Lee Harvey Oswald soup they've cooked up for 11th graders is even more "over-spiced," than contemporary advertiser supported reality television. Aberranced three-quarter century of bad government, nobody is ever going to believe one single word you people have written, in this article. Arguably one of the most interesting people of the 20th century, the more effort spent groping to pin it on him, the more innocent Oswald appears to be. Interesting to denote, not one single word is uttered in this article, about the Judyth Vary Baker woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.9.54.85 (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If you could point out the FBI, CIA and/or NSA people watching over this article, that would be interesting. Me, I have no such affiliations. I'm a retired cab-driver in Australia. We have policies, built up over many years, and this article follows them, like all the other millions of articles we've written. If we were covering something up or constructing a fantasy, that wouldn't work. --Pete (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Careful. Some of the conspiracy websites and forums take pleasure in outing who they believe are disinformation agents. - Location (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason why Judyth Vary Baker isn't mentioned is because reliable sources have concluded that she lacks credibility.Cullen Let's discuss it 19:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, she does receive some coverage in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, possibly beyond the extent that she should given the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. - Location (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This article by John C. McAdams analyzes her claims and finds them dubious, to be charitable. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

John McAdams provides very dubious information. However, even with all of Misplaced Pages's flaws, you will find more and better information on the JFK assassination than you will ever find on sanitized encyclopedic sources like Britannica. --BrandonTR (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You know why you found nothing? Oswald didn't have a driver's license. Why else would he flee an assassination on a bus? Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There have been lengthy, spirited debates regarding Vary Baker on Misplaced Pages. Consensus of the editors is that she is a complete fraud, and largely non-notable. Those few published authors lending credence to her story have reputations as being totally unreliable.

Full disclosure: I was the editor who originally wrote the single reference to Vary Baker in the conspiracies article. This was meant to placate those insisting that Misplaced Pages must say something about her; at the same time we were debating a bio article (since deleted as non-notable) that had literally been written by her. I wrote the text saying her claims are widely considered to be a hoax. I believe it was Brandon who re-wrote it to include mention of her cuckoo-bananas supporters Marrs, Fetzer and Ventura. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You can choose to believe or not believe what Judyth Baker said about her relationship to Oswald. What is not in doubt is that Baker worked at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans at the same time Oswald did. Her employment records show that. --BrandonTR (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You can also choose to believe the moon is made of green cheese. But there are incontrovertible facts by dozen that contradict that idea. Just as there are incontrovertible facts by dozen that contradict Vary Baker's claims, and absolutely none to back them up. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any suggested edits? Otherwise, this section should be hatted. Gamaliel (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that delusional kook-a-loo worked at that coffee company for a few weeks while the loser slacker Oswald also worked there, reading hunting and rifle magazines in the adjoining garage until he got deservedly fired. Those are exactly the type of people who get hired for such jobs. Liars and losers. And that proves . . . absolutely nothing whatsoever. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

14 Reasons to Believe in Judyth Vary Baker Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile, Part 2

Interview with Dean Hartwell, DEAD MEN TALKING, about the death of JFK and the relationship between Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker.

REASON #1. Documents and researchers prove Baker and Oswald worked together for months at Wm. B. Reily Co., a coffee company in New Orleans, and that these jobs were pre-arranged cover jobs:

a) The A-1 employment agency shows records for both Oswald and Baker. Reily Coffee Company interviewed both Baker and Oswald on the same day (May 9, 1963). The Reily ads were 2 weeks old, but no one was hired until Baker and Oswald were interviewed. Note: Baker has much additional corroborating evidence, such as check stubs, w-2 forms, exactly matching Oswald’s dates, plus: b) Oswald, as a ‘gift’ on Baker’s birthday, May 15, pretended to job-hunt at A-1 again, and though employed at Reily’s, told A-1 nothing about having been hired there; at this time, Oswald is on record for the visit, which was to induce A-1 to reduce an unjust fee placed against Baker by A-1, due on May 27. Baker has all relevant records for this event. c) They were interviewed and hired the same day (May 9) by the same person. d) They began work the same day, on May 10, at the same address, a block from Reily Coffee Co. e) They were working in the same small sub-company of Reily, called The Standard Coffee Company, even though that small suite did not have a maintenance man (Oswald’s job for Reily) and Baker was Vice President William Monaghan’s secretary (Monaghan’s two offices were located in the Reily building). Baker was there to launder Oswald’s past so he could transfer with a clean record to Reily’s, for Oswald had been a fake defector to the USSR and had returned from that mission without arrest or detaining, to start new assignments. Reily was known for its ‘patriotic’ anti-communist position. f) Both Oswald and Baker were transferred on the same day, one week later, to Reily, across the street. g) The day Oswald was fired (July 19) an ad was ordered to replace Baker; a modified ad with more inducements appeared 2 weeks later when the first ad did not produce a replacement for Baker. h) The day Oswald was arrested for distributing pro-Castro pamphlets (August 9) Baker was forced to resign. Baker had been at Reily’s primarily to cover for Oswald’s and her activities elsewhere. i) Baker and Oswald rode the same bus to and from work (Magazine St. bus): there was only one stop between their respective bus stops; their apartments were within walking distance; both Oswald and Baker lived within minutes of each other, and key persons and places mentioned in Edward T. Haslam’s shocking new book (see below). Oswald and Baker bonded when he helped her after a police raid. Bus 11, riding the Magazine Street.

