Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

Prayer Man Theory Debunked

For those who are aware of previous attempts by editors to place the "Prayer Man" theory in Oswald's article please reference Chris Davidson's photographic analysis on the Education Forum's JFK Debate branch...For those who are unaware, the Prayer Man theory is a claim made by Australian researcher Greg Parker and Sean Murphy that Oswald was captured standing on the Depository front steps as a shadowy figure in newsreels of Dealey Plaza during the assassination...The shadowy figure is holding their hands in front of them as if praying so the figure got the nick-name "Prayer Man"...Much false research has been poured in to this by Bart Kamp on his Prayer Man website that was all undone and disproven by Davidson who used cutting edge digital software to make subtle differences between light and dark, that were not visible to the human eye in the Wiegman newsreel film, visible...After Davidson inputted the clearest Wiegman film frame in to his digital software the clearly visible face of a woman was brought out on Prayer Man proving beyond a doubt that the shadowy figure in question was not Oswald...Davidson also posted his metadata which proved all he did was drop the original film frame in to his software program while making adjustments for brightness and contrast (Source: Chris Davidson, Education Forum)...Another source for the debunking of the bogus Prayer Man theory is researcher Brian Doyle's interview with Depository secretary Sarah Stanton's grand daughter in 2018...Wanda Daniel (Stanton's grand daughter) was shown the newsreel films and responded "That has to be Sarah, she's the biggest one out there"...Daniel has sent Doyle a family photo of her grand mother showing her obesity...That obesity was seen on Prayer Man, as well as Stanton's 5 foot 4 height (Oswald was 5 foot 9), proving beyond a doubt that Stanton was Prayer Man (See: "JFK Assassination Forum Member Brian Doyle Interviews Sarah Stanton's Granddaughter" on You-Tube)...Plus there is much more photogrammetric evidence that is too detailed to list here...Finally, Depository employee Buell Frazier was interviewed on video by the Dallas 6th Floor Museum in 2013 as well as by CSPAN in 2002...In both videos Frazier makes clear he was facing and talking to Sarah Stanton at the time of the Prayer Man newsreels...One look at the newsreels in question shows Frazier facing Prayer Man at that time...(Source: 6th Floor Museum and CSPAN interviews of Buell Frazier - You-Tube, and CSPAN website)...I would like to submit that these verifiable sources refute and dismiss the Prayer Man theory and it should not be allowed in any Wikipedia article, despite the irrational persistence of its backers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrumDrum (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The above paragraph by Brian Doyle contains no source citations and several factual errors. Chris Davidson has stated publicly that Doyle has misrepresented him and his photo work (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2549.msg90985.html#msg90985).Johniac1 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

In the link provided by Johniac1 Chris Davidson posts a screen shot of his metadata for the software program where he brought out a woman's face on Prayer Man...Please look at the thread shown in Johniac1's link and you will see Davidson publicly posts that his enhancement of the Wiegman film has exposed a woman's face on Prayer Man, therefore proving Prayer Man cannot be Oswald...Davidson posted his raw image outputs from that software and anyone can clearly see two of the frames possess a clearly-visible woman's face as Davidson confirms... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrumDrum (talk • contribs) 20:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Brian Doyle is also ignorant as to what constitutes "metadata". A screen shot of Photoshop settings is not metadata, nor does it prove anything about the underlying image. Chris Davidson has specifically stated that it was merely his opinion that the resulting enhanced image was a woman and that this didn't prove anything. See https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=562.msg45022#msg45022 2605:6000:101E:CB0B:95F4:F740:9692:EF91 (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is all WP:Original research and a complete waste of time. EEng 06:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this judgement. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert E Lee Oswald Sr military service branch

The article says Lee Harvey’s father Robert E. Lee Oswald Sr served in the Marine Corp during WWI. However, his tomb headstone says he served as a sergeant in the U.S. Army.