REASON #2: Baker has the testimonies of living witnesses confirming her intimate relationship with Oswald in New Orleans: a) William “Mac” McCullough, who was a musician, bouncer and bodyguard for New Orleans godfather Carlos Marcello, describes seeing Oswald and Baker together at a park, a restaurant, and seeing them together on several other occasions. His mother worked at a restaurant where Baker and Oswald ate, and he also saw them at a hotel where he sang and played the piano. b) Anna Lewis, wife of DAVID FRANKLIN LEWIS (known witness in JFK murder case) who was a private investigator for Guy Banister and an associate with Jack Martin in investigations and political activities in New Orleans, has testified on two audiotapes and on film that she and her husband accompanied Baker and Oswald on double dates in New Orleans, plus sessions of talk at Thompson’s Restaurant in New Orleans, over a period of months. Lewis was pressured to recant her statements but refused to do so.

Video interview with Anna Lewis

c) Baker told her sister, Lynda, that her secret lover had been killed while serving his country, and that he was working for the government in secret missions on the first anniversary of Oswald’s death in 1964, charging Lynda never to mention the matter again. Lynda finally spoke out decades later after Baker released her from this promise. REASON #3: Baker identified former Customs Agent Charles Thomas, also known as Arthur Young, as the person who was introduced to her by Oswald as the agent who expedited Oswald’s passport (along with others, to disguise the matter) to be issued only 24 hours after requested. Thomas described meeting and befriending Oswald in Buffalo, New York, when Oswald was a young teen. a) Baker described tattoos on the fingers, silver hair, German accent, his previous Customs station in Buffalo, NY, his connection to anti-Castroites and to the Mafia in Miami, and marriage to a Chitimacha Indian woman to Thomas’ granddaughter, whom she met in a class at The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, LA. b) The granddaughter, Kelly Thomas, verified that Charles Thomas also used the name Arthur Young, and then brought forth photos showing Cuban and mafia associates; the granddaughter and her family also had photos showing the tattoos on the fingers, the silver hair, verified the German accent and the Customs post in Buffalo, NY, which Thomas headed, even having a photo of the customs station at Buffalo. Charles Thomas had been dead for years and had kept his past a secret from the outside world, living in obscurity on the Chitimacha Indian reservation with his Chitimacha wife after the assassination. c) Baker contacted researcher Joan Mellen with details about Thomas; Mellen later wrote in her book that she had obtained evidence that Oswald worked with Customs and described his connections to Customs, without giving Baker any credit for the lead. This lack of giving credit has occurred several times with researchers. REASON #4: Baker has provided a cashed $30 American Express money order receipt dated May 27, 1963, linked to her bank records and receipts and to letters from Oswald indicating his use of $30 for office rent on the same date. a) The American Express receipt is linked in such a way as to show it was illogical for Baker to have purchased it for any reason other than to give Oswald an untraceable $30 ‘donation’ that he, with limited income, would not have to account for via his small salary. $30 = approx. $270 in today’s funds. b) An American Express file about Oswald exists in Rotterdam, Holland. c) Oswald received multiple American Express money orders from an unknown source in 1963. d) Witness Delphine Roberts has testified to Anthony Summers that Oswald had an office. REASON #5: Baker has a green glass which has been in her possession since 1963, given to her by Oswald, known to many by 1980 as given to her by Oswald. a) Over 30 people heard Baker, in 1980, explain that the glass had been given to her by Lee Harvey Oswald at Reily company, in 1963, and that they had ‘worked together’ there. b) Baker’s son, Josiah, has confirmed this; he also remembered his mother describing streetcar and bus rides with Oswald in New Orleans. c) Baker’s daughter, Sarah, remembers accidentally throwing away a note that Oswald wrote that was kept in the glass, and has been able to describe the note, and how upset her mother was. This event occurred during a household move from Orlando, Florida, to Lafayette, Louisiana. She also affirms that the green glass was given to her mother by Oswald. REASON #6: Baker provides evidence that her job and Oswald’s job at Reily’s were cover jobs for clandestine activities elsewhere. a) Baker provides time cards and clock-in/clock-out records showing Oswald’s outrageously late clock-ins, for which he was unaccountably not docked, while others who were late were docked, with Warren Commission testimonies backing her information; the clock-outs are precise, the clock-ins, irregular. Baker provides explanations: these and other details, such as 4907 mail problems, were not noticed by researchers--until Baker pointed out much that was obviously wrong in the official record. b) Baker provides inside knowledge of Oswald’s whereabouts that for the first time explains them logically, with important direct and circumstantial evidence to support her statements; many of her statements have been confirmed later by other researchers, following her leads; usually, she was not given any credit for these leads, but comparing her statements with researchers’ ‘finds’ confirm her pre-knowledge. c) Baker provides a financial information/character report on Oswald showing how it was deliberately created and rigged by herself and Oswald to cover up Oswald’s past, including his nearly 3-year stay in Russia as a defector, so that the highly conservative, anti-communist Reily Co. would be able to employ Oswald; a close and careful examination of all testimony concerning this document proves collusion. REASON #7: Edward T. Haslam investigated Baker and has confirmed her ability to conduct secret lab activities in New Orleans as described thoroughly in his landmark 2007 book, Dr. Mary’s Monkey. Haslam, a New Orleans native who knew some of the persons encountered by Baker and Oswald, only learned about Baker’s still being alive through Sixty Minutes investigators. Haslam describes Baker and Oswald’s clandestine activity together in New Orleans, with verified information as to its importance.

a) Baker provides substantial reasons for why she should never have been employed at Reily’s as a Vice President’s secretary, when her expertise was in cancer research and medical technology: New Orleans’ Ochsner Clinic was world-renowned as a cancer research center. b) It’s reasonable to assume that Baker would not leave her studies, family, and friends in Florida simply to become a secretary in New Orleans. Her ease in obtaining a well-paying chemistry research position soon after her return to Florida proves she had no reason to leave unless it was originally, as she asserts, to work under the prestigious Doctors Ochsner and Sherman. c) Haslam himself is a living witness that Judyth Vary Baker was impersonated in New Orleans in the 1970’s when he was trying to find out more information about the clandestine lab activities. Interview with Ed Haslam, author of "Dr. Mary’s Monkey"

REASON #8: Film producer Nigel Turner had successfully presented six documentaries in the popular series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, a secure fixture on The History Channel that ran more than two decades. On the recommendation of known CIA asset Gerry Hemming, Turner investigated Baker and her witnesses for over a year. He photographed much of her evidence. He filmed her for 38 hours and matched 55 hours of her spoken testimony taken months earlier on a tape recorder with her filmed testimony. He had witnesses Baker knew nothing about verifying many of her statements. Turner was contracted by The History Channel to produce two more documentaries in the popular series--The Smoking Guns, and The Guilty Men--but requested and received permission (and then filmed) a third segment – The Love Affair, about Oswald and Baker’s romance and clandestine activities together in New Orleans, and their continuing relationship until Oswald’s death two days after Kennedy’s assassination. But Turner got too close to the truth, and all hell broke loose, destroying his series. The Love Affair (The Men Who Killed Kennedy)

a) The Love Affair was the first and only time in Turner’s series where only one person–-Baker--was featured for the entire documentary. Though banned in America, it is currently an underground favorite on YouTube and is a popular underground film overseas. b) Living witness statements supporting Baker’s testimony were illegally withheld by a third hostile party who essentially stole the videotapes. They were later recovered, but were not included in the documentary. There may have been plans to produce a sequel to the documentary with witnesses. c) There was an outcry from Official Version Oswald-did-it important people, such as former President Ford, Jack Valenti and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson and her friends, over the new documentaries, and suddenly, three were banned, though the series was supposed to run for nine years. The Men Who Killed Kennedy 7 of 9 - The Smoking Guns

d) Over 50,000 copies--prepaid--were destroyed and money returned, as a board of historians were called together by The History Channel to pronounce the documentaries falsely incriminating of former President Lyndon Johnson, who is clearly indicated as ruthless and involved. However, NONE of the historians met with or conferred with ANY of the witnesses, including Baker, nor did they look at ANY evidence whatsoever. This was the first documentary ever banned by The History Channel, or by anyone, so far as we are aware. In 2007, The History Channel lampooned Baker’s testimony. e) Nigel Turner was systematically maligned on the Internet and has been incommunicado since 2004. f) Baker was systematically maligned on the internet with big, impressive websites against her, and with newsgroup posts creating lies (such as that Baker claimed to be of Russian nobility, or that she said she was offered $600,000 for her story by a tabloid, or that she was a close friend of Dr. Suess, that Liberace learned how to play the piano on her father’s piano, and other ridiculous statements ‘proving’ she was non-credible!). Other statements claiming to be Baker’s flooded newsgroups, ruining her reputation. Arrest threats, job loss, and death threats began to plague her life. The Men Who Killed Kennedy 9 of 9 - The Guilty Men