Ctalbott (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hmmm... that does seem problematic. There must be something about this in the high-quality sources. Anyone want to volunteer? EEng 06:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and change it to sergeant in the U.S. Army unless or until someone finds a reliable source otherwise. Marine Corp currently is unsourced. So is the mention of Robert E. Lee, so we should remove that until sourced. Sundayclose (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hold it. If anything we should just remove the info about military service, until someone's checked the high-quality sources. A grave marker is, after all, a primary source, and errors happen; this isn't a military cemetery (?) so it's likely the info on the stone just came from the family. EEng 16:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: I agree. My point is that it's better to have supposedly accurate information that is inadequately sourced (the grave marker) instead of information that is unsourced (Marines). Removing it entirely is fine with me, as well as the information about Robert E. Lee. Sundayclose (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Just for everyone's info: I checked 'Reclaiming History...', 'Case Closed', 'Crossfire', and a few others.....couldn't find anything.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Oswald was accused, not convicted

I have a question about the designation of Oswald as the killer of Kennedy. Usually we make this kind of statement after a person has been convicted. But Oswald was never tried in a court of law. He was charged by the Dallas Police Department but never indicted. We are relying on a government commission—which did not hear all the witness testimony and has been shown to have manipulated or ignored evidence—for its "official" conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy. It seems to me that Oswald should be referred to as the accused killer and that actions credited to him should be prefaced with allegedly in this and other articles related to the Kennedy assassination. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a perennial question. Two federal investigations found him to be the shooter. The only question was whether he had help, per the HSCA report. Longstanding consensus in this and all other similar events in which the shooter was never brought to trial (i.e. the 2017 Las Vegas shooting) is that the assassin/shooter named in investigations and mainstream sources as the shooter is treated accordingly. Being a popular topic for conspiracy speculation or uncertainty concerning the true scope of a broad conspiracy does not demand that we water down the article, and being dead before trial is not a free pass. Acroterion (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) the exact same question is posted at Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy#Oswald was accused, not convicted, kindly post your comments there to keep the discussion in one place. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It also seems to me that the definite identification of Stephen Paddock as the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting also violates the American principle of innocent until proven guilty—i.e. in a court of law. Yoninah (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If that was so, one would only have to manage to die before trial to escape culpability, The dead have no right to due process, and history is littered with people who did terrible things but were never prosecuted- that doesn't mean that we have to tiptoe around an absence of legal process. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not an "alleged" mass murder duo. And noting today's date, articles on 9/11 don't water the perpetrators down to "alleged" hijackers. Acroterion (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"This is a perennial question." As it should be, since this is basically an unresolved murder. First of all, it is not any murder. It is the most controversial murder of a United States of America President ever. There were in American history only 4 Presidents who were murdered, but only 2 of those murders had far-reaching political consequences for the country. But the Kennedy murder is the only murder in American history that was committed after the creation of the US Secret Service for protection of the President. And it is the only murder in US history that succeeded in killing a President over the supposed protection of the Secret Service and the FBI. And on top of all that, it is the only murder where the main suspect in the crime was murdered himself less than 48 hours after the death of the President, and in the custody of the Police and the FBI, in extremely controversial circumstances inside the Dallas Police headquarters. The precise circumstances of the President's killing were also not determined above all reasonable doubt by the Presidential committee nominated to determine the causes and circumstances of the murder, where the main conclusion was that this was an act committed by a solitary deranged murderer all by himself, with no help whatsoever from anyone else. Under all these controversial circumstances, and because it basically remains an unresolved murder, it actually marks the beginning of the use of the controversial concept of "conspiracy theory" in American politics. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right. Acroterion. Are those terrorists who struck the United States 19 years ago today somehow merely "alleged" perpetrators because they died carrying out the act? You could argue, using the "no trial" logic, that every suicide bomber in history was an "alleged" perpetrator. The confusion arises over the "innocent unilt proven guilty" precept in common law jurisdictions. That simply means before a court of law the onus is on the prosecution to demonstrate the guilt of the accused, not on the accused to establish their innocence. It most certainly does NOT mean we can't assess someone's culpability absent a trial. Oswald could have been found "not guilty" even if it was established he killed the president. Does John Hinckley's verdict of "not guilty" in his charges related to shooting Ronald Reagan mean he didn't shoot Ronald Reagan? Of course not. And the conspiracy crowd often deliberately conflates the distinction. Not knowing whether Oswald would have been found guilty or not of assassinating the president does not change the fact that he assassinated the president, as determined by multiple investigations, a distinction the conspiracy crowd has deliberately and dishonestly been conflating for years. Canada Jack (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's generally agreed that it's unresolved, but the lack of resolution concerns the extent of a conspiracy beyond Oswald, not whether Oswald was the shooter, at least in mainstream accounts. We therefore don't use "alleged" and we don't confuse the legal rights and procedures pertaining to living defendants with actual guilt or innocence when deceased. This isn't really the original conspiracy theory, they;ve been around as long as human speech has existed, but it's the foundational CT of the modern era. As such it attracts perennial queries common to all CTs on Wikipedia. The fact that that happens doesn't change our policies for due emphasis. Acroterion (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe you can so easily separate the different components of the lack of resolution, as you put it. Very reasonable doubt remains as to whether Oswald shot and/or hit the President, or if the manner in which the President's head exploded could have been achieved by a lone shooter shooting from the place and at the angle from which it was determined by the Warren Commission that Oswald shot. Or with the number of shots it determined that were shot from Oswald's rifle. The overall circumstances and the particular details of the murder, including the motives of the accused lone perpetrator, remain basically unresolved. I don't believe also that the motives of the initiator of the current round of questioning on this difficult case are connected to the deepening controversies about conspiracy theories. They are simple and forever valid questions of logic and of social ethics. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Will everyone who objects to describing Oswald as an assassin of JFK (or who just has an interest in the issue) PLEASE carefully read through the archives instead of trying to re-invent the wheel here. This has been discussed ad nauseam. We don't need to hear the same arguments one more time. Anyone who's interested can read about it in the archives. Sundayclose (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"Very reasonable doubt remains as to whether Oswald shot and/or hit the President... etc" Actually, no it doesn't. At least, not since 1979 and the HSCA explored the very issues you mentioned which were not addressed by the Warren Commission. To that point, there WAS "reasonable doubt" as, for example, the autopsy photos had not been subject to forensic examination, the shot trajectories had not been meticulously recreated, many photos had not been subject to the latest forensic techniques, etc. And while the HSCA concluded "conspiracy" based on later-disproven acoustic evidence, it nonetheless concluded that all the bullets that struck JFK came from a single rifle, and that rifle not only belonged to Oswald, he fired the shots. And no new evidence these past 40 years has come forward to negate the physical evidence that established that conclusion. And what his possible motive was is neither here nor there. If we have the evidence that shows someone killed someone else, we don't need the "why," though it's obviously more satisfying to understand someone's motives. But the lack of a plausible motive means little if the accused is standing there with a smoking gun in his hand. Which is basically what we have here.