Reason #9: Wealthy Dutch researcher and film producer Wim Dankbaar investigated Baker and her witnesses for six years and fully supports her testimony and story. a) Dankbaar provides DVDs of Baker and her witnessess’ statements and their stories on his website. b) Dankbaar twice tried to produce a movie about Baker’s story, but was stopped the first time by a contract by a co-producer (Woods) who demanded Baker’s lifetime story rights, and the second time by a specious lawsuit by Robert Vernon, who stole evidence and spread lies about Dankbaar and Baker on the Internet. Vernon also distributed pornography about Baker and urged potential witnesses not to talk to Baker or Dankbaar. Important corroborating evidence, such as phone call records and films, have now vanished. Some witnesses were threatened and lost their jobs. Baker was hit twice by vehicles in Dallas. Reason #10: Famed Dutch investigator Peter DeVries, noted for uncovering political crimes and frauds, and solving murder cases, investigated Baker in 2005-2006. a) DeVries fully supported Baker’s testimony and story in an internationally televised miniseries shown across Europe in 2006. b) DeVries recently uncovered new evidence in the Aruba murder case famed in the US, using secret cameras and microphones, uncovering a confession no one else was able to obtain. Reason #11: CBS’s Sixty Minutes investigated Baker’s testimony and story for eighteen months and nearly filmed it three times. They called it their “longest and most expensive investigation” in their entire history. But an insider told Baker that (now disgraced, for lying about Bush) higher-up Dan Rather closed the investigation. “The door was slammed shut in our faces,” according to Sixty Minutes’ founder, Don Hewitt, explaining the problem to C-Span. “I brought that woman in to New York!” he stated. Hewitt called the story the most important story in Sixty Minutes’ history. Emails from Sixty Minutes producer Phil Sheffler state “we did not walk away from this story.” a) When the investigation closed, Sixty Minutes had not yet interviewed Baker’s living witnesses! b) Sixty Minutes was advised by Brian Duffy of US News & World Report to drop the investigation because there was ‘not enough evidence.’ Duffy was later found to have written a large article for USN&WR supporting Gerald Posner’s ‘Case Closed’ (Oswald-did-it) book–-a big embarrassment to Duffy if Baker’s story became known to the general public. Duffy had just been re-hired by USN&WR and would later become a chief editor there. c) Sixty Minutes’ chief source to check Baker’s reliability, Howard Liebengood, had been privy to all CIA and MKULTRA documents gathered by the HSCA, and was a renowned and trusted specialist in the Kennedy assassination. Liebengood confirmed Baker’s knowledge in general, and also her knowledge, specifically, of secret MKULTRA documents they had both seen, in front of CBS producers, Dr. Howard Platzman, and Baker. He urged CBS to film Baker. d) Liebengood died of a sudden and unexpected heart attack just a few days after retiring, and just before his promise to help Baker’s story get filmed by Sixty Minutes. Reason #12: More evidence and witnesses: At the time of the Sixty Minutes’ investigation, Baker did not know what evidence was important. She had avoided all contact with the case for three and a half decades. Only after she was allowed to look at records in the case was she able to recognize what evidence she possessed that was important, such as the American Express money order, and Oswald’s time cards, which she had initialed. a) Baker kept evidence from 1960-1964 concerning her cancer research, her relationship with Oswald, and the events in her life immediately before and after his death, much of which her family saw (such as Reily check stubs) without realizing what was important and what was not. The collection of evidence was finally placed in twelve 50-page books. Baker did not save anything but family photos and an occasional item from any other year. The mass of materials from this time period is rich and detailed. b) break-ins, robberies, and even kidnapping has resulted in the loss of some evidence, but all of it has been seen and photographed numerous times, and has been successfully linked to Oswald’s activities. c) new witnesses such as William Livesay (confirms secret medical experiments in 1963 were going on at Jackson hospital using Angola prison volunteers), Edwin Lea McGeHee, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Kelly Thomas, Mary Ferrell (gray Russian book unknown to public and a unique possession of Oswald’s, described by Judyth to Ferrell in front of witnesses), and many others confirm previously unknown details Baker has given. d) Baker described Bobby Kennedy’s involvement with Guy Banister and knowledge of Oswald, divorce plans of Oswald, details about Oswald’s Mexico City visit which were later confirmed by new witnesses. One of Oliver Stone's key conspirators in JFK is New Orleans private investigator and former FBI agent Guy Banister.

e) Baker’s presence in a car with Oswald in Jackson (by two different witnesses of repute), and Baker’s explanation of the Clinton matter (which for the first time logically places Oswald, David Ferrie, and Clay Shaw together as seen by–-but unable to be explained by–-eight disparate witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana), where a black Cadillac sat for five hours for no known reason (however, Baker’s testimony clears up the matter, with additional new evidence from the Clay Shaw Grand Jury testimonies finally released to the internet) (see the banned documentary, The Love Affair). Reason #13: Dr. John Williams, a US professor with a doctorate in statistics, collected data and statistics about the confluences and evidence Baker has presented, with the help of witness Kelly Thomas Cousins, and produced an analysis of events indicating that the chances that Baker and Oswald knew each other intimately are 99%. 1032 Marengo St. Baker lived here in 1963, close to Oswald.

a) Dr. Williams also produced a statistical study indicating that there was only one chance in a MILLION that Oswald and Baker did NOT have prearranged jobs with Reily. b) Dr. Williams has now published two technical papers in The Dealey Plaza Echo which publishes journal style papers on the JFK/RFK/MLK assassinations in Great Britain. Reason #14: Why is Baker's life being threatened? She is currently in hiding in a Scandinavian country under EU political asylum rules and regulations due to denigrating Internet and television productions, break-ins, robberies, burglaries, Internet stalking, persecution, live stalking, arrest threats, and death threats. a) Baker’s book has twice gone to print without her permission, with changes and excisions. b) Baker wants the REAL book to get published, and will support and authorize its sales. c) Baker will not return to the United States until after the book is published: she is willing to risk her life to promote the book. d) “If I had said Oswald DID IT, today I’d be a rich woman, instead of in hiding, fearing for my life.” (JVB) The book is true. It’s relevant, pointing to Oswald’s innocence and indicating a Coup d’etat. Pudist (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage?

Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage? - Location (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald#New Orleans

One of Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba leaflets had the address 544 Camp Street hand-stamped on it, apparently by Oswald himself. Around the corner but located in the same building, with a different entrance, was the address 531 Lafayette Street—the address of "Guy Banister Associates", a private detective agency run by former FBI agent Guy Banister. In the late 1970s, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) investigated the possible relationship of Oswald to Banister's office. While the committee was unable to interview Guy Banister (who died in 1964), the committee did interview his brother Ross Banister. Ross theorized that Oswald had used the 544 Camp Street address on his literature to embarrass Guy."

Guy Banister's secretary, Delphine Roberts, said she saw Oswald at Banister's office. The House Select Committee on Assassinations investigated Roberts' claims and said that "because of contradictions in Roberts' statements to the committee and lack of independent corroboration of many of her statements, the reliability of her statements could not be determined."

Oswald's 1963 New Orleans activities were later investigated by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, as part of his prosecution of Clay Shaw in 1967–1969. Garrison was particularly interested in an associate of Guy Banister—a man named David Ferrie and his possible connection to Oswald, which Ferrie himself denied. Ferrie died before Garrison could complete his investigation. Charged with conspiracy in the JFK assassination, Shaw was found not guilty.

The Warren Commission examined Oswald's involvement with a New Orleans Civil Air Patrol troop he briefly attended in 1955 with high school friend Edward Voebel. Several witnesses testified that David Ferrie was the Civil Air Patrol unit's commander during at least some of the time that Oswald attended C.A.P. meetings. However, the FBI interviewed Ferrie shortly after the assassination and concluded there was no relationship of significance in regards to Oswald. A more extensive investigation was done by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which interviewed several of Oswald's former fellow cadets and others, none of whom recalled Ferrie and Oswald interacting. These fellow cadets said that Oswald attended some 8 to 10 C.A.P. meetings over a two-month period. In 1993, the PBS television program Frontline obtained a photograph taken in 1955 showing Oswald and Ferrie at a C.A.P. cookout with other cadets.