In other words, any doubt that has been raised on the conclusion that Oswald, and Oswald alone, shot and killed the president, is not "reasonable" doubt, as it ignores the evidence that establishes conclusively that he did so. Which is why most conspiracy theorists - those who exonerate Oswald - either completely ignore the mountain of evidence implicating Oswald, or contend with a dismissive wave of the hand that it is faked. Did others put him up to it? That has always been a possibility, though it seems after all these years the closest chance of that is Oswald met some Cubans while in Mexico City and said he'd do something big to show himself worthy to the cause. But Castro was no fool and it defies belief he'd actually encourage Oswald to act. But act he did. Canada Jack (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Aaah... what would some Canadian know? EEng 02:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That is correct: "no new evidence these past 40 years has come forward." In fact, the "resolution" of the murder as you have it had already been telegraphed by the Director of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover to all the organization's field offices in the country less than an hour after the death of the President had been officially reported to the public on November 22, 1963. This was, of course, even before the one and only alleged perpetrator was also eliminated from world, as the President already had been, brutally silenced forever the next day. And it has not changed one iota since, no matter how many political inquiries were added to the original one. The problem is that there is here, beyond the obvious gut-wrenching human tragedy on display on television for the whole world to see, also a national political tragedy. And it festers on to this day. It will also continue festering, I believe, because no new evidence on the material case is actually possible. No new relevant material evidence can or will ever be added, because the very source for all the original evidence had already been all solidified, cleaned up, and shut off from the outside world by the FBI, weeks before the Warren Commission ever started its inquiry. The nation will just have to live with it, in one form or another, for the remainder of its history. warshy ^(¥¥) 20:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Warshy: Your time may be better spent discussing at Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Sundayclose (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As I just tried to explain, there is actually no point in trying to "discuss" this problem, either here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. The result will always be the same as it just was here/now, with your posts, for the reasons I tried to explain. But I guess you don't even have to bother reading what I write, as you apparently did not. So I am done. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was offline for 24 hours. Frankly, I think the above discussion asking if death should give criminals who were never tried in court a "free pass" is disingenuous and does not answer my question. (And what kind of argument are you making by comparing this to the John Hinckley case, Canada Jack? Though a court found him not guilty, you still do???) It seems to me that you and Acroterion, like the Warren Commission, are starting with the premise that Oswald killed Kennedy and writing the article from there. As Warshy states, no new evidence will ever be found that decisively says, "This is the killer", and apart from the 1% of government files still being held back on the grounds of "national security", evidence was destroyed by our government agencies long ago. But Wikipedia, being only 19 years old and a source of information for millions of people who weren't even born at the time of the assassination, does have rules for how it approaches criminal biographies, and I don't see these rules being applied here. I appreciate all the feedback here and I do not want to go into the whole realm of conspiracy theory, but my question still remains. Even if two federal commissions (not courts, mind you) determined that Oswald was the killer, why are we stating this in Wikipedia's voice? Why are we not calling him the accused assassin? (My apologies to Sundayclose for bringing this up and not poring through the archives. I guess you will always find new readers coming across Wikipedia pages.) Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, one point made in the archives is that Wikipedia is not a court of law and does not have to follow a court's strict legal guidelines. There is substantial support for the conclusion that Oswald was an assassin (and probably the only assassin). If you want more than that, take the time to at least skim the archives. Sundayclose (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In fact, the "resolution" of the murder as you have it had already been telegraphed by the Director of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover to all the organization's field offices in the country less than an hour after the death of the President had been officially reported to the public on November 22, 1963.

Not sure where you are getting your facts, warshy, but I am aware of a Hoover memo about the time Oswald was shot on Nov 24 1963, but not one before the world knew officially that JFK was dead, which would have been ~1pm CT on Nov 22. But assuming you are mixing up your facts here and are referring to the Hoover memo where he mentions Katzenbach, this is an example of the conspiracy crowd making a mountain out of a molehill. Hoover was more concerned about covering his incompetent ass than anything else, as he was by then aware the very suspect who shot Kennedy was the same guy writing death threats to FBI agents mere weeks before the assassination - and they didn't even bother to surveil him during Kennedy's visit! Further, and every intellectually honest researcher has to admit this, at that point, 48 hours after the assassination, all signs pointed to Oswald and Oswald alone. He had been positively identified by numerous witnesses as the guy who shot J. D. Tippit and fled after doing so - I think nine witnesses attested to that - and his rifle with his fingerprints had been found in the TSBD - and numerous witnesses had seen shots being fired from there and only there. And who normally worked there and fled the area soon after? Oswald. And why in god's name would Oswald, if innocent, shoot a cop in cold blood, if not to evade arrest for some terrible crime? Why this needs to even be spelled out is an indication as to how ridiculous the conspiracy crowd has become over the years. What Hoover was doing can be seen in a much more benign light - Oswald was clearly the guy who did it and with all the conspiracy talk swirling around, especially after Oswald had been shot, this needed to be tamped down. The public knew very little of what the investigators knew, and what the investigators knew pointed to Oswald and Oswald alone. And Hoover was saying that the public has to be made aware Oswald was the guy - but because all the evidence at that point made it blindingly obvious that Oswald was the guy!