References

544 Camp Street and Related Events, House Select Committee on Assassinations – Appendix to Hearings, vol. 10, 13, p. 123.
544 Camp Street and Related Events, House Select Committee on Assassinations – Appendix to Hearings, vol. 10, 13, p. 128.
Summers 1998, p. 229.
544 Camp Street and Related Events, House Select Committee on Assassinations – Appendix to Hearings, vol. 10, 8, p. 129.
David Ferrie, House Select Committee on Assassinations – Appendix to Hearings, vol. 10, 12, p. 110.
FBI Interview of David Ferrie, November 25, 1963, Warren Commission Document 75, p. 286.
David Ferrie, House Select Committee on Assassinations – Appendix to Hearings, vol. 10, 12, p. 105.
^ PBS Frontline "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald", broadcast on PBS stations, November 1993 (various dates).
FBI Interview of Edward Voebel, November 25, 1963, Warren Commission Document 75, pp. 281–283.
New Orleans Police Department Interview of Edward Voebel, November 27, 1963, Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 22, pp. 826-827, Commission Exhibit 1413
Testimony of Edward Voebel, Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 8, pp. 14-15.
Oswald, David Ferrie and the Civil Air Patrol, House Select Committee on Assassinations, Volume 9, 4, pp. 110-115.
FBI Interview of David Ferrie, November 25, 1963 & November 27, 1963, Warren Commission Document 75, pp. 285–297, 199–200.
Oswald, David Ferrie and the Civil Air Patrol, House Select Committee on Assassinations - Appendix to Hearings, Volume 9, 4, pp. 107-115.
Summers 1998, p. 234.
PBS Frontline "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald", broadcast on PBS stations, November 1993 (various dates).
Summers 1998, pp. 233-234.

Oppose. The passage exploits cherry-picked primary source material to give undue weight to the possibility that Oswald may have known David Ferrie and Guy Bannister, presumably to bolster the conspiracy theory that Oswald held anti-Castro views and was in cahoots with other anti-Castro individuals. This material belongs in the main conspiracy article, and is, in fact, already in that article. - Location (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Undue weight. All reliable sources agree that Oswald was a consistent though confused Marxist throughout his adult life. Attempts to connect him to anti-Marxist ideologies are foolish stretches of the imagination, though he may have attempted some clumsy reverse agent provocateur activities against anti-Castro activists in New Orleans. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The argument for Oswald's ties to Ferrie and Bannister properly reside on the conspiracy page. This is how the main assassination page is set up, and, it should be noted, there are conspiracy arguments for just about every aspect of Oswald's life, so to the "weight" argument goes both ways - why are these specific allegations so central and the others not? I'd be open, however, to an expanded link to the conspiracy page along the lines of "numerous aspects of Oswald's life and claims of associations have been made which link him to a possible conspiracy in the assassination. Most of these allegations were investigated by the WC and the HSCA and found to be without merit. A further discussion of these claims can be found..." blah blah blah. What we have currently on the page really doesn't suffice, and I don't know why the exhumation is there, seems out of place. Canada Jack (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Support but only with modifications. It's important to have a discussion in broad terms about some of the most serious conspiracy allegations, so we should mention Garrison/Bannister/Ferrie. But there's too much material in this particular passage. For example, the Roberts testimony should be removed. I've long been against "one witness claimed this" factoids in this article. And the Ferrie passage should be condensed as it seems like a desperate game of gotcha - look they're in a photo together! conspiracy! Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The trouble we are having is that the material in its current state is not acceptable, but no other modifications or suggestions have been offered. One option is to add Jim Garrison investigation under Lee Harvey Oswald#Other investigations and dissenting theories with a few sentences and a link to Trial of Clay Shaw. Something like: "Oswald's 1963 New Orleans activities were later investigated by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, as part of his prosecution of Clay Shaw in 1967–1969." Insert the highlights of the investigation and trial, and how the major issues were addressed by the HSCA. It could state: "The HSCA determined that Oswald may have been acquainted with David Ferrie and Guy Banister, but found no evidence that the possible associations were of any significance." - Location (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose as written. Maybe if recast as a more neutral discussion of this particular conspiracy theorist trope? Guy (Help!) 17:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Strongly Support. The fact that Oswald worked in the same building that Banister and Ferrie did (and was seen by several people with Banister) is part of the historical record, as is the fact that Oswald and Ferrie were in the same small Civil Air Patrol group. - BrandonTR (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose All speculation and supposition. There is zero evidence that Banister and Ferrie had anything to do with Oswald shooting JFK. These two tangentially intersected Oswald's life. As did thousands of other people. If evidence should come out that B or F had any involvement, then yeah, we can revisit this. Looking at the sources used to support this section, we have mostly primary sources, cherry picked out of the investigations. The Warren Commission was following all likely paths, burrowed down this rabbit hole and came up empty. Nothing fresh has emerged in fifty years. Two secondary sources, and neither come up with anything beyond that these two people had the most tangential of interactions with Oswald for brief moments in his life. Exactly the same as thousands of others we don't mention in the article. Banister and Ferrie add nothing to this biographical article on Oswald's life and what made him notable. Happy for this stuff to go in the conspiracy article, however, where synthesis and speculation are king. --Pete (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this material, as stated above, but I also think we need to make mention as Gamaliel has noted, of some of the more serious contentions. We already take note of the Mexico City Oswald/not Oswald claims, and perhaps the Bannister/Ferry claims can be expanded - maybe the Ferrie CAP claims within that section, a line in the NOLA section for Bannister, or, as Location suggests, in the Garrison section. I don't feel entirely comfortable excising all of it without some mention. Canada Jack (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Support with modifications. There are a lot of good suggestions here. Rewritten as a more neutral discussion is fine. Folding into the Garrison investigation is fine. Location has suggested a spin-off "New Orleans Conspiracy" article, that's fine too. Folding the text into the JFK assassination conspiracy article is not such a good idea. It's not really germaine - as my friends are so fond of telling me, Oswald's possible contacts with David Ferrie and company are not necessarily indicative of a JFK assassination conspiracy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Weak Oppose If this were cited to a secondary source(s) I would support, but its exclusive reliance on primary sources makes it dangerously close to WP:OR. LavaBaron (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per nom. Summoned by bot. I don't even know if it warrants inclusion in the conspiracy article, but that's another discussion. —Мандичка 😜 00:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Summoned here by bot. This kind of conspiracy-mongering belongs in whatever article we have is devoted to such things. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as written. Summoned by bot. Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research and for presenting conspiracy theories as facts. Unless the material is presented as a conspiracy theory, I oppose inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Do you support or oppose keeping all current material in the article, and allowing the editing process to take its its normal course without mass deletions of current material?

Do you support or oppose keeping all current material in the article, and allowing the editing process to take its its normal course without mass deletions of current material? - BrandonTR (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Support. The normal, organic process of editing is preferable to the "book burning" strategy of some editors who have an agenda of mass deleting material they obect to. - BrandonTR (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Material that violates Misplaced Pages policies should always be removed. This is part of the normal course of the editing process. Gamaliel (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Commenting in general not to a specific case. Major changes to an article that are controversial should be discussed. A cycle may look like: Bold mass deleted -> Bold revert -> Discuss. If an editor makes a mass delete you disagree with then it can be discussed. Of course, the aim should be to comply with Misplaced Pages policy.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Let's stick to wikipolicy, people. It works. We can't freeze-dry an article and say it must never be changed, any more than we can allow open slather and let any nut put whatever they like in. We edit the article, we talk about it, we make decisions as a group. And often that results in slabs of poorly-sourced or irelevant or fringey material being removed. As per wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose When new material added to an article has been contested and removed, it is necessary to gain consensus in favor of including that material. There is no consensus to include what BrandonTR wants. I oppose the RfC and oppose the additions. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
SNOW Oppose This is clearly an untenable approach (for any article, let alone a high-profile entry covering a controversial topic) and blanket enforcement of a particular version of an entire article is not remotely the purpose to which RfCs are meant to be applied. If there are specific changes to content which the RfC author opposes or supports, then they should provide the relevant policy arguments for their position on those particular changes -- but it is clearly against policy, community consensus, normal editorial process and frankly common sense to ask that all content be kept as it is without discussion of specific merit of specific statements. Snow 02:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
SNOW oppose - summoned by bot. Removing unsubstantiated challenged material until consensus is attained to include it IS the "normal course" of editing. Please review every basic policy. —Мандичка 😜 00:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Per Gamaliel, we already have policies in place to address this. Without them, this article will be overridden with large amounts of non-RS crap claiming that everything Oswald's friends and family told the WC and others, is part of some extra-complicated CIA legend. That's the kind of thing that got Oswald exhumed in 1981. Well, it was Oswald after all. The crazies then went back to their drawing boards, and now we have a different set of conspiracies.
I will suggest that in order to placate those who have no place to summarize the crazy legend theories in WP (the "summation of all human knowledge that doesn't have a chance of making money on Wikia"), then I suppose we could construct an article analogous to our John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and dump all the Lee Harvey Oswald biography conspiracy theories that relate directly to the man's life, there. S B H arris 03:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Detailing the Warren Commission's case against Oswald

While several editors here complain that the evidence for conspiracy is lacking or downplayed, as per the current on-going discussion, for me the more serious issue is the near-complete lack of detailing of the actual evidence which the Warren Commission used to conclude Oswald shot the president. Instead, we have a long quote about "motive" (which is not particularly relevant if he have evidence indicating he actually shot the president, which we do), and a long note on the HSCA dictabelt evidence which, after all, is not about Oswald per se as the HSCA also concluded Oswald alone shot and killed the president. (It's relevant to the issue of conspiracy, not to whether Oswald was cuplable.)