You will notice that no conspiracy theorist ever produces some memo or conversation where Hoover says "we know Oswald didn't do it but we gotta lie to the public" or what have you. Instead we have the misleading claptrap which ignores the context.

If you have any evidence that says otherwise, let's see it. No? Instead you pull nonsense out of thin air, suggesting - with ZERO evidence - that all evidence pointing to a conspiracy was miraculously scrubbed by the FBI, so that by the time the Warren Commission got its hands on it, there was nothing to see here, folks. Which would have been the most air-tight cover-up in American - hell, world - history, by a guy - Herbert Hoover - who wasn't exactly the most competent guy in Washington.

Sure enough, we have this: No new relevant material evidence can or will ever be added, because the very source for all the original evidence had already been all solidified, cleaned up, and shut off from the outside world by the FBI, weeks before the Warren Commission ever started its inquiry. A typical tactic of the conspiracy crowd, simultaneously ignoring all the evidence pointing to Oswald as the lone killer - and there is a ton of evidence linking him to the assassination - and suggesting with NO evidence that Hoover somehow had his agents "scrub" the scene of anything pointing to someone else. How they could manage this infinitely complex task, with no agents ever shamefully admitting they were part of what would have constituted one of the most heinous cover-ups in history... well, that's never explained. This doesn't even make a plausible comic book, fer chrissakes! What they never get is that the onus is on them to address the evidence that exists, not on everyone else to disprove the claim that the FBI somehow scrubbed the "conspiracy" evidence. Which is why we are still debating this 57 years after the fact.

And you don't think Lyndon Johnson wasn't aware that Hoover was more concerned about covering his ass? Why do you think the Warren Commission was created in the first place? And while the FBI was a main investigative arm of the WC, they didn't trust Hoover either, and used about a dozen other agencies in addition to the FBI to investigate, as well as their own people. Indeed, one of the first things they did was throw the December 1963 FBI report on the assassination in the garbage as it was a worthless piece of crap. Canada Jack (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the above discussion asking if death should give criminals who were never tried in court a "free pass" is disingenuous and does not answer my question. (And what kind of argument are you making by comparing this to the John Hinckley case, Canada Jack? Though a court found him not guilty, you still do???) You seem to miss the point, Yoninah. The fact Oswald died means we can't say "found guilty of murder" as that is a criminal conviction and the dead can't be convicted. But we CAN determine whether someone committed a crime and conclude they did so. It seems you miss the salient point I was making about Hinkley - whatever sentence he got in court does not change the fact that he shot Reagan! I'm not changing any verdict, I'm simply stating that whatever the verdict rendered was does not change the material fact of the act of commission. With Oswald, whatever his verdict may have been in court does not change the FACT that he shot and killed the president. If you read Hinkley's wikipedia page, despite the fact he got a "not guilty" verdict, the page says this: John Warnock Hinckley Jr. ...attempted to assassinate U.S. President Ronald Reagan in Washington, D.C. He wounded Reagan with a bullet from a revolver that ricocheted and hit Reagan in the chest. When we say Oswald shot and killed the president, that is the fact that has been determined by the investigations. Whether he would have been found guilty in a court of law of killing the president is unknown, but that does not alter the facts of the case as determined by the investigations. And saying "innocent until proven guilty" entirely misses the point. But that's not surprising - the conspiracy industrial complex has made millions over the decades pedalling misleading and bogus arguments, and have clearly misled you with this vacuous claim. Canada Jack (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)