I propose that we greatly expand the Warren Commission section and detail some of this evidence.

It could be something along the lines of...

"The WC issued its report on Sept xx 1964, concluding Oswald alone shot the president and did so with no accomplices....

"It first concluded, based on forensic, autopsy and witness evidence, that there was a single gunman, and that gunman fired from the sixth floor...

"It concluded that that gunman was Oswald based on the following... (detailing the major points from Chapter 4 of the Report)

"It concluded he owned and possessed the murder weapon as per the handwriting evidence for the order, the backyard photos, the fingerprint on the weapon etc

"It concluded he carried the rifle into the building... that he was in the sniper's nest... etc""

This should be a rather straighforward section to write, though the challenge would be to keep the points brief.

We could further expand on the HSCA corroborating the role of the TSBD assassin and that that person was Oswald, while addressing some points critics had made (the SBT, the backyard photos, the Lovelady photo etc)

Comments? Canada Jack (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should make an evidence section solely about the Warren Commission. Other investigations, historians, etc. concur with the basic historical facts and evidence outlined in the WC's report and so those facts should not appear to be attributed to the WC. It is a frequent tactic of conspiracists to attribute matters of historical fact they wish to dispute to the WC and attempt to discredit those facts by discrediting the WC. through pointing to some of the unrelated flaws in its report, methodology, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see less use of the WC and other primary sources and more reliance on the very many excellent reliable secondary sources. Again, use it for conclusions and possibly details such as exact quotes, but secondary sources should be our aim, as it is Misplaced Pages's. --Pete (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We surely need somewhere to detail what evidence points to his guilt, whether it be described as being what the WC concluded, or the HSCA or whomever. Since we already frequently say "the WC concluded..." on the page, not sure how describing WHY they concluded as much would taint those conclusions, the reverse I'd say if all we have here is the discredited to some word of the Warren Commission. IOW, it's harder to take issue with the WC if one describes the actual reasons for its conclusion instead of what we have now which is usually "they ignored all this evidence..." which has the perverse effect of, yes, ignoring the evidence which was actually determinative. Canada Jack (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Laying out the evidence is excellent. This is probably the best article to do that, because it is directly pertinent to LHO. It is where the conspiracy people fall down because they have no hard evidence. Hard to say the rifle was planted when we see pictures of LHO with the rifle, the receipts in his fake name and so on. My concern is with sourcing, and we should be using reliable secondary sources, rather than this endless forensic debate over the WC and so on. This is basic wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is that former DA of Italian descent who lays out the case against Oswald... and in so doing cites the conclusions of both the WC and the HSCA. Canada Jack (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with making the Warren Commission the final arbiter of everything is that the Warren Commission's work was completed only a year after the assassination, in 1964. In the intervening years, much information has emerged that the Warren Commission was not privy to, including the CIA/Mafia plots against Castro, which the CIA concealed from the Commission. Indeed in 2003, Robert Blakey, staff director and chief counsel for the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, stated: "I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald." Hence, to make the argument that the Warren Commission got everything right about the JFK assassination is absurd. Indeed, we now know that there was dissent among the Warren Commission members themselves on several issues, including the single bullet theory. - BrandonTR (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No one ever pretended that the Warren Commission got everything right, Brandon. So let's dispense with that strawman argument. But you are talking about possible conspiracies, I am talking about the evidence linking Oswald to the crime, separate issues even if there was a conspiracy. (Indeed, the evidence the WC and the HSCA used to conclude Oswald killed the president was similar, despite their different conclusions on the issue of "conspiracy.") For example, the CIA. I'm talking about the evidence which links Oswald to the assassination which is nearly completely lacking on this page. Claims of CIA involvement etc has its airing on other pages. But how is Oswald linked to the crime and why isn't it stated here? That is the issue. Canada Jack (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the section needs to be expanded. I agree that Chapter 4 is the place to start. The Warren Commission Report is a reliable source for what the Warren Commission concluded, but the major points of their findings in this chapter can be found in news sources and other secondary sources anyway. The same could be done with the HSCA, etc. - Location (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Opening paragraph rewritten back to orginal writing

"Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy": Should be changed back to "Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to five U.S. government investigations, the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963."

Because it best to acknowledge that that is the official version of events while at the same time the article points out the debate surrounding the events of that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.252.228 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Categories